English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Back in the day where the man worked and the wife stayed home, people could afford a home and a car without having the wife work. Now with women working, there is an increase workforce which means lower pay per person because it has to be dividied evenly.

Do you agree with that statement, and what do you think about this?

2006-09-02 16:54:30 · 4 answers · asked by james w 3 in Social Science Sociology

4 answers

I agree that earnings have decreased since the '60s. For example, during the '60's, my father bought a house for $25,000 paying around $25.00/mo. We had two cars in the garage, balanced meals, ability to eat dinner out on the weekends, and my step-mother stayed home. Today, that house is worth $1 million dollars, the monthly mortgage would be out of sight, and even with both partners working, it is hard to keep food on the table and pay for vehicles. We have the added stress of time pressures where fast is not fast enough with the advances in technology. I think it is time to take a long look at what we are striving for, and reassess our lives. Do we really need all this stuff? SUV's? new cars? HDTV? Time to slow down and smell the roses.

2006-09-02 17:17:22 · answer #1 · answered by Rhonda 7 · 0 0

I would only add that after WWII, most people had a much better understanding of self reliance. Now we have a great many people expecting the government and/or their employers to plan their retirement and their health care. For this reason, too many people spend every dime they get every payday, or worse due to the large amount of credit, they are spending it long before it is earned. The result is that they are paying nearly three times the amount of the listed price for homes and vehicles. A 150,000 dollar house becomes a 400,000 dollar purchase, and a 30,000 dollar car becomes an 80,000 dollar car. Add to that the fact that people are living longer, health care becomes a managed expense. It has to, because we are able to keep people alive years on machines that cost more to build and operate than any average person makes in their entire lifetime. But this care is under the control of money managers, because we don't keep control of our own finances. Everybody dies eventually, no matter how much we can spend. So we should accept that its better to pass the money on to our children and let go of what we will lose anyway. The biggest expense is in the last year of most peoples' lives. Retirement funds are depleted, homes and other valuables are sold off, anything to extend a life a month or 12 months and it still doesn't cover the costs.

Longevity comes with two very vital things. Sounds really simple, but its very true. Get a regular sleep schedule of 8-9 hours, and drink lots of water. Since the invention of the electric light bulb people have steadily reduce the amount of regular sleep to 6 hours on average, and with sodas and coffee, people have reduced their plain water intake to almost nothing. Studies show that sleep will help the body recover from nearly everything we do with it. But it needs water to flush out the toxins.

http://judgeright.blogspot.com

2006-09-02 17:37:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

On the contrary, earnings have increased since 1960. And of course inflation have increased too. Houses and cars now cost more money as cost of living increased. The buying power of the money has just decreased. Moreover, it's not true that because of working women in the work force, the pay has to be decreased to be divided evenly.

No,as more jobs require more skills ;of course the pay has to commensurate with the degree of specialty. So it's not unusual for a person in a higher level to be making more money. And a person with more education and experience tend to make more
than one with out . The gender has nothing to do with it esp if it depends on the degree of difficulty the job entails.


What it boils down to, is that earnings were lower then as commodities were cheaper. Now, earnings are higher as commodities are more expensive. It's a question of supply and demand.

2006-09-02 17:36:16 · answer #3 · answered by rosieC 7 · 0 0

Well, you've gotta remember that cars were of a lower quality back then, so cheaper, and that men were paid an artifically high rate out of sex discrimination. Although I don't have a source with me here, I am an economics major, and I've had multiple professors state that, after inflation is adjusted for, the annual income increases (on average) by 3.8% per person per year. People didn't really have it well off back then, it's just made out to be that way.

2006-09-02 17:01:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers