ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

reply to post by metaldemon2000


I said something like that too, I agree. This would be an enormous help to the both the family unit and the job market, as well prices would be forced to drop, and wages forced up.

Let's see

1)Prices drop.
2)Wages up.
3)Children looked after by their own parents.
4)Either wife or husband can work doesn't matter which one.
5)Unemployment & under employment drops.
6)Taxes down.

Sounds good to me, compared to what we have now.

This is missing the underlying cause. Two income families are a necessity, an effect of the federal reserve's diluting of the purchasing power of our money. If inflationary pressures had not been stealing our purchasing power through driving up cost of living faster than wages have risen, a two income family would theoretically be very well off and unnecessary, leaving one to stay home and take care of things and both of them more free time instead of having to slave away 70 hours a week and still being in debt. Also contributing is consumer culture and the manufacturing of needs from desires. Do you really need the giant tv, humongous house, and luxury car(s)? Some couldn't live without it. They are in for a big jolt in the near future.

Originally posted by CapsFan8
This is missing the underlying cause. Two income families are a necessity, an effect of the federal reserve's diluting of the purchasing power of our money.

It's not necessary for both parents to work if the gov would drop income taxes or subsidise families instead of bailing out the fortune 500 to the tune of 1.6 trillion dollars.

People often do not take into consideration the cost of getting that second income such as day care, another vehicle, travel expenses, extra stress, eating fast foot, tole on health, a bigger garage, bigger wardrobe, the list goes on and on....the second comes at a cost and people end up working that job for peanuts when all is added up.


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

Originally posted by mystiq
I just wouldn't have worded it with the words "not equal" in the beginning of it.

Surely we're a little more similar than apples and oranges too? The differences in the brain wiring that exists between men and women was to ensure that unbalanced systems didn't evolve.

I believe the old story that women disrespected men first in the original equal environment, looked down on him, became conceited, and believed the lair hoping to be made a god and rule over man. And when she realized what she did she perpetuated the lie and she and the man both fell to a low estate.

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

Logarock,

I dont entirely agree about getting away from the candle making days.
I know women who are in the arts and crafts buisness on the side and make good moneys to suppliment their other jobs or just make moneys on the side. More power to them if it works out.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by orangetom1999]

That statement had to do with the log cabin days just before the industrial revolution as a transition point. It had nothing to do with a woman being industrious.

Originally posted by John Matrix

It's not necessary for both parents to work if the gov would drop income taxes or subsidise families instead of bailing out the fortune 500 to the tune of 1.6 trillion dollars.

People often do not take into consideration the cost of getting that second income such as day care, another vehicle, travel expenses, extra stress, eating fast foot, tole on health, a bigger garage, bigger wardrobe, the list goes on and on....the second comes at a cost and people end up working that job for peanuts when all is added up.

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

That's what I'm trying to say or tried to say. Between the county taxes, the state taxes and the federal taxes, plus the cost of Gas and Food rising up through the roof (and Gov Patterson in NY attempting to pass an obesity tax of 18.75 percent that would unfortunately also tax whole milk) there's not a lot of money left to live on. As for a second job, you are absolutely correct and I would avoid that route if at all possible, which until now (and still is) not luckily one of the options I have to assess.

Womens lib was created to ruin the home by getting the moms out of the home, thereby dumbing down the nation and creating a welfare state that depends on the gubmnet for everything!
Actually thats just a side benefit, the real reason was so the gubmnet would have all that new tax money coming in! Once again in this country, greed trumps common sense!!!
Yep we fell for it, all for a couple dollars more a week!
Hope kids really ARE worth more than a couple extra dollars a week!

Next we'll buy houses that are too big and expensive, lose them and help send the banks into the abyss. Nice.


[edit on 3-3-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by dodadoom


HELLO? women's lib was created because women's issues needed attention, and they were being ignored.

