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 hasn't existed since the 1960s, when houses were $10,000 and new cars $2,000. It's not something any president was responsible for. Women realized that there was more to life than cleaning a house and taking care of babies, so they started to go to college and get jobs.
That at least one partner can't be a full-time or at least significant-time parent is not a good thing. That it being opened to either parent was. That the economic pressure was two incomes is more not.
That hasn't existed since the 1960s, when houses were $10,000 and new cars $2,000. It's not something any president was responsible for. Women realized that there was more to life than cleaning a house and taking care of babies, so they started to go to college and get jobs.
Actually couples realized that a single income is not enough thanks to rising cost of living (caused by government through printing money inflation) so women were forced into the workforce while being told they're being "more independent" (when in reality, they're raising more money for cronies)
Actually couples realized that a single income is not enough thanks to rising cost of living (caused by government through printing money inflation)...
Even if this were true - and I think it's kind of a crutch argument - "printing the money" was not the cause of the problem. The reasons the money was "printed" - that money was made readily available for loans - lie at the root of the problem.
The takeaway here is that hiring, as managed by third-party HR screening services (and probably such internal functions in larger companies) is a completely broken system based on passing keyword/meta-screening before any human sees an application, and completely disconnected from the meaningful hiring process.
Something between sloppiness and casual acceptance of the system's automated methods means the intake system tossed me in the trash without recognizing I'd already been called, interviewed and set up for a more significant interview next week.
Tossed on a holiday Sunday morning... meaning there probably wasn't a human (at least one with an IQ over 94) involved in the action.
Just proves what's been slowly mapped out over the last year or two, for me and many others.
A couple good Twitter threads on the awfulness of applicant tracking systems:
Even if this were true - and I think it's kind of a crutch argument - "printing the money" was not the cause of the problem. The reasons the money was "printed" - that money was made readily available for loans - lie at the root of the problem.
Fostered consumption.
Money was printed when the government didn't cut spending for cronies. That's the root cause - cronyism.
Money was printed when the government didn't cut spending for cronies. That's the root cause - cronyism.
Well, that might be a sort of high-level view of the same thing; they didn't print the money and mail it to a few folks. Putting huge amounts in circulation through bonds and loans meant very easy money for consumers to spend and spend and spend... which ended up in crony pockets, most likely. But there's more steps and intentions that just "making cronies rich."
And most of them lie with intense fostering of consumer consumption, because that's what makes the whole cycle spew money for the catching.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,570 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57792
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsell
Actually couples realized that a single income is not enough thanks to rising cost of living (caused by government through printing money inflation) so women were forced into the workforce while being told they're being "more independent" (when in reality, they're raising more money for cronies)
Both parents "having" to work was more recent. I remember back in the early 1970s when my mother first started working, it had nothing to do with a need for money. She was simply bored with being at home all day, had some marketable talent and wanted to use it. I remember many other mothers at the time doing the same. Even now I know women that work, barely making enough to cover their child care bills, but want to keep up their skills. When their husbands are making $200k at Microsoft or Amazon, they don't need the additional income. Yes, there are couples that both have to work to make ends meet, because neither has sufficient income to support their lifestyle in the area where they live. There are also those cases where they both work in order to live in a better area than they could otherwise afford.
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.
