Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 Aven--Excellent points! Too bad the government will NEVER stop grabbing our personal wealth! Case in point--my OWN inheritance, which was SLASHED to give about half of it to strangers (lawyers, government, etc.)! That's not where I want MY money going! Marilyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 You hit the nail on the head, Heidi. The use of day care from birth is just necessary for many folks these days. It is sad, and it seems it's all happened so quickly. One hundred years ago, women just didn't work. Of course, they couldn't vote either. I don't think any of us would want to go back to all of that, but there has to be some happy middle ground where society values the upbringing of children without stealing them away from mothers, making a commodity of child rearing in the process. And why does it seem the politicians who tout " family values " are often the ones refusing decent wages and other pro-family measures to citizens? Deanna > One of my major theses in life is that our society > is unsustainable because it does not support women having > children and all that implies (breastfeeding, caring properly for > a helpless infant, bonding). Further, because of the high > survival rate, if women DID have children at the rate we COULD, > biologically, we would run out of resources and space. > > I don't know the solution. As a society, we have to find a solution > though, or the kids are doomed. > > > Heidi Jean > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 In a message dated 11/26/04 10:46:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, hl@... writes: > And why does it seem the politicians who tout " family values " are often > the ones refusing decent wages and other pro-family measures to citizens? ____ ~~~~> Most people don't receive their wages from politicians. Most people are employed in the private sector, so your question seems to be founded on a non-sequitor. Chris ____ " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for those who do them wrong. " --Saint Isaac the Syrian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 In a message dated 11/26/04 11:39:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, sahmomof8@... writes: > The answer isn't more government > intervention--it's a change in our personal value system, combined with > creative ways > to survive on one income and/or a family home business, and/or creating a > " blended family " where several generations live together, and work and raise > the > kids together (such as the home we're trying to create right now for ______ ~~~~~> I think your hitting a much more important nail even squarer on the head here. What defines a " decent wage " is not its nominal value, but how it is spent, and how it is made more or less efficient through lifestyle. The total pool of wealth has increased enormously over the last half-century, but many people are still struggling to make ends meet. Why? At least part of the answer is that families have increasingly fallen apart. People leave home earlier and marry later, get divorced more often, and are more likely to be single. Living with parents until marriage, using grandparents as baby-sitters, marrying early and staying married to the same person, etc, all increase the value of an income by combining resources within the family to a mutual benefit. Think of all the money that is wasted by a young person's desire to live independently and resistance to settling down that gets spent on renting a place without contributing to future home ownership, that could instead be saved towards a home while living with parents, and paid towards a mortgage that will eventually result in a debt-free home ownership with a wife and family, while the wife may have a second income that contributes. (I should note here that I could have reversed the genders here and I don't mean to make one or the other contribution " secondary. " ) And think of how much better that family will be able to support a second generation once the home is owned and they are not in debt. It's at least worth considering that the falling apart of the family structure has paralleled the growth of the welfare state. The latter might not have been the only contributing factor to the former, but it certainly allowed it to a much greater degree. Increasing government intervention to force employers to give greater wages to people who " need " them to survive in this derranged nihilism toward the institution of family will only exacerbate the problem by allowing people to give in to a greater degree to their hedonistic desires to maximize their present fun and independence without regard to whether their future and their children's future can afford it. Chris ____ " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for those who do them wrong. " --Saint Isaac the Syrian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 In a message dated 11/26/04 2:40:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > If you were referring > to American women, I don't know what they were all doing a hundred years > ago, but I imagine the only ones who truly didn't work were upper class > women who could afford not to. Perhaps knows what occupied them a > hundred years ago since he has a history degree... ____ ~~~~> You are exactly right. The " cult of domesticity " was a movement started by women meant to empower women by giving them a sphere of their own. It was entirely a middle class movement, because ordinary women could not afford to not work. