One income families...

[run4it]

Originally Posted by Dougles

Run you bring up a valid point, i read a servey that said 50% of children are born out of wedlock. Meanwhile during the 60's and 70's that number was MUCH MUCH smaller, their are a lot more single parent households who don't have the option for a stay at home parent.

However, you missed the second posting, the Buffalo news letter the day after i posted my thread. The one where the UNION guy blames corp greed/Republicans for the downfall of the one income familly.

Oh instead of a gym haven't you ever heard of a walk or run? I mean you do live in the "safe" city of buffalo right?

My point about the single parent homes was: if a father is working 50, 60, 70 hours to support the family, he's really not around to be much of a parent, is he? That makes a de facto single parent home, even though Dad is around to sleep and occasionally watch the 11pm edition of SportsCenter.

I didn't read the letter blaming corporations/GOP greed. But I do notice that you are unable to resist the possibility of blaming DEMs. It's pretty much an unfortunate given.

I live in a safe part of the city, and yes I do quite a bit of running (get it: RUN4it?) However, try running (or really walking) for a good workout around here between November and April. Notice that there aren't too terribly many homegrown outdoor sports stars around here? And running or walking aren't always an option, or the best option, in terms of staying healthy, even in the best of months.

Again, my arguments are by no means exhaustive. There are myriad reasons why a single income household is far less feasible (or necessarily desirable)than in decades past.

By the way, I notice in your original anecdote you were talking about the female not returning to work. Why did you not discuss the father staying home with the children?

[zanna vaida]

Originally Posted by Dougles

So why do Dem's blame the destruction of UNION's for the need of "2 income famillies" (the average income in the USA is $50K) when in fact it's the greed of the american society that has caused this issue?

You can look at the one income family issue from economic and social perspectives; and go on and on with this and on this topic. Why don't we focus on the question Dougles asked when he started the forum (see above).

Is it hard to answer?

[run4it]

Originally Posted by zanna vaida

You can look at the one income family issue from economic and social perspectives; and go on and on with this and on this topic. Why don't we focus on the question Dougles asked when he started the forum (see above).

Is it hard to answer?

Short answer: "DEMs" don't blame everything on the destruction of unions. Apparently one Democrat pointed out the decline in union membership with the decline in ability to run a single parent household.

Long answer: unions DID introduce a comfortable lifestyle for middle class single earner households. And the ability to carry on such a lifestyle on one income HAS declined in coincidence with the decline of union representation. Is it the only (or even main) reason? No. Is it (one of many) valid reasons? Yes. Is general greed of the population another (and arguably more prescient) reason? Absolutely.

[Dougles]

QUOTE=run4it;564350]My point about the single parent homes was: if a father is working 50, 60, 70 hours to support the family, he's really not around to be much of a parent, is he? That makes a de facto single parent home, even though Dad is around to sleep and occasionally watch the 11pm edition of SportsCenter.

I didn't read the letter blaming corporations/GOP greed. But I do notice that you are unable to resist the possibility of blaming DEMs. It's pretty much an unfortunate given.

I live in a safe part of the city, and yes I do quite a bit of running (get it: RUN4it?) However, try running (or really walking) for a good workout around here between November and April. Notice that there aren't too terribly many homegrown outdoor sports stars around here? And running or walking aren't always an option, or the best option, in terms of staying healthy, even in the best of months.

On a serious note, you should try CC skiing or snow shoeing(sp) in the winter, both are great work out and you can do them on the sidewalks to be safe.

Again, my arguments are by no means exhaustive. There are myriad reasons why a single income household is far less feasible (or necessarily desirable)than in decades past.

By the way, I notice in your original anecdote you were talking about the female not returning to work. Why did you not discuss the father staying home with the children?[/quote]

Oh i didn't mean to be sexist in anyway show providing a situation. For the 2 years of my HS days my father stayed home it was great, my mom stayed home or was part time the first 8 or so. I was also the last kid to ever get a nintendo and we never went on huge crazy vacations. But playing woffle ball with my dad after school was a million times better!

My fiance (yes i recently got enganged) and i have talked about this many times. We have no problem supporting ourselves and up to 2 "extras" on my income. She does want to work, but it's hard to find a full time job in here field in NYS. We've talked about her staying home to raise kids when the time comes, until they're school age. At which point she would then try to find a job and i would "retire" younger.

The reason why i brought up this subject and DEM's was a comment i saw on CNN by Pelosi the day prior to starting this thread, where she blamed Wall st and corp. greed for the destruction of the single income home, but in reality it's society that has caused the end of it. I'm not blaming one party or the other for the change in society (maybe for the much higher taxes), but I was trying to point out that one side blames the other for somthing they ALL have to do with.

[Dougles]

Originally Posted by run4it

Short answer: "DEMs" don't blame everything on the destruction of unions. Apparently one Democrat pointed out the decline in union membership with the decline in ability to run a single parent household.

Long answer: unions DID introduce a comfortable lifestyle for middle class single earner households. And the ability to carry on such a lifestyle on one income HAS declined in coincidence with the decline of union representation. Is it the only (or even main) reason? No. Is it (one of many) valid reasons? Yes. Is general greed of the population another (and arguably more prescient) reason? Absolutely.

