Liberalism Destroys Families?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Lazarus

You guys are nuts if you think the Brits were not brutal and authoritarian. This is ******* amazing! Tell that to the Irish and a couple dozen peoples around the globe. I thought liberals love to point to Dickens to show how brutal " british capitalism" was... That was Britain's caste system...

Don't play the misquote game with me, sunshine. Your quote that prompted that was...

Britain was under a series of monarchs, that's authoritarian.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Okay, let's talk about the last 40 years. I'm 42. 40 years ago, my dad worked and my mom stayed at home. My dad didn't have a great education -- he went to a commuter college on teh GI Bill after Korea -- and he didn't have a great job -- he was a supervisor in a factory. But he owned, outright, a three bedroom house in a good suburban school district (where our neighbors included a garbageman and a construction worker, both unionized); he sent both his kids to private universities on his own dime; he bought new cars -- one luxury, one family -- every seven years, and paid cash; and he never had any consumer debt.

We lived that life right up through the early 80s; so did everyone else in our suburb. But that life -- the idea that one guy with a so-so job could support a family of four that well -- isn't even imagineable anymore. When did it go away? Not during the last years of liberalism's ascendency (1965-1978), but throughout the 25-year rise of conservativism. Corporations downsized to boost the price of their stocks, good union jobs got shipped overseas, and suddenly the life I led as a child vanished. If you think feminism played any role in that, you're crazy. It's pure economics; it's the logic of capitalism. Its'pure GOP.

As long as we are talking about personal histories, let me throw in mine. I'm 48. Dad worked, mom stayed at home. They owned a house in a good suburban school district, three bedrooms, 1 1/2 baths, unfinished basement, no garage, no air conditioning (added years later), no fireplace, etc. Dad sent all three of us to the state university, bought new cars about every seven years, had no debt aside from the mortgage. Pretty similar so far, right?

How do thing look today? I do statistical work, by brother works in computer services. Neither job even existed forty years ago because changes in technology allowed the economy to gradually shift away from manufacturing and toward services.

My sister is a teacher. Her husband is a policeman. Both unionized. Pretty much middle class right? The house they own, with the same county schools we attended, has four bedroom, 2 1/2 baths, finished basement, two car garage, air conditioning, and a fireplace. The cars they own are much more expensive than what my parents had (even after accounting for inflation), but are safer, less polluting, last longer, have more features, and have a much better repair record than the cars my parents bought. (Much of the change being due to better quality Japanese imports, which reduced US jobs, but made consumers better off.)

I hope you enjoyed your rant about the GOP, but you missed the fact that the nature of the economy has shifted over time, and that as incomes rise consumers demand more and better services.

Former Senator Moynihan once argued that by far the biggest effect on families was the refusal to make welfare payments available to families in which an able bodied worker was present, since this broke up or prevented the formation of families in order to maintain welfare payments.

[Kidlicious]

I think that feminism has been a factor in women entering the workforce. Another factor is economic necessity though. One thing is for sure, the economy would never have made it through the last 4 decades without women entering the workforce.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Adam Smith as always

Point being that the current generation has more expensive tastes than previous generations hence the need for dual income families.

I would presuppose the vast majority of us given the opportunity to reflect would realize that compared to our parents homes, cars, gadgets, etc. our tastes have become increasingly expensive. No more the need to scrimp and save when Moms and Dads simply can both work in order to afford the $300,000 home and $40,000 car.

Its a natural effect, nature abhors a vacuum. Given a larger space to work with it gets filled with more junk. Given a larger income the amount spent will increase to the point where safety cushion monies resemble very closely those tight margins of yesteryear. Doesn't mean we are worse off by any stretch but moreover that we are less fiscally resposnible.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Its a natural effect, nature abhors a vacuum. Given a larger space to work with it gets filled with more junk. Given a larger income the amount spent will increase to the point where safety cushion monies resemble very closely those tight margins of yesteryear. Doesn't mean we are worse off by any stretch but moreover that we are less fiscally resposnible.

What does it matter? Women can only enter the workplace once. What's next, children reentering the workplace so that we can buy more stuff?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


What does it matter? Women can only enter the workplace once. What's next, children reentering the workplace so that we can buy more stuff?

It matters in the context of how Adam Smith was rebutting the disingenuous charge from Rufus. The attempt to lay this phenomena solely at the feet of GOP policy is flat wrong.

