<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Market Work vs. Other Work</title>
	<atom:link href="http://clararaubertas.net/blog/market-work-vs-other-work/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://clararaubertas.net/blog/market-work-vs-other-work/</link>
	<description>Miscellaneous thoughts from a Cantabridgian web developer.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 19:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://clararaubertas.net/blog/market-work-vs-other-work/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clararaubertas.net/blog/?p=27#comment-30</guid>
		<description>I think your analysis is right on. It reminds me of something I read in a book published in the late 60's by Ashley Montague (sp?). His idea was that it would be better for men, women, and children if men worked less and women had out of the home employment (this was before women were in the workforce in the large numbers they are now). He suggested that employers should be more flexible about part time work so that ideally in a family with children the man and woman would each work 20 hrs./wk. That way each would have time for the children and other life interests. This has always struck me as close to the ideal - although others might have a different balance point.&lt;br/&gt;I am also very intrigued by William's point that productivity gains mean that working 20 hr./wk will get you a standard of living roughly equivalent to that of someone working full time in 1948.&lt;br/&gt;Dad</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think your analysis is right on. It reminds me of something I read in a book published in the late 60&#8217;s by Ashley Montague (sp?). His idea was that it would be better for men, women, and children if men worked less and women had out of the home employment (this was before women were in the workforce in the large numbers they are now). He suggested that employers should be more flexible about part time work so that ideally in a family with children the man and woman would each work 20 hrs./wk. That way each would have time for the children and other life interests. This has always struck me as close to the ideal - although others might have a different balance point.<br />I am also very intrigued by William&#8217;s point that productivity gains mean that working 20 hr./wk will get you a standard of living roughly equivalent to that of someone working full time in 1948.<br />Dad</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

