U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2017, 05:13 PM
 
275 posts, read 136,616 times
Reputation: 391

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
Hyperbole much? People were saying the same thing you are 10-20 years ago. People love to look at the past with rose colored glasses. I've heard "2 parents working is a necessity" since the 1980s.
There's a reasonable argument to be had that women demanding to enter the workforce in droves is WHY you've been hearing that argument, oddly, since about 1980 when they started doing it. I personally feel that women mistakenly took messages like the movie "Nine to Five" as empowering and instead of shattering the glass ceiling, they were putting on the same iron coffin that men have been climbing into for centuries.

I've got nothing against women in any way (I am in fact quite fond of women), but when you take previous homemakers out of the home and drop them in the force work force the wages go down for everybody because now there are twice as many workers. That's why the two worker household is now the rule rather than the exception.

There have also been studies conducted that draw the conclusion that professional career women with no kids are also the least happy workers in the US. From both genders, happiness increases the closer we get to traditional gender roles.

So... We've doomed ourselves all around on that one. Both men and women are less happy, women especially are more miserable than ever, and we have about the same earning power as couples as we did when it was just men going to work.

I don't need June Cleaver chained to the stove and just confirming my manly authority whenever I speak, but maybe we should rethink this thing at some point...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-24-2017, 05:24 PM
 
275 posts, read 136,616 times
Reputation: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjohnohara View Post
To fight wars, and to end wars, or for help with national disasters, the WORLD has always relied on the the U.S. And that is where the problem begins. Why are we paying for the defense of the West? What could we do with the financial savings if we only paid our fair share, which is far more than just about every country in The West.
To be fair here, our leaders and virtually all of the the US citizens also quite like having the power at our disposal to rule the world if we had to. If Norway decided tomorrow that they were going to build an immense military and get off the US teet, we'd stop them. Likewise, if they wanted to buy into our in a more meaningful way they'd likely want more of a say in how we run it (UN/NATO, which we're always at odds with already), and we'd stop that too.

Ya can't really win on this one because we want it both ways. Personally, I like the system where I pay a reasonable price for health insurance, receive good care, there's enough money left over to deal with the less fortunate, AND we have a giant military with cheap gas.

That's pretty much the way things were going until about the late 90s...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2017, 05:40 PM
 
24,720 posts, read 26,785,278 times
Reputation: 22714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_is_here View Post
There's a reasonable argument to be had that women demanding to enter the workforce in droves is WHY you've been hearing that argument, oddly, since about 1980 when they started doing it. I personally feel that women mistakenly took messages like the movie "Nine to Five" as empowering and instead of shattering the glass ceiling, they were putting on the same iron coffin that men have been climbing into for centuries.

I've got nothing against women in any way (I am in fact quite fond of women), but when you take previous homemakers out of the home and drop them in the force work force the wages go down for everybody because now there are twice as many workers. That's why the two worker household is now the rule rather than the exception.

There have also been studies conducted that draw the conclusion that professional career women with no kids are also the least happy workers in the US. From both genders, happiness increases the closer we get to traditional gender roles.

So... We've doomed ourselves all around on that one. Both men and women are less happy, women especially are more miserable than ever, and we have about the same earning power as couples as we did when it was just men going to work.

I don't need June Cleaver chained to the stove and just confirming my manly authority whenever I speak, but maybe we should rethink this thing at some point...
Yeah, I agree with most of that. I don't think we should force people into rigid gender roles. That includes the June Cleaver role as well as the "having a career will make women happy" role. The pendulum has swung from one unhappy extreme to another. Jordan Peterson has said something similar and expanded on what you've said:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eieVE-xFXuo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2017, 11:15 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
32 posts, read 15,656 times
Reputation: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_is_here View Post
To be fair here, our leaders and virtually all of the the US citizens also quite like having the power at our disposal to rule the world if we had to. If Norway decided tomorrow that they were going to build an immense military and get off the US teet, we'd stop them. Likewise, if they wanted to buy into our in a more meaningful way they'd likely want more of a say in how we run it (UN/NATO, which we're always at odds with already), and we'd stop that too.

Ya can't really win on this one because we want it both ways. Personally, I like the system where I pay a reasonable price for health insurance, receive good care, there's enough money left over to deal with the less fortunate, AND we have a giant military with cheap gas.

That's pretty much the way things were going until about the late 90s...
I feel the same way as you, Max. Almost. I'm a military hawk (7 years U.S. Army, E5). But, we're in a new era, with different dynamics. For the first time in History, a U.S. President had the balls to at least verbally threaten to leave NATO because they are not paying their fair share (while at the same time enjoying a higher standard of living than we have). There is a young populist urban vote (a slight majority) that cares more about free healthcare, and education, over military might. Our infrastructure is collapsing before us, in many locations. There isn't enough money to fix what's wrong in the U.S., and at the same time pay for the free world's defense. I would love for (e.g.) Norway to order lots of bombers and such from Boeing. The U.S. would ultimately get most of the military contracts from these countries if those countries decided to actually have armies that could fight or prevent a war, or, if they were they forced to pay for a mutual defense.

