From: Damien Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 14:01:16 MDT
> The New Yorker has an interesting article about a new book which claims
> that the cost of having kids is ruining the middle-class.
> Another reason for the dropping birthrate?
Don't know if the articles mention this but... I've read that the "single
income family" of the 1950s was an aberration (and I'd suspect not fully
widespread anyway.) The US had a working industrial economy, the rest of the
world was bombed out or agricultural, unions and corporations were strong,
manufacturing jobs were common and paid a lot (vs. manufacturing jobs in the
19th century, say.) But the historical norm is for both parents to work.
Which is the other thing: housewives weren't idle, except in the 1950s, or in
the upper classes. (And often not even there, depending on the upper class.)
Women's (and children's) helped support the home. But these days, a person
staying at home in urban areas doesn't have much to do to economically support
the home. There's cleaning and maintenance, but nothing really in
food/energy/clothing/income production. To support the family as normal the
wife has to go get a job... but then you lose the benefit of relatively easily
taking care of the children. Thus day care and second car expenses, and the
mother has to bring in not just her share of the income but extra income to
replace the 'free' benefits from working at home.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 25 2003 - 14:11:08 MDT