Ward and June Cleaver

Here is part of the big picture, Supply and Demand. Before the hyper-inflation of the 70's, caused by govt intervention, there was typically only a single income family. It was those policies that forced the two income family. The two cars was a result of both parents needing transportation to and from work. Demand for cars doubled resulting in higher prices. Housing prices increased because credit became much easier to a get by govt easing credit restrictions. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

What also needs to be understood is that many women wanted to work. They wanted their own lives. They wanted to control their destinies.

All well and good.

Unfortunately, along with other economic factors, adding women to the number of potential applicants gave corporations a sharp edge to use in the war against wages. While women struggled (and continue to) for wage parity, men's average incomes flat-lined. Women are much closer to par with men these days, but overall, earning potential is below where it should be given cost-of-living increases over time.

Or so goes my theory based on experience.

Of course, I have a long list of people who will also posit that I know fuck-all about anything, so take my post with ye olde grain of salt.

Viva Zappatista!

Exactly!! I pull this out every once in a while because it shows how we have reallocated our spending. This is a comparison done by the Federal Reserve in 1997 of the number of minutes it takes for us to work to buy a car, or a house, or a dozen eggs, or or a TV, etc...as compared to the number of minutes our parents or grandparents had to work to achieve the same item.

The fact is, things have gotten a lot cheaper...if measured against our time at work. The problem is that our income can't keep up with our insatiable desire for more things.

Go to this link to read the entire article.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar97.pdf Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I'm no fan of the Fed

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. - Thomas Jefferson

What also needs to be understood is that many women wanted to work. They wanted their own lives. They wanted to control their destinies.

All well and good.

Unfortunately, along with other economic factors, adding women to the number of potential applicants gave corporations a sharp edge to use in the war against wages. While women struggled (and continue to) for wage parity, men's average incomes flat-lined. Women are much closer to par with men these days, but overall, earning potential is below where it should be given cost-of-living increases over time.

Or so goes my theory based on experience.

Of course, I have a long list of people who will also posit that I know fuck-all about anything, so take my post with ye olde grain of salt.

Viva Zappatista! Originally Posted by Frank Zappatista

I agree and Warren talks about the parity and inflation adjusted income of men which is less than their fathers only one generation ago.

I don't know why any woman would want to be equal to a man. Why lower yourself like that? Women are to be cherished.
I have always wanted to be the wife living in a nice home with two cats and a dog in the yard, children all around, home cooked meals, and a husband that worked for a living providing while I stayed home and did the really hard job of keeping the house and raising the kids.
In my more elaborate fantasies, I would have a house keeper (like Alice on The Brady Bunch) so I wouldn't be too tired to take care of my husbands needs after the children are all tucked in and asleep.

I don't know why any woman would want to be equal to a man. Why lower yourself like that? Women are to be cherished.
I have always wanted to be the wife living in a nice home with two cats and a dog in the yard, children all around, home cooked meals, and a husband that worked for a living providing while I stayed home and did the really hard job of keeping the house and raising the kids.
In my more elaborate fantasies, I would have a house keeper (like Alice on The Brady Bunch) so I wouldn't be too tired to take care of my husbands needs after the children are all tucked in and asleep. Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

Yeah me too. (The man part BTW)

I agree and Warren talks about the parity and inflation adjusted income of men which is less than their fathers only one generation ago. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

The Boomers and their parents were the only generations to have opportunity to realize the "American Dream", that putrid post-WWII manifestation created with the help of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays"]Edward Bernays[/ame] and others that sought to keep the industrial machine ramped full-speed once the peace was restored. My father and his father had the opportunity to retire after 20 with full pensions. This also enabled the sort of cozy existence women could potentially enjoy (as cited by OP) during the post-war boom.

My grandfather got his pension. My father pissed his chance away, for whatever reason(s). My inheritance? Decades of brow-beating as to why I hadn't gone after a trade rather than stick to my stubborn hunger for knowledge. I saw the writing on the wall, understood that companies were moving from pensions and promises and fair practice to cultures of compromise, division, and exploitation.

When historians finally have their say on us, I think they will write blisteringly of how the USA cut off its nose to spite its face, economically.

I'm getting off-topic now, I think, as where I would go next with my reasoning should lead us into a dark place.

If I can get laid today, I promise to return tomorrow with flowery verse between my teeth.

Viva Zappatista!

It was the economic power of the middle class that kept the beast at bay.
First they dumbed them down. Then they took away their money.

It was the economic power of the middle class that kept the beast at bay.
First they dumbed them down. Then they took away their money. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Take is, I think, the wrong word.

The Middle Class gave it away.


Viva Zappatista!

Allow me to further my last post by stating the obvious: The Middle Class can take it back, but they'll have to fight for it, and they'll have to enlist the Lower Classmen to assist them in the cause.

OK, enough of my pinko-commie-bullshit.


Viva Zappatista!

In my more elaborate fantasies, I would have a house keeper (like Alice on The Brady Bunch) so I wouldn't be too tired to take care of my husbands needs after the children are all tucked in and asleep. Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

Why not go for a quickie when the kids are otherwise occupied?

Gee thats a tough call who would have more credible data on inflation -- a Harvard LAW professor or the Dallas Fed.

Gee thats a tough call who would have more credible data on inflation -- a Harvard LAW professor or the Dallas Fed. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I'm not a fan of lawyers either, but I would trust the data she uses from the Commerce Department over the Fed's data manipulation. The Fed is being ran by people that couldn't even see the current crisis until it was right on top of us. The Fed has been getting more and more power to STOP these types of crisis and look at us now. The dollar has lost more than 87% of it's buying power since 1913. I don't have any faith in the Federal Reserve.

The Fed, central banks, cause these problems and the founders were smart enough to see it. They fought against banking interests for years before they got a firm foothold through the Federal Reserve Act. Without a middle class there is nothing but elitism and serfdom.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. - Thomas Jefferson

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson

What also needs to be understood is that many women wanted to work. They wanted their own lives. They wanted to control their destinies.

All well and good.....Or so goes my theory based on experience.

Of course, I have a long list of people who will also posit that I know fuck-all about anything, so take my post with ye olde grain of salt.

Viva Zappatista! Originally Posted by Frank Zappatista

I'm not a fan of lawyers either, but I would trust the data she uses from the Commerce Department over the Fed's data manipulation. The Fed is being ran by people that couldn't even see the current crisis until it was right on top of us. The Fed has been getting more and more power to STOP these types of crisis and look at us now. The dollar has lost more than 87% of it's buying power since 1913. I don't have any faith in the Federal Reserve.

The Fed, central banks, cause these problems and the founders were smart enough to see it. They fought against banking interests for years before they got a firm foothold through the Federal Reserve Act. Without a middle class there is nothing but elitism and serfdom. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Let me guess. You have about 20% of your assets invested in gold and canned goods right?

Let me guess. You have about 20% of your assets invested in gold and canned goods right? Originally Posted by pjorourke

re-bar, don't forget the re-bar