>They want a job market where one single breadwinner can support their house, spouse and kids
If society also wants women to be able to have the same income earning opportunities as men and hence have financial freedom.
Animals compete and compare themselves to others, and so everywhere, dual earning households will outcompete single earning households, and so most market participants will be incentivized to be dual earning households.
That addresses the reason for working (eg, pursuit of interests outside family-raising), while also eschewing the need for full time childcare.
But, it falls apart to the same logic GP proposed, that the reason you have dual income households is that they are richer than single income ones. Households where people both work 40hrs = 80hrs will be ahead of those that work only 40hrs total. So everyone will descend to working 80hrs too.
Of course, taking mine and GPs logic to it's conclusion is silly - people will have a point where they stop comparing with others and tradeoff less money for less hours. But looking at reality, it seems like that limit is very high! And it only happens at an already very high salary. A 40hrs/week SWE might not go to a high finance 70hrs/week job, because they're already comfortably paid. However these two are top 1% jobs in the world, and the quality of life is probably not too different. But if you go down to the lower rungs, people are more inclined to compare themselves with peers and tradeoff double hours for the next rung, which entails a much better quality of life (as a % increase)
Is it? 40hrs is quite low by historical standards. 100 hours per week was the norm in the pre-industrial era, and 60+ hours per week was still typical during the Industrial Revolution.
Labour advocacy groups were promoting 40hrs, much like the four day workweek is today, for a long time, but 40hrs didn't actually became the norm until the Great Depression, where capping hours was a tool used to try and spread the work out amongst more workers to try and resolve the high unemployment problem.
> But if you go down to the lower rungs, people are more inclined to compare themselves with peers and tradeoff double hours for the next rung
While that certainly happens, it seems most people in the lower rungs are quite content to work 40 hours per week, even though working more would put them in a much better position. I dare say you even alluded to that when you chose 40 hours in your example.
It is not like 40hrs is the perfect tradeoff or something. As mentioned before, labour advocacy groups have already decided that 32hrs is even better. I expect many people end up working 40 hours just because "that's what you do" and never give it another thought.
> the reason you have dual income households is that they are richer than single income ones.
If we assume both participants work 40 hours per week then it is true that the same household would have less income if one party stopped accruing an income and all else remained equal. But that doesn't necessarily hold true once you start playing with other variables. A higher income party, for example, may enable the household to have a higher income if they work 60 hours per week while the other party takes care of other life responsibilities to enable those longer hours.
A dual income household isn't necessarily the most fruitful option. In fact, marriage — which, while declining, is still the case in most non-single households — assumes that a single income is the ideal option. It seems that "that's what you do" without any further thought is still the primary driving force.
Secondly, when you look at the distribution of wealth in the US, and realize that the top 50% of Americans own 97.5% of the wealth, or that the top 1% owns over 30% of the country's wealth, or read a headline about Elon Musk's $1T pay package, conversations about "dual-earning families" versus "single-earning families" look kind of inconsequential.
> Quite a lot of people don't want TSMC, Waymo and LLMs. They want a job market where one single breadwinner can support their house, spouse and kids.
I stand by what I wrote above. I agree with you that it is possible today at a reduced QoL and I also would like to see society distribute wealth more equitably, which might also achieve the goal at a higher QoL.
