I often consider myself lucky that my father-in-law did the cooking and cleaning in my husband’s childhood home. Consequently, The assumptions we entered into marriage with were much less hostile to equity. And yet we still have to work at balance every day.
I recently read some fascinating academic lit from Sweden on how au pairs and nannies are being utilized in growing numbers to allow both parents to work and maintain quality time with their kids. And yet the authors found an unforeseen consequence that the quest for equity is becoming a mark of privilege (because the family has to be able to afford the additional help) and it is reinforcing that women, and particularly immigrant women, are responsible for doing care work. And Sweden is a country with fully subsidized daycare, which the parents were fully utilizing in conjunction with a nanny. So I do think there is an important cultural piece, in addition to policy change and support, that needs to grow beyond this generation. And, I believe, it has to involve both men taking on their share of care work AND a shift away from stark individualism that has cut us off from the community that would otherwise be there to help out with child care while parents are working.
There is great economic value to specialization, especially when based upon comparative advantage. In most careers you can earn twice as much if you're willing to work 50% more. The effort compounds into greater competency, faster learning, more contacts, more opportunities as well as more hours billed. Specialization may include work outside the home for both parents if feasible, but it will prioritize the earning capacity for the highest earner and home management for the other.
Equity couples will consistently underperform. Between them they will have less money and less time for home. They will continue to demand government intervention to keep up. Things like subsidized daycare, mandated maternity/paternity leave, etc.
I wonder how much this way of thinking relates to the falling fertility rates in our country?
That’s a bit of a looming economic disaster too 🤔
(And if you honestly think that Goldin’s Nobel and all her research is solely a political gesture driven by a social agenda, I think it’s time to end the chat)
But at least she recognizes what I wrote: long hours that would be prohibitive for both people in a couple are much more productive. Her prescriptions for social and cultural change are motivated by a social agenda, not economic theory. The economics of it are so adverse that they would require legal mandates and government subsidies.
Economic theory is also based on humans always acting in a completely “rational” way with an assumed goal of maximization. I don’t know about your experience, but in mine there’s nothing rational about raising children nor are there many opportunities to maximize anything 😆 I only wish we could run like a fine-tuned machine but then it wouldn’t be described as “beautiful chaos”
I agree. My experience wasn't entirely rational. My wife and I did specialize, with me making the money. She also worked outside the home for her artistic passion. It became a shared passion between us and it was wonderful. But not economically rational because it didn't make us much money and cost us a ton of time.
I'm fine with economically self-sufficient units like a couple making irrational choices. I'm not fine with government subsidizing irrational behavior or enforcing legal mandates to make it more feasible.
Yay to the rebels indeed! Loved reading about your family Molly. Btw I think you were a cute baby!!
Well, thank you, Alex 😄
I often consider myself lucky that my father-in-law did the cooking and cleaning in my husband’s childhood home. Consequently, The assumptions we entered into marriage with were much less hostile to equity. And yet we still have to work at balance every day.
Oh yes. There is definitely still daily work to do but the “less hostile” is the key phrase. Lower friction doesn’t mean simple.
I recently read some fascinating academic lit from Sweden on how au pairs and nannies are being utilized in growing numbers to allow both parents to work and maintain quality time with their kids. And yet the authors found an unforeseen consequence that the quest for equity is becoming a mark of privilege (because the family has to be able to afford the additional help) and it is reinforcing that women, and particularly immigrant women, are responsible for doing care work. And Sweden is a country with fully subsidized daycare, which the parents were fully utilizing in conjunction with a nanny. So I do think there is an important cultural piece, in addition to policy change and support, that needs to grow beyond this generation. And, I believe, it has to involve both men taking on their share of care work AND a shift away from stark individualism that has cut us off from the community that would otherwise be there to help out with child care while parents are working.
There is great economic value to specialization, especially when based upon comparative advantage. In most careers you can earn twice as much if you're willing to work 50% more. The effort compounds into greater competency, faster learning, more contacts, more opportunities as well as more hours billed. Specialization may include work outside the home for both parents if feasible, but it will prioritize the earning capacity for the highest earner and home management for the other.
Equity couples will consistently underperform. Between them they will have less money and less time for home. They will continue to demand government intervention to keep up. Things like subsidized daycare, mandated maternity/paternity leave, etc.
I wonder how much this way of thinking relates to the falling fertility rates in our country?
That’s a bit of a looming economic disaster too 🤔
(And if you honestly think that Goldin’s Nobel and all her research is solely a political gesture driven by a social agenda, I think it’s time to end the chat)
Highly recommend reading Goldin’s book.
She won a Nobel Prize in Economics so… 🤷♀️
And those prizes are never political, so...
But at least she recognizes what I wrote: long hours that would be prohibitive for both people in a couple are much more productive. Her prescriptions for social and cultural change are motivated by a social agenda, not economic theory. The economics of it are so adverse that they would require legal mandates and government subsidies.
Economic theory is also based on humans always acting in a completely “rational” way with an assumed goal of maximization. I don’t know about your experience, but in mine there’s nothing rational about raising children nor are there many opportunities to maximize anything 😆 I only wish we could run like a fine-tuned machine but then it wouldn’t be described as “beautiful chaos”
I agree. My experience wasn't entirely rational. My wife and I did specialize, with me making the money. She also worked outside the home for her artistic passion. It became a shared passion between us and it was wonderful. But not economically rational because it didn't make us much money and cost us a ton of time.
I'm fine with economically self-sufficient units like a couple making irrational choices. I'm not fine with government subsidizing irrational behavior or enforcing legal mandates to make it more feasible.