FREE NEWSLETTER
DOES THE RISE IN dual-income families, which started in the 1960s, mean that today it’s almost a necessity for both spouses to work? In my opinion, absolutely.
Our first child was born in 1970. That was the last time my wife was employed, apart from a brief part-time job when our youngest was in high school. But we’re the exception. Over the past 40 years, the number of couples where both have jobs has soared from about half to 70%, according to the Brookings Institution. Among families with children at home, the percentage is a bit lower at 63%.
The trend toward working wives began taking off around 1968 as younger, more educated women entered the workforce. My wife and I married in 1968. But there was never any discussion of my wife getting a job once we had a family. She had no desire for a career. My mother wasn’t employed, nor were my grandmothers.
Today, it’s a different story. I read articles about working couples balancing work and family, including their struggles to pay for child care and to carve out quality time with their children. It strikes me as sad that families suffer such stress, financially and otherwise.
Still, for most American families, two incomes are a necessity. There are many reasons both spouses work, from the desire for a career to needing the money. For me, it’s not a matter of right or wrong. But I think we should acknowledge the impact. What fascinates me: the issue of paying the bills. How did we reach the point where two incomes have become a financial necessity?
From the day we were married—or, more accurately, from the day I got home from the Army in 1969—we lived on my income alone. From August 1969 until July 1970, we saved what my wife earned, using that money in 1971 for the down payment on the first house we purchased.
It was a 1,106-square-foot home in serious need of an HGTV makeover, but—at $29,000—it was what we could afford. We’d looked at another house that was newer and larger, but cost $35,000. On my income of $8,300 a year, it was unaffordable. My wife going back to work, so we could afford the nicer house, wasn’t a tradeoff we even considered.
Today, Zillow shows that our old home is worth $564,000, which means its value has climbed 5.9% a year over the past 52 years, two percentage points a year faster than inflation. There are many factors driving housing prices, but the ability to pay for them because of dual incomes is certainly one of them.
We’ve also seen demand for larger homes. The average size of a U.S. home was 1,660 square feet in 1973. By 2015, that figure had ballooned to 2,687 square feet. Since then, homes have begun to shrink. In 2021, the average single-family home fell to 2,273 square feet, while the average family size dropped to 3.13 people. It had been 3.8 in 1940.
Over the first 30 years of our marriage, our single-income status required many choices that meant we didn’t “keep up with the Joneses.” I don’t think our children felt deprived, except perhaps being the only kids on the block without Mickey Mouse ears.
If we were in our 30s today, I wonder if we’d be making the same decisions. We might be in a bind competing in the housing market against couples earning two incomes. These days, two incomes are almost a necessity for most American families because the spending power of other households—the good old Joneses—has raised the bar for standard of living, as well as the cost of basics like housing and college. How many families today would find a 1,106-square-foot house desirable, even as a starter home?
A family of four no longer wants to travel in a mid-size sedan, but in a huge SUV or a pickup truck. A Ford F-150 is today’s most popular vehicle. The number of households with two cars or more has grown from 22% in 1960 to 59% in 2020. Those cars are now so big they often won’t fit in the garage, which—in any case—is often overflowing with other possessions.
It’s not easy for a working husband and wife to raise a family, and even harder for couples who strive to do so on a single income. We’ve created a society where what used to be the norm is barely affordable, and those who try to attain it often must spend far more time working.
We’ve also put lower-middle-income families in a bind where child care is required, but often unaffordable. Costs vary greatly from place to place. But in 2022, the average was $284 a week for one child in daycare. The calls for taxpayer-funded child care solutions are growing.
Every societal change has consequences. In this case, there are winners—financially and career-wise. But many families are losers. Have I once again demonstrated that I’m out of touch with 21st century society? Oh my, I fear this has turned into another rant.
Richard Quinn blogs at QuinnsCommentary.net. Before retiring in 2010, Dick was a compensation and benefits executive. Follow him on Twitter @QuinnsComments and check out his earlier articles.
Want to receive our weekly newsletter? Sign up now. How about our daily alert about the site's latest posts? Join the list.
I’d like to add a couple of counterexamples to the somewhat idyllic view of women staying home to raise children, both in the article and the comments below. My husband and I were both born in 1960 to young newly married mothers, both of whom stayed home to raise us and our younger siblings.
