sanskrit Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 how do you change all of this? you don't. Sure you can, it's an individual choice that people might prefer an old-fashioned lifestyle might make. The options are all there. My post was an answer to the claim that a single earner traditional household is impossible today. It's not impossible, just requires common sense and the right choices. Spend your money on custom clothes, furniture, etc., as you like. You are not a single income earner attempting to support a family on a limited income. There are several material factual inaccuracies in your last post, but since they don't really detract from the thread topic or my prior post, am not going to spend time pointing them out.
Lucky_One Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 The unspoken problem in this thread so far is that nothing other than the standards of consumption and luxury have changed, and IMO the problem lies with consumption/luxury standards as much as with gender roles. The old fashioned way is very much available, even more so, here are some examples. Housing - In the past, having a family of four in a modest 1500 sq ft house was the norm. Today, good luck finding houses of that size in decent shape in decent neighborhoods near jobs in most areas of the U.S. Advances in construction together with lower cost materials have made it possible to build cheap, decent quality housing. Are those being built? NO. We are awash in garden tubs, corian or handpoured kitchen counters, custom flooring, etc. Decent furniture has never been cheaper, but decent is no longer good enough. Functional utilitarian furniture is verboten, everything must be custom made of the "finest" materials or it doesn't sell. My ass can't tell the difference between a pine chair and a walnut one. Why do we do this to ourselves? Cars - The used car market has never been better. One can get transportation costs including gasoline lower than ever before by buying 5 y.o. cars in good condition, using them for 5 years, then switching. Do people do that? NO. They wastefully buy brand new gigantic SUVS and the like. And when I was growing up, families carpooled even short repetitive trips to take children to school etc. No more, that looks too -shabby- today. Why? Child-raising - Children used to be parts of families, not the governors of them. The amount spent on children's clothing, entertainment, activities and lower level education in this country is insane. Braces are considered de rigeur on children with near flawless teeth to begin with, families waste thousands of dollars on elite preschools and kindergartens as opposed to shouldering most of the child rearing process themselves. Of course a two earner income is required for all this when in actuality more TIME with the parents is the sensible alternative. Why? Clothing has never been cheaper in this country. You can buy functional, good looking clothing at ridiculously low prices merely by finding outlet stores. I have a very nice wardrobe, and haven't spent more than $7 on a shirt in the last ten years or $40 on a pair of shoes, yet we cram expensive malls full and buy outrageously marked up clothing at "prestige" retailers. Why? Good quality food has never been cheaper. In my youth, the kind of fresh fruit/fresh vegetable lean protein diet I consume would have been outrageously expensive, and the best foods for a family require little preparation. Yet we pack into "casual dining" restaurants and become addicted to additive sugar and fat, believe the lies restaurants tell about how wholesome the food is and fuel the fat/sugar addiction with starchy expensive fast foods. When we aren't eating, we are drinking custom coffee and paying outlandish markups in haute cuisine restaurants where the food is no more healthy than the chain. Home products have never been cheaper, yet we use custom soaps, detergents, house goods of all kind. Why? In the past people MOVED to where the jobs and affordable housing was. No more. People sit stubbornly waiting to afford the $750,000 1200 sq ft teardown in the chichi zip code. WHY? I'm not making a case for zealous penny pinching, just common sense. The reason most of these threads exist lately is because we refuse to take advantage of the easily affordable life available, and instead focus on some luxury addicted life none of us needs to be happy. Why? What an EXCELLENT post! (Granted, I am pretty much a rampant consumer, but still.....this is SO true!)
