 |
| |
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Smith
As long as we are talking about personal histories, let me throw in mine. I'm 48. Dad worked, mom stayed at home. They owned a house in a good suburban school district, three bedrooms, 1 1/2 baths, unfinished basement, no garage, no air conditioning (added years later), no fireplace, etc. Dad sent all three of us to the state university, bought new cars about every seven years, had no debt aside from the mortgage. Pretty similar so far, right?
How do thing look today? I do statistical work, by brother works in computer services. Neither job even existed forty years ago because changes in technology allowed the economy to gradually shift away from manufacturing and toward services.
My sister is a teacher. Her husband is a policeman. Both unionized. Pretty much middle class right? The house they own, with the same county schools we attended, has four bedroom, 2 1/2 baths, finished basement, two car garage, air conditioning, and a fireplace. The cars they own are much more expensive than what my parents had (even after accounting for inflation), but are safer, less polluting, last longer, have more features, and have a much better repair record than the cars my parents bought. (Much of the change being due to better quality Japanese imports, which reduced US jobs, but made consumers better off.)
I hope you enjoyed your rant about the GOP, but you missed the fact that the nature of the economy has shifted over time, and that as incomes rise consumers demand more and better services.
Former Senator Moynihan once argued that by far the biggest effect on families was the refusal to make welfare payments available to families in which an able bodied worker was present, since this broke up or prevented the formation of families in order to maintain welfare payments. |
Well, I always enjoy my rants about the GOP, but you just made my point for me. The very nice life your sister and her husband enjoy together is achieved by both of them working. Now, could they enjoy just as nice a life if only the brother-in-law worked? Is your sister only working because she's a raving feminist? I suspect the answers are no, and no. And that's my point: the two-income family has arisen from economic necessity; basically, your sister and her husband have to work to achieve their desired level of economic security, whereas, back in teh golden days of liberalism, your dad could achieve that for his family all by himself.
Is it really completely the fault of the GOP? Nah. But the complex social forces that led to these changes have much more to do with conservative ideology -- especially union-busting and the decline of social entitlements -- than liberalism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Black Cat
My assumption was that if out of wedlock births increase dramatically, lots of those couples who concieved children didn't marry. That means an accompanying increase in single parent households. Your assumption is all those out of wedlock births didn't result in more single parent households. My "assumption" is logical, yours is not.
|
Please read what I write - "assumptions that might be right, might be wrong, but there are nothing in the stat that supports your claim" - You say your claim is logical, but you forget to prove it, you just assume it. To quote Casey Ryback (or rather one of the bad guys  ) more or less perfect "Assumption is the mother of all fckups".
quote:
And where in that quote from my OP did I say all those mommies were or would be at home cuddling their kids all the time?
|
If they weren't, then were are they then ?
quote:
Children are better off with 2 parents and an extended family, and children are better off when those parents stay together until the kids have sufficiently grown emotionally so any divorce doesn't hurt them as bad. And children are better off when at least 1 parent is there most of the time as opposed to both parents off at work.
Do y'all agree?
Then policies that induce more out of wedlock births and more divorce have negative consequences, true?
|
Nope, me and my sister lived with our father after our parents divorce and all did fine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
And that's my point: the two-income family has arisen from economic necessity; basically, your sister and her husband have to work to achieve their desired level of economic security, whereas, back in teh golden days of liberalism, your dad could achieve that for his family all by himself.
Is it really completely the fault of the GOP? Nah. But the complex social forces that led to these changes have much more to do with conservative ideology -- especially union-busting and the decline of social entitlements -- than liberalism. |
The whole reason I am moving is to make certain that my wife doesn't have to work if she doesn't want to when our kid is born. The two salary economy has destroyed family values and the "American way of life" that the republicans so gaurd against.