My mother did not enjoy being a stay-at-home mom. She did it, but even as a kid, I could see that she was restless and frustrated. When my younger brother started school, she went to college and got a bachelor’s and then master’s degree and starting in her late 40s, built a successful and satisfying career as a therapist, finally retiring from it at age 70. My father didn’t adjust well to her change in focus and was very hostile to it. They eventually divorced in 1990 after 30 years of marriage.
My mother-in-law didn’t mind the SAHM part–she was good at it and had no real desire for a degree or a career. My father-in-law was a career Marine who did three tours in Vietnam. My husband’s family moved around a lot, and it was a difficult life for my MIL. She had a nervous breakdown of sorts at age 25, when my husband and his sister were small children and their dad was overseas. He left her for another woman when the kids were teenagers, leaving them in poverty. She had to go into the workforce in her late 30s with no education, training, or experience, finding a minimum wage job. My husband fortunately was a great student who got an academic scholarship for college because his dad had moved on and felt no obligation to help his kids go to school and his mom couldn’t afford to help him.
The three daughters who came from these two single-income stay-at-home mom families–me, my sister, and my sister-in-law–all pursued careers, and two of us (my sister-in-law and I) raised children. We saw nothing in our family’s experience and our moms’ lives that made us want to emulate them.
As long as everyone had and made choices best suiting them, I see no issue, my original point is that does not happen these days.
I recall years ago a young couple bought the house across the street. Both worked. A year later there was a baby. As I was leaving for work each day around 6:00 am I watched the husband or wife carry the baby off to daycare to return around six PM. Two years later there was another child and in rain, snow, freezing weather the daycare scenario was repeated for a toddler and infant. That broke my heart every time I saw them in the morning.
I don’t know if both working was a choice or necessity, but I have a hard time accepting that as a choice in the best interest of those children.
Well, I’m not sure I’d say that either my mom or my MIL had “choices.” In the early 60s if you were married and had a baby, you pretty much stayed home. Every woman in our neighborhood did. I honestly can’t remember knowing another kid my age who had a mom that worked. I’m sure it was the same for my MIL at the various military bases they lived on.
Looking back, it probably would have been better for both if they could have worked—my mom because she would have been happier, and my mother-in-law because she would have been better prepared to support herself and her children when their father walked out on them.
My point in telling our story is that despite having a “traditional” upbringing, our families’ lives were not easy or especially happy. Both marriages were troubled and eventually ended, the stay-at-home moms struggled, money was tight and that caused family stress. Would our childhood memories be better if our moms had worked? I don’t know because that was a road not taken. But the 1950s model was not a magic formula for our particular families, and so one size doesn’t fit all.
A good day care is better than a bad mother. You appear to be harboring a belief that every woman is cut out to be a good mother and should stay home raising children. You are wrong.
Even “good mothers” are likely to struggle with the constant demands of young children. The parents who got their babies to daycare at 6 am are doing the best things for their families — as they see it. The “heart breaking” should be saved for those babies who wind up in abusive situations — where often there is no father in the household.
My mother, too, was very frustrated in the housewife role. She did go to work when I was in 4th grade. She worked for a NY State Savings Bank in its life insurance department. She promoted the idea that wives as well as husbands needed large term policies. When the bank brought her copy for a print ad showing a woman, man, children and a dog, she nixed the ad. Forced a revision with 2 kids, the husband, and no pets. She sold a ton of insurance and ultimately headed the dept. If she had been an independent agent, she would have made a mint. The bank made her an Ass’t Treasurer, but she had to “take the minutes” as the board meetings!
I always look forward to your posts, Dick. But, it’s the comments I savor. They feel like a pro wrestling match. I thank you for not only the body-slamming entertainment value but the rich feedback it provokes. I wonder sometimes if you just enjoy poking the beast a little bit.
👍just think points of view need to be challenged sometimes, but only with sincerity.
I don’t read it as a rant, Dick. Just you reporting an observation. There’s an interesting cause/effect dynamic in this, too. Did two incomes spur more consumerism? Or did excess consumerism at the top spur the need for more and more families to have two incomes?
