4 ms·
Something I don't quite get is why we seem to think that two income households should be the goal. Seems to me that the net effect of multi-income households i
by pmorici 12y ago
Something I don't quite get is why we seem to think that two income households should be the goal. Seems to me that the net effect of multi-income households is to make housing more expensive which in turn forces families to have two incomes and in the end everyone is just working a lot more for the same thing and a lesser quality of life.
- mytochar 12y agoTwo income households is a goal for my family because it 1) reduces the cost of living so that money can be used for other things; and, I would encourage my life partner to pursue their dreams, especially if that includes having a career because, as my mother has put it, being at home all the time for some people is boooring
- jassinpain 12y agoWhat are you going to do if your life partner wanted to stay home with the kids and found value in that? Sorry but you have just insulted any stay at home mom, which is shameful.
- tzs 12y agoHe insulted no one. You missed the word "some" at a key point in his comment.
- cesarbs 12y agoI don't see the insult. It seems to me they would support the decision to stay home, but their partner clearly prefers to work. I'm in a situation right now in which only I am working and my wife's at home with the kid. This is for visa reasons (H-4). My wife's self-esteem has plummeted because of this situation. She indeed complains it is extremely boring to stay home all the time. I completely support her desire to get back to the workforce, and I really look forward to the added benefit of our combined income.
- bluthru 12y agoBack in the more sexist decades, having only the man working created a "one worker per household" policy, creating an even distribution of jobs. Today we have more double income households and more zero income households. The smaller labor pool also decreased the value of labor. I'm not saying we should return to that at all, but I do think we should be looking at this (like most things) from a quality-of-life perspective. Now, working outside of the home gives many people fulfillment and helped reduce sexism, so I don't think one worker per household should be the goal. I guess I don't know what the solution is before becoming a post-scarcity society.
- dclowd9901 12y agoIt doesn't just make housing more expensive. 1) It creates a supply-side surplus for labor, which lowers the value of labor, which 2) Causes people to be paid far less, and 3) Causes people to have to work harder to keep their jobs, thus 4) Causing the greatest slowdown in wage growth ever, with record-setting productivity numbers I don't have any data on it, but my supposition is that most households have at least one, if not two individuals working jobs they would rather not be doing, but have to for financial reasons. A basic income would solve this problem by taking workers out of the system who would rather be doing something/anything else, all the while, jacking up the cost of skilled labor immensely. A wild ass guess? By 3-4x, judging from trends before wage increases flatlined.
- dasmoth 12y agoAnother potential negative is the increased the pressure to move to high-density locations in order to find two jobs within a non-stupid commute.
- IndianAstronaut 12y agoWe can easily create more housing to meet demand. Very easily. The problem is that local governments have strict zoning laws, lots of NIMBYs, and in general policies to promote the increase in property values.
- tomp 12y agoI'd say the real problem is that too many people want to live near other people (and near their jobs, which also happen to be where there are lots of people); this naturally drives the prices of houses/apartments in cities up, and there often isn't much more land to build on...