I cannot believe that I am reading this post and some of the replies here on ATS. This reads more like a Friday night, booze fueled, "Woman Hater's Club" thread from "that other woo-woo place on the net". I for one, as a female and a mother, do not owe anyone any justification for my choices except myself and my immediates. Neither does any other female here. At the end of the day, when you strip away the plumbing and boobies (or lack of in a male's case) what are we all except human beings? It saddens me that brazen misogyny and misandry would be so rampant on a place where alternative free thinkers come to congregrate. Divide and conquer has been the name of the game since a dozen "holy books" were thrown at us and wars began over whose was the most true and worthy. I thought most types that come to places like this were capable of seeing through the nonsense to some extent. Shame upon the author of this thread, and shame upon the fire stokers. I think everyone here is better than this.

reply to post by Seasick


You will notice then that the thing started out as an economic evaluation. But then the chest thumping women came storming in with all of their unrelated logic. Then it disintegrated into a man woman thing. Isn't it great!

reply to post by Logarock


it isn't chest thumping. it's trying to keep the idea that women should be at home and not out in the work place, from taking root. i'm not NOT living under sharia law.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
nixie_nox

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.

Quite right, I don't believe it has anything at all to do with "who is more able, superior". The traditional role in Nature, most of the time, is that the female sex takes care of the offspring. I have only ever known one stay at home dad, and I hazard a guess his job was far harder then mine.

But any more it's very difficult to have one family member working. You get a bigger tax break and credits, but it doesn't make up for the addition of a second income.

When I married my wife 25 yrs ago, we made a decision that we would have children, and that she would stay home to rear them. She wanted to work, but the understanding that the children would fare better if she stayed home trumped all other considerations. We adjusted our lifestyle to the realities of a single income; we did without some things we wanted to make sure we had the things we needed.

Was it hard? Sometimes. But by our hard work, and a series of promotions, my income reached a level that afforded us a few of our wants. Except for our house, we are debt free, and my children are embracing this concept like an old friend. Had we chosen another way, I am convinced the outcome would have been devastating.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Seasick

 

You will notice then that the thing started out as an economic evaluation. But then the chest thumping women came storming in with all of their unrelated logic. Then it disintegrated into a man woman thing. Isn't it great!

*sigh* .. ya it kinda did lol. I think there where two different topics from the beginning.. the OP, and the "Oh no he didn't" arguments.

reply to post by Rockpuck



In part of this video Aaron Russo claims he was informed By Rockefeller that women were only given the right to vote as someone realised it would double taxes overnight if they went to work.

Make you wonder

reply to post by moocowman


really rock puck, thanks alot from scaring the crap out of the ladies. with friends like you, who needs flippin enemies. why not just go shoot your loved ones in the head now?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by moocowman

 

really rock puck, thanks alot from scaring the crap out of the ladies. with friends like you, who needs flippin enemies. why not just go shoot your loved ones in the head now?

Not really sure what that is supposed to mean...

reply to post by Rockpuck


think about it. you would look across the breakfast table at your wife and make a decision for her, that would effectively remove her from society. got a burkha to go with that mysogony?

[edit on 3-3-2009 by undo]

Originally posted by TheOracle
reply to post by JohnnyR

 

She may have been harsher than necessary but do you acknowledge that men have become lazier since women began to work?

Nope please show data that men work less know then in the past then I will believe it ( IMO you girls are just not attracted to the good guys you want the bad boys) that explains why all you find is druggies alcoholics ect.) By the way I'm a bad boy ladies so hit me uo

Originally posted by Strype

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
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.

Hid behind an anonymous name because you're afraid to down-talk women on your ATS account? "Titty flashing, binge drinking, morning after pill taking sluts?" Wow, isn't that a bit judgemental? Out of curiosity, what percentage of women would you put in this category? With a statement like that, I guess hiding behind a scrub account is a bit understandable, but nonetheless still very weak. According to the rules, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this, but I'll always disagree with this method of posting. If you've got an opinion, speak it. Why hide unless you're here for reputation? In which case, you'd be here for all the wrong reasons in the first place. Unfortunately many people misinterperate the reason for this site and place things like popularity ahead of knowledge. It's a damn shame...

- Strype


edit: Sp

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Strype]

I'm not sticking up for what they said because it is way to general. The piont he was making is that that behavior is know main stream. A personel example is my grandmothers ideals are completley differant then my sisters is this progress or regress? we will see

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Logarock

 

it isn't chest thumping. it's trying to keep the idea that women should be at home and not out in the work place, from taking root. i'm not NOT living under sharia law.

I didnt mean you. Really. And it was in cheek anyway, love.