Hey everyone, here are two interesting articles featured on NPR:
the first is about how financial difficulties cause some individuals to move in (or back in) with family members,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130190814&sc=fb&cc=fp
the second is about the relationship between financial stability and marriage,
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/29/130218357/for-most-americans-marriage-is-an-economic-decision-sociologist-says
(it's interesting that the article mentions the tendency for some people to wait until they're financially secure to marry but not to have children..).
Sara
Unbelievable. Gives voice to the economic perspective (new home economics) that is so readily dismissed by feminists (in addition to the class, last week....). What, if any, are the differences in the argument (and there are a few)?
ReplyDeleteFor some reason I had considerable difficulty finding my post..
ReplyDeleteAn interesting difference is the composition of the family: while the new home economics article referred to the tendency of individuals to use the family unit as a means of maximizing wealth, the first NPR article highlights the variation of this reality. There is a tendency (or at least, for myself there was), to immediately associate extended family with households that include grandparents or parents of adult children. Alternatively, this article has a broader scope, including sibling (an less obvious category of relatives) as well as parent/children households.
Another (hilarious) point is the low desirability of living with family. Many individuals have little or no desire to live with family members into adulthood and choose to do so, as the article suggests, purely out of economic hardship. So much for altruism.