3 ms·

Alternatively conditions can be created where one parent, most likely the mother, can stay home and wages will automatically increase because of the reduced lab

Alternatively conditions can be created where one parent, most likely the mother, can stay home and wages will automatically increase because of the reduced labor force.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
And then you have sexism though. I want to enjoy my children as much as my wife and we both want a career too
- huytersd 3y ago
  Yeah can’t have it all. I’d be willing to put up with some sexism if it meant everyday wasn’t a low paid grind to the gravestone. I would bet a lot of women would given how dissatisfied the workforce is currently.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    No one wants to be told they can’t have it all. That is the reality. Life is about choices. Not gender specific.
    - huytersd 3y ago
      The reality is also everyone can’t have it all. If a lot of people make choices that lead to a worse outcome for everyone then maybe we should prioritize other avenues of fixing the problem rather than continuing to optimize for complete freedom of choice.
      - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
        I mean, dads have sacrificed dadhood for years (talking as a dad), without even a chiice. I've been in the privileged position of working from home, so I see my children every day, can take a minute or two to play together during the day, eat together, bring them to school, and of course when they were 0-1 years old they slept on me so many times (even while working. Computer did wonders!) I don't know for a fact, but I suspect it is possible to have two parents working from home and an external person coming home a couple of hours during the day and have both career + children, but I'm not entirely sure (my wife is fully dedicated to children, although we are at the tail end). That being said, the choice shouldn't be determined by sex. Breastfeeding is a thing, but with Canada's paternity/maternity leaves, the problem is heavily mitigated (1 year, although with very low compensation)
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        To be fair you have a choice: find an ambitious woman (or man) willing to be the "breadwinner" and appeal with your ability to care for children. I'm not saying that choice is plentiful, but it exists. I'm sure there are other people willing to have kids but also wants to progress in their career. >I suspect it is possible to have two parents working from home and an external person coming home a couple of hours during the day and have both career + children, but I'm not entirely sure sure, we call those nannies or simply babysitters, depending on the amount of involvement. Not impossible but it is a large expense to consider. Alternatively, be fortunate enough to have trustworthy neighbors who has a stay at home parent who can keep an eye on things for a few hours. I wouldn't mind a return of the latchkey kid. those stranger danger initiatives probably did more damage than good with regards to letting a kid properly engage with the world.
        Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
        What's a latchkey kid? Also, to maximize health benefits for the children, breastfeeding is preferable (according to WHO, for 2 years), which partially takes away that choice (it's really hard to make a choice against child health if it's purely based on my interest).
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        That's just what they called kids who had a house key ("latch" being the keyhole). They would either be capable of walking home, going in the house, and being okay by themselves for some hours before the parents got home. Or in the older days they would simply wander the neighborhood or town and come back in before sundown. of course, these days that is considered borderline child abuse to kids under 13, but those days weren't that long ago. Can't say much about the breastfeeding. if that needs to be from the source and is an invariant for you you are definitely treading in deep waters. Still not impossible, but wet nurses are a very archaic concept (and crazy expensive these days if they still exist).
fzeroracer 3y ago
Wages are not 1:1 corresponded with reduction in labor force, because companies will often gladly squeeze individuals harder and harder rather than pay more to hire more. Look at all of the people who complained about 'people not wanting to work' when fast food and restaurant industries had a lack of workers. Additionally this can tend to have bad effects on the rest of our systems, for example the nursing shortage isn't resulting in better pay for most individuals despite them being in high demand. It's resulting in a rise in traveling nurses which also impacts the salary of other nurses. Companies are incredibly resistant to paying people more, especially when they have monopolistic control over jobs in certain areas which allows them to forcibly depress wages.
- huytersd 3y ago
  I would bet there is only so much squeezing you can do and losing 40-50% of the workforce would mean that you cannot sustainably as one person to do the job of two for an extended period.
  - fzeroracer 3y ago
    The key word is 'sustainably'. If companies cared about that, we wouldn't be in this spot. Companies will gladly coast with the bare minimum even if it means losing people can ruin entire systems or projects as long as the next quarter results look good.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      >as long as the next quarter results look good. And companies always underestimate how much their burn and churn affects the next year at the cost of the quarter. I won't exactly sympathize with them as they degrade and a facility that doesn't drain blood from a rock rises.
trealira 3y ago
Feminism arose in the US during the 1950s in the first place because a significant amount of women were not satisfied with being stay-at-home mothers and wives. Even if the world were suddenly taken back to the 1950s, the same thing would happen again eventually. Also, if half the working population stayed home, the economy would be half as productive. Wages won't automatically increase; business will just go to some country or region where comparable labor is more abundant, and the country's economy becomes less competitive.
- huytersd 3y ago
  You’re making it sound like feminism is the cause for our current dire situation and I’m not completely sure that’s true.
  - trealira 3y ago
    Isn't feminism and the women's liberation movement what caused women to stop becoming stay-at-home mothers and enter the workforce instead?
    - huytersd 3y ago
      I thought it was WW2 and the lack of men to do the jobs they usually would. Otherwise we land at “feminism ruined America”.
      - trealira 3y ago
        I don't think feminism ruined America. > I thought it was WW2 and the lack of men to do the jobs they usually would. I thought it was common to teach that women's employment rose with second-wave feminism in the 1960s. My background knowledge: after WW2 ended, women were fired and replaced with men. The average age of marriage dropped, and the portion of women attending college descreased. Housewives were increasingly dissatisfied, which drew them to the second-wave feminist movement. This is why the book The Feminine Mystique sold well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique

