The “two-income trap,” as described by Warren, really consists of three partially separate phenomena that have arisen as families have come to rely on two working adults to make ends meet:I'm very interested to see this. It gets my "single-earner household" tag, and you can click on that and see it's a subject that's been important to me for years.
A certain strand of the American right has long expressed quiet admiration for the book, since its thesis can on some level be boiled down to the idea that feminists were too optimistic about the implications of women’s mass entry into the workforce....
- The addition of a second earner means, in practice, a big increase in household fixed expenses for things like child care and commuting.
- Much of the money that American second earners bring in has been gobbled up, in practice, by zero-sum competition for educational opportunities expressed as either skyrocketed prices for houses in good school districts or escalating tuition at public universities.
- Last, while the addition of the second earner has not brought in much gain, it has created an increase in downside risk by eliminating an implicit insurance policy that families used to rely on....
[The book is] a realistic portrayal of the fact that most people have jobs rather than careers and that for most modern mothers, working is less a choice than a practical economic necessity....
[The book suggests] a version of Warren that could be more broadly electorally appealing... Two-Income Trap... speaks to the questions... as to whether unfettered capitalism is undermining the traditional family....
I have 62 posts on that tag, beginning with an April 2012 post, "The Hilary Rosen flap shows the way to a new bipartisanship premised on the value of single-earner households" (Hilary Rosen had mocked Ann Romney for never having "worked a day in her life"). I said:
What I want to concentrate on in this first post, initiating my "single-earner household" tag, is the way it's not just for traditionalists. I want to challenge liberals, left-wingers, feminists, progressives — all those folks — to see why they should want to actively promote the single-earner household.
Single-earner households benefit the environment.... A 2-earner household has a much larger carbon footprint. 2 adults travel to work each day, they buy extra consumer goods (such as work clothes), they rely on fast-food, they take their children to day care.... A single-earner family sticks with that smaller income and buys less. The stay-at-home spouse works hard to stretch and conserve that income, so that the family's needs are met. In fact, these needs can be better met, as the home spouse cooks meals from scratch, teaches and plays with young children, and so forth.
Here's "The Tightwad Gazette." It's all about using ingenuity to make it possible for a family to live on a single income. Why should we all have to join what they used to call the "rat race"? Is life about having a job? Some people need jobs, but why have we come to believe that every adult must have a job?
Let's form single-earner households. We talk about economics all the time, but why don't we economize — at the personal level?...
And what about feminism? If the woman stays home, maybe the man will leave her some day — leave her for a younger woman! — and then what will she do, not having developed her career? The women's movement made a big deal out of warning us about that danger, but something I want to examine... is the way this women's movement came along just when we Baby Boomers in the 1960s were inspired by the hippie movement, which tipped us off that life might be about freedom and not about taking one's place in the conventional workworld. Wouldn't it be a kick in the head if it turned out feminism served, above all, the interests of commerce and not individual liberation?
पोस्ट्स
९८ टिप्पण्या:
I thought that was a very good book when I first read it, and still do. Of course one of the big reasons women were able to come into the workforce in such numbers was the introduction of so many labor-saving appliances into the home during the middle of the 20th century: starting with running water, electric ranges, refrigerators, and continuing with clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, . . . the list goes on and on. Thus this is an example of technological unemployment, thought not the way we usually think about it.
The best simile for what happened is the one Scott Thoreau (sp?) used: when people stand up at a theatre or athletic event to get a better view, that works at first; but then everyone ends up standing up and nobody is better off than they were when they were sitting down. In fact they are worse off because now they have to stand.
I'm in favor of a family friendly six hour day with triple pay for overtime to show we mean business. Restrict the supply of labor as a way to get wages up. Plus end mass low-skilled immigration (again, restricting the supply of labor) and put tariffs on low-wage goods made overseas, which would increase the demand for labor by bringing factories back to the USA.
I remember hearing a feminist speaker at my company a couple of decades, back when Japan was going to take over the world. She said, "We're going to beat them. They can't really compete with us when half of their people (the women) are pretty much barred from their workforce."
I thought at the time, Interesting idea, but does that need to be true? maybe the family as a team is a pretty efficient setup. Are we doing this because it's a better (i.e., more efficient) system, or because many or most women aren't satisfied with doing it the other way?
as to whether unfettered capitalism is undermining the traditional family.
Let's be clear here, we don't have "unfettered capitalism" by any objective definition. And while the effective doubling of the work force certainly has had an effect on the traditional family, it's also true that parents now spend twice as much time with their children as 50 years ago.