Also, when I see investigative stories on tv about someone’s financial travails I’m always amazed at their home where the interview is taking place. A four bedroom two-story modern home with a big screen tv, nice kitchen, two newer cars in the garage, etc etc.
It seems to me we’ve become terribly confused in this country in particular about the difference between a “need” and a “want.”
And lastly, I applaud you’re ability to make these observations absent any finger wagging at the less-well-off families that are struggling to make ends meet despite two incomes (and at least as many jobs). My question to you is what are some ways we might improve this situation?
I really don’t think excess consumerism at the top had to do with it back in the 1960s. Once the ball started rolling with households new found income there was no turning back.
Wow, what a response. With my wife and I having reared 3 sons and a daughter, in that order, on one income, by choice, we felt fortunate. All are college grads with no debt, self sufficient, and all on a trajectory to do about as well or better than their parents–financially. So…what did I tell my daughter? Don’t marry until you have a degree and a career such that you can support yourself should you face divorce. I have seen more than a few women without college degrees and/or the means of self support get devastated by divorce or death of a spouse. Thus, my advice to any young women, if they can, would be to live their lives in this order: education, career, marriage, children. Go girl!
Love your advice, Patrick. Back when I was starting out in the 1980s, I was able to follow the path you lay out. In 1958, when my mother got married, there was no such alternative path for her. The directive from her parents was “Find a husband ASAP.”
When my parents divorced in their 50s and my mother was trying to find work, I remember helping her write up her meager work resume and realizing what a different life she’d had than the one I was embarking on.
Lots of discussion here….am just chiming in to say that lifestyle inflation is real, and a lot of it does have to do with personal choices. As a mortgage broker, I lift the hood on lots of people’s personal finances…the #1 and #2 biggest financial stressors that I see people choose are 1) buying too much house and 2) financing cars that are too expensive relative to their budgets. I’ve had many a mortgage client who cannot qualify for a mortgage just due to their car payments alone. The debt to income ratio is simply too high.
Appreciation in housing prices aside, I also find most buyers are absolutely unwilling to consider a smaller, more modest house. I’ve had agents tell me that they can’t find any suitably sized housing for a client on a budget. One agent once complained to me that her client (a young single male) could only afford a small house (1600 sf, in this instance), and there’s was NO WAY he could make do in that. She was throwing her hands up, having no idea how she was going to find a house for him.
It’s still true…making ends meet often means that a family needs dual incomes, but if you make the ends smaller by choosing more budget-friendly housing and cars (they’re out there), the lower stress can mean one partner has the luxury to choose a lower-paid job, go without work for a while, or the family has some financial breathing room in regards to unexpected expenses. That observation won’t be breathtaking news for the readers of Humble Dollar, but the vast majority of consumers in America are unlike the readers here.
My partner and I live comfortably in a 1200 sf home (2 bedroom/2 bath) that’s completely paid-off. My reliable hybrid has 160,000 miles on it. I intentionally chose modest housing and transportation for the value of the financial breathing room it offers. In a profession that is 100% commission-based, it’s meant that I can weather downturns in the housing market (thank you, 2023) comfortably.
Thanks for taking the time to write your article.
I completely agree! We are still in our 1600 sf “starter home” 17 years later. It has felt a little small at times.. but the paid off mortgage feels wonderful!
@ Jamie
Same with me. I like my small house, out of laziness (cleaning) and economy of space (who needs rooms they rarely use?) But my siblings seem to want bigger houses, for many of the reasons Richard lists. Amazing how different people can be within the same family.
I spent 33 years in a three bedroom 1,500 sq. ft. house, admittedly most of the time I was single. The two-bedroom apartment I’m moving to in a CCRC is actually bigger than my house. Paying off the mortgage in twelve years was indeed wonderful. The bigger the house the more it costs to heat and cool and clean, not to mention you need more furniture.
I thought there was a “small house” movement underway, is that just fringe?
BTW Crystal – you are a two-income household, correct?
The tiny house movement is very fringe, and lots of places are working to keep them out by regulating minimum size houses.