As to what happens next, I don't pretend to be a prognosticator. Although it is telling that our birth rate decline would also imply families are still attempting to enjoy greater per person wealth by divying it up against fewer kids. A trend also seen in Europe.

[Ned]

I half remember this being proposed at one time, but I don't know if it was enacted. But part of the solution to welfare causing single-mother families would be to require mothers to ID the fathers so that they pay child support in order for the mother to get any welfare benefits because they are single mothers.

Yes, I know the ACLU would be all over this as being an invasion of privacy, and whatever. But still, such a rule does make a lot of sense.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The Ottoman Empire's decline was mostly to do with the lack of rule of law and arbitrary taxation plicies which meant the tax man might come once a year or up to five times per year depending upon how much money the Sultan needed.

That was only during a short period when the empire was fighting both Austria and Persia at the same time. The decline of the empire was largely driven by two factors, the rise of the janisaries as a class and the free trade of the empire when the rest of the world was merchantalist. The former being outside the scope of of Berz's quote, the later had profound effects on the empire. Of course, the Ottomans didn't have completely free trade, but compared to Europe they definately were.

Cheap Euopean silver spent in the Empire contributed to massive inflation (as did debasing the currency), and also made it difficult for the rise of an Ottoman bourgeoisie. The end result is that almost all of the Empire's foreign trade was in the hands of Europeans, and that's not a good recipe for any country.

[MrFun]

Bashing liberals, free-thinking women, and people on welfare is not an intelligent approach in finding solutions to social and/or economic problems.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Anytime you want to start the "Does Capitalism Destroy Families?" thread, just let me know...

I agree

Jon Miler

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
As to what happens next, I don't pretend to be a prognosticator. Although it is telling that our birth rate decline would also imply families are still attempting to enjoy greater per person wealth by divying it up against fewer kids. A trend also seen in Europe.

I agree with that, but what matters is overall consumption. Women entering the workplace increased overall consumption. Having fewer children will decrease consumption. That will decrease profit etc.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Black Cat

Do you agree the stat show a large increase in out of wedlock births? Now, do you think all those couples who had a child out of wedlock married soon after conception? Of course not, therefore that stat also shows an increase in single parent households. And with a welfare state playing the role of provider, many more "fathers" could and did walk away.

Of course, but that doesn't change anything. Your conclusions are based upon assumptions that might be right, might be wrong, but there are nothing in the stat that supports your claim.

Oh Jeez, thanks for telling us about this myth. Now, who said all these mommies spent all their time cuddling their kiddies.

This is your own words from the OP.

3) Women's "liberation" - Mommy wants a career, honey, so here's your nanny or child care expert. They'll watch you until school starts. Is this the origin of "Latchkey Kids?

[Berzerker]

Black Cat

Of course, but that doesn't change anything. Your conclusions are based upon assumptions that might be right, might be wrong, but there are nothing in the stat that supports your claim.

My assumption was that if out of wedlock births increase dramatically, lots of those couples who concieved children didn't marry. That means an accompanying increase in single parent households. Your assumption is all those out of wedlock births didn't result in more single parent households. My "assumption" is logical, yours is not.

This is your own words from the OP.

And where in that quote from my OP did I say all those mommies were or would be at home cuddling their kids all the time? Children are better off with 2 parents and an extended family, and children are better off when those parents stay together until the kids have sufficiently grown emotionally so any divorce doesn't hurt them as bad. And children are better off when at least 1 parent is there most of the time as opposed to both parents off at work.

Do y'all agree?

Then policies that induce more out of wedlock births and more divorce have negative consequences, true?

Kid

So what. If they don't want to get married. That's their business.

They dont want to get married because they want welfare paid by others. You were saying something about it being their business? Seems they've made it our business. But unless they're liberal, I dont blame them, I blame the liberals who've made it our business via government.

Laz

Don't play the misquote game with me, sunshine. Your quote that prompted that was...

You disputed the assertion Britain was brutal and authoritarian. I gave examples showing you are wrong.
Where did I misquote you? My God, Britain was among the worst of the colonial powers maybe second only to Spain. Britain's monarchs had always needed support from a ruling class, that support doesn't mean Britain ceased being brutal and authoritarian (which seems to be your argument).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
At the time of the American Revolution, 1/3rd of all children were born out of wedlock.

Little facts like that are ignored by the right since they are not convient to their ideology.

[chequita guevara]

I highly recommend these two books, and not just because I sang karaoke with the author.

The Way We Never Were
and
The Way We Really Are