1) The traditional arrangement my wife and I have, gives us capacity to support the community and take on projects. My wife can volunteer at school and a non-profit. We have a side gig doing fertility awareness and NFP, which is not profitable but we like helping couples. I feel less guilty about the limits work plac…
1) The traditional arrangement my wife and I have, gives us capacity to support the community and take on projects. My wife can volunteer at school and a non-profit. We have a side gig doing fertility awareness and NFP, which is not profitable but we like helping couples. I feel less guilty about the limits work places on my ability to engage in my community knowing my wife fills that capacity. She also has the time to just throw pottery and make fun, beautiful things.
2) My read of corporate culture is that if you're a competent person, they can find you meaningful work and you will thrive. My wife occasionally tells me how she'd be homeless without me, but I reply she would be an above average project manager in 6 months. The experience and certification stuff is much less important than motivation and common sense problem solving. Yes many jobs need specific skills, but many jobs are just running business specific processes that must be trained regardless of experience. A women out of the work force comes in with some disadvantage, but water finds its level.
I'm a little more cynical than you with regard to corporate culture. They like to lay you off at 45 to 55 when your health costs start to go up and then you can't find another job but still have to cover healthcare until 65 (and even then Medicare isn't perfect). Good luck paying child support (or for the kids), chump!
While I am well aware that corporates do dumb and evil things, a women entering the labor force from the sidelines does not have inflated salary expectations. My experience with men laid off mid to late career is that they expect to retain their salary and status despite the place that would value them most (due to company specific knowledge) already determining that it wasn't economically feasible.
Sometimes I need to play cold hearted economist. Corporates are not out for anyone in particular. They are out their trying to solve economic problems. Generally folks are biased to their own performance and value. I know several people whole went job hunting and came back with a new appreciation and effort in the job they currently hold. I'm many cases the difference between 5 years experience and 20 years experience is pay expectation and bad habits. I have and will hire both moms re-entering the work force and late career men, I just don't see much difference in qualification if both parties are competent and hard working. (In econ terms, there is diminishing returns to occupational experience especially excluding firm specific human capital)
I agree a lot of guys can't accept a demotion, and lots of people overestimate themselves. (Since turning 40 my assumption is I have to live as though I am going to be forced into early retirement--because it might happen!) And, ceteris paribus, the mom might be easier to work with and less trouble than some recently demoted executive!
I'm a little less agreed that most people will be able to find meaningful work and they will thrive. Simply put, as you say, they are out there trying to solve economic problems. That means minimizing wages (labor is a major expense after all) and other expenses like healthcare benefits. So it's not at all clear some mom re-entering the work force would find something that pays the bills. Furthermore, half of all people are below average. (OK, below the *median*...) Most people are not particularly competent even if hardworking. The best they can do might be some lower-level thing that doesn't pay all that well.
I'm assuming a fair bit of selection for the substack comment section. The level of competence among readers is much higher than the population. That said I agree on your point more broadly.
Two thoughts on this:
1) The traditional arrangement my wife and I have, gives us capacity to support the community and take on projects. My wife can volunteer at school and a non-profit. We have a side gig doing fertility awareness and NFP, which is not profitable but we like helping couples. I feel less guilty about the limits work places on my ability to engage in my community knowing my wife fills that capacity. She also has the time to just throw pottery and make fun, beautiful things.
2) My read of corporate culture is that if you're a competent person, they can find you meaningful work and you will thrive. My wife occasionally tells me how she'd be homeless without me, but I reply she would be an above average project manager in 6 months. The experience and certification stuff is much less important than motivation and common sense problem solving. Yes many jobs need specific skills, but many jobs are just running business specific processes that must be trained regardless of experience. A women out of the work force comes in with some disadvantage, but water finds its level.
I'm a little more cynical than you with regard to corporate culture. They like to lay you off at 45 to 55 when your health costs start to go up and then you can't find another job but still have to cover healthcare until 65 (and even then Medicare isn't perfect). Good luck paying child support (or for the kids), chump!
While I am well aware that corporates do dumb and evil things, a women entering the labor force from the sidelines does not have inflated salary expectations. My experience with men laid off mid to late career is that they expect to retain their salary and status despite the place that would value them most (due to company specific knowledge) already determining that it wasn't economically feasible.
Sometimes I need to play cold hearted economist. Corporates are not out for anyone in particular. They are out their trying to solve economic problems. Generally folks are biased to their own performance and value. I know several people whole went job hunting and came back with a new appreciation and effort in the job they currently hold. I'm many cases the difference between 5 years experience and 20 years experience is pay expectation and bad habits. I have and will hire both moms re-entering the work force and late career men, I just don't see much difference in qualification if both parties are competent and hard working. (In econ terms, there is diminishing returns to occupational experience especially excluding firm specific human capital)
I agree a lot of guys can't accept a demotion, and lots of people overestimate themselves. (Since turning 40 my assumption is I have to live as though I am going to be forced into early retirement--because it might happen!) And, ceteris paribus, the mom might be easier to work with and less trouble than some recently demoted executive!
I'm a little less agreed that most people will be able to find meaningful work and they will thrive. Simply put, as you say, they are out there trying to solve economic problems. That means minimizing wages (labor is a major expense after all) and other expenses like healthcare benefits. So it's not at all clear some mom re-entering the work force would find something that pays the bills. Furthermore, half of all people are below average. (OK, below the *median*...) Most people are not particularly competent even if hardworking. The best they can do might be some lower-level thing that doesn't pay all that well.
I'm assuming a fair bit of selection for the substack comment section. The level of competence among readers is much higher than the population. That said I agree on your point more broadly.