creature comforts, social status, personal safety, and time with friends and family.
The men in question worked hard because they really wanted to have families of their own, they are now less likely to have them and aren’t working as hard. This isn’t a story of men kicking back and relaxing because their preferences changed, this is a story of men not being able to get what they want with hard work anymore.
This. My impression is that a hard-working person can no longer expect income that supports a family. (I must admit that I have not researched what percentage of working men earn sufficiently much for that now vs. in the past, though.)
[edited to eliminate some unclarity, partly due to my confusing something, but preserving the main statement]
But one of the reasons why it used to be possible for one person to support a family but no longer is is that our standards for what “support a family” means have risen (see also).
If you’re willing to be frugal (e.g. spend on yourselves as little as Julia Wise and Jeff Kaufman do) it isn’t actually that hard to live on one income in the First World.
But one of the reasons why it used to be possible for one person to support a family but no longer is is that our standards for what “support a family” means have risen (see also).
That may well be so. Why does this sentence start with “but”, though?
If you’re willing to be frugal (e.g. spend on yourselves as little as Julia Wise and Jeff Kaufman do) it isn’t actually that hard to live on one income in the First World.
Signaling that you expect your mate to be frugal might not be a widely applicable strategy for attracting one, though…
But one of the reasons why it used to be possible for one person to support a family but no longer is is that our standards for what “support a family” means have risen (see also).
That may well be so. Why does this sentence start with “but”, though?
If you’re willing to be frugal (e.g. spend on yourselves as little as Julia Wise and Jeff Kaufman do) it isn’t actually that hard to live on one income in the First World.
Signaling that you expect your mate to be frugal might not be a widely applicable strategy for attracting one, though…
It may be true for you. I doubt it’s true for me. And most importantly, I doubt it’s true for the average male. Hence not much of a surprise that people aren’t going around signaling frugality and trying to support a family with one earner on a relatively low income.
Signaling that you expect your mate to be frugal might not be a widely applicable strategy for attracting one, though…
Search this post for “Attractiveness: Mean and Variance”. (That’s even more relevant for potential marriage partners than for casual sex. Also, what matters is not how many people are attracted to you, but how many people whom you’re attracted to are attracted to you.)
The men in question worked hard because they really wanted to have families of their own
Why would I rather work for money (hereafter “work”) 2n hours a week and marry someone who doesn’t work at all than work n hours a week and marry someone who works n hours a week (assuming the former is what you mean by “have families of their own”)? I don’t get it.
But I am also working n hours less in the second scenario, so I can also spend n more hours raising children. Sure, there are things I cannot do (e.g. breastfeeding), but that’s what maternity leaves are for.
That is the reason the 2n/0 model is still sensible if you are raising more than 2 kids and/or consider raising the kids yourself (mainly by the /0 partner) has a higher value (e.g. by unavailable of comparable education) than the income you could earn in the time the children by school/kindergarten. This may depend on your country/views.
You are presupposing that you get to marry someone in either case, which kind of defeats the point. Well, one could still talk about the attractiveness of 0-hour working vs. n-hour working mates, but that’s not as intuitively forceful.
So the choice that you’re suggesting is probably not one that people ever actually face(d) frequently.
Well, one could still talk about the attractiveness of 0-hour working vs. n-hour working mates, but that’s not as intuitively forceful.
I, for one, am more attracted to the latter (and indeed my partner makes more money than myself), but I know that there exist men who are more attracted to the former. (Attractiveness is a two-place word.)
Yes, but when we’re talking about a broad societal phenomenon, we need generalisations. And I would think that some decades ago, the average male found the wife they could expect to get with a 2n/0 arrangement, weighed by the probability of her existence, more attractive. Also, bogus below is quite right to point out that the 2n/0 arrangement used to give you higher social status.
As for today, I’m not sure. My impression is that the 2n/0 option is plainly unavailable for many people. And indeed, the meaning of a woman not working has changed, which may influence the attractiveness equation (including for the average male).
Economies of scale come into play here too. If you can get to the point where 2n is a typical job, then having two part-time jobs is likely to not offer as many benefits or long term opportunities as a single full time job. Even if n is a full time job, depending on the job, having one person work massive amounts of hours is probably better for long term promotion potential than two people putting in the bare minimum and constantly having to take time off to take care of children.
Also, as others have noted, a stay-at-home parent is not someone who “doesn’t work at all.” Most stay-at-home parents tend to be responsible for raising children, cleaning, money management, shopping, general home repair, and a host of other things that if you outsourced so that the partner could traditionally work, could potentially cost more than the partner’s earnings.
Why would I rather work for money (hereafter “work”) 2n hours a week and marry someone who doesn’t work at all than work n hours a week and marry someone who works n hours a week …? I don’t get it.
