Leonidas
Posts: 2078
Joined: 2/16/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
I know this sounds like I need a tin foil hat ... but again, examine the factual numbers. Men make just a high a percentage of income compared to the GNP, as they did when most women didn't work ... more in fact. The difference is that the average American family spends, and spends, and spends. If we spent less, there would be more than enough money with one income to support a family ... but that would mean no plasma TV, or cars that cost as much as a house.  Um... yeah. Here are a couple of things for you to consider caitlyn. It's good that you're in school right now being schooled on things. A couple of things that you need to consider though is that nobody is particularly motivated to do a study on how the economy has adjusted to women in the workplace and whether their entry into the workplace has had any detrimental effect. Any study to that effect would be done outside academia by some "conservative" think tank and be just as quickly dismissed as heresy. In 1968, my Uncle was a policeman in Los Angeles. He earned about $19,000 dollars that year. He bought a middle-class house that year in Orange County for about $32,500, or roughly twice his blue-collar salary. He also bought a Chevy Nova that year, new, for $2500. So the house cost roughly twice his salary. The car cost about an eighth of what he made. A middle class, nothing special house in the LA area (though it would be much farther from the city now) would run about $350,000 today. A mid-sized chevy would cost about $20,000 or so. A cop with a few years on the force in LA earns around $65,000 now. So the house costs about 5 times a blue-collar salary. A car about 30%. Quite a change from 1968. In fact, oddly enough, these things somehow, strangely, seem to cost about double (relative to the salary figure) what they used to. Is that a wierd coincidence? Or, maybe, has the economy just adjusted to assume that there will be two people earning per household, rather than one? It's not that people are hyper-spending, caitlyn, a two-check household is now needed to have the same basic living standard that my uncle had in 1968 with one check. You'll find this out when you have actually been out there a few years. Did feminism and its attendant imparative (at least early in the movement) for women to get out there and be financially independant of their husbands cause this? As with most things in economics, it can't be proven, and so is subject to the interpretation of the person doing the analysis. Milton Friedman once said that he was sure that monitary policy had an effect on the economy, even though he could not scientifically show causation. His answer was that it's effect just had a "long and variable lag". A laughable assertion, except that we're talking about a Nobel laureate economist making it.
< Message edited by Leonidas -- 1/2/2007 4:22:04 PM >
_____________________________
Take care of yourself Leonidas
|