Alternatively conditions can be created where one parent, most likely the mother, can stay home and wages will automatically increase because of the reduced labor force.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago

And then you have sexism though. I want to enjoy my children as much as my wife and we both want a career too

huytersd 3y ago
Yeah can’t have it all. I’d be willing to put up with some sexism if it meant everyday wasn’t a low paid grind to the gravestone. I would bet a lot of women would given how dissatisfied the workforce is currently.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  No one wants to be told they can’t have it all. That is the reality. Life is about choices. Not gender specific.
  - huytersd 3y ago
    The reality is also everyone can’t have it all. If a lot of people make choices that lead to a worse outcome for everyone then maybe we should prioritize other avenues of fixing the problem rather than continuing to optimize for complete freedom of choice.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
      I mean, dads have sacrificed dadhood for years (talking as a dad), without even a chiice. I've been in the privileged position of working from home, so I see my children every day, can take a minute or two to play together during the day, eat together, bring them to school, and of course when they were 0-1 years old they slept on me so many times (even while working. Computer did wonders!) I don't know for a fact, but I suspect it is possible to have two parents working from home and an external person coming home a couple of hours during the day and have both career + children, but I'm not entirely sure (my wife is fully dedicated to children, although we are at the tail end). That being said, the choice shouldn't be determined by sex. Breastfeeding is a thing, but with Canada's paternity/maternity leaves, the problem is heavily mitigated (1 year, although with very low compensation)
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        To be fair you have a choice: find an ambitious woman (or man) willing to be the "breadwinner" and appeal with your ability to care for children. I'm not saying that choice is plentiful, but it exists. I'm sure there are other people willing to have kids but also wants to progress in their career. >I suspect it is possible to have two parents working from home and an external person coming home a couple of hours during the day and have both career + children, but I'm not entirely sure sure, we call those nannies or simply babysitters, depending on the amount of involvement. Not impossible but it is a large expense to consider. Alternatively, be fortunate enough to have trustworthy neighbors who has a stay at home parent who can keep an eye on things for a few hours. I wouldn't mind a return of the latchkey kid. those stranger danger initiatives probably did more damage than good with regards to letting a kid properly engage with the world.
        Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
        What's a latchkey kid? Also, to maximize health benefits for the children, breastfeeding is preferable (according to WHO, for 2 years), which partially takes away that choice (it's really hard to make a choice against child health if it's purely based on my interest).
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        That's just what they called kids who had a house key ("latch" being the keyhole). They would either be capable of walking home, going in the house, and being okay by themselves for some hours before the parents got home. Or in the older days they would simply wander the neighborhood or town and come back in before sundown. of course, these days that is considered borderline child abuse to kids under 13, but those days weren't that long ago. Can't say much about the breastfeeding. if that needs to be from the source and is an invariant for you you are definitely treading in deep waters. Still not impossible, but wet nurses are a very archaic concept (and crazy expensive these days if they still exist).

fzeroracer 3y ago

Wages are not 1:1 corresponded with reduction in labor force, because companies will often gladly squeeze individuals harder and harder rather than pay more to hire more. Look at all of the people who complained about 'people not wanting to work' when fast food and restaurant industries had a lack of workers. Additionally this can tend to have bad effects on the rest of our systems, for example the nursing shortage isn't resulting in better pay for most individuals despite them being in high demand. It's resulting in a rise in traveling nurses which also impacts the salary of other nurses. Companies are incredibly resistant to paying people more, especially when they have monopolistic control over jobs in certain areas which allows them to forcibly depress wages.

huytersd 3y ago
I would bet there is only so much squeezing you can do and losing 40-50% of the workforce would mean that you cannot sustainably as one person to do the job of two for an extended period.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  The key word is 'sustainably'. If companies cared about that, we wouldn't be in this spot. Companies will gladly coast with the bare minimum even if it means losing people can ruin entire systems or projects as long as the next quarter results look good.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >as long as the next quarter results look good. And companies always underestimate how much their burn and churn affects the next year at the cost of the quarter. I won't exactly sympathize with them as they degrade and a facility that doesn't drain blood from a rock rises.

trealira 3y ago

Feminism arose in the US during the 1950s in the first place because a significant amount of women were not satisfied with being stay-at-home mothers and wives. Even if the world were suddenly taken back to the 1950s, the same thing would happen again eventually. Also, if half the working population stayed home, the economy would be half as productive. Wages won't automatically increase; business will just go to some country or region where comparable labor is more abundant, and the country's economy becomes less competitive.

huytersd 3y ago
You’re making it sound like feminism is the cause for our current dire situation and I’m not completely sure that’s true.
- trealira 3y ago
  Isn't feminism and the women's liberation movement what caused women to stop becoming stay-at-home mothers and enter the workforce instead?
  - huytersd 3y ago
    I thought it was WW2 and the lack of men to do the jobs they usually would. Otherwise we land at “feminism ruined America”.
    - trealira 3y ago
      I don't think feminism ruined America. > I thought it was WW2 and the lack of men to do the jobs they usually would. I thought it was common to teach that women's employment rose with second-wave feminism in the 1960s. My background knowledge: after WW2 ended, women were fired and replaced with men. The average age of marriage dropped, and the portion of women attending college descreased. Housewives were increasingly dissatisfied, which drew them to the second-wave feminist movement. This is why the book The Feminine Mystique sold well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique