>>>Ok lets try to take this one step at a time - there were as not as many families where both parents worked in 1969 as there are today. Do you agree with that much?
>>>
>>>Nope. Raising children is probably a lot more work that it is to go to a job outside the home but the paycheck isn't as good. Talk about a minimum wage job....
>>
>>Ok let me re-word the question. There were as not as many families where both parents had a paying job outside the house in 1969 as there are today. Do you agree with that much?
>
>Of course you're right about the result Victor - there were are lots more one-income families then, but your inferences as to the cause for the shift might be suspect.

There are a lot of factors involved I agree - but economics has got to play a key role in this.

>As soon as my daughter arrived, my wife stopped work and never returned.
>That was typical at that time. If there were two parents, women stayed at home till the kids were self-sufficient.
>I never saw a single exception in my experience.
>Many women returned to the workforce after the kids were grown.
>
>Way different now.
>Both my grandsons were in day-care when they were 6 weeks old.
>That's typical now. Those day-care centers have long waiting lists.
>At some point, the schools take over.
>"Miss Barbara" (my name for that woman, whoever she was at any given moment), not Mama, raises these kids and instills their values.(BTW.. Miss Barbara might have kids in day care, think about that!!)
>Grandpa and grandma step in when the kids are sick, etc, and Mom and Dad are around on weekends but basically institutions raise the kids.
>They don't do a bad job, actually. My two grandsons are wonderful young men.
>Lousy golfers but otherwise OK guys.
>
>It's interesting to speculate on the causes for that shift.
>Economics?
>I wonder about that. The cost of day care is huge. There are lots of other costs that at a stay-at-home parent can absorb. It costs money to go to work. Try pricing prepared food vs unprepared food.

I know that there is a balancing act that happens on these things. If the woman is going to have a minimum wage job at $7.50 an hour, or for that matter the man of the house - then at some point it makes more sense to stay at home and save all the expenses of childcare. Once the kid is in school and there is only a need for a babysitter a couple hours a day then things can change. This goes back to my complaint about the minimum wage being too low. It's not supposed to save you money by not having a job. What I've been saying here is that it's just not as easy as it was in the 60's and 70's for a one income family to buy a house and raise a kid or two. I agree that the feminist movement of the 60's and 70's guided us into an age where there are more women in the workforce - but that was women WANTING to be in the workforce. Now they have no choice or you're family is going to not eat or live on the street. Marcia seem to think that things are just as easy for a young family starting out now as it was in the 60's and 70's, at frankly that is simply not case. If you're making $15,600 a year you are not EVER going to own a house, a decent car, put your kids though college (let alone yourself), or ever have anything no matter how hard you work. I do not see a legitimate argument that says any different. Furthermore is the income is $30,000 you're not going to get ahead with that either.

>My conclusion.. admittedly not scientific ... is that many women just don't want to do that kind of work any more.
>They'd rather be in the work force and the rest of their lives have to adjust to that.

I think that is probably true and how it started - but in this day and age it's not really an option.

>That puts a different cast on everything.
>
>First..it effectively doubles the number of people looking for jobs.
>No one wants to say it but I will..
>Hey.. guess why structural unemployment is so much higher now than it was during the 1960's???
>
>Since women are better at academics than men, they get higher grades and are more qualified for certain jobs like accountants and lawyers.
>Guess which gender has more structurally unemployed among college grads???
>
>It's a big deal Victor and no one dares talk about it because so many women vote.
>
>Way back politicians used to say that Social Security was the third rail of politics.
>
>Now..it's feminism.

These are interesting reads:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nine_facts_about_family_and_work_real_final.pdf
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/modern-parenthood-roles-of-moms-and-dads-converge-as-they-balance-work-and-family/