"Nobody ever questions the claim that it is automatically good for mothers to go out and be wage-slaves. Once, this idea was widely hated, and every self-respecting man worked as hard as he could to free his wife from the workbench.
Then the feminist revolutionaries began to argue that the home was a prison and marriage was penal servitude, chained to a sink. Most people thought that was nuts – until big business realised that women were cheaper than men, more reliable than men and much less likely to go on strike or be hungover than men."
-Peter Hitchens, We fuss over mothers... then tell them to dump their children in baby farms and go back to work
So what you're saying is Elizabeth Warren actually supports a family structure where the men hunt and the women tend the fire?
Actually, that sounds extremely sexist. Maybe she meant it the other way around. She has no problems being contrary.
All this exposes is that the Feminist/Women's Movement hate the women who marry men and raise a family of children. Why, they could easily have aborted them.
Come on, Althouse. That was 2004! EVERYONE knows that a national level Democrat cannot be held accountable for a political point of view more than fifteen minutes old.
@Mike R - Ah! The 1980s! Americans were supposed to be limited to selling wheat and blowjobs to the Japanese by now.
"Some people need jobs, but why have we come to believe that every adult must have a job?"
Why can't homemaker be a job? I understand that it does come with a specific wage, but it's work and a job nonetheless.
@ Lucid Ideas - "Men hunt and women tend the fire"? That's probably a result of her 1/1024th possible Native-American heritage.
I've been unemployed twice in the last 10 years for different reasons. Both times, there were substantial benefits to the family from having me around the house. During the first unemployment period, before my daughter started school, the calculation was that I needed to make about $25/hr ($40,000/yr) just to cover the costs of me going back to work.
The second time, with my daughter in school full time, it dropped to about $15/hr.
What “unfettered capitalism?” I certainly never lived thru the 1890s. I’ve always had to file income tax.
does s/b does not
A certain strand of the American right has long expressed quiet admiration for the book...
Vox is increasingly intrigued that the right is intrigued with Warren's book. Jan. 10:
Tucker Carlson has sparked the most interesting debate in conservative politics
Warren has no problem raising prices on the middle class. That’s what happens when one wants to “help.”
Watch what happens in Oregon. They’re going full rent control.
It’ll take 20 years for it to really sink in because they’re different from NYC who’s had it since WWII. They’re better, smarter, etc.
"skyrocketed prices for houses in good school districts or escalating tuition at public universities."
--
See public sector unions, bloated admins and readily available "financial aid".
In the 80's I was able to cover my UW-Madison tuition and living expenses with part time work and no aid.
WTH happened?
No..it's "shut up", make it "free".
Meanwhile, we have tech to fully liberate education from brick and mortar.
If o my she had paid her fair share instead of gaming they system.
The "unfettered capitalism" part is funny, because socialism and communism don't encourage 1-income households, but rather encourage all able people to work to the best of their ability.
I just finished Road To Jonestown. Jim Jones was an outright Socialist. His mother was the main earner for his family. Then his wife worked for the government. All the women in Jonestown were expected to work, including the women who raised the children as community property.
Althouse said... "Wouldn't it be a kick in the head if it turned out feminism served, above all, the interests of commerce and not individual liberation?"
Or the interest of the state. As I commented in one of Althouse's "single-earner household" tagged posts in 2013:
EDH said...
A wife in one of the accompanying videos made the "Two Income Trap" argument of Elizabeth Warren except, without the statist agenda, she could say the determinative factor is the effect of taxes on take home pay.
12/7/13, 6:02 PM
The 2017 Tax Reform was supposed to address some of those issues in the tax code.
I'm in the biz, as they say, but I fail to see a connection of the phenomena in question to 'unfettered capitalism', whatever that pejorative is intended to mean.
Those added expenses for families with an added second earner is a big one. Some mothers start sobbing when you point out to them their second job is actually costing their household money. Many continue to work however, for satisfaction and as an insurance policy, as they say...
I'd also point out to be critical of generalizations about the middle class being stuck in dead end jobs blah blah. There's survivor bias. Most two income families graduate out of the middle class. The ones that remain aren't necessarily 'struggling' so much as making tradeoffs like pursuing gratifying work or less taxing work or opting for family time over larger salaries.
It's an unfettered pejorative.
Until my newspaper job went away in 2013, we were a single-earner household. My wife stayed home and I went to the newspaper. The Tightwad Gazette played a big role in showing us the way, as did the way our parents lived.
