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.
It takes a fair amount of financial discipline to avoid that trap, even when there is onlyone income. There is a pervasive mindset of buying as much as we can, versus buying as little as we can get away with. Being a transplanted New England hippie, I've never quite understood it, myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
But which came first, declining economic opportunities or the dual income household? The economic environment of today certainly requires 2 incomes, but that wasn't always the case according to the Two Income Trap. Essentially, two income families bid of the price of housing so much that now people need the 2 incomes just to survive. Had they saved that extra money or used it on vacations it would still be possible to survive on one income, or so the argument goes.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,935,179 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenorSax83
This was also a factor IMO. But, the outsourcing of jobs overseas came first. The decrease in wages would have occurred anyway because they were paying foreign employees a lot less, so wages dropped here as well. Either I stay content with making 10 dollars per hour or I can protest and demand $20, all the while the corporation either gives my job to someone else or they move them all overseas where those workers will be more than happy to have them. But, sure the supply of workers was important in all of this, can't deny that.
I think you're right, there was such a confluence of factors.
I argue that the post WW2 boom we had was an artificial and unusual blip in history. We were fully mechanized for the war effort and our infrastructure was intact. Europe was laid barren after the war, and the Eastern world (Soviet/China, etc) walled itself off from trade and commerce for the most part. We took advantage for those decades until Europe rebuilt, and the Eastern bloc nations opened up.
Those days are never coming back. They weren't the norm.
You should get a gold star. :ok: If you examine inflation adjusted wages for both men and women since the 70's you see that wages for men are basically flat, wages for women have increased, and those at the bottom have fallen slightly. Nothing happens in a vacuum, but less MFG jobs, coupled with more labor supply, and buying the best house one can afford gives us what we see today.
Absolutely, adjusted for inflation, the company is still paying out the same amount of money in wages to workers but they are spreading it out to dual households and a greater supply of workers. The rich get richer and you know the rest...
Not to mention that technology has made many jobs redundant. At the job I left when my oldest kid was born, it took 4 full-timers to manage the workload. Now it takes 1 full-timer and 2 part-timers, because the program used now is more efficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenorSax83
Absolutely, adjusted for inflation, the company is still paying out the same amount of money in wages to workers but they are spreading it out to dual households and a greater supply of workers. The rich get richer and you know the rest...
Wages stagnated due to a number of factors, but one of them was certainly women entering the workforce en masse.
When the supply of labor suddenly doubles, the going rate for that labor will necessarily decrease or stagnate.
You can blame the cost of housing on this, as well.
1-income families are largely out of reach to middle-class peoples because of this.
This is true to a degree, like I stated earlier. But let's say, hypothetically, that every woman in the US decided to quit their job today (they've had enough!). The workforce decreasing by nearly half would NOT significantly increase wages for the remaining workers here IMO because, why would a corporation pay the remaining workers more when they can simply use this new worker shortage as an excuse to move even more jobs overseas and thus increase their profit margin. They're not going to pay men more, they will always be looking to maximize profits.
That role has been viciously devalued for around 50 years.
And it wasn't men who did it.
I also think taking the argument into men vs women de-valuing as it takes away from the actual issue.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
This is true to a degree, like I stated earlier. But let's say, hypothetically, that every woman in the US decided to quit their job today (they've had enough!). The workforce decreasing by nearly half would NOT significantly increase wages for the remaining workers here IMO because, why would a corporation pay the remaining workers more when they can simply use this new worker shortage as an excuse to move even more jobs overseas and thus increase their profit margin. They're not going to pay men more, they will always be looking to maximize profits.
No you're right, wages would not increase significantly, and you're not going to like my reason why.
It's because most of the jobs women do are actually unnecessary and bureaucratic in nature.
So wages would not increase, because a lot of those jobs just wouldn't need to be restaffed.
No you're right, wages would not increase significantly, and you're not going to like my reason why.
It's because most of the jobs women do are actually unnecessary and bureaucratic in nature.
So wages would not increase, because a lot of those jobs just wouldn't need to be restaffed.
Thanks for the laugh this morning!
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
I also think taking the argument into men vs women de-valuing as it takes away from the actual issue.
Doesn't change the fact that the culpability for devaluing of the wife/mother/homemaker role lies squarely at the feet of women and the women's movement.
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.
