4 ms·
That was because a single man could earn a living wage to support the family and the wife could support the household.
by fauxpause_ 4y ago
That was because a single man could earn a living wage to support the family and the wife could support the household.
- grugagag 4y agoWhat was it? People didn’t age or didn’t need care in old life because of that?
- zamadatix 4y agoIf I had to guess the point was it didn't need to fall to one person to do everything, as most of the article is devoted to highlighting. I don't think traditional roles played as much a causal part in that as the general population pyramid though.
- shadowgovt 4y agoThey definitely did, and such care fell upon the housewife or mother (and in the absence of the housewife... Yeah, people died poor and ugly deaths in old age). Since we won't and shouldn't solve this problem by going back to the traditional patriarchal family structure, we must look to other alternatives. And one such alternative would be finding a way to recouple labor to employee earnings such that a married couple with one working spouse can support a family of four.
- fauxpause_ 4y agoIt’s the wife, at home, not working and able to take on this task without the household falling apart.
- rayrey 4y agoCool. Does the wife get a say?
- fauxpause_ 4y agoMore than the woman featured in the article. We can debate gender equality and whatever but the loss of real wages is a problem even if we reverse it