I had 6 children, 5 survived to adulthood. I married in ‘74 and had no problem feeding and purchasing a house. I was a construction worker, non union hanging sheetrock. It actually paid more than the Carpenter apprentice job I left to take it.
If I were to jump back into the job market, I could not purchase a house or afford to have children. My last job paid $35 an hour. My first home cost $64K, a house now that is equivalent would be around $350K. The house was a 3 bedroom 1 bath with a single car garage on a 1/4 acre lot. Decent used cars were under 1K, and of course we know the groceries were much much less.
You can want children with all of your heart, but the wife must work. With both people working, one of them is paying for daycare. The children don’t even know their mother. THAT is why people are choosing not to have children, or as many.
That's the difference. People want more AND have higher taxes so it forced the Mother into the workforce.
I always wondered, if you took women out of the workforce, this would reduce the available supply of labor, which should in theory, drive wages up. Would it be feasible?
Also, consider all the extra costs you incur in order to support both spouses working: extra transportation costs, daycare costs, clothing, etc. And do you really get all that much out of that second salary?