What’s missing from this discussion is the profound effect of female hypergamy. It is not simply the post-1960s increase of married women in the paid labor force that has has raised the cost of living to the point where two incomes are a necessity. Rather, the trend has been driven by the far greater number of highly- educated women, and the almost universal tendency of such women to marry high socioeconomic (SES) men, that explains the phenomenon described by Mr. Quinn.
The assortative mating that occurs under these conditions leads to dual high-income households whose wealth allows them to bid up the cost of housing, education, and other scarce goods. The result is that lower SES couples must also have dual incomes simply to compete for the scraps that remain.
Wouldn’t it seem that no matter the income level, doubling that or close to it via dual incomes where one income had determined the standard of living would increase spending and demand and hence prices?
Why do you assume that people with two incomes spend all of it? You saved on one income, right? What makes you think people with two incomes don’t save? How many of the FIRE people are two-income couples?
Much too simplistic an explanation. Why do you believe dual income people are likely to increase spending? They don’t have the time to shop and care for consumer goods. Do you think that working women have time to watch the remodeling tv shows, QVC, etc? And do they waste their leisure with the Kardashians?
But look at your own situation. You’ve written about how you bought a Mercedes and now are considering a second; you’ve detailed more than $100,000 in spending on a Cape Cod second home remodel; and the recitals of vacation spending seem endless. Why isn’t your consumption worthy related to increased prices?
I get the intent of this article, but it still irritates me as a woman with a doctorate degree and 3 children. Take a moment for reflection, how many male writers here could honestly say that they would be okay with trusting someone else with their financial needs… forever? Remember it is not just while the kids are little, this has a huge impact on retirement funds. Oh, and it isn’t just divorce, but also death, disability etc that could disrupt this happy little fantasy of being “taken care of.” By the way, I am happy in my roles as spouse, mother and employee. I am also super valuable in each of those roles. Oh wait, there is another issue. Women bring a lot of value to the world in their work!!!
Yes, true, but if you get the intent of the article we are good.
As you know, the point of the article was the negative impact on women and families where the parents are not PhDs or college educated. Where paying for child care is a serious financial burden. And where increased family incomes via dual incomes and hence demand has had a negative impact on some.
This wasn’t an anti working successful independent woman piece, but merely to look at the consequences of a change in our society that wasn’t beneficial to everyone.
The fact a partner- yes, usually the women, is not employed does not mean in a marriage she is merely trusting her spouse with her financial needs.
Besides it should be their financial needs and always structured as such meaning joint ownership of everything. Would it be any different if the women rather than the man were the one employed?
I hope we haven’t reached the point in marriage where a fairness necessity is that both parties must be employed for their own financial security. But I don’t doubt that exists.
When I married my current wife in 1991, we were both working. I was a teacher and she worked for the county government. Our first child was born in 1994 and our second in 1996. We both continued to work and it was doable because our mother in law provided day care for our children at a very reasonable rate (bless her heart, she loved her grandkids) and we were both very frugal with our spending. When our third child was born in 2001, and my oldest was diagnosed on the Autism spectrum, my wife and I decided that we would have her stay at home to raise the kids. We were the rare family that did this and I agree with Sal C., it was because of the choices we made. I became an administrator and raised my salary, and we grew comfortable with the financial choices that made it possible for us to get by on one salary. We went on camping vacations, kept our two cars until they could not run, and delayed upgrades to the house. I feel that our children were fortunate to have their mom around to volunteer at their school, take them and their friends on playdates, and be able to chaperone on their field trips. I believe that many of my colleagues would have preferred to have one parent stay at home, but most of them chose to have a two income family. Who is to say which way was better. Thank you for the article Richard and the conversation.
Good points. But it is not a matter of which way is better, but rather the societal changes limiting the choice for many families.
The question is why did those colleagues choose a two income family?
Your point about non employed mothers volunteering in schools and other activities is a good one which has all but disappeared in many areas. Before she had children my daughter was a teacher and struggled to get parents in for conferences about their own child let alone volunteer.
You know, a lot of working parents (dads can volunteer in the classroom, coach sports, etc., right?) have some flexibility in their schedules these days. When my kids were in school, I volunteered in their classes on a weekly basis, drove on field trips, worked the book fair, helped sell Girl Scout cookies, chaperoned choir trips, was on the board of the parents’ booster group for the high school choir, baked for bake sales and worked on/at a cajillion fundraisers, sold tickets or worked the green room at theater productions, and I’m sure I’ve forgotten a few things. All while holding down a demanding job. It wasn’t always easy to make time for those things, but it was important to me to be involved in my kids’ lives.
