4 ms·

We managed to have a society with a significant number of families living on one income for quite some time. 2 incomes shouldn’t be a requirement to keep a roof

We managed to have a society with a significant number of families living on one income for quite some time. 2 incomes shouldn’t be a requirement to keep a roof over a family’s head. The goal shouldn’t be “2 incomes,” it should be “1 income is sustainable and families can actually be a family.”

bluGill 1mo ago
Really? What society? The 1950s got close in the US (I'm not sure about elsewhere, but I doubt it), but even then there were a lot of women working. If you go back to 1800 you will discover that saying families had only one income was because history is generally blind to "women's work" and so you have no idea what women did. (for that matter what most men did is something history only barely mentions). In 1850 a lot of people were more self sufficient - the whole family was growing their own food and making their own cloth - and so saying there was even one income is false - there mostly was no income but they only bought a few things and so only need a small income rarely. (historians can give you a much longer and more complex answer - mine is a gross simplification)
- Forgeties79 1mo ago
  That’s a fair point I considered including but it’s easy to get lost in the weeds here so I opted for an overly simplistic description. Ultimately what I am trying to say is the household income now required for many is too high and often unobtainable without 2 full time incomes outside the home (and often that’s not enough). That’s not sustainable if we don’t want people offloading all their parenting outside their home. The one working at home (domestic tasks and misc.) one working outside the home (direct income) model is basically impossible now for most people.
  - nemomarx 1mo ago
    what economic program or change would you like to fix this?
    - Forgeties79 1mo ago
      I didn’t answer the first time you asked because it strikes me as somewhat unproductive and frankly whenever people ask questions like this it’s usually bait, but I’ll assume good faith here. I am not an expert on this subject, I am not proposing changes and mostly just saying what I observe/my opinion on this issue. This is also a US-centric take so bear that in mind. If I must voice a solution or something: Top of mind, in no particular order, is we need to talk about PTO being more universal (and not just a measly 10-20 work days a year or so) and, more importantly, we need to crack down on exploitative labor practices that lead to low incomes/too few working hours, compounded by (particularly in the shift work world) demands that people say “yes” to coming in to work at a moment’s notice. Generally speaking we need more flexibility for families, instead of the current model where we basically demand people burn their PTO (or just lose their job) for basic childcare reasons (sick, early dismissal from school, etc). This is all really dancing around the core issue though, which is that, despite our rhetoric about strong nuclear families, we’re culturally and economically hostile to families. Particularly those with young children. The support we offer is inadequate and many workplaces punish people for caring for their kids during work hours even when it isn’t really a choice. And when we talk about the cost or difficulty people often respond with “well, you shouldn’t have had kids. You’re irresponsible.” That’s just ridiculous when you think about it. We can’t say we want people to have families and then structure our society in a way that creates unnecessary barriers. Especially when those barriers depend on assumptions like “kids can’t demand anything during work hours.” I understand it’s easy to complain and offer no solutions, but I feel like what I’m doing is a little more nuanced than that. I don’t know what the answer is but I know what we are doing is not working and needs to be interrogated. That’s often the point of discussion after all - working out a possible solution. What do you propose we do?
      - nemomarx 1mo ago
