I think I've summarized what I learned from the book, down to ~3 sentences:
In the modern (agricultural+) world, we have decided to group several functions together: Child-rearing, baby-making, sex-for-fun, economic partnership, domestic activity.
Historically, almost all of those were clan activities, mostly disconnected from one another, not 2-person marriage activities.
With expanded wealth, the 5 activities are splitting again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Well that saved me $17.99.
Agreed. This is why I normally don't read books.
Thanks Aretae!
I try. If you have ANY interest in pre-history (or polyamory theory/practice), neither I nor my wife was able to put the book down before finishing it.
the 5 activities are splitting again.
Splitting...or disappearing completely?
Looks to me like wealth extinguishes those activities, except for sex-for-fun.
RSF,
Rich folks still have babies, and still raise children. And rich folks still find that child-rearing is best done NOT by a single person. Yes, rich folks do less baby-making than poor folks, but as Bryan Caplan has pointed out, that's largely due to other factors. Normalize on everything else (IQ, Education, etc. etc.), and richer folks have more kids than poorer.
Domestic activity is disappearing. Washing Machine, Dishwasher, Microwave, Roomba. Restaurant proliferation, cleaning services. It used to be 80 hours a week to cook, clean. Now it's 10. Domestic activity is simply no longer a job. If you want a traditional family...homeschooling, or an infinite stream of children (usually both) seems to be the only way to give the wife an actual job.
Economic partnership...the government highly constrains this. I expect economic partnership to jump in odd directions soon...as folks find corporation forming easier...and standard marriage less palatable.
"It used to be 80 hours a week to cook, clean. Now it's 10."
It takes me more than 10 hours to cook 7 dinners a week and clean up after. And there is a lot more eating going on around here than just dinners.
But, I will give you than if I had no kids, ducks, chickens, horses... then taking care of the home would leave me with lots of excess time on my hands. It would still take more than 10 hours, though.
CCL,
How about, holding quality constant, and paying for it...
A single person, with ALL modern housekeeping appliances (robo-vac, etc.), and a willingness to pay for housekeepers ($40/week for a 2-bedroom apartment in Houston) who (like many) who eats cereal in the morning, lunch out workdays, dinner out twice a week, and semi-instant food (Ramen, Mac'n'cheese'n'tuna, Campbell's soup, Dinty Moore, Chili dogs, etc.) a couple other days a week?
You're adding a pile of preferences that not all folks have. Indeed, single folks have them less. When I was thoroughly single, and paying $40/week to have my apartment cleaned, I spent substantially less than 10 hours a week on cook/clean/etc.
Yes, increased preferences, but really...average wage in this country is $17.something. $40/week for cleaning is 2.5 hours of work. If you're not feeding kids on a single income, it's probably a good trade.
Mac-n-cheese and raman are not quality constant.
And seriously, what the F do you eat at your house.
CCL,
Sorry...poorly phrased. As compared to normal food from, say, Europe, 1900...Ramen is quality constant. Small individual farms in the USA were a massive increase in food-quality.
At our house, we prepare moderately elaborate meals, and presently have no dishwasher. Breakfast, Lunch are each 10-15 minute prep (total for all 5 of us) and 5 minute cleanup (no dishwasher), while dinner is 1 hour prep, 1/2 hour cleanup.
... eat at your house.
If I was single, I'd probably eat this three meals a day. I love those things.
Normalize on everything else (IQ, Education, etc. etc.), and richer folks have more kids than poorer.
Sounds like someone hunted down evidence to support their point of view.
That autonomy that everyone craves and rich people buy includes not needing kids to hoe the vegetables or wipe butts in old age. Kids are expensive and the benefits often accrue to others (corporations and that entity that collects taxes and soldiers.)
Generally this is not a problem: the population can decline to a new equilibrium. The problem is that we have an economic system based on debt and other various Ponzi schemes that require ever more growth of all kinds, so we try importing people to aid the god metric of economic growth, but we get South American Indios, Somalis, and consanguineous Pakistanis who promptly displace the native population, cancel the space program, and close the book stores.
Western Civ. has built a bomb and blown itself up.
This isn't a value add comment, but Dinty Moore? Seriously? I just threw up in my mouth.
Post a Comment