Maybe not every parent has the same margin that I was able to have, but I knew a lot of other working parents when raising my kids—most of them, really—and they found time to do these kinds of things, too. I wasn’t especially unique in being an involved working parent.
I just feel like you’re taking your own experience and a few anecdotes and overgeneralizing them.
I find this argument VERY wanting. I am half of a dual career couple. My husband and I both wanted children and we agreed that both of us would have a career — we were both PHD candidates when we married. I did stay home when the kids were very young, but while they napped and when my husband took over childcare duties, etc I finished my dissertation.
Accommodating two academic careers and raising children wasn’t easy– but we did it, largely because my spouse was very supportive. The extra salary was good (and we did use my first paycheck to go to Disney World), but for me working was just about much more than a paycheck. I enjoyed being with colleagues who had similar professional interests, felt I helped many students, and experienced feelings of accomplishment when my work was published. I believe my children benefitted from having two parents who were satisfied with their lives.
With regard to housing prices, why is it ok for high single earner household to have both a primary home and a vacation house? Doesn’t that family arrangement inflate housing pricing as much as the where two earners contribute to the total family income?
I suspect this is disintegrating into a rant, so I’ll just stop here!
I fear you have missed to point and are mounting an unnecessary defense.
The growth of more educated women such as yourself and the resulting desire for a fulfilling career are one of the drivers of two income families over the last several decades. That’s just a fact.
But my point is that the consequences of that change had a negative impact on middle and lower middle class families in that maintaining a newly desired lifestyle now requires two incomes. The choice has become more and more limited.
You’ve now implied in a couple of different replies to educated career women that it’s indirectly their fault that lower-income families have a tougher time in today’s economy. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but that’s how it reads to me.
I certainly read it that way. The implication is also that we should have stayed home raising kids. Sounds like the guy who told me to my face in a department meeting that I belonged at home at the kitchen sink. After he had to work with me for a few months he apologized, but really! I worked in a male-dominated industry, I was usually the only woman in meetings and departments, but in the UK the attitude was “she has to be good or she wouldn’t have the job”, while in the US it was “she only has the job because of Equal Rights legislation”. I’d like to think things have improved, but I’ve been out of the workforce for a while.
I do understand your point, and I believe you have confused correlation with causation. My career — and those of other women who pursued careers in the 1970s and after –were not the driver of massive consumption for the society that you posit. My husband and I live in the same house we bought when he was the sole earner; we have always been a one car family — even though I commuted 50 miles one way to work. We have never owned a luxury vehicle; our kids’ only experience of fast food was an occasional visit to McDonald’s after church, and then their food was limited to a package of small fries. We were both active volunteers in the kids’ schools. We ate dinner as a family EVERY night, and I cooked the food. We saved, and our main luxury was our children’s education.
The socio-economic problems that beset many families today are very serious. I don’t dispute that. But to assign responsibility for this situation to those women and men who chose to depart from stereotypical wife/husband roles in the latter decades of the 20th century is a gross oversimplification.
I really appreciate your replies here, Marilyn. I’m also an academic who raised children. It wasn’t easy, but to agree with what you said, I feel that my work has been purposeful, we didn’t neglect our kids, and we weren’t over-the-top consumers, either.
What makes you think that those families managed on one income in the first place? Having the wife (why is it almost always the wife) stay home was a mark of the upper middle class. And these days I gather there are a lot of single mothers having to manage on one income. If your happy little fantasy was ever common it was for a few people for a short time. If you read contemporary feminist literature you will find that while men might have liked it women generally did not.
It has.
Richard,
It’s probably a good idea to think about what you’ve written from the point of view of choices and values. It’s important for prospective parents to think about what they value more and value most.
When you bring a child into this world, you do it intentionally by your own affirmative choice. No one makes you do it. No one puts a gun to your head and says, “You must have children.” The key is to understand that spending time with your child is the best way to have the most influence on who that child will be.
Many expecting parents rely on family to help take care of the child That works well if your values align and the grandparents (or other family) have the time to dedicate to the most important job in the world.
