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

[BluesLegend]

Not all families can afford to stay at home, whether democrat or republican. This ain't 1959.

True, the government parasite taxes and fees people to the point both parents have to work. Then if they die government takes the rest.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

True, the government parasite taxes and fees people to the point both parents have to work.

No, that's incredibly stupid. Taxes were higher in the 50s, when one income went further. Stop saying stupid shit.

 

[BluesLegend]

I'm fine with the left not breeding.

 

[initforme]

Without any taxes taken out the wage stagnation that's been around forever ensures most families cannot make it on one income. Fact.

 

[White 6]

True, the government parasite taxes and fees people to the point both parents have to work. Then if they die government takes the rest.

More like, labor is a resource and capitalist strive to maximize profit by controlling costs (especially resourse costs) where possible. On labor, without union intervention, they are mostly successful.

 

[Anathema]

o professional women bother you? If you are about personal responsibility then you admire them.

Yes, professional women (aka Feminists) DO bother me. Just as lazy ass males who sit at home and do nothing piss me off. There is a proper place for everyone in Society; and Society only works when people are in their proper place. Our disastrously failing Society just proves how many are not in their proper place.

 

[BluesLegend]

More like, labor is a resource and capitalist strive to maximize profit by controlling costs (especially resourse costs) where possible. On labor, without union intervention, they are mostly successful.

Yeah I forgot millions of lazy fat ass mooching deadbeats on welfare.

 

[initforme]

All professional women are feminists? C'mon. You really don't mean that. Many are forced to work to simply put food on the table since wages are so low. Would you rather they were on govt assistance?

 

[Unkotare]

How did you NOT think of it? This is mostly why both parents work. .....

Are you saying that parents cannot feed and house their children unless both father and mother work outside the home?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The actual facts are .... here. In real dollars

Historical Income Tables: Households

Source: Current Population Survey (CPS)

www.census.gov

the figures really show the change in income inequality, although that may be misleading. No offense to uncensored, because he's right... cars are better, houses are bigger, and more have ac .... but the "wife's income" is more of a myth for most workers. We may have a better life, but that's as much because prices are lower with globalism than the extra income. The money is just not there. Still, we do earn more in real dollars than we did.

Utterly irrelevant.

You retreat to class warefare, which is your comfort zone.

When I was teaching economics to freshmen a dozen years back I had a chart of how many hours it took to buy basic items such as bread, milk, meat, cheese, clothes, gas, etc. by year.

You aren't worth the trouble of looking it up, but I might if I get time and then post it for the lurkers.

 

[woodwork201]

That's too much emotion below the belt. The male-only workforce is not a reality.

Those guys are always on strike. They strike their bosses at work, and they strike their wives and children at home.

You can't pick up some lady, dump her in the morning, and expect her to go get an abortion, rinse, repeat.

Yes, you're right. Marxists see people as workers. Even the most supposedly conservative on Fox or in Congress refer to us as workers. It's all about, to them, the workforce and not about people.

Mothers are people. Their children are people. There's a natural bond that the corporatists and the communists are trying to break so both mothers and children can become the workers that both require.

We need to reject the role of worker and fight to keep our freedom as people.

 

[woodwork201]

Well yes, but is that really bad? For most of us. Incomes go up. People can move from the bottom quintile to the next. It's bad that some immigrants are illegal, but both parties decided to rely on them for labor. We could give enough of them legal status and not even citizenship. Thier kids would be citizens. But is that a real negative effect on most Americans? I don't think so. It sucks to have a physically taxing job at age 50, not argument from me on that.

Both parties decided? Well, that's the problem, isn't it? This is not a nation of parties, it's a nation of people. The people are supposed to decide. We need to restore real representative government.

 

[woodwork201]

Uncensored was referring to the purchasing power to support a lifestyle, back then vs now. We are all well aware there is huge income inequality, but that is not what he was speaking to, and not what the tables shown get at either, as lack the historical perspective. We're not talking about a 20 year perspective as income inequality has spike, but really lower middle income purchasing power to support lifestyle late 50s-early 60s vs now.
A low income single provider, could probably have a similar lifestyle to early 60s in a rural area, but early 60s was before cell phones, computers, air conditioning (for the most part), telephone might have been a party line, and maybe one vehicle for the family. Although typical back then, it would be pretty primitive to most people now. He says today's low income (I assume above poverty level) can buy a higher lifestyle than back then. I don't know. I certainly would not want to live that way and start a family, certainly not making extra allowance for a stay at home mom to raise the kid or kids at that income level in this day and age.

