No, I'm saying I suspect, decades ago when women started working more, they were mostly in roles that paid relatively little. So the family used that money for extras like vacations or going out to eat more often than they otherwise would. It was extra, but it wasn't money they really counted on. Today, families base decisions with the assumption of two very equal, high incomes. The house, cars, and other mostly fixed costs need both incomes or things start collapsing.
I may be making all of up, I don't really have any hard data. But I think it makes some sense?
No, I don't think the first women who began working and breaking society's norms were doing it for extra spending cash: Rather, our society experienced a number of events that led to the acceptance of women working outside the home. We didn't go from essentially all women at home to -- boom! -- most women work:
Poor women have always "taken in" work -- laundry and sewing being the prime examples, but during WWII women began to work in factories in jobs that had been "traditionally male" and they began to mimic male work patterns; that is, leaving the house rather than doing the sewing with the children at their feet. And the world didn't end, so society knew women COULD work outside the home.
Then came the social and sexual revolutions of the 1960s, and women wanted to work simply because it was their right to do so. And at that same time, various things appeared to make it possible for women to work and still take care of their families: Day care centers, fast food, frozen foods that actually tasted okay, affordable store-bought clothes. Add to that the idea that divorce became socially acceptable -- in part because women could take care of themselves and weren't forced to be dependent upon a man.
Then in the 1970s inflation hurt everyone, and people began to see that money as necessary. Also we as a society experienced "lifestyle creep" -- houses increased in size, two cars and multiple TV sets became an expectation, eating out and vacations became more common. And this is when we as a society began to pick up the idea that "you're always going to have debt" -- not that it was pervasive yet.
Well, considering that about 30% of families are headed by single parents (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/the-mysterious-and-alarming-rise-of-single-parenthood-in-america/279203/), I don't think saying "families today base decisions with the assumption of two very equal, high incomes" is a fair blanket statement to make. I do agree that consuming is out of control; I just think that blaming it on women entering the workforce and starting to earn fair wages is a scapegoat that doesn't explain the current consumption levels.
Good point, but I'd counter with two thoughts:
- Many of those one-parent households are receiving child support from a parent who doesn't live in the household; thus, the single parent isn't necessarily doing it alone.
- If I were to read that article, I'm 100% sure that it'd make the point that children raised in single parent households are much more likely to be raised in poverty.
I just read it recently; that's the basis for my previous posts. That book specifically says that families started using their additional income to buy houses in better public school districts. Unless I completely missed the point of what the authors were saying? Healthcare and education have played a role too of course. I thought the book touched on all 3?
I read that book about a hundred years ago, but I think the disagreement here is that some people would say that moving to a better public school district is a NECESSITY because it is better for the children's future, while others would say it's a LUXURY because the family could have continued to live in the old, less expensive neighborhood. And the argument could be extended for many aspects of life: Are vacations necessary? Is saving for college necessary? Etc., etc., etc. So if a woman is working because she wants to provide her kids with braces, summer camp, and nicer clothes, is that necessary or luxury? People would disagree.