@Redshirt: Real wages weren't going up, at least not for the bottom 75%.
Inflation was matching or outpacing wage gains for the last 30 years, unless you
were in the upper segment. The older home-owning middle class was only getting
by because of growing real estate values. People who got in at the peak got
badly hurt in the 2008 collapse.You probably don't remember,
because it doesn't fit your scenario, but Obama had nothing to do with the
financial breakdown. When the stuff hit the fan in 2008, before Obama even won
the election, that banking crisis cratered stock and real estate values and
plunged many middle-class Americans into near-poverty, eating up many
retirements. If anything, Obama has overseen a great stabilization and recovery
over the last 5 1/2 years.
To "A Quaker" if it was Reagans policies that destroyed the living wage,
then why is it that up until Obama took office that people's wages were
going up? Since Obama and his policies took effect the average income in the US
has dropped by over $5,000.Tell us, what hurts workers more an
increasing wage and opportunities or decreasing wages and few opportunities?
@DiligentDave: Perhaps I failed to make my point. It wasn't about men.
It was about wages. Everyone's.In promoting
"business-friendly" economics, the conservative policies first
implemented with Reagan have destroyed the living wage for a wide swath of the
workforce. That inflation-indexed minimum wage until 1982, and strong hourly
wages for union workers, indirectly raised the wages of all Americans.
Dismantling those hurt. @MomOfSix correctly identifies outsourcing as another
drain on wages, and you correctly allude to offshoring. These were other
business-friendly policies that killed American wages.Smothering
wages and wage growth forced more people into the workforce to help support
their families, creating job scarcity and further lowering wages. Where we are
now is that kids coming out of universities with important and expensive degrees
are having trouble finding jobs, in some cases ANY job.Those racial
discriminations you identify had nothing to do with the minimum wage. Still
You work harder for less not because of gays or immigrants or lazy people or
feminists whatever “enemy” has been whipped up to grab your
attention, but because the massively wealthy have systematically altered our
democracy while we squabble. They are programmatically undermining
democracy by buying elections and politicians, dismantling policies that benefit
the middle class, and eviscerating industry regulations that promote competition
and protect the economy, all while creating jobs overseas where labor is easily
exploited and human rights are easily abused and simultaneously sheltering their
personal profits from taxes.They’ve got you debating with your
neighbor about who’s the most selfish while they reach into both your back
pockets to build private empires with your money, your time, your future and
So how do we make progress? For post-modern thinkers like David Deida and Ken
Wilber, fearlessly unleashing BOTH the power of the masculine traits like drive,
ambition, and direction; AND the power of the feminine traits like intuition and
compassion precisely because they are different and naturally complementary is
the key to progress, and to strengthening family and partner relationships.
Freeing our selves to love full out, and express ALL of our talents, natural
drives, and innate traits is a huge step forward. For practical tips on how to
unleash you and your partner's strengths, and to integrate your sexuality
with your spirituality, I highly recommend "Blue Truth" by David Deida.
With respect to Male and Female relationships, gender "equality" is a
modernist notion. Creating unisex people by encouraging men to acquire feminine
traits like emotional intuition and women to acquire masculine traits like
ambition simply denies nature, and disempowers us all. It constrains and limits
us. And it asks us to deny who we are. It does not serve us. And of
course, naively returning to traditional male and female roles in the interest
of simplistic male domination and female subjugation is misogynist and
backwards. We've already been there, and know for certain there is a better
To "citygrrl" you realize that it the militant feminist women that
belittle and condemn mothers that do the hard thing by staying home to raise
their children.Having a job and working for the "the man"
when you say that you wish you could be home raising your kids is selling out or
else when a woman is only working because she is pressured by militant feminists
to work rather than doing what she wants and staying home to raise her
children.Choosing to stay home is a job, it is a massive job that
fewer women these days have the courage to do. If you think corporate life is
hard, try balancing the schedules, lives, and educating of your children. There
is a reason why few men stay at home and it is because they couldn't handle
the pressures.Standing up to militant feminists and the media by
sacrificing a career IS the very definition of defiance.If a woman
chooses to work full time that is fine, just don't complain to me when her
kids don't respect her and when she complains that she has no time or is
jealous of stay at home moms.
