Benchmark events in the RISE of America since 1960... (general, European, economy)

[MrMarbles]

Just wanted to balance out the other thread. Let's start:

- US real GDP rising from 2,500 billion in 1960 to almost 14,000 billion now.
- Over the same time period, per capital US GDP almost tripled.
- Life expectancy rising by almost 10 years.
- The end of segregation and the Jim Crow laws.
- Almost doubling of the female participation rate in the work force, from just over 30% to about 60% now.
- The rise of information technology. Everything including personal computers, email, cell phones up to the latest smartphones, iPods and iPads, Playstations, GPS, Google, Facebook etc. Oh and the C-D forum, of course
- The end of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union.
- A huge decrease in the number of Americans killed in war. From tens of thousands Americans killed in Korea and Vietnam to fewer than 5,000 in total coalition KIA in Iraq.

That should be enough to start.

[Escort Rider]

Originally Posted by MrMarbles

Almost doubling of the female participation rate in the work force, from just over 30% to about 60% now.

Interesting thread topic, thanks. I agree that there are many factors to counterbalance the other thread topic, although personally I question whether, on balance, we are now "ahead".

I would also question whether the female participation in the work force is a positive. If we are in a war-time situation and need the extra production, that is one thing, but look at some of the negative consequences. The most serious one is the number of latch-key children. Generally, being raised by an adult beats raising yourself. Also, what does it say about our economy that so many women feel they "have" to work even if there is a male bread-winner? Also, what does it say about our society that family instability is such that so many single mothers have to take on the horrendously difficult role of bread-winner and sole parent? Who would envy them that?

I think you've made a good list, with the exception I've talked about.

[MrMarbles]

Originally Posted by Escort Rider

Interesting thread topic, thanks. I agree that there are many factors to counterbalance the other thread topic, although personally I question whether, on balance, we are now "ahead".

I would also question whether the female participation in the work force is a positive. If we are in a war-time situation and need the extra production, that is one thing, but look at some of the negative consequences. The most serious one is the number of latch-key children. Generally, being raised by an adult beats raising yourself. Also, what does it say about our economy that so many women feel they "have" to work even if there is a male bread-winner? Also, what does it say about our society that family instability is such that so many single mothers have to take on the horrendously difficult role of bread-winner and sole parent? Who would envy them that?

I think you've made a good list, with the exception I've talked about.

I can think of several reasons why this is a positive. First, it gives women economic freedom so it is obviously good for women themselves. Women don't have to marry, or stay married if they don't want to, and can make their own decisions. One might think that this contributes to family instability but in general it is better when people can decide for themselves what they want to do.

Women in the labor force make the entire economy larger. This is important, and not just during a war. If a woman stayed home instead of working, than whatever product or service that she did not help produce simply would not be available for others to consume.

With respect to child rearing - I think simply our society and policies have not caught up with the social change. There are a lot of things that we could do to foster work-life balance and help families (not just women) meet their domestic obligations - such as greater parental leave, mandatory vacation days, etc. This is one thing that European countries do better than us. Raising children is important but that doesn't mean half the population has to stay home and have their potential abilities not realized.

[AuburnAL]

Moon Landing

If 30% of the workforce then was women it seems a bit disingenuous to act as if women couldn't get jobs if they wanted them.

At the same time the new jobs created since 1960 would have been filled by someone even if more women had not started working full time.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by MrMarbles

- Almost doubling of the female participation rate in the work force, from just over 30% to about 60% now..

Why do you think it is a positive rise that women are now doing a majority of the work outside the home, and assuming a majority of the burden of acquiring higher education, in addition to a most of the work inside the home, and virtually all the child-raising work?

[MrMarbles]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Why do you think it is a positive rise that women are now doing a majority of the work outside the home, and assuming a majority of the burden of acquiring higher education, in addition to a most of the work inside the home, and virtually all the child-raising work?

I think I explained above?
Majority of work outside the home? Like mowing the lawn? I'm confused. And since when is acquiring higher education a "burden"??

[MrMarbles]

Originally Posted by AuburnAL

Moon Landing

If 30% of the workforce then was women it seems a bit disingenuous to act as if women couldn't get jobs if they wanted them.

Women didn't participate as much in the work for for many reasons. It was less acceptable, there were fewer jobs open to women, most of the jobs were in manufacturing (as opposed to service sector), etc.

Originally Posted by AuburnAL

At the same time the new jobs created since 1960 would have been filled by someone even if more women had not started working full time.

By whom?

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by MrMarbles

I think I explained above?
Majority of work outside the home? Like mowing the lawn? I'm confused. And since when is acquiring higher education a "burden"??

It takes four years and tens of thousands of dollars. While the men are doing . . . what? Sounds like a burden to me. In addition to the fact that the person getting the education is expected to then work full time to use it.

Women now outnumber men at colleges, which means woman are assuming most of the burden of repaying tthe student loan debt, while their wages are still below those of men.

I really don't see where a society in which women do most of the work, is particularly advanced or enlightened by virtue of that fact alone.

Reminds me of those third world stereotypes where the women are doing the field work with babies slung on their backs, while the men drink and gamble.

The men who mow the law are the ones who enjoy playing with their toy lawn tractor. Women do the household work that does not fall into the category of hobby or fidding. The fact that American men have relegated most of the work load to the women, and barely provided token relief from the houskeeping and child-rearing responsibilities, is not a sign to me that America has made any great strides toward civilization.

Originally Posted by MrMarbles

- The end of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union.
- A huge decrease in the number of Americans killed in war. From tens of thousands Americans killed in Korea and Vietnam to fewer than 5,000 in total coalition KIA in Iraq.
.

We didn't end the cold war. We just moved it south, to the Middle East. And the only reason we have fewer battle deaths, is because now we only bully weaklings who can't fight back. And we still lost 19 kicking sand in the face of 97-pound Grenada, to prove our moral superiority. Thank Reagan, that we're not all speaking Grenadian.

[MrMarbles]

Originally Posted by jtur88

It takes four years and tens of thousands of dollars. While the men are doing . . . what? Sounds like a burden to me. In addition to the fact that the person getting the education is expected to then work full time to use it.

Women now outnumber men at colleges, which means woman are assuming most of the burden of repaying tthe student loan debt, while their wages are still below those of men.

I really don't see where a society in which women do most of the work, is particularly advanced or enlightened by virtue of that fact alone.

Reminds me of those third world stereotypes where the women are doing the field work with babies slung on their backs, while the men drink and gamble.

The men who mow the law are the ones who enjoy playing with their toy lawn tractor.

I have a hard time taking this seroiusly. Just in case this is not some kind of a joke ... has it occurred to you that women CHOOSE, on their own free will, to go to college, understanding that in the long run it is in THEIR best interest? Because they WANT to have full time jobs and not be financially dependent on men? Or maybe we should ban women from universities to, you know.... to spare them from the burden?

The fact that women outnumber men in colleges is a bad thing for men... not women. And you seem to be misinformed. Men still do most of the work (I mean having jobs).

[AuburnAL]

Originally Posted by MrMarbles

Women didn't participate as much in the work for for many reasons. It was less acceptable, there were fewer jobs open to women, most of the jobs were in manufacturing (as opposed to service sector), etc.

So? If they wanted jobs they could get them.

By whom?

Unemployed men and immigrants. How did you think all those earlier jobs that women weren't working were filled?