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 How bout this? We get rid of income, inheritance, and property taxes so normal families would have a chance to build wealth and pass it on to their kids - wealth in the form of large properties with room for several houses or home- based livelihoods. A paid-for house and/or a home-based business could become a typical wedding gift from the parents! Family businesses and homes are constantly being lost to inheritance taxes - and this idea comes straight from the Communist Manifesto! Marx understood that government grows strong at the expense of family; it's too bad Americans don't. Aven > Deanna--I think YOU hit the nail on the head here! Our government will NEVER > espouse " family values " --it's not profitable! And look at all the WOMEN in > politics who either are childless by choice, or are leaving THEIR tiny ones in > the care of strangers (or maybe family members who already RAISED their kids!) > so they can " fulfill " themselves! Bah! The answer isn't more government > intervention--it's a change in our personal value system, combined with creative ways > to survive on one income and/or a family home business, and/or creating a > " blended family " where several generations live together, and work and raise the > kids together (such as the home we're trying to create right now for > ourselves). Daycare from birth is a CRIME against children, plain and simple. More moms > should know they have options, single moms or not, to work from home, or to > live in communal groups where the children have a stable base of > " family " --biological or not--to be nurtured in. All the government handout programs do is > separate moms from their children, give them the idea that the government can > raise them better than they can, and the situation spirals from there. One > intervention leads to another, and that's criminal. Gee, do ya think I have strong > opinions on this? Marilyn > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 In a message dated 11/26/04 6:56:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, cah@... writes: > ~~~But, they didn't go out to work much at all until after womens' lib. > That's my point. I wasn't talking about rights. I was talking about what > actually happened. ____ ~~~~> And I wasn't really making a direct response to your point, so much as using it to make a related point. If I recall it correctly, I agreed with your point in that respect, except your seemingly implied point that the vote was a paramount milestone in the movement for the freedom of women. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 In a message dated 11/26/04 11:57:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, heidis@... writes: > Part of it may be government intervention, but a lot of it is also supply > and demand. Housing prices have tripled in my neighborhood, in 2 years. > I couldn't afford to buy my house now! Someone did a study on standards > of living, and concluded that most things are cheaper now, but the two > things that make people need to work more and more are housing costs > and health care costs, both of which have skyrocketed. > ____ ~~~~> You're contrasting two things that ought to be thought of as complimentary. The " supply and demand " of money is determined by government intervention in the money market, upon which the demand for housing rests. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 In a message dated 11/26/04 4:49:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, cah@... writes: > They began to see going out to work as something more highly prized than > not having to go out to work. The vote was won many years before some women > decided they wanted careers outside the home. I don't see a relationship > there. > ____ ~~~> Women had the right to work before and after women's lib. Working rather than not-working is not more important than the right to vote, but having the right to choose to work or not to work is. And by right to work, I don't mean the right to work for an employer who doesn't want you to work for her or him, but rather the right to work for those who will accept the person's work. But what was much more important, and fought for first by feminists in England and America around the same time and same stage of the feminist movement, was the married woman's right to own property. This was fought for first, and rightly so, because the right to own property is requisite to the right to be a free and acting person. The right to vote, on the other hand, is nothing but the right to participate in criminal activity. It's only done at most once a year, and most people vote less than this or not at all. The people who do not vote do not have less meaningful lives because of it, and well over 99% of a person's life is spent doing things that do not include voting and are not related to voting. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 In a message dated 11/26/04 4:49:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@... writes: > Bravo, Chris. You have made some very fine points here. But about the > minimum wage: Companies are outsourcing even some good paying > engineering jobs to countries with lower overall wages. So, I think > regulation must reign in major corporate greed to some extent. You are > correct that employers pay wages, but if they are not regulated, we will > be living in polluted squalor in that kind of laissez-faire world. _____ ~~~~~> Of course, it should, for perspective, be considered that the choice to employ people in other countries is a reciprocal choice between the employer and those willing to work for that employer in those countries. Are the workers in these countries as greedy as the employers? Or, are the employees who would retain these jobs if government were to intervene as greedy as these employers for wishing to use force to retain their higher-paying jobs? Does it make any difference in how greedy any of the three groups are that the only one wanting to use force to alter the outcome of freely chosen actions is the latter group? If we are better off in America with restrictions on capital movement, should my state of Massachusetts also fight to retain jobs