We decided from the very beginning that altough my wife was very successful and climbing the ladder, that she would raise our children the way it had been done for thousands of years and had a proven track record. We knew it meant that we had to make tough choices about how to spend and save our money. It meant eating at home, getting a minivan, no vacations for a while, and many such tradeoffs. We had a high degree of confidence that it would pay off in the future, and it sure has.
I would say that even in the era of high housing costs, it’s important to understand that you can always rent. You don’t need a big house, you just need safe shelter in a safe area. When our kids were very young, we moved from Southern California to Washington State because our money went further and there was no state income tax. It’s just an example. You have to be smart and make choices that make the tradeoffs more palatable.
In any case, every situaiton is different, but in my experience and that of people I know, it’s generally the case that people try to “have it all” and you simply can’t do that in life. Something always has to give.
If you take these decisions as a choice about what’s the most important, everything drops away, and the choice becomes clear. If your career is deemed more important than raising your children yourself, then the results will align with that. Just be careful, as a career is relatively short, those kids are forever.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and putting yourself out there. Cheers.
Yes, you are right, there are choices and what you suggest is possible. I can relate to it all.
I suspect your point of view is in the minority though. Look around at the spending, borrowing saving and debt status of American families. It suggest seeking lifestyles beyond as you describe.
Actually it could feel forced to have a child these days.. not only due to societal influences, but legislation!
You’ve touched on an important issue that I fear is only going to get worse as childcare expenses continue to increase (although hybrid workweeks are helping to alleviate the problem somewhat).
I think the family norm that we grew up with may actually have been an anomaly. Until the 20th century, everyone in a family worked long hours as soon as they were old enough to do so. For example, farm families were large and women no doubt contributed just as much as men to the family’s financial situation. Many women also worked in clothing factories in the 19th centurey with childcare presumably provided by the grandparents.
As for the size of houses, those 1,000 square foot homes that we grew up in were enormous compared to the ones that many of our parents and grandparents lived in. Old family photos indicate that my grandparents were born in houses that were 200-300 sq ft at most.
Of course, our mothers worked hard, but technological advancements made housekeeping easier and the women’s movement facilitated the desire of many women to have rewarding careers.
That’s exactly my point. The movement of the 60s, and more educated women encouraged careers and dual income families and changed priorities for many women and families.
The result? More money to spend, more demand for bigger and better eventually making a two income family a necessity.
For many women I suspect it’s not a career they have, but a job they may not enjoy, but necessary.
The last sentence of my comment wasn’t the point I was making. Rather, it was that a two “income” family has been a necessity throughout most of human existence.
I don’t think so except for the agrarian societies. In the past women worked but often stopped or were forced to stop when married and some times when they became pregnant.
How long do you think agrarian societies existed? The Industrial Revolution didn’t get underway until the late 18th century in Britain, and later still in other countries, and even children worked in factories into the late 19th century. Humans started out as hunter-gatherers and the Agricultural/Neolithic Revolution started around 10,000 BCE. The two-parent-one-income period you are mourning lasted for a tiny fraction of human existence. And not everyone regrets its demise.
So, you do not see any validity in my point that the expansion of two income families from the 1960s on increased household spending and demand, subsequently raised prices in certain areas and thus gradually made two incomes more a necessity than a choice?
One thing appears clear, that newly acquired income was not used to save and invest but to increase lifestyle and for many families today to simply get by and hope the cost of child care does not exceed the net income generated.
In a word, no. The US is a consumer society, with demand driven by advertising and an economy that relies on increased consumption. I don’t disgree that the cost of child care is unaffordable for many, but that is true of two income as well as one income families and is properly addressed by government provision of child care (just like education) rather than by making wives do it for free.
You omit a very important factor: women who want to work. That would include me. It would have driven me nuts to have been stuck at home all day. Maybe there would be more one-income two-parent families if men were more willing to stay home.
Then, as noted below, women need to protect themselves in case something goes wrong with the marriage. According to a 2012 GAO report: “women’s household income, on average, fell by 41 percent with divorce, almost twice the size of the decline that men experienced” and the decline is worse for older women.
