#3) If working long hours is bad, “overworked” in the author’s language, then why would the author say that women are often “stuck” in limited roles or take a “back seat” to their husbands. Why not say that husbands most often bear the burden of overworking so that their wives can have a better work-life balance, even in cases where the wife has sufficient education to bear more overwork burdens? Conversely, if wives really are taking a “back seat” to their husbands, then it must be the case that workers *welcome the opportunity* to earn premiums by working longer hours. So, which is it, are husbands sacrificing home life for the benefit of their wives or do couples actually view higher “overwork” premiums as a welcome benefit?
Here is a logically coherent, self-consistent way of describing things: The percentage of women with advanced education has been steadily increasing. That liberalization, along with economic liberalization, has contributed to economic growth, especially for highly educated couples. Such couples are well enough off that, in many cases, both spouses don’t even have to work full time to generate sufficient income. Many affluent wives prioritize work-life balance over pure financial returns. With such a large fraction of highly educated workers prioritizing work-life balance, firms find it necessary to increase “overwork” premiums to attract workers to fill the most time-demanding roles. The tax wedge between taxed office work and untaxed home production (own childcare and enjoyment of spending time with one’s family) may also contribute to workers’ prioritization of work-life balance over pure financial compensation.
That is from BC.