From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 16:03:16 MDT
On Monday 25 August 2003 13:01, Damien Sullivan wrote:
> > 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.
I strongly suggest you try being a stay-at-home parent for a little while
before suggesting how easy and unproductive it is. Clothing doesn't just
come into the house by magic, neither does food. Childcare including
carting the children (and often their friends) around isn't exactly a
zero-time task either. In the 50s housewives were most certainly NOT idle.
I watched my mother pretty closely growing up. She was quite busy from
before we got up until we went to bed. Of course there were 5 of us. But
larger families weren't so uncommon then either.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 25 2003 - 16:10:46 MDT