However, as a Republican and a respectful admirer of Libertarianism I see greedy ppl and those traditional values as the core to such a destruction of family values. Why did the couple decide that both should work? To ensure a better future for the children, and also something to do with WWII. Still, the values that are being destroyed are the same values that caused the problem. It has nothing to do with GOP, Dems, Libs, etc... It just has to do with "progress"
One thing I think is strange is that new technology they have were doctors can treat kids in their classrooms from a robot like thing and a screen. They say it save time; kids don't have to leave school, parents don't have to leave work, etc... stating that a doctors visit can cost up to 4 hours of lost time. Lost time? How about time spent with you child?!
Family values caused the problem, and now they are getting trampled on because of good work ethics and a competitive economy. Libertarians? No, those weren't their values.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
And where in that quote from my OP did I say all those mommies were or would be at home cuddling their kids all the time? Children are better off with 2 parents and an extended family, and children are better off when those parents stay together until the kids have sufficiently grown emotionally so any divorce doesn't hurt them as bad. And children are better off when at least 1 parent is there most of the time as opposed to both parents off at work. |
No, I don't agree, because the ideal rarely exists. Kids are not better off in a two parent home if: one of the parents is abusive, a drug abuser, the parents hate each other, etc. Such toxic atmospheres are far worse for a child then being in a single parent home.
Children are not better off with one of the parents at home if the family needs two incomes to keep the house, to provide for the family, to pay for medical bills, to build up a college fund, etc.
The reality is that life is far more complex than conserviatves would have us believe. People have all sorts of valid reasons for making the choices they do, and instead of cursing people for trying to make the best of poor circumstances, conservatives should actually try to help people, or failing that, at least stop from hindering those who would help others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Oh sure, was it "Le Marsailles", "The Internationale", or the "Soviet National Anthem"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
Oerdin quote:
Little facts like that are ignored by the right since they are not convient to their ideology. |
I've never heard anyone right or left claim out of wedlock births were lower 230 years ago. As I told chegitz, pointing to situations separated by a vast gulf in time, culture, and circumstances is illogical. Chegitz has effectively argued that liberal welfare policies have not increased out of wedlock births etc because out of wedlock births were higher 230 years ago in a newly liberated colony still suffering the effects of foreign rule.
After a country sees stability long enough those effects wear off and we can make better comparisons. So, compare out of wedlock births etc in the decades before the welfare state and the decades since. You guys keep wanting to compare modern times with the age of monarchies and expansion. Hell, you'd think slavery would have destroyed the black American family but it took liberalism to do that. Compare out of wedlock births for blacks before and after the welfare state.
BC quote:
Please read what I write - "assumptions that might be right, might be wrong, but there are nothing in the stat that supports your claim" - You say your claim is logical, but you forget to prove it, you just assume it. To quote Casey Ryback (or rather one of the bad guys ) more or less perfect "Assumption is the mother of all fckups". |
Thats all very nice, but a big increase in out of wedlock births means an increase in single parent households. Why? Because not all of those out of wedlock births ended up with the father and mother marrying soon after (or before) the birth of their kid. But since you cant see that in the stat, here:
http://www.parentswithoutpartners.org/Support1.htm
quote:
If they weren't, then were are they then ? |
Asleep, doing chores, keeping house, etc. What do you think stay at home moms do now? Read what I write? Where did I write mommies would be cuddling their kids all the time if they weren't in the workforce?
quote:
Nope, me and my sister lived with our father after our parents divorce and all did fine. |
I didn't ask about you, I asked about a child, a generic or average child. My question doesn't require your personal experience, it requires the experiences of many. And we identify that information by looking at stats comparing 2 parent families with single headed households and the picture is pretty grim. Higher crime, poverty, drug abuse, etc in the single headed households.
chegitz quote:
No, I don't agree, because the ideal rarely exists. Kids are not better off in a two parent home if: one of the parents is abusive, a drug abuser, the parents hate each other, etc. Such toxic atmospheres are far worse for a child then being in a single parent home.
Children are not better off with one of the parents at home if the family needs two incomes to keep the house, to provide for the family, to pay for medical bills, to build up a college fund, etc.
