|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: both parents working-blame feminism or consumerism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
There are certainly a great number of reasons for the large number of two earner families, and various sets of reasons for different individual families. A few that haven't been mentioned so far: 1) the age at which people are getting married has greatly increased. Most women used to marry in their late teens right after highschool without the opportunity to learn job skills. Now, women most often get married after living singly and working for a period of time so that they have an opportunity to continue working in their jobs after marriage; 2) a much larger percentage of the population goes to college so that many more parents need to put money aside for for their children's education; 3) We live so damn long. A 100 years ago, only 5% of the population lived to what we now consider to be retirement age. Now, 70% (my wild ass guess) live to retirement. this requires putting money aside for having a decent standard of living during retirement. Our grandparents never heard of IRAs or 401Ks. 4) The medical science that has given us that longevity and better health during that long life is very expensive. In the US, total medical costs consume 18% of our GDP. 50 years ago it was under 10 %. And we all pay for it one way or another. 5) Our expectations for our quality of life have greatly increased. Many of those luxuries that nator mentioned many of us find to add greatly to our enjoyment of life, She didn't mention travel, but that is another unnecessary luxury that has grown tremendously, is very expensive, but brings great pleasure. 6) The divorce rate in the US is now over 50% (it once was below 5% - its growth is also correlated with our great longevity) and it is nice for both partners to have careers to fall back on. 8) The social acceptance of working women and two earner families. Notice the change in movie and tv themes from the classic 'father knows best' husband is the sole earner family to the modern two career family.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Watch out AiG. Jon will say: "Those are all baseless assertions! Evidence!! Where is it!!! Huh!?!?!?"
But then, he's pretty safe to ignore. I've yet to see him make a valid point in this debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Kuresu! Where have you been? You must be involved with a band!
Now that I have said hello, I am issuing you a stern warning in regards to irritating Jon, who gets infuriated with your personal attacks. Your punishment will consist of confiscation of your guitar, which will then be slowly eaten by termites while you are tied up. This was the friendly verbal warning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The division of household labour debate that's ensued in the last several posts is, in my opinion, severely off-topic; and I may, indeed, be to blame for digging into that when I should've left it be. So, in an effort to redeem myself, I shall attempt to get us back onto the real topic.
In Message 1, Nator said:
By "luxuries", I mean things like cable TV, expensive electronics in general, cellphones, expensive hobbies (like flying model planes?), eating in restaurants, alcohol and tobacco, frequently buying expensive convenience food like prepared/frozen entrees, snack and junk food like ice cream, chips and soda, going on trips, designer or famous label clothing (lots of clothing in general), prestige sneakers and shoes, getting nails done, getting a new car, etc. How much money would families save if they treated these things as the real luxuries they are and indulged in them only occasionally, or didn't spend money on at all? In Message 47, I replied, requesting evidence that these things are "the real luxuries they are":
quote: Next, nator must prove that:
...families...put a significant portion of their income towards luxuries. Luxuries in that quote, of course, means those things she's mentioned as luxuries, be they luxuries or not. So, she has two things to do: 1) show "those things" mentioned to be luxuries2) show that families put a significant portion of their income towards "those things" I don't anticipate a long time being spent on providing this evidence; since these points are the ones upon which her opening post are based, I would assume she has plenty of supporting evidence all ready to go, or she wouldn't 've bothered making the assertions. I'm also not making any attempt to attack anyone here, so I sure hope that this message will not be met with the nasty hostility that nator so commonly shows toward me. To a Civil Debate,Jon In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
schraf writes: By "luxuries", I mean things like cable TV, expensive electronics in general, cellphones, expensive hobbies (like flying model planes?), eating in restaurants, alcohol and tobacco, frequently buying expensive convenience food like prepared/frozen entrees, snack and junk food like ice cream, chips and soda, going on trips, designer or famous label clothing (lots of clothing in general), prestige sneakers and shoes, getting nails done, getting a new car, etc. Question jon: How are these not luxuries? Here's an appropriate definition (all the other ones follow a very similar vein):
something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary
