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.
I would like to point this graph and my apologies as it isn't the best but is sourced from the Census Bureau.
Perfectly good graph, though taking it back another 50-60 years would have helped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Now there was certainly a good number of women in the workforce prior to the womens lib movement, this goes without saying.
Well, one needs to say it to those who believe that it was the women's lib movement that successfully advocated for all women suddenly to abandon their babies and rush greedily off into the job market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
However there has been a marked increase in women in the labor pool across the age spectrum.
Increases in access to higher education plus one of the things that the women's lib movement really was about, the promotion and defense of women's rights in the workplace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
I noted also that there was a decline in the youth participation and an increase in the 65 and older crowd (kids getting lazy and old folks sloggin jobs past retirement?
Kids are in school for longer, and they rely on parents or loans more than intervals of employment to carry them through. Improvements in health care meanwhile let a higher percentage of folks reach retirement age with about the same vigor as they had 15-20 years earlier. Toward the upper ends of the income scale, they don't really want to retire yet, toward the lower, they can't really afford to yet, so they either keep working, or retire and start a second career.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Maybe it is just me and I am completely wrong that I recall those mythical days of Leave it to Beaver and Ozzy and Harriet when a single income provider could support an average middle class family with four children on a single income and live relatively well.
Not so much in the middle class with four kids. But in the stereotype and in upper-middle brackets and above, it was doable so long as you had no other pressing obligations. Of course, in those days the US faced no significant international competition, and the general premise was that once you signed on with a company, you stayed with it for your entire career.
Having actually lived through the 1950's and 1960's too, I can recall practically every mom in my neighborhood staying at home, my best guess would be that substantially less than half were employed. The only time I can recall women going to work was when the kids left home, and then it was typically a minimum wage job just to be socially engaged. We had a day care center in our neighborhood, but my best guess is that less than 10% of the kids attended the center.
My experience exactly---working Moms were a rarity.
I couldn't even BEGIN to get into the reasons for the change--that would take several forums. But it's a huge picture--from "breakdown" of spousal and parental responsibilties (the "me" part of it)...to the admitted erosion of the dollar....but one thing that few mention, is just the fact there was so much less "stuff" to "want". Those teenagers lucky enough to have a car had an old "clunker" (paid for with a part-time job). Few "fashion trends"---no true "mall culture"---no Ipods, no cell phones, no CD's, no "private bedroom", one TV per household (we had none at all)---Aside from anything else, the sheer size and number of our "wants" today virtually demands a second income.....
Walter Williams is an unexceptional economist and usually an idiot. Yeah, that's him alright. A better comparison to taxes would have been the necessity to pay for your groceries when you get to the checkout line. But I guess Walter was going for the cute factor on this one...
Do you believe that the money you earn hourly/yearly for your work belongs to you? Or does it belong to "the government" i.e. society in general?
Do you believe that the money you earn hourly/yearly for your work belongs to you? Or does it belong to "the government" i.e. society in general?
Serious question.
Let's look at it a different way:
Would you make as much money doing whatever it is you do WITHOUT the full force of the United States laws, defense system, and infrastructure behind you?
Try doing whatever it is you do in Somalia, with a broken government. Report back to us in a year how well you do with all those extra tax savings.
Talk about taking what isn't yours, I KNOW all the "mothers" and "parents" on this board sure don't say NO to that "Earned Income Tax Credit" when tax time comes around!
The data today shows the majority of working women in gen x are now looking for more flexible work or part time schedules, and are starting to put family ahead of careers. Work/family balance is emphasized more. Could this be a backlash from them growing up alone, with both parents working full time, and now wanting to provide more quality time with their own children?
For sure that's the case with me. My parents both had very successful NYC advertising careers, and my siblings and I were sent out to various daycare providers and babysitters while my parents were off working. I hated it, and determined at a very young age that it would be different when I became a parent. I set my life up at a very young age so that I could attain that goal.
I can think of no gain that came from being raised 5 long days a week by a daycare provider rather than my parents. We had a nice big house on the water on Long Island, but we were barely ever home to enjoy it. And at the end of the day and on weekends my parents were so exhausted and frazzled from their careers that they were pretty unenjoyable to be around.
I just wanted one of my parents there with me, at home. And I would have traded in the big house on the water, private school, and lots of clothes to have had that.
(begin sarcasm) *le gasp!* Caffeine in breast milk! What a horrible mom! (end sarcasm)
If I was allowed 2 cups of coffee a day while preggers, I think I'm allowed the same while breast feeding. -my2kidsmom
It does take dedication and hard work to be a good mother.
Sure does.-my2kidsmom
In fact, we're doing quite well. With both of us under 25 years old and one child between us, guess how many "government welfare" programs we use. None. No WIC, no food stamps, nothing.
Honestly, I would hope not. I mean these are not programs we are all entitled to. They ought to be reserved for those in emergency situations, with no other choice. WIC and food stamps were not created for happy young couples with a baby. I don't mean to sound rude, but why would you be bragging about not needing to use those governmental services? -my2kidsmom
Overall, there can be no family structure that works for everyone. And because of that, society, in no way, should ask/demand/force women out of the career world.
No, but we cannot have everything we want when there is a price to be paid by others. Life consists of constant trade offs. When well educated parents choose to pursue a dual career marriage and opt to put their kids full time in daycare, we can ask them not to fool themselves into thinking no price in child rearing has been paid. I realize this argument runs head on into what liberal feminists would have us believe: that you can have it all. The human ability to rationalize is infinite. So, some will no doubt dismiss all of what I just stated.
Well, we still see a "sex delineation" for many professions and fields (nursing v. construction, etc.). The demand for some markets arose naturally, however, such as the medical field and those services which women and men use regardless of their employment status.
At and around the start of the 20th century, most states had lengthy lists of jobs that women were not allowed to occupy. In many states, married women were not allowed to work at any job at all, and no woman was allowed to work at night. These were the realities of the world that many on the right seem to think we would be better off going back to...
Would you make as much money doing whatever it is you do WITHOUT the full force of the United States laws, defense system, and infrastructure behind you?
Try doing whatever it is you do in Somalia, with a broken government. Report back to us in a year how well you do with all those extra tax savings.
Ok, I understand what you're getting at...
My point is though, governments are purely a construct of the societies that make them. "We The People" created the United States government. We're its master. It works for us.
All too often, folks get into this mindset that government is the source of our freedom/power/wealth, etc. and that really annoys me. We do not work for the government; it exists only to serve us.
Therefore, the government really doesn't "own" anything until its given by/taken from us.
Do you see where I'm going w/this?
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.
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.
