Some things about the past we've rightly moved past, like lynching, hotpants, and double-digit inflation. But strong, proud families ensuring the survival of humanity by keeping TFR>RR are not an anachronism, they are necessary for our survival. https://www.wsj.com/articles/yes-we-really-do-want-to-have-a-fifth-child-1535122603 … via @WSJ
-
-
Even further from the window: I didn't say the working m̶o̶m̶ had kids. Childcare scales such that e.g. 2+3 does worse than 0+5 on several criteria. Specialization FTW! Put differently, it's not insane to cut "woman" into two sets of social roles (genders?) ("queen"—"worker"?).
-
I totally agree on splitting women into earners / parents. Can you elaborate on the structure a bit more? Is this society wide (half of families DINK, half worker/parent)? Or do pairs of couples join up?
-
The latter, because not everybody would like this arrangement (e.g. not-Mormon religious people). And most of the point is in having a stay-at-home-mom in the household—a DINK household is financially brittle, still has the double yoke, and has no community-building valence. 1/2
-
Furthermore, more than two adults per household would be a good deal even with a sane, undistorted housing market. AFAIK even DINK households have about as large living/dining rooms, kitchens, etc. as couples with children. (Maybe it's not so in the US.) 2/2
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.