> most households need two working parents just to survive.

Only because we created a world where every household had two working parents.

My household doesn't need this, but my partner wants to work. There's a lot of situations where this is the case. A large percentage of women want to be in the workforce and are not forced to be there.

A large percentage of people want to be in the workforce and are not forced to be there.

I think it's very natural to want to work. Women having the option to work is a wonderful thing, and we need to keep making progress towards equal opportunities and pay.

I think a good amount of the problem then became, these new normal double income households then decided they also wanted children. So we slowly convinced ourselves that both parents can work while raising children, which doesn't really work. Your child ends up being raised by day care.

It's a good example of having your cake and eating it too.

> I think it's very natural to want to work.

AFAIK, studies and history demonstrated opposite to be true, if there is an opportunity not to work and lead comfortable life, most people choose not to work.

If you have enough of a guarantee of leading a comfortable life (e.g. you inherit a large fortune), then sure.

But for most people, leaving their professional career is hardly reversible in the long term, and means becoming economically dependent on their partner. Which only works if the couple stays together (and the partner keeps their job).

I hope I can stay together with my partner for life but even if so, I wouldn't be too comfortable if she left her career and became economically dependent: what if I die early, for example? A career is a hedge against adversity.

Even staying together, if a big economic crisis comes, with two jobs it's easier that at least one of us will keep their income than with one.

Daycare only lasts a few years, do you think raising stops at age 5 or believe that most children are raised by school once they turned school-age?

I do wonder about that sometimes. It doesn't seem to be discussed much.

On the one hand inflation-adjusted GDP is 5x higher than the 60's (https://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted) so even if the workforce doubled the pie got much larger.

On the other hand markets like real estate have somewhat inelastic supply and higher household incomes as a result of dual earners might just bid up prices.

Elizabeth Warren wrote a book about this called the Two Income Trap. It’s a shame for someone who’s not an American that America has deep thinkers like Warren in politics but people like Trump and GW Bush become president.

> Only

Regardless, that's the situation -- so can't be ignored.

For many, they're trying to work, act as teacher, and dealing with disruptive younger children. One of our friends is insanely effective and focused at her job, handles every family stress thrown at her, but neared her wits' end recently trying to handle it all. Capable older child and needy middle child was one thing, but the very distracting youngest tipped it over the edge.

Just had the same discussion with my wife. We are a single income household. My wife, got a degree in early education, but never went into teaching. Our household is very fortunate to be in this position. While I work in my office she is able to help the kids. She spends a lot of time helping them. Even she mentioned how sad it was that lots of kids were not participating in their learning (she talks with the teachers). But I reminder her about how she went to school for early education and she has the time to devote to helping our kids succeed. She agreed. Not easy at all. Without her my kids would not be coping as well as they are. It would be difficult for me to assist as much as she does with my normal day job.