Why liberals should appreciate single-earner households

Single-earner households benefit the environment. You believe in global warming? Prove it! A 2-earner household has a much larger carbon footprint. 2 adults travel to work each day, they buy extra consumer goods (such as work clothes), they rely on fast-food, they take their children to day care. They need to do these things to get along. Yes, they pull in more income, but with more income, they buy more things, and these things must be manufactured, which emits carbon into the atmosphere. A single-earner family sticks with that smaller income and buys less. The stay-at-home spouse works hard to stretch and conserve that income, so that the family’s needs are met. In fact, these needs can be better met, as the home spouse cooks meals from scratch, teaches and plays with young children, and so forth…

I’ve concentrated on environmentalism here, but there is so much more to talk about. For example, unemployment. If the single-earner household movement were to flourish, we wouldn’t need so many jobs, and we wouldn’t need to drive ourselves so hard. Then there are taxes. If you’re living alone, filing as an unmarried person, you’ve probably noticed how much less you would pay if you added a spouse. And what about feminism? If the woman stays home, maybe the man will leave her some day — leave her for a younger woman! — and then what will she do, not having developed her career? The women’s movement made a big deal out of warning us about that danger, but something I want to examine — not here, but in later posts — is the way this women’s movement came along just when we Baby Boomers in the 1960s were inspired by the hippie movement, which tipped us off that life might be about freedom and not about taking one’s place in the conventional workworld. Wouldn’t it be a kick in the head if it turned out feminism served, above all, the interests of commerce and not individual liberation?