Except that they’re not earning twice as much. This also fails to consider the uncounted domestic labor that previously was completed by a stay at home spouse, but still needs to be completed/paid for.

Starting families was never limited by women not working. If anything, women not working (outside the home) makes it easiest to start families, since adult supervision’s time is the most expensive part of raising young children, and if one adult in a family is not working then they have no opportunity cost for raising the kids.

Part of the story is that doubling the size of the workforce does depress wages; and it does cause inflation on assets that do not see an increase in production with an increase in workforce size (such as land).

The other issue is that "women entering the workforce" is not really an accurate description of what is going on. Women have been entering the formal workforce. This means that family now need to pay for what was once done for free by the wife. The most significant expense here is childcare (the cost of which is often cited as a major barrier to women "entering" the workforce); however there are all sorts of little expenses that could be avoid at the cost of additional time, so not heaving an unpaid homemaker increases your living costs in a bunch of little ways.

Owning property, like rental property is not free money. Loan interest, property taxes, landscaping, and cleaning up after tenants. The maintenance expenses are constant. Due to the number and the declining standards of very many things put into houses now. Fixing things approaches a part time job.

> It should be easier to start families because families earn twice as much.

In practice, it doesn't translate to immediately doubling the effective income. You hear many accounts of people whom their father was working a single job in a gas station, yet they afforded a house and car and other amenities. Today that doesn't happen anymore. Furthermore, the children will suffer when both parents are working.

> It should be easier to start families because families earn twice as much.

This is only true for DINKs, families with access to free childcare, or families in which both parents work schedules that can be arranged to make childcare possible, such as having non-overlapping workdays.

The cost of child care where I live in MD is slightly greater than my wife's maximum post-tax earning potential, so we've chosen for her to stay home with the children.

Moving back near family in NJ for the free childcare would reduce my income enough to negate any extra earned income from my wife working.

Not necessarily, is selling your body on prostitution websites more freedom? I think not. It's known what women face in a secular captialism-first economy.