Is “women went to work” really a comeback to household income stats?
August 5, 2011 by Divorce Bin
Filed under divorce stats
Consider that fewer than 1/4 of all US households are married couples with kids.
Consider the divorce rate.
Consider that while women did flock to the workforce in the late 1970s-1980s to today, unemployment fell by half during that time period – somehow the economy created more than enough jobs for them.
Consider that while women stayed home in Paul Krugman’s idyllic 1950s, most of what they DID all day is now automated (e.g., dishwasher, microwave oven, shopping on-line) or done by illegals (e.g., lawn service, maid, nanny) – thus taking a fraction of the time to do.
Consider the benefits to consumers of a more productive labor base that no longer excludes half the population – that productivity increase directly translates into lower CPI and thus lower interest rates.
Sintori I was a stay-at-home Dad when my then-13-month-old son had surgery, yes it can be time consuming. And my kids and I spent a lot of time together, did a lot of things that enriched their lives. But keep in mind, again, only 21% of US households are married couples with children.
So, it’s not like women working is the reason why this isn’t Wally and Beaver time.
More American adult women are living single than are living with a spouse.
A generation ago they would not have been able to afford to do that.
True enough some of the growth of the “upper middle class” – the households above 5X the poverty level of income that economists consider affluent but that probably consider themselves middle class – is driven by DINKS but keep in mind also that the poverty level is a function of how many people are in the household, so the double-income is mostly cancelled out.
Courtney – no most people don’t have those – but most affluent married households where both the husband and wife work have them.
The point is “what’s driving household income increases” – a lot of Libs say “women went to work” – but that really doesn’t hold water when you look closely. To the extent that’s true of a given household, yes the wife of an attorney might also practice law, but what she would have done a generation ago she now no longer has to do by hand.
Jon who should make those decisions?
Mail that’s simply not so – “enough” for WHAT? Most households are still not 2-earner households, so that pretty much refutes your theory that “it takes two incomes.”
There ARE more 2-income households, but those are usually on the higher end. It’s not because they HAVE to work to earn $X income, it’s because they WANT to work because they can have $3X income.
And wages are not down – honestly where do you get that?
Women went to work and brought additional income into the household——Yea I would say it was a comeback to household income stats. What do you think?
I love how you say “most of what they did is now automated”. Just because we have more modern conveniences doesn’t mean that the at-home mom has any more free time. They just find more things to occupy the time they free up. LOL I’m a working mom myself–but I know many at-home-moms that would contradict your time managment theory.
I’d have to disagree about what women do being automated. That may be so for the upper-middle class, but although most households have microwaves, dishwashers, and computers, I don’t know anyone who gets a lawn service, maid, or nanny. The best they get is a teenager to babysit when they want to go out once in a while.
There are always things to do around the house, although I do think that both partners working is good, and what I plan to do.
when did they automate raising children? I didn’t read the article in question, but it makes me wonder how at one point in our history, not so very long ago, there was only one income earner and most people owned a house and a car. Now it takes two incomes to support a family. I guess that is why they refer to that as “the good old days”.
Please look a the state of our children who no longer have a parent at home watching them and instead are forced to watch TV and play video games.
Please refer to the huge amount of women who no struggle with how have babies and not miss work.
You site unemployment statistics; however, if the families were financially well off then the unemployment of the mother is irrelevant.
My family income drops when both parents work. One of us has always been home.
If everybody sacrificed when it came to employment in order that their children received better attention at home from a parent, our country would be better off. Even if unemployment rose.
Real wages have fallen (or stagnated) because women flocked to the workforce – at the same time that the real cost of expenses has risen.
One income per family used to be enough. Now, in many cases, two incomes are required.
————————————
Average Weekly Earnings (in 1982 Dollars)
1973 : 331 Dollars
2004 : 277 Dollars
(US Bureau of Labor Statistics)
*****16% decrease since 1973
http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/index.php?page=Wages+and+Benefits%3A+Real+Wages+%281964-2004%29
Maybe this decrease was caused by an increased supply of workers. Maybe corporate greed (globalization/illegal immigration). Maybe a little of both. But real wages have decreased. And this decrease was accompanied by substantial increases in necessary expenses such as medical coverage.
So, I do not think that I am too far off base.
.