It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

page: 10
58
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
The failure of all the monetary systems caused the global crisis.
Some believe it's time for a resource based system without money.

www.youtube.com...





[edit on 3/3/09 by John Matrix]




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Women are the prime economic force in this nation...hence also the prime political force to be catered to for votes..this means drama cultivation. Constantly. Emotional issues. This is obvious by the trend line in this thread. Women and the effeminate can be more easily stroked emotionally for votes.


Yep. Men are really hard to emotionally manipulate. Say something about flag burners, and most men respond calmly and rationally, while women get all emotional.

Come on, let's be real. Men are at least as easily stroked and stoked emotionally - it's just different cues. Say "primary school education" and statistically more women respond emotionally; say "terrorism" and statistically more men respond. This has been well studied.

Democrats are on average a bit better at reaching women emotionally, Republicans are on average a bit better at reaching men emotionally.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
I merely point out that the markets even with inflation are primarily a female oriented marketplace..not male oriented.


I don't see that. By markets, do you mean stock markets? No, perhaps you mean supermarkets, in which case you may be right. But look at television advertising - if you think it's mainly oriented towards women, you need to sit down some evening and make a tally.

For example, one of the largest trends in advertising in the past half century is a huge increase in the amount of female anatomy showing. Is all that flesh there mainly to entice lesbians to buy products?

Yeah, make up ads are aimed at women - and car ads are often aimed at men.

One thing that I recognize is that we are all better at perceiving manipulation that is targeted at others. A women is often going to be able to see where a man is being played, and vice versa. So marketing to the other is going to SEEM more blatant, absent any effort to compensate.

I really don't see where you get that women are predominant in this. But I'm open to data.

Thanks for considering these things, at least.

reasoner



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by nikiano
 


Oh nik, dont get so mad at me, I wasnt in all honesty taking a shot at you. I was only trying to say that maybe if you didnt have such a bad view of "most" men you would attract the ones you look for.

I dont know you and Im sure you are a great person and deserve someone just as great. Sorry for comming off so combative, but you cant deny how someone who doesnt know you would view that post.

As i stated early in reponse to Oracle, I agree the pickings are small, but you know how it goes with the law of attraction, but I digress, We're a bit off topic.

I guess what I was trying to get at but apparently stuck a size 11 in my mouth was, maybe we need to look at the ramifications of children not being raised by the one that can do it best.
SHHHHH though, I might lose my role as the stay at home dad, and that would bum me out.

I see it, my wife is like a magician sometimes dealing with our kids, she just has that touch or 6th sence that i seem to be missing. hahaha

But ya sorry again Nik, didnt mean to come off like I was taking a shot at you.

JohnnyR

PS. I bet if we were actually in the same room talking Nik, instead of in a forum, you wouldnt have taken what I said as an insult, because you would have seen my face and noticed I meant no harm


[edit on 3/3/2009 by JohnnyR]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Reasonable men, discussing things unemotionally and rationally.



I think it is time to stop creating fantasies, and look at reality more objectively.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
you know, I do not even have to read this forum to know that the person that started this thread is going to get extremely attacked. What people do not reallize is this is not a personal attack on women, as much as this is a attack from the system or the beast that run the enslavement of We The People. When you take a women out of the family system that HAS children. You take away a huge element on raising a family. What happens then is when both work, someone else is raising your child. You as a parent are not there to mold your childs mind as needed by you to create individuality. that child was given to you, not Becky down the street or a school system to raise. The system wants it that way. It wants people completely dependent on it. That way children grow up by learning from others & it teaches them to trust the system/beast. it also creates future workers for the system/beast enslavement program. Do you realize how much tax revenue is collected from one more person in your family structure working. It breaks the family apart, that is the design. True enslavement. So I do not blame women as the problem, it is the elite force behind the system that created this. Welcome to slavery at its finest. Now, who is left to raise the children when both are working but the system itself. People take back control See the Truth, this is just a small part of how people get enslaved by money and control.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


it's the women's fault, doncha know! ...somehow. they are fighting over money so they can pay the dowries of their wives to be.

sigh.