phineas Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 The unspoken problem in this thread so far is that nothing other than the standards of consumption and luxury have changed, and IMO the problem lies with consumption/luxury standards as much as with gender roles. The old fashioned way is very much available, even more so, here are some examples. Housing - In the past, having a family of four in a modest 1500 sq ft house was the norm. Today, good luck finding houses of that size in decent shape in decent neighborhoods near jobs in most areas of the U.S. Advances in construction together with lower cost materials have made it possible to build cheap, decent quality housing. Are those being built? NO. We are awash in garden tubs, corian or handpoured kitchen counters, custom flooring, etc. Decent furniture has never been cheaper, but decent is no longer good enough. Functional utilitarian furniture is verboten, everything must be custom made of the "finest" materials or it doesn't sell. My ass can't tell the difference between a pine chair and a walnut one. Why do we do this to ourselves? Cars - The used car market has never been better. One can get transportation costs including gasoline lower than ever before by buying 5 y.o. cars in good condition, using them for 5 years, then switching. Do people do that? NO. They wastefully buy brand new gigantic SUVS and the like. And when I was growing up, families carpooled even short repetitive trips to take children to school etc. No more, that looks too -shabby- today. Why? Child-raising - Children used to be parts of families, not the governors of them. The amount spent on children's clothing, entertainment, activities and lower level education in this country is insane. Braces are considered de rigeur on children with near flawless teeth to begin with, families waste thousands of dollars on elite preschools and kindergartens as opposed to shouldering most of the child rearing process themselves. Of course a two earner income is required for all this when in actuality more TIME with the parents is the sensible alternative. Why? Clothing has never been cheaper in this country. You can buy functional, good looking clothing at ridiculously low prices merely by finding outlet stores. I have a very nice wardrobe, and haven't spent more than $7 on a shirt in the last ten years or $40 on a pair of shoes, yet we cram expensive malls full and buy outrageously marked up clothing at "prestige" retailers. Why? Good quality food has never been cheaper. In my youth, the kind of fresh fruit/fresh vegetable lean protein diet I consume would have been outrageously expensive, and the best foods for a family require little preparation. Yet we pack into "casual dining" restaurants and become addicted to additive sugar and fat, believe the lies restaurants tell about how wholesome the food is and fuel the fat/sugar addiction with starchy expensive fast foods. When we aren't eating, we are drinking custom coffee and paying outlandish markups in haute cuisine restaurants where the food is no more healthy than the chain. Home products have never been cheaper, yet we use custom soaps, detergents, house goods of all kind. Why? In the past people MOVED to where the jobs and affordable housing was. No more. People sit stubbornly waiting to afford the $750,000 1200 sq ft teardown in the chichi zip code. WHY? I'm not making a case for zealous penny pinching, just common sense. The reason most of these threads exist lately is because we refuse to take advantage of the easily affordable life available, and instead focus on some luxury addicted life none of us needs to be happy. Why? This here. So much excess. So many women I know that will spend their las few bucks on designer clothes & rely on a man to feed them.
sweetjasmine Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 The unspoken problem in this thread so far is that nothing other than the standards of consumption and luxury have changed, and IMO the problem lies with consumption/luxury standards as much as with gender roles. The old fashioned way is very much available, even more so, here are some examples. Housing - In the past, having a family of four in a modest 1500 sq ft house was the norm. Today, good luck finding houses of that size in decent shape in decent neighborhoods near jobs in most areas of the U.S. Advances in construction together with lower cost materials have made it possible to build cheap, decent quality housing. Are those being built? NO. We are awash in garden tubs, corian or handpoured kitchen counters, custom flooring, etc. Decent furniture has never been cheaper, but decent is no longer good enough. Functional utilitarian furniture is verboten, everything must be custom made of the "finest" materials or it doesn't sell. My ass can't tell the difference between a pine chair and a walnut one. Why do we do this to ourselves? Cars - The used car market has never been better. One can get transportation costs including gasoline lower than ever before by buying 5 y.o. cars in good condition, using them for 5 years, then switching. Do people do that? NO. They wastefully buy brand new gigantic SUVS and the like. And when I was growing up, families carpooled even short repetitive trips to take children to school etc. No more, that looks too -shabby- today. Why? Child-raising - Children used to be parts of families, not the governors of them. The amount spent on children's clothing, entertainment, activities and lower level education in this country is insane. Braces are considered de rigeur on children with near flawless teeth to begin with, families waste thousands of dollars on elite preschools and kindergartens as opposed to shouldering most of the child rearing process themselves. Of course a two earner income is required for all this when in actuality more TIME with the parents is the sensible alternative. Why? Clothing has never