The reality is that life is far more complex than conserviatves would have us believe. People have all sorts of valid reasons for making the choices they do, and instead of cursing people for trying to make the best of poor circumstances, conservatives should actually try to help people, or failing that, at least stop from hindering those who would help others. |
Oh boy, you did the same thing BC did. You don't look at a specific case, you look at as many as you can to discern trends. Are you really going to tell us kids growing up in single headed households are just as well off as kids in 2 parent households?
Kid quote:
Liberals aren't keeping them from being married. If anything is keeping them from being married its the economic situation. If they have the option to make things better and they're willing to get a divorce to do it, how is that hurting them? |
Liberals are inducing out of wedlock births by handing out money to people who dont get married. Tell the guy who just impregnated his girlfriend you will pay the bills if he doesn't marry her and see alot of guys take you up on your offer.
quote:
Yes, it's your business as much as it is any other American. But liberals aren't hurting families by providing welfare benefits. They're hurting you, according to yourself, so quit making this about hurting families. This is about you wanting to pay less taxes. |
Liberals are hurting all of us with their well-intentioned insanity. Join the conservatives, they are doing enormous harm with their drug wars.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Molly
You pick 1 year out of 300? I could pick at least 20. Britain was under a series of monarchs, that's authoritarian. The brutality was not practiced just on various colonies under the authoritarian rule of Britain, it had a caste system to boot. The sun didn't set on the British Empire because people all over the world were jumping at the chance to be ruled by foreigners.
|
Here's a hint: authoritarian doesn't mean 'rule by monarchs'.
There are and have been many systems of monarchical rule, including Poland's elected monarchy, Enlightened Despotism, Continental absolutism, and of course constitutional monarchy.
The first English monarch to really attempt to use an authoritarian system of government was Richard II.
In case you didn't know, he was deposed and killed.
Despite the attempts of the Tudor monarchy to increase power in its own hands, even Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I were constrained by the power of parliament.
What authoritarian worth his or her salt is routinely checked and balanced by parliament or statute law ?
The last English/British monarch to attempt personal authoritarian rule was Charles I, and he couldn't even get Scotland to accept a religious settlement contrary to the wishes of the Scottish Presbyterian Kirk- this provoked the first Bishops' War.
He also ended up deposed and tried by Parliament. In fact, the nearest England or Great Britain has come to 'authoritarian' rule was by an elected member of Parliament, Oliver Cromwell, in the Republican Interregnum.
When James II tried to exceed what Parliament felt was the authority a constitutionally bound monarch should have, he too was deposed, and replaced by a monarch chosen by Parliament.
Wow, I'm thinking the elected Parliament seems to have an awful lot of power...
As for your ill-chosen words, Great Britain did not have a caste system- a class system is not a caste system, no matter what you think.
With regard to the brutality- no worse and in fact a good deal better than that practised by the Americans in the Philippines, the Belgians in the Congo or the French in Algeria.
So reluctant were Indian princes, rajahs, ranis and maharajahs to be ruled by 'brutal, authoritarian' Great Britain, for instance, that they avidly cooperated with the Crown and the East India Company, sent their children to schools in Great Britain and appeared in Burke's peerage.
Dear me, Hollywood & Disney history is taking over the world, isn't it ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
That's neither basic nor reality. During the depression my family lived on almost nothing, 2 parents and 10 kids. None died from want of food or medicine. The change is in what is desired, not what is required. |
But the definition of 'poverty' has changed, as have people's expectations- I grew up with an outside lavatory, no central heating, no hot water supply and no bath and no gas supply.
I didn't feel deprived, but you couldn't even build a council house with that substandard kind of accommodation now.
Food prices have risen, and most people in Great Britain would not accept the kind of overcrowding I grew up with as the son of immigrants. I don't think this has anything to do with liberalism, but it has more to do with a rising standard of living, and consumerism.