Luxury Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Let's see, it's basically self-evidential. cable TV is not absolutely necessary. cellphones are not absolutely necessary. hobbies are not absolutely necessary. convenience food (this is a big duh) is not absolutely necessary. designer clothing is not absolutely necessary. and so on and so on. All those items serve to make life more enjoyable or more comfortable or easier. Hardly are they necessary. You're barking up the wrong tree here. As to the cost, that could be quite difficult. However, let's take an average monthly expense sheet. Items on it would be (a focus on the luxuries):New Car payment = ??? Cable TV (or equivalent) = ??? Cellphone = ??? Hobby = ??? Convenience food (as contradistinguished from food you have to actually make. Hamburger Helper is not convenience food. Lean Cuisine frozen dinners are. Include eating out/take out) = ??? Fancy Clothing = ??? A bill without those would be:Food = ??? Clothing = ??? Everything else you can go without. You might not like it, but you can. Now then, I've filled in figures that I know for my family. Please note that this list does not include utilities or mortgage/loan payments. If desired they can be added. What size family are we looking for? Middle class family of four? How about a lower class single mother with two kids? What bracket is going to be used for total monthly income, and what are the monthly expenditures? Unfortunately, I can't use myself as an example. Going to college, most of my costs are covered by grants. I don't have a car, though I have an expensive hobby (major purchases spread far apart, but spread over the months quite cheap. My new bass was 1800, but I payed all at once instead of monthly. Otherwise it would be like 30 bucks a month. My new bass was the first major purchase I've made in two years). Also, I don't buy fancy clothing or sneakers, and as such, don't know what they would cost. I also wouldn't buy frozen dinners (exception: pizza and eating out). Were I living on my own, these are the expenses I would be expecting:Food Cellphone Internet Music (new strings, cables, etc) Clothing Rent Possibly car (we've a decent public transit here, so . . .). I'm also cheap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
guitboy writes: (luxury = ) something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary Cars, even bikes or skates (or shoes, even) are not absolutely necessary. Houses are not necessary - just head for the nearest cave when it starts to rain. We're one of the very few species that bother with houses. Clothes are not absolutely necessary. Just ask Adam or Eve. Migrate to the tropics if you get cold. The minimal absolutely necessary foods are raw berries and grains. Perhaps 'not absolutely necessary' is too restrictive a definition for luxury items for this thread. Maybe we should use the list of items used by the government to define poverty level. Anyone care to look that up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: OK, so have no problem with the statistic from the US Census that states:
On average, women ages 18-65 spend about 30 hours per week in paid employment and 22 hours doing housework (see also Arlie Hochschild's, The Second Shift, 1989). Men average about ten hours per week doing housework, a figure which changes little when their wives work and they have young children in the household. Great. You accept that women do more housework than men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I agree. How does this help your argument, though? If men can't be trusted by their wives to do household chores, what does that indicate about the way the men think about household chores?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2870 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
Is it possible that the reason both parents "have to" work is because they are supporting the lifestyle they choose to maintain, not because they really must in order to survive and provide for their children? well isn't it equally possible that both parents chooses to work, not to afford luxuries, but for personal fulfilment? Why only the two possibilities in your post? A lot of people enjoy their work, and their work is a large part of their identity. On the other hand, being home with you children full time could be considered an unnecessary luxury. Here in Denmark we have a shortage of workers, and society wise - it is better for a man to go to work and pay for getting his children in daycare, than staying at home. The taxes he pays are likely larger than the money the government gives to daycare, and by working he is increasing the gross national product. By employing trained daycare personnel he is also stimulating the economy directly, and thus lowers the number of unemployed. So staying at home is a luxury that might harm society overall?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary Adding to Genitals' reply: indoor plumbing, electricity, education... Are these things also luxuries? Besides, in saying "absolutely necessary," for what must something be "absolutely necessary" without being considered a luxury. A nice suit and tie might be "absolutely necessary" for a job interview; but it would also be considered a luxury by someone such as an independent farmer. Who decides what's "absolutely necessary" and not? A businessman might find coffee a necessity, but a South American tribal inhabitant may consider it a luxury; indeed, he might even consider it a delicacy, something so rare as to be savoured in great importance. You've again read your own opinion into a source you cited. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
For the purposes of this thread, I listed as luxuries those things not neccessary for an average American family living in a typical American town or city, working at typical jobs. In general, living a typical not fabulously wealthy/not terribly poor American lifestyle.
