3 ms·

That's the irony. Before, there was no choice but for women to stay at home. Now, most have no choice but to work. Turns out, for the market, having a choice i

That's the irony. Before, there was no choice but for women to stay at home. Now, most have no choice but to work. Turns out, for the market, having a choice is a form of wealth. It will make you pay to acquire it, it will treat you as that much more wealthy if you have it, and it will encourage you to sell it.

rwyinuse 2y ago
Yeah, as far as labor market goes "women's liberation" never really happened. The social pressure to have a family didn't really disappear, and yet there's way more pressure to build a career to appease our corporate overlords. Is that really an improvement? Ultimately capitalism is built so that improved productivity, more working hours, higher salaries never benefit the worker long-term. If people start earning more, the owning class will simply raise prices to match this new level of income. The US is the wealthiest and strongest country in the world, and yet young people there struggle to buy houses just as much (or even more) than their peers in much poorer countries.
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  > The social pressure to have a family didn't really disappear All sexually reproducing organisms on the Earth have families without any social pressure and we evolved from primates who work like this. By far the stronger pressure is biological. I doubt social pressure even comes close to moving the needle.
  - nobodyandproud 2y ago
    Unlike most organisms, we’re smart enough to satisfy those urges without having children. The peak reproductive years are the late teens to late twenties (give or take). However and in modern society, having children in the first two-thirds of the peak years is a recipe for failure or lifelong hardships.
consteval 2y ago
I would argue wealth is only the execution of more choice, and choice as a concept is equivalent with power. Powerful people can make bigger choices, and that's what makes them powerful.
- lifeisstillgood 2y ago
  That’s really quite impactful and insightful. Presidents have choices no one else has … how interesting

rwyinuse 2y ago

Yeah, as far as labor market goes "women's liberation" never really happened. The social pressure to have a family didn't really disappear, and yet there's way more pressure to build a career to appease our corporate overlords. Is that really an improvement? Ultimately capitalism is built so that improved productivity, more working hours, higher salaries never benefit the worker long-term. If people start earning more, the owning class will simply raise prices to match this new level of income. The US is the wealthiest and strongest country in the world, and yet young people there struggle to buy houses just as much (or even more) than their peers in much poorer countries.

ants_everywhere 2y ago
> The social pressure to have a family didn't really disappear All sexually reproducing organisms on the Earth have families without any social pressure and we evolved from primates who work like this. By far the stronger pressure is biological. I doubt social pressure even comes close to moving the needle.
- nobodyandproud 2y ago
  Unlike most organisms, we’re smart enough to satisfy those urges without having children. The peak reproductive years are the late teens to late twenties (give or take). However and in modern society, having children in the first two-thirds of the peak years is a recipe for failure or lifelong hardships.

consteval 2y ago

I would argue wealth is only the execution of more choice, and choice as a concept is equivalent with power. Powerful people can make bigger choices, and that's what makes them powerful.

lifeisstillgood 2y ago
That’s really quite impactful and insightful. Presidents have choices no one else has … how interesting