Having been both a stay at home mother and a working mother, I never felt stuck at home all day during the years I was at home . In addition to volunteering at school, coaching teams , there are other ways to use one’s professional training and education . You can, for example, serve as chair of the town finance committee , chair of library trustees, building committee etc. And once you decide to go back to work , you’ve gained a larger network.
You are absolutely right that women need to protect themselves and I see among my some of my married friends that they have no knowledge of money at all and worse , they don’t even want to know. My own case is different , as I have an MBA , and my husband and I have always operated as a team, as our parents also did.
In other words, you chose to do unpaid work rather than paid work. I’m an introvert, and paid work as a techie was a much better fit for me.
Exactly, a team, a full partnership.
Want to or have to work? Does that change the overall impact of a family having more to spend and driving up prices through demand over several decades.
I make no judgement about working other than we seem to have made it a necessity for some who have other priorities and do not have that goal.
Want. Maybe you haven’t noticed that more women than men are getting degrees these days. Don’t you think they want to use that knowledge? What makes you think women want to stay home not fully using their brains and education when men don’t?
I think I should point out also sixty-two percent of Americans over 25 have no bachelor’s degree, and that number rises to 72 percent for Black adults and 79 percent for Hispanic adults. To me, if my position is correct, that means the economic pressure on families falls on minorities disproportionately.
I never said that. Work, use one’s knowledge and skills, put a career above other things- so be it, but there are consequences.
Two income families have more to spend and do so, two income families with children face their own challenges with an impact on the children in some cases.
My point in all this is that the social changes have eliminated the choice for many women of working or not or putting children in day care or not.
As parkslope pointed out above, it was an anomaly for women not to work. During the early Industrial Revolution in the UK they worked in factories, but before that they worked at home, the factories replaced cottage industries employing women as spinners and weavers. Many other women worked as domestic servants or on farms.
I don’t know why it is so hard for you to accept that women may want to work. If you didn’t want to work why didn’t you stay home while your wife worked?
Interesting article, Dick, one that touches so many big trends in our society. There are so many drivers that pushed and pulled women into the workforce in the 20th century—increased taxes, a big war that required workers at home, popular denigration of the woman’s traditional role and the desire for more, to name a few. Regarding the last, we don’t seem to be satisfied with sufficient—we are gluttons. With more money, we buy more than we need, eat more than we need, never satisfied.
You didn’t mention one possible driver, the positive trait of women stepping in to take up the slack for men too distracted by leisure activities to take care of family. That would start one of my favorite rants.
By the way, my wife doesn’t think you wrote a rant—she thinks you showed restraint.
Your wife is right. I had to revise this many times because I lost control. Many years ago I was at a conference and a speaker was taking about the changing demographics and families in America. After she spoke I went to her and explained my theory. She said they hadn’t study that implication, but I probably had a point. Who knew?
This is a subject that has much more than financial implications. I have 2 female friends who worked little or not at all while the kids were little. Now the marriages are in trouble and the wife wishes she had a better career and more money in her name. (As well as the confidence that comes with a successful career). Dependence on another person seems so romantic… but things happen. Oh, and we also might need our own retirement savings too!
Of course you are right this type of thing happens – all too often. I’ve seen it in my own family. It is a sad commentary on personal responsibility (in this case by the working partner) even marriage I guess.
I honestly can’t relate to a career coming before raising children, but no one should have to worry about being dependent on another person they can’t trust implicitly.
With a first marriage divorce rates of 35-50% it seems a real problem that a one working spouse family can’t still mean equal in everything with equal value in the marriage created by both parties.
In my naive old fashioned world the working person in a marriage has the responsibility to assure the other party is always protected financially from any event – retirement, death, divorce. It is a partnership after all.
Why do you keep differentiating by referring to yourself as the working person, when in fact you were the finacially compensated one. Your wife did work by doing work you say is important, but seem to downplay her contribution in your words.
In an ideal world a lot of things might be different, but it is dangerous to act as if you lived in such a world.
There have been at least five down votes on this post, but no explanation. Do the down-voters suffer from the illusion that they live in an ideal world, or do they just object to having the illusion exposed? Or do they think women should act as if they could rely on their husbands for their entire lifetimes even though many find this to have been a singularly bad bet?