This meant giving up some things. We gave up the cable in 1995. We didn't get smartphones. We didn't take vacations. My salary topped $50K in the last year, but my wife got $9K a year for 15 years (good-bye kiss from the Navy).
Now we live in a paid-for house in Hershey and we're writing books, and we have enough in our IRAs to sustain us for awhile.
I love that area! It’s beautiful.
This makes me like her more. Willing, at least at one time, to say something intelligent that many won't like.
Oso Negro observes: Come on, Althouse. That was 2004! EVERYONE knows that a national level Democrat cannot be held accountable for a political point of view more than fifteen minutes old.
It will be interesting to see if her views have changed. I agree with her argument but also look back to an era when men devalued women because they stayed at home with their children and while they, themselves, had affairs with their secretaries. Ideally, there would be mutual respect for the roles of every family member and value placed on child-rearing. The industrial revolution separated families from their tradition roles and values that an agrarian-craft-merchant society enjoyed. Even in today's technological era, it would be desirable to retrieve the family unit as the societal center.
unfettered capitalism
We haven't had "unfettered capitalism" since at least 1913 and maybe earlier. To progressives it seems the more regulations we place upon it, the less fettered capitalism becomes.
Why can't homemaker be a job?
Because with all the labor savings devices mentioned above there isn't enough work involved to make it a full time job. If you want to go back to coal stoves and washtubs that would have a full time job.
“A wife in one of the accompanying videos made the "Two Income Trap" argument of Elizabeth Warren except, without the statist agenda, she could say the determinative factor is the effect of taxes on take home pay.
12/7/13, 6:02 PM
The 2017 Tax Reform was supposed to address some of those issues in the tax code.”
Exactly. Warren isn’t arguing that women shouldn’t work, she’s arguing that the system is rigged against them if they do work. Interesting, but not surprising that her message is being twisted to say she doesn’t approve of women working outside the home.
We haven't had "unfettered capitalism" since at least 1913 and maybe earlier.
Yes, we had almost totally open borders then. Are you an open borders guy?
To progressives it seems the more regulations we place upon it, the less fettered capitalism becomes.
I assume you're a regulatory progressive who wants to regulate who businesses can hire and from where?
This makes me like her more. Willing, at least at one time, to say something intelligent that many won't like.
Willing to say it in 2003. She'll be slaughtered if she doesn't renounce such nuance in 2019. In 2016, Bernie Sanders was forced to renounce everything he had previously said about illegal immigration driving down American wages.
Still, it is good to know that some they know these things deep down, even if they no longer can state them.
" it has created an increase in downside risk by eliminating an implicit insurance policy that families used to rely on..."
I don't really understand Warren's 3rd point (which Kline describes as "really the key to Warren’s specific argument"). The second income is creating 'implicit insurance' against job loss; surviving awhile on one income is going to suck when your commitments are built around two incomes, but it's far better than surviving on zero incomes when you have commitments of any magnitude (including basic survival).
Warren/Kline suggest that "the stay-at-home mother didn’t simply stand helplessly...she looked for a job to make up some of that lost income." Isn't the second job just doing exactly that, but proactively?
“This makes me like her more. Willing, at least at one time, to say something intelligent that many won't like.”
Feminists and women on the left wouldn’t dislike her for being an honest messenger. But don’t misconstrue her message.
Yes, we had almost totally open borders then. Are you an open borders guy?
The Atlantic ocean is like a gigantic moat around a border wall, without the need for the wall.
“Willing to say it in 2003. She'll be slaughtered if she doesn't renounce such nuance in 2019.”
Nonsense. Women on the left aren’t so easily misled. It appears that there are those who are trying to cast shade on her message by misrepresenting it. I’ve followed Warren for years and listened to many of her online lectures and her message is NOT that women should not work outside the home, but IF they do the system is rigged against them and the family.
The State will have to make divorce more difficult to convince women they can risk staying home and not having a career to fall back on--and to get men to risk marrying them and having children.
Elizabeth Warren's 2004 book "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Going Broke" might hurt her with feminists...
I haven't read the book or looked up Warren's positions on these particular issues, but she won't have any problem with feminists as long as she is clear that more government is the solution to all these problems:
1) Free universal childcare
2) Massive increase in federal spending on education
3) Massive increase in the welfare state.
Problem solved!
Warren also argues that the system is rigged against families getting ahead, forcing women to go to work so the family can get ahead, then when the woman does that, it doesn’t help because, once again the system is rigged against her and the family getting ahead. The system is rigged against people in that income bracket. Her goal is make things more fair for working families and working women.
