From a 2004 article in Mom Jones:
(co author) Amelia Tyagi: More and more families today are sending both parents into the workforce — t’s become the norm, it’s what we now expect. The overwhelming majority of us do it because we think it will make our families more secure.
But that’s not how things have worked out....
We tend to assume with two incomes you’re doubly secure. But if you count on every penny of both of those incomes, which most families today do, then you’re in big trouble if either income goes away. And obviously, if you have two people in the workforce, you have double the chance that someone will get laid off, or double the chance that someone could get too sick to work.
When that happens, two-income families really get into trouble, and that’s how a lot of families quickly go bankrupt.
MJ.com: In the past, it seems like a stay-at-home mom could act as an insurance policy for the family if the dad was laid off or whatnot. But today two-income families have nothing to fall back on in the event of a disaster.
AT: Right. It used to be that a stay-at-home parent was a sort of safety net — she (and it was usually a “she”) not only took care of the children, but she was there if anyone got sick. Or if Grandma broke a hip, she could step in and provide care without costing the family financially. But today, with both parents in the workforce 100 percent of the time, there’s just no way to care for somebody on the side — either somebody has to take time off work or somebody has to pay someone to provide that care. In either it represents a big financial blow, and families just don’t have the flexibility to deal with it anymore.
read the whole thing.
The problem is that the concept of family is now not discussed when discussing the economy.
Nor is the importance of a stable family for social capital (caring for kids and the sick/elderly).
The Republicans don't discuss it because too many are into profit driven economics who want cheap labor (women, like immigrants, work harder for less pay).
The Democrats, alas, have been taken over by radical feminists who see the family and men (and children) as the enemy. This is not new: When Betty Frieden brought up the same idea of making feminism family friendly and insisted that insisting on work equality did not mean rejecting men and not having a family, she was pretty well kicked out of the feminist movement.
and I won't even get into the profit driven reasons behind the housing cost and college cost increases.
One does wish Warren, instead of playing politics by imitating the radicals in the Democratic party would instead bring up the importance of family.
and I don't mean just hand outs (which seem to be the only idea that the socialist wing seems to have). The idea behind this is the concept that people are isolated individuals whose only source of help is the government, which of course expands government power.
I mean political policies that would support families, including those that encouraged religion and other "intermediary" institutions that allow a richer social environment.
for example.
So our recommendation is that subsidized child-care should be offered in tandem with some sort of subsidy for stay-at-home parents, in the hopes that that would offset the competition between families. Otherwise, you’re providing even more financial pressure on one-income families, and forcing those remaining stay-at-home mothers to enter the workplace in order to keep up with everyone else.
most of my patients would like part time work after the kids are old enough for baby sitting, but the laws make that hard too.
at present, I am listening to Jordan Peterson discussing mice and their need for socializing. Heh.
One of these days, people will recognize this instead of promoting the modern memes that are tearing the country apart.
Warren could do it, but alas I doubt she will, or can, in today's world.
No comments:
Post a Comment