Of course, not trapping women in domestic servitude is a good thing, but making it (on average) necessary for two people to work to afford a home when before it took one is a bad thing.
Alternative is 'trapping them' (horrible choice of words btw) into corporate servitude. Which of the two is better? Which of the two is better for children?
trapping in corporate. Trapping in corporate grants economic independence.
Which means, depending on the family situation, it may be better for the children... it means the woman has the ability to run away if she needs to.
Not saying its a perfect system, or that it should be a binary choice (it shouldn't be), but of the binary choice, one is blatantly better.
The choice should be there for men and women to work or rear. Applying that freedom appropriately is the individual's responsibility.
Any reason you used the term servitude which implies a negative connotation, when many women were happy with that arrangement? It also implies none of the women received positive utility from staying at home with the kids and it was always a chore, which seems a little ridiculous.
We should be embracing every opportunity for more personal involvement with our children and family, not calling it servitude. It does all families, past, present and future, a huge disservice.
But in 1973, it fell almost exclusively to the female parent, whether it was what she wanted or not. Many women may well have been happy with that arrangement, but practically no men would have "received positive utility". And either there's something unique about the Y chromosome that makes it impossible for them to enjoy that, or a lot of women weren't so much "happy" as "accepting".
We should indeed embrace opportunities for more personal involvement in families -- for both parents. Generous leave is a big start on that. But "100% leave, as long as you're female" is not.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/mapping-capital-flows-us-over-last-...
http://www.smashcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Scree...
A few other graphs I collected on my weblog are here:
http://www.smashcompany.com/business/is-it-useful-to-have-a-...
http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike...
http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/marriage-peaked-in-19...
A real weak economy would look like Japan, Ukraine, Russia, Zimbabwe, etc.
Life for the laborer has been under systemic attack since Reagan, but the US economy as a whole has been doing swimmingly.
Replace capitalist with monopolist and I'd agree.
How many capitalists make losses for 20 years and not only stay in their job, but actually become the world's richest person? Where would Uber be if they couldn't use VC money to undercut taxi companies, and subsidize hundreds of millions in losses. And let's not even get started on the issue of offshore tax avoidance, something your local hardware store will never have access to.
Looking at wages alone is only half the picture.
