Skip to comments.Redistributing Wealth From Working Moms
Posted on 10/23/2013 3:11:49 AM PDT by markomalley
There are three cousins, each born in the same year in the same town. Two are females named June and Jane, one is a male named Jim.
June goes to college, earns a degree, gets married, buys a house with her husband, has four kids and at the age of 32 goes back into the workforce, holding down two part-time jobs to help pay the family's property taxes and tuition bills.
Jane graduates from high school but not college, gets married but is almost immediately divorced and has one illegitimate child. She drops out of the workforce in her 20s and never returns. She collects food stamps and enrolls in Medicaid.
Jim does not graduate from high school, but eventually gets a GED. He worked part-time jobs occasionally in the past. But now he is on disability because of a mood disorder which he treats by smoking medical marijuana. As far as he knows, he has no children.
Which of these hypothetical Americans would be more likely to admire Sen. Ted Cruz? Which would be more likely to admire President Barack Obama? Which would you pick for your neighbor?
The truth is America must become more hospitable to June if we want to survive as a free and prosperous country.
The Congressional Budget Office issued a report last fall examining the slow rate of growth in the U.S. economy following the last recession.
It concluded that the single most significant factor now limiting America's potential economic growth is the declining growth of the potential labor force which has recently increased at only half the rate it did in the years following World War II.
"That slower growth of potential employment primarily reflects three developments," said CBO. "The most important is that, since about 1980, demographic trends have slowed the growth of the population that is working age and, therefore, the growth of the potential labor force."
"In several earlier recoveries, the baby boomers were entering the labor force; now, they are beginning to retire," said CBO.
"Another important development is an end to the long-standing increase in women's participation in the labor force, which had boosted the growth of the labor force in recoveries before 2000," said CBO.
To put it plainly: The Baby Boom generation did not have enough babies to keep America's economy growing as vigorously as it did in the past, and women today are less inclined to enter the labor force than they were a decade ago.
In fact, the employment figures released this week showed that the percentage of non-institutionalized women over the age of 16 who participated in the labor force (meaning they had a job or were seeking one) dropped in September to 57.1 percent, a rate it also hit this March, but was otherwise a 24-year low.
In January 1948, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics first started tracking female participation in the U.S. labor force, it was only 32.0 percent. It peaked at 60.3 percent in April 2000, and since then has been trending down.
In February, the BLS released a "databook" on the status of women in the labor force as of 2011. It revealed that married women (57.1 percent) were more likely to be employed than unmarried women (49.8 percent). Similarly, married men (70.5 percent) were more likely to be employed than unmarried men (56.4 percent). Overall, 63.7 percent of married Americans were employed compared to 52.9 percent of unmarried Americans.
Married women with children under 18 were also more likely to be employed (65.1 percent) than unmarried women with children under 18 (63.6 percent). While married women (70.7 percent) and unmarried women (70.8 percent) with children between 6 and 17 were almost equally likely to be employed, married women with children under 6 (58.3 percent) and under 3 (55.9 percent) were more likely to be employed than unmarried women with children under 6 (54.5 percent) and under 3 (49.7 percent).
The U.S. government has been setting records in recent years for the number of people on food stamps and Medicaid, like Jane, and the number of people on disability, like Jim. Yet, even while the overall labor force participation rate for women has declined, married mothers with children, like June, are more likely to work than their unmarried peers.
Women like June contribute to our economy in two ways: They work and create wealth now, and they raise children who can create wealth in the future.
Yet, one wonders how many of them wish the U.S. economy was more like 1948, when it was easier for married mothers to stay home with their children if they wanted, when real GDP grew at 4.1 percent, and when their cousins could not act like Jane and Jim because redistributionist politicians had not yet started the food stamp, Medicaid and disability programs.
They don’t just need the next generation as workers; they need them as consumers (which Pelosi implied when pretending that welfare payments grow the economy). This is why immigration laws aren’t enforced; even if they don’t pay taxes, illegals consume (including services like public education).
Once the political leadership turned on “June” (and her unnamed husband), the natural consequence was a quick fall-off in the number of people having families, buying homes, etc.. Think of all the things that homeowners buy (for both inside and outside of their homes), and now imagine they stop buying them altogether.
Let me put this simply.
What fool would go to work for $35,000 dollars a year when they can stay at home and receive benefits worth $50,000 dollars.
“What fool would go to work for $35,000 dollars a year when they can stay at home and receive benefits worth $50,000 dollars.”
