ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

page: 2
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
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


Do you really think this highly of your mother and sisters? Your friends must be a real treat, too. Nice. ::smirk::

[edit on 3/2/2009 by Whisper67]




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I think a definition needs to be made. The difference between career and income. It wasn't till WWII that women started getting "jobs" and "careers". basically taking "positions" but women have always been income earners. They usually do stuff on the side. Sell pies, sew for people, do someone's laundry, cook, etc. They were their own companies.

I think we may be heading back to this a little bit. A lot of women, to supplement income are doing stuff again. I have done a little ebay, sold some things on craigslist, getting ready to do another round. Till I find that full time job.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grumble
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.


And inflation has gone through the roof.
Second line goes here



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
No... this is what did it...

Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street

For five years, Li's formula, known as a Gaussian copula function, looked like an unambiguously positive breakthrough, a piece of financial technology that allowed hugely complex risks to be modeled with more ease and accuracy than ever before. With his brilliant spark of mathematical legerdemain, Li made it possible for traders to sell vast quantities of new securities, expanding financial markets to unimaginable levels.

His method was adopted by everybody from bond investors and Wall Street banks to ratings agencies and regulators. And it became so deeply entrenched—and was making people so much money—that warnings about its limitations were largely ignored.

Then the model fell apart. Cracks started appearing early on, when financial markets began behaving in ways that users of Li's formula hadn't expected. The cracks became full-fledged canyons in 2008—when ruptures in the financial system's foundation swallowed up trillions of dollars and put the survival of the global banking system in serious peril.


Terrifyingly exotic mortgage-backed securities and complex insurance on this securities that only math PhD's could understand, combined with faulty risk-assessment and government oversight turning it's back on the whole fiasco is what caused the crisis.

International investment bankers found a new high-profit investment vehicle in groups of mortgages. Their risk formulas predicted high profile. The bankers began to push harder to sell more mortgages in the US market (with the aid of relaxed oversight). In order to sell more mortgages, they had to find a way to qualify more people -- hence complex and numerous sub-prime offerings. Once risky mortgages and rising prices entered the equation, no one adjusted the risk formulas, and it all came tumbling down.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Too stupid for a serious response.


It's not stupid. There is more to this than you may think. Go to Google video and watch Alex Jones's interview with Aaron Russo. Aaron Russo became a good friend with Nick Rockefeller and learned of many secrets regarding the way the elites have engineered our modern society to suit their agenda. Specifically, the Rockefellers funded the Women's Lib movement. Now you may think at first glance, this is an act of graciousness, of sincerity towards equal rights. It wasn't. Aaron Russo describes how Nick Rockefeller told him that the reasoning for funding Women's Lib was twofold:

a) It effectively doubles the tax take, and
b) It splits up families, thus making them all more dependent on the State and thus the government have total control of the people - which is what they want. America used to be about self-reliance and independence, but Women's Lib was funded deliberately to break up families and make them ultimately more dependent on government support and credit - which is exactly what the OP suggests.

The interview is revealing; not only does Russo declare 9/11 and the 'so-called War On Terror' a total phony, but the notion of democracy is not what we perceive it to be - it gives us the illusion that we have rights and power but in reality we have no power. The systems of the world we take for granted every day, are not as they seem. Russo was eventually 'killed off' by cancer in 2007.

Here is the link to his interview with Alex Jones: video.google.com...

Good thread, OP! Starred & flagged. And again, deny ignorance people - dismiss this as stupid, and you are stupidly dismissing yourself. We owe it to ourselves to openly discover how the world really operates.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

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



I have been married for 23 years, and I worked maybe one of those years. I stayed home to raise my kids. My husband retired military (enlisted) and now is is a blue collar worker. We have lived comfortably on what he makes. We've never done without. I am happy staying at home. I cook homecooked meals every night. I spend lots of quality time with my husband and my kids. I have time to really take care of my husband and kids. We are both happy with the situation and I'm happy to have been able to do this.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by virraszto]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Oh absolutely!