in MA by using force against the greedy companies that want to move a plant to, say, New Mexico? If trade is better off restrained within a country, is it better off restrained in a state? Is it, in turn, better off restrained within a county? A city? Town? Neighborhood? Street? To avoid a problem of unemployment and reduced wages, should my grandfather, as the patriarch of the family, require my family to only provide jobs to, or work for, other family members? My mother could pay me an extremely high nominal wage if she was paying me with a family currency that my grandfather was printing. Of course, by retaining trade within my family, I wouldn't be able to buy very much with it. My wages would decline if we traded with our neighbors, but I would be able to buy more with them, if we were also able to buy the goods our neighbors produce more efficiently than the same goods in my home. Massachusetts used to be dominated by shoe-making jobs. When machines became involved, that put the majority of shoe-makers out of jobs. My state also used to be dominated by factories, but they all moved to the South where electricity and labor were cheaper. Out of greed, of course, the Southerners were allowed to steal away New England capital. Oddly, to some, the people in my state seem to be much better off, and have newer, better-paying jobs now, not to mention our shoes are much cheaper relative to a weeks pay than they were in the 1830s. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 >And why does it seem the politicians who tout " family values " are often >the ones refusing decent wages and other pro-family measures to citizens? > >Deanna I always wonder about that too! Also since I'm pretty obviously " progressive " it gets me when people think it's weird for me to cook and stay with the kids! However, I DO work ... I don't think it's good for women to " just stay home " ... that really was NOT the norm in the old days. Women stayed closer to the house .... and did farming, some hunting, the cooking, and basically ran things while the guys were off adventuring. Most " manufacturing " (weaving, basketry, sewing, making cooking utensils) was also women's work. And in the farm economy, women and kids were just as hard working as the menfolk. It's only in the " industrial age " where " work " has become separated from home life. Even so, the early Swiss clocks, for instance, were made with piecework that was distributed to households that were snowed in for the winter. We are trying to get back to a more " house centered " life, and basically it's working. It is a far more satisfying life too! As for the politicians etc ... really, only a few simple changes need to be made so women can stay with their kids more. In Asian countries you see the Mom's working the kitchen in restaurants with a baby on their back and a couple running around (the older ones helping). Having health insurance more available to self-employed folks (by whatever method) would be a BIG step forward, and building new paradigms for work (which is already happening: more big companies are using " work at home " strategies which also save them money). In " The Baby Book " , one of the authors is the mother of 10 (!) children, and is also a doctor and lecturer, and practices attachment parenting. (OK, I suspect she has a housekeeper!). Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 > Re:POLITICS: Having Babies > > > >You hit the nail on the head, Heidi. The use of day care from birth is >just necessary for many folks these days. It is sad, and it seems it's >all happened so quickly. One hundred years ago, women just didn't >work. I'm sure you mean they didn't work outside_the_home, right? AFAIK, women have always done much of the work in the world. In Africa for example, I read some years ago that women grow 80% of the food. If you were referring to American women, I don't know what they were all doing a hundred years ago, but I imagine the only ones who truly didn't work were upper class women who could afford not to. Perhaps knows what occupied them a hundred years ago since he has a history degree... Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 > -----Original Message----- > From: Aven [mailto:twyllightmoon@...] > > Family businesses and homes are > constantly being lost to inheritance taxes - and this idea > comes straight from the Communist Manifesto! Marx understood > that government grows strong at the expense of family; it's > too bad Americans don't. To be fair, immoral as they are, inheritance taxes directly affect only a small minority of families. The real cost of the inheritance tax to most people is indirect. The primary effect of the inheritance tax is to prevent the intergenerational accumulation of wealth. The typical leftist regards this as an unmitigated good independent of any revenue is may raise for the government. In fact, intergenerational accumulation of wealth is much better for the poor than it is for the rich. Here's why: Economic growth is driven by savings and investment. The more people save, the faster the economy grows, and the easier it gets to earn a living. That wages are so much higher today than they were in 1900 has nothing to do with unions or minimum wage laws. It's because of increases in the pool of available capital, made possible by savings and investment. In general, people with a lot of money tend to keep it tied up in investments. People with less money--particularly the recipients of government largesse--tend to spend it. So when the government taxes large inheritances and spends it, the effect is to shift money away from savings and towards consumption, ultimately hindering economic growth, which means that real wages will rise more slowly, or perhaps even fall. Ironically, the people clamoring loudest for " living wages " are the very same ones demanding policies--high taxes, regulations, increases