Massive internal contradiction, based on your own deluded notions as to the strength of the U.S. labor market.
We need a measure of the economic stress requiring people to work two and three jobs...when frankly one should be enough. And the return of sufficient income so that single bread-earners can provide for a stay-at-home parent who wishes to do so to take care of their children. This would be ideal. This is the way it used to be up through the 60's. And it would represent a VASTLY stronger economy than we possess today.
And what we should have kept, but were deluded into trading away for a mess of pottage.
Society has changed a lot in the past 45 years.
However, while there is some truth to what you're saying, I think that to a large extent you're deluding yourself.
We have a different view on poverty now then we once did.
Now our poor families have two cars. They have cable TV. Lots of video games, and can afford to smoke 3 packs a day of cigarettes at $3 a pack.
They eat fast food on a regular basis. Their standard of living is also reduced by having to pay interest on their obscene amount of debt.
You can't just restrict the labor market and drive up wages and make everyone richer. You can't shut off relatively inexpensive imports and still maintain people's standard of living when all those things suddenly cost more.
What has changed since 1960?
A lot of financial irresponsibility on the part of people running up debt.
A feeling of greed and entitlement that people use to justify spending on things they don't need and then having to work to support that lifestyle.
A huge tax burden placed on people funding inefficient government programs that never help people rise above poverty, but make poverty more comfortable instead.
And the return of sufficient income so that single bread-earners can provide for a stay-at-home parent who wishes to do so to take care of their children. This would be ideal. This is the way it used to be up through the 60's. And it would represent a VASTLY stronger economy than we possess today.
I agree. However, you're criticizing my comments without suggesting a way to reach your ideal state.
Massive internal contradiction, based on your own deluded notions as to the strength of the U.S. labor market.
You didn't point out any contradictions in what I said. You merely pointed to an ideal you think we should reach for, but didn't provide any way for us to get there.
Our country likely would benefit from a very slight tightening of the labor market at the low end. However, we can't go back to a time where transportation costs limited compitition from outside small areas and unless we find a way to dramaticly shrink the size of the government taxes are going to make it hard to have single wage earner households without sacrificing the luxuries that most of us have become accustomed to having.
You want a good example of how things have changed, go to the grocery store. Look at all the prepackaged foods that people buy instead of spending the time to cook meals on their own at much lower cost.
People are paying for conveience, including those people working three jobs.
I've worked three part time jobs to make a living. When I graduated from college in a recession. It wasn't much fun. It inspired me to get more education and work hard to make myself valuable to my employer.
Fifteen years later I make a good living, but I had to work hard to get here and I had to learn to not spend what I didn't have.