Where when I was four certain things were perceived as luxuries, now a four year old can't get by without a Gameboy, colour television with cable or satellite, foreign holidays and designer footwear, let alone a dedicated hot and cold water supply, inside lavatory and bathroom.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Let's see, if a couple has their kids when they're 20 to 25, and their kids have kids at the same age how old are the grandparents? I think you'll find that most people become grandparents between 40 and 55, well before they're old enough for Social Security. Among the people in my practice grandparents are very often the primary caretakers for the kids because the parents have to work 3+ jobs to make ends meet because the good paying jobs all went to China. |
The breakdown of the extended family over generations but particularly after WW2 (often due to people's willingness to move away from their extended families) did / does have an effect on how much family childcare is available. My relatives in the south have kept their extended families more intact than those of us elsewhere, and there is very little paid childcare used by them, the vast majority is done by relatives.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I think that our over-sexed, me-first, self-centered culture is more likely at fault. The average teen boy generally isn't thinking "Aw heck, if we screw up let the government pay for it" when he seduces Sally, they don't think that far in advance. He's thinking about how all the other young bucks have mucho notches in their sex pistols and he neds to work over time to catch up. Ditto with the girls. Maybe if we didn''t have such a libertarian attitude about sex in this country the out of wedlock rate wouldn't be so high. |
There is less incentive for poor parents to reign in such behavior as the tab for those children won't put them in danger of being ruined financially. I doubt that this is the the sole or even primary reason, but I'm certain it has an impact.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
So libertarianism isn't for women too? My, my, my. No, the vast majority of women work not because they want careers, unless you consider flipping burgers a "career", nor did they do so because of hubbies high taxes - the job that paid enough to but Dad into a tax bracket went overseas years ago. They went to work because they want a chance to live like everybody else - 2 cars, 2000+ feet of living space, a TV in every room. etc., etc. In tightly knit clans the adult children remain essentially children until the parents are close to death. Think about Prince Charles. Divorce is high in this country because our culture so highly values individualism. Unfortunately the obverse side of that coin is often one person in the pairing sucking up mountains of abuse just to maintain the marriage. |
Women work because they can. Work gives them freedom and their generally greater neediness for status through material plenty rivals their maternal instinct to the extent that we are cruising at about replacement level in terms of our birthrate. This has little to nothing to do with the raw economic levels, we are in the stratosphere in terms of our standards of living. It's about fighting for position and status in a rich tribe where the desire for status and fulfillment through material possessions have been elevated to a pathological degree.
Last edited by Sikander on 25-05-2005 at 16:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
The rise in divorce rates is a result of it not cariryng the social stigma it did 50 years ago, and because women are now less likely to stay in a bad marrige for economic reasons because the workforce is much more open for women than it was 50 years ago. Berz's nonsense about how welfare is cauising divorce makes just as much sense as Ned's claim that Britian caused WW2. The reason both parent's work now is a result of the drop in wages relative to prices as a result of the 70's stagflation. That is traight from the mouths of both my US Government professor, who is a moderate libertarian Republican) and my US History proffesor (who is a centrist Democrat). So Berz, two of my Proffs say you are wrong, and they are no left-wingers, PWNED. QED. |
Your prof's theory doesn't adequately describe the data, in particular the huge rise in divorces after WW2. The stigma against divorce has been waning for hundreds of years, and to assume in any case that a social trend like that is only leading people to divorce rather than a reaction to other factors is presumptuous. I agree that women's greater economic opportunity is a factor. Your theory that stagflation is the reason for the elevated divorce rate misses the fact that the vast majority of the rise in the divorce rate occurred before the stagflation of the (late) 1970s even began. These things are almost certainly small factors, but they don't line up well with the trends in the data. I would point to alienation between men and women due to seperation during the war years as well as the accelerated disintegration of the extended family and its traditional support for marriage as more likely factors. These fit much better into the data timeline.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Quick, what's the single biggest factor contributing to the rise of the two-income household?
