Feminism keeps getting blamed for the need to have a two income family......?

Question

But wouldn't overspending be more to blame for most cases?

I grew up in a poor as dirt neighborhood and it never ceased to amaze me what people would find money for. They would complain about being broke while watching cable on a new T.V. sitting on a sectional. When people like that would be evicted all I ever thought was "I hope you kept the box that TV came in you might need it"

So is it really feminism or our quest to keep up with the Joneses and drive big SUVs?

Answer 1

Believe it or not, the idea of a two income household is not a new thing. It has been around for thousands of years. The idea of a single income home, where the husband works and the women stays at home, originated mainly during industrialization. Even then, this only applied to upper middle class families. Women in the lower classes had to work to support their families and so did their children.

Before industrialization, everyone worked, whether it was hunting, gathering or farming. Children were taken with their parents to work and, once they were old enough, worked themselves. Maybe, in some situations, women were kept at home, but that was only if you were super rich. ( This was a sign of wealth.)

So, a two income family is not a new thing. It is not a affront to family life. This is normal. However, what makes it difficult is that society refuses to acknowledge this fact.  

Answer 2

No cable, nothing fancy, and a modest two bedroom apartment for us (we have two kids and two more every other weekend).  We need two incomes to keep up though, just with rent, fuel, electricity, phone, daycare and car insurance.  Not blaming anyone, just a simple fact that at this point we both need to work to have what is quite basic.  Basic to the point that my wife finds it unacceptable, though she also finds it unacceptable for me to pick up an additional job.  I am always fighting to advance but I think that it's very safe to say that inflation over the past four decades has made it nearly impossible for the average worker to raise a family on a single income.  Whether that's because feminism gave corporations the opportunity to exploit a "two for the price of one" opportunity is debatable, but the fact that working families generally require two incomes in the west is really not debatable.  If I achieve a promotion that allows me to raise my family on my income alone (especially with over $1000 monthly going to child support) it will be because I am fortunate enough to be earning well above what the average employee earns, not because of any remarkable feats of frugality on my part.  When you're already renting at less than $800 a month there's only so much additional money pinching you can do.  Even a rice and fish diet would be expensive these days.

Answer 3

The value of money is relative... when every household increases the quantity of money, the relative value of money remains unchanged meaning no additional income benefit for two incomes(if every single household had two incomes), thereby decreasing the value of the currency itself which decreases the value of one income. However, there is a benefit from the overall increase in GDP of the entire country(which helped the US become an economic superpower).

The increase in spending to keep up with others came with the increase in financing... people getting $40k credit cards when the norm was only a few thousand in the past. We have had a much more relaxed financial environment just in the last 10 years... credit cards reducing monthly payments from 3% of the balance to only 1.5% of the balance, finance companies allowing higher Debt-to-Income ratios for financing, ...

---saying the same as Imposter.. basic economics... but I'm not saying it's 1:1 either.. there was an increase in national GDP which helped the entire economy and now single-households are becoming more of the norm which will swing the pendulum back.

Edit: By the way, the attack and blame on consumerism defies the "Paradox of Thrift" (or paradox of savings) in Economics. Consumerism is the effect, not the cause.

Edit: I want to be clear though, that there were social benefits of women working... that they didn't have to rely on a man and stay in an abusive marriage due to economic entrapment, women could receive credit for their 'out of home' achievements, not be obligated to marry, as well as other social benefits.

Answer 4

When I was growing up my (working class) father was well paid in his unionized manufacturing job.  My parents tended 2 large vegetable gardens, we had chickens and ducks running around, sometimes a calf too...

Do you know anyone who lives like this in this day and age?

This is why families today generally require 2 incomes to survive; the world has changed much since back then.

Answer 5

The dynamics of the two household earners are much more complex than overspending and certainly more complex than feminism.  The economy itself dictates most of the problem, along with the costs of essentials, like decent medical care and medicines, education, etc.

Of course their our societal pressures involved and keeping up with the Jones, but that usually happens regardless of whether there is a two person income.