in government spending--that would make it much more difficult for the economy to grow enough to allow unskilled workers to earn the equivalent of $10/hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 > -----Original Message----- > From: Deanna [mailto:hl@...] > > You hit the nail on the head, Heidi. The use of day care > from birth is just necessary for many folks these days. It > is sad, and it seems it's all happened so quickly. One > hundred years ago, women just didn't work. If I'm not mistaken, they also usually didn't try to raise children on their own. These are the reasons why day care is " necessary " today when it wasn't before: 1. Single parents. With few exceptions, anyone raising a child on his own needs day care. I could be wrong, but I believe that this is a relatively new phenomenon. It's my understanding that in the past, an unmarried woman becoming pregnant would either marry the father or give the child up for adoption. 2. Higher expectations. One person can support a pretty big family at $6 per hour and 80 hours per week, as long as they're willing to accept a 1900 standard of living. Most people want better than that, though, and they don't want to work 80 hours per week to get it. Even in families where a perfectly good standard of living is possible on a single income, people sometimes want the extra money, and are willing to give up at-home parenting to make it. Hence we have two-income families. 3. Government intervention. I suspect that it's illegal to lease the kind of housing that was standard among the poor in 1900. This drives up housing costs. Taxes drive down real wages. Government has also driven up medical costs (again, a 1900 medical plan should, in theory, be fairly cheap). Given that it's never been easier to avoid or put off having children than it is today, and that it's never been easier to earn a living than it is today, I'd say that those who finds themselves in situations where day care truly is necessary must have made some bad choices to get there. > Of course, they > couldn't vote either. I don't think any of us would want to > go back to all of that but there has to be some happy middle > ground where society values the upbringing of children > without stealing them away from mothers, making a commodity > of child rearing in the process. Society doesn't value anything. Individuals value things. And no one steals children away from mothers. They voluntarily give them up for a time in order to free up that time to earn money. " Making a commodity of child-rearing " is just anti-business rhetoric. First, it's not a commodity. A commodity is a good for which all brands are equally preferable. I don't believe that this is the case with day care. Second, even if it is a commodity for some parents, it is they, and not the businesses, which have made it so through their choices. > And why does it seem the politicians who tout " family values " > are often the ones refusing decent wages and other pro-family > measures to citizens? What politician has ever refused decent wages to citizens? Politicians don't pay wages, except to government employees. Or do you mean that some politicians have refused to pass laws making it a crime to offer someone a job at a wage which you, in all your wisdom, do not deem acceptable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 This is why I believe general economics should be a required course in school, at the high school level, with just as much importance as social studies, math, science etc. (I'm not talking about household economics here.) Carol Ironically, the people clamoring loudest for " living wages " are the very same ones demanding policies--high taxes, regulations, increases in government spending--that would make it much more difficult for the economy to grow enough to allow unskilled workers to earn the equivalent of $10/hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 >2. Higher expectations. One person can support a pretty big family at $6 per >hour and 80 hours per week, as long as they're willing to accept a 1900 >standard of living. Most people want better than that, though, and they >don't want to work 80 hours per week to get it. Even in families where a >perfectly good standard of living is possible on a single income, people >sometimes want the extra money, and are willing to give up at-home parenting >to make it. Hence we have two-income families. > >3. Government intervention. I suspect that it's illegal to lease the kind of >housing that was standard among the poor in 1900. This drives up housing >costs. Taxes drive down real wages. Government has also driven up medical >costs (again, a 1900 medical plan should, in theory, be fairly cheap). Part of it may be government intervention, but a lot of it is also supply and demand. Housing prices have tripled in my neighborhood, in 2 years. I couldn't afford to buy my house now! Someone did a study on standards of living, and concluded that most things are cheaper now, but the two things that make people need to work more and more are housing costs and health care costs, both of which have skyrocketed. Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 Yes, major faux pas. Oopsie. Deanna > > I'm sure you mean they didn't work outside_the_home, right? AFAIK, women > have always done much of the work in the world. In Africa for example, I > read some years ago that women grow 80% of the food. If you were referring > to American women, I don't know what they were all doing a hundred years > ago, but I imagine the only ones who truly didn't work were upper class > women who could afford not to. Perhaps knows what occupied them a > hundred years ago since he has a history degree... > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 , would you want to see the US back in the pre Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938? How " living " the minimum wage is debatable. But the need for *a* minimum wage, the abolishment of child labor and maximum hours provisions is something I don't think is debatable in the industrial/technological age. I'm just curious about your take on this. Deanna > > Ironically, the people clamoring loudest for " living wages " are the very > same ones demanding policies--high taxes, regulations, increases in > government spending--that would make it much more difficult for the > economy > to grow enough to allow unskilled workers to earn the equivalent of > $10/hour. