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.
That is a silly and completely nearsighted perspective to have. How is the situtation that women were in in the 1960's NOT income inequality?
I'm confused over how anyone could suggest that roughly half the population getting compensation that is more in line with the service they are providing is a cause/symptom of inequality for the group as a whole.
Are trying to suggest that men aren't earning as much as a result of more women being in the work force? That seems equally ridiculous. It isn't difficult to determine where all the money is going. It isn't women who are taking the lion's share, it is the wealthy.
??? More women working --> more workers competing for finite supply of jobs --> drag on wages.
So yes, men aren't earning as much - men's wages have fallen - and more women in the workforce has SOMETHING to do with it although that's not the primary reason.
I think so, from my vantage point it is really hard to have a relationship where there is a big income or social class gap. Especially if the person who likes to be in charge is not the top earner.
And it isn't the big things that end up causing the issues. It is little things that cause the gaps, like maybe one person feels a bit of resentment, because their partner had an easier path to success. Or the fact that different upbringings lead to different perspectives...
??? More illegals working and outsourcing --> more workers competing for finite supply of jobs --> drag on wages.
So yes, men aren't earning as much - men's wages have fallen - and more women in the workforce has SOMETHING to do with it although that's not the primary reason.
Fixed that for you.
Hey, women have to eat too. They also have families to raise.
The article is jumbling unrelated trends together. There are fewer people in their 20's married now than in the mid-20'th Century because education and careers for women have opened up tremendously, so women are waiting longer to get married. Marriage was considered to be a career back then, one of the few open to women, so women tried to snag a guy before graduating from college. People married young, too young in some cases. People now realize they need time to mature before jumping into marriage.
The other reason not as many people in their 20's are married now is that divorce is much easier than it was in the 1960's. Those who do get married young don't have to stay together if they discover they've made a big mistake.
I think so, from my vantage point it is really hard to have a relationship where there is a big income or social class gap. Especially if the person who likes to be in charge is not the top earner.
Why does one person have to be in charge? Seems like that would be the crux of the problem, rather than a big income gap.
Why does one person have to be in charge? Seems like that would be the crux of the problem, rather than a big income gap.
Well I mean dominant/taking the lead/etc.
Every relationship has the leader and the follower (the roles can switch of course depending on the circumstance).
When ever I have gone out with someone who doesn't have around the same amount of disclosable income I have, and they want to do the planning and the paying, one of two things happens:
1. They are weirded out because they don't think the stuff they can afford is at my level
2. They get really caught up in some sort of idea that the only stuff I want/like/use is stuff that is "nice (i.e out of their budget)
Separately if there is too big of a class gap, I find there can be some insecurities about the differing upbringings. There are definitely way more hurdles.
"Assortive mating" means that like marries like. It means that an affluent, educated man, will marry an affluent educated woman. Decades ago, it was comparatively more common to find affluent men marrying economically struggling women, presumably because the guy is trading his wealth for the woman's youth and beauty. Articles such as the two cited by the OP suggest this trend is disappearing.
The consequence is more equality within the couple, and simultaneously, less equality between couples.
I have read a lot of articles regarding this topic and range of issues associated with 'income inequality' between partners/lovers.
And the main focus is continually on 'income inequality'. Constantly referring to the income levels / inequality.
Certainly there can be some issues related to income inequality: however - there are similar cases that result in the same relationship issues when income inequality exists but the 'wealthier' person in the relationship makes far less money.
For example. I have been in numerous relationships with princesses - many that barely work, and/or in a few cases whatever one I was with at the time had an 'income' of about 20-30% of what mine was due to barely working and/or working part time. So there should not have been any issues with income inequality since I was taking care of everything: mortgage, utilities, household expenses, vacations, etc, etc.
But in almost every case: the princess that was earning dramatically less in terms of income than I was and somehow lacked the ability to contribute in any reciprocal way to the relationship, etc:
01 Had access to a significant amount of money from a trust fund (parent, grandparent)
02 Had not real bills and no student loans since daddy paid for everything
03 Always had a new car (thanks again daddy)
04 Traveled extensively on her own - leaving trips that we went on to be paid for by myself
05 Received annual tax free money from parents
06 Was awaiting additional money through future inheritances
So my point it. It is not just about 'income' per se - but the type of socio-economic background that a person comes from along with access to existing money and resources in the absence of it being from income and/or working.
A woman like that who has no real earned income (as well as not having the ambition or drive to even work) and is use to a higher standard of living despite that is going to systematically bleed whatever guy she is with dry with her sense of entitlement and never contribute to the relationship because she doesn't feel like she has to, considers her mere presence as enough of a contribution and can exit the relationship comfortably: once again without having an income can could be larger than the person she is with and/or resulting in any issues related to 'income inequality'.
??? More women working --> more workers competing for finite supply of jobs --> drag on wages.
So yes, men aren't earning as much - men's wages have fallen - and more women in the workforce has SOMETHING to do with it although that's not the primary reason.
Well,think about this. More women are in college than men.
What do I say?
Men SHOULD suck it up and get an education.
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.