Most mothers with jobs lose money by working. There's the cost of clothes, car, gas, too many boxed meals or fast food, etc. Stay at home, cook from raw ingredients, hang clothes on the line in the summer, don't pay child-care, etc., and they'd actually reduce expenses by more than a minimum wage job that so many working mothers work.

But there's no need for them to do that because they take my money to pay for their semi-prepared foods, better, more expensive foods than I buy. It is my money that pays for their free or reduced child care. It is my money that gives them a modern cell phone for a dollar a month. This is communism at its finest. We're all workers and we take from the common pool of productivity and share those resources so that all workers are freed up to do their part for the Party... or for the Corporation.

 

[woodwork201]

Well more and more young people are deciding to focus on careers. That's a brave choice but we applaud them.

More, and more young people have been trained to be loyal workers for the corporations with no identity of their own other than what their career gives them.

That's a truly sad state of affairs.

 

[Unkotare]

How did you NOT think of it? This is mostly why both parents work. I should not have to explain that. Are you trying to waste my time?

It is still possible today to feed, house, and clothe your children if the mom stays home.

 

[BlueGin]

More, and more young people have been trained to be loyal workers for the corporations with no identity of their own other than what their career gives them.

That's a truly sad state of affairs.

It’s been my experience that a lot of younger workers have zero work ethics. Could careless if they make errors and are not team players.

 

[2aguy]

I heard a female democratic congress woman say child care needs to be lower so mothers can go to work. As if a child is not better off being raised at home and not by a care giver.

If mom's work, then the democrat party can start indoctrination immediately, and don't have to fight against anything the parents might be teaching the kids up to age 5....

 

[White 6]

Most mothers with jobs lose money by working. There's the cost of clothes, car, gas, too many boxed meals or fast food, etc. Stay at home, cook from raw ingredients, hang clothes on the line in the summer, don't pay child-care, etc., and they'd actually reduce expenses by more than a minimum wage job that so many working mothers work.

But there's no need for them to do that because they take my money to pay for their semi-prepared foods, better, more expensive foods than I buy. It is my money that pays for their free or reduced child care. It is my money that gives them a modern cell phone for a dollar a month. This is communism at its finest. We're all workers and we take from the common pool of productivity and share those resources so that all workers are freed up to do their part for the Party... or for the Corporation.

That does not sound right, by our personal experience. It enabled us to do things we could not on a single income, and now she has fully funded investment account, a healthy 401K and a significant pension, and all three kids turned into adults we can be and are proud of.
Everybody has to choose their own path. There are advantages and drawbacks, with nothing guaranteed, but it is impossible to say what the correct path is, until you walk it, adjust it, progress through it. We are blessed and amazed. It all worked out to get my family where we are, which ain't bad, as we are and will be comfortable.

 

[woodwork201]

That does not sound right, by our personal experience. It enabled us to do things we could not on a single income, and now she has fully funded investment account, a healthy 401K and a significant pension, and all three kids turned into adults we can be and are proud of.
Everybody has to choose their own path. There are advantages and drawbacks, with nothing guaranteed, but it is impossible to say what the correct path is, until you walk it, adjust it, progress through it. We are blessed and amazed. It all worked out to get my family where we are, which ain't bad, as we are and will be comfortable.

When parents leave the education of their young children to the schools then it is the government choosing their path, not the parents.

 

[White 6]

When parents leave the education of their young children to the schools then it is the government choosing their path, not the parents.

Maybe we stayed involve enough, and had enough influence on our kids for them to turn out like we intended. Some people don't care or are not up to the task. It is kind of like kids doing poorly in schools in general (public or private) more often the problem is lack of oversight at home. Just like kids being out when they should not, or kids running with the wrong crowds or individuals. Lack of parenting or sh#tty parenting messes up more kids than the schools.