ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

[pressimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d0bf0ac7817d.jpg[/pressimg]Yeah, you read right. And while I laughed, and poured myself a whiskey at the thought of the onslaught for posting this Irish op/ed .. I have to admit. I agree. 100% actually, I have stated so before on ATS much of what is said:

NEWTON'S OPTIC: THE ANSWER to all our problems is staring us in the face. It may even be quite literally staring at you, right now, across the breakfast table.

So put the paper down, stare back and ask yourself a selfless question.

Does the woman in your life really need a job?

Now believe it or not.. there is historical evidence to back this up. In America for instance, after WWII it was far more acceptable for women to work out of the house, and as we can see the income of families jumps significantly, as two incomes compared to one just a generation before. Subsequently with a second income, prices will rise to meet inflation.. if one person looses their job, the economy will essentially cripple the income and livelihood of the household. Especially with twice as many looking for the same jobs.

In Ireland and much of the Western World, it is the same tale, some Nations it became the norm for women to work instead of caring for the family (which by the way I view as an even more demanding and stressful job than sitting in a cubicle, or being a receptionist, or what ever other job.) much longer after America did, and as it became the norm you will see two trends:

Income increases leading to increased consumer prices
Increase of property values
Increase in unemployment
Increase in crime
A complete breakdown of family values, moral integrity and sense of community.

It would be ludicrous to suggest that women should be sacked purely to give men their jobs. In many cases, their jobs should be abolished as well.

Women are twice as likely as men to work in the public sector. They account for two-thirds of the Civil Service and three- quarters of all public employees.

Yet they are barely represented in the useful public services of firefighting and arresting people. Encouraging women to leave the workforce would go a long way towards addressing the budget deficit without any downside whatsoever.

And, for the American's who don't read sources.. this is an Irish article from the Irish Times, in reference to the Celtic Tiger economic boom of the 90's-00's.

Now please, express your opinions!

Irish Times

Too stupid for a serious response.

Too scary to ignore.

Too funny.

...I flagged you. Enjoy the ride.

My understanding of today's economy, even before it went totally into the toilet, is that the average family cannot live off of one salary alone. And I'm talking without credit cards, and without restaurant meals, and without high-end merchandise.

And before anybody tries to blame me, the man uses credit cards and I don't. He would rather sacrifice a body part before he gave up his DVR and satellite receiver. He spends roughly $25 a week on PPV movies. The game systems are his as are most of the games.

I'm not perfect, but I'm far from the problem.

Alora, this is correct, in America we have not been able to sustain a family with one income since the 1960's.

And I am not saying the way to fix the economy is to fire every woman. I am also not blaming women for the economic crisis. I am referencing historically, and the article is referencing historically for Ireland.

I thought scarcity versus demand drove cost (or was supposed to) not how much money people have in their pocket. Of course with luxury items the price is more often driven not just by demand but brand, but I digress. And so, if I'm reading this right, it's saying that if more people lose their jobs then they will just have to start selling loaves of bread for a dollar again? I also thought inflation had to do with the amount of currency in circulation which wouldn't be a problem if people actually used available currency rather than credit, which goes for payroll these days too apparently. Eh, what do I know about economics.

Brilliant. S+F.

Btw - I remember reading an analytical report years back
that stated exactly the same point of view.

Personally, I hold this view to be true.
Consumerism was the main drive for corporations, and
feminism served their purposes brilliantly.

Welcome to another lie...

at the very root I beleive the poster is correct. Although the other posts have good merit I think they missed the point of the story. One of the main reasons things cost more (property, food, and so on) is because it is justified when you have two incomes providing to the support of a household. Actually if you think about it it makes perfect sense to balence the system, so there was a time when a family could survive on one salary. It is quite sad that women lost the pride and gratitude they deserve in return for raising some of americas great men. Feminism has blinded and abused women by creating the womens lib movement. now being a women is not about having a solid man or family, but being a titty flashing, binge drinking, morning after pill taking slut like so many of the female role models out there. I am not saying women are to blame because they have been manipulated to be what they are now. I am just stating that this does need to be recognized as one of the contributers to the fall of our society. And it will definatly be the cornerstone of the new communities we find ourselves in after the world cleanses itself of the evil that is manifesting as we speak.

Originally posted by eventHorizon

Consumerism was the main drive for corporations, and
feminism served their purposes brilliantly.

Unfortunately, anything can be manipulated. And usually is.

FYI - Before "feminism," women were legally prevented from having jobs. So widows and their children, unmarried mothers and their children, the children of rapists, cads and various other walking dildos were condemned to poverty and slow starvation.

Do you really think it's fair to blame the victims? And create them?


.

The economic boom of the eighties was largely the result of women choosing careers over the home in great numbers. Our society has been shaped by reality since.

