It is problematic for dual-income households with kids.
In these situations, kids are raised by a combination of:
1) Extended family (typically retired grandparents)
2) Daycare / child-care / "school system"
3) Private child-care (e.g. nannies or babysitters)
#1 is cheapest, but ties the family down to where the grandparents are. Both parent jobs need to be located relatively close by.
#2 typically take a huge chunk out of the 2nd income (which is almost always unfairly compared against the mother's income), at least until a family can survive/pay for such child-care until public schooling becomes an option.
#3 is only really an option for those that earn enough to support a full or part-time babysitter.
Sometimes you'll see a combination of #2 and #3, but that again is only really an option for those with enough cash-flow. Some preschool programs are even more expensive than a decent nanny, although ones loses out on the socialization aspects that come built-in with a daycare program.
Home life (beyond kids) for dual-income households is a shared responsibility. I don't think much changes there whether you're a single income or dual-income household. If you're talking about chores like groceries, cooking dinner and cleaning up, that's what weekends and evenings are for.
In real terms, we may be earning half as much (or even less depending on the combined income), but the marginal incremental value of the career experience and/or additional dollars is usually enough that going dual-income wins out.
EDIT: @humanrebar mentioned the "safety premium". Households that have experienced layoffs in the past (friends/family/themselves) probably take into account that although both adults may be working today, that doesn't mean both adults will be guaranteed jobs X months/years in advance.
Yes, it is a bit of a burden for the grandparents. I hear that this is sometimes alleviated by using grandparents on both sides of the family, health permitting (/anecdata).
So what exactly was the point of the colossal developments in human productivity in the last ten decades?
So we can continue to function as desperately as our ancestors whilst a few people have more money and power than we can possibly imagine? Fucking great.
In these situations, kids are raised by a combination of:
1) Extended family (typically retired grandparents) 2) Daycare / child-care / "school system" 3) Private child-care (e.g. nannies or babysitters)
#1 is cheapest, but ties the family down to where the grandparents are. Both parent jobs need to be located relatively close by.
#2 typically take a huge chunk out of the 2nd income (which is almost always unfairly compared against the mother's income), at least until a family can survive/pay for such child-care until public schooling becomes an option.
#3 is only really an option for those that earn enough to support a full or part-time babysitter.
Sometimes you'll see a combination of #2 and #3, but that again is only really an option for those with enough cash-flow. Some preschool programs are even more expensive than a decent nanny, although ones loses out on the socialization aspects that come built-in with a daycare program.
Home life (beyond kids) for dual-income households is a shared responsibility. I don't think much changes there whether you're a single income or dual-income household. If you're talking about chores like groceries, cooking dinner and cleaning up, that's what weekends and evenings are for.
In real terms, we may be earning half as much (or even less depending on the combined income), but the marginal incremental value of the career experience and/or additional dollars is usually enough that going dual-income wins out.
EDIT: @humanrebar mentioned the "safety premium". Households that have experienced layoffs in the past (friends/family/themselves) probably take into account that although both adults may be working today, that doesn't mean both adults will be guaranteed jobs X months/years in advance.