In light of the OP, it makes no sense to equivocate on the meaning of "luxury".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Okay, so for the purpose of the thread, what you want is not to discuss whether they spend too much on "luxuries," but whether they spend too much on the things you listed. We can roll with that.
Now, however, you have to show #2:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
By employing trained daycare personnel he is also stimulating the economy directly, and thus lowers the number of unemployed. So staying at home is a luxury that might harm society overall?
this is a very nice point. but in this country we have kind of limited requirements on daycare workers, as far as i know. basically, they have to have a clean record, but that's about it. lots of daycares have curricula, but many are glorified babysitters. it still provides jobs and a source of consumption, but i think we could stand to regulate training better, and maybe socializing the system. that's all. but the latter won't go over well. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
you're being argumentative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2642 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined:
|
Now, however, you have to show #2 Our effort to tally "those things" immediately runs into a problem. Wiki:
The median household income by state ranged from $32,589 or 26.7% below national median, in West Virginia to $57,352 or 29% above national median, in New Hampshire. Connecticut, which is often referred to as the nation's wealthiest state, came in at number four with a median household income of $55,970 ... While California's median income was not near enough to afford the average California home or even a starter home, West Virginia, which had the nation's lowest median household income also had the nation's lowest median home price. The ability to purchase "even a starter home" differs by state. And then there's this:
Considering other racial and geographical differences in regards to household income, it should come as no surprise that the median household income varies with race, size of household and geography. But I'm going to ignore all that!
Does a two-income family have a harder time making ends meet than a single-income family did a generation ago? According to a new book by Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren the answer is, "yes." In "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke," Warren and her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, argue that rising costs of essentials--such as housing, education and health care--are increasingly causing middle-class Americans to fall into debt. http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2003/09/08_warren.php Let's tot up those dollars!
The average employee contribution toward health insurance premiums is $2,412 for family coverage this year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That's a 13% increase over 2002. Housing also is eating up more of the average family's budget. About 80% of low- and moderate-income homeowners spent more than half of their income on housing in 2001, according to the Center for Housing Policy. Most workers are on their own when saving for retirement as fewer companies offer traditional pensions ... according to a recent report by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. http://www.usatoday.com/...ral/2003-09-14-middle-cover_x.htm
According to the Federal Reserve Board, between 1983 and 1998 the price of housing for married couples with children rose seventy-nine per cent in real terms, roughly three times as much as it did for childless people. Thirty years ago, middle-class parents could feel they’d done a good job of raising a child if he or she made it through high school”decent jobs for unskilled and semi-skilled labor were readily available. Today, such jobs are much harder to find, and college is considered a necessity. Needless to say, it is also extremely expensive. Leave No Parent Behind | The New Yorker
The authors say that, even though the modern two-earner family brings in 75% more inflation-adjusted income than the one-earner family of a generation ago, it actually has less than half the discretionary income -- and far more financial instability. But even for families that do everything right, the line between solvency and bankruptcy has never been thinner. One catastrophic medical incident, one job loss, one divorce -- and they may never recover. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
The authors insist that most families are falling behind because of economic trends beyond their control. Some readers may find that view overly sympathetic to folks who lack the fiscal restraint to put away their credit cards. But Warren and Tyagi dispel what they call the "overconsumption myth." They claim, for example, that the average family of four spends 22% less on food, 21% less on clothing and 44% less on household appliances than it did a generation ago. Page not found | TIME How's them taters, Jon?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024