Do democrats in congress dislike the idea of a stay at home mom??

[woodwork201]

It depends on what the couple agree to among themselves. I had a boss who had a tag-team arrangement with his wife, and it worked out well. Both had time with the kids and both worked.

One issue that is very important but never gets discussed is that women need to have an economic foundation, to accrue seniority, experience, and maybe a 401k. If only the man works, he is the only one who has these perks, and if he walks or she has to throw him out, he takes this stuff with him.

That's not true at all. There may be states like that but most of what I know or have read, most states still split it with the wife. My personal feeling is that when there's a divorce with children is that the mother gets the children, the house, the bank account, the car, and the father gets a studio apartment, the bicycle, and canned beans until the children are raised.

 

[woodwork201]

Child care quality in this country couldn't possibly get any lower!

Child care today, and it will be worse with Biden's new universal pre-K, is about early indoctrination and separating the bond between parents and their children at an earlier age, making easier the later true indoctrination into Marxism easier.

 

[woodwork201]

Thanks for the OP for starting this; I was actually thinking of starting a similar thread the last couple days so I'll tag onto this one. I hadn't heard about the person in Congress's statements but my question is the same. What's wrong with a woman being mother and wife first? Why can't she be her first and that by being mother and wife she is being herself?

 

[justinacolmena]

Democrats are more concerned you misgendered a man claiming to be a woman than they are about actual women. Birthing persons? Fuck off.

Somebody is hard at work stealing, altering, and forging bjrth certificates here.

 

[justinacolmena]

Bullshit. Every family can afford for mother to stay at home. Every single family in the entire United States. Without exception.

That's too much emotion below the belt. The male-only workforce is not a reality.

homes with no father or homes with disabled, truly disabled, fathers would be exceptions

Those guys are always on strike. They strike their bosses at work, and they strike their wives and children at home.

But the topic did imply the choice for mothers in two-parent families, or at least I inferred it that way

You can't pick up some lady, dump her in the morning, and expect her to go get an abortion, rinse, repeat.

 

[pknopp]

With the end of the additional unemployment benefits there will be many "stay at home moms" heading back to work.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was not nearly as common for women to work outside the home in the 50s and 60s. My mom did not work outside the home the whole time I and my two brothers grew up. Then she went to college, got her degree and worked a few years.

Irrelevant. you spit out the trope that middle class families could more afford a stay at home mom in 1959. The opposite is true. What's changed is our expectations. In 1959 mom didn't expect to have a car, much less a brand new one. She expected to live in an 800 square foot home with a single bath, not a 3,000 sq ft McMansion with the sunken spa. In 1959, mom was happy if she had a phone on the wall. Today she needs a $1,500 smart phone updated every year. Of course the kids walked to school, now they have to be shuttled back and forth. Lunch was a sandwich and and apple for the kids - now we have Micky Dee's 5 days a week. Travel and club sports for the kids, etc.

The buying power of 1 hour of work at minimum wage is greater today that it was in 1959, even in the 3 states that actually have the federal minimum. Average wage has VASTLY more purchasing power than the average wage in 1959.

See, dollars are fiat, they have no meaning. The marker is an hour of work at certain levels.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because you could have a house, a car, go on vacations, etc., on one income. That ship sailed in the 80s.

That's a lie.

You can have a house now on one income, if you live the way people did in the 1960's.

No one is willing to live that way.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Keep the price of unskilled labor low and get twice the manhours of labor as a resource for the same level of living. I thought everybody knew that.

How do you keep the price of unskilled labor low?

Oh, import 40 million illegal Mexicans...

 

[Anathema]

Not all families can afford to stay at home, whether democrat or republican. This ain't 1959

Then maybe those families need t rework their budgets or just not have kids they can’t afford…

There was no cable tv in the home I grew up in. A second car wasn’t common either; and it definitely wasn’t a new vehicle. McDonalds was a RARE treat, and a sit-down restaurant almost unheard of luxury. Don’t tell me it can’t be done in this day and age.

 

[Theowl32]

I heard a female democratic congress woman say child care needs to be lower so mothers can go to work. As if a child is not better off being raised at home and not by a care giver.

Yes

 

[Unkotare]

That's a lie.

You can have a house now on one income, if you live the way people did in the 1960's.

No one is willing to live that way.

Some still are.

 

[White 6]

Irrelevant. you spit out the trope that middle class families could more afford a stay at home mom in 1959. The opposite is true. What's changed is our expectations. In 1959 mom didn't expect to have a car, much less a brand new one. She expected to live in an 800 square foot home with a single bath, not a 3,000 sq ft McMansion with the sunken spa. In 1959, mom was happy if she had a phone on the wall. Today she needs a $1,500 smart phone updated every year. Of course the kids walked to school, now they have to be shuttled back and forth. Lunch was a sandwich and and apple for the kids - now we have Micky Dee's 5 days a week. Travel and club sports for the kids, etc.

The buying power of 1 hour of work at minimum wage is greater today that it was in 1959, even in the 3 states that actually have the federal minimum. Average wage has VASTLY more purchasing power than the average wage in 1959.

See, dollars are fiat, they have no meaning. The marker is an hour of work at certain levels.

That is a compelling argument. I do not know if it is true, but cannot categorically say it false, as I don't know and not really sure how to look it up.
Nice post and good work whether true or not.

