7 ms·
I have heard the argument that a negative effect of the post WW2 "feminist" movement (by that I mean women in the work force) has had the long term effect of ca
by bbarn 3y ago
I have heard the argument that a negative effect of the post WW2 "feminist" movement (by that I mean women in the work force) has had the long term effect of causing prices to simply adjust to the dual income household, to the point that now it is a necessity. It is a privileged family today that can afford to live comfortably on only one salary.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoTheres another level to this going on in certain places too. Its not enough to have both partners working. Now in places like the bay area if you want to be competitive in the housing market, both partners have to be working high income jobs not just working at all. Even if you have a great title, if your partner doesnt, you will be lapped by people who have vastly more buying power than either of you can ever muster together. I wonder if this creates some serious perverse incentives in the dating scene in these parts of the country. Like people who understand this economic situation and unfortunately write off what might have been great partners because their line of work will never afford the standards of living their dual high income peers are able to achieve.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- vsareto 3y agoPeople have been choosing partners for money since forever, that's certainly not a new thing
- bluGill 3y agoRust belt cities are actually pretty nice, and you can escape that rat race. Maybe you don't want to live there, but they are nice places.
- paulmd 3y agoMove to East Palestine or Pontiac MI and wait for this month’s chemical spill to find you?
- nradov 3y agoThe best thing that most younger people in the Bay Area can do to improve their quality of life is to move somewhere else. Decades of bad government and an influx of grifters have eroded the advantages it once had. You might take a temporary income hit by leaving but most regular workers will end up better off in the long run. We can argue about what should be done to improve the situation in the Bay Area, but realistically any major changes will take decades to work through the political process. That's going to be too slow to matter for any younger people who are trying to build a decent life right now. As for dating, the skewed gender ratio in "Man Jose" also makes things difficult in a way that transcends economics.
- jiveturkey 3y ago> makes things difficult for who?
- lokar 3y agoI think piketty would disagree. Productivity per worker has gone up but the share of profits going to workers has gone down. This is not some kind of inflation driven by scarcity.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoThe ultra wealthy hired the best to win a game of financial manipulation that the rest of us didn’t even know was being played. The median salary would be six figure if the share of productivity gains was distributed like it was in 1970.
- adrianN 3y agoIs the average salary six figures?
- 93po 3y agoNo
- idiotsecant 3y agoThat's sort of a tricky question since most of the income and wealth of the upper crust of modern society is not expressed as a salary. The simple answer is no, but the fact that it's such a complex answer is itself indicative of a systemic problem.
- eek2121 3y agoSalary != Wealth. There are billionaires that don’t make a single penny a year, and broke folks pulling in 6-7 figures. Looking at some type of combination of income + net worth is probably better in most cases. That being said, most folks in the US make less than $100,000/year and have less than a $100,000 net worth.
- andruby 3y agoGDP per capita in the US is $80K [wikipedia] I assume it includes everyone regardless of age, so the average salary when only considering people working if probably $100K or above
- ricardobeat 3y agoFor this theory to be correct you’d need the total work hours being provided to employers to have doubled accordingly.
- pastacacioepepe 3y agoWhy put feminist between quotes?
- gagged_s_poster 3y ago[flagged]
- bbarn 3y agoBecause I don't think it's particularly feminist to force both parents to work.
- supertrope 3y agoWomen entering the formal workplace and gradually more and more jobs becoming available to both genders has also inflated traditionally “female” occupations like teachers, nurses, and childcare. When someone who could have trained as a lawyer had to instead become a teacher that kept teacher salaries lower. Nuns serving as teachers made Catholic schools affordable. Now many Catholic schools have a one two punch of the economic opportunity cost of becoming a nun being higher than ever and declining enrollment.
- eggy 3y agoPrivileged? I worked very hard to get that point of "privileged" to have had two single-job families. In the beginning I worked at different jobs out of necessity and in part, to see what suited me and what suited the work. I learned many different skills that helped me in my personal life - construction, housebuilding, coding (since 1978), electronics, welding, machining, technical diving, industrial rope access, organizational risk management, and leading large teams on world-class, one-of-a-kind projects. I was raised just below or at the poverty level. I believe the level of lifestyle you may want precludes you from making a single-income household. I am very content with few things even when the times are good. A hike or walk with the family outside doesn't cost much unless you're shopping and eating out all the time while sipping $5 lattes. Plus childcare would cost a pretty significant chunk of rhe second household income, so why not let one parent be with the kids fulltime?
- fullshark 3y agoElizabeth Warren made that exact argument. https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907 https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-...
- usrbinbash 3y agoThat argument, like all arguments that somehow equate wages with inflation, would hold water if the productivity of the workforce was constant. We know that it isn't. Productivity of the workforce is ever increasing. The generated wealth simply doesn't make it to the workforce.
- Levitz 3y agoDoesn't it? And I don't, by any measure, mean that all of it does, but nowadays we have luxuries we simply didn't have before, are these not fruits of that increased productivity?
- usrbinbash 3y ago> but nowadays we have luxuries Who's we? I know I am living a privileged comfortable life, yes. I am certain many people in my chosen profession as a software dev do. But I also know that there are alot more people struggling to provide basic necessities for their families, despite working 40+h per week. And I am not talking about cellphones here. I am talking about a roof over ones head, clothes on ones back, food on the table and medical services.
- kaashif 3y ago> The generated wealth simply doesn't make it to the workforce. Some of it does - real wages in the US are higher than in the past: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
- thedragonline 3y agoLet me contextualize that "some" for you: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17rEg https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17rEg Real wages have effectively flat-lined over the past 50+ years.
- KptMarchewa 3y agoThat would only make sense if productivity divided by half. On the other hand, people's requirements have simply inflated to much higher standards, while technology semi-automated some of the housekeeping stuff - washing clothes, dishes, making food, heating, cleaning.