Lipstick on the pig [[economy)

[ghettopalmetto]

Well, people didn't live like we've been living for the last 30 or so years. A telephone was considered a luxury, same with cars etc. Us returning to a 50's style economy is exactly what the powers that be are hoping for.

Do you mean a 1950s economy where one worker could earn enough money to provide for his entire family? Would that be so problematic?

Of course it is. You have right-wing head cases like Michele Bachmann who, well I'll just let this explain itself:

At a press conference today unveiling the stimulus proposal, Rep. Michele Bachmann [[R-MN) justified the conservative plan to give tax breaks to corporations - instead of working Americans - by arguing that people actually like working long hours:

I am so proud to be from the state of Minnesota. We're the workingest state in the country, and the reason why we are, we have more people that are working longer hours, we have people that are working two jobs.

Bachmann's version of the American Dream is apparently working two full-time jobs and struggling to get by.

http://crooksandliars.com/2008/01/17...work-two-jobs/


No, I'm sure you're right, where it's much better that we each have to spend thousands of dollars a year buying cars for each member of the family, and working fifteen jobs in order to pay for everything. That leaves just enough money for us to buy everything else we need from Walmart, since our love affair with "small businesses" is really just a bullshit line that the GOP uses to sucker dirt farmers from the South.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Do you mean a 1950s economy where one worker could earn enough money to provide for his entire family? Would that be so problematic?"

Not at all, if they're willing to live that way. I won't ask, I know the answer.

You can give it a try. Move into a modest house, get rid of your cellphone, get rid of your new car and drive a used one, and only one. Any other toys you have, get rid of them. Quit your cable and sell your flatscreens, get a 19" black and white and use the rabbit ears. Put out a garden and learn how to can. Take in some sidework wherever you can find it. One job and income should be ample.

[ghettopalmetto]

You can give it a try. Move into a modest house, get rid of your cellphone, get rid of your new car and drive a used one, and only one. Any other toys you have, get rid of them. Quit your cable and sell your flatscreens, get a 19" black and white and use the rabbit ears. Put out a garden and learn how to can. Take in some sidework wherever you can find it. One job and income should be ample.

Seems like you're arguing that we're entitled to an entitlement mentality. Is this correct?

It's one thing if people are working second jobs to buy LCD televisions and take vacations. It's another when they're working multiple jobs to pay rent and buy food. On top of that, getting a leg up via education is becoming more and more difficult for financial reasons. You don't distinguish between the two paradigms.

[ccbatson]

IF they haven't spent themselves into a big hole, on the other hand, if they are overextended [[thanks to Barney FwanK and his pals?), the efforts may largely be necessary to get out of that hole.

[ghettopalmetto]

IF they haven't spent themselves into a big hole, on the other hand, if they are overextended [[thanks to Barney FwanK and his pals?), the efforts may largely be necessary to get out of that hole.

There's that good ole sense of Personal Responsibility for which you're so famous, CCBatson.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Seems like you're arguing that we're entitled to an entitlement mentality. Is this correct?"

No I'm saying we're a spoiled country with a bad societal model. The economy is really better now than it was in the 50's as far as job availabily goes. Don't believe it? In the 50's there were few women in the workforce as most women assumed the role of housewife. Just in the last few days, women have taken the top spot for most held US jobs by gender. If a 50's society model existed now, and the same ratio of women were in the workplace, how many jobs would be available? How much would employers have to pay to get employees?

Women joined the workforce for various reasons and ultimately drove the average wage down. Free market forces. Instead of one working for 30, it's two for 15.

[elganned]

Huh..one isn't even a word...what are you referring too Elganned?

I was referring to my inferred understanding of your non-word [[reconstructuring).

To what were you referring?

[elganned]

Women joined the workforce for various reasons and ultimately drove the average wage down. Free market forces. Instead of one working for 30, it's two for 15.

There's an excellent book out about this, called The Two Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren.

In the World of Unintended Consequences, the entry of women in large numbers into the workforce to help families get ahead, or to establish female independence, has achieved just what you describe, Sstashmoo. Two earners are now required to maintain a living standard that one earner could achieve back in the 50's.

[Pam]

There's an excellent book out about this, called The Two Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren.

In the World of Unintended Consequences, the entry of women in large numbers into the workforce to help families get ahead, or to establish female independence, has achieved just what you describe, Sstashmoo. Two earners are now required to maintain a living standard that one earner could achieve back in the 50's.

I haven't read this book, but I read this article on it. Nowhere does it suggest that women entering the work force drove wages down.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...wo-income-trap

[elganned]

Pam, I didn't mean to imply that it did. Sorry if the justiposition of comments lead to that conclusion.

No, the book is informative but doesn't address that specific question. The conclusion I draw is my own. And, lest I be accused of sexism, I do not advocate a return to the man-work, woman-stay-home-raise-babies model. We couldn't go back, in any case.

