4 ms·

This is such a regressive view — a household that can only function on 2 incomes is more stressful than one that can operate on 1. Not saying earning potential

This is such a regressive view — a household that can only function on 2 incomes is more stressful than one that can operate on 1. Not saying earning potential needs to be the same — but claiming 1 is worse than 2 doesn’t hold water and is a pathological case. In the US it’s a shame we so under/de value child rearing as somehow “less than”

RoyalHenOil 2y ago
It's not that we as a society devalue childcare. We just don't live in an economy where it is safe for families to put all their eggs in one basket like that. In post-WWII US, it was generally easy for fathers to find stable, lifelong careers with a low risk of layoffs and a low risk of an untimely death, which allowed families to thrive on single incomes. But that was an outlier, not the norm. In most places and in most periods of history, mothers have had to work (sewing, gardening, spinning, knitting, brewing, laundering, midwifery, etc., etc.) because fathers have not had widespread access steady, well-paying, low-risk work. Unless she was independently wealthy, a mother who did not bring in income was playing a very risky game with her children's lives. The biggest difference is that, today, most work must be done outside the home, which is very difficult for mothers. Childcare helps close the gender pay gap and is necessary for a fairer, less sexist society — at least until/unless our economy returns to primarily home-based work.
- ako 2y ago
  In the past extended family would usually live close by, so they could assist the mother inside the home. Today, both parents need to work outside the home, and family is usually too far away to assist.
  - RoyalHenOil 2y ago
    That is very true. And even in cases where it was not true, families tended to have more children, so older siblings could help look after younger siblings while the family worked.
ako 2y ago
A household with 1 income is almost impossible for most households, they have to compete in a housing market with other families that do have 2 incomes. This automatically raises real estate prices for everyone.
- yellow_postit 2y ago
  You are making an argument in favor of Warren’s thesis in “The Two Income Trap” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap
lucumo 2y ago
It is better for everyone, and it does not devalue child-rearing at all. It is better for the family: - it has more resources - it has more income diversification It is better for the father: - he doesn't have to carry the weight of income-gathering alone It is better for the mother: - she doesn't have to carry the weight of child-rearing alone - if things go sour, she can maintain herself and/or the family financially - sha has more choices in life It is better for the child: - they get a wider variety of experiences - they socialize with other kids earlier, which helps in early school-life - they learn to socialize with more adults too - there are professionals who have seen many children, who will notice problems before the parents will It is better for the childcare professional: - they have another job choice, helping them pick a job they enjoy It is good for society: - father, mother and childcare professional can do something that matches their talents, instead of doing something suboptimal for them, thus delivering more value to society It doesn't devalue child-rearing, it values it more, by having a professional help do it. I'm always befuddled by that argument. I'm not devaluing plumbing work by hiring a plumber, nor am I devaluing medical work by hiring a doctor. Why would I be devaluing child-rearing by hiring a professional to help?
- pton_xd 2y ago
  Half those arguments could be made for child labor. After all, if the child works too then the family has more resources, the father and mother don't have to carry all the weight, the child gets a wider variety of experiences, the father and mother can do something that matches their talents while the child picks up the slack. Right? Who actually cares more about a child's well-being, an employee paid by the hour or their own parents?
  - lucumo 2y ago
    I would not say that the child gets a wider variety of experiences in child labor compared to child care. Child care is explicitly designed to have a variety of activities for children. Child labor is the low skill kind with lots of repetitive actions. Child care also takes the child's needs into account, like having nap times and eating times designed around children, instead of around a production process. As for caring about the child's well-being? The parents, which is why they should hire the best people they can afford to do various parts of taking care off them. Hire the best doctor for their medical care, hire the best dentists for their dental care, hire the best teachers for their education, hire the best child-care professionals for daycare.
prmoustache 2y ago
We like it or not 1 person in the household taking care of the kids skew the relationship between 2 adults into dependentship as the one working outside perceived to be the one bringing the income (while both should) and the one taking care of the kids and household end up feeling dependent. Some may try to be objective and tell yourself the other one is contributing as much, that is not the way it works in our guts, we like it or not and leads to inequality. This not optimal for many reasons: - once the kids are going to school, regular "office hours" daycare is not needed and it skew the relationship even more by removing one task to one party. If that time is used for personal instead of household chores activities, that person not bringing the income is eventually seen as a partial freeloader by the one bringing the income. - relationship can go sour quickly and if it doesn't work, the "dependent" one doesn't feel as free to end that relationship - the person taking care of the kid's social life is usually not as rich The elephant in the room being that in most case it ends up being the woman staying at home in an heterogender relationship in a society with an historically patriarcal model because of income levels which further increase the inequalities and dependentship.
- throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
  The situation you describe has been happening for most of humanity. IMO society is worse now with dual income + strangers raising children. The only major benefits I've seen are 1) Woman have access to birth control 2) Women have equal rights. Everything else is debatable as "better".
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    I wouldn't call that strangers raising children. Obviously it depends on the amount of hours per day but it is not like you are sending them to boarding school and you only see them during the week-ends. I also felt that putting my daughters to daycare helped them socially.

