Hacker News Reader

Comment by dominotw | Hacker News Reader

I know lots of my friends have families where single income would sustain them but both husband and wife go to work.

We have stigmatized staying at home and raising children as a society.

I'd say is a net positive for society that women nowadays are more financially independent compared to the 1960s-1970s. Consider it this way, you're a stay-at-home mom who has decided to focus on her kids in her later 20s, and then you're 40 and divorce happens.

In the happy case your ex-husband and father to your kids still pays for their education and food and relared stuff, but what about you and your own financial needs? Now that you've been out of the work-force for 10+ years you're basically unemployable.

> then you're 40 and divorce happens

Magic happens here?

> what about you and your own financial needs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony

Regardless, there is a sneaky equivocation of women in the workplace & two-income households. Obviously women, as fellow humans, do and should have the choice to work outside the home if they want. But IMO one parent should stay home. Is it any surprise that it takes the salary of two people to buy an average house? Things just get more expensive to take advantage of the increased income, and the net result is we spend more time working. Not a net positive.

???

Those are net positives for divorcing males and females. Which is what it should be. Why should "society" be benefiting???

I think the real issue here... is that we want "society" to benefit from interpersonal relationships. A benefit to "society" is fine if it happens, and sometimes it might happen, but mostly it won't. And that's OK... I don't believe benefiting "society" should be the goal of interpersonal relationships.

I would think that the best solution is both parents work 20-25 hours per week. Less money spent on child care, more time spent with children, spreads the burden of both work and raising children across both parents, and quite frankly would make life more interesting. I'd definitely prefer working less and spending more time with my kids if I had them.

Well, in those days you couldn't be divorced that easily, so it was more viable to be a stay-at-home mum.

California was the first U.S. state to adopt what are now called 'no-fault' divorces in the United States in 1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

I agree. If you have more than one child, one parent's salary will go directly and entirely to pay for child care. It's also likely that one parent will need to work fewer hours and be available to drop off / pick up / emergency pick up the kids at day care -- which means at least one parent will need to be partially not working or at least not advancing in his/her career.

However, raising kids is very difficult and emotionally draining. Personally, I feel parental involvement is much more important than whatever might have been called a middle class lifestyle.

Who is this "we" ? People without kids?

Society, in general.

This is perhaps one of my favorite Bittman quotes. I can't remember it verbatim, but it was essentially lamenting how we have devalued working in your own home. In his case, he was referring to cooking, but I feel the overall point is rather relevant.

"We" is not a who, but rather a "what" - namely, a useful indication of poor thinking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com