4 ms·
It's a chicken and egg situation though. Both spouses "have" to work because both spouses started working. It should be no surprise that if you nearly double th
by suggestion 4y ago
It's a chicken and egg situation though. Both spouses "have" to work because both spouses started working. It should be no surprise that if you nearly double the labor pool that labor devalues and household income is split between the laborers.
- jprd 4y agothe what now? Are theorizing that women wanting to be more than just a domestic servant and baby factory _devalued_ household earning potential by splitting it between two people?
- kbelder 4y agoIt pretty clearly did, although not by 100%. That's not a value judgement. It's just a consequence.
- jprd 4y agoAppreciated, and I'm sure it is _part_ of the equation, but that also would indicate that Capitalism is inherently flawed as it won't allow for maximum expression of profit. Almost as if there was an non-invisible hand that is weighing all that. Western Society injected more labor and there was the same amount of profit to share, or it was captured in a way that prevented fair distribution of profit?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- uxp100 4y agoSee Elizabeth Warren’s The Two Income Trap for some exploration of this and related topics. (It’s on my meaning to read for a while now, I have not read it)
- MandieD 4y agoBoth middle/upper-middle class spouses "have" to work because both middle/upper-middle class spouses started working - poor (especially minority and recent immigrant) women, even those with young children, have always worked for money in the US; who did the cooking and cleaning for institutions and the well-off? Who did the sewing that used to happen in US factories?