been cheaper in this country. You can buy functional, good looking clothing at ridiculously low prices merely by finding outlet stores. I have a very nice wardrobe, and haven't spent more than $7 on a shirt in the last ten years or $40 on a pair of shoes, yet we cram expensive malls full and buy outrageously marked up clothing at "prestige" retailers. Why? Good quality food has never been cheaper. In my youth, the kind of fresh fruit/fresh vegetable lean protein diet I consume would have been outrageously expensive, and the best foods for a family require little preparation. Yet we pack into "casual dining" restaurants and become addicted to additive sugar and fat, believe the lies restaurants tell about how wholesome the food is and fuel the fat/sugar addiction with starchy expensive fast foods. When we aren't eating, we are drinking custom coffee and paying outlandish markups in haute cuisine restaurants where the food is no more healthy than the chain. Home products have never been cheaper, yet we use custom soaps, detergents, house goods of all kind. Why? In the past people MOVED to where the jobs and affordable housing was. No more. People sit stubbornly waiting to afford the $750,000 1200 sq ft teardown in the chichi zip code. WHY? I'm not making a case for zealous penny pinching, just common sense. The reason most of these threads exist lately is because we refuse to take advantage of the easily affordable life available, and instead focus on some luxury addicted life none of us needs to be happy. Why? Everyone always makes these arguments, but they're not entirely true. The expenses that have skyrocketed are mortgages, health insurance, cars (needing 2 instead of just 1), child care (since both parents have to work), and taxes. A few years ago, Elizabeth Warren crunched the numbers and analyzed what's changed with the shift from one income households to two income households for median earners. It's not just people spending money on new cars and shoes. People actually were spending less on things like food, clothes, appliances and individual cars in 2004 than they were in 1970. And as for housing, the median-sized house grew from 5.8 rooms to 6.1 rooms, so the housing costs aren't really about people buying gigantic McMansions. It's about the huge bubble that inflated housing costs until everything burst and collapsed. She also points out the average family today is 50% more likely to live in a house that's 25 years old or older, so it's not a question of everyone rushing to buy brand new houses every 5 years. I highly recommend listening to her lecture. The real numbers don't match people's intuition since people focus on the actions of the top 5-10% without realizing exactly what they're looking at:
thatone Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Sure you can, it's an individual choice that people might prefer an old-fashioned lifestyle might make. The options are all there. i was speaking in terms of changing the opinions of society, not changing as an individual. society can't change, everyone would have to be dragged kicking and screaming .
carhill Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Some more fantasy: The modest house I grew up in (still own it) cost my dad about the equivalent, absent 3.75% interest, of two years wages back in 1953. My primary transportation is almost as old as I am. My parents always owned two cars (I have pictures from the mid-50's showing this, since I wasn't born yet) and paid cash for them, generally keeping them five years or so. My dad needed a car to get to work and my mom needed one to discharge her duties managing the house and, later, tricycle boy. We rarely ate in a restaurant. I remember one year, as part of 'fair day', going to the local McDonalds (actually the first McD's franchise in the country) for a 30 cent burger as a 'treat'. Mom bought quality clothes (she used to sell them, before becoming a SAHM) and sewed most of her own, from patterns. She also altered my dads suits/pants (he worked a white collar job). We had a 'gardener'. He was called the 'lawn man' and I recall he was paid six dollars a month for taking care of the yard. Later, I would become the 'lawn boy'. Milk and cream was delivered on the front porch. The 'Fuller Brush man' was a regular visitor, as were other door to door salespeople. 'Air cooling' (HVAC) was a 'new thing' for 'regular people'. Most of our neighbors had 'swamp coolers' (evaporative coolers). I replaced that original 50 year old unit last year at substantial cost. Who builds stuff to last 50 years anymore? Fantasy. There was only one TV, a then 'new' color TV, in the house. Back then, a good color TV cost half the price of a cheap car and lasted a lot less. I recall lots of trips to the store for 'tubes', as well as a regular visit from the TV repairman and his degaussing magnet. Who handled most of this stuff? Yep, that was the domestic engineer, mom. If something needed fixing, she either fixed it herself or called the repair person. Runing the household and being the daytime parent was a full-time job. Very little time for rest and no 'getting away', like coming home from a job. Yet she, and many women of her generation, even with exposure, like she had, to the wider world, made the choice to take on the job. Life is full of choices.
Woggle Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 I think women are sick of the rat race just like men are and returning to a simpler time sounds appealing. People with masters degrees are working themselves to the point of exhaustion for half the standard of living that a high school graduate's one income used to provide and it is frustrating. I also think women are having as hard a time with shifting gender roles as men are though most will never admit it in public. When a person is having no luck in love it is easy to blame the modern world instead of looking at themselves.
