3 ms·

A lot of this is because of the housing theory of everything along with increasing wages and professional opportunities for (a subset of) women. In the post-WW

A lot of this is because of the housing theory of everything along with increasing wages and professional opportunities for (a subset of) women. In the post-WW2 era, housing, food, and energy were cheap, which made it possible for a single wage earner (usually the husband) to support a family. All of the things that upper-middle-class families commonly outsource - cooking, cleaning, gardening, childcare, housework, driving kids around - were done by the wife. Now they are low-paid labor; before they were unpaid labor, but they still had to get done. The existence of a market for low-productivity tasks like childcare and cleaning depends upon income inequality. These are not jobs where capital and specialization makes you more efficient; one person can do them roughly as well as another, and often times a household member is more efficient than external paid help. For a market to be profitable in these activities, the opportunity cost of one person’s time must be much greater than the wages they pay for this service, which implies wage inequality. Two-edged swords and all that. Greater equality between sexes within a family is made up for by greater inequality between families.

johnnyanmac 1y ago
Calling childcare "low productivity" is sadly part of the problem here. It doesn't hit the GOP as hard, but it's a necessary task for the future of society. And those impacts determine how future generations react. You don't invest in your future, don't be surprised when the future doesn't invest in society.
- nostrademons 1y ago
  I mean this in its specific technical and economic definition. Childcare is low productivity in that no matter how much capital, technology, and mechanization you throw at it, one adult will be able to care for a limited number of children, and that limit is not all that much higher than what a parent could do. Infant childcare, for example, is limited by law in many jurisdictions to no more than 1 adult per 4 children, and if you've ever cared for an infant, you'd know that limit is pretty inherent to the job itself. Through Baumol's Cost Disease [1], this implies rising costs in these sectors and an increasing percentage of employment devoted to them. That these sectors are necessary was part of my point. If the parent isn't doing the job, somebody else is; you can't just eliminate or automate the job entirely. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect

johnnyanmac 1y ago

Calling childcare "low productivity" is sadly part of the problem here. It doesn't hit the GOP as hard, but it's a necessary task for the future of society. And those impacts determine how future generations react. You don't invest in your future, don't be surprised when the future doesn't invest in society.

nostrademons 1y ago
I mean this in its specific technical and economic definition. Childcare is low productivity in that no matter how much capital, technology, and mechanization you throw at it, one adult will be able to care for a limited number of children, and that limit is not all that much higher than what a parent could do. Infant childcare, for example, is limited by law in many jurisdictions to no more than 1 adult per 4 children, and if you've ever cared for an infant, you'd know that limit is pretty inherent to the job itself. Through Baumol's Cost Disease [1], this implies rising costs in these sectors and an increasing percentage of employment devoted to them. That these sectors are necessary was part of my point. If the parent isn't doing the job, somebody else is; you can't just eliminate or automate the job entirely. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect