Well, I feel like we have come full circle here!
Radu, I liked your comment but I personally don't find anything "written in stone" or "in the stars" about the number 30 degrees. It is a longstanding convention that seems to work, but I have difficulty taking it further for any logical reason. [Sorry--I'm more the Uranian than the Neptunian!] An intriguing if only suggestive book about using actual constellations of varying width on the ecliptic is: John Lash, Quest for the Zodiac. Apparently there are also downloadable astrology programs on the Internet that allow people to plot their horoscopes onto the actual constellations. Lash gives a table of degrees that would allow one to do that manually.
Astrologer50--So long as you remain unwilling to consider the 2nd house beyond money or unrealistic values, we will just have to "agree to disagree." But here is a quote from one of my favourite astrologers, Steven Forrest, The Changing Sky, on the 2nd house: "the behavioural territory in which we prove ourselves to ourselves, and support our identity with appropriate mental and physical resources."
So a moon in the 2nd might very well be someone who supports her identity through being a mother and housewife. Until recent decades, so many British women "supported themselves" by being married to men who brought home the income that it is hard to say how or why the concept of self-employment in the 2nd should be a key word for the 2nd. The sign on the cusp of the second, or of any planets in the second should show how you make your money: not whether or not you have a paycheck, unless other chart factors support it. I would see employment more as a 6th or 10th house matter.
The more I do astrology, the less I think signs matter as much as aspects between planets and house cusp rulers. I see signs as indicating "how" or in what manner" a planet operates, not "what" it does (planet's nature) or "where" it operates (house). Maybe I've heard from too many siderealists. Of course a sideral chart will change the house cusps, but fundamentally working with "accidental" house cusp rulers gets us back to looking at aspects.
My big problem with equal houses is that I find it harder to work with the angles imbedded in houses; and they do away with intercepted houses. I used to totally ignore intercepted houses, but now I think they have interpretive value.
But again, to each his/her own!