5 ms·

> As consumers and housewives, they saw their task as complementary to that of their wage-earning spouses. Well, that's the "benefit" of raising the cost of li

> As consumers and housewives, they saw their task as complementary to that of their wage-earning spouses. Well, that's the "benefit" of raising the cost of living to require 2 incomes to support a family: no one has time to arrange things like this. Even if you had energy to do it, how will you get the time off work and not lose your job?

jrochkind1 4y ago
I don't think there's any benefit to that at all, but there's a lot of benefit to not forcing people into certain limited occupations and roles of subservience because of their assigned gender. Capitalism demanded that to get one you have to pay with the other. It ain't great.
- coolso 4y ago
  [dead]
- alwayslikethis 4y ago
  > Capitalism demanded The nature of supply and demand means that adding people to the workforce lowers the bargaining power of individual workers, regardless of their sex, which lowers wages. Once a certain amount of women started to work without their spouses stopping to work, most women and men had to work to support the family. Socialist countries like the USSR are no different, but due to another tradeoff. By ignoring the nature of supply and demand in favor of a command economy, they had massive losses in efficiency in a way that forces everyone to have to work, and even then only producing mediocre results.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Who said the one staying home had to be female or subservient?
  - watwut 4y ago
    Trying to pretend itnis not about that is just bad faith. Of course topic is women dependent and without income rather then males being dependent on women.
    - colechristensen 4y ago
      It’s not 1950. I know plenty of women who want to be breadwinners of the household and men who’d be happy to stay at home and manage the family not to mention folks who are rejecting the gendered identity all together. Also plenty of people in lower income brackets are finding that a second partner having a job is more expensive than staying home because of the high costs of child care. A few people want that kind of subjugation but broadly it just wouldn’t happen again, the vast majority of men and women wouldn’t stand for it.
      - watwut 4y ago
        In 1950, no one would make the comment I responded to, true. In 2022, it is super rare for a man to stay as stay at home father. Trying to pretend that dads are primary caregivers as often as women is just dishonest. And that goes for lower income brackets especially. Especially after pandemic when female dominated jobs got killed in higher numbers and especially since it was overwhelmingly women who started to spend way more time on childcare. > not to mention folks who are rejecting the gendered identity all together. And those folks are literally accused of being groomers by large parts of population just for existing and being visible. There is literal campaign of fearmongering going on against them. Threats of violence against these people are a thing now too. There are attempts to make gender non-comforming clothing in the presence of children into illegal acts. >A few people want that kind of subjugation but broadly it just wouldn’t happen again, the vast majority of men and women wouldn’t stand for it. Quite a lot of them would happily stand for "subjugation" I see nostalgia for it regularly. Seriously, abortion rights are being reversed and those were supposed to be untouchable too. Just teaching about ugly parts of history is in the process of being outlawed as boogeyman CRT. And Wisconsin did not even managed to make underage marriages illegal, because it is constitutional right of adult men to marry girls under 16.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    At the time, society did. Meaning most people (most men) did. This is not actually new information for you, right? I think there's a subtext of your question I am missing?
    - colechristensen 4y ago
      It’s not 1950. I’m talking about now.
      - jrochkind1 4y ago
        I too would love it if the economy were still such that a family could be supported with only one adult "earning income" outside the home, for the majority of occupations and jobs, but without people having their social and professional roles limited due to gender. I can't imagine any worker would not love this. I don't understand what we're disagreeing about, but if we are and you'd like to discuss it, less sarcasm and implied accusations and rhetorical questions and more just plain saying what you mean would help. Personally, I think that the only way we get this is with popular anti-capitalist movements, to change the nature of the economy to be structured around people's needs instead of maximal exploitation of labor for capitalist profit. But I'm open to hearing about other visions.
alwayslikethis 4y ago
One way to solve this is to lower the supply of labor. This has to be done very aggressively to work though, such as the following: - massively reducing immigrant intake, especially outside of the top-tier paying fields - legislate dramatically reduced working hours, i.e. 3 8-hour day workweek or similar, providing exceptions only at very high salary ranges Of course, as what we've seen during the past year in the US, this is going to create high inflation. The other method, which I much prefer, would be to lower the cost of living, while only modestly limiting immigration and working hours (still need to be reduced compared to current levels). By far the easiest way to do so would be popping the housing bubble, Japan-style, by building tons of extra housing and bankrupting private equity groups gobbling up houses, which would release further housing on the market. Perhaps a government agency can buy up some properties to rent out at a breakeven price.
- markdown 4y ago
  > providing exceptions only at very high salary ranges And of course you would fall in this demographic, amirite? Fuck the poor, don't mess with the salaries of the rich. > building tons of extra housing and bankrupting private equity groups They'd just continue to buy up that new housing. This can't change without taxing the land value.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    As there's (apparently) such an under-supply of people who earn those high ranges, restricting that demographic only makes everyone poorer because wealth creation is hence lower. Maybe it would reduce those wages somewhat but it's unlikely.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    Everyone who advocates a land value tax needs to explain how housing used to be affordable, even in places like California, without land value taxes.
    - matt74827289 4y ago
      There were fewer people and more land that wasn't being used. It's fairly simple, supply was higher, demand was lower. As our population increased and we developed more and more land, the supply shrunk while the demand grew.
watwut 4y ago
I remember there being protests last years. So, the premise of no one organizes political action is not true. Also, past protests I read about involved employed people. And they involved males too. It is not like stay at home women were sole organizers of protests through the history.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

jrochkind1 4y ago

I don't think there's any benefit to that at all, but there's a lot of benefit to not forcing people into certain limited occupations and roles of subservience because of their assigned gender. Capitalism demanded that to get one you have to pay with the other. It ain't great.

