I think you may have missed their point, as there's not much to "buy". I hadn't considered it before, and it strikes me as interesting. I believe what they're saying is that women being introduced into the work force en-masse, and therefore nearly doubling the working population, has driven down wages. The lower wages made it harder for a single bread-winner to support a family, which then makes it more difficult, or impossible, to have a stay at home mother. I'd love to see some data on this.
Well, you have to buy that the data actually supports this (which your last sentence implies it's not a given) and there's the implication that women voluntarily entering into the workforce have somehow made things worse for other women; that's the implied "narrative". And of course, that women in the workforce are a major factor in lowering wages, and that there are no ways to stop the erosion of wages without driving women away from the workforce. As you can see, there are many narratives at play here that you can either buy into or not.
The comment of the person I was replying to also completely ignored the question of whether fathers actually want to take a more active part in the raising of their children, and whether society supports this decision.
> Well, you have to buy that the data actually supports this (which your last sentence implies it's not a given)
Got it, so you're saying you don't think the mass influx of new workers drove down wages? It seems like a pretty straight forward argument. Would love to hear your thoughts that contradict it.
> ... and there's the implication that women voluntarily entering into the workforce have somehow made things worse for other women; that's the implied "narrative".
That would be the outcome if this were true, wouldn't it? I don't think they're suggesting any kind of intent, but if their premise is correct, it would in fact have made life harder for single income households.
> ... there are no ways to stop the erosion of wages without driving women away from the workforce. As you can see, there are many narratives at play here that you can either buy into or not.
I didn't see this in the comment you responded to.
> so you're saying you don't think the mass influx of new workers drove down wages? It seems like a pretty straight forward argument.
It seems straightforward but it actually isn't. It's not self-evident that women entering the workforce must automatically drive down wages. Maybe other interconnected factors enter into play and cancel it out. Maybe they drive wages slightly lower, but other major factors dwarf this (as someone mentioned in another comment). Maybe... there is no data to support it; like you said, you'd "love" to see the data.
> I didn't see this in the comment you responded to.
I can be mistaken, and the original poster can clarify what they meant, but unfortunately I do see it.
I think you may have missed their point, as there's not much to "buy". I hadn't considered it before, and it strikes me as interesting. I believe what they're saying is that women being introduced into the work force en-masse, and therefore nearly doubling the working population, has driven down wages. The lower wages made it harder for a single bread-winner to support a family, which then makes it more difficult, or impossible, to have a stay at home mother. I'd love to see some data on this.