I hope this clears thing up for you folks.
Rigged!
“Rigged!”
Exactly...and don’t you forget it.
"Willing to say it in 2003. She'll be slaughtered if she doesn't renounce such nuance in 2019.”
Nonsense.
'Nonsense! Warren's thinking never had nuance!'
There's a reason a feminist site like Vox was so excited that pre-pandering Warren and Tucker Carlson were making similar observations.
Warren also argues that the system is rigged against families getting ahead, forcing women to go to work so the family can get ahead, then when the woman does that, it doesn’t help because
The best part is she’s supporting the rigging.
“The best part is she’s supporting the rigging.”
Why are you so poorly informed? Really, there’s no excuse for it. Maybe try to listen to her lectures online, but that would probably be above your head.
Warren also argues that the system is rigged against families getting ahead, forcing women to go to work so the family can get ahead, then when the woman does that, it doesn’t help because
The controversial part for feminists will be her suggesting that most women would want to stay home and raise their children if they could.
Warren also argues that the system is rigged against families getting ahead, forcing women to go to work so the family can get ahead, then when the woman does that, it doesn’t help because, once again the system is rigged against her and the family getting ahead.
Yes and no. Not really rigged. It is just you take your choices and make trade offs.
Define getting "ahead".
It is true that the cost of child care for the two income working marriage greatly diminishes the net return on investment. Sometimes making the earnings and work of the second earner a negative result economically and negative in the overall emotional satisfaction of all of the participants. Husband, wife, children.
That doesn't make it "rigged". It is the effect of making choices and expectations of life. Stay at home spouse versus the "wants" of what a potential increase in income could be with two incomes.
Stay at home and give up some of the luxuries. New car vs older car. New larger house vs older affordable home. Iphone vs paygo Dollar Store cell phone. New designer clothes or shopping at thrift stores and buying at WalMart. It is all about choices, priorities, wants vs needs. Not rigged. Just people making choices.
Plus....in an older different society...where multi generational households existed or where families lived closer together, there was an alternative to expensive child care or strangers raising your children. Mom in law. Grandmothers. And in larger families, older children helping with child care.
You make your choices. Don't whine about it to everyone else.
“There's a reason a feminist site like Vox was so excited that pre-pandering Warren and Tucker Carlson were making similar observations.”
There people on both sides who want to muddle her message, people on the left shouldn’t allow themselves to be manipulated in such a way.
“The controversial part for feminists will be her suggesting that most women would want to stay home and raise their children if they could.”
Really? Not at all controversial. Modern feminists don’t denigrate a woman’s choice to either work or stay home. Trying to spin up a controversy is silly, most people on the left won’t fall for it and are just annoyed by the underhanded way that Warren is purposefully being misconstrued.
The problem isn't capitalism. Capitalism (i.e. retained earnings) determines prices in a world with finitely available and accessible resources. The problem is adults who bask in wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic license. The problem is normalization of counterproductive and dysfunctional orientations. The problem is a lack of self-moderating, responsible behavior in a minority of the population. The problem is also labor and environmental arbitrage, pseudo-scientific prognostication, political congruence, diversity, immigration reform, warlock trials, redistributive change, and planned parenthood. As for couples, you're not children anymore, does not begin and end with sex. Reconcile.
Modern feminists don’t denigrate a woman’s choice to either work or stay home.
Lololololol
Why are you so poorly informed? Really, there’s no excuse for it. Maybe try to listen to her lectures online, but that would probably be above your head.
She supports the pocket-picking policies. That’s the beauty of it.
If she’s concerned about the high cost of college, then get the USG deep taxpayer pockets out of guaranteeing the paying the bills. Put the risk back where it belongs, the banks, schools and students.
Prices will drop.
As long as the universities know their bills will be covered, they can require students to take a lot of things and charge outrageous prices.
You’ve learned nothing from the Obamacare implementation.
Use more spaces Seeing Red, maybe it’ll make you sound smarter.
That doesn't make it "rigged".
In practice, it's the opposite of rigged. Basically all of family law was designed to mitigate the risks associated with being a stay-at-home mom.
You still believe Hillary on Benghazi.
Have you smartened up yet?
This is much more honest work than her propaganda studies on medical bankruptcy. She seems to have realized political advocacy has a much greater payoff.
The Atlantic ocean is like a gigantic moat around a border wall, without the need for the wall.
It was letting in the equivalent of 2 million immigrants per year into the US. Which is 2x the current level of legal and illegal immigration.