coolso 4y ago
[dead]
alwayslikethis 4y ago
> Capitalism demanded The nature of supply and demand means that adding people to the workforce lowers the bargaining power of individual workers, regardless of their sex, which lowers wages. Once a certain amount of women started to work without their spouses stopping to work, most women and men had to work to support the family. Socialist countries like the USSR are no different, but due to another tradeoff. By ignoring the nature of supply and demand in favor of a command economy, they had massive losses in efficiency in a way that forces everyone to have to work, and even then only producing mediocre results.
colechristensen 4y ago
Who said the one staying home had to be female or subservient?
- watwut 4y ago
  Trying to pretend itnis not about that is just bad faith. Of course topic is women dependent and without income rather then males being dependent on women.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    It’s not 1950. I know plenty of women who want to be breadwinners of the household and men who’d be happy to stay at home and manage the family not to mention folks who are rejecting the gendered identity all together. Also plenty of people in lower income brackets are finding that a second partner having a job is more expensive than staying home because of the high costs of child care. A few people want that kind of subjugation but broadly it just wouldn’t happen again, the vast majority of men and women wouldn’t stand for it.
    - watwut 4y ago
      In 1950, no one would make the comment I responded to, true. In 2022, it is super rare for a man to stay as stay at home father. Trying to pretend that dads are primary caregivers as often as women is just dishonest. And that goes for lower income brackets especially. Especially after pandemic when female dominated jobs got killed in higher numbers and especially since it was overwhelmingly women who started to spend way more time on childcare. > not to mention folks who are rejecting the gendered identity all together. And those folks are literally accused of being groomers by large parts of population just for existing and being visible. There is literal campaign of fearmongering going on against them. Threats of violence against these people are a thing now too. There are attempts to make gender non-comforming clothing in the presence of children into illegal acts. >A few people want that kind of subjugation but broadly it just wouldn’t happen again, the vast majority of men and women wouldn’t stand for it. Quite a lot of them would happily stand for "subjugation" I see nostalgia for it regularly. Seriously, abortion rights are being reversed and those were supposed to be untouchable too. Just teaching about ugly parts of history is in the process of being outlawed as boogeyman CRT. And Wisconsin did not even managed to make underage marriages illegal, because it is constitutional right of adult men to marry girls under 16.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  At the time, society did. Meaning most people (most men) did. This is not actually new information for you, right? I think there's a subtext of your question I am missing?
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    It’s not 1950. I’m talking about now.
    - jrochkind1 4y ago
      I too would love it if the economy were still such that a family could be supported with only one adult "earning income" outside the home, for the majority of occupations and jobs, but without people having their social and professional roles limited due to gender. I can't imagine any worker would not love this. I don't understand what we're disagreeing about, but if we are and you'd like to discuss it, less sarcasm and implied accusations and rhetorical questions and more just plain saying what you mean would help. Personally, I think that the only way we get this is with popular anti-capitalist movements, to change the nature of the economy to be structured around people's needs instead of maximal exploitation of labor for capitalist profit. But I'm open to hearing about other visions.

alwayslikethis 4y ago

One way to solve this is to lower the supply of labor. This has to be done very aggressively to work though, such as the following: - massively reducing immigrant intake, especially outside of the top-tier paying fields - legislate dramatically reduced working hours, i.e. 3 8-hour day workweek or similar, providing exceptions only at very high salary ranges Of course, as what we've seen during the past year in the US, this is going to create high inflation. The other method, which I much prefer, would be to lower the cost of living, while only modestly limiting immigration and working hours (still need to be reduced compared to current levels). By far the easiest way to do so would be popping the housing bubble, Japan-style, by building tons of extra housing and bankrupting private equity groups gobbling up houses, which would release further housing on the market. Perhaps a government agency can buy up some properties to rent out at a breakeven price.

markdown 4y ago
> providing exceptions only at very high salary ranges And of course you would fall in this demographic, amirite? Fuck the poor, don't mess with the salaries of the rich. > building tons of extra housing and bankrupting private equity groups They'd just continue to buy up that new housing. This can't change without taxing the land value.
- brigandish 4y ago
  As there's (apparently) such an under-supply of people who earn those high ranges, restricting that demographic only makes everyone poorer because wealth creation is hence lower. Maybe it would reduce those wages somewhat but it's unlikely.
- twblalock 4y ago
  Everyone who advocates a land value tax needs to explain how housing used to be affordable, even in places like California, without land value taxes.
  - matt74827289 4y ago
    There were fewer people and more land that wasn't being used. It's fairly simple, supply was higher, demand was lower. As our population increased and we developed more and more land, the supply shrunk while the demand grew.

watwut 4y ago

I remember there being protests last years. So, the premise of no one organizes political action is not true. Also, past protests I read about involved employed people. And they involved males too. It is not like stay at home women were sole organizers of protests through the history.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]