Women degraded workforce?

√v^√v^√♥ - posted on 06/28/2011 ( 