Here's a hint: it's not women's lib.
Here's another: it's strongly associated with both Reagan and Thatcher.
Give up? It's the aggressive, 30-year campaign by Big Business and their conservative lapdogs to crush organized labor. That, more than any single thing, has pushed women who'd rather stay at home into the workforce, by eliminating the ability of working-class men to earn enough money on which to raise a whole family.
Anytime you want to start the "Does Capitalism Destroy Families?" thread, just let me know... |
A weak theory to say the least. Unions weren't destroyed by minority Republican governance, they rode high throughout the post WW2 period and contributed to their own demise when other countries began to recover enough to compete in world markets. This is why industrial unions have been in sharp decline since the 1970s while unions of government employees have either prospered or at least retained most of their power. Japan couldn't build better teachers for American schools cheaper then we could, unions or not.
Last edited by Sikander on 25-05-2005 at 16:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I find the notion that welfare "ruins families" is a strange fantasy. Vast cuts in welfare payments and a huge number of greater roadblocks have done nothing to "bring the familiy back", so the only sane judgement would be to state that Welfare's effect on "the American Family" as a whole was limited, specially since only a small portion of poor Americans were ever elligible for welfare in the first place, so the collapse of middle class families had 0 to do with welfare in the first place. |
Just because we quit clear cutting doesn't mean that climax forests are right around the corner where today all there is are a sea of stumps. You may be entirely correct, but one can't confidently assert as much based on the reversal of a few policies affecting what is now for whatever reason a very different environment.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
In the black comunity the vast encarceration rates of black men probably had more to do with the breakdown of the family unit that welfare ever did. The notion of welfare queens was always a sort of sick fantasy. People scamming the system might have made real money, but the vast number of average people on welfare were stil dirt poor, and I doubt anyone says "hey, I get a check from the government! Let me stay dirt poor!"  |
The massive encarceration of African American males doesn't really jibe well with the disintegration of the Black family on the timeline. It may not have been welfare that did the deed, but it's a better case than incarceration for most of the period of the decline.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
But the definition of 'poverty' has changed, as have people's expectations- I grew up with an outside lavatory, no central heating, no hot water supply and no bath and no gas supply.
I didn't feel deprived, but you couldn't even build a council house with that substandard kind of accommodation now.
Food prices have risen, and most people in Great Britain would not accept the kind of overcrowding I grew up with as the son of immigrants. I don't think this has anything to do with liberalism, but it has more to do with a rising standard of living, and consumerism.
Where when I was four certain things were perceived as luxuries, now a four year old can't get by without a Gameboy, colour television with cable or satellite, foreign holidays and designer footwear, let alone a dedicated hot and cold water supply, inside lavatory and bathroom. |
I agree. My point is that this different set of values is really our choice. Social order needn't break down in the face changes which limited the selection of Italian made shoes for instance. It almost certainly wouldn't in the face of even greater challenges.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
I agree. My point is that this different set of values is really our choice. Social order needn't break down in the face changes which limited the selection of Italian made shoes for instance. It almost certainly wouldn't in the face of even greater challenges. |
I agree with you up to a point- the point at which envy greed and acquisitiveness replace satisfaction with one's lot, and the sense that 'everyone' should have the right to 'everything' or 'anything'.
In part, the sense of individuality inculcated by militant Protestantism is, I think, responsible too, although I should also stress that there was/is a constant conflict (frequently expressed) between the Protestant emphasis on the individual's communion with and responsibility to, God, and the subjection of servants and family members to the head of the house: in effect, what many Protestant sects did was replace a social order predicated on domination by an episcopal church and monarch/aristocracy with a rule by a presbytery or at the least, the male head of the household.
I've always felt too that 'rights' are championed at the expense of responsibility- responsibility to each other, our community, the world at large and the environment.
I can't help but feel that this is a logical extension of the natural rights/law philosophy.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-05-2005 03:57
|