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 While I agree with what has pointed out, I think there is another element involved. No one ever seems to mention the fact that back in the 60s and 70s many women went to work because of 'Women's Lib', which made them feel like working was something they'd been deprived of doing. (In addition to it being something done by those who had a single parent family, which, as says, wasn't as common at that time.) Even today, people seem to associate women's 'right' to work with women's right to vote. They began to see going out to work as something more highly prized than not having to go out to work. The vote was won many years before some women decided they wanted careers outside the home. I don't see a relationship there. I don't see the idea of 'stay-at-home moms' as an archaic idea. It's a matter of choice, not of what is old-fashioned or not old-fashioned. (I dislike that term by the way - stay-at-home moms - it's already gathering a negative connotation. Of course, 'working moms' is too. That's because many have a tendency to think it HAS to be one way or the other, so those two contingents are 'at each other's throats' so to speak. I personally believe it should simply be a matter of choice.) I think everyone should be able to choose their own path in life, and most do, whether they realize it or not. However, the volume of women entering the work force in the 60s and 70s, lowered wages for everyone in the long run. It's simply an element of supply and demand - more workers, more competition for jobs, therefore lower wages. And, of course, what follows that is the necessity for two worker households, (at least in the short term of history), in order to maintain the same lifestyle people had in the 50s when only one person worked, in so many cases. (I know that many people are maintaining a 'better' lifestyle now than in the 50s, but part of that is only because many are not saving any money and are living on credit, neither of which were common in the 50s. If they were not spending most of what they make and buying so many things on credit, I believe their lifestyles would be very similar to those of the 50s.) Again, I'm not on one side or the other. It's just the way it has become, and the above is part of the reason it has become that way. It's a lot of things that combined to change the course of history......as it usually is when things change. Carol If I'm not mistaken, they also usually didn't try to raise children on their own. These are the reasons why day care is " necessary " today when it wasn't before: 1. Single parents. With few exceptions, anyone raising a child on his own needs day care. I could be wrong, but I believe that this is a relatively new phenomenon. It's my understanding that in the past, an unmarried woman becoming pregnant would either marry the father or give the child up for adoption. 2. Higher expectations. One person can support a pretty big family at $6 per hour and 80 hours per week, as long as they're willing to accept a 1900 standard of living. Most people want better than that, though, and they don't want to work 80 hours per week to get it. Even in families where a perfectly good standard of living is possible on a single income, people sometimes want the extra money, and are willing to give up at-home parenting to make it. Hence we have two-income families. 3. Government intervention. I suspect that it's illegal to lease the kind of housing that was standard among the poor in 1900. This drives up housing costs. Taxes drive down real wages. Government has also driven up medical costs (again, a 1900 medical plan should, in theory, be fairly cheap). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 Bravo, Chris. You have made some very fine points here. But about the minimum wage: Companies are outsourcing even some good paying engineering jobs to countries with lower overall wages. So, I think regulation must reign in major corporate greed to some extent. You are correct that employers pay wages, but if they are not regulated, we will be living in polluted squalor in that kind of laissez-faire world. Deanna > > ~~~~~> I think your hitting a much more important nail even squarer on > the > head here. What defines a " decent wage " is not its nominal value, but > how it is > spent, and how it is made more or less efficient through lifestyle. > > The total pool of wealth has increased enormously over the last > half-century, > but many people are still struggling to make ends meet. Why? At > least part > of the answer is that families have increasingly fallen apart. People > leave > home earlier and marry later, get divorced more often, and are more > likely to > be single. Living with parents until marriage, using grandparents as > baby-sitters, marrying early and staying married to the same person, > etc, all increase > the value of an income by combining resources within the family to a > mutual > benefit. > > Think of all the money that is wasted by a young person's desire to live > independently and resistance to settling down that gets spent on > renting a place > without contributing to future home ownership, that could instead be > saved > towards a home while living with parents, and paid towards a mortgage > that will > eventually result in a debt-free home