Fantastic and thought provoking essay essay. Two thoughts come to mind: Economics aside, I don't know why normal people are supportive of programs meant to make it easier to have two-income households, ~instead~ of programs that would make it easier to live on one income. I suspect people just can't fathom the idea of one income any more — even though everyone seems to hate their jobs. imo the target or goal should be a world where one income is viable, even if we're not at currently there.
The other thought is that Goldin's work seems quite interesting. But the prioritization of the managerial class completely omits an alternative elite pathway, which is means-of-production ownership (ownership of businesses, people who own real estate, etc etc etc). I'm someone on the managerial class ladder, but the more time that goes by the more I'm convinced that is the inferior pathway.
It’s a really interesting point about owning the means of production. The upfront costs of that are high, but it is interesting that so many fewer people do it today … even though it is often a more reliable path to financial stability that a lot of other jobs. I don’t know … I can’t even guess … why that’s the case.
An incredible quote from that Forbes article! Sure, 7 more million women *could* enter the workforce, increasing GDP...but at what cost? Do those women even have a desire to enter the workforce? What would the (non-monetary) costs be for them to work?
I would be less irked by that line of thinking if it weren't so widespread ... it is a very real and serious obstacle to getting policymakers to support stay-at-home parents!
Love this article! Thank you for making this important issue so clear! As Shannon mentioned above, the Forbes quote shares that "7 million more women *could* enter the workforce".
I"m curious what the number of women currently *in* the work force (including both paired and single mothers) that would stay home with their kids if they could make it work financially and if the risks were mitigated.
I think many women innately want to be with their children but there is a cultural flow towards signing that maternity leave document saying you'll be back in three months and having picked out and signed up for the daycare while pregnant, everything is set. It's easiest to go with the flow. My sister took six months off after the birth of her child was passed over for a promotion and it was given to another woman with a quarter of her experience who left on maternity leave the day the promotion was announced. When my sister asked about it, she was told, "well you haven't been around for six months" and she pointed out that the promoted woman had left on maternity leave that day and the (male) boss, said "well she has given every indication that she is going to come back at the *standard* three months". As if there is some magic about three months (other than that's when the state supported job protection runs out) that makes it appropriate to leave your baby.
That is so awful that you sister encountered that kind of discrimination! You would think a sensible employer would realize that the difference between 3 months and 6 months is trivial if we are talking about retaining an excellent worker!
Very thoughtful piece! I think the current approach to solving our lack of workers is very narrow - just push more women into the workforce! And also ignores another significant issue, which is our extremely low birth rates. Pushing more women into the workplace will make that worse. Neither of these issues will be solved until we, as a society, learn to value the work of caregivers and stay-at-home parents, who do truly provide a critical and essential service to society as a whole! As religion continues to fade from public life, the value historically placed on home making is also fading, but the reasons for valuing the work done by homemakers are far from exclusively religious. I hope we can find a way to strike a balance between supporting women who work outside the home, and recognizing the deep value brought to society by those who choose not to. I confess, the attitudes that seem prevalent, at least online, make this seem unlikely, which is discouraging.
Terrific piece, and very relatable. As a doctor and lawyer couple, my husband and I had to make choices about who would choose the “greedy” vs “flexible” track in our careers. The only couples we know who both opted for “greedy” careers have a TON of (paid) help in the home.
A premise here is that the men have the greedy jobs. Why not the reverse? Women take the greedy jobs and men support them by managing the home front (to use the blog title). There will always be inequality. It doesn't have to map onto gender.
With white collar jobs, I think that’s absolutely true - those jobs are interchangeable between men and women (and mothers and fathers). With blue collar jobs with significant travel and physical demands, it is not as easy. You cannot make pregnancy appointments if you are away for six months on a shipping vessel. Most pregnant and postpartum women are not going to want to work in cherry pickers repairing electrical lines four states away from home for weeks at a time (as traveling linemen do in response to major natural disasters). It would mean, for example, that you can’t breastfeed baby, or see baby for weeks. I don’t see that as discrimination: just recognizing the reality of people’s physical limitations and desires. The end goal … in my opinion … is that families, moms, and dads are happy with the choices they have.
I really like this article - thanks! It's interesting that you mention military careers specifically as "greedy jobs," because the military has invested a lot in benefits for families, including subsidized childcare. Military-style benefits for all families would be great!
I’m glad you like it! I don’t think military-style family benefits for all are likely in the near future for many pragmatic reasons. But I really appreciate their understanding that supporting service member’s families is mission-critical!
I've always found it interesting how multi-generational households (like Indian households maintain) aren't discussed in these conversations. In my experience: that's a game changer for both spouses having greedy jobs. It's like doing life with cheat codes.
Multi-generational households are great, but I’m not sure they are an all purpose solution in the U.S. They don’t work well if the older generation has serious health issues, has a bunch of kids, or is taking care of grandkids because of addiction issues (sadly common in some communities). That said, they’re fantastic for the families that make them work!
Fantastic and thought provoking essay essay. Two thoughts come to mind: Economics aside, I don't know why normal people are supportive of programs meant to make it easier to have two-income households, ~instead~ of programs that would make it easier to live on one income. I suspect people just can't fathom the idea of one income any more — even though everyone seems to hate their jobs. imo the target or goal should be a world where one income is viable, even if we're not at currently there.
