Way to miss the point..

by Anonymous 1 week ago

You had a point?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Yea, he's pointing out how corporations have found a way to more effectively exploit people witn the change. Any time I see talk about women joining the workforce at a specific point in time, I'm immediately made aware of how historically illiterate the average person is. There was a class of women that didn't have to work for a relatively short period of time.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Wasn't your point that you're sad that those uppity women are leaving the kitchen, and getting their own jobs leaving their more-important husbands at home to fend for themselves?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

The problem is you said incredibly bad overall. If you said that, assuming women never entered the work force en masse, the jobs available for men would be more plentiful and pay more, that may be true. I'm not a labor economist, but essentially halving the size of the labor market would have profound consequences. That said, it would also mean that about half the population would have little to no financial independence. Of course, that's exactly what many who want a trad wife desire. But it's definitely not a good thing overall.

by Ekemmer 1 week ago

But economically, the whole world seems to have shifted to needing 2 incomes for 1 houshold. It has sadly shifted to needing more than two incomes for plenty of people and it has to do with issues like wages not matching inflation and other economic issues, not women entering the work force. ... I was going to say more, but I'm rolling my eyes too hard to type. I guess it's because I'm too screwed up by my mother entering the work force (over 50 years ago).

by Anonymous 1 week ago

This is worded in a way that's implying women entering the workforce is the reason households need 2 incomes now. Is that what you're trying to say?

by Anonymous 1 week ago