 

[White 6]

Then maybe those families need t rework their budgets or just not have kids they can’t afford…

There was no cable tv in the home I grew up in. A second car wasn’t common either; and it definitely wasn’t a new vehicle. McDonalds was a RARE treat, and a sit-down restaurant almost unheard of luxury. Don’t tell me it can’t be done in this day and age.

I cannot say how close they would have to rework their budget or if it is possible, without adopting a lifestyle I never had to deal with.
You are 100% correct that they should plan their reproduction to continue to live within expected means in the lifestyle they want to maintain. We certainly did. Not sure my parents did, but they were lucky as dad had a skill set and work ethic in demand.

 

[bendog]

I heard a female democratic congress woman say child care needs to be lower so mothers can go to work. As if a child is not better off being raised at home and not by a care giver.

First you bitch cause they're staying home on UI while the kids are doing virtual learning, and now u bitch they ain't working when their kids are in school. Gimme a break.

 

[bendog]

That is a compelling argument. I do not know if it is true, but cannot categorically say it false, as I don't know and not really sure how to look it up.
Nice post and good work whether true or not.

The actual facts are .... here. In real dollars

Historical Income Tables: Households

Source: Current Population Survey (CPS)

www.census.gov

the figures really show the change in income inequality, although that may be misleading. No offense to uncensored, because he's right... cars are better, houses are bigger, and more have ac .... but the "wife's income" is more of a myth for most workers. We may have a better life, but that's as much because prices are lower with globalism than the extra income. The money is just not there. Still, we do earn more in real dollars than we did.

 

[bendog]

How do you keep the price of unskilled labor low?

Oh, import 40 million illegal Mexicans...

Well yes, but is that really bad? For most of us. Incomes go up. People can move from the bottom quintile to the next. It's bad that some immigrants are illegal, but both parties decided to rely on them for labor. We could give enough of them legal status and not even citizenship. Thier kids would be citizens. But is that a real negative effect on most Americans? I don't think so. It sucks to have a physically taxing job at age 50, not argument from me on that.

 

[Anathema]

I cannot say how close they would have to rework their budget or if it is possible, without adopting a lifestyle I never had to deal with.
You are 100% correct that they should plan their reproduction to continue to live within expected means in the lifestyle they want to maintain. We certainly did. Not sure my parents did, but they were lucky as dad had a skill set and work ethic in demand

I think this is one of the largest problems with my generation and those younger than me…

They fail to determine what their means are and live within them. My father worked a lot of OT to ensure we had everything we needed, a few of the extras we wanted, a good education and eventually to buy the land and build the house he and my mother really wanted.

There were a lot of sacrifices made, by all of us, to endure those things happened. Sacrifices that today’s generation doesn’t seem to be willing or able to make.

 

[White 6]

The actual facts are .... here. In real dollars

Historical Income Tables: Households

Source: Current Population Survey (CPS)

www.census.gov

the figures really show the change in income inequality, although that may be misleading. No offense to uncensored, because he's right... cars are better, houses are bigger, and more have ac .... but the "wife's income" is more of a myth for most workers. We may have a better life, but that's as much because prices are lower with globalism than the extra income. The money is just not there. Still, we do earn more in real dollars than we did.

Uncensored was referring to the purchasing power to support a lifestyle, back then vs now. We are all well aware there is huge income inequality, but that is not what he was speaking to, and not what the tables shown get at either, as lack the historical perspective. We're not talking about a 20 year perspective as income inequality has spike, but really lower middle income purchasing power to support lifestyle late 50s-early 60s vs now.
A low income single provider, could probably have a similar lifestyle to early 60s in a rural area, but early 60s was before cell phones, computers, air conditioning (for the most part), telephone might have been a party line, and maybe one vehicle for the family. Although typical back then, it would be pretty primitive to most people now. He says today's low income (I assume above poverty level) can buy a higher lifestyle than back then. I don't know. I certainly would not want to live that way and start a family, certainly not making extra allowance for a stay at home mom to raise the kid or kids at that income level in this day and age.

 

[bendog]

Uncensored was referring to the purchasing power to support a lifestyle, back then vs now. We are all well aware there is huge income inequality, but that is not what he was speaking to, and not what the tables shown get at either, as lack the historical perspective. We're not talking about a 20 year perspective as income inequality has spike, but really lower middle income purchasing power to support lifestyle late 50s-early 60s vs now.
A low income single provider, could probably have a similar lifestyle to early 60s in a rural area, but early 60s was before cell phones, computers, air conditioning (for the most part), telephone might have been a party line, and maybe one vehicle for the family. Although typical back then, it would be pretty primitive to most people now. He says today's low income (I assume above poverty level) can buy a higher lifestyle than back then. I don't know. I certainly would not want to live that way and start a family, certainly not making extra allowance for a stay at home mom to raise the kid or kids at that income level in this day and age.

Yes. and I said I didn't diss him. But the real income per households then and now do NOT support the notion that the increase in household women from working women is simply swallowed up by more consumpetion. the FACTs are that those in the lower quintile have not seen that much increase. And it the 2nd and 3rd ... not so much either. Real wages have gone down, and women in the work force have kept household income going up as it did before two incomes were necessary.

But Uncensored also said that cars are better and houses are bigger, etc. And he's right about that. We have better stuff despite the demise of unions.

What my post said was that in terms of gains in income since the two earner families, the vast maj went to the top quintile. Some to the second largest. But the lower middle two ... not so much. And not much for the bottom. BUT we didn't have the earned income tax credit. And employers paid for more healthcare then. So, while incomes in real dollars are what they are, simply trying to make some sense of the numbers doesn't say the whole story.