Being able to support a minion^H^H^H^H^H^Hnon-working partner is a source of social status. At least, that used to be a widely-shared perception, back when this kind of thing was more common.
The men in question worked hard because they really wanted to have families of their own, they are now less likely to have them and aren’t working as hard. This isn’t a story of men kicking back and relaxing because their preferences changed, this is a story of men not being able to get what they want with hard work anymore.
This. My impression is that a hard-working person can no longer expect income that supports a family. (I must admit that I have not researched what percentage of working men earn sufficiently much for that now vs. in the past, though.)
[edited to eliminate some unclarity, partly due to my confusing something, but preserving the main statement]
But one of the reasons why it used to be possible for one person to support a family but no longer is is that our standards for what “support a family” means have risen (see also).
If you’re willing to be frugal (e.g. spend on yourselves as little as Julia Wise and Jeff Kaufman do) it isn’t actually that hard to live on one income in the First World.
That and that when the supply of labor increases, the demand will go down.
That may well be so. Why does this sentence start with “but”, though?
Signaling that you expect your mate to be frugal might not be a widely applicable strategy for attracting one, though…
That may well be so. Why does this sentence start with “but”, though?
Signaling that you expect your mate to be frugal might not be a widely applicable strategy for attracting one, though…
If you’re frugal yourself, it might be a signal you want to send if you want to improve the odds of a mate who won’t drive you crazy.
It may be true for you. I doubt it’s true for me. And most importantly, I doubt it’s true for the average male. Hence not much of a surprise that people aren’t going around signaling frugality and trying to support a family with one earner on a relatively low income.
The average ;male isn’t frugal, either.
It’s like any other unusual trait which works best with a cooperating partner.
Search this post for “Attractiveness: Mean and Variance”. (That’s even more relevant for potential marriage partners than for casual sex. Also, what matters is not how many people are attracted to you, but how many people whom you’re attracted to are attracted to you.)
(You posted the same comment twice; you might want to delete the other copy.)
Why would I rather work for money (hereafter “work”) 2n hours a week and marry someone who doesn’t work at all than work n hours a week and marry someone who works n hours a week (assuming the former is what you mean by “have families of their own”)? I don’t get it.
Because the n hours your wife is working is n hours not spent raising children.
But I am also working n hours less in the second scenario, so I can also spend n more hours raising children. Sure, there are things I cannot do (e.g. breastfeeding), but that’s what maternity leaves are for.
Comparative Advantage.
The data don’t seem to support the theory.
I can’t access a lot of those papers unfortunately. Anyone have PDFs of them?
That is the reason the 2n/0 model is still sensible if you are raising more than 2 kids and/or consider raising the kids yourself (mainly by the /0 partner) has a higher value (e.g. by unavailable of comparable education) than the income you could earn in the time the children by school/kindergarten. This may depend on your country/views.
You are presupposing that you get to marry someone in either case, which kind of defeats the point. Well, one could still talk about the attractiveness of 0-hour working vs. n-hour working mates, but that’s not as intuitively forceful.
So the choice that you’re suggesting is probably not one that people ever actually face(d) frequently.
I, for one, am more attracted to the latter (and indeed my partner makes more money than myself), but I know that there exist men who are more attracted to the former. (Attractiveness is a two-place word.)
Yes, but when we’re talking about a broad societal phenomenon, we need generalisations. And I would think that some decades ago, the average male found the wife they could expect to get with a 2n/0 arrangement, weighed by the probability of her existence, more attractive. Also, bogus below is quite right to point out that the 2n/0 arrangement used to give you higher social status.
As for today, I’m not sure. My impression is that the 2n/0 option is plainly unavailable for many people. And indeed, the meaning of a woman not working has changed, which may influence the attractiveness equation (including for the average male).
Economies of scale come into play here too. If you can get to the point where 2n is a typical job, then having two part-time jobs is likely to not offer as many benefits or long term opportunities as a single full time job. Even if n is a full time job, depending on the job, having one person work massive amounts of hours is probably better for long term promotion potential than two people putting in the bare minimum and constantly having to take time off to take care of children.
Also, as others have noted, a stay-at-home parent is not someone who “doesn’t work at all.” Most stay-at-home parents tend to be responsible for raising children, cleaning, money management, shopping, general home repair, and a host of other things that if you outsourced so that the partner could traditionally work, could potentially cost more than the partner’s earnings.
Being able to support a minion^H^H^H^H^H^Hnon-working partner is a source of social status. At least, that used to be a widely-shared perception, back when this kind of thing was more common.
Is it worth working twice as hard?
I guess it also depends on what your wife does in those n hours. (See also this, a couple clicks from Dalrock’s post.)