Really? Not at all controversial. Modern feminists don’t denigrate a woman’s choice to either work or stay home. Trying to spin up a controversy is silly, most people on the left won’t fall for it and are just annoyed by the underhanded way that Warren is purposefully being misconstrued.
Calm down and stop accuses me of "trying to spin up controversy." The reason I think such an opinion would be threatening to feminists is that it undermines the animating feature of the modern movement: That anything less than 51% female representation in every field requires fixing via political and socially coercive action.
Feminists do NOT accept the "choice" argument when it comes to under-representation of women in various fields. They blame the phantoms of "sexism," "the patriarchy" and "internal misogyny" of women who disagree with them - the majority (77%) of women.
That is why the 2004 opinion of Warren would meet resistance.
“Calm down and stop accuses me of "trying to spin up controversy."”
Hey buddy, the world doesn’t spin around you. I didn’t suggest that you personally were trying to spin up a controversy, I’m referring to those bringing up the ridiculous notion that feminists and most people on the left will somehow be upset with Warren. Won’t happen.
And stop the baloney, you don’t seem to know what feminists or women on the left think, your “observations” are simply what you’ve heard from rightist sources who would love to confuse you people.
“That is why the 2004 opinion of Warren would meet resistance.”
Nonsense.
It was letting in the equivalent of 2 million immigrants per year into the US. Which is 2x the current level of legal and illegal immigration.
That's the opposite of "open borders." It's regulated borders, with admission based on what the country needs, from nations the country accepted, at a time the country decided it needed them.
And the foreign-born legal population as a percentage is at the highest level since 1910. Adding 11-30 million illegals easily makes it the largest percentage in history.
And stop the baloney, you don’t seem to know what feminists or women on the left think, your “observations” are simply what you’ve heard from rightist sources who would love to confuse you people.
Again with the personal insults. You forgot to actually...challenge my assertion. Try again. I'd like your thoughtful take:
"The reason I think such an opinion would be threatening to feminists is that it undermines the animating feature of the modern movement: That anything less than 51% female representation in every field requires fixing via political and socially coercive action."
If women drop out of careers to raise children, it is less likely they will climb the professional & political ladders needed to be CEOs and elected leaders. They chose giving up a few rungs. You OK with fewer women as CEOs and elected leaders?
"Feminists do NOT accept the "choice" argument when it comes to under-representation of women in various fields. They blame the phantoms of "sexism," "the patriarchy" and "internal misogyny" of women who disagree with them - the majority (77%) of women."
See above. Unless feminists are OK with merit-based under-representation. If so, I am the simple-minded buffoon you allege.
“If women drop out of careers to raise children, it is less likely they will climb the professional & political ladders needed to be CEOs and elected leaders. They chose giving up a few rungs. You OK with fewer women as CEOs and elected leaders?”
You really are stuck on the narrative that modern women on the left are locked into a certain mindset. You don’t represent women on the left and what they think. I do that much much much more than you do. The many left leaning women I know are of the mind that a woman should have a CHOICE as to how they live their lives and conduct their family matters. Women on the left understand that staying home with children will delay their corporate aspirations, if they have them. You think we don’t know this?
You base your argument on a model of a feminist and left leaning woman that bears only a slight resemblance to real left leaning women out in the American populace. Who do you think attended the Women’s Marches? Only radical feminists? Sorry to disillusion you, but women on the left are married, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, MOTHERS, we aren’t the caricatures you folks dream up
“Modern feminists don’t denigrate a woman’s choice to either work or stay home“
You’re such a liar, Inga!
“Modern feminists don’t denigrate a woman’s choice to either work or stay home“
“You’re such a liar, Inga!”
Another jerk who thinks he knows what modern feminists think, even after they are corrected.
The problems that Warren apparently talked about in her book, namely, what she defines as "zero-sum competition" arising from escalating education costs and rising housing prices, are, I would argue, SPECIFICALLY products of FETTERED capitalism, not unfettered capitalism.
Escalating higher-education costs are almost certainly affected by government interventions in the student-loan business, and rising housing costs are almost certainly affected by government edicts and regulations that restrict the ability to build housing according to market demand. (What Arnold Kling would refer to as the government's traditional practice of restricting supply while subsidizing demand.) Finally, I would argue that if education were run by unfettered capitalists, and not the government, living in a particular school district would be less of a driver of education quality, and so the "zero-sum" nature of the game would be limited.
So I would argue that Klein misinterprets how Warren's book "speaks to the question[]... as to whether unfettered capitalism is undermining the traditional family...."
