Women having to work

I have been my families only source of income for 20 years. We live a good lifestyle but we avoid debt like the plague. We already own our home and our cars. When one breaks down I fix it I dont trade it. When we need to buy a big ticket item like a fridge or a stove we pay cash.

Sounds very much like the home I grew up in, tony. My point was that we have a lot of people these days who feel their "needs" include: a 52" plasma tv; a $40K car (replaced every 3-4 years); and other luxury items that require both of the adults in the family to work in order to pay for them. If these people would adopt more of your philosophy and realize that many of these things are not necessary, there would not be the "need" for both adults to work anywhere near as often.
Yeah....that's really workin'-out, presently.....people spending less-and-less.....

:eusa_whistle:
 
Has anyone considered how the many mothers who have to work has the created a monster welfare problem we are faced with today.
Does this help you to see the entitlement society we are faced with now.
This movement was taken advantage of by the elites..... make no mistake about it.
 
Last edited:
Women have always worked. Women of the lower and usually middle classes have always been required economically to work. Perhaps they worked in the home, perhaps, not, but childcare was not really the primary responsibility, in fact, in many homes, the children raised each other and the children worked side by side with the parents.

It's only in the Victorian era and amongst the wealthy classes that women could be idle. Working moms in 2011 spend more time with their children than SAH moms did in 1811, when the children were turned over to nannies and governesses.

People who want to blame the collapse of society on equal rights for women are just showing themselves to be ignorant of history.

I've always worked. I took a 6 week maternity leave with my daughter, and a 5 week leave with my son. My daughter has an extremely high GPA, she's a drum major this year (as a senior), she's involved in extracurriculars, and she's a nice kid. My son is an average student, a competitive speed skater, and a nice kid. If anything, my kids are better than average because we didn't have time, in my family, for the "omg, you're the center of my world" navel gazing that a lot of SAHMs do with their kids. My kids are resilient, self-reliant, independent, hard-working, and they know how to handle their own business.

To me, the 1950s model is the broken model, and is precisely what led to the self-indulgence of the Baby Boomer generations.
 
Last edited:
I think the issue raised was more of today requires a two income family in order to make it economically. A step back versus a step forward. Further, there seems to be a trend of longer stays at home for youth and multi-generational homes. More enslaving than liberating.
 
Ohh the market is freeer than the consumers it has programmed. To their eager delight to be programmed into a world where self worth is determined by expensive posessions, not who/what you really are.
The market does not program consumers. Consumers program the market.
Whew!!!!!

How old ARE you??!!!

323.png


*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiCnqSPFoRQ&feature=fvwrel]YouTube - ‪Classic Car Commercials - Style‬‏[/ame]​
 
I think corporations look down on people who mommy track.

Not any company I've ever worked for.

But then again I live and work in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. :cool:

“Massachusetts' achievements in health care reform have been nothing short of extraordinary. With employers, government and individuals all sharing the responsibility of reform, we continue to have the highest insurance rate in the nation.”


:woohoo:
 
I think the issue raised was more of today requires a two income family in order to make it economically. A step back versus a step forward. Further, there seems to be a trend of longer stays at home for youth and multi-generational homes. More enslaving than liberating.

I think that the prosperty and consumer-driven culture of the 50s and 60s was more of an anomaly than a permanent trend. Our current economic situation is much more in line with the status quo from the 1870s - 1940s.

Prosperity in the U.S. has always been cyclical. We're on a down cycle, it isn't particularly representative of any larger pressing social issue.

And, on a down cycle, consumers will adapt to their more limited means, and in fact, have already started to do so. One reason the recession is lingering is because people aren't buying expensive toys as freely as they did in the past. Sales of new cars are way down, sales of new big homes are also down, the inflation in pricing has been reduced to previous levels, and overall consumer spending remains flat. Consumers themselves are being more frugal. The market will adjust to the prevailing consumer trends.

Just wait and watch.
 
*I* just do not agree at all with the ideology that the 'cost of living' has increased. Not that it hasn't gotten more expensive to do certain things and to pay certain things but our minimum wage has also gone up.
....And, we've made health-care.....


(Just-in-time for all o' those Boomers who'd need it!! It's a miracle!)​

:evil: Oh wise conceited one...who apparently assumes to have better answers, please do share your holier than thou solutions with the rest of 'us'. :eusa_pray: Mr Shaman :eusa_pray: peace :eusa_whistle:
 
*I* just do not agree at all with the ideology that the 'cost of living' has increased. Not that it hasn't gotten more expensive to do certain things and to pay certain things but our minimum wage has also gone up.
....And, we've made health-care.....


(Just-in-time for all o' those Boomers who'd need it!! It's a miracle!)​

:evil: Oh wise conceited one...who apparently assumes to have better answers, please do share your holier than thou solutions with the rest of 'us'. :eusa_pray: Mr Shaman :eusa_pray: peace :eusa_whistle:

I think you convinced him to shut up for a while! :clap2:
 

Forum List

Back
Top