Intricategirl Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Everyone always makes these arguments, but they're not entirely true. The expenses that have skyrocketed are mortgages, health insurance, cars (needing 2 instead of just 1), child care (since both parents have to work), and taxes. A few years ago, Elizabeth Warren crunched the numbers and analyzed what's changed with the shift from one income households to two income households for median earners. It's not just people spending money on new cars and shoes. People actually were spending less on things like food, clothes, appliances and individual cars in 2004 than they were in 1970. And as for housing, the median-sized house grew from 5.8 rooms to 6.1 rooms, so the housing costs aren't really about people buying gigantic McMansions. It's about the huge bubble that inflated housing costs until everything burst and collapsed. She also points out the average family today is 50% more likely to live in a house that's 25 years old or older, so it's not a question of everyone rushing to buy brand new houses every 5 years. I highly recommend listening to her lecture. The real numbers don't match people's intuition since people focus on the actions of the top 5-10% without realizing exactly what they're looking at: There's several flaws with this thought. First, most of the costs you mention are costs that are not incurred if there are not two people working. An additional car to get to a second job is not necessary if there isn't a second job in the family. Childcare is not necessary if one person is staying at home watching the kids. And who do you think created the bubble that inflated housing costs? A homebuilder is not going to build homes that they believe will not sell. It was an increased demand on the part of those who had easily available credit given to them that caused the builders to create the homes available for purchase. Pretty simple supply/demand. Furthermore, taxes, as a percentage of income, went down in 2009 to the lowest level since 1950, so taxes are not higher when you're talking about a percentage of household income. http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm I didn't watch the video, but from what you suggest, her numbers are about what changed between the 1950's and today. That's an entirely different question than whether it's necessary or desirable to have a two income household. If one person in the family unit has a job, they probably need a car to get to work. Most elementary schools are located within easy walking distance, so for a few years at least, it's not as necessary for a second adult member to have one. But if a second adult works, they need a car to get to their job as well. In addition, there are maintenance costs, which raise the cost even more. There are often special clothes that they will need for work such as suits or uniforms. There is the need for each member to eat lunch, which often means eating out or raising their gas bill to drive home for lunch. In addition, it's extremely unlikely that the jobs will be equidistant from the house, therefore even if they live close enough for one person to walk, it's unlikely the second could. Most people figure the income as increasing, but they forget to add in the additional costs they are incurring. And often, they find themselves on a hamster wheel of trying to get ahead, without stopping to consider whether it's really in their best interest or not. And oddly enough, those on the lower end of middle income get hit harder than those at the higher end by getting a second job. Because housing costs have their low point where you really don't find anything under a certain price. Cars don't get cheaper just because you need one and are on the low end of middle income. The necessity remains, but there isn't additional income to make it any easier. It just looks like there is on paper.
threebyfate Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 This here. So much excess. So many women I know that will spend their las few bucks on designer clothes & rely on a man to feed them.What is it with you guys? Do you just know or are attracted to stupid bimbos who can't make a decent living on their own and overspend because they can't balance a bank account? One has to sincerely wonder what kind of women you guys are targeting to gain that kind of attitude.
threebyfate Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 "Typical" ones.Then there must be a gazillion a-typical women I know in real life. Or is it that you're drawn to women with certain qualities and then encounter the negative aspects of the same qualities you're looking for? Say you're attracted to women who flatter and heavily lean on their men, kind of dumb so they won't "challenge" your intellect or "manhood". What do you suppose the downsides to these women are?
Woggle Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Sometimes with dating it is a matter of picking your poison. Either find a woman who boosts your ego and depends on you but expects you to take care of her or a super independent woman who acts distant and can take or leave you. Not saying these are the only choices but that is how many men see it.
threebyfate Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Sometimes with dating it is a matter of picking your poison. Either find a woman who boosts your ego and depends on you but expects you to take care of her or a super independent woman who acts distant and can take or leave you. Not saying these are the only choices but that is how many men see it.I'd say most women fall somewhere between what you've described. And the men who "see it" in the polarized fashion, aren't terribly attached to reality.
Mme. Chaucer Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Where does that uneasiness come from? How would you qualify such a woman? Here's my short list: -Has my back, always. Every minute of every day, I know we're a team in life. -Our family is her priority. -She guards *our* money like the bullion in Fort Knox. Every aspect of our solvency and potential is important to her. No issue is too inconsequential. TBH, I've met very few women like this in my life, even those married to others. Still a lot of life left yet though I don't ask for characteristics I don't bring to the table. I'm not one of them, unfortunately! I have the first 2 qualities in my relationship; my handling of money is not up to par and sometimes I use spending it to "fix" some of my issues ... very temporarily. In my relationship, I have "my" money and he has "his," but I think this is going to need to be somehow amended. We are not young and if we are staying together for the rest of our lives, we'll need to decide how the assets available will be used for the time when no more earning is taking place. Anyway, there are plenty of ways I can feel "taken care of" by him without him being financially responsible for me. Of course I realize that the circumstances are different for a couple like us who have already raised our kids, etc., than they are for younger people thinking about embarking upon all that with a partner.
