How it it that most families used to be able to afford a stay-at-home mom before, but now it requires two incomes to raise a family?
2006-10-21 12:44:40 · 4 answers · asked by Ur-4-Sale! 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It scares me how little attention something like this gets.
2006-10-21 13:04:12 · update #1
pay has not increased enough to keep up with overall inflation... I mean, the average cost of a house has like trippled in the last 20 years and I don't think the average pay has even doubled...
something has to give...
the question is... what happens if this trend continues... there is no one else at home to start working...
2006-10-21 12:48:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is the biggest problem we have in this country...no abstract thinking.
First, it is a misnomer that women did not work to support their families. Most of them just weren't part of some corporate payroll. Women worked on farms, they did the bookkeeping for their family business, my great grandmother (1930's)rented rooms in their home, my grandmother went to work for a bank (1950's)when my mother turned 13.
One of the biggest reason we feel it takes two incomes is that we consume much more than our 1950's counterparts and our tax burden as a percentage of income has gotten much bigger. On the consuming side, we go on vacations, we, on average, own two cars, we eat out much more then our 1950's counterparts, we have cable, dvd players, two or more tv, computers, cell phones, microwaves, ipods, our homes have almost double in size while families have gotten smaller. On and on it goes. The statistics are out there. Even Marilyn of the ask marilyn fame, IQ of over 200, admits this.
The governments job seems to be only to get reelected, and they will feed you what can to make you feel as though without their intervention, your life is going to suck. Your children will be uneducated, sick, and a slave to corporations. I have been hearing the same promises now for 25 years (through democractic and republican control). They haven't solve anything, and they won't. Look at those people, dems and repubs, I can name only two or three who are wise enough for me to feel comfortable in allowing them to attempt to solve the real problems in the world.
If you wanted real income redistribution, the government should set up trust funds for every american regardless of income, to be used only on health care, education, retirement, and buying your first home. You get the money when born and it stays with you until you are dead. If you want to read some of the same ideas check out Thomas Paynes (a great american) writings.
2006-10-21 20:20:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sadly, wealth distribution will never happen with the Republicans in power.
The rich have benefitted from tax cuts. Use the alternative minimum tax to pay 1% taxes after write offs. The have benefitted from the Republicans, "trickle down" theory. It don't work.
Until the rich pay their fair share in taxes, 90% of the nations wealth will be controlled by 10% of the population.
The middle class is being taxed to death, to pay for tax cuts for the rich. It shouldn't be that way.
2006-10-21 20:09:57 · answer #3 · answered by Villain 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One of the few things that I agree with "g" on. There needs to be something done, and if nothing is done, our right to bare arms may come in handy for the general public. I am not advocating violence, but if most people can not afford to live, maybe that's the only solution left. I am pretty sure we have got to get regular joe's into office.
EDIT: It scares me also
2006-10-21 20:05:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