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.
Thanks, lamexican, but this isn't about the recent housing bubble. It's about a long-term trend that began in the 1970s.
I know, watch the video, and the whole four part series if you have time. It's one of the most in depth takes about our systemic challenges and problems economically. It's not about the housing bubble but about our entire economic philosophy change that started in the 1970s including women as income providers. I'm sure you will find it relevant.
The cost of living relative to what? Such arguments make the naive assumption that the US economy is a closed, zero-sum system. In reality, we aren't competing with just other Americans for the finite amount of the worlds resources--except for directly local things like housing. The economy is probably more efficient with 50% of its population able to work and that allows us to buy just that much more on a world market. I'd say a bigger change in the economy since the 1970s is the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs to emerging economies.
Even if you do make the assumption that women working has increased the cost of living (even more so than what women earn), does that necessitate the conclusion that women should be prohibited or discouraged from working? If you shipped off half of the people from your city to the Sahara desert it would definitely decrease the cost of living (at least temporarily), but it doesn't mean that it is in any way justifiable. Women are allowed equal opportunity to work (at least in theory) because it is the fair, equitable thing to do. Economic benefits or consequences are secondary.
Women have always worked.
Since I choose to live without a "marriage" - where would my money come from?
Am I not entitled to the same rights of ownership as a man?
Or should I be a slave or kept by a man based solely on my gender?
Women have always worked.
Since I choose to live without a "marriage" - where would my money come from?
Am I not entitled to the same rights of ownership as a man?
Or should I be a slave or kept by a man based solely on my gender?
Good points!
But how about a solution?!!
Don't want women to work?
FINE! I won't work.....the government just sends me a check every month for what I determine I need.....and I need a LOT!
I think about $5,000 a month would keep me happy.
Now, where would the government get the money to pay all us women to stay home....why from those hard working TAX PAYING MEN!
YES!
And we women would be free to travel, party, do anything we please...we could hire MEN to clean our homes, do the laundry, grocery shop, raise our kids, do the cooking,
Both myself and my wife have been budget counselors during my 20+ year Naval career; helping military servicemembers and their families when they found they had financial problems.
It is a very common stereotype that with a deploying servicemember bringing in a paycheck, the dependant spouse wants to go out and have a job too. This is very common.
Shes gets a job and then she needs things. Her own car, a professional wardrobe, money for commuting, business lunches, office parties, and sometimes after she works a long hard day she wants to stop off for a drink [why not she has worked hard, she deserves it].
When the dependant spouse leaves the home; nobody is left to clean their home. Nobody is cooking, nobody is doing the laundry, and nobody is babysitting.
So as a result the family budget goes way up.
The added expense of: Her car, her wardrobe, her commuting, her lunches, her hard earned 'after-work' drink, a house cleaner, restaurant food [since they no longer eat at home], laundry, and day care; is a lot.
This happens more often than not. When she goes out and begins a minimum wage job, her new income is less then the increase in living expenses they feel.
In terms of 'Household Economics', it is very common that a household with two income earners, will have a much higher cost-of-living. And it is not uncommon to see the increase as being more than the second wager earned is bringing home.
At work, I very often met with men, went over their budgets with them and had to explain that their wives needed to stop their out-of-home job. She needed to focus on being a 'home-maker'. Sometimes they brought their wife into work, so that I could sit with the both of them to show them the math.
My wife did her budget counseling in the 'Family Service Centers' on-base. She saw about half / half, the servicemembers coming in, or the wives coming in for counseling.
This is a very common scene. If nobody is at home; then nobody is cleaning the home. Nobody is cooking, nobody is doing the laundry, and nobody is babysitting.
It is cheaper to clean your home yourself; rather than to hire someone else to do it.
It is cheaper to cook at home. Better yet cooking from scratch is cheapest. Rather than eating out, or buying prepared dinners. Grocery stores offer both. A bag of rice, a box of pasta, flour, fresh veggies, all these things are cheap as compared to prepared frozen dinners.
Laundry and day care can likewise add up very quickly.
A single wage-earner combined with a home-maker can raise a family on a very low budget. Their cost-of-living can be low, if they choose to keep it low, and they can have money left over to invest with.
The minute that both adults go out into the work-place, their cost-of-living goes up. Period.
How does this effect our society? if homemakers are not seen as a noble endeavor, and working moms are praised, then every one wants to follow a professional career. Everyone is working, and everyone's cost-of-living goes up.
My Dw stayed home and focused on being a homemaker. Since she is an accountant at heart, she took courses from time to time to keep up on her career field. And she volunteered one day a week to help other military families, by offering budget counseling and tax-planning.
We were able to maintain a very low cost-of-living and we were able to invest. We bought an apartment building at each duty station. She stayed 'home' and managed the apartments, while I deployed.
By working together; one working outside of the home and one working in the home; we kept our living expenses low, we invested and we grew our portfolio.
I have since retired. Now I stay home, and she goes out to pursue her career.
One of us is home to cook and do laundry, and to maintain the home-based endeavors; while the other is out in the 'work-force'. All while maintaining a low cost-of-living.
forest bee- The problem with your theory is that if women allowed themselves to be 'worthless' by staying at home they would be vulnerable to lack of retirement investment (SS and 401k's). The real problem didnt start in the 70's, it started in the late 50's when unions began to decline and the wages on the top vs wages on the bottom started having extreme ratios.