Perhaps this time we should fire all the men and let them stay home with the kids, clean house, cook the meals, etc. ad infinitum. This will free up the work force to accept women into "useful" positions like firefighting and arresting people.

Good luck with this one, Rockpuck. LOL. You may have bitten off more than you can chew.

reply to post by Rockpuck


I read this title and started actually laughing out loud. I at first glance thought you ment it was because they spent too much on credit cards more often.

But that was subconcious. And i dont believe that to be ACTUALLY true.

You do have some valid points though.

What about the effect its had on children? Latchkey kids and such.
and the feminism movement. I believe its good for a woman to work and have the right, and for that matter equal rights as all should. But what effect has it has in a whole? It has made your points be able to exist....

I'm sure you made the title of your thread sexist on purpose to generate attention but I ask you this...

If you're placing your whole argument on a dual income family, while single out the female? Why is it the womans fault? A man is just as capable of staying home and nurturing the family or perhaps you don't see your gender as capable of this much responsibility. Why not title the thread dual income families caused the credit crunch? Here your logic fails me...miserably.

Another failure in your thread is 'working women.' This doesn't suggest the marital status of the female whatsoever. Would you have rather I golddigged my way around until I finally decided to marry in my thrities, not contributing to myself or society?

I've never been a single mother so I can't speak for them even through I can clearly hear their voices screaming at your thread. Not that it matters, my dad instilled into me a strong work ethic and provided me with an education so I would always be able to support myself no matter what. After I married and had a baby, I did become a stay at home mom and that was the only rational admittance on your part that yes indeed, it is much more difficult, and often thankless, job then crunching numbers in a cubicle.

Have another shot and think before you thread. I'm expecting your next thread to read:
Females Responsible For Govt Crisis-Revoke Their Right To Vote!

reply to post by soficrow


I said feminism served their purposes; that being purposes of
uncontrollable consumerism driven by corporate masters - a state
in which we all are...
There is nothing wrong with equality, we are all equal, we are the same.

I guess I'm saying that ideas can become a two-ended sword.
It's akin bringing democracy to middle east. Possibly a noble task
killing millions along the way.

reply to post by Alora


"My understanding of today's economy, even before it went totally into the toilet, is that the average family cannot live off of one salary alone. And I'm talking without credit cards, and without restaurant meals, and without high-end merchandise."

Because my family (actually my wife and I) are in something of a transition period, I am working a crappy job earning $10.00USD and hour. That's about $1600 a month, before taxes. My wife does not work. We have no debt. We own our home, a mobile home, but clean and adequate. I own my car, a ten-year-old Honda Accord. It is clean, dependable and economical. We are actually putting money aside. How is this possible?

"And before anybody tries to blame me, the man uses credit cards and I don't. He would rather sacrifice a body part before he gave up his DVR and satellite receiver. He spends roughly $25 a week on PPV movies. The game systems are his as are most of the games."

Sounds like "the man" is more of a boy. There is the problem. People do not know the difference between want and need. We do not have cable tv. I actually manage to live without it. A salesman called here a few weeks ago wanting to sell me digital cable. I told him I had something better: a library card. He didn't know what to say to that.

I'm not perfect, but I'm far from the problem.

Part of this theory was first posed by Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren and a co-author in their book the "Two Income Trap":

www.hno.harvard.edu...

The book's title highlights a central paradox of middle-class families today versus a generation ago: While middle-class families generally need two incomes to make ends meet, it's reliance on that second income (usually Mom's) that's putting them in financial peril. By counting on two incomes to fund the basics of a middle-class lifestyle - including modest homes in safe neighborhoods with good schools and high-quality child care, preschool, after-school care, or college - families have forfeited their safety nets.

"When a family builds its budget around two workers ... they're much more exposed to any economic disruption," says Warren. A generation ago, if the sole breadwinner lost his (or her) job or became disabled, the family had a backup earner who could step into the workforce. Further, reliance on two incomes makes families twice as vulnerable to layoffs.

"The two-income family is like a speeding race car," says Warren. "It goes faster than its one-income counterpart, but if it hits a rock, it careens out of control and crashes."

Making those crashes all the more devastating, Warren adds, is a deregulated consumer credit industry that she calls "a monster that feeds on families in trouble." With both incomes committed to fixed costs, families who hit a financial rock in the road turn to credit cards, mortgage refinancing, and payday lenders - often at ballooning interest costs that drag families into a spiral of debt.

Very prescient for 2003, no?

Though I think it's entirely sexist to lay responsibility for the current crisis at the feet of women, I would admit that, in general, women tend to drive the purchasing habits in typical families and so most marketing is, in fact, aimed at women.

