I'm Dr. Orion Taban and this is Psychax

better living through psychology and the

topic of today's short talk is the

reality of modern family. Today I'm

going to be discussing some of the

things I observe in the lives of family,

friends, and clients when they decide to

settle down and have children. In my

opinion, there are many significant

design flaws in the way that modern

families are generally structured. And

these fundamental absurdities must, at

least in part, be responsible for the

observed decline in marriage and birth

rates. Let's get to it.

The archetypal modern family is a

nuclear family. That is a family

consisting of a couple with a child or

two living together by themselves in a

single household. This isn't exactly

new. However, what is novel is that in

the vast majority of cases in today's

day and age, both parents are working.

And it's this fact that creates a lot of

the ridiculousness that I'm going to

discuss. Now I understand that this

arrangement, the dualincome household,

has become an economic necessity for

most people. It is now extremely

difficult for one person, traditionally

the man, to earn enough money to support

another person, traditionally the woman,

and children to boot. And people have to

do what they have to do.

But I think it's also important to

acknowledge that this necessity has

functionally come about largely due to

the fact that women have insisted on the

right to work. When women entered the

workforce on mass, it functionally

doubled the supply of available labor

which haved the value of that labor,

especially in sectors and industries in

which men and women can functionally

discharge the responsibilities and

expectations equally. Obviously, it's

more nuanced than this, but this is a

big part of it. You can't flood the

market with labor and expect the real

value of wages and salaries to go up.

And this isn't going anywhere anytime

soon.

Just like this economic reality didn't

emerge overnight. It can't be changed in

any real hurry. Even assuming that women

want to change it, which they don't.

Women only want to be able to leave the

workforce if and when it suits them

personally, which unfortunately makes it

next to impossible for this to occur as

a practical reality. Why? Because these

population level forces are not going to

be affected if and when a single woman

decides she wants to stay at home.

Meaning, this option is really only

possible if her partner is already a

significantly above average earner. And

this is part of what is driving the

outofont control hypergamy

of modern mate selection. For instance,

about one in six American women today

earn over $100,000 a year. That supports

a $100,000 a year lifestyle for herself.

As a result, she's going to be very

reluctant to start a family and raise

children with a man who only earns

$100,000 a year himself.

Why? Well, assuming it costs at least

$20,000 a year to raise a child, then

that would mean such a man could only

provide a $40,000 a year lifestyle for

the two adults, which is a significant

drop relative to the lifestyle to which

she had become accustomed.

To experience no change in her

lifestyle, she would need to hook a man

who earned at least $220,000

a year in this scenario. And only about

one in 30 American men today earn above

that threshold. One in 30 to one in6.

That's a 5:1 ratio, which is what is

driving the social trend toward

polygamy.

That is many of these women whether

they're aware of it or not are sharing

these high earning men while

simultaneously driving down the marriage

and birth rates as most men that is 29

out of 30 men are functionally removed

from consideration.

These economic realities are much much

more to blame for these numbers than any

ideological shifts that pundits claim to

be the problem. Though it's true

ideological shifts can and do influence

economic realities. And one of these

ideological trends that is very

prevalent in the west is a kind of

learned terror inculcated into women

over the prospect of being financially

dependent on a man

which paradoxically motivates women to

become financially dependent on a man.

How do I figure? It's just that while

women were traditionally financially

dependent on their husbands, modern

women are now financially dependent on

their employers who are typically male.

And if you actually read if you actually

read the marriage and employment

contracts, it's not entirely clear that

this shift has improved most women's

situation.

Introducing [music] my innovative first

novel, Starry Night. Step into the world

of painter Vincent Van Gogh, genius,

sinner, prophet, madman. Relive the

final 10 weeks of his life in this

breathtaking tale of art, love, loss,

[music] and meaning. And challenge what

you think you know about life and

relationships. Once you see through

Vincent's eyes, the world will never

look the same again. Starry Night. Order

your copy today. The links are in the

description.

Are women actually better off now?

Employment is generally an atwill

arrangement in which the employer holds

the vast majority of power and whose

continuation depends on consistently

meeting certain performance standards.

