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.
Elizabeth Warren has a video presentation on this that can be found on youtube. She explains that the duel earner household has actually destroyed the quality of life for the average middle class family. In effect what happened was two working spouses became the norm and all costs adjusted to that level. I.E. house prices went up because buyers were willing to bid higher. The bad thing? When one spouse cant work anymore or when one chooses to be a stay at home, they suddenly have double the bills that previous generations had as a single earner household.
Pretty sad and silly that people kept asking for this to happen. Can't be reversed now
Pretty sad and silly that people kept asking for this to happen. Can't be reversed now
Well as with anything nobody ever considers the law of unintended consequences. Sure its great to be given A, but then it might have effect B that wont rear its head for some time.
Elizabeth Warren has a video presentation on this that can be found on youtube. She explains that the duel earner household has actually destroyed the quality of life for the average middle class family. In effect what happened was two working spouses became the norm and all costs adjusted to that level. I.E. house prices went up because buyers were willing to bid higher. The bad thing? When one spouse cant work anymore or when one chooses to be a stay at home, they suddenly have double the bills that previous generations had as a single earner household.
This is a double sword. I am sure if the couple started off as one income family, they probably would choose a smaller house in different neighborhood & maintain their expense at certain level. Now if a family starts off with 2 income and suddenly cuts down to one, its not reasonable to expect the same standard of living. I don't think people back in the day lived in 2000+ sq ft house or had 2+ cars. There was a life style difference when our society lived off on one income (ex. traveling, people back in the days didn't see the world like 2 income family does now definitely not international traveling).
We complain about the need for 2 income and living standard. But our living standard has changed significantly from past generation. IF we were to live like them (as much as possible) I believe, we could easily live on one income.
Not that I would suggest they should be resigned to teaching positions but the biggest negative impact is the loss of highly intelligent women teachers. In the past that is one profession women could pursue, today's female doctor and scientists would have been teachers in the past.
The "women only make 76% of what men make" you so often hear repeated in the media and elsewhere is utter nonsense. It's an average of the entire population of men and women. It does not account for many different variables that drive down the average pay of women.
Women are more likely to choose careers that have low pay whether you are a man or a woman.
Women spend less time in the workforce, subsequently they have less experience with less pay.
Women are less likely to work overtime.
Women are less likely to work at high paying dangerous jobs.
That's the short list.
I'm not sure losing female doctors and scientist is preferable to having overqualified teachers in our public school system. I see having more doctors, etc. as a positive for our society. The problems with the schools systems has nothing to do with loss of highly intelligent women.
You are right about the gender pay gap but even so women overall make less than men because few are competing with high paying jobs in male dominated fields. So it can be argued that women are not taking money away from men and not having a negative impact.
I'm not sure losing female doctors and scientist is preferable to having overqualified teachers in our public school system.
That is debatable becsue certainly a great education is the core of any great society. Certainly those professions benefit from the injection of more qualified people, that's undeniable. The question is does that make up for the losses to the education system.
Quote:
The problems with the schools systems has nothing to do with loss of highly intelligent women.
It's certainly not the only problem and at this point I wouldn't think it's the largest problem in many districts in particular those in the inner city. Certainly intelligence doesn't necessarily make you a great teacher either.
That said there is a loss, how you would go about quantifying how much our education system has lost is very problematic if not impossible.
That is debatable becsue certainly a great education is the core of any great society. Certainly those professions benefit from the injection of more qualified people, that's undeniable. The question is does that make up for the losses to the education system.
It's certainly not the only problem and at this point I wouldn't think it's the largest problem in many districts in particular those in the inner city. Certainly intelligence doesn't necessarily make you a great teacher either.
That said there is a loss, how you would go about quantifying how much our education system has lost is very problematic if not impossible.
What is wrong with the male doctors and scientist becoming teachers to fill the gap of females that have a choice other than being a teacher. Until the 19th century males dominated the teaching profession. Not until the turn of the century did women begin to dominate the teaching profession.
Below is an example of what was really important. Seems the only loss having to pay a higher wage to male teachers.
"God seems to have made woman peculiarly suited to guide and develop the infant mind, and it seems...very poor policy to pay a man 20 or 22 dollars a month, for teaching children the ABCs, when a female could do the work more successfully at one third of the price." -- Littleton School Committee, Littleton, Massachusetts, 1849
Also in these beginnings married women were expected to leave their positions and women with children were denied teaching jobs. Perhaps this would be advantageous to the family unit when you had a working father with a decent income but for unmarried, divorced and widowed women this would prove a great disadvantage financially. That disadvantage would be passed to society as a whole.
You are incredibly misinformed. Stop reading feminist agenda "data" and you will see that pay IS equal.
To answer the OP, I'm going with negative. If women only cared about equal rights, that movement would've ended years ago, as now it is nothing more than a never ending power grab. Tell me, would you like to be forced to sign up for selective service? No? Then you aren't for equal rights.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't read "feminist agenda "data""....what for?..I live in the REAL world, eyes open...I see the inequality daily...
For some jobs there is equality, if the woman can even get it to begin with.....for others there's not.
My answer to women's equality in the workplace having a negative or positive impact would be that I believe equality to always be positive, but reality shows me that women are a long ways still (unfortunately) from attaining that right.
That is debatable becsue certainly a great education is the core of any great society. .
I remember very clearly talking to the Superintendent of Schools at a PTSA meeting at my daughter's high school, and he was saying "Why should some students be exposed to a superior education just because they happen to have a teacher who is an expert in Shakespeare, if all the students can't have it?"
He didn't mean, "Let's let the expert in Shakespeare share his lessons with all the other teachers", he meant, "the expert in Shakespeare will not be given the leeway to increase the knowledge he shares with his students. His teachings will be constrained."
There is a deliberate dumbing-down going on in our society. Research Charlotte Iserbyt on a search engine - she's done a lot of research on this.
Women are more likely to choose careers that have low pay whether you are a man or a woman.
Women spend less time in the workforce, subsequently they have less experience with less pay.
Women are less likely to work overtime.
Women are less likely to work at high paying dangerous jobs.
Sorry, but I have to laugh at that list.
I'm a male surrounded by incredibly talented, intelligent, and successful women. The problem with generalizations - they are generally wrong. I'm also surrounded by successful males, so don't go down that path .
You are incredibly misinformed. Stop reading feminist agenda "data" and you will see that pay IS equal.
To answer the OP, I'm going with negative. If women only cared about equal rights, that movement would've ended years ago, as now it is nothing more than a never ending power grab. Tell me, would you like to be forced to sign up for selective service? No? Then you aren't for equal rights.
Correct. Another [BIG] government promulgated, election year, presidential myth.
Like: "...the republicans want to take away a woman's birth control..." etc, etc. It may have been true at one time, not anymore. Large corporations, small companies, regardless, have a clear mission. MAKING MONEY. If it were cheaper to hire a woman, then that's what the entire work force would be. This is a fight that can never be over. Too many salaried activists would find themselves unemployed, and unemployable.
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.
.