why not just face it, we're all human beings, not skin not gender not creeds not dollar signs not even educations, but humans.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by yesIAM
 


you realize the reason alimony came along was because women stayed at home, raised the children, gave up any opportunity to be able to support the children should her husband pass on. then if hubby had mid life crisis and ran off into the sunset with young babe without the stretch marks and scars of 30 years of marriage and child rearing, her and the kids would have to live in abject poverty. the rationale given for maintaining that abusive system, was that if the woman was a better wife, hubby wouldn't have left her. this excuse lasted at least a few thousand years. then came alimony, where the husband lost pretty much everything when he divorced. all these kinds of back lashes do is create more inequality for one or both sides. let's just stop the gender war and finger pointing!!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
SO why dont we just all agree that any one household cannot weild more than one income earner at any given time and then pass a law that when children are involved one parent MUST stay at home with said children for at least the first ten years of their life without going back to work.

This way either parent can stay at home to raise the kid and it will open countless jobs in the workforce while bringing down inflation and consumer prices. At the same time, having a full time parent at home will surely restore morality to future generations.

Simple solution? I think so.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Reasonable men, discussing things unemotionally and rationally.



I think it is time to stop creating fantasies, and look at reality more objectively.


Wow. As usual, the minorities start a fight.

Nuff said.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OKCBtard
 


To not treat or speak of your wife or girlfriend as an equal is abusive and should be criminal. And good friends always support each other. I have a blending between my emotive self and my intellect, which surpasses quite a few men I've met. Not in the least worked up except to point out that this kind of opinion will thankfully disappear completely when we emerge into truly civilized world. Because if we don't, this world won't last much longer.


[edit on 3-3-2009 by mystiq]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by nikiano
 


Well truth be told you have a greater chance to find one of those these days than you ever did before; admittedly i still don't fancy your odds.


Good luck ( who would want to be that busy any ways? )

Stellar



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
The suffragettes were agents of rockerfeller?
Pick up a book and read something about history that doesn't come from an internet crackpot.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by undermind
The economic boom of the eighties: the result of vastly expanded and very inexpensive higher education in the seventies.


Please, PLEASE stop talking about the non-existant 'economic boom' of the eighties. Where do people get that completely asinine idea from? Reagan and stagflation anyone?


Also, they had the last of the classically-trained academics, who were people very different from the kind of lock-step professors that you have now.


Sure, i mean the 60's and seventies were still relatively good times for liberation movements but that mostly came as result of the unionization and worker rights achieved two decades earlier...

Stellar



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Women also have an important role to play in jobs that are too demeaning for men, like teaching.

I believe this was my favorite part about the entire article. It is good to know we still have plenty of men who can look at a woman and see a 2nd class citizen.
So I did as the article stated and put my paper down and looked at the other side of the table and what do I find….no one. Single mom here!!! Who has no interested in turning back the clock and having to rely on a male counter part to support me and my child. There are way too many scenerios that could happen where I could have to depend on the system to keep me afloat should the guy be gone. No thanks to that one!! I have no interest putting my brain back into the closet and being placed into a box labeled how I should be as a female. Having a partner would make life quite a bit easier and I too at times have had those thoughts pop up wishing I could have stayed home when my daughter was younger. But I manage just fine and I wouldn't change anything in my life where the clock would be turned back and woman again could become 2nd class citizens in this country or any other Western country.


Whether working women actually caused the credit crunch is now a moot point. The point is that removing women from the workforce would mitigate its effects.

This is probably the smartest thing the author stated. Evidently though it did not sink into his . because he keeps rambling.
The fact of the matter is the system is kaput. There is a lot more involved than simply woman working. Somebody pointed out that working woman became the next great target for paying taxes. And how right they where. Our system isn't set up for the people our system is set up for the greedy. That is the root cause. When the world finally wakes up and realizes that we are all different but are all from the same race and we all have the right to pursue a dignified life maybe than things will change.
Until than these types of issues do nothing but divide. This isn't an issue about gender it isn't even an issue about the lack of family unit it is an issue about a system that isn't created for the people but a system that was created for the few. And those few created a system of consumerism. When you take and take and take and never give back you can count on a painful crash.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
reply to post by OKCBtard
 


To not treat or speak of your wife or girlfriend as an equal is abusive and should be criminal. And good friends always support each other. I have a blending between my emotive self and my intellect, which surpasses quite a few men I've met. Not in the least worked up except to point out that this kind of opinion will thankfully disappear completely when we emerge into truly civilized world. Because if we don't, this world won't last much longer.