Most women can live without an employer

today about as well as they could live

without a husband a 100 years ago. If

she is fired, the modern woman will

scramble like a war bride of a different

time to latch on to another employer to

secure her continued survival. The fact

that most people perceive this

arrangement to be a sign of empowered

independence is one of the great

bamboozlings of our time. Of course,

women tend to rationalize this

arrangement to themselves as a hedge

against being financially destroyed if

their marriages fall apart. I've already

discussed this perspective in another

video, so I won't do so here. But why

not apply this same logic to their

employment? Like, how many women have a

side hustle as a hedge against their

primary employment falling through? Not

many. Right? So this is a very selective

kind of reasoning at best and a form of

blind ideological allegiance at worst.

The upshot is that if people want to

move forward with starting a family, the

majority of them will be constrained

into the dual income nuclear family

model. And this is where we get real

silly because what is really going on

here? What's really going on is that

baby almost from the moment it is born

is handed off to a number of different

industries and professionals. Everything

from night nurses to nannies to

daycarees to babysitters who actually do

the work of raising the children. And of

course, all of these services cost

money.

As a consequence, in a modern family,

the man is working to earn money so that

he can support a woman who is not his

wife to raise his children. And the

woman is serving a man who is not her

husband to secure her desired lifestyle.

I will say that again.

In a modern family, the man is working

to earn money so that he can support a

woman who is not his wife to raise his

children. And the woman is serving a man

who is not her husband to secure her

desired lifestyle. Okay? And if that's

the case, then we have to ask, why

[ __ ] bother? Seriously. Seriously,

why go through all of these extra steps

just to secure an arrangement that is

more expensive and less fulfilling than

the obvious alternative, namely that a

man works to support his wife in raising

his children and that a woman serves her

husband to secure her desired lifestyle.

Apologies if that sounds like some Bible

thumping neoconservativism. That's not

who I am or what I subscribe to. But

it's kind of amazing that when we look

at the situation through the lens of

economic libertarianism, we more or less

arrive at the same conclusions.

Unfortunately, it's going to be very

difficult for the average man or woman

to be able to afford this kind of

arrangement. So, what's to be done?

Well, men can and should work to become

above average. Like increasing his

wealth and prosperity is not only going

to benefit that man directly, it's going

to allow him to access more and more

attractive mating and dating

opportunities. Men can strive to be the

one in 30 who can replace a woman's

income with no loss in lifestyle. though

whether he actually chooses to do so

once he has access to that kind of

optionality is entirely up to him. Yes,

it's difficult but it's definitely worth

doing.

Women on the other hand have kind of an

easier solution and one that would

potentially correct this problem on the

population level as well. Namely, they

marry older women earlier. That's it.

Older men are just much more likely to

satisfy the income requirements for

lifestyle replacement. These women will

also have a larger pool of men to choose

from as their own lifestyle would be

less expensive to replace given the fact

that they wouldn't have been in the

workforce for very long. Furthermore, as

young women, they would likely be nearer

their peak sexual marketplace value,

which will also make them more

attractive to more men and help them

secure a more attractive commitment for

themselves. Finally, if younger women

secure their lifestyles through marriage

as opposed to employment, this will help

to correct the marketplace over supply

that tends to make dual family, dual

income families a functional necessity.

From the perspective of logic and

reason, this solution has a lot to speak

for it, both for the women in question

and for society at large. In any case,

given certain economic realities, most

modern families are functionally private

sector surrogacies.

They're private sector surrogacies. At

which point, we have to stop and ask

ourselves some questions. Questions

like, what's the point? and or well, why

don't we just outsource the surrogacy

completely, which is probably the

direction we're collectively heading.

More on this later. What do you think?

Does this fit with your own experience?

Let me know in the comments below. And

please send this episode to someone who

you think might benefit from its

message. I know you know someone who

needs to hear this because it's word of

mouth referrals like this that really

help to make the channel grow. other

value propositions. Anyone looking to

join my free weekly newsletter for which

I write original content, no AI, or to

book a paid one-on-one consultation with

yours truly, can find out more on my

website. There's also my best-selling

book, The Value of Others, in which I

explore interexual dynamics, and my

private member community, The Captain's

Quarters, where, among other things, I

host live bimonthly group consultation

calls. The links to everything are in

the description below. Check them out. A

lot of great value there. As always, I

appreciate your support and thank you

for listening.