The nuclear family has deteriorated, not all due to feminism by any means.  Having the choice to be a one-earner family is becoming less and less an option and sometimes, conversely, more and more a necessity with the cost of decent day care skyrocketing.

The economy and employment, poor pay for both sexes, basic necessary items such as heat and lights and basic necessities such as medicines dictate more of what we do than does wanting to have a bigger boat than the guy next door (something usually more important to the male species).  Women tend to only want the best for their children.

Answer 6

From an economic perspective, you are correct, but it is not only peoples' drive to "keep up with the Jonses" it is systemic in our form of capitalism.

What many people don't realize is that the economic system we live in is not what Adam Smith advocated in his landmark book "The Wealth of Nations." What Smith advocated was a market economy in which certain conditions are met. One of those conditions is a lack of government oversight as Smith believed that any meddling would distort the markets through taxes, incentives, tariffs, etc. Smith believed in "The Invisible Hand" a force that arguably would balance the interests of producers, buyers and sellers.

In the early days of America we did try to uphold this commitment to laissez faire capitalism and during the early part of the industrial revolution newly formed corporations were allowed nearly unlimited power. Incidentally, Smith never mentions the word "Corporation" and his theories did not take into account the distortions possible under a corporate capitalist system, in which corporations amass overwhelming economic power. Early on, certain kinds of corporations, specifically large banking institutions, met and drafted plans to guide the evolution of American capitalism.

It was the work of powerful banks that created the fractional lending principle and the idea of publicly traded stock. Under the fractional lending principle banks can lend out $100,000 with only $10,000 in cash to back that loan. They only need 10% on hand. It is the responsibility of the borrower to go out into the economy and "make" the other 90% plus interest. We do this by competing against each other for a larger share of the existing money supply. When people default on their loans, the Federal Reserve (a privately owned corporation, not a government agency) prints and distributes more money to the banks (not the borrowers) which keeps the banks afloat, but dilutes the value of money causing *inflation.*

Furthermore, the ability to publicly trade stocks turns a capitalist economy into a gambling based pyramid scheme. You see, only $1 out of every $100 traded on the stock market ever makes it into a corporate coffer. The other $99 goes to speculators (aka gamblers). Companies only receive funds when they sell initial stock offerings. Everything else goes to the people who buy the stock used and resell it. Sort of how when we buy a used car or book, the company only makes the profit on the original sale. The problem is that these stockholders (who are supposedly earning their returns because of the "risk" they take) can sue the company for failing to meet their "fiduciary responsibility" of giving money to these absentee-owners. While stockholders provide that $1 out of $100 that goes to the company, they are entitled to unlimited returns as long as they own that stock.

This means that corporations are constantly forced to create profits for stockholders who contribute little or nothing to the company, but are instead parasitic gamblers. It means that banks choose to adhere to lending principles which create inflation.

Since ordinary people are working people and since the most basic accounting equation is: Profit = revenue - costs (costs of resources and *labor*), this means that the rush to accumulate wealth in the hands of the wealthy necessitates that labor be paid less and less, and be forced to borrow more and more money which has less and less value, in order to keep up with the Jonses. Labor's other option is to completely give up the "American Dream" and resign themselves to working harder for less into the indefinite future.

Since the only way this kind of economy stays solvent is by growing (and by growing more next quarter than last quarter), we are caught in a situation that demands an exponentially increasing consumer base, and exponentially increasing resource utilization. Since, in reality, we live on a planet that is finite, this kind of economy is ultimately self-limited. In other words, it is coming down. It was never built to last. It is a house of cards, a pyramid scheme -- and we all bought in.

We can choose to blame the hard working people who work more for less and dream of giving their kids what their parents gave them or we can (rightly) recognize that the system which was created "for us" was designed to create a modern day aristocracy, a class of parasitic people who need not work and who suck the productive economic contributions out of the working and middle class.