        That's basically all stuff I support for it. I also think socially something about extended families would be good - grandparents watching kids is good for cohesion and lightens burdens etc. I also think job hopping is probably related? think of the burden of having to move so often with the housing market and how it might compound things. But cynically I really doubt we're ready to support and fund any of these kind of changes basically. The best anyone offers is a little more maternity leave (paternity if you're being cool) and some tax or economic incentives to try and reduce daycare costs. Which will not holistically solve anything. Also giving up on WFH probably really hurt us here - that could have helped with housing substantially.
  - jimbokun 1mo ago
    Why was economic productivity high enough to allow single income families in the 1950s but not today?
    - bluGill 1mo ago
      I know many couples today living on one income so the other can raise the kids. They are a tiny minority but you can find them all over. They just have to make life style sacrafices that most are not willing for.
      - ndriscoll 1mo ago
        It's not a tiny minority; at least in the US, ~1/4 mothers stay at home, or for mothers with pre-school children, it's ~1/3. It's actually quite normal outside of maybe certain urban professional circles, and spans low to high income.
        Forgeties79 1mo ago
        I’m actually familiar with the 31% statistic and a very important wrinkle to that figure is it includes people on disabilities, retired, unemployed but want to be employed, etc. so we really can’t say “1/3rd of Americans live an ok to comfortable life on one income.” Ultimately, 69% (more really) don’t.
- visarga 1mo ago
  > In 1850 a lot of people were more self sufficient - the whole family was growing their own food and making their own cloth - and so saying there was even one income is false - there mostly was no income but they only bought a few things and so only need a small income rarely This was true for my grandparents in 1970s
- jimbokun 1mo ago
  Yes the 1950s is the existence proof. I don’t see the relevance of the 1850s, our economic productivity has greatly increased since then. Why can we no longer have the same economic productivity we had in the 1950s that allowed for more single income families?
  - bluGill 1mo ago
    1950 proves it is possible. It doesn't prove it was ever common.
  - Sohcahtoa82 1mo ago
    > Why can we no longer have the same economic productivity we had in the 1950s that allowed for more single income families? Three words: World War II. The 1950s were a unique time. World War II had just ended, and much of Europe's manufacturing capacity was destroyed, while the USA had just spent several years building factories to produce everything needed to fuel that war. It put the USA into an extremely favorable position. Everyone needed manufactured goods, half the world needs to rebuild, and the USA happened to own tons of factories that nobody bombed. Also, during the war, a lot of purchases were being deferred because factories were tooled for war. After the war, they retooled for consumer goods, and years of deferred purchases were suddenly being made. People think America started to decline after the 50's, but the reality is that the rest of the world just caught back up. Factories rebuilt, economies recovered, and they no longer needed American products. Bringing back the 1950's boom without a catastrophic war is going to require taking a lot of steps that are very unpopular among the rich though. Landlords especially. The pipeline of "Dad finishes high school -> Gets a union factory job -> supports spouse + 2 kids -> buys suburban house/car -> retires at 65" isn't possible when the factory job pays $11/hr and houses start at $500,000. Part of the trouble is the gains from productivity growth go to shareholders, not workers. The increased automation in the last 75 years means fewer workers, while the remaining worker's wages remain stagnant, and only the owning class reaps the benefits of the corporate savings. Meanwhile, we keep cutting taxes on them, so they get hoard it all, rather than allowing the money to be reinvested into the next generation.
    - jimbokun 1mo ago
nemomarx 1mo ago
making housing affordable also sounds like a pretty hard problem in most of the developed West, yeah? like if you have a good idea definitely pursue it though
- jimbokun 1mo ago
  It’s an easy problem but our political system is just really stupid, here in the US.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]

