S/O childcare optional for men

amother

Thu, Jul 02 2020, 3:01 pm

So on that thread, a few people were writing how today, most families need both parents working, in order to make ends meet.
And therefore, the housework should be evenly split.

Looking around me, I do see that the above it true. My question is-why? What changed?
Why is it that 30,40,50+ years ago, families could make it on one salary, and most moms stayed at home? Were men paid more back then?

I know people will say our standards of living went up, but is that really true?

I'm assuming they still had to pay tuition, buy a house, buy expensive kosher food and clothing etc.

So what changed?

amother

Violet

Thu, Jul 02 2020, 3:06 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Yes, men were paid more and it was relatively common to receive a raise after the birth of each child. Married men were given priority in job interviews and for raises, over single men and women.

Then that became illegal because it was seen as discriminatory.

amother

Oak

Thu, Jul 02 2020, 3:12 pm

For Americans as a whole - the cost of living has gone up, but wages have not risen as much. The richest ten percent has pulled far ahead of the rest, and the richest 1 percent is even further ahead.

In the religious community, families have gotten larger and the standard of living has gone way up, while young people are delaying going into the workforce.

shabbatiscoming

Thu, Jul 02 2020, 3:20 pm

amother [ Violet ] wrote:

Im not sure how you can say that. Have you seen the wages per decade? They were much less lets say in the 1950s, just for example. MUCH less. Yes, life in general cost less but they also made less money as well.

amother

Seafoam

Thu, Jul 02 2020, 3:33 pm

shabbatiscoming wrote:

The standard of living was lower back then as well. In my dad's times, growing up in the 50's and 60's, his friends all had patched-up pants. No one he knew purchased a new pair of pants on whim.

Maybe if our standard of living would be lower, so many women wouldn't have to work?

amother

Violet

Thu, Jul 02 2020, 3:39 pm

shabbatiscoming wrote:

I'm sorry, let me clarify that.

Married men were paid more than single men, and salary went according to talent but also according to family status. It was understood that married men have families to support, and that was respected.

Also, weren't wages higher in the 50s, after you adjust for inflation?

amother

Violet

Thu, Jul 02 2020, 3:42 pm

amother [ Seafoam ] wrote:

I just stared at DS' torn pants. And realized I didn't want to replace them because other than the knees, they were perfectly good. Why should I buy new pairs so that in three months they'll be worn out at the knees again?

I sacrificed one pair of navy pants by cutting them into shorts, and patched the other 3 pairs of navy pants.

Next in line are two pairs of gray, one pair of beige (two?), and a light blue pair. I have to decide which color patch will look best on the other 2-3 pairs, and I guess that's the color pants I'm going to sacrifice.

Plus I made DS do one of the patches. It was tedious for him because he made a mistake and had to redo, but sewing is important. I'll probably have DS do 2 of the patches on this next patch. Even if he makes a mistake it's just a patch, as long as the thread color matches the patch it doesn't look too bad.

I realize it's not common but I just wasn't willing to spend the money in order to create more waste. I think people know that we are not too poor to afford new, and maybe the fact that we patched the clothes will encourage other people to patch as well, instead of buying new.

amother

Salmon

Thu, Jul 02 2020, 4:53 pm

shabbatiscoming wrote:

According to the chart you posted, wages were actually higher. (Once you put them in 2015 money).

And just about everything cost less, except for maybe milk and eggs. So obviously people were better off.

Combine that with the fact that people lived much more simply than today, and you can see how it was much easier to live off one salary.

(As a side point, my mother and many others did work throughout the 1970s. Not everyone could afford to stay home).

amother

Salmon

Thu, Jul 02 2020, 4:58 pm

amother [ Violet ] wrote:

Married men were paid more than single men, and salary went according to talent but also according to family status. It was understood that married men have families to support, and that was respected.

It sounds like you think that was a good thing.
I for one, am very glad that was done away with.
I do not need an employer deciding my salary according to my family status. First of all, it elevates the married and keeps single people way down on the socio-economic ladder. Not only are they unmarried, but now they can't buy a house/a car/travel or whatever either. It keeps single people downtrodden.

Second, many single people do have to support others. For example, elderly parents, or a disabled sibling. It's not the boss' place to decide who is worthy of support and who is not. He should just be paying for a job well done.

amother

Scarlet

Thu, Jul 02 2020, 5:14 pm

I don't get why people love saying standards of living went up tons. I just don't see it.

Growing up in the 80s and 90s I remember plenty of peer-pressure driven expenses.

Weddings were nice and fancy.
Strollers were big and expensive.
Kids went to camp from a relatively early age, just like they do now.
Bar mitzvahs for middle class families were just as lavish (if not more) than bar mitzvahs today.
Plenty of ppl vacationed regularly in Miami and Israel, just like they do now.

True, today we have our own mishegasim but we also have a lot more opportunities than our parents did.

We can and do buy crazy cheap clothing from Ali and Shein. Our moms were forced to pay top dollar for tznius clothing.

We have the option of cheap housing without moving a plane ride away from the tristate area if we view that as home.

There are more, but even more importantly, the internet gives our communities endless opportunities for parnassah that our parents' generation just did not have.

amother

Cerise

Thu, Jul 02 2020, 5:24 pm

Very simple. My father who got paid a low wage rented an apartment for only one weeks pay back in the 70s. The average persons rent in the same community today is about three weeks pay. I say housing costs in frum communities is the largest factor.

Yes we may live on a higher standard in certain areas (cell phones, real wine for shabbos, don’t wear patched clothing etc) however we also pay way less for clothing l, couches, kitchen appliances, AC units. Buying a new iPhone is expensive but not the reason why many women are working today. In a family where the lady is forced to work she is probably not buying a lot of extras and is living probably plainer than our parents and grandparents.

I still say it’s housing. And if you say that you pay cheaply for housing because you live OOT and are still forced to work then it’s because of tuition that is much more money OOT

amother

Tangerine

Thu, Jul 02 2020, 5:25 pm

amother [ Cerise ] wrote:

I agree. It's housing in the in-town areas and tuition in the OOT areas. And in many places it's both.

amother

Salmon

Thu, Jul 02 2020, 5:30 pm

amother [ Cerise ] wrote:

In a family where the lady is forced to work she is probably not buying a lot of extras and is living probably plainer than our parents and grandparents.

Most women I know work, whether they live plainly or not. I guess maybe it depends on your community.

It's no longer a matter of being 'forced to work', it's become a given. Nobody really thinks about it in my circles, it's automatic. (Although some women do take off long maternity leaves, 6-9 months. But they still return to work after).