ownership with a wife and > family, while > the wife may have a second income that contributes. (I should note > here that I > could have reversed the genders here and I don't mean to make one or > the other > contribution " secondary. " ) And think of how much better that family > will be > able to support a second generation once the home is owned and they > are not in > debt. > > It's at least worth considering that the falling apart of the family > structure has paralleled the growth of the welfare state. The latter > might not have > been the only contributing factor to the former, but it certainly > allowed it to > a much greater degree. Increasing government intervention to force > employers > to give greater wages to people who " need " them to survive in this > derranged > nihilism toward the institution of family will only exacerbate the > problem by > allowing people to give in to a greater degree to their hedonistic > desires to > maximize their present fun and independence without regard to whether > their > future and their children's future can afford it. > > Chris > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 > I don't see the idea of 'stay-at-home moms' as an archaic idea. It's > a matter of choice, not of what is old-fashioned or not old-fashioned. > (I dislike that term by the way - stay-at-home moms - it's already > gathering a negative connotation. Of course, 'working moms' is too. > That's because many have a tendency to think it HAS to be one way or > the other, so those two contingents are 'at each other's throats' so > to speak. I personally believe it should simply be a matter of > choice.) My entire website is based on this: http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/ Lynn S. ------ Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 But wouldn't it be suicidal for government schools to teach economics? Unless they really mangled it, of course. Aven > This is why I believe general economics should be a required course in school, at the high school level, with just as much importance as social studies, math, science etc. (I'm not talking about household economics here.) > Carol > > > > Ironically, the people clamoring loudest for " living wages " are the very > same ones demanding policies--high taxes, regulations, increases in > government spending--that would make it much more difficult for the economy > to grow enough to allow unskilled workers to earn the equivalent of > $10/hour. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 > How bout this? We get rid of income, inheritance, and > property taxes so normal families would have a chance to > build wealth and pass it on to their kids - wealth in the form > of large properties with room for several houses or home- > based livelihoods. A paid-for house and/or a home-based > business could become a typical wedding gift from the > parents! > > Family businesses and homes are > constantly being lost to inheritance taxes - and this idea > comes straight from the Communist Manifesto! Marx > understood that government grows strong at the expense > of family; it's too bad Americans don't. > > Aven That's not foreign. Industry, capitalism and job chasing did that. Was brought up 40 years ago in New England believing that the most important thing you can pass onto your children is a home with land to feed themselves and skills to bring themselves through lean times. Unfortunately, few live their lives that way, understand it, see it all as property, know no roots to anywhere and have strong ties to everything that goes against that. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 >>If I recall it correctly, I agreed with your point in that respect, except your seemingly implied point that the vote was a paramount milestone in the movement for the freedom of women. Chris<< ~~~:-) If you knew me better, you'd know nothing we've been talking about would be a paramount milestone to me, especially now. The point I was trying to make about the vote, (that evidently was lost somehow), was that it and women going to work had little to do with each other. They've been linked together as if they go hand in hand, and I feel they're unrelated to each other. I wasn't saying one was any more important than the other, OR, for that matter, that either one was even important at all in the grand scheme of things. They're both just a part of history. My only real point was that the womens' movement had a great influence on women going to work......that it hasn't only been a high divorce rate that's caused it. And, that womens' entrance into the work force pretty much in 'droves' in the 60s and 70s has greatly influenced the wage rates. Because I was a young woman during that period, it was literally a drama unfolded before my eyes. Nearly all the young women in my Mother's generation got married and never worked, regardless of status. I thought it would be that way in my generation too, so was very surprised when all my friends got jobs instead. (I was one of those who got married and didn't go to work until several years later, after a divorce.) Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 > -----Original Message----- > From: Deanna [mailto:hl@...] > > , would you want to see the US back in the pre Fair > Labor Standards Act of 1938? I'm not sure I understand the question. Certainly I'd like to see the laws repealed, and federal spending reduced to pre-WWI levels (< 5% of GDP). Or are you asking whether I'd like everything to be exactly the same as it was then? That the latter would follow from the former is a post hoc fallacy. To give me an idea of where you're coming from, what do you think would happen if the United States repealed all labor laws? Conversely, what do you think would happen if a very poor country such as Ethiopia ($700 per capita GDP) adopted US labor laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.