[edit on 3-3-2009 by mystiq]


That's silly. Enjoy this never happening in America! Also look at rap music for a reason why.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by nikiano
 


This is a little OT, but the first thing that popped out to me about your rant was, what does a credit score have to do with a relationship? "Well gee, I do so love you Bill, but your credit score is only 550..." LOL. That just reminded me of the movie Gattaca (sp?), where they determined good matches based on DNA.

Chrono



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by metaldemon2000
 


you are a free will agent capable of making your own decisions about whether you work or not, and so is your spouse. legislating to that degree of interference in the relationships of married people is only gong to result in the same abuses we saw before, perhaps worse because now, people have less scruples! the sensibilities of people have been numbed. not a good scenario!

-the economy demands it.
-quality of life issues demand it (if you don't maintain standards of living, you can be arrested or fined)
-your child in poverty, equals your child in an adoption facility.
-the poorest sector of the population would suffer the worst.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
To blame the current economic situation on women is the most ridiculous idea put forward to attempt to explain the situation.

Prices rise because of inflation, inflation is caused by excessive government spending, consumer debt, and the excessive printing of money. Not to mention the fact we have a fiat money system with no hard assets behind our dollars. To sum it up simply, it's the Federal Reserve stupid!

Eventually like Ron Paul has been saying for a while now is the only thing that will stop this course were on is a total collapse of the dollar and hyper inflation. When it becomes painful enough, change will occur because the people will demand it.

We also need to be very careful, most of us are aware that we need a complete change in our monetary system but often people will accept the first bone that is thrown to them. We need to very careful of the plans of these globalists pushing there global agenda. There is plans and has been for a long time to unit money into a global system. Essentially it's the Federal Reserve on Steroids.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Just to correct a basic inaccuracy and one basic misrepresentation:


For some perspective about household incomes and how significant the 'second' salary have in fact really been :

The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

www.cia.gov...



American workers have enjoyed the benefits of both strong job growth and rising wages during the Clinton–Gore administration. Wage inequality began to decrease and real wages began to rise during the late 1990s, following two decades of increasing wage inequality and stagnating average wages.

Since the end of World War II, real wages for production workers have risen by more than half. Most of this growth occurred, however, in the 1950s and 1960s. (See chart 2.1.) After reaching a peak in 1973, real hourly earnings for production workers either fell or stagnated for two decades. During 1996–1998, growth in hourly earnings resumed, accelerating to over two percent in 1998.

For many workers, the stagnating wages of the last quarter century were offset in part by growth in expenditures for other employer-provided compensation, such as healthcare and pension benefits. Dollars spent on benefits grew more rapidly than those spent on wages and salaries during most of the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, accounting for 28 percent of total compensation in 1995. Beginning in 1995, the benefit portion of workers’ compensation grew more slowly, as employers increasingly chose to offer less expensive types of health care and pension plans in order to minimize the growth of labor costs.2

Stagnating real wages and cutbacks in other compensation, however, do not necessarily mean stagnating income and living standards. In fact, real family income for most Americans has risen, although slowly, over the past quarter century, reflecting the dramatic rise in two-earner families and the increase in the number of hours many families work.

www.dol.gov...