But you can't expand the labor pool by 50% while the economy grows at an average rate of 2% without driving down the average value of the individual worker. The law of supply and demand has no moral dimension, it just is what it is.

I have long maintained that the "unequal pay for equal work" would correct itself as businesses realized that they could lower their labor cost by hiring women for the same jobs as they used to hire men and pay them less. Demand for women would rise, demand for men would fall, and the system would reach equilibrium somewhere lower than previously. And it seems to be bearing out.

[oladub]

In the 50's, banks lent money for housing based only on the higher income earner's wages. Somewhere along the way, income, as determined by the bank, became based on combined incomes. The result was a huge increase in the amount of borrowed money that couples could bring to the table. Supply/demand dictates that more money chasing the same product would drive up the price and it did. If we went back to the same lending standards today, housing prices would become more affordable and new houses probably wouldn't be as big.

Since women are graduating from colleges in higher percentages then men, the woman would often be the primary earner today.

[ccbatson]

The "somewhere" along the way can be found in the CRA in the hands of Carter, Clinton, and Bawney Fwank

[ghettopalmetto]

In the 50's, banks lent money for housing based only on the higher income earner's wages. Somewhere along the way, income, as determined by the bank, became based on combined incomes.

I believe that's only true if one elects to partake in the discriminatory institution known as "marriage". No dice for those who cohabitate.

Since women are graduating from colleges in higher percentages then men, the woman would often be the primary earner today.

Yet women, on average, earn 70 percent of what men do. This is for a variety of reasons--the majors and fields women tend to pursue, as well as the years of work they sacrifice in order to start a family. Please explain how women can earn 70 percent of mens earnings [[on average), and be considered the "primary" earner.

[oladub]

I believe that's only true if one elects to partake in the discriminatory institution known as "marriage". No dice for those who cohabitate.

Correct. In the 1950's, cohabitation, or 'shacking up' as it was then known, had no legal status.

Yet women, on average, earn 70 percent of what men do. This is for a variety of reasons--the majors and fields women tend to pursue, as well as the years of work they sacrifice in order to start a family. Please explain how women can earn 70 percent of mens earnings [[on average), and be considered the "primary" earner.

This is irrelevent to the topic. The topic had to do with elgannad's comment that "In the World of Unintended Consequences, the entry of women in large numbers into the workforce to help families get ahead, or to establish female independence, has achieved just what you describe, Sstashmoo. Two earners are now required to maintain a living standard that one earner could achieve back in the 50's." Whether the average woman earns 70% or 110% of the average male wage, if banks based loans on just the higher wage earner, less money would be available for lending and new houses would probably be smaller. Also, we wouldn't be having so many collapsing banks and bankers' bailouts because with a spouse or partner with extra earning capacity and less expensive houses to pay for, fewer couples, would be losing their homes. I'm not promoting this but rather mentioning a point or two consistent with the topic.

[elganned]

The "somewhere" along the way can be found in the CRA in the hands of Carter, Clinton, and Bawney Fwank

Still riding that old hobby-horse, I see, even though it's been demonstrated time and again that the CRA had little if any influence on lending practices in the 80's and 90's and was marginal in the lending bubble that brought about our current mess.

But I guess truth doesn't have any currency in the Conservative Fairlytale World in which you live.

[rb336]

that's funny. read a conservative writer's review of Palin's book, and he really went off on her still clinging to that nonsense

[Sstashmoo]

Palin wrote a book? Yeah right. This lady can't even construct a coherent sentence, and now she's an author? Lot's of pictures I'll bet.

[elganned]

She had a ghost writer, I'm sure...

[ccbatson]

Try reading it and finding out before "jumping to conclusions" [[biased ones at that). "Don't jump to conclusions"??? Where have we recently heard that? Oh yeah, when Obama tried to gloss over the terrorist attack at Fort Hood.

[elganned]

Well, golly, I'll just have to maverick my way on over to the library and rogue myself a copy.
It should be good for a laugh, but I won't spend a dime for it.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "terrorist attack at Fort Hood."

Was it ever officially classified as that? I haven't heard that it was.

[elganned]

Try reading it and finding out before "jumping to conclusions" [[biased ones at that). "Don't jump to conclusions"??? Where have we recently heard that? Oh yeah, when Obama tried to gloss over the terrorist attack at Fort Hood.

Too bad you can't follow his--and your own--advice in the matter. But then jumping to conclusions is your principal form of exercise, it seems.

[rb336]

Try reading it and finding out before "jumping to conclusions" [[biased ones at that). "Don't jump to conclusions"??? Where have we recently heard that? Oh yeah, when Obama tried to gloss over the terrorist attack at Fort Hood.

and where did he do that? in glenn beck's mind, and, therefore, yours?

[ccbatson]

BAM!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbScUEg1TRw

Right there baby....refute that.

[Detroitej72]

Not once in the video dose Obama refer to it as a terrorist attack, so I just refuted you.

You really should watch the video all the way through before you make it your key piece of evidence.