sanskrit Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) The expenses that have skyrocketed are mortgages, health insurance, cars (needing 2 instead of just 1), child care (since both parents have to work), and taxes. Are you talking about housing prices or -mortgage- prices? Mortgage prices are at all time low, and have been since the early nineties. Housing prices continue to correct, and the primary reasons housing costs bubbled to begin with are related to bad if not completely fraudulent lending practices exacerbated by government involvement in the mortgage market, lax government regulation of banks and credit providers (in other words corruption and influence peddling), and the demand for larger, fancier houses (luxury addiction) despite that they aren't needed. As much as I think many consumers are luxury addicts, centralized government caused the housing bubble at least as much as demand. Your (Warren's) "rooms" stat is specious, as the rooms themselves are -much- larger today than in the past, and some of the biggest luxury sinks in housing, bathrooms, closets and garages, aren't counted as rooms. The stat you cite obviously doesn't include the primary luxury "pits" in the house. And why is Warren using the counterintuitive "number of rooms stat" as opposed to the intuitive "square feet" stat? I know why already, she is pushing a political agenda. More on why you shouldn't listen to snakes like Warren later. Health insurance costs have spiraled due to a number of reasons, let's talk about one, the "child worship" I mentioned earlier. My generation of people grew up just fine going to the doctor once a year, but today, if you look at the medical bills for children and number of doctor visits, you would think that most children have one foot in the grave. If blessed jesus junior is not -perfect- in every way, it's off to the doctor to "fix" him. Luxury addicted consumers have learned to "fit" their consumption of medical services right up to the bar of what is "free" in their employer's plan, driving costs up for all. This is primarily a -gender- issue. If insurers or employers try to limit this tendency, the plaintiff's bar, big brother, and an army of statist/feminists led by slimy, dishonest hacks like Warren will CRUSH them into submission. Blessed junior gets his allergy screen every six months, no ifs ands or buts, he has a right as an American not to ever have a rash after all. Car quality, life expectancy and fuel efficiency have gone up -drastically- over the last 30 years, and whereas new -luxury- cars are more expensive, reliable, energy efficient transportation has never been cheaper... provided the consumer thinks before buying. "Needing two instead of one" makes no sense until it can be demonstrated that consumers are utilizing mass transit and carpooling, and my contention is that they aren't. In almost all families, the second car is a pure luxury. Child care is expensive, admittedly, my contention remains that more child care is purchased to enable luxurious lifestyles than to enable a basic lifestyle. Taxes, in short, if the division of labor in a family is equitable between working spouse, and caregiving spouse, taxes won't be a big problem. And if the family is willing to move to where jobs are more plentiful and expenses low, as people in this country have done since inception, most if not all the cost issues you list are manageable. As Sam Kinison (RIP) exhorted, "MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS!! AHH AHH AHHHHHHH!":laugh: Part of luxury addiction is stubbornly remaining in an area one can't really afford in hopes of being able to leverage oneself into the "right" zip code one day. This is also a gender issue. Why is Warren a snake? Why am I dissing her? First, her "happening to find a researcher to crunch numbers, and being shocked :rolleyes: at the results not matching her preconceived notions," is a craven, bald-faced lie, obvious to anyone with any critical thinking ability. She set out to find statistics to support her ideology, likely contorted and massaged the stats until they did (ala using the "number of rooms" stat. etc.), and then comes humbly with an insincere mea culpa, "I was wrong, turns out my -ideology- was right!" That people like this have their names associated with Thomas Jefferson nauseates me. The last 40 years have seen 1) an explosion in low income, government backed/Section 8 welfare housing construction, skewing stats such as "room number," yet not applying to the average working family who makes too much money to qualify, (and which you will never hear Warren talking about), 2) the greatest immigration explosion, legal and otherwise, in the country's history (which you will never hear Warren talking about but has all sorts of effects on stats and the ease with which they can be massaged), 3) a telecomm technology explosion that allows importation of service industry labor (which you will never hear Warren talking about). You won't ever hear her talking about those issues because of obvious conflicts with leftist ideology. All she's about is perpetuating big government, big spending, and the welfare state, not an honest assessment of the issues and prospective solutions. I highly recommend listening to her lecture. The real numbers don't match people's intuition since people focus on the actions of the top 5-10% without realizing exactly what they're looking at: I also recommend listening to it, as it is a perfect example of what to be wary of when ideologies are being peddled. It's actually a boring snooze of an emotion-laden lecture though, short on facts, and long on massaged stats, so be warned of that before listening. Edited May 30, 2011 by sanskrit