bluGill 1mo ago

Really? What society? The 1950s got close in the US (I'm not sure about elsewhere, but I doubt it), but even then there were a lot of women working. If you go back to 1800 you will discover that saying families had only one income was because history is generally blind to "women's work" and so you have no idea what women did. (for that matter what most men did is something history only barely mentions). In 1850 a lot of people were more self sufficient - the whole family was growing their own food and making their own cloth - and so saying there was even one income is false - there mostly was no income but they only bought a few things and so only need a small income rarely. (historians can give you a much longer and more complex answer - mine is a gross simplification)

Forgeties79 1mo ago
That’s a fair point I considered including but it’s easy to get lost in the weeds here so I opted for an overly simplistic description. Ultimately what I am trying to say is the household income now required for many is too high and often unobtainable without 2 full time incomes outside the home (and often that’s not enough). That’s not sustainable if we don’t want people offloading all their parenting outside their home. The one working at home (domestic tasks and misc.) one working outside the home (direct income) model is basically impossible now for most people.
- nemomarx 1mo ago
  what economic program or change would you like to fix this?
  - Forgeties79 1mo ago
    I didn’t answer the first time you asked because it strikes me as somewhat unproductive and frankly whenever people ask questions like this it’s usually bait, but I’ll assume good faith here. I am not an expert on this subject, I am not proposing changes and mostly just saying what I observe/my opinion on this issue. This is also a US-centric take so bear that in mind. If I must voice a solution or something: Top of mind, in no particular order, is we need to talk about PTO being more universal (and not just a measly 10-20 work days a year or so) and, more importantly, we need to crack down on exploitative labor practices that lead to low incomes/too few working hours, compounded by (particularly in the shift work world) demands that people say “yes” to coming in to work at a moment’s notice. Generally speaking we need more flexibility for families, instead of the current model where we basically demand people burn their PTO (or just lose their job) for basic childcare reasons (sick, early dismissal from school, etc). This is all really dancing around the core issue though, which is that, despite our rhetoric about strong nuclear families, we’re culturally and economically hostile to families. Particularly those with young children. The support we offer is inadequate and many workplaces punish people for caring for their kids during work hours even when it isn’t really a choice. And when we talk about the cost or difficulty people often respond with “well, you shouldn’t have had kids. You’re irresponsible.” That’s just ridiculous when you think about it. We can’t say we want people to have families and then structure our society in a way that creates unnecessary barriers. Especially when those barriers depend on assumptions like “kids can’t demand anything during work hours.” I understand it’s easy to complain and offer no solutions, but I feel like what I’m doing is a little more nuanced than that. I don’t know what the answer is but I know what we are doing is not working and needs to be interrogated. That’s often the point of discussion after all - working out a possible solution. What do you propose we do?
    - nemomarx 1mo ago
      That's basically all stuff I support for it. I also think socially something about extended families would be good - grandparents watching kids is good for cohesion and lightens burdens etc. I also think job hopping is probably related? think of the burden of having to move so often with the housing market and how it might compound things. But cynically I really doubt we're ready to support and fund any of these kind of changes basically. The best anyone offers is a little more maternity leave (paternity if you're being cool) and some tax or economic incentives to try and reduce daycare costs. Which will not holistically solve anything. Also giving up on WFH probably really hurt us here - that could have helped with housing substantially.
- jimbokun 1mo ago
  Why was economic productivity high enough to allow single income families in the 1950s but not today?
  - bluGill 1mo ago
    I know many couples today living on one income so the other can raise the kids. They are a tiny minority but you can find them all over. They just have to make life style sacrafices that most are not willing for.
    - ndriscoll 1mo ago
      It's not a tiny minority; at least in the US, ~1/4 mothers stay at home, or for mothers with pre-school children, it's ~1/3. It's actually quite normal outside of maybe certain urban professional circles, and spans low to high income.
      - Forgeties79 1mo ago
        I’m actually familiar with the 31% statistic and a very important wrinkle to that figure is it includes people on disabilities, retired, unemployed but want to be employed, etc. so we really can’t say “1/3rd of Americans live an ok to comfortable life on one income.” Ultimately, 69% (more really) don’t.
visarga 1mo ago
> In 1850 a lot of people were more self sufficient - the whole family was growing their own food and making their own cloth - and so saying there was even one income is false - there mostly was no income but they only bought a few things and so only need a small income rarely This was true for my grandparents in 1970s
jimbokun 1mo ago
Yes the 1950s is the existence proof. I don’t see the relevance of the 1850s, our economic productivity has greatly increased since then. Why can we no longer have the same economic productivity we had in the 1950s that allowed for more single income families?
- bluGill 1mo ago
  1950 proves it is possible. It doesn't prove it was ever common.
- Sohcahtoa82 1mo ago
  > Why can we no longer have the same economic productivity we had in the 1950s that allowed for more single income families? Three words: World War II. The 1950s were a unique time. World War II had just ended, and much of Europe's manufacturing capacity was destroyed, while the USA had just spent several years building factories to produce everything needed to fuel that war. It put the USA into an extremely favorable position. Everyone needed manufactured goods, half the world needs to rebuild, and the USA happened to own tons of factories that nobody bombed. Also, during the war, a lot of purchases were being deferred because factories were tooled for war. After the war, they retooled for consumer goods, and years of deferred purchases were suddenly being made. People think America started to decline after the 50's, but the reality is that the rest of the world just caught back up. Factories rebuilt, economies recovered, and they no longer needed American products. Bringing back the 1950's boom without a catastrophic war is going to require taking a lot of steps that are very unpopular among the rich though. Landlords especially. The pipeline of "Dad finishes high school -> Gets a union factory job -> supports spouse + 2 kids -> buys suburban house/car -> retires at 65" isn't possible when the factory job pays $11/hr and houses start at $500,000. Part of the trouble is the gains from productivity growth go to shareholders, not workers. The increased automation in the last 75 years means fewer workers, while the remaining worker's wages remain stagnant, and only the owning class reaps the benefits of the corporate savings. Meanwhile, we keep cutting taxes on them, so they get hoard it all, rather than allowing the money to be reinvested into the next generation.
  - jimbokun 1mo ago

nemomarx 1mo ago

making housing affordable also sounds like a pretty hard problem in most of the developed West, yeah? like if you have a good idea definitely pursue it though

jimbokun 1mo ago
It’s an easy problem but our political system is just really stupid, here in the US.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]