It doesn't matter if women work or don't work. This system was designed to fail (and to make the rich richer in the process). Feminism and women's ability to express their many and varied talents, interests and abilities is not to blame. We would have arrived at women working (by economic necessity even without feminism). In fact, it will likely be women who by sheer force of necessity, as mothers, conceive of, advocate for and create a sustainable economy.

Answer 7

Logically you have to see that first came the need (or greed) for a second income - then came the need to get equal pay for equal work.  So feminism followed the mass entry of women into the workforce, and tried to make that work (that they had to so) more pleasant and profitable.

I couldn't have been the other way around.  How would women know that they weren't getting equal pay for equal work unless they were already in the work force?

Answer 8

Of course this is true.  I also agree that this mindset has a much larger impact than feminism.  However, basic economics will tell you that more workers=less pay for each individual worker.  Also, if you have two incomes, your family unit makes more disposable income.  This increases the demand for consumer goods.  Greater demand=higher prices.  Higher prices make it harder for people to CHOOSE to have a one income family.  I'm not saying that "a woman's place is in the kitchen" or anything of the sort.  I just feel that it is being incredibly disingenuous to claim that their is no downside to feminism.  Yes, feminism has made it harder for women who would CHOOSE to be stay at home moms and for single income families.  However, you are right.  We could entirely erase such an impact by simply living without many modern conveniences.

Answer 9

Yeah, I know what you're saying.  I grew up without indoor plumbing.  So, I don't wanna hear that S**t, you know what I mean.  In the US, unfortunately, where capitalism is the thing, there is no life, no family life, no friends other than beer sports and... shopping.  So people resort to buying c**p that will never fill that void.  Interestingly enough as I was reading this book, it says that socialism is a system based on empathy, whereas capitalism is... not.  The name of it is Emotional Intelligence.  Yous should check it out sometime.  Good stuff.

Answer 10

Feminism was hijacked and turned from something good into something to give the elite more power and money.  It wasn't the only tool used for that evil.  But it was one of them.  Most of the good movements have been abused, the fight against racism, environmentalism, terrorism.  They've all been hijacked and have been and are still being used to give the rich even more power.

What was feminisms part in all of this?  Feminism has increased workplace competition.  In the early days of two person households it allowed for more spending and eventually wages began to rise and it came to be that the family HAD to have two incomes just to survive.  Feminism wasn't the only cause of the two person household.  But it did contribute.

So was feminism to blame for the necessity of the two person household? No, but it was one of the tools used by the people who are to blame.

Answer 11

You are right.  It's like people who don't have money for food, but are able to buy smokes and booze!  

Answer 12

Bingo.  It's a consumerism merry-go-round that stops barely short of the nightmarish reality in the film, "Matrix".  The Big Boys call America the "Feed Lot".  lol.  See the movie with a funny name but serious message (Netflix has it) "Advertising and the End of the World".

Answer 13

Consumerism is partly to blame, but it's not the only factor. There's also the general damage done to the economy by supply-side policies, as well as a shift away from manufacturing (generally high-paying) to service.

Answer 14

The economy and labor market changed, less factory jobs, health care costs spiraled.    

An example I use in health care finance:  Fifty years ago, health care was pretty straightforward. A person saw the family doctor and paid cash or traded a product for the doctor’s services. If a person didn’t have money or goods to trade, he or she could only receive care at the county or state-run facility. Receiving this "charity" care was often seen as degrading because most families could pay for the basic care they received. The bill for a normal pregnancy and delivery might be $50.00-$100.00. Even if the family income was only $3,000 a year (the poverty level for a family of 4 in 1959) that care cost one to three percent  of the family income. Today the poverty level for a family of four is around $20,650 a year. Care for a normal pregnancy and delivery can cost between $13,000-15,000.   A C-section up to 18-20,000, and each day in the NICU $5,000.