Sorry, RedShirt, but "should" cuts both ways. If women want to stay
home and raise kids, fine. I said as much in my previous post. But just because
some women are fulfilled in this role, doesn't mean it works for all women.
And those who need to work or want to work should have the same chance as men
to pursue opportunities. And they shouldn't be judged as
"unfulfilled" either. And since when has having a job
equate to working for "the man," implying that gainful employment is
somehow a sell-out? Has chosing not to have a job, for whatever reason, become
a noble act of defiance?
To "Mom of Six" I am not judging your decisions. I am only trying to
show that you made a decision that going back to work was not a necessity, but
was a choice you made for whatever reason you used. I don't care if you
work or not, the point is that you said that you could have stayed home but have
chosen to work so that you can afford more stuff. You said that living off your
husband's income alone would be difficult, not impossible, that is not
something I said. If you didn't go to work to be able to afford more
things, then why did you go back to work?You defensiveness is not
something I understand, and can be an entirely different conversation.To "citygrrl" actually we are pushing the clock forward. A woman
should be able to raise her children without being judged or
"unfulfilled" or whatever the feminazis say about women who choose to
raise their kids rather than work for "the man."
The title of this article is wildly misleading. Since when does the fact that
there are two opposing forces automatically mean both of them are bad? This is
directly from the original article: among college-educated Americans,
women’s increased earning power seems to have stabilized marriages."
The problem is clearly economic inequality, not equality for women.
@ Redshirt- Who are you to judge others decisions? I live in a modest home. I
was a stay at home mother for 15 years with no regrets. I only went back to
school to get my education after having two children with autoimmune diseases
that require medication and many doctor's visits per year. If buying
medication and doctor's visits equate to things than by all means I guess I
am working for better healthcare for my children without getting on government
assistance to do so. I know very few women who do not work to
assist their families in some way whether it is selling Mary Kay, Norwex
products, or working from home for JetBlue. Are these women home, sure, but they
are also working. I feel fortunate enough to have been home to raise my
children while they were little. Not all women have that type of opportunity.
I just have a wonderfully loving husband who has always believed in me that I
could accomplish anything I set my mind to do. It is ok to not have traditional
roles as long as each spouse supports one another with love and respect. I feel
both blessed and lucky!
So we're going to turn back the clock and have women stay home, saddled
with more children than they and their husband wanted, just so men can get a
job, leave their mothers' basement and feel good about themselves? Maybe
if the men that feel so inferior because women have a shot at a good education
and a decent job were more resilient, they may achieve some economic success.
And while women are surpassing men in the earning of a college degree, within
the academic arena men still outnumber women in fields that pay much more than
fields in which women continue to gravitate to; for example, engineering versus
education.What it boils down to people, is that you do what you need
to do. If a family can make it on one income and that's what you want, do
it. If you can handle the demands of raising a family and having a two-income
couple, go for it. Live within your means, have the number of children you feel
you can support, accept the consequences. But please don't thwart the
ambitions and goals of those who may dream differently than you.
@A QuakerI agree that it use to be easier to make good money for
men. But the union jobs were largely doomed, since it was figured if men with
low skills could do things like assemble automobiles in America could be done
for much less money and hassle in developing countries. Our need to get smarter,
in part, was/is necessary. But, on the other hand, getting smarter doesn't
forcibly mean killing ourselves by (college) degrees.And while
minimum wages might have helped some, they hurt others. Notably, black economist
and columnist Thomas Sowell has shown how both the initial implementation of
minimum wage laws, and the gradual increase in minimum wages, have helped to
greatly put young black men out of work, (at least, they have largely been
unable to get jobs), and, thereby, forcing them to turn to drugs and
prostitution, theft, etc, to make money. This has resulted in the wholesale
destruction of African American families.Inequality between rich and
poor, also, is much less when birthrates are higher, as underscored by French
economist Mr. Pickety. But, when so many women work outside the home, birthrates
go down greatly.
Reading the comment board is always good for a laugh.@John charity spring:
"Modern Hollywood has an open and stated agenda of promoting substance abuse
and wanton sexuality as part of its quest to destroy traditional marriage and
family" Do you honestly believe that? Please post the reference to that
stated agenda, i would love to see it. @Diligent Dave; "they which
lead thee cause thee to err" So you are actually blaming women for all your
mistakes? @Jamescmeyer the 1% you venerate would cut your heart out for a
dime. This 1% has been the cause of much of the complaints about the economy as
posted here. The people that have been the real catalyst for innovation are
coming from the middle class and are being educated at our better learning
institutions e.g Stanford and Cal.
