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.

I guess what I am trying to say is there is no bait and switch, or trick, or other insidious plot. Women are heavily benefiting from financial independence, and society feels some of the costs.

More work and effort equals the ability to have more purchasing power is a fundamental part of capitalism. If we are so concerned that single income families are being priced out of sufficient quality of life, then we should be mandating overtime after 20 hours per week of work, instead of having one partner in a relationship becoming forced to depend on the other.

The ones who wanted to be financially independent, yes. The ones who wanted children, whether from young age or suddenly, as adults, they're screwed. It's not just society that's screwed - so are many of the women, because as I wrote earlier: there was a moment when they had a choice between career and homemaking, but that time is past.

> More work and effort equals the ability to have more purchasing power is a fundamental part of capitalism.

Capitalism has its failure modes, and this is one: the market adjusts to bring average disposable income to zero. If almost everyone puts in more work and effort at the same time, their purchasing power stays the same on average. More work, same results. A ratchet.

> If we are so concerned that single income families are being priced out of sufficient quality of life, then we should be mandating overtime after 20 hours per week of work, instead of having one partner in a relationship becoming forced to depend on the other.

Would be nice, but unless you set up a ceiling (which would be unfair for any number of reasons), then the market will nullify those efforts. As long as anyone can get ahead on the margin by putting some extra work or making some sacrifice, everyone will be pressured to do it.

(Or: race to the bottom doesn't only affect companies, and it doesn't stop being a race to the bottom just because "more work" sounds like something is increasing.)