Until they share the burden financially, or militarily, we will be the poor suckers who enable their wealth. For the first time in 30 years, I returned to Europe this past summer for vacation. Everywhere I visited, I was envious of their standards of living (even if I acknowledge what I see wrong with the E.U, like how member countries are losing their individual identities to one-world-order).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2017, 11:40 PM
 
275 posts, read 136,616 times
Reputation: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjohnohara View Post
I feel the same way as you, Max. Almost. I'm a military hawk (7 years U.S. Army, E5). But, we're in a new era, with different dynamics. For the first time in History, a U.S. President had the balls to at least verbally threaten to leave NATO because they are not paying their fair share (while at the same time enjoying a higher standard of living than we have). There is a young populist urban vote (a slight majority) that cares more about free healthcare, and education, over military might. Our infrastructure is collapsing before us, in many locations. There isn't enough money to fix what's wrong in the U.S., and at the same time pay for the free world's defense. I would love for (e.g.) Norway to order lots of bombers and such from Boeing. The U.S. would ultimately get most of the military contracts from these countries if those countries decided to actually have armies that could fight or prevent a war, or, if they were they forced to pay for a mutual defense.

Until they share the burden financially, or militarily, we will be the poor suckers who enable their wealth. For the first time in 30 years, I returned to Europe this past summer for vacation. Everywhere I visited, I was envious of their standards of living (even if I acknowledge what I see wrong with the E.U, like how member countries are losing their individual identities to one-world-order).
You're mistaking "lots of" bombers for "thousands of planes" if we are to expect legitimate help from another nation to the degree that we could disband a large segment of our military. If Norway called up and ordered YEARS of production from Boeing, the Pentagon would immediately stop the order.

Same deal is true with just handing us cash. We'd need TRILLIONS, annually, before things even close to leveled out, and nobody is going to give us that much money for nothing. They're going to want the power too and there's no way we'd give it to them.

So, I'm still calling it a catch-22. Freedom isn't free and the United States is one of the few countries on Earth that is also free from it's ALLIES too (what would a war between France and Germany look like today? It wouldn't be good). Until the Obama administration there was absolutely no debate that the US military could crush the entire combined forces of the rest of the globe in a battle of conventional warfare and that's pretty much how we want it. We are one of the few countries that has the luxury of never being concerned about being attacked on our mainland (other than from within) because we have the capability of bringing our wars to YOU. Any time, any where, no war too big or too small. That's a peace of mind that is worth what it costs.

There are plenty of ways to get some of our friends to help us out. European medications on our free market would be a valuable start, but big pharma, and thus our politicians, doesn't want that either...

I also think, and as military I suspect you KNOW, that our military is run insanely poorly in regard to their finances. Just the cost of flying a US military aircraft is almost unimaginable and there is nothing fundamentally different about them than their civilian counterparts. If we had leadership in place that actually got things whipped together and thinned down we could hack large swaths out of the budget. Sorta like when Trump started complaining about the cost of the new presidential transport planes and suddenly Boeing is at the table ready to talk about pricing again. I've worked for military suppliers and never once were we sad when we were awarded a contract... It's like 4000% profit because it's not real money, it's tax payer money, so there is no limit to how much you can spend.

We could say they spend like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors, because the sailors are spending their own money. -Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2017, 02:47 PM
 
2,700 posts, read 3,748,094 times
Reputation: 2867
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
I think the most important thing that could be done to get people out of poverty is to promote the success sequence. Marriage, then kids....in that order. Even some liberal researchers are (finally) admitting our 40% out of wedlock birth rate is a big contributor to income and wealth inequality:
And then there is the nearly 3/4 out of wedlock birth rate in the African American community which the "leaders" refuse to address. Various sources put that around 72-76%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2017, 11:51 PM
 
24,720 posts, read 26,785,278 times
Reputation: 22714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak View Post
And then there is the nearly 3/4 out of wedlock birth rate in the African American community which the "leaders" refuse to address. Various sources put that around 72-76%.
Yeah, I know. I don't want to single out African Americans because our 40% rate is horrible enough.

But African Americans who point out the obvious really take a ration of sh*t for it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcDG5GRCDkc
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2017, 12:09 AM
 
8,021 posts, read 6,222,835 times
Reputation: 12004
When did this thread become about Black people. Seems a lot of old white people on C-D would like to blame Blacks for all of the world's problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2017, 01:13 AM
 
6,308 posts, read 4,767,382 times
Reputation: 8437
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
It's the eternal argument. While I agree with you for the most part, quotes like these never seem to change anyone's mind.

I think the most important thing that could be done to get people out of poverty is to promote the success sequence. Marriage, then kids....in that order. Even some liberal researchers are (finally) admitting our 40% out of wedlock birth rate is a big contributor to income and wealth inequality:

Even liberal think tanks like the Brookings Institution say restoring the 2 parent family is essential if we are serious about reducing poverty:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...Sawhill2-1.pdf
Brookings has a history of being liberal, but it is centrist. There are plenty of so-called liberals who want to destroy the two-parent family, not strengthen it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2017, 01:16 AM
 
24,720 posts, read 26,785,278 times
Reputation: 22714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
Brookings has a history of being liberal, but it is centrist. There are plenty of so-called liberals who want to destroy the two-parent family, not strengthen it.
Yes, they are left of center. But they aren't a traditional conservative think tank. They can't be easily written off by leftists with the usual "right wing nut job" name calling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top