Hacker News Reader

Comment by droopyEyelids | Hacker News Reader

Agreed, and to the parent comment's point, I believe the studies that prove this have already been done, it's just that they study the material effects of poverty in america, so they're more specific than 'poverty'

Kids have more behavior problems and remember things poorly when they're hungry.

Kids that don't have a stable housing situation struggle to focus in school.

Kids with untreated medical problems struggle to focus in school.

Kids with absent parents (like a parent that tries to work multiple jobs) struggle in school

Kids with parents in unstable relationships (poverty screws up relationships and forces people into suboptimal relationships to combine resources) do poorly in school and are more susceptible to abuse

Kids that are the victim of abuse struggle to focus in school.

View on HN

Seems that the biggest problem all relates to an unstable family life.

Hey you guys remember when in the 80s we convinced all the women that it would be empowering and freeing to start slaving away as a corporate drone and that would be the best life for them, that kids didn't need 2 parents at home?

Isn't it great how that panned out.

EDIT

To be clear I'm not saying women shouldn't be in the workforce, but the fact of the matter is that at some point they convinced us all we had to have 2 parents working and that's when things went to hell. It was great for a little bit while everyone was making a bit of extra cash, but basically what happened was the supply of labor doubled, and when supply goes up...

sure everything would be rosy if women just spent their time breastfeeding somewhere near the sink or cooker.

I don't think you understand: poor women have never been able to afford to be a stay at home mother. Stay at home motherhood has always been a middle class and above lifestyle. Wealthier women employ the nannies and maids that are obviously overwhelmingly women who aren't at home.

I wouldn't attribute a lack of home stability to women empowerment. A lack of home stability is often caused by poverty. A poor mother cannot afford not to work, cannot afford suitable environments to raise her children while she works, and must make difficult decisions regarding proper nourishment/safe place to sleep/access to utilities/physical presence.

Historically poor, married women did tend to stay at home, but frequently worked from the home sewing, washing, small scale manufacturing etc… The Industrial Revolution reduced the value of that kind of work though.

Until near the middle of the century running a household of as too time intensive for most women to go off to work.

Nannies and maids were generally unmarried, childless women.

I’m the early 20th century only 5% of married women worked outside the home in the US https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-history-of-womens-wor...

Also only about 7% of children lived with single mothers in 1900.

You're not looking back far enough historically.

We've fallen prey to the philosophy that being at home with kids isn't adding value to society. You should be out making some big corporation wealthy!

> I'm not saying women shouldn't be in the workforce

Whether you intended to or not, it is exactly what you were saying.

"Women shouldn't be in the workforce" is a statement with ambiguous and even opposite meanings (with regard to why), so I think GP's intent is probably better captured by a statement like "raising children and maintaining the home is more important, more impactful, and more fulfilling work than almost all work outside the home".

When my daughter was born, a coworker asked if I hope she'll be a programmer one day, and my answer was that I hope not; I want her to be able to stay at home like her mother, and if she can't and has to work some corporate job, that means I will have somehow failed her. If she wants a job like mine, then again I will have probably failed her somehow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com