Here's another "viewpoint" in today's buffalo news:

http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/e...ry/841956.html

I'm sorry but the idea that if UNIONS disapeared tomorrow that everyone would be forced to take a pay cut or lose their benfits is crazy!

We all agree UNION's served their purpose decades ago. But when people are crying they aren't making enough but make over $25 an hour at Xerox doing labor, it's not the WAGE or company that's the problem, it's their spending mentality that's the problem. But they don't blame it on themselves, they blame it on the company or greed, that is my point.

[zanna vaida]

The political market is Huge. I guess Pelosi was trying to reach to unreachable. New market. New voters. New oportunities. It comes naturally.

Marketers are in high demend. Ideas and creativity are always needed. Controversy? Undeveloped markets? Go fo it! Why are were here? What's our mission? Normal questions for any political parties/organizations/businesses/clubs/get-togethers.

Let's give them something to talk about... It's life! Let's face it.

[DomesticatedFeminist]

Originally Posted by nogods

Yeah, athletic clubs' aerobic and yoga classes are full of stay-at-home moms who can't bear to put their children in day care while they work, but think nothing of dropping them off at the club nursery so they can "exercise."

I got sole custody of my four children when my youngest was just 3 years old. I managed to maintain my practice and care for my children without the yoga and aerobics classes.

I'm a stay at home mom and never once put my children in the daycare at the gym. It wouldn't be a big deal to though because at the club i go to you can see the kids when you walk by, not the same as dropping them off at daycare.

My thing with daycare is not that I don't trust them. It's why do i need to pay someone for something I can do myself when with out a college degree I will only be bringing home an extra 100 a week. Child care cost is very expensive unless you want to send your child to a crappy day care.

[FMD]

Anyone who feels unions are out dated and should be disbanded are high. If you think companies wont walk all over you once your union protection is gone, your high.

[zanna vaida]

Don't forget the Soviet Union-biggest Union ever!

[granpabob]

I worked 70 to 80 hours per week for about ten years and paid off my first house. since then I have never worked a Sunday and very few Saturdays.
my wages are not high in fact many would call them very low ( under 30 now). but with proper budgeting I have managed to live in a nice home in Orchard Park with out going far into debt. Yes I have Fios with phone TV and intranet one car about six years old. and try to pay cash for everything.
One car, one wage, Aldis's, big lots, dollar store, I don't require new toys every month and my four kids never missed a meal my utilities were never turned off
I learned from my mother to save for what I wanted. she also Taught me that DEBT MENT SOMEONE ELSE HAD CONTROL OF YOU .Until recently I had no car payments either but I got tired of fixing the darn things and bought newer models which brought on payments.
If you want the banks and lenders to control you go ahead and get in debt. if you want freedom pay off your bills and that mortgage. since 1984 my house has been mine not the banks
learn to want what you have instead of having what you want.

[keyboard150]

Originally Posted by granpabob

I worked 70 to 80 hours per week for about ten years and paid off my first house. since then I have never worked a Sunday and very few Saturdays.
my wages are not high in fact many would call them very low ( under 30 now). but with proper budgeting I have managed to live in a nice home in Orchard Park with out going far into debt. Yes I have Fios with phone TV and intranet one car about six years old. and try to pay cash for everything.
One car, one wage, Aldis's, big lots, dollar store, I don't require new toys every month and my four kids never missed a meal my utilities were never turned off
I learned from my mother to save for what I wanted. she also Taught me that DEBT MENT SOMEONE ELSE HAD CONTROL OF YOU .Until recently I had no car payments either but I got tired of fixing the darn things and bought newer models which brought on payments.
If you want the banks and lenders to control you go ahead and get in debt. if you want freedom pay off your bills and that mortgage. since 1984 my house has been mine not the banks
learn to want what you have instead of having what you want.

This is right, Grandpa. Credit is a new thing. In fact, it was looked on as "evil" or "ridiculous" in our grandparents time.

[DomesticatedFeminist]

Originally Posted by keyboard150

This is right, Grandpa. Credit is a new thing. In fact, it was looked on as "evil" or "ridiculous" in our grandparents time.

Interest rate is against the muslim religion, credit is a very old concept. I will have to look it up, but it's against there religion to deal with interest rates.

[DomesticatedFeminist]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1225734457436

http://www.realestatejournal.com/buy...0-frangos.html

Some articles about muslims that get interest free loans.

Islamic law -- known as Shariah -- forbids the primary element of most every loan: interest.

[steven]

The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that real median household income in the United States fell 3.6 percent between 2007 and 2008, from $52,163 to $50,303. This breaks a string of three years of annual income increases and coincides with the recession that started in December 2007.

The nation’s official poverty rate in 2008 was 13.2 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 2007. There were 39.8 million people in poverty in 2008, up from 37.3 million in 2007.

Meanwhile, the number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 45.7 million in 2007 to 46.3 million in 2008, while the percentage remained unchanged at 15.4 percent.

These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008. The following results for the nation were compiled from information collected in the 2009 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC):

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...th/014227.html