The article is in reference specifically with Irish property values, inflation, and their federal budget deficits in association with the introduction to the dual income.

Granted, all Western banks essentially failed through the same reason.. one two large institutions failed and the CDS obligations forced the entire sector insolvent to cover the losses.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by virraszto
 


and thank you for this honest reply.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Obviously, with the number of single mothers in America alone, how do you account for them working? It has nothing to do with the "female"- only the one odd out partner of a couple who I suppose would have the lesser income; whether it be man or woman. Personally, I am a stay at home mother, it is the hardest job I have ever had (and I am hardly uneducated in fact...I have twice as many degrees as my husband...), and you know what-in this economy if I could find a job that suited my lifestyle and was best for my daughter I'd take it-hands down!
I'm sorry two incomes ruined that economy....but how does this relate to the mothers?????? A bit sexist in that regard...I'd say...
To be fair, however, I suppose in the last 30 years it has gone from male oriented to dual incomes...so you would blame the females for becomming active in the workplace..



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
And what a better way to destroy a family unit but from within itself?
Weak family units lead to many things like disfunctional homes and inadiquate provisions(including emotional). The role of a man as a protector is gone and a family is left to live "on the gring". Work 80 hr between the couple, take care of 2.5 kids and yada yada yada.

Cant worry about saving the world when you have to feed your family.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   


This is actually economic fact, it cannot be argued.


I can agree...with some of that. However, don't you think it would be responsible to ask the ultimate question which is WHY? Why did it become the norm? What happened in the 80s to cause this change? Inflation. Dig deeper still.

The OP, including your personal comments, came off sounding like 'blame' on women. I know you're going to agree with me on the next part, really lol -

Was it that women were tired of having to deal with children, supporting their husbands, and cooking three squares a day? Of course not, but you see, there is power in words and how ideas and theories are presented. Even if the source you cited didn't express those sentiments, you had the power to do so in your interpretation and presentation.

The economic situation in the world so very volatile and we have our ideas to the endgame and where this is all heading...wouldn't you agree that is an awful lot to lay on your loving women? If this is indeed part of the 'grand plan' I can gaurantee you I know of the gender responsible.

Oh, and looking forward to that next thead! ::wink and smile:: Peace.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Rockpuck,

I don't think you are taking this concept far enough. What is often not known by even the males is that it is the women in the more economically affluent economies/nations who determine where when and how most of the moneys are spent. Particularly on big ticket items. Homes, cars, washers, driers, furniture, food..et al etc etc etc. This is seldom determined by the male but the female. The males are mostly relegated to the back seat role of taking the risks to support such a system of consumption rates.

This has gotten so bad now days that the male is taking a back seat to his children and coming in third place or further down the line ..last place.

The primary consumers and determiners of economics in this affluent country are women and children..not the male. This also means by such patterns that the important vote at election time is the female and or the children when they come of age...18...not the male or the ones taking the greatest risk to keep such a system going and or afloat.

Factor in this type of thinking and see what kind of picture you now get when you look at a credit crunch.

Remember also Rockpuck ..that there is today a new generation of males...males not men..who like many women define themselves by what they can consume..not by what they know or can do. What they expect of others..not of themselves. This is very feminine. They become competition for these women ..not men. They are high maintenance.

This high maintenance consumer oriented credit system has become the norm in many economically affluent social structures. Unfortunately most do not realize how high maintenance it is. Male and female.
To some ..in these social structures we now see that it has become an entitlement. This is false thinking but expedient for political purposes...ie..votes. This is also why so many administrations for office are security oriented..not opportunity oriented..no matter what party they claim...it is about votes.

This will probably change here shortly with a severe credit crunch. You know...musical chairs and such. The question for some of us thinking ..is who is willing to work and risk for the remaining chairs ...and who will get them by default/entitlement....ie...for votes. Remember this as we watch/listen to events transpiring in the future.


