I don't think there's any benefit to that at all, but there's a lot of benefit to not forcing people into certain limited occupations and roles of subservience because of their assigned gender. Capitalism demanded that to get one you have to pay with the other. It ain't great.

> Capitalism demanded The nature of supply and demand means that adding people to the workforce lowers the bargaining power of individual workers, regardless of their sex, which lowers wages. Once a certain amount of women started to work without their spouses stopping to work, most women and men had to work to support the family.

Socialist countries like the USSR are no different, but due to another tradeoff. By ignoring the nature of supply and demand in favor of a command economy, they had massive losses in efficiency in a way that forces everyone to have to work, and even then only producing mediocre results.

Who said the one staying home had to be female or subservient?

Trying to pretend itnis not about that is just bad faith. Of course topic is women dependent and without income rather then males being dependent on women.

It’s not 1950. I know plenty of women who want to be breadwinners of the household and men who’d be happy to stay at home and manage the family not to mention folks who are rejecting the gendered identity all together.

Also plenty of people in lower income brackets are finding that a second partner having a job is more expensive than staying home because of the high costs of child care.

A few people want that kind of subjugation but broadly it just wouldn’t happen again, the vast majority of men and women wouldn’t stand for it.

In 1950, no one would make the comment I responded to, true. In 2022, it is super rare for a man to stay as stay at home father. Trying to pretend that dads are primary caregivers as often as women is just dishonest. And that goes for lower income brackets especially. Especially after pandemic when female dominated jobs got killed in higher numbers and especially since it was overwhelmingly women who started to spend way more time on childcare.

> not to mention folks who are rejecting the gendered identity all together.

And those folks are literally accused of being groomers by large parts of population just for existing and being visible. There is literal campaign of fearmongering going on against them. Threats of violence against these people are a thing now too. There are attempts to make gender non-comforming clothing in the presence of children into illegal acts.

>A few people want that kind of subjugation but broadly it just wouldn’t happen again, the vast majority of men and women wouldn’t stand for it.

Quite a lot of them would happily stand for "subjugation" I see nostalgia for it regularly. Seriously, abortion rights are being reversed and those were supposed to be untouchable too. Just teaching about ugly parts of history is in the process of being outlawed as boogeyman CRT.

And Wisconsin did not even managed to make underage marriages illegal, because it is constitutional right of adult men to marry girls under 16.

At the time, society did. Meaning most people (most men) did.

This is not actually new information for you, right? I think there's a subtext of your question I am missing?

It’s not 1950. I’m talking about now.

I too would love it if the economy were still such that a family could be supported on one income for the majority of occupations and jobs, but without people having their social and professional roles limited due to gender. I can't imagine any worker would not love this. I don't understand what we're disagreeing about, but if we are and you'd like to discuss it, less sarcasm and implied accusations and rhetorical questions and more just plain saying what you mean would help.

Personally, I think that the only way we get this is with popular anti-capitalist movements, to change the nature of the economy to be structured around people's needs instead of maximal exploitation of labor for capitalist profit. But I'm open to hearing about other visions.

One way to solve this is to lower the supply of labor. This has to be done very aggressively to work though, such as the following: - massively reducing immigrant intake, especially outside of the top-tier paying fields - legislate dramatically reduced working hours, i.e. 3 8-hour day workweek or similar, providing exceptions only at very high salary ranges

Of course, as what we've seen during the past year in the US, this is going to create high inflation.

The other method, which I much prefer, would be to lower the cost of living, while only modestly limiting immigration and working hours (still need to be reduced compared to current levels). By far the easiest way to do so would be popping the housing bubble, Japan-style, by building tons of extra housing and bankrupting private equity groups gobbling up houses, which would release further housing on the market. Perhaps a government agency can buy up some properties to rent out at a breakeven price.

> providing exceptions only at very high salary ranges

And of course you would fall in this demographic, amirite? Fuck the poor, don't mess with the salaries of the rich.

> building tons of extra housing and bankrupting private equity groups

They'd just continue to buy up that new housing. This can't change without taxing the land value.

As there's (apparently) such an under-supply of people who earn those high ranges, restricting that demographic only makes everyone poorer because wealth creation is hence lower. Maybe it would reduce those wages somewhat but it's unlikely.

Everyone who advocates a land value tax needs to explain how housing used to be affordable, even in places like California, without land value taxes.

There were fewer people and more land that wasn't being used. It's fairly simple, supply was higher, demand was lower. As our population increased and we developed more and more land, the supply shrunk while the demand grew.

Yes, we all know that -- the point is that affordable housing is possible without a land value tax, and we know that because it actually happened.

So your answer is... "Thanos did nothing wrong"?

Shall we all wait for covid20 to wipe out enough people that the housing supply overwhelms demand and prices drop?

No, we should build more housing so that the supply and demand curves intersect in a different place.

Land value taxes and Georgism in general are utopian nonsense that have never done any good anywhere at any time. People love to trot them out as solutions to the housing affordability problem but can never show how they would help -- because they can't help!

Building more housing is the only solution, everyone knows it, and weird pie-in-the-sky stuff like land value tax are distractions that ought to be ignored.

> This can't change without taxing the land value.

Yes it can. Bar corporations from owning residential real estate. Taxing land value will just cause an exodus into hellhole suburbs.

These are proper pipe dreams in society like US, attacking on basic freedoms and rights (ie to work yourself to death and be stupid enough to be proud about it). US, nor any other capitalist economy is not run by hippies who are going to do such social experiments. I'd say people on top who actually hold the power are quite happy about the state of things, and complaints of average Joe are not something they bother with.

At the end, the core of American dream is that your success is a function of how hard you try, so if you see yourself failing your are just slacking (not that I agree its healthy for individuals nor for a society I would like to live in, but that's another topic).

Btw FWIH Japan is mostly screwed up due to long term demographic curve, something knocking on the doors of ie Europe too, with their borderline racist approach to foreigners, even very similar Koreans. If you work 5am-10pm and have to excuse yourself to your boss for each leaving only after 12 hours of rather ineffective bureaucratic work, very few want to add raising kids on top of that.

I remember there being protests last years. So, the premise of no one organizes political action is not true.

Also, past protests I read about involved employed people. And they involved males too. It is not like stay at home women were sole organizers of protests through the history.