Queen Zenobia Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Are you talking about housing prices or -mortgage- prices? Mortgage prices are at all time low, and have been since the early nineties. Housing prices continue to correct, and the primary reasons housing costs bubbled to begin with are related to bad if not completely fraudulent lending practices exacerbated by government involvement in the mortgage market, lax government regulation of banks and credit providers (in other words corruption and influence peddling), and the demand for larger, fancier houses (luxury addiction) despite that they aren't needed. As much as I think many consumers are luxury addicts, centralized government caused the housing bubble at least as much as demand. This is 100% correct. The primary cause of housing prices going up was an artificially created housing bubble. Health insurance costs have spiraled due to a number of reasons, let's talk about one, the "child worship" I mentioned earlier. My generation of people grew up just fine going to the doctor once a year, but today, if you look at the medical bills for children and number of doctor visits, you would think that most children have one foot in the grave. If blessed jesus junior is not -perfect- in every way, it's off to the doctor to "fix" him. Luxury addicted consumers have learned to "fit" their consumption of medical services right up to the bar of what is "free" in their employer's plan, driving costs up for all. This is primarily a -gender- issue. If insurers or employers try to limit this tendency, the plaintiff's bar, big brother, and an army of statist/feminists led by slimy, dishonest hacks like Warren will CRUSH them into submission. Blessed junior gets his allergy screen every six months, no ifs ands or buts, he has a right as an American not to ever have a rash after all. I think if you look at the numbers you will find that a lot of the costs have gone up due to newer, much more expensive technologies and surgeries designed to save people lives; much of them weren't even available 25 years ago, let alone 50 years ago. Several studies have found that somewhere between 75 and 85% of health care costs go toward catastrophic illness and care in the six months of life. Most of those are not reflective of "child worship". Car quality, life expectancy and fuel efficiency have gone up -drastically- over the last 30 years, and whereas new -luxury- cars are more expensive, reliable, energy efficient transportation has never been cheaper... provided the consumer thinks before buying. "Needing two instead of one" makes no sense until it can be demonstrated that consumers are utilizing mass transit and carpooling, and my contention is that they aren't. In almost all families, the second car is a pure luxury. To a large extent you are correct here. But, we also have to examine the explosion of the outer suburbs and the exurbs. Previously rural or moderately rural communities that have an explosion in population and development driven primarily by workers seeking safer neighborhoods, good schools and cheaper and bigger homes that these communities offer while still being within driving range of a major metropolitan area in which they work. Often the exurbs lack the public transportation infrastructure that inner suburbs or cities do and thus a second car used for simply getting around town or driving Junior to football practice becomes necessary. 2) the greatest immigration explosion, legal and otherwise, in the country's history (which you will never hear Warren talking about but has all sorts of effects on stats and the ease with which they can be massaged) Yes the rise in immigration does have an effect on stats, but, I don't think the rise in immigration is a bad thing in and of itself.
thatone Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 You won't ever hear her talking about those issues because of obvious conflicts with leftist ideology. All she's about is perpetuating big government, big spending, and the welfare state, not an honest assessment of the issues and prospective solutions. I also recommend listening to it, as it is a perfect example of what to be wary of when ideologies are being peddled. It's actually a boring snooze of an emotion-laden lecture though, short on facts, and long on massaged stats, so be warned of that before listening. you were almost making sense until you posted the above. you won't hear her talking about the issues you prefer because they're just as much fantasy as everything else we're talking about. there is no grand conspiracy. there's just the facts. if your political ideology doesn't mesh with the facts you might question your political ideology, rather than said facts. the only person in centralized government that had any meaningful impact on the housing bubble was alan greenspan. interest rates were too low for too long. that's your ideology's fault, not anyone else's.