"Women on the left understand that staying home with children will delay their corporate aspirations, if they have them. You think we don’t know this?"
There are plenty that swallow the "pay gap" trope like pelicans without those considerations.
In film?media production, there are increasing calls to explicitly block men from applying until numeric "under-representation" is remedied.
Used to be that sort of explicit..rigging..was employed only when the topic was gender sensitive.
Now, if a male questions non-content based exclusionary policy, even when invoking DOL legal issues, it's "Shut up!.
I have yet to see a woman step up to question it.
I know are of the mind that a woman should have a CHOICE as to how they live their lives and conduct their family matters.
Exactly. Choices.
Make your choices. Just don't whine about the results being "rigged" or your life not turning out to be the bed of roses, as you dreamed it would be.
When climbing the corporate ladder turns out to be running on the office treadmill. The beautiful fairy tale life with all the wonderful things...perfect children, perfect husband, kick ass career becomes snotty entitled brats, unfaithful husband, working to just pay for the luxuries and 'career' clothing required to remain on the treadmill.
It really can work for some people and good for them. It might not for other people.
Making the choice to be a stay at home spouse can also be a terrible mistake for some people.
Choices.
You take your chances. Now you have to take the consequences and stop blaming other people.
I haven't read the book, but from what Althouse cites, where does Warren state that women are the ones who should stay home to raise the children?
A lot of you seem to ignore the possibility that in a single earner household, perhaps that earner could be the wife.
“If women drop out of careers to raise children, it is less likely they will climb the professional & political ladders needed to be CEOs and elected leaders. They chose giving up a few rungs. You OK with fewer women as CEOs and elected leaders?”
You really are stuck on the narrative that modern women on the left are locked into a certain mindset. You don’t represent women on the left and what they think. I do that much much much more than you do. The many left leaning women I know are of the mind that a woman should have a CHOICE as to how they live their lives and conduct their family matters. Women on the left understand that staying home with children will delay their corporate aspirations, if they have them. You think we don’t know this?
It was a Yes or No question. Since you won't answer, I can only guess that as a feminist your answer is a Hell NO. Which means you either COMPEL women to get their butts to work, for The Movement, or you stop ranting against glass ceilings and the pay gap, which reflect the CHOICE you say you accept, but don't. **SHORTER: If you accept women choosing to stay home, you must accept there will be fewer women in leadership positions.** Pick one.
Who do you think attended the Women’s Marches? Only radical feminists? Sorry to disillusion you, but women on the left are married, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, MOTHERS, we aren’t the caricatures you folks dream up
With all due respect, your emotional reactions reflect exactly the type of women who attended that awful demonstration organized by awful people.
Just because this made me think of him:
James Damore
Verified account @JamesADamore
Jan 8
Wow, a Google insider lays out how they conspired to quell dissent by making an example of me, manipulating the media, and lobbying the NLRB.
It can't be fully verified, but they have intimate knowledge of the situation.
I helped Google screw over James Damore
“It was a Yes or No question. Since you won't answer, I can only guess that as a feminist your answer is a Hell NO. Which means you either COMPEL women to get their butts to work, for The Movement, or you stop ranting against glass ceilings and the pay gap, which reflect the CHOICE you say you accept, but don't. **SHORTER: If you accept women choosing to stay home, you must accept there will be fewer women in leadership positions.** Pick one.”
Your “choices” are also unrealistic. You are obviously an absolutist. “The Movement”, this is the sort of nonsense I refer to. I repeat myself, everyday women on the left are not the caricatures you seem so fond of promulgating. Do you even know a liberal/ left leaning woman? I doubt it.
Less Inga-CJ and more Dust Bunny, please.
Might as swell. Inga has endless ways of saying "What do you know?" as a pseudo-answer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m30T0mmlXHk
Less Inga-CJ and more Dust Bunny, please.
Damn dude. What did I ever do to you?
"If you accept women choosing to stay home, you must accept there will be fewer women in leadership positions.Pick one.”
Your “choices” are also unrealistic.
OK, so wading through your personal insults and emotional asides, you seem to be arguing that women should be permitted to 1. Work Less, and 2. Achieve the same professional success as men who work more.
The best part of the internet is you meet so many people who are extremely passionate about their views, cut can't ever seem to spell those view out.
Note how many times her husband was mentioned here.
Aunt Bee to the rescue!
