[quote=bearishgurl]
The WWII Gen and the boomers (+ some early Gen-Xers) paved the way for equality for women in the workplace and did make a lot of headway in being instrumental in getting family friendly labor laws enacted only to result in LESS women of childbearing age in the FT workforce today.
I haven’t investigated the stats on this but based upon recent articles I read, I strongly suspect that the bulk of women in the FT workforce in the US today either do not have children or all their child(ren) are over the age of 16. The rest of the mostly overeducated crowd of mommies are home with their children. The poor women without higher education and with or without spouses and minor kids at home are working in all the service jobs (essentially grunt work)… PT, FT or both part and FT … anything they can get.
After all their sister predecessors have been through, why did the values of the younger generation of parents (mostly moms) change over the last decade-plus? They prefer modern conveniences and technology much more than their older brethren (many of whom retired with their own pensions) and all this stuff costs money (and many are indebted for their educations) but it seems a good portion of them would rather opt out of the workforce, ignore their debts and attempt to live on less.
It doesn’t make sense.[/quote]
It would make all the sense in the world if you would take off the blinders of your preconceived notions. These highly-educated, intelligent women are doing what’s right for their families (what may have been right for you is not necessarily what’s right for them). After realizing that we can’t “have it all,” and after calculating how much it costs to work outside of the home, along with the emotional costs to the family of working outside of the home (more stress, more resentment, etc.), these *families* (not just one spouse) have opted to make a choice that provides the greatest benefits at the lowest cost for themselves.