Queen Zenobia Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 the only person in centralized government that had any meaningful impact on the housing bubble was alan greenspan. interest rates were too low for too long. that's your ideology's fault, not anyone else's. Not to but in but I think this should be clarified. Alan Greenspan was a monetarist. Despite what politicians and the American media would like everyone to think, schools of economic thought do not fit in neatly into "conservative" and "liberal" categories. As someone who leans more towards the Austrian school of economics, I would criticize both Greenspan's policies and leftist policies in general on very similar grounds.
sanskrit Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Several studies have found that somewhere between 75 and 85% of health care costs go toward catastrophic illness and care in the six months of life. Most of those are not reflective of "child worship". And such studies are discounting out medicare and medicaid funded care entirely? or not? If they -do-, I'd love to read such studies. Otherwise, just more illicit stat massage towards political purpose. But recall, unnecessary medical care for children was just one example. There is lots of other meat in the "spiraling health care costs" topic. I am trying to focus on the thread specific issues. Often the exurbs lack the public transportation infrastructure that inner suburbs or cities do and thus a second car used for simply getting around town or driving Junior to football practice becomes necessary. Granted, but still maintain that smart choices and planning obviate the need for second cars in most situations. Most exurban areas are somewhat compact with concentrations of heavy population in large neighborhoods, for years, I rode home with my wrestling coach and son who lived down the block for example, and carpooling to the nearest mass transit is laughably underutilized in my current metro area. HOV lanes? mostly empty. These are signs of poor choices if the goal is frugality in transportation costs. Yes the rise in immigration does have an effect on stats, but, I don't think the rise in immigration is a bad thing in and of itself. Agreed, the purpose of even mentioning it was to give just a few examples of Warren's transparency and disingenuousness.
sanskrit Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) you were almost making sense until you posted the above. Let's see if I can make more sense for you. Oh, and I'm not a Republican btw. I don't like them either, and would be just as quick to expose political pandering in the guise of "sound academics" from the right as from the left. Will say that the left is egregiously dishonest in its efforts to cloak its ideological motives in supposed "academic purity" in comparison to the right, which has its own pet faults not topical to this thread. you won't hear her talking about the issues you prefer because they're just as much fantasy as everything else we're talking about. So, you are saying that the issues of entitlements, immigration and importation of service economy labor are "fantasy" issues? Good to know we can stop worrying about them But my point was simply that Warren's taking basic (if massaged) stats without accounting for the effects of broad societal trends on such stats is either a) naive or b) academically dishonest (and with all those letters after her name, let's go with "b" shall we?), which is not an ideological question, but one of veracity and credibility. For example, claiming that the number of rooms in houses is a meaningful statistic in making a case that the middle class is losing ground in housing quality without examining how entitlement housing and immigration might bear on such statistics one way or the other is beyond dishonest. there is no grand conspiracy. I agree with this. Conspiracies are hidden, the unquestioning gullibility of the average American allows them to do it RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACES with aplomb. if your political ideology doesn't mesh with the facts you might question your political ideology, rather than said facts. Perhaps you need to learn to distinguish between unwarranted assumptions and weak correlations derived from massaged statistics and "facts." the only person in centralized government that had any meaningful impact on the housing bubble was alan greenspan. interest rates were too low for too long. that's your ideology's fault, not anyone else's. Oh, how silly of me, there's a single, Republican appointee to blame everything on! Well in that case no need to look further I guess. Couldn't have had anything to do with the (lobbied for) rollback of Glass Steagall, the (lobbied for) declawing of the various antitrust acts where financial institutions are concerned, the alternating (lobbied for) "look the other way at derivatives regulation" between the CFTC, the SEC and the OCC, the (lobbied for) unwarranted government social engineering of the mortgage markets via federal guarantees and creation of quasi government mortgage entities (all arguably unconstitutional), the (lobbied for) lax enforcement of lending standards, the (lobbied for) lax regulation of derivatives and securitization financial products in supposedly federally regulated entity portfolios... Oh btw, "lobbied for" is a nice way of saying "product of central government and industry collusion and corruption." But I guess, it was all that GREENSPAN villain, that Ronald Reagan (oh, the horror!) appointee, that dastardly gnome who did this to all of us.... right. Edited May 30, 2011 by sanskrit
thatone Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Not to but in but I think this should be clarified. Alan Greenspan was a monetarist. Despite what politicians and the American media would like everyone to think, schools of economic thought do not fit in neatly into "conservative" and "liberal" categories. As someone who leans more towards the Austrian school of economics, I would criticize both Greenspan's policies and leftist policies in general on very similar grounds. which is a silly fairy tale notion of economics. you can't favor corporate or individual interests with a magic wand of monetary policy and cover everyone's best interest. favoring corporate interest left us with a credit bubble that burst very loudly. favoring individual interests would've left us with stagnant growth. and all of these are related to tax/import/export policy, because no one nation's economic policy is very much of a help or hindrance anymore, honestly, when producers can simply pack up and move somewhere more favorable with no penalty. it's all related. there is no right, just a lot of wrong.
