Yeah, IIRC Boston actually tried this, and the uproar from parents whose schedules were thrown into disarray was so intense it had to immediately be walked back. It sucks, but there are broader considerations at play.
Sounds like parents have too much to worry about since both parents have to work or their house will be foreclosed on.
Ive read some speculation that the women's right to work movement was just a ploy to double the workforce. Not only that, thet get double the workers for less money since nearly all women are paid less than their male counterparts.
Ofcouse. however they may have been misguided to think their families would benefit from both parents working while it was actually a detriment to their family in the end. Again, not saying women should t be able to work like anyone else, I'm saying having g both parents have to go to work does not benefit the family unit as they hoped. Especially since women are paid nearly half as much as men across nearly every industry.
Who is “they”, and why do you presume “they” pushed for women being able to work because it would benefit families?
I want women to be able to work because I want the women in my life to not be caught under the thumb of an abuser. If it harms families somehow, that is a separate problem, with separate solutions that do not have anything to do with restricting the independence of women.
>Especially since women are paid nearly half as much as men across nearly every industry.
This is not true when comparing the price of the same labor offered by a man or woman.
"They" in this context are the people who benefit from an increased labor pool (capitalists, who want lower wages for everyone) and those who thought it was done for their benefit.
>This is not true when comparing the price of the same labor offered by a man or woman.
Okay, maybe not HALF, but you can't argue with the gender wage gap. Men make ~20% more than women.
This is so disingenuous it really shouldn't be repeated. The pay gap within the same job is miniscule. Men and women make different career choices. There's just no accounting for the lack of women applying for high-paying positions as roughnecks.
I want to counter the “women’s right to work movement was just a ploy to double the workforce” because it implies that there is a double meaning or some wild conspiracy. In reality, women being financially independent is highly protective against financial abuse. Financial
Abuse occurs in the vast majority of domestic violence cases and a majority of victims who return to their abusers do so because of financial insecurity. With the additional risk that the majority of women who are murdered are murdered by their abusive partners, a woman’s right to work is a matter of survival. That it has additional consequences societally, such as workforce doubling, doesn’t mean that there aren’t women behaving independently for their own benefits more so than there are “they” who manipulate half the population for some nebulous capitalist gain.
It's odd that parents consider broader considerations like their 9-5 schedule more important than the health and well-being of their own children. With all the resources and technology we have it's not as if we don't have the ability to find solutions to problems like "How to move a child from point A to point B at time C", so I guess this is more of a lack of will than a lack of capability.
> It’s odd that parents consider broader considerations like their 9-5 schedule more important than the health and well-being of their own children.
For most parents, the ability to maintain the work schedule demanded by their employer is rather central to, not a separate unrelated interest from, the health and well-being of their children.
When we have both the economic structure to support and a government run by a political ideology that will allow a robust UBI that makes this optional (and thereby forces employers to accommodate it if they want to have employees at all), we can discuss the issues as if they were separate. But in the concrete would we live in, they are not.
I agree that UBI would mean a huge amount of leverage for employees, but I get the feeling if we see it at all it'll come after most of us are replaced by AI/automation and will be forced out of work entirely. We shouldn't wait for UBI to draw boundaries around what we'll give up to enrich our employers though, and our children's health seems like a good candidate for a line we could draw and rally behind defending.
> It's odd that parents consider broader considerations like their 9-5 schedule more important than the health and well-being of their own children.
Why are you blaming the parents? Most people in the world don't have the benefit of flexible tech jobs that allow them to work 10-6 or to come and go as needed during the work day.
Because when Boston tried this, uproar from parents was sufficient to cause meaningful change, but that uproar was directed at their schools and not their workplaces. They used their collective power to defend their work schedules at the expense of their children.
Why not insist on more flexibility in their work schedules, or for additional transportation solutions to assist in getting teens to/from schools? Is this really an insurmountable problem?
> Because when Boston tried this, uproar from parents was sufficient to cause meaningful change, but that uproar was directed at their schools and not their workplaces.
School officials are locally democratically accountable. Employers generally are not, and are often able to play workers in different localities (and even states and countries, in many cases) against each other to create a race-to-the-bottom effect.
Parents directed their force against the movable object, not the immovable one.
