3 ms·

I get the sense that you are trying to be needlessly provocative... >Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society Who is doing the forcing h

I get the sense that you are trying to be needlessly provocative... >Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society Who is doing the forcing here? Many women wanted to enter the workforce. Some didn't want to enter the workforce. Some were forced by their situation or by economic changes, but it isn't like someone on HN was holding a gun to their head telling them to get a job, so I'm a little unclear on your lamentation here. >Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do Um, say what? Yeah, biology is amazing stuff. I'm in awe of women on every level. But your comment here is a bit dogwistling - are you intending for this to sound as misogynistic as many of us are reading it? Women who choose to not have children are just as amazing when they choose whatever path they choose. >I’m not sure how western society will continue if we view raising a child instead of having a career as “stepping up”. It’s certainly disrespectful to all the mothers of our future. Dude, what? Read back what I wrote - my point, which is well documented in many places - is the way women in our modern era are not only the predominant child-care givers, but also most likely to attend to household duties (cooking, cleaning, etc), and more and more are also the primary breadwinners. If that isn't stepping up in a big way, I don't know what else to call it. Is being a stay-at-home-mom not also commendable and deserving of respect? Absolutely. But your message seems to be one of dog whistling for the bad-old days of the past.

ryandrake 4y ago
>> Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society > Who is doing the forcing here? It's called the two income trap[1]. Back when it was traditional that one person worked, the market recognized this reality and prices of everything made it possible to live off of one income. Then, slowly we started seeing more and more two-income families. Two-income families could bear to spend more on everything, so the market responded by adjusting costs higher. Soon, it became difficult, then impossible for a family to survive on one income, so then everyone had to go two-income. Now, the same standard of living we once could achieve on one income, requires two incomes. We've doubled the workforce but gained nothing in terms of standard of living. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  Ryan - I'm well-acquainted with the two income trap. My point was intended to be two-fold: -- That the idea that if they could be SAHMs, every woman would pick that route is utterly misguided. Some women would choose that, others would choose careers, some would do both. -- That every family will make the choice of who is employed outside the home on their own. My ex-wife didn't work outside the home for many years (by her choice not mine). I know many couples with only a single breadwinner. So yes - the two-income trap is a real thing, but it isn't like it was suddenly law that every able-bodied adult had to enter the workforce.
- eli_gottlieb 4y ago
  >Back when it was traditional that one person worked, the market recognized this reality and prices of everything made it possible to live off of one income. No. Back when there was class power sufficient for working families to withdraw one partner from the labor market, they did so. Then that power eroded, and they were forced to send the second partner into the workforce. This also involved a wave of inflation that was never reversed for housing, healthcare, education, or energy prices.
jimbokun 4y ago
> Some were forced by their situation or by economic changes So you answered your own question. > Read back what I wrote - my point, which is well documented in many places - is the way women in our modern era are not only the predominant child-care givers, but also most likely to attend to household duties (cooking, cleaning, etc), and more and more are also the primary breadwinners. That contradicts the data I've seen cited, which found that men perform more paid work and women perform more work in the home, but the total number of hours they work is basically the same.

ryandrake 4y ago

>> Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society > Who is doing the forcing here? It's called the two income trap[1]. Back when it was traditional that one person worked, the market recognized this reality and prices of everything made it possible to live off of one income. Then, slowly we started seeing more and more two-income families. Two-income families could bear to spend more on everything, so the market responded by adjusting costs higher. Soon, it became difficult, then impossible for a family to survive on one income, so then everyone had to go two-income. Now, the same standard of living we once could achieve on one income, requires two incomes. We've doubled the workforce but gained nothing in terms of standard of living. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap

poulsbohemian 4y ago
Ryan - I'm well-acquainted with the two income trap. My point was intended to be two-fold: -- That the idea that if they could be SAHMs, every woman would pick that route is utterly misguided. Some women would choose that, others would choose careers, some would do both. -- That every family will make the choice of who is employed outside the home on their own. My ex-wife didn't work outside the home for many years (by her choice not mine). I know many couples with only a single breadwinner. So yes - the two-income trap is a real thing, but it isn't like it was suddenly law that every able-bodied adult had to enter the workforce.
eli_gottlieb 4y ago
>Back when it was traditional that one person worked, the market recognized this reality and prices of everything made it possible to live off of one income. No. Back when there was class power sufficient for working families to withdraw one partner from the labor market, they did so. Then that power eroded, and they were forced to send the second partner into the workforce. This also involved a wave of inflation that was never reversed for housing, healthcare, education, or energy prices.

jimbokun 4y ago

> Some were forced by their situation or by economic changes So you answered your own question. > Read back what I wrote - my point, which is well documented in many places - is the way women in our modern era are not only the predominant child-care givers, but also most likely to attend to household duties (cooking, cleaning, etc), and more and more are also the primary breadwinners. That contradicts the data I've seen cited, which found that men perform more paid work and women perform more work in the home, but the total number of hours they work is basically the same.