- Nov 10, 2019
- 45,032
- 28,519
- 2,490
- Moderator
- #61
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.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.