RoyalHenOil 2y ago

It's not that we as a society devalue childcare. We just don't live in an economy where it is safe for families to put all their eggs in one basket like that. In post-WWII US, it was generally easy for fathers to find stable, lifelong careers with a low risk of layoffs and a low risk of an untimely death, which allowed families to thrive on single incomes. But that was an outlier, not the norm. In most places and in most periods of history, mothers have had to work (sewing, gardening, spinning, knitting, brewing, laundering, midwifery, etc., etc.) because fathers have not had widespread access steady, well-paying, low-risk work. Unless she was independently wealthy, a mother who did not bring in income was playing a very risky game with her children's lives. The biggest difference is that, today, most work must be done outside the home, which is very difficult for mothers. Childcare helps close the gender pay gap and is necessary for a fairer, less sexist society — at least until/unless our economy returns to primarily home-based work.

ako 2y ago
In the past extended family would usually live close by, so they could assist the mother inside the home. Today, both parents need to work outside the home, and family is usually too far away to assist.
- RoyalHenOil 2y ago
  That is very true. And even in cases where it was not true, families tended to have more children, so older siblings could help look after younger siblings while the family worked.

ako 2y ago

A household with 1 income is almost impossible for most households, they have to compete in a housing market with other families that do have 2 incomes. This automatically raises real estate prices for everyone.

yellow_postit 2y ago
You are making an argument in favor of Warren’s thesis in “The Two Income Trap” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap

lucumo 2y ago

It is better for everyone, and it does not devalue child-rearing at all. It is better for the family: - it has more resources - it has more income diversification It is better for the father: - he doesn't have to carry the weight of income-gathering alone It is better for the mother: - she doesn't have to carry the weight of child-rearing alone - if things go sour, she can maintain herself and/or the family financially - sha has more choices in life It is better for the child: - they get a wider variety of experiences - they socialize with other kids earlier, which helps in early school-life - they learn to socialize with more adults too - there are professionals who have seen many children, who will notice problems before the parents will It is better for the childcare professional: - they have another job choice, helping them pick a job they enjoy It is good for society: - father, mother and childcare professional can do something that matches their talents, instead of doing something suboptimal for them, thus delivering more value to society It doesn't devalue child-rearing, it values it more, by having a professional help do it. I'm always befuddled by that argument. I'm not devaluing plumbing work by hiring a plumber, nor am I devaluing medical work by hiring a doctor. Why would I be devaluing child-rearing by hiring a professional to help?

pton_xd 2y ago
Half those arguments could be made for child labor. After all, if the child works too then the family has more resources, the father and mother don't have to carry all the weight, the child gets a wider variety of experiences, the father and mother can do something that matches their talents while the child picks up the slack. Right? Who actually cares more about a child's well-being, an employee paid by the hour or their own parents?
- lucumo 2y ago
  I would not say that the child gets a wider variety of experiences in child labor compared to child care. Child care is explicitly designed to have a variety of activities for children. Child labor is the low skill kind with lots of repetitive actions. Child care also takes the child's needs into account, like having nap times and eating times designed around children, instead of around a production process. As for caring about the child's well-being? The parents, which is why they should hire the best people they can afford to do various parts of taking care off them. Hire the best doctor for their medical care, hire the best dentists for their dental care, hire the best teachers for their education, hire the best child-care professionals for daycare.

prmoustache 2y ago

We like it or not 1 person in the household taking care of the kids skew the relationship between 2 adults into dependentship as the one working outside perceived to be the one bringing the income (while both should) and the one taking care of the kids and household end up feeling dependent. Some may try to be objective and tell yourself the other one is contributing as much, that is not the way it works in our guts, we like it or not and leads to inequality. This not optimal for many reasons: - once the kids are going to school, regular "office hours" daycare is not needed and it skew the relationship even more by removing one task to one party. If that time is used for personal instead of household chores activities, that person not bringing the income is eventually seen as a partial freeloader by the one bringing the income. - relationship can go sour quickly and if it doesn't work, the "dependent" one doesn't feel as free to end that relationship - the person taking care of the kid's social life is usually not as rich The elephant in the room being that in most case it ends up being the woman staying at home in an heterogender relationship in a society with an historically patriarcal model because of income levels which further increase the inequalities and dependentship.

throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
The situation you describe has been happening for most of humanity. IMO society is worse now with dual income + strangers raising children. The only major benefits I've seen are 1) Woman have access to birth control 2) Women have equal rights. Everything else is debatable as "better".
- prmoustache 2y ago
  I wouldn't call that strangers raising children. Obviously it depends on the amount of hours per day but it is not like you are sending them to boarding school and you only see them during the week-ends. I also felt that putting my daughters to daycare helped them socially.