This "compilation" seems skewed and misrepresents the work of Dr.
Stephanie Coontz.Her arguments were not that we were better off when
gender inequality prevailed, as many "traditionalist" commenters seem to
interpret it.Rather, she concludes this NYTimes article:"Turning back the [economic] inequality revolution... would certainly help
more families... than turning back the gender revolution."Dr.
Coontz also wrote an article for the NYTimes back in 2012 (Sep) titled "The
Myth of Male Decline".In that article she explains:"What we are seeing is a convergence in economic fortunes, not female
ascendance.""ONE thing standing in the way of further
progress for many men is the same obstacle that held women back for so long:
overinvestment in their gender identity instead of their individual
personhood.""Now men need to liberate themselves from the
pressure to prove their masculinity.""...the next major
obstacle to improving the well-being of most men and women is the growing
socioeconomic inequality within each sex."Same message in both
essays: socioeconomic inequality is the problem needing to be fixed, NOT gender
The things that motivated my father to get up and go to work every day no longer
exist in our society.Fortunately, there are fewer children as a result of
the pill so there is less suffering.Expect more males to choose mom's
basement.One day women will wake up and wonder why they ever wanted to
enter the rat race; then they will join the men in the basement.
Jamescmeyer, thank you for saying to RanchHand what I would have said.@Mom of Six - Maria Sophia Aguirre, featured in the 2006 documentary (found in
it's entirety on YouTube) said that her research shows a woman needs to
make about $120,000 or more in this country to counter the costs of a mother
working outside the home. My wife makes far less than that, and has worked
outside the home for 2-1/2 years only, mostly to get decent health insurance
coverage. We lose, however, far more than the savings she achieved depending on
me solely for our family's income, than she spends on utilities and
groceries. And we ate better, more nutritious meals then, too.Elizabeth Warren, the new Massachusetts senator speaks mostly nonsense (though
not completely). But I agree with most of what she wrote in her book of a decade
back called "The 2-Income Trap". She points out in it how 2-income
families have pushed costs up in so many areas, making them far more vulnerable
overall than single income households 40 to 50 years ago and more were. Many
more go bankrupt now.
This article also forgets about the feminization of the education system. The
school system has gone from a system that pushed boys to a system that caters to
girls. Just look at how many boys have "ADHD" compared to 40 years ago.
If a boy can't sit still and act like the girls, he is put on meds. The
problem isn't that the boy has an attention problem, but that the teachers
are not taught how to teach boys.To "Mom of Six" so what you
are saying is that you don't like to do hard things. Maybe that is part of
the problem too. You said "it is difficult to live off of one salary
alone". To me that says that you could live off of your husband's
salary but you like your stuff more than staying home with your kids.Personally I think that more families could live on a single income if they
really wanted to, but most choose not to because they want more stuff. They
don't want the 2000 square foot house for their 4 kids, they want the 4000
square foot house.
Conservatives, it seems, are bewildered at the results of their policies. On
the one hand, we have the dismantling of the labor movement in the aid of
"free commerce." Minimum wages were decoupled from inflation during the
first year of Reagan's term, and the attack on unions and labor organizing
began in earnest. On the other hand, there's a desire to
somehow strengthen the nuclear family, on the model of the 1950s sitcom
family.Well, you can't do both. Socially conscious
boomers (like me) lament what this economy is doing to our younger generations.
The CPI numbers understate the impact of the last 40 years. In 1976 Manhattan,
monthly rent on older rent-stabilized 4-room apartments on decent blocks cost
under 55 minimum wage hours, with no job shortage. Mine paid twice that, plenty
to be comfortable, and save.Breaking the social contract with
working people meant many could no longer support families. Women had to enter
the workforce, and suddenly there were twice as many potential workers for the
same number of jobs.So, decide. You can have one-worker families or
a weak labor movement. Not both.
