What's not okay is that only they have to accept the short end of the stick and the others can profit from that.
People want to have their cake and eat it, too. And that obviously doesn't work.
What you really need to live, and the luxury you want can be very different. I've lived in a one bathroom house, I'm willing to pay for more. I can eat "beans and rice", but I want more (not just meat, there are vegetables that are more expensive). Most people are not willing to live without a lot of luxury and honestly would choose both parents working a full time job to get more luxury.
This (socalled "luxury space communism") is impossible insofar as a good lifestyle includes positional goods and social status. Demand is infinite, even your own demand, and you have to be able to outrun it.
The best technology I know for this is Ozempic. If there was a way to ban yourself from getting loans that would also help, but you wouldn't like it.
But in actuality, I like some parts of how society is organized, and dislike some other parts. I don't want to leave society - I want society to be better.
>They want a job market where one single breadwinner can support their house, spouse and kids
If society also wants women to be able to have the same income earning opportunities as men and hence have financial freedom.
Animals compete and compare themselves to others, and so everywhere, dual earning households will outcompete single earning households, and so most market participants will be incentivized to be dual earning households.
That addresses the reason for working (eg, pursuit of interests outside family-raising), while also eschewing the need for full time childcare.
But, it falls apart to the same logic GP proposed, that the reason you have dual income households is that they are richer than single income ones. Households where people both work 40hrs = 80hrs will be ahead of those that work only 40hrs total. So everyone will descend to working 80hrs too.
Of course, taking mine and GPs logic to it's conclusion is silly - people will have a point where they stop comparing with others and tradeoff less money for less hours. But looking at reality, it seems like that limit is very high! And it only happens at an already very high salary. A 40hrs/week SWE might not go to a high finance 70hrs/week job, because they're already comfortably paid. However these two are top 1% jobs in the world, and the quality of life is probably not too different. But if you go down to the lower rungs, people are more inclined to compare themselves with peers and tradeoff double hours for the next rung, which entails a much better quality of life (as a % increase)
Secondly, when you look at the distribution of wealth in the US, and realize that the top 50% of Americans own 97.5% of the wealth, or that the top 1% owns over 30% of the country's wealth, or read a headline about Elon Musk's $1T pay package, conversations about "dual-earning families" versus "single-earning families" look kind of inconsequential.