As for women, what you fail to appreciate will leave you. Whatever praise anyone thinks working moms get-- they're deluded. Women are damned if they do and damned if they don't, so they might as well do whatever the hell they want. Trend nowadays is not to bother getting married at all. I think that's rather sad, but I don't pay their bills. IMO americans could stand to learn how to be grateful and realign themselves to core values again (a bit too caught up in carnival life), but that's another thread.
Whether men or women,if you had all those job openings unemployment would go down obviously, the wages would go up to cover the need for workers,and the spending of extra cash is common place with most families no matter who is working.Extr cash=potential purchase.New technology means potential purchases. I truthfully don't think it plays a factor at all because our values are what dictate everything and people who like extra things will still purchase them maybe just a few weeks later if they only have one income earner.
Both myself and my wife have been budget counselors during my 20+ year Naval career; helping military servicemembers and their families when they found they had financial problems.
It is a very common stereotype that with a deploying servicemember bringing in a paycheck, the dependant spouse wants to go out and have a job too. This is very common.
Shes gets a job and then she needs things. Her own car, a professional wardrobe, money for commuting, business lunches, office parties, and sometimes after she works a long hard day she wants to stop off for a drink [why not she has worked hard, she deserves it].
When the dependant spouse leaves the home; nobody is left to clean their home. Nobody is cooking, nobody is doing the laundry, and nobody is babysitting.
So as a result the family budget goes way up.
The added expense of: Her car, her wardrobe, her commuting, her lunches, her hard earned 'after-work' drink, a house cleaner, restaurant food [since they no longer eat at home], laundry, and day care; is a lot.
This happens more often than not. When she goes out and begins a minimum wage job, her new income is less then the increase in living expenses they feel.
In terms of 'Household Economics', it is very common that a household with two income earners, will have a much higher cost-of-living. And it is not uncommon to see the increase as being more than the second wager earned is bringing home.
At work, I very often met with men, went over their budgets with them and had to explain that their wives needed to stop their out-of-home job. She needed to focus on being a 'home-maker'. Sometimes they brought their wife into work, so that I could sit with the both of them to show them the math.
My wife did her budget counseling in the 'Family Service Centers' on-base. She saw about half / half, the servicemembers coming in, or the wives coming in for counseling.
This is a very common scene. If nobody is at home; then nobody is cleaning the home. Nobody is cooking, nobody is doing the laundry, and nobody is babysitting.
It is cheaper to clean your home yourself; rather than to hire someone else to do it.
It is cheaper to cook at home. Better yet cooking from scratch is cheapest. Rather than eating out, or buying prepared dinners. Grocery stores offer both. A bag of rice, a box of pasta, flour, fresh veggies, all these things are cheap as compared to prepared frozen dinners.
Laundry and day care can likewise add up very quickly.
A single wage-earner combined with a home-maker can raise a family on a very low budget. Their cost-of-living can be low, if they choose to keep it low, and they can have money left over to invest with.
The minute that both adults go out into the work-place, their cost-of-living goes up. Period.
How does this effect our society? if homemakers are not seen as a noble endeavor, and working moms are praised, then every one wants to follow a professional career. Everyone is working, and everyone's cost-of-living goes up.
My Dw stayed home and focused on being a homemaker. Since she is an accountant at heart, she took courses from time to time to keep up on her career field. And she volunteered one day a week to help other military families, by offering budget counseling and tax-planning.
We were able to maintain a very low cost-of-living and we were able to invest. We bought an apartment building at each duty station. She stayed 'home' and managed the apartments, while I deployed.
By working together; one working outside of the home and one working in the home; we kept our living expenses low, we invested and we grew our portfolio.
I have since retired. Now I stay home, and she goes out to pursue her career.
One of us is home to cook and do laundry, and to maintain the home-based endeavors; while the other is out in the 'work-force'. All while maintaining a low cost-of-living.
Good lord This was a roundabout, long-winded way of proclaiming "women, get your ass back in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant of course!!!! Where's my damn dinner??" How dark ages can you get? Cute story but sorry, don't think you've convinced most of the women out there that they should quit working so they can "save the family money".
lol karfar-- it does look like that but it really does come down to people realizing that 'womens work' and motherhood really does have tangible value for the greater society. Problem is our culture all but requires them to be at the mercy of charity as a result (aka 'welfare queens'). Resentment from males either way-- amazing huh?
Good lord This was a roundabout, long-winded way of proclaiming "women, get your ass back in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant of course!!!! Where's my damn dinner??" How dark ages can you get? Cute story but sorry, don't think you've convinced most of the women out there that they should quit working so they can "save the family money".
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
lol karfar-- it does look like that but it really does come down to people realizing that 'womens work' and motherhood really does have tangible value for the greater society. Problem is our culture all but requires them to be at the mercy of charity as a result (aka 'welfare queens'). Resentment from males either way-- amazing huh?
Oh, I'm sure that Democrats could come up with an annual tax credit or rebate for homemakers.
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.
This was a roundabout, long-winded way of proclaiming "women, get your ass back in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant of course!!!! Where's my damn dinner??" How dark ages can you get? Cute story but sorry, don't think you've convinced most of the women out there that they should quit working so they can "save the family money".
