Do democrats in congress dislike the idea of a stay at home mom??

Yes. and I said I didn't diss him. But the real income per households then and now do NOT support the notion that the increase in household women from working women is simply swallowed up by more consumpetion. the FACTs are that those in the lower quintile have not seen that much increase. And it the 2nd and 3rd ... not so much either. Real wages have gone down, and women in the work force have kept household income going up as it did before two incomes were necessary.

But Uncensored also said that cars are better and houses are bigger, etc. And he's right about that. We have better stuff despite the demise of unions.

What my post said was that in terms of gains in income since the two earner families, the vast maj went to the top quintile. Some to the second largest. But the lower middle two ... not so much. And not much for the bottom. BUT we didn't have the earned income tax credit. And employers paid for more healthcare then. So, while incomes in real dollars are what they are, simply trying to make some sense of the numbers doesn't say the whole story.
I understand and agree with what you are saying to an extent. Funneling the profits all to the top, while ignoring the workers who got you there, is like not dancing with the whore that brought you to the dance. I always heard here in the south, you should dance with the whore that brung ya.
 
I understand and agree with what you are saying to an extent. Funneling the profits all to the top, while ignoring the workers who got you there, is like not dancing with the whore that brought you to the dance. I always heard here in the south, you should dance with the whore that brung ya.
Why would a whore bring you to a dance?
 
I understand and agree with what you are saying to an extent. Funneling the profits all to the top, while ignoring the workers who got you there, is like not dancing with the whore that brought you to the dance. I always heard here in the south, you should dance with the whore that brung ya.
Well I'm not trying to argue about income disparity. I certainly don't want to pay more taxes for the dems human infrastrucure.

What I'm trying to say is that while uncensored is not ALL wrong in saying "we have better shit like houses cars and tvs than we did pre-Reagan." He's dead right about that.

But if you look at what two worker families in the middle class make in real dollars now, compared to one worker families in 1970, simply having better shit doesn't explain why wages for families didn't go up faster when we were one worker families. There's other factors involved.

The OP was pretty bizarre and had nothing to do with all this. LOL
 
Then maybe those families need t rework their budgets or just not have kids they can’t afford…

There was no cable tv in the home I grew up in. A second car wasn’t common either; and it definitely wasn’t a new vehicle. McDonalds was a RARE treat, and a sit-down restaurant almost unheard of luxury. Don’t tell me it can’t be done in this day and age.
And bow basic goods and things like cars and homes cost much more compared to household income. You are far out of touch, old man.
 
And bow basic goods and things like cars and homes cost much more compared to household income. You are far out of touch, old man
My wife and I make it work on one salary. We own a house. We replace our car about every ten years. We don’t have lavish lifestyles or go on expensive vacations or spending sprees. We don’t have any kids.
 
I think back in the 80's more advertisement was geared towards women getting there so called "independence" from a man by get more into the work force for those companies financial gain. Like Vanity Fair.
 
My wife and I make it work on one salary. We own a house. We replace our car about every ten years. We don’t have lavish lifestyles or go on expensive vacations or spending sprees. We don’t have any kids.
Oh well that settles it! What else do you do that you imagine the entire country can do?
 
Only an idiot can see that with wages the way they always have been(very low), only the very few can afford to have kids and stay home.
 
I think back in the 80's more advertisement was geared towards women getting there so called "independence" from a man by get more into the work force for those companies financial gain. Like Vanity Fair.
You're about 60 years off the mark.
 
Well more and more young people are deciding to focus on careers. That's a brave choice but we applaud them.
 
Oh well that settles it! What else do you do that you imagine the entire country can do?
My family and I are nothing special at all. If we can do it, then most American families should be able to as well.

There are a lot of people out there who don’t WANT to live within their means. They’re willing to mortgage their future and their soul to keep up with whomever they want to emulate. Even to their own demise.

There are others who “can’t “ do it. Some of these are due to situations beyond their control, and they deserve some assistance. There are others who “can’t “ because of their own mistakes, and they deserve to endure the consequences of their bad choices.
 
Why not? If you want kids have them. If you don't that's just as good. My granddaughter and her husband have decided no kids. They want to focus on their careers. She is going to have a surgery to ensure it. I commend her. It was a well thought out decision. Made by husband and wife.
 
Do professional women bother you? If you are about personal responsibility then you admire them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top