3 ms·
If every woman in a man/woman relationship left the workforce, would this have the effect of deflation such that a single income of the man would become worth e
by thebigspacefuck 4y ago
If every woman in a man/woman relationship left the workforce, would this have the effect of deflation such that a single income of the man would become worth enough to support the woman leaving work? I’ve often wondered how much 2 income households could have contributed to inflating prices such that it only amounts to a momentary increase in quality of life. Once the culture shifts and the currency absorbs it, the majority of couples accept that this is the only way for them to afford the things they want in life.
- mantas 4y agoIt may raise wages if there was limited pool of workers. But given today's world with massive migration and few import taxes, that may mitigate most of the hit. Other change would be a drop in consumption. Similar to WFH, staying-at-home reduces a lot of purchases. And you got time to do a lot of things in-house instead of buying out in the market. Another thing what I noticed, there's what my wife and I call „mamonomics“. Stay-at-home moms running tiny grey-legal at-home operations. Orchestrating community events, helping neighbours with small services (e.g. making cakes, fixing clothes)... Otherwise good part of what goes in „mamonomics“ would be hired services.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- marklubi 4y agoPretty sure I'll get downvoted for this, so I might as well start off by complaining about the downvotes that I'll probably get. Women entering the workforce effectively doubled the available pool of workers. When there are more workers available for a position, the cost of said labor decreases. I'm not sure why this is such a controversial statement, but this is where we are. This is obviously an oversimplification, but doubling the available workforce effectively halves the cost. As a result, we have families that need two incomes instead of just one.
- zozbot234 4y agoThe reason why families need two incomes nowadays is that our standards for what's "needed" have grown. You could live a crummy 1950s lifestyle in a second- or third-rate city or suburb and raise a family on the equivalent of a single income; and guess what, that's exactly what plenty of lower-income folks do already.
- rubicon33 4y agoI have a hard time believing that our 'standards' constitute the major need for 2 salaries. A simple thought experiment seems sufficient to debunk this... The average salary in CA is ~62k a year. To support a family of 4 (wife + 3 kids) you would need WAY more than $62k. Even if you lived in the poorest neighborhood, and never bought frivolous things, you could still never support a family on that salary, and forget about buying a house. In the 1950s you could support a family, buy a house, pay for healthcare, etc. It seems far more plausible to me that the purchasing power domestically of the dollar was effectively halved at some point in history.
- zozbot234 4y agoMy guess is that you're wildly overestimating the average 1950s standard of living. In many ways, lower-income folks have better lives today than even the wealthy did back then. You talk about healthcare, but healthcare in the 1950s was practically non-existent by modern standards. You can choose to live in a low cost-of-living area and your $62k will stretch a lot further than in any city "neighborhood".
- rubicon33 4y agoI probably am overestimating the average 1950s standard of living. But I'd argue you're also overestimating how far $62k could take a family of 5 in CA. Even in the poorest of neighborhoods, far outside of city centers (where you probably wouldn't even be making $62k btw)... even then... I highly doubt you could support a family of 5, and I can guarantee that you would not be buying a house. I maintain that both of these things were (generally) more accessible in the 1950s.