throwaway2w09

I think women working and both partners needing to work simultaneously are inextricably linked though. While this could be a gross oversimplification, adding 1/2 of the population to the workforce would, through the laws of supplyand demand, decrease wages by 1/2 (assuming that all women were not already dedicated to raising children). Yes, men can also leave the workforce just as women can enter it, but would a man be more inclined to leave if he was the only breadwinner because the woman was already raising his children? Sorry I know a lot of this may be considered inflammatory but I don't think these questions are being asked (precisely because they may be seen as inflammatory, though my intention really is not to be controversial).

>I don't think it's particularly a women-centric issue and you're never going to have a real discussion about it while it's posed as one

Sure it is. Unless men start having babies, then women working and the birth rate consequently decreasing is a women-centric issue.

The Japanese government for one. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47127738

They already have more pensioners than children being born. The same trend can be seen in virtually every single developed country. We are soon to going to not be able to afford to pay these pensioners if there are not enough people paying taxes. Hopefully you don't actually think pensions are somehow grown on trees.

I would like to know when, if ever, we will be able to have a conversation on HN about whether women working (i.e. working outside rather than raising a family) is an absolute unquestionable good thing. Surely we can't complain about falling birth rates at the same time that we complain about we don't have enough women working? Japan particularly wants to avoid the elephant in the room.