>
What is the racket?I wrote ratchet, not racket, though arguably both fit.
> No one is forcing two income families.
Except for all the other dual-income families. That's the ratchet. Or, the magic of supply and demand at play.
In a society where single-income households are dominating, the households that choose to go dual-income suddenly have 2x the income (obviously), and effectively jump a rung higher on the socioeconomic ladder. As more and more households choose this way, there's a surplus of disposable income on the market, which reduces pressures holding prices of everything down, and additionally, creates new classes of products and services[0]. As the society transitions to predominantly dual-income households, the socioeconomic ladder readjusts - suddenly the single-income households can no longer afford to live the way they used to, as prices of everything went up (both nominally and through inflation), and there's more required spending. The ratchet has turned a step, and there is no going back.
Or in a hot take form: the option for women to choose career over being a homemaker started as a choice. But, as enough women took the career option, it now became a requirement. Decades ago, a woman could find a job. Nowadays, she has to, otherwise she's going to be economically disadvantaged, whether single or with a partner.
That's the ratchet. Or a bait-and-switch the market pulled on women. It's fine for couples who don't plan to start a family; sucks for those that do.
--
[0] - In short: the market adjusts to keep average disposable income in a population at zero. More than zero means there's money left on the table, and someone will soon find a way to pick it up.