"Oh are we going to build more houses somewhere my kids will have a good childhood?"
> No. Greenfield exurb shithole is best we can do. 10% int please. Also you'll be carting your child around everywhere for the next decade and a half.
"Oh ok. Are we going to make healthcare more affordable?"
> No. It will cost thousands to have your child born in a safe location.
"Damn. OK. Uhhh, am I going to get enough time off from work to deal with everything involved in bringing a new person into the world, and if I'm a woman, deal with the physical recovery?"
> No. Six weeks is the best we can do. Your babysitter which costs a third to half of your income will get to enjoy all of the fun milestones with your child.
"Sounds fucking awful. Maybe if my partner and I get a job that pays enough, we'll think about it"
You know how badly you need to abuse an animal before they stop procreating of their own accord?
It is sad but the financial state of the country is poor and these improvements in social wellbeing are unlikely to happen anytime soon, in my opinion. I anticipate it will only get more competitive. The national debt issue is reaching a cresendo.
There was a time when women had more time to recover, time to look after the children, and they decided they didn’t want that and instead wanted to go into careers alongside men.
Of course, women should be able to do so if they choose. But the privileges that working households lost by both parents being in the workforce were never compensated for in another way. It expanded the labour pool, much to the delight of corporations that could push down wages. We went from one income being ample to support a family to two barely being enough.
Now, as you say, the average family has the privilege of paying mountains of money to someone else to raise their children. Women became independent from their husbands but dependent on their bosses instead.
I think the OPs argument (which I am not endorsing) is that they in fact enjoy a higher quality of life even if their "standard of living" (measured in purchasing power) is higher.
It's all subjective though. Asking most in a 'developed' country whether they'd trade their high rent for a dirt floor/house would result in an affirmative no. Same for health/insurance - "Would you trade your high premium for 'the nearest so called doctor is a days walk away'" is going to be a resounding no.
But then it's the same the other way around "Would you trade your dirt floors for linoleum if it meant you hard to do hard labor 40 hrs a week?" and "Would you trade your witch for the luxury of owing the doctor thousands of hours of labor?" would both also be resounding nos.
I know there is a growing contingent of those moving off of the grid and spurning modernity for log cabins built by hand, and the converse OLPC in dirt huts thing but for the most part everyone everywhere wants to have their cake and eat it too.
Part of our standard of living is widespread access to contraceptives and sex education, and of course access to any soft of education for girls and women.
> No. Greenfield exurb shithole is best we can do. 10% int please. Also you'll be carting your child around everywhere for the next decade and a half.
"Oh ok. Are we going to make healthcare more affordable?"
> No. It will cost thousands to have your child born in a safe location.
"Damn. OK. Uhhh, am I going to get enough time off from work to deal with everything involved in bringing a new person into the world, and if I'm a woman, deal with the physical recovery?"
> No. Six weeks is the best we can do. Your babysitter which costs a third to half of your income will get to enjoy all of the fun milestones with your child.
"Sounds fucking awful. Maybe if my partner and I get a job that pays enough, we'll think about it"
You know how badly you need to abuse an animal before they stop procreating of their own accord?
Of course, women should be able to do so if they choose. But the privileges that working households lost by both parents being in the workforce were never compensated for in another way. It expanded the labour pool, much to the delight of corporations that could push down wages. We went from one income being ample to support a family to two barely being enough. Now, as you say, the average family has the privilege of paying mountains of money to someone else to raise their children. Women became independent from their husbands but dependent on their bosses instead.
But then it's the same the other way around "Would you trade your dirt floors for linoleum if it meant you hard to do hard labor 40 hrs a week?" and "Would you trade your witch for the luxury of owing the doctor thousands of hours of labor?" would both also be resounding nos.
I know there is a growing contingent of those moving off of the grid and spurning modernity for log cabins built by hand, and the converse OLPC in dirt huts thing but for the most part everyone everywhere wants to have their cake and eat it too.