Mom of Six you are so right. I recently retired from the Air Force and have
been very blessed with affordable health care, generous retirement, etc. I
sometimes wonder how someone affords paying $300 plus a month in healthcare
insurance. My wife has been able to stay home but I worry my daughters will not
have that opportunity. Allowing my wife to stay home has required me to
continue to get more education and move up through the ranks.I
sometimes wonder why we have so much inflation when wages do not increase at the
same rate. It seems the two should be related? Homes 30 years ago cost 1/3rd
or less of todays prices, yet wages have not increased by the 2/3rds homes,
milk, gas, etc have. Even minimun wage has less than doubled when costs have
essentially tripled of goods and basic needs. Inflation seems to be some
arbitrary number driven by corporate america and the federal government based on
I want to thank Mom of Six for her insight. I believe much of it is very
helpful.Some economic principles to consider: Ceteris paribus,
increasing the supply (or increasing competition) of something will bring the
price of that commodity or service down. In the past few decades women have
flooded into the workforce. This has provided wonderful opportunities for
women, but the side effect of this increase in workforce supply is that it
brings down the "price" or wages associated with the jobs involved.
Thus we've seen stagnating wages relative to the cost of living. That
isn't about anybody's fault, just a natural economic reality.Second, increasing taxes and increased government micromanagement hamstring
economic growth.Third, subsidizing a behavior tends strongly to
increase and encourage it. Out of kindness we subsidize single parenthood, and
a side effect has been that we've ended up encouraging more of it.
@Diligent Dave, that's an interesting insight to consider.@Ranch, please study business and economics more thoroughly. The 1% of people
who head the companies that employ and pay people to work have brought more
industrial, technological, medical advances, and a higher quality of life for
the remaining 99% than every and all countries that force that 1% to pay
everyone more "evenly".It also doesn't seem that Dave
was "blaming women"; rather he seemed to be pointing out results of the
sexually self-centered culture we live in now, where men and women are treated
as individuals who occasionally cooperate, rather than partners who can't
reach their full potential without the other.
As a college educated working mother, my husband and I would absolutely love it
if I could stay home. In this day and age though, it is difficult to live off of
one salary alone. My husband makes far more than I do as a teacher.(However, my
insurance coverage for healthcare is better than his.) I think the main problem
has to do with the outsourcing of jobs, and the fact that wages have not moved
up to support the ever growing inflation. Also we pay for things now that they
didn't in the 60's. We have to pay more for transportation, health
care, and housing. We also pay more out of choice, for internet, and cell
phones. What the article failed to mention was the fact that those who are not
college educated struggle to find decent paying jobs, due once again to
outsourcing. There is also a good many single moms who have children without
being married (+40%), which is looked on as ok in popular culture, but in
reality makes life far too difficult.
I think the article makes some good points. Selfishness is a big problem. Both
feminism and the Playboy philosophy emphasize the individual's ego and
needs over the needs of the family. Technology has also taken a toll. The
introduction of birth control pills, relatively safe legal abortions, and hard
core pornographic filth being pumped into every digital device imaginable has
contributed to an anything goes mentality regarding human sexuality.
Unfortunately, we all pay a price in destroyed marriages and marriages that are
never formed in the first place.
There is a far more pernicious influence responsible for destroying families:
the influence of so-called popular culture. Modern Hollywood has an
open and stated agenda of promoting substance abuse and wanton sexuality as part
of its quest to destroy traditional marriage and family. This article ignores
this factor, to the peril of the readers.
That's right, Dave, blame it all on the women. Forget that the 1% takes
more and more of the rewards and gives the actual producers less and less.
I have long pondered what the following scripture points to— "As for
my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my
people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy
paths." —Isaiah 3:12For a long time, I thought the
reference to women (ruling) ovr them meant politically. Now, I'm more
inclined to think it might mean culturally. And for this, I have several
examples.Educationally, women, today, rule. By far and away, the
majority of college students, and hence graduates, are women. This seems to put
them in a position to call the shots, and to prevent men, more and more, from
doing so. Hiring is to a great extent today based on an individuals education.
Women, from elementary school to graduate school are being advanced more and
more than men. This has it's consequences, and they are not good for many
men.Politically, while women are still very much in the minority as
office holders, they do often prevail at polling booths in who they vote for.
Clinton and Obama won 4 elections because of women.