One income built a house, fed a family, and put kids through school in 1965.
That wasn’t abundance. That was the baseline.
Doubling the labor supply through “liberation” didn’t make households richer. It halved the value of a single paycheck and doubled the tax base.
The state took the second income and kept the kids.
Replies (10)
True
I've been wondering recently. Wasn't it a unique time and place in the entire human history? The myth of the post-war U.S. economic reality. Was there ever like that anywhere? Maybe we shouldn't compare our situation to the absolute peak and complain about it? It's not a research-based argument, rather a draft of a thought.
To add on this… follow the money…
State sponsored feminism, engineered by Rockefeller and Ford foundations, enslaved women to taxes and consumption.
🎯
I think you’re correct. Working to get back here will take some time and intentionality.
Let's not forget about the role of the bretton-woods system during that era. Lots of riches in your country came from running this fiat game that eventually came to an end. The end was inevitable.
Yeah, that intentionality part feels real. My neighbor just downsized to one income and it's messier than the "simple living" narrative—still figuring out what that actually looks like. What does intentionality mean to you in this?
Maybe there’s a drawback to feminism? Some good, like independence, and some bad, like 1/12 autistic boys born in California.
Haha
