That was also established back before dishwashers, laundry machines, refrigerators (so you can go shopping every couple weeks instead of every day), public school, etc. Modern conveniences streamline a lot of domestic tasks.
I still think a single income should support a family, but maintaining a household isn’t as labor intensive as it once was.
The 1950s had basically all of that and the standard was still the same. Before that extended family households were more common and the labor was spread to multiple adults and children had more expectations
Those were all pretty new in the '50s, plus that’s about when women started entering the workforce in greater volume, and also when you start to see the stereotype of housewives sitting at home eating bonbons.
you don’t have to do any of that man. you choose to do it.
you can use paper plates.
you remind me of the people i meet who ‘don’t have time to cook’ but then spend $1000 on food each week, and then complain they have to work more to afford food… it’s not the system… it’s that you refuse to do the responsible and smart thing… which is cook and spend $100 a week on food and work less.
so you have a ft job that is 35-40 hour a week, and you want to work less than that?
i have a 40 hour job my entire adult life. never felt it was ‘too much’. but then again i don’t think basic adult responsibilities are a horrible undue burden. But I am aware many of my peers think it is.
Yes I’ve heard the “I’ve never once been tired in over 30 years working 100 hours a week at the moving rocks company. So therefore you can not ever be tired unless I deem it worthy” argument before. It’s insufferable
Not really? You’ll have to wash dishes anyway, and it only takes like 10-20 hours of work to pay it off. It’s not like it’s a consumable or subscription service.
Again, that doesn’t mean I’m pro-consumption, but certain appliances just objectively save time and make your life easier.
How so? There’s a difference between constant mindless consumption and buying tools that save you time and effort. If you wanna talk TVs and jet skis and designer bags, yes obviously you have a point. But that’s not the same as labor saving appliances.
Convinces aren’t made to save us time and effort. Back to the example of the household all the modern conveniences did was decrease the about of labor needed to maintain a home.
Did that surplus of labor help us? No now conveniences became necessary because households required a dual income.
If all the modern conveniences saved a home maker 30 hours per week those did not become free. That labor went to making quarterly profits. Now you need 2 adults working so you have to buy these things to have any time to do other things
I don’t see the connection here. I think you’re drawing a cause-effect relationship here that doesn’t exist. Dual incomes aren’t necessary because we have appliances, it’s because wages haven’t kept up with productivity or inflation. I don’t see how you’re coming to the conclusion that it’s somehow a direct consequence of labor saving appliances.
That was also established back before dishwashers, laundry machines, refrigerators (so you can go shopping every couple weeks instead of every day), public school, etc. Modern conveniences streamline a lot of domestic tasks.
I still think a single income should support a family, but maintaining a household isn’t as labor intensive as it once was.
The 1950s had basically all of that and the standard was still the same. Before that extended family households were more common and the labor was spread to multiple adults and children had more expectations
Those were all pretty new in the '50s, plus that’s about when women started entering the workforce in greater volume, and also when you start to see the stereotype of housewives sitting at home eating bonbons.
These conveniences have become necessitates though.
I work to buy a dishwasher to wash my dishes so I have more time to work. It’s trapping us in a consumption cycle
you don’t have to do any of that man. you choose to do it.
you can use paper plates.
you remind me of the people i meet who ‘don’t have time to cook’ but then spend $1000 on food each week, and then complain they have to work more to afford food… it’s not the system… it’s that you refuse to do the responsible and smart thing… which is cook and spend $100 a week on food and work less.
Wild assumptions. I do cook my meals, still doesn’t change the system. Plus I can’t just “work less” my job, like most, has set hours
so you have a ft job that is 35-40 hour a week, and you want to work less than that?
i have a 40 hour job my entire adult life. never felt it was ‘too much’. but then again i don’t think basic adult responsibilities are a horrible undue burden. But I am aware many of my peers think it is.
Yes I’ve heard the “I’ve never once been tired in over 30 years working 100 hours a week at the moving rocks company. So therefore you can not ever be tired unless I deem it worthy” argument before. It’s insufferable
Nobody is working 100 hour weeks. Please straw man more.
Not really? You’ll have to wash dishes anyway, and it only takes like 10-20 hours of work to pay it off. It’s not like it’s a consumable or subscription service.
Again, that doesn’t mean I’m pro-consumption, but certain appliances just objectively save time and make your life easier.
You took that too literally. It’s not about the dishwasher per se it’s about the whole lifestyle.
How so? There’s a difference between constant mindless consumption and buying tools that save you time and effort. If you wanna talk TVs and jet skis and designer bags, yes obviously you have a point. But that’s not the same as labor saving appliances.
Convinces aren’t made to save us time and effort. Back to the example of the household all the modern conveniences did was decrease the about of labor needed to maintain a home.
Did that surplus of labor help us? No now conveniences became necessary because households required a dual income.
If all the modern conveniences saved a home maker 30 hours per week those did not become free. That labor went to making quarterly profits. Now you need 2 adults working so you have to buy these things to have any time to do other things
And the assumption becomes that everyone has those things and can therefore work even more. For pay that hasn’t kept pace with inflation for decades.
I don’t see the connection here. I think you’re drawing a cause-effect relationship here that doesn’t exist. Dual incomes aren’t necessary because we have appliances, it’s because wages haven’t kept up with productivity or inflation. I don’t see how you’re coming to the conclusion that it’s somehow a direct consequence of labor saving appliances.