The only answer I can come up with is the fool who doesn’t want to live in gubmint housing surrounded by people staying at home receiving $50K of benefits. If real “working class” neighborhoods (versus “welfare class”) are going to be destroyed by section 8 housing and mandated diversity, then maybe more of those earning $35K may throw in the towel...
While the idea of walking around all day in your pajamas may seem appealing, nobody in their right mind would want to live around 250K other people doing the same thing.
The most appealing alternative to amoral women working in America:
Marry a man who makes a good income, have two children, then divorce him ASAP.
50% to 65% of the fathers salary for 18 to 23 years.
50% of his 401K, retirement, etc, immediately...no matter how long he was building it.
50% of marital assets he probably paid for.
Potentially 100% of the marital home, also, depending on circumstances.
Qualification for government social programs (food stamps, welfare, etc...double dipping) because the Child Support is not considered income.
50% of tuition costs for the children at the school of her choice.
Free healthcare insurance for the children and herself, through the working father, for 18 to 23 years.
Free baby sitting service every other weekend, for 18 years.
Free legal service to enforce Child Support and garnishment of father's pay and seizure of his assets.
(Federal government pays individual states $1.00 for every $3.00 collected in child support and states collect fees and interests on payments in arrears).
100% control over the children's upbringing - 4 days a month is an uncle or cousin, not a father.
Potential for additional unreported income/child support/alimony if she picks up a stepfather for the children or a live-in boyfriend.
I have long thought that the reason the Left wanted to “empower” women and get them into the work force is so that they would have more income tax receipts to spend. When that didn’t give them all the money they wanted (satisfying the Left’s demands for money is impossible, as we all know), they started borrowing it, and accelerated when their policies crashed the economy and reduced the tax take.
“While the idea of walking around all day in your pajamas may seem appealing, nobody in their right mind would want to live around 250K other people doing the same thing.”
well all righty then- that’s why the gubmint legalized medical pot!
It won’t go on forever, but it will collapse in ashes and tears.
To maintain the US economy and society, married middle-class women need to have an incentive to have more kids, and unmarried underclass women need to stop getting incentives for having kids.
Which is why so many men have decided that marriage is a bad deal.
And nary a word that only 60 yrs. ago, ONE working adult:
- Allowed the other to stay home/raise the kids
- Buy/have an auto
- Buy a home
- Take vacations
- pay the bills and STILL save
What changed? BIG gov’t = big taxes
“What changed? “
Cable TV: $200 per month
Cell Phone: $200 per month
Second Car: $500 per month
AC: $100 per month
Clothing, Sneakers, Jeans ....
Both the article and your post point out that the family is DESPISED by the left, the State, and their father, Satan.
Women in the workforce = Higher supply of labor, which put downward pressure on wages.
A consequence of the 19th Amendment.
“well all righty then- thats why the gubmint legalized medical pot!”
The problem with walking around with 250K people in their pajamas is that the more motivated ones will start stealing pajamas; if you get medical weed they’ll steal that, too.
We don’t wish to admit it, but we’re an America of Janes and Jims.
Junes are fewer and farther between. Marriage is passe’. Children are items to be leveraged for an income stream from the government.
Your numbers are so far off the mark it’s funny.
If your divorce went that way, I’m very sorry for your losses.
In the real world, it’s nothing like that.
Your numbers are circumstantial and vary to each case but if a Woman decides
to go the extra mile the Father is mainly screwed and has no right to address
Family court to defend himself or be heard. There are no rights in Family court,
it's a dictatorship.
That is simply a lie...even the judges have no discretion - it is the law.
Wow, so you are a divorced woman who received all that and more, due to the law??
How very wrong you are, sorry.
IMHO, that’s just a symptom. Still misses the origination question: WHY did women (feel the) ‘need’ to enter the work force.
I still contend that, as most things, comes down to *BIG* GOV’T
‘security’ over ‘Liberty’? Aside from sounding a bit misogynistic and/or sexist (NOT saying you are, though it did bring a ‘Ho, boy’ to my lips :P), I think that over-simplifies the root cause: an Unconstitutional gov’t.
Gov’t WAS setup to protect the Rights of We the People from mob rule (Democracy). It’s been a many a year since that has been. It def. wasn’t to pick the pockets to support ‘the poor’
More than 1/2 your list are non-mandatory (some would say A/C :P)
And, if the clothes (I’m presuming children here) make it a squeaker for $$, maybe the kids should have been ‘better planned’; or a better budget settled upon.
And much sooner than anyone expects I’m afraid.
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.