Queen Zenobia Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 which is a silly fairy tale notion of economics. you can't favor corporate or individual interests with a magic wand of monetary policy and cover everyone's best interest. favoring corporate interest left us with a credit bubble that burst very loudly. favoring individual interests would've left us with stagnant growth. and all of these are related to tax/import/export policy, because no one nation's economic policy is very much of a help or hindrance anymore, honestly, when producers can simply pack up and move somewhere more favorable with no penalty. it's all related. there is no right, just a lot of wrong. My point is that Alan Greenspan isn't necessarily an example of pure "conservativism", because that term encompasses a broad range of ideas about economics just as the term "liberal" does. The bubble was artificially created by government involvement in the housing market, an involvement that was not necessary nor positive. More government involvement is bad not good.
zengirl Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 I want an old-fashioned woman, however, will not be able to acheive the old-fashioned lifestyle for any woman, plus multiple people IN the household at once time, it's just unrealistic. I think if you want the old-fashioned values but cannot play your part, it's a bit odd. But I guess it depends on what you mean by saying you want an old-fashioned woman. I also don't think women somehow fall into Woggle's two groups as aloof and independent or a woman to be taken care of. There's a whole broad and not-easily-simplified spectrum of viewpoints. The lady in question seems a bit list-making to me, and that's not really my style, but I didn't find tons of things that are objectionable wholly (most are not my cuppa). Nor do I find the deadline thing a big deal. Lots of people have deadlines for things. I think it's a personality trait. And, no, everyone doesn't like PDA. I do, but tons of people don't. I don't know that I like "wet kisses" or that most people do either (well, I don't like the wording; sounds like I'd be slobbered on). That part just sounded weird!
ChessPieceFace Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 And get this, wants a man who is willing to be married AND have children within the next TWO years. She actually puts in a deadline for this kind of thing which would make any man uneasy(this could also be another thread, where people have deadlines in mind when it comes to dating then marriage) You can't put a deadline on such things, right? lol Probably seems dumb, OTOH it could weed out guys who have no intention of having kids. But in the end it will probably weed out most everyone... She even delegates that PDA is highly encouraged, wet passionate kisses, and touching spontaneously is indeed desirable. It's one of those, "Why does this person need to express this in a profile, when it's not even necessary, I mean what person doesn't desire "wet kisses and PDA"? I DON'T. I know several girls that don't either. What makes you think everyone wants PDA? I happen to think it's classless to make out in public.
PeachyPink Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 There was indeed a thread here of a woman wanting a man who would have sufficient enough income to support her family, and even kids when the have them. What's really wierd, I'm an OLD-fashioned guy myself, but however, when I hear women state, "I'm seeking a man who can support me and my kids"...it makes me uneasy. I want an old-fashioned woman, however, will not be able to acheive the old-fashioned lifestyle for any woman, plus multiple people IN the household at once time, it's just unrealistic. That being said, maybe I'm not as old-fashioned as I think? Here are some excerpts I had read about in a profile of a woman who claims to be old-fashioned She tends to descibe herself AS the stereotypical housewife (if she were ever to get married) And get this, wants a man who is willing to be married AND have children within the next TWO years. She actually puts in a deadline for this kind of thing which would make any man uneasy(this could also be another thread, where people have deadlines in mind when it comes to dating then marriage) You can't put a deadline on such things, right? lol It sounds more like a formal write-up, even how she express how she enjoys affection, doesn't seemingly give you the warm fuzzies. She even delegates that PDA is highly encouraged, wet passionate kisses, and touching spontaneously is indeed desirable. It's one of those, "Why does this person need to express this in a profile, when it's not even necessary, I mean what person doesn't desire "wet kisses and PDA"? She says she has a tender heart, intelligent, and quick witted, and looking for a man to "take the lead" and "Man up" Even states she wants a man who even want to make a world a bit better than what it is.There are a lot of women who just want a man to support them so they can stay at home and not have to work. At least this one is honest about it.
Recommended Posts