• beatle@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    So now you’re attempting to strawman this into a gender issue and people not being allowed to work?

    One income per household should be enough. We didn’t get a good deal on dual income. Things are arguably harder now for the middle class.

    I’ve no interest in the genders or sexual preferences of households, just that it is financially viable for only one of them to work. This is no longer the case, and trying to sell it as equality is believing the lie.

    • Mountaineer@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot of your language implies you think this was a chosen path.
      We didn’t get offered any of this.
      We’ve drifted here over decades, through a variety of economic factors.

      Double income households becoming common was a large player in making them necessary.

      And I haven’t heard how you’d change that.

      The inflation that means one income is no longer enough would have to be addressed in some way, probably with a massive devaluation of housing.

      • beatle@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        My point has always been that as human beings we should demand more of our government and more from our society. We should be striving for a society where one person in a household working is enough to own a home and bring up children if they choose.

        We have a limited number of years on this planet and working harder for longer, and having our parents working harder for longer doesn’t seem like an optimal way to spent them.

        Yeah the idea is aspirational, I argue we need to be. The focus should be on improving our quality of life and not on more ways to enable more of our family members to work more and see each other less just so we can raise the average house value to 2 million.

    • Echinoderm@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see a strawman there. You seem to be assuming that women were originally forced to start working because suddenly dual incomes became necessary. In reality many women and men prefer the satisfaction of being able to exercise skills and perform work beyond housekeeping. Saying one income should be enough ignores the fact that in many couples, neither partner wants to have no career.

      If nothing else, it’s not pragmatic to be the one that doesn’t work. Divorce or the death of a spouse can happen. If a person who never worked is suddenly left to fend for themselves, they find themselves in a job market with no experience or job history.

      Once you have both people in a household wanting to work, and the resulting higher spending capacity of double incomes, inflation starts to take effect and drag everyone else along.

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It can also be two people working half the time instead of full time. I would love to work only 18-20 hours a week to keep something productive in my life where results matter and do whatever else I want for the rest of the hours.

        World Wars brought women to the workforce which is a great thing.

        The capitalism system from the 70s onward brought the shitty situation we are in right now where both partner must work to even be able to afford a place to live and a little bit of variety in the food they eat. The difference here is that the choice was removed.