Originally posted by white wave
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, Rock Puck. LOL. You may have bitten off more than you can chew.


I agree..we should fire all the men and replace them with women so that men can assume the traditional female roles and complain about their "victimization." The men should stay home with the children while the women go out and sustain severe risk to keep the system going at great risks/danger to their very souls and physical persons in the manner that men have traditionally done.

Hey Whitewave, If this happens will we see a change in the television programming formats to male oriented programming?? What will replace the DNA test..the lie detector test?? How about talk radio?? How about the commercial formats?? Will this be the end of the DeBeers commerical??

I know today's enlightened woman cannot wait to give up all the social perks they take so for granted and assume traditional male roles to keep this system going at great social and physical costs/risks to themselves.

It is a fair swap I think Whitewave. I know that today's enlightened women believe in this much equality. Don't you??
I cant wait to take a lie detector test or a DNA test on this one Whitewave.

I also know that women cant wait to be the breadwinner and then turn over to their men ..the ability to determine what kind of homes, cars, furniture, insurance policies, vacations, washers, driers, food..etc etc on which the moneys are spent. The big ticket items. I know lots of women who would love this scenario..don't you???

There are millions upon millions of women out here who cannot wait to take risks with thier physical calling card...their beauty assets and sacrafice this asset for the benifit of mankind..the future..et al by taking risks as fireman, police, soldiers..and under go the hardships and risks associated with such disposability and expendability....as a career opporturnity...while turning over their moneys earned at great risks to the men and children. Dont you?? Todays women do believe in this much equality right?? It is not just talk...right!!??

I believe I have stated ..though it has been awhile now..that if women were capable and in sufficient numbers available...they would be firing all the men and replacing them with women since it is so obvious that women work for less wages than do men. Do we see this happening across the board?? Are the women in fact willing to do this for mankind?
I am not debating the point that women do not take risks...I am debating the point ..do women take risks outside of a particular social role..a given.
A concept taken for granted?? Socially. Will they in fact do this for the man as a career..in the manner the men have traditionally done??
This is what you are describing in your flip flop?? Or are you describing ..that women are willing to do this in a spirit of equality but not lose their femininity in the process?? I dont think most of the women I know would be willing to do this. Particularly for a man. They might do it for children..but not for a man.

I am also making the point that socially and politically..ie...economically there is a system in play which factors in this belief system ..that the female is the prime determiner..of economics/credit..not the male. Therefore it is the female who must be politically sold for her vote..along with the other high maintenance consumers...children of voting age.
It is these people who must be sold for the security status of the political systems ie..economic systems in play.....not the males.


I also think that in the future ..with consumer oriented trends and education standards ...that women may not be willing to do this for children as well ..verses consumer orientatioin values and thinking beliefs.
I see this more and more with alarm..women without any mothering and nuturing instincts..but great consumer instincts. Males too but really noticabale among the females.

Well Whitewave..I am rambling somewhat .but I think you know the point I am making here better than most of the others.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom



[edit on 3-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


LOL I tell people the hardest thing is keeping someone with a 30 second attention span, busy for 12 hours a day. And every parent has had those days where it is 10 am and you have run out of stuff to do and have been through every toy. You know it is going to be a long day. I don't know what people did before the net where I am quickly searching for things to do.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Allow me to make a few personal comments about myself. First off, it should be very evident I abhor labels. Just as with races, I don't think you can quantify a single behavioral characteristic upon one gender. I make fun of those DeBeers commercials and I don't bite into all of the commercialism. My husband works hard for our family and does quite well and I am not out there shopping all afternoon on whims suggested by advertising. This chic is smarter then that. I did buy some Mighty Putty once - I was so hoping that dude would quit screaming at me if I did!

