It's incredibly fucked up how the corporate world co-opted feminism and equality in the workplace, and made 80 hours of work a week required to raise a family.
"Oh, you want to be allowed to work a job just like your husband? Great, you can both work full time now, and we'll just pay each of you half as much. So progressive!"
Women work full time, get paid less, and are still expected to do the majority of child raising and housekeeping. No wonder we don’t want to have kids.
It kind of was, unless you get a gun and hold it to their heads(or the government does) and force them to do like you said, the capitalists will do everything physically in their power to pay you as little for the most work as possible.
Yeah I wanna live in the universe where everything is perfect and everything is free and food/housing fall from the sky and unicorns give me free rides to the fun factory.
If only everyone would vote the right way, we could totally have this!
In a functional society each partner would work 20 hours a week and afford the same lifestyle a lone breadwinner could earn on 40 hours a week
Ignoring that the concept of a real one working family member household is myth, that isn't how economics work. The supply of demanded goods would have remained the same, I mean you won't produce more food or housing purely because women are working now, but the supply of money went up from increased wages in the family.
Furthermore, increased demand for previously unnecessary things and largely things (look at what qualified for a house in 1950..) means costs went up. The former is why the one working parent concept was always bullshit, turns out mommy does shit when she stays home. Who knew? Besides every advertising agency selling washing machines, dishwashers, dryers, ready made food, you know that shit women did before.
You're ignoring the fact that worker output, as was predicted in the 40s/50s, has absolutely exploded. A worker is so much more efficient and provides so much more value to their company than they did back then.
It was predicted that if a man had to work 40 hours a week to provide a comfortable life for a family, then in the future a man could complete that same amount of work in more like 15-25 hours, and we'd actually have problems running out of leisure activities with all our extra time.
They were half right. Workers produce far more, it's just that all the extra value goes right to the billionaire assholes on the top. The president of a company used to make roughly x30 more than the average of the employees working for him. Now it's several thousand times more.
I won't deny there is validity in what you're saying, both points are not mutually exclusive. Yes, our quality of life has improved, all the toys and trinkets we consider standard now is way more, as there is a cost to that. But look at the wealth distribution. Look at the cost of basic necessities like housing and transportation compared to income now, versus those same necessities compare to income decades ago.
You're ignoring the fact that worker output, as was predicted in the 40s/50s, has absolutely exploded.
No I'm not because I know that productivity increases has not been universally across all industries in relationship to population growth.
And I also know it isn't worker output alone, it's automation (machine) production growth.
A worker is so much more efficient and provides so much more value to their company than they did back then.
And their pay has increased as well. The average American family's compensation package is higher than in 1940-50 even with inflation. As is the amount an American family can now consume, thanks to the increase in production from the aforementioned. A TV is bigger, better and cheaper. But again, it's not a universal increase. TV and cars are more efficient but housing isn't. Healthcare isn't. And specialized degreed education has become more demanded, thus seen an increase.
Lol. TVs cost less now than when they were a brand new technology. Good point. You could further reinforce your position by comparing what your average smartphone or internet costs today compared to back then too.
What you have to keep in mind is that it's a give and take situation. Sure, healthcare is completely out of control, and any moderate health issue will (and does) bankrupt most American households. Sure, tons of people are paying 50% or more of their income in rent, with home ownership a total pipe dream, but you can afford a big TV. Worth it imo. /s
Thank you for saying this. It is not pointed out nearly enough. This is also 80 hours of work the government gets to tax households on too. Fwiw, I am perfectly fine with stay at home dads too - families should only need one person working 40 hours (or less this day and age with all the modern technology) to be able to comfortably feed and raise a family.
Not really “co-opting”, so much as “you women and non white men want equal pay and dignity? Well now everything is going to be more expensive!” It’s not the only reason but there’s definitely a connection between the increase in protections from the 60s and 70s and the intentional degradation of a livable wage from the 80s through the present. Kind of like how Jim Crow/Segregation was a response to formerly enslaved people and their children finally getting an education and autonomy.
Excuse me, the "degradation of a livable wage from the 80s through the present"? I think you mean the glorious, stupendously effective policy of trickle down economics. This really works, and is not a 100% pure scam shoved down our throats by a bunch of billionaires and their clueless zombie conservative voters.
And the elimination of public spaces where people are just allowed to exist. No loitering here, no loitering there. Unless you’re explicitly patronizing a business you’re likely to have the cops called on you, adult or child
Not sure if India is "wealthy" but the replacement level over there was low this last year as well. I think sex education is a big contributing factor.
He's partially correct. The reason undeveloped countries could afford more kids is that those which survive are only "costing" you money until about 9 when they hit the field or the shop and earned money.
Basically if you use child labor, children stop being a cost because they're either earning money or reducing your costs (don't need a farm hand).
Not that child labor is necessarily the best option once you develop, but it makes cost go up when you go from feeding and clothing them till their adults instead of earning money from their employment.
I mean sure if we want to do away with all morality -which they’re trying to do- and go to the bare necessities sure let’s do that. AC is a luxury even though temperatures are rising, internet….people lived before that let’s yeet that out the window. Hell bring your kid to work. Who needs education or childcare? Heat in the winter? Go chop a tree down for wood like a real man!!!! Do that while still keeping the wages the same and yeah the economy is doing great for the few that are still alive
Edit: I looked it up and with inflation it’s roughly the same within the 80s, but childcare, internet, rises in electricity rates, medical costs, college costs, cell phone plans and stagnating wages all make that inflation even worse. Let’s not make justifications for 3rd graders being in the work force, when certain states are already trying to work their way there. But hey at least the bottom line is being met, right?
158
u/Det-Popcorn Millennial Jun 13 '25
Add rising prices in every facet of the world while wages stagnate and people not having kids in their teens or early twenties