Posted on 11/25/2007 7:45:05 AM PST by madprof98
Did you read the article? That's not true for the last 30 years.
This is also the first time a smaller generation has followed a larger one. It is also the first time in America's history that a smaller generation had to fund the previous larger generations retirement, and healthcare....
No arguments with you there. But these are two different things: prosperity and the proper acculturation / civilization of our children and youth.
The human animal needs years (almost two decades!) of serious time, love, and effort in order to become a mature, decent, civilized young adult. The younger years really do require the actual parent’s presence for most of the day’s 24 hours.
But your tips are marvelous for insuring that a person will remain financially stable.
Wooten is the only thing good about the AJC, not counting the sports columnists.
Second, it is based on a survey group, not total national data, so it is subject to a lot more manipulation. Third, we have shifted production from in home to out of home, on average, and men do more of the in-home now, so it's not astonishing that measured women's income has gained relative to men. But it doesn't mean that the total income isn't real.
Yes, there is no doubt that SOME people or categories are worse off, but that has always been true. All that I asserted was that, ON AVERAGE, people as a whole are better off, and always have been, over, say, a 20-year period. And the per capita GDP is indeed up more than 40% from 1986 to 2006.
One final point -- the last stat is really remarkable, in one sense, as we have gotten more and more of families that you would expect to be dysfunctional and low-income. Broken homes, illegitimate children, single mom "families"; drug-using workers and parents, etc. If you just compare married-couple, or married-couple with children, families to their predecessors, the gains would be even more siginificant.
I don’t care 1 way or the other, frankly. I’m all for somehow pointing out that the parents SHOULD be EMBARRASSED.
But I do agree that in the PAST (maybe not now), “bastard” was often connoted as a bad thing on the OFFSPRING, not the parents so much. As if there was something wrong with the child (maybe by being illegitimate in bad situation, but not inherently). I think that’s where the sensitivity comes in.
This is why I thought maybe we can just attach the word to the parents instead of the child - BASTARD FATHER, etc. Also known to me as “sires”.
Stop insulting William. The term is perfectly good, it's nothing negative about him, and I don't like the way you're implying it's an insult or he should be thought less of for it!
I’m not implying anything about William. I am not talking about William. I am talking about the terrible label they put on children.
I make good money, but I am part of the first generation, Gen X, that will have a lower standard of living than the previous generation.
What label is “terrible”?
Oh, wait...you’re trying to make “bastard” imply something negative about a child, huh?
"Between 1974 and 2004, white and black men in their 30s experienced a decline in income, with the largest decline among black men," Issacs writes. Families beat their parents largely because more households had two breadwinners and because of gains in women's incomes.
My wife doesn't work so it's harder for me to support my family on one income than it was for my dad or the baby boomers.
The real wage has been stagnant or fallen for the past 30 years for men in their 30s. That will continue as the boomers hold onto the high paying jobs into their 70s.
If you can hire a staff of black people and/or women, pay them less, AND GET THE SAME LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE -
where are the companies that have all black women employees that are kicking the asses of all competitors because of the advantage of lower costs of employment?
maybe that’s why we’re seeing more of them - no shame factor on the parents.
Leftists refuse to admit that removing negative incentives for behaviors increases the occurrence of those behaviors.
I’ve seen a similar list.
Spend less than you earn.
Avoid debt.
Build in some liquidity for emergencies.
Have long term goals.
Remember it all comes from God anyway.
These are not fathers, they are merely sperm donors.
living arrangements - again, the removal of the consequence called “shame” for choosing to live with or have extended sleepovers with someone you’re not married to
has increased the occurrence of this behavior, to the detriment of society.
When you look at the “why” of any issue or agenda that leftists/liberals/secular socialists push, start from the question “what will destroy traditional society?” and you can pretty easily see how they’ll side on any issue.
This seems to be a popular word among liberals. It seems to mean the same thing as "spin".
Just wondering. What is so terrible about being called a child born out of wedlock? Is there some historical significance to the label? Is there some common consequence regarding being raised by an unmarried adult or by more than one unmarried adult? Has society used the label to predict future behavior as a result of being fatherless?
I cringe when children bear the burden of their parents’ behavior, too. Labels are often very inaccurate and offensive. (makes me think of racial slurs) But you’ve sent my brain off on a tangent now . . . :)
I don't know if they are 'hogging' them--They are a much larger generation than gen-x. They are in their peak earning years and will hang on for a very long time, so yeah, right now they have all the top jobs.
Hey, I'm the junior guy in my defense contractor company. I'm 40.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.