Additionally, a survey was done by Money magazine a few years ago which showed that, based on an average working woman's salary of $40,000, a family with children would only net about $3 to 5 thousand of that after expenses such as childcare, clothing, transportation and other incidentals. The question posed was "Is it worth it?" vs. the intrinsic cost to your family and I guess now we can add society.



[edit on 2/3/2009 by kosmicjack]

Honestly i believe wether it is women or men and there are children involved one of the two should be at home with the children. With the rise of inflation since the days men were the bread winners it is almost impossible for a middle class family not to have two incomes. I do not believe women working is what caused the problem. I believe inflation is. Women would not need to work if inflation had not occured.

Trust me i would prefer to be the main bread winner of the house hold or even the one who stays home with the kids and cooks and cleans but it is just not possible.

I think the op has a good point here but both the source and the op fail to look at the big picture. Women working is more of a result then a cause.

reply to post by Rockpuck


while I don't agree with women working is taking the jobs, I do agree that more women can stay home then there are.

A woman who chooses to stay at home has more choice then a woman who has to work.
I was career oriented. I had a child, and I consider it the most important job to stay home and raise that child for the world,and the hardest. It has made demands of me I have never imagined.

The feminist movement have made a lot of women feel they have to be commercially productive, but the fact is,all we really need is choice. Choice to stay home, choice to pursue a career, both being completely valid.

I get flamed for this, but I am in the camp that if someone chooses to have children, they should make the best effort to stay home with the child. Some people have to work. I have to go back to work. But I do look down on my friends who say they have to work and stick their children in daycare, yet they have a huge house, corvette, and tivo. We have sacrificed everything for me to stay home, but we can't any longer.


people really need to define necessity. New cars? Big house? GAP clothes?Disney vacations? Everyone has computers? Are these conducive to a happy environment? or a parent at home?

If people wanted to stay at home, they can.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by nixie_nox]

eyeforalie

What about the effect its had on children? Latchkey kids and such. and the feminism movement. I believe its good for a woman to work and have the right, and for that matter equal rights as all should. But what effect has it has in a whole? It has made your points be able to exist....

This is a strong belief of mine that taking women out of the home, essentially destroys the family unit. Of course, this is not always the truth, many many people including my self had wonderful mothers that juggled a full time job with raising an entire family, and I have even more respect for single mothers (and fathers).

But the drive to destroy the Feminine and replace it with this gray shaded neutrality has not been beneficial at all to Humanity. Women wanted to work, and now they can.. in fact.. they are now expected to work 40+ hours a week PLUS cook the food, shop, clean, teach, drive kids to practice, be an emotional provider, etc, etc, etc. Women are NOT better off, they are worse off, and so are our children. Honestly, is it any wonder we have gender confused kids, detached manic depressive kids, violence never before seen, and so on. I believe it all comes back to the Family, and how it was slaughtered for the sake of "Progress".

Whisper67

I'm sure you made the title of your thread sexist on purpose to generate attention but I ask you this...

My title is a Copy and Paste from an article (see link) from the Irish Times online Newspaper.

If you're placing your whole argument on a dual income family, while single out the female? Why is it the womans fault?

The Dual Income argument is made that, in this case, Ireland, during the Celtic Tiger years they saw a huge increase of women in the work place. Specifically, in bureaucratic government positions, service, and health care. The argument being that in Traditional Ireland pre 1990's boom, the majority of households where Single Income, and that by doubling the working population through women the sudden explosion of income compared to property values (and consumer prices) caused an extensive inflationary spiral in the markets.

This is actually economic fact, it cannot be argued. You take one income and make it two, prices WILL rise according to the money supply. your argument of "why women" is philosophical I suppose, but most psychologist would probably agree a male is not as nurturing as a female.

Have another shot and think before you thread. I'm expecting your next thread to read: Females Responsible For Govt Crisis-Revoke Their Right To Vote!

Hmm, I think I will get started on it...

eventHorizon

Well said.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Many truths to this post,

Something i have pointed out to people myself.

reply to post by Whisper67


You are right, men can stay at home. I have met some stay at home dads, there are more these days. And they are quite happy. One guy joked that his friends would call him and rag him, calling him Mr. Mom. He would say, I am chilling at the mall having fun with my daughter. what are you doing? oh, sitting in a cube?

I have found that most couples in these instances choose who goes to work based on who makes more. in these cases, the wives made more and had no problem working. while some here are in denial, these days men still make more, so I think that is why the majority of the time it falls to women.

And women just get that nurturing. I didn't even want kids, neither did my bff, she was majorly career driven, and worked hard for her career. We both hit 25 and WHAM, biological clock kicked in and we were like BABIES! lol

And we both want to stay home. A lot of it is nature. Doesn't mean one sex is better then the other, just designed for different jobs.