I had a very difficult time trasitioning into the role of stay at home mother and wife. In some aspects, I felt as if I lost my identity for awhile. I had held a job since I was 16. And also, you wouldn't believe how some of us stay at home moms are looked upon by our working peers. I have been made to feel 'less than' on more then one occasion. When I decided, on Sept 12 2001 actually, to change my thinking to a more nurturing role ( I was newly pregnant at the time) and retire my briefcase - people looked at me as if I was from PlanetX. 'you quit your job! ::gasp::' It's almost expected for all women and mothers to be working these days. I've done the math, and even though I can draw in a large paycheck - the amount I would have to spend in childcare and attention taken from my family is so not worth it.

I'm reminded from this discourse of the success of the pagan matriarchal societies. Women ruled and it was peaceful. Men were content to do masculine activites (and have multiple partners - see it's not all bad) and the women oversaw the political issues of the day and nurture their children at the same time.

I am so very grateful to be a stay at home mom. I love it and now that I've transitioned - I am truly in my element. I will concur that I think having *mothers* in the workplace actually can contribute to crime. Our children need guidance, love, and attention. At the same time, some of those mothers really have no choice and I refuse to give them anything else to hold upon their consciousness - I believe they carry enough guilt.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Whisper67
 


That was very well said! Of course as you say we cannot be stereotypical when classifying people based on gender. I don't know if having only females rule the world would be all that great... lol from some women I have seen from school to the work place.. their conspiring, confrontational and some times downright nastiness (to other women) rivals anything I have seen guys do lol... just say'n.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
interesting, i give you credit for your "out of the box thinking"

i give you credit for having some giant balls though too

theyre probably going to be kicked balls if you actually say this away from the computer, but big balls


this is one of those things, that even if it is the case, id personally rather deal with the consequences of inflation rather than the wrath of those kinda chicks that are going to tear into you for saying what you are saying



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 

What we need right now is to CREATE more jobs not lose them. if all women were to stop working, things would only get worse.....

The idea that women shold not work comes from an old mind set that quite frankly I assumed was dead, apparently, I was wrong.

If you really beliece that it would be acceptable for all of one gender to stop working, Why does it have to be women? I fail to see how we wouldnt achieve the same affect by making all men stop.

This thread, wow, Its just beyond ignorant.

Say you didnt happen to invent a time machine did you? Are you actually from the year 1932?

Seriously thoughm when the stock market crashed in 1929, do you realize who stepped up to the plate to help pull our economy out of the hole? WOMEN!

How about during world war 2 and we needed people to work the factories because all the men were over seas? Do you know who stepped in and manned the factories which helped create ammunition and weapons and machinery which in turn helped us win ww2? WOMEN! Havent you heard of rosie the riviter?

I am disgusted by your ignorant thread.

If we make ANY one group of people stop working it will only hurt us.

This is the year 2009 buddy, if you really want to live in a time when women wernt permitted to work, perhaps you should look into inventing a time machine. 2009 is better with out the ignorant mind set anyway.




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Insurance keeps several women working that I know. Their husbands are wealthy - but in one case, one's husband has had a heart attack at a young age, he owns his own business, no one will cover him at all. The second, it is her - she had a hip implant at a young age due to a stress fracture, and cancer, and can't find coverage. Her husband also owns his own business.

the first one - her husband is a millionaire but she drives that schoolbus every day for insurance. The second one, her husband owns his own business and they are millionaires or close to it, with home, everything paid for, and she's working as a health care aid because of INSURANCE.

A lot of families maybe could let one member stay at home...but insurance has us all by the cojones. Tying it to jobs ...something has to give.

My own family thought we needed 2 incomes. My income was 1.75x my husbands but my son had trouble so I quit to homeschool him. Heck, it was cake. We've been fine. I sorta think when you do right by your family though, as best you know how, you're often blessed.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by hadriana]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
The upside of women working has been the release of technology a lot faster than in the past as there is more money around to make it worthwhile.
While women were at home and there was only one income, the technological advances were going at a snails pace.

So think about THAT the next time you want to complain about working women.





new topics
top topics
 
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join