Elizabeth Warren Revealed How She Struggled As A Working Mom & Finding Child Care For Her Kids
"After graduating college, she became a special needs teacher, a job she completely loved, she said in her speech. But, as she said, "by the end of the school year, I was pretty obviously pregnant." And because of this, Warren said she lost her job and someone else was hired. Obviously, that mistreatment of women is ridiculous, but, unfortunately, that isn't even the worst part of the story.
After this, Warren said she decided to stay home. She "tried desperately to be a good wife and mother," even though she "desperately wanted something more." So, Warren eventually decided to go to law school, despite how "crazy" the idea was to just about everyone around her.
Nevertheless, she persisted. She made a game-plan, got accepted into Rutgers University, and paid her tuition. But then, she said, "I hit the one big boulder that nearly crushed me: child care."
At the time, Warren's daughter was 2 years old, and she had to figure out a child care solution if she wanted to go to law school. But finding somewhere suitable for her daughter wasn't easy.
"They cost a fortune, or they smelled funny, or the kids looked miserable," she said of the places she came across on her child care hunt. She did finally find a place to put little Amelia in, but she had to potty train her first.
Then, three years later, after graduating law school and getting pregnant with her second child, Warren discovered that not many law firms were looking to hire a pregnant woman who had just graduated. After staying home with her children for some time, she got a job teaching law. But then, her babysitter quit, and Warren was once again without child care.
Warren explained in her speech that she was anxious, stressed, and felt like she was failing without a child care solution. She really thought she was going to quit her job, until her Aunt Bee stepped in, and told her "I can't get there tomorrow, but I can come on Thursday." And she did, with suitcases, her dog, and a built-in child care provider for Warren. She stayed for 16 years.
It's because of Aunt Bee that the world has a Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "
It's because of Aunt Bee that the world has a Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Opie and Andy cannot be reached for comment.
Warren has a net worth of about $9 million. No average working class mom is she.
The root cause for families needing two incomes, is how much debt families nowadays carry to fund all their consumption.
In 1960 US household debt was 40% of GDP. In 2015 it was 80%, down from its 2003 high at 100% of GDP.
After multiple immaculate conceptions, maybe she needs to be taken more seriously.
The State's handmaiden Inga asks: "Do you even know a liberal/ left leaning woman? I doubt it."
I know several, because I know lots of women, and women are the Statist Sex. And yet none of them come across as stupid as you.
To be realistic....not every dual income means glitzy corporate jobs ala those mythical sex in the city types of people. The dual incomes might be working in a gas station and waiting tables at the local diner. Being a plumber and a bank teller.
Sometimes you don't have much of a choice about both parties working. And working in some very UN-glamorous types of jobs.
The cost of living in general for the middle class and below has gone up more than the basic wage that is paid. (Your dollars don't have the same purchasing power as in the past.) Yeah.
FOR EXAMPLE: Gasoline used to be $.39 a gallon. I remember those days. However. Minimum wage then was a about 1.50 an hour. So that gallon of gasoline is about 25% of your hourly wage.
Gasoline today: average price for 2018 $2.57 a gallon and average minimum wage 10.50. STILL about 25% of your hourly wage.
***Your mileage/wages/cost will vary by location. (California SUCKS!!!!) But we are talking averages.
Things sounded cheaper in the past, but in proportion, many things are still the same and some even cheaper.
Many items are still the same proportion.
What HAS changed is
1. the massive inflation in some areas such as housing, automobiles, medications, education. Much of that is due to Government meddling and interference.
2. the increase in discretionary items that are now deemed to be essential and which are therefore priced high...demand...supply...all that crap that Occasional Cortex doesn't get.
Non-essential items or which can be replaced by lower cost items. Dishwasher. IPhones. HD Smart Televisions. Computer tablets. Blue tooth capable autos. Cars that are more computer than transportation. Designer clothing. Mc Mansion style 2500 to 4000 sq ft houses. New New New stuff all the time. Planned obsolescence. Disposable society.
When you add up the inflation on some things and then add in the artificially generated demand for non essential stuff you get the pressure to think you MUST have both people working.
It isn't necessary and again goes back to CHOICES. Sometimes even IF you choose the most frugal, the most pared down life....it still might not be enough.
CJinPA said...
"Again with the personal insults. You forgot to actually...challenge my assertion. Try again. I'd like your thoughtful take:"
You don't know our Igna, do you.
She forgets the higher income tax bracket. Naturally
And stop the baloney, you don’t seem to know what feminists or women on the left think, your “observations” are simply what you’ve heard from rightist sources who would love to confuse you people.
Psycho.
I repeat myself, everyday women on the left are not the caricatures you seem so fond of promulgating. Do you even know a liberal/ left leaning woman? I doubt it.