But in the last dozen years many of the trend lines measuring
American prosperity have flattened out, and some have even
turned downward. For example, average real wages remain today
substantially beloru their levels of the early 1970s. Despite
the rise in the number of two-income households, median afterinflation
family income has also dropped. Evidence of lower
incomes and living standards is particularly pronounced among
younger workers, indicating that the generation whose economic
prospects once looked so promising is acfually experiencing more
restricted opportunity for good jobs, advancement and income
growth than did their parents’ generation.
At first, many experts advised Americans that these trends were
only temporary. They were said to be products of extraordinary
“jolts” to our economic system, like the oil shortage, or of
demographic aberrations, like the baby boom, which would disappear
with time.
Others argued that declining incomes were caused by excessive
growth of government. In 1980 a new Administration promised
that its program of radical cuts in the civilian government activities
would unleash productive private investment and spark a long
term economic boom. Almost six years later, investment was stag
nant, the unemployment rate remained at levels that once would
have signaled a recession, and the central premise of so-called
“supply-side” economics had failed the test of the real world.

www.epinet.org...



Since 1967, the median household income in the United States has risen modestly, fluctuating several times. Even though personal income has risen substantially and 42% of all household now have two income earners, the median household income has increased only slightly. According to the US Census Bureau, this paradoxial set of trends is due to the changing structure of American households. For example, while the proportion of wives working year-round in married couple households with children has increased fron 17% in 1967 to 39% in 1996, the proportion of such households among the general population has decreased. Thus, while married couple households with children are the most economically prosperous type of household in the United, their share of the population has been dwindeling in the United States. In 1969, more than 40% of all households consisted of a married couple with children. By 1996 only a rough quater of US households consisted of married couples with children. As a result of these changing household demographics, median household income rose only slighly despite an ever increasing female labor force and a considerable increase in the percentage of college graduates.[26]


"From 1969 to 1996, median household income rose a very modest 6.3 percent in constant dollars... The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy."- John McNeil, US Census Bureau

Overall, the median household income rose from $33,338 in 1967 to an all-time high of $44,922 in 1999, and has since decreased slightly to $43,318. Decreases in household income are visible during each recession, while increases are visible during economic upturns. These fluctuations were felt across the income strata as the incomes of both, the 95th and 20th percentile were affected by flactuations in the economy. Yet, it is important to note that income in the period between 1967 and 1999 grew faster among wealthier households than it did among poorer households. For example the household income for the 80th precentile, the lower threshold for the top quintile, rose from $55,265 in 1967 to $86,867 in 2003, a 57.2% increase. The median household income rose by 30% while the income for the 20th percentile (the lower threshold for the second lowest quitile) rose by only 28% from $14,002 to $17,984. One should note that ht majority of households in the top quintile had two income earners, versus zero for the lowest quintile and that the widening gap between the top and lowest quintile may largely be the reflection of changing household demographics including the addition of women to the workforce.

en.wikipedia.org...


In conclusion it's pretry clear that women have not worked to afford 'luxuries' ( median household income have not risen for the vast majority) but HAD to go to work to maintain a basic standard of living Americans were not willing to compromise on.

In theory i makes sense for societies who wish to invest heavily in the next generation to enable those women who wish to stay home to do so but in practice it's clear that the 'free markets' ( free to callapse at any time , lol ) cares nothing for that and will drive the entire human population into the wage market where it can keep them in both competition with each other, who will work for less until everyone starves, and from doing more socially responsible things such educating themselves and their children. If that was the case a far larger proportion of the world's citizens would have by now have figured out why things are so damn hard a hundred years after a world wide socialist revolution drove western governments into reaching ever greater compromises the citizenry.

In my opinion the women of the west have definetely benefited greatly by their mostly newly gained rights which may in good part be because of the reigning economic prosperity those societies already enjoyed. Since i don't want to be called names cultures were definetely changing so it's not that men were entirely opposed. Having said that i dont wish to be accused of advocating for men either.
As with most 'rights' people may have they don't do you much good when your fighting for your daily ( few slices if your so lucky) bread as most women on this planet are still compelled to do. The women of Iraq, the entire former USSR, Yugoslavia and many other countries have certainly been on the losing side of 'western' reforms so this war is far from over.

Stellar

[edit on 3-3-2009 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OKCBtard
 


You have now made two one liner post's. Is there any chance you will consider being silent until you have at least two or three lines worth of text to add to the discussion? I am saying text because i seriously doubt they will be worthy ideas; either way at least you will be within the rules.

Thanks for reading all four lines of text.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join