Answer 15

I really don't understand why two income families are considered bad. Are some of you aware of the realities of have a one income family? It means the wage earner has to work much longer hours on the job or get a second job and miss out on everything at home. It also means the greater likelihood of being stuck in a job he hates because his family needs the income. He can't go out and get another job or take classes to improve his job skills. What happens if the wage earner is fired, injured, or becomes too ill to work? What about a divorce or death? How about if the wage earner works at a job with no benefits? Having more than one income isn't about greed or materialism, although some people see it that way. It ensures more financial security for the family and can mean that the family doesn't have to live in a crappy neighborhood or live from paycheck to paycheck.  

Answer 16

Our quest to consume more than our neighbors results in our belief that we are poor.  The average person in the Western World consumes more than entire towns in poorer countries.

Answer 17

I grew up in a poor household and city sector as well. Yet, it never hit me we were poor then. I grew up a savvy and responsible spender and, although I don't own a bank account, I feel richer than a millionaire. The thing is, with the fall of religion with the baby boomers, the lack of spirituality has been replaced by material possession more you possess more secure it is believed to reassure you. Of course, it's wrong and people are never satisfied with what they want. Feminism has a wide back to hit on and, nowadays, men do feel threaten by female power, with reason!

Answer 18

Hi Niki

It seems the two income family economy has trapped itself in some ways. This article paints a fairly grim picture.

"If families are pulling in two incomes in this decade but are still struggling, where is the money going? Warren originally expected that the middle class was blowing their budget on designer clothes, gourmet food, and fancy appliances. However, data from the Commerce Department told another story. The family of 2005 spent 32% less on clothes, 18% less on food, and 52% less on appliances than the equivalent 1970 family. Electronic gadgets only account for an increase of $300 per year adjusted for inflation. In short, discretionary spending as a percentage of income was down".

Answer 19

No.  If more people have two income homes the more they spend...not necessarily over spend.  The more people who spend more the more markets are produced, companies are able to raise their prices because people can pay $10 for 10 apples rather than 25 cents a piece.  I agree that some of it has to do with basic inflation and "Keeping up with the Jones's" and simply selfish people, but these things all existed well before the need for two income homes....feminism did not.

Answer 20

Great question!

No, feminism is not to blame for the need for the two-income family any more than unpatriotic is to blame for not supporting the war ... both are simply knee-jerk, media-driven responses to issues that demand a fuller examination ... something many folks seem to want to avoid and, Americans in particular shun.

As mentioned by other respondents to your question, "consumerism" is the culprit (generally) for many addicted to two-incomes but it is not exclusively the domain of all families that have two -or more- incomes coming in.

For example, the data (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008) indicates that there are increasing numbers of single family households and these households are typically led by a female.  As such, a larger proportion of these females work two or more jobs to support their family.

In other situations were both a husband and wife (or any partnership) are operating a household but their jobs only pay minimum-wage, they also are typically not working multiple jobs to "Consume more" but simply to exist.

Indeed, the obsessive-like urge to own more -or, as you aptly stated, "keep up with the Joneses"- is a principle force behind overspending, unabated consumerism, and the need for multiple incomes for a family -regardless of being dirt poor or obnoxiously rich. and, in my view, that is what needs the "light of day" on it ... that, relentless consumerism, is what needs to be better understood.

In a capitalist society like America and many other western countries, wher concepts like "infinate expansion" and "free markets" are tossed about as some type of religious dogma, the life of most people, beginning at much too early of an age, is bombarded with messages that encourage quantity over quality and, soon enough, once that pattern is internalized, the marketeers and others then are fully intent in changing the "window dressing" on a frequent basis.  The result?  Unprecedented waste and unexamined purchases of mostly needless products.

Consumerism -not feminism- is the drug.

Answer 21

Interesting question!

A number of women no longer find fulfillment in maintaining a home and raising children; as though the value of such endeavors is less than those pursued outside the home.

However, I think it * has * evolved into the quest you mention above.  Of course, the same, then, could be said for * either * parent who immerses themselves into work at the cost of the family.

The amount of c**p we stuff into our lives, literally and figuratively, is astounding.