I'll answer that. Yes.
I know - and have known - women like you both personally and professionally. And without exception, they are exactly how you present yourself on this forum: a miserable, snarling bitch.
And after years of dealing with those types when I had to - and now I don't? I avoid them like the plague.
The number 1 expense for 2 income families is taxes. Not housing, education or transportation.
There is an economic principal known as "comparative advantage". Briefly, if there are two countries, A and B, and both can make tables and both can make chairs, but A is more efficient at making both tables and chairs, you might think there would be no basis for trade. A will make and use lots of tables and chairs, and B will have to be content with a few tables and chairs. But the theory of comparative advantage shows that as long as the efficiency difference is larger for, say, chairs, it makes sense for A to make chairs and trade them to B for tables. Both parties end up better off.
Now, as it happens, women are a LOT more efficient at making babies than men are, and also at raising them. And men are better at pretty much everything else. Which is not at all surprising, if you consider it rationally, but I realize that's a lot to ask. In any case, the tradeoff has been that women have babies and raise them and men do everything else. And people making economic decisions are so enamored of this arrangement that the government has had to threaten them with the economic equivalent of the death penalty to make them hire more than a few women. But hey, what do they know? If they're so smart, why can't they make babies?
I haven't read it, but I've long liked the general idea of the book. I thought it was a very sensible idea. I didn't know it was Warren's.
BREAKING NEWS: Elizabeth "Li'l Tomahawk" Warren hires "Tribal Leader" "Vietnam times"-"Recon Ranger" Democrat War Hero Nathan Phillips to assist her by ghost-writing her upcoming novel "Bury my no longer functioning refrigerator condenser at Wounded Hangnail".
If you pre-order the book now you will get a complimentary copy of Elizabeth Warren's newest cookbook: "My Favorite Hispanic Heritage Family Recipes and Homemade Fiesta Pinatas!".
It has lately been rumored that her lack of cheekbones strongly indicates previously undetected hispanic DNA.
Inga: "Another jerk who thinks he knows what modern feminists think, even after they are corrected."
Inga pulls this all the time. She pretends to be blissfully unaware of what the lefties have been doing and saying everywhere for decades.
Its pretty amusing.
DBQ: Excellent post at 4:25! So true and also so very like the Leftist Elites to show their ignorance of the masses of people in our country and how they live. And they really don't want to know because they might run smack-dab into the truth.
PS: For every woman with a self-actualizing career there are probably 100 doing crappy jobs for very little pay because they have no choice.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
Who do you think attended the Women’s Marches? Only radical feminists? Sorry to disillusion you, but women on the left are married, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, MOTHERS, we aren’t the caricatures you folks dream up
Personally I love being lectured about caricatures by someone who claimed both that the Republican Party wants to create The Handmaid's Tale and that Todd Akin only told the truth as understood by Republicans. The key to the humor though is the outrage as if only crazy people could do this - even as she knows it describes her perfectly.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Chickelit, the new Republican Party's future, The Handmaid's Tale.
Now is the time for social liberal/ fiscal conservative Republicans to pitch a fit.
8/21/12, 1:39 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Exactly as I have been saying, Akin merely told the truth as seen by the new Republican Party. Social issues über alles.
8/21/12, 1:31 PM
The entry of women into the workforce nailed salaries to the floor.
Adding illegals has also had horrible wage effects.
This is very basic economics that even Krugman might understand, but never admit.
Yes, it also did good for SOME women. But don't dismiss the bad consequences as well. And all those lovely social programs to pay women to dump their husbands which have had such an...enervating effect on our Black communities...that raises the tax burden which makes that two incomes necessary but still not enough.
Imagine a budget 1/5 smaller by telling single moms to shove it and own their personal fiscal decisions.
BEWARE MANY OF THESE POST ON HOW TO JOIN ILLUMINATI, THEY ARE NOT REAL,I WAS SCAM TWICE TRYING TO JOIN ILLUMINATI. THEY PROMISE ME MONEY, CAR AND HOUSE BUT IT WAS ALL SCAM I LOST OVER $3500 UNTIL A FRIEND OF MINE FROM TEXAS DIRECT ME TO THE REAL AGENT WERE I FINALLY BECOME ILLUMINATI MEMBER AND $500,000.00 USD WAS GIVEN TO ME AS A NEW MEMBER,PLEASE BEWARE OF SO MANY POST IF YOU WANT TO BE RICH AND FAMOUS THEN Whatsapp THE REAL Grand master +(234)8129175848
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा