For some unknown reason, this morning brought back a hazy recollection of a long-ago California judge (yes, bad things often start with judges) who ruled in a case that a mortgage lender must change its long-standing policy of considering only one income when determining the amount it would lend to a married couple.
Of course, the result was that married couples who both had paying jobs could immediately afford to pay more for a house – the supply of houses increased only slowly – the price of houses consequently rose – homemaker mothers found that they had to enter the work force so that the family could afford a house – young children were dumped into Day Care where an over-worked illegal alien tried to keep a dozen children clean – those children grew up into today’s inadequate substitutes for citizens – and the birthrate has fallen to an unsustainably low level.
In short, a lot of today’s social pathologies started with the apparently reasonable ruling of that forgotten judge.
In contrast, another hazy recollection came back. A financial analyst reported on the net benefit the average woman earns from working outside the home.
When all the additional costs (clothing, transport, child care, taxes, etc) are considered, most working mothers are effectively earning only pennies. Of course, this does not apply to the small minority of women who make it into the C-suite of a major organization, whether through talent or through DEI (Didn’t Earn It). Those fortunate women, generally Daughters of Privilege, can afford to hire a legal Philippina to bring up their children, with the added advantage that the child grows up fluent in Tagalog.
One might have thought that this second revelation would have caused many working mothers to reassess their individual circumstances and turn their focus to bringing up their own children instead of leaving them to the tender mercies of a Day Care institution. But that did not happen. Why not? Peer pressure?