If.. uhh… society wasn’t so capitalistically expensive as to require the entire household’s adults to work, a lot of these logistical concerns would work out. Resulting in smarter and healthier children.
But: smart and healthy children demand wages as adults that cut into shareholder profits…
Both parents work because prices adjust to demand.
That is, if both parents work, prices can rise because demand rises (remember demand is the desire to buy, but also the ability to pay). When prices rise, this puts an even greater pressure on single income families. ie: their single income has to be stretched father because they are competing with two income demand. This is economics 101.
While two incomes increases the spending abilities of the household relative to single income households, it comes with the additional instability of the household depending on both incomes (perhaps they purchase a larger home that requires both incomes to support) while exposing the household to the increased risk of either one of them being fired or laid off.
This is a well-studied phenomenon beyond the interpretation that "work is fulfilling."
Nah. This sounds plausible, but it flunks an obvious empirical check: families where one earner brings in all the meaningful income and the other earner makes barely enough more to pay for the child care costs their work incurs. I know a bunch of families like this. Surely some parents work because they have to, but it's also obvious that many other parents work because that's what they need to do to lead a fulfilling life.
As someone who has been a caregiver for school-aged kids (mine are adults now): just what is it that you'd expect a stay-at-home parent to do once all the kids are in K-12 school? The kids are gone for most of the day.
I'm not arguing that all families make the decision to become dual-income households. I'm arguing that there are major economic incentives that push people toward dual-income. This allows for your experience and the observation of counter-examples to co-exist with broad social shifts in family-work structure. The reason it appears true is because it is.
You don't have to accept my word for it.
The other possibility is reading what economists have to say[1] about the effects of inflationary pressures on household income structures. Sorry, but I'm going to put more trust in an expert than someone with anecdotal evidence.
> If.. uhh… society wasn’t so capitalistically expensive as to require the entire household’s adults to work
It is a tragedy of the commons problem. As soon as the other spouse starts working, the family has more money, but once every family thinks to have both partners working, sellers will catch on and increase their prices, bringing you back to the initial problem but now with one fewer spouse at home. It's not a capitalism problem, it's a general markets problem.
Not sure what you mean exactly. It's already happened currently where a lot of areas require both parents to work to have good living standards, which wasn't the case before widespread dual incomes.
That's a coincidence. It's because the US realized they could drive up home values by banning new homes in the 60s and the effects took a while to create a housing shortage.
But: smart and healthy children demand wages as adults that cut into shareholder profits…