Its not that women in the workforce have, in themselves, caused a detriment to our economy. Rather, its women and their husbands who both work that have hurt the economy.
Has it occured to anyone that since wives stopped being housewives while both the husband and the wife work, the cost of living has drastically risen.
There are now two incomes, possibly even three, in the home. For a given household with such profound income, money becomes easier, living choices become more expensive and people expect more as standard.
But as money becomes easier to acquire for a household and their worth increases, they are willing to afford more. Indeed, those they buy from are willing to ask for more.
It seems to me that when the man was the bread winner (not that women cant be) the household income was less and so was the cost of living. I see a correlation here.
Its okay for a wife to be a housewife and its okay for a husband to be a househusband. But when you have both working and neither staying home, its not just the “raised kids” who suffer absent parents. It is the economy on whole that suffers in the long run and prices start to rise on account of the surplus of income in the region or neighborhood.
As dual income families went from being unheard of to being a trend, then to being the standard, the costs of living, and more notably the cost of housing, has suffered the most in price hikes.
Anymore its almost necessary for there to be a dual income if you expect to afford a decent home.
Its pretty sad, I think, that a single man or woman cannot really afford a house unless they make outrageously good income. The average person absolutely needs the help of an also-professional marital partner… or else live in a crappy bachelors pad with three other people (same situation).
I have met men who held down two jobs in addition to their wife who has one job (even in this 10% unemployment), just to pay the bills… we arent even talking about an assertive, goal-oriented family looking to get ahead.
I find it horrid in our society where a family of two adults and their children have to hold down two or three jobs just to keep their home. I believe that if the cost of living is that outrageously high – for anyone – then its too high for all.
I find it horrid that none of these three employers are willing to employ anyone for a decent wage at full time hours on account that they would have to fork over profits for other employment benefits. Three different men may work 40 hours a week a piece for the same three different employers, part time each… when all they have to do is shuffle their hours and employers around a bit, each of those three men could work those 40 hours for just one employer. But the employers wont have it. And the employees spend much of their time and money unnecessarily commuting between jobs (adding to pollution and traffic).
Our society condones divorce as an easy, expected practice; they praise strong independent women who are professionals and they scorn the independent man for his continued bachelorhood; all the while making it impossible to survive financially unless you are unreasonably successful or married.
What I have something against is the practice in which corporations and businesses take advantage of the added income as an excuse to take it all back with jacked up prices. At that point, what’s the point?
I would rather live in a society in which we all made half as much money but everything was twice as affordable (then the value of the dollar would be doubled)… working half as many jobs for the same hours, where employers respected their employees as people and werent trying desperately to beat the costs of success, where earning every cent wasnt a competition to the financial death of someone else… where the standards of living werent forced into lowering, and where linearly rising standards didnt necessitate exponentially rising income. A society in which if you started receiving double the income, I would congratulate you on your success without doubling the price of the service Im selling. A society where two incomes werent required to live the American dream. Twice as much work as the 1950’s to live the same free, carefree lifestyle never was he American dream. Three times the pay is irrelevant when everything costs three times as much.
No, Im not criticizing inflation. Im pointing out the cause… one of them, anyway. The cause Im referring to and criticising is this: the fact is that people wanted double the wealth so they worked double the work. Its reasonable. But when double the work and double the wealth became the standard, prices rose not because value rose but because money availability rose. And we are left in the same situation we always have been in… except now we are working twice as hard, entire families in fact.
And it should be no wonder employment opportunities are on a shortage. They are being hogged up by men and women living in a single household, working two to three jobs, just to scrape by. And for what? You have those 10% unemployed, and their families who are living in the streets… not because they cant find one job but because they cant find three.