The other thought is that Goldin's work seems quite interesting. But the prioritization of the managerial class completely omits an alternative elite pathway, which is means-of-production ownership (ownership of businesses, people who own real estate, etc etc etc). I'm someone on the managerial class ladder, but the more time that goes by the more I'm convinced that is the inferior pathway.
It’s a really interesting point about owning the means of production. The upfront costs of that are high, but it is interesting that so many fewer people do it today … even though it is often a more reliable path to financial stability that a lot of other jobs. I don’t know … I can’t even guess … why that’s the case.
*upvoting this comment*
An incredible quote from that Forbes article! Sure, 7 more million women *could* enter the workforce, increasing GDP...but at what cost? Do those women even have a desire to enter the workforce? What would the (non-monetary) costs be for them to work?
I would be less irked by that line of thinking if it weren't so widespread ... it is a very real and serious obstacle to getting policymakers to support stay-at-home parents!
Love this article! Thank you for making this important issue so clear! As Shannon mentioned above, the Forbes quote shares that "7 million more women *could* enter the workforce".
I"m curious what the number of women currently *in* the work force (including both paired and single mothers) that would stay home with their kids if they could make it work financially and if the risks were mitigated.
I think many women innately want to be with their children but there is a cultural flow towards signing that maternity leave document saying you'll be back in three months and having picked out and signed up for the daycare while pregnant, everything is set. It's easiest to go with the flow. My sister took six months off after the birth of her child was passed over for a promotion and it was given to another woman with a quarter of her experience who left on maternity leave the day the promotion was announced. When my sister asked about it, she was told, "well you haven't been around for six months" and she pointed out that the promoted woman had left on maternity leave that day and the (male) boss, said "well she has given every indication that she is going to come back at the *standard* three months". As if there is some magic about three months (other than that's when the state supported job protection runs out) that makes it appropriate to leave your baby.
That is so awful that you sister encountered that kind of discrimination! You would think a sensible employer would realize that the difference between 3 months and 6 months is trivial if we are talking about retaining an excellent worker!
Very thoughtful piece! I think the current approach to solving our lack of workers is very narrow - just push more women into the workforce! And also ignores another significant issue, which is our extremely low birth rates. Pushing more women into the workplace will make that worse. Neither of these issues will be solved until we, as a society, learn to value the work of caregivers and stay-at-home parents, who do truly provide a critical and essential service to society as a whole! As religion continues to fade from public life, the value historically placed on home making is also fading, but the reasons for valuing the work done by homemakers are far from exclusively religious. I hope we can find a way to strike a balance between supporting women who work outside the home, and recognizing the deep value brought to society by those who choose not to. I confess, the attitudes that seem prevalent, at least online, make this seem unlikely, which is discouraging.
I too hope we can understand how socially useful homemaking is, even in a “post religious” society.
We need look no further than Hungary since 2010 and the success of their life-long family support policies that include tax reductions for families, including a full exemption for families with four children, and housing subsidies. It may not be a perfect model for the US, but it seems to work. We are in the same place now that Hungary was in when Orban's government took office in 2010, with a declining birthrate below replacement. https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/culture_society/hungarian-family-policy_children_marriage_maria-kopp-institute_family-friendly-government_fertility/
Thank you to sharing the paper!
Terrific piece, and very relatable. As a doctor and lawyer couple, my husband and I had to make choices about who would choose the “greedy” vs “flexible” track in our careers. The only couples we know who both opted for “greedy” careers have a TON of (paid) help in the home.
Yes, having to hire both a daytime nanny and a nighttime nanny seems very challenging to me, although people do make it work!
A premise here is that the men have the greedy jobs. Why not the reverse? Women take the greedy jobs and men support them by managing the home front (to use the blog title). There will always be inequality. It doesn't have to map onto gender.
With white collar jobs, I think that’s absolutely true - those jobs are interchangeable between men and women (and mothers and fathers). With blue collar jobs with significant travel and physical demands, it is not as easy. You cannot make pregnancy appointments if you are away for six months on a shipping vessel. Most pregnant and postpartum women are not going to want to work in cherry pickers repairing electrical lines four states away from home for weeks at a time (as traveling linemen do in response to major natural disasters). It would mean, for example, that you can’t breastfeed baby, or see baby for weeks. I don’t see that as discrimination: just recognizing the reality of people’s physical limitations and desires. The end goal … in my opinion … is that families, moms, and dads are happy with the choices they have.
I really like this article - thanks! It's interesting that you mention military careers specifically as "greedy jobs," because the military has invested a lot in benefits for families, including subsidized childcare. Military-style benefits for all families would be great!
I’m glad you like it! I don’t think military-style family benefits for all are likely in the near future for many pragmatic reasons. But I really appreciate their understanding that supporting service member’s families is mission-critical!
American guy with a Punjabi wife.
I've always found it interesting how multi-generational households (like Indian households maintain) aren't discussed in these conversations. In my experience: that's a game changer for both spouses having greedy jobs. It's like doing life with cheat codes.
Multi-generational households are great, but I’m not sure they are an all purpose solution in the U.S. They don’t work well if the older generation has serious health issues, has a bunch of kids, or is taking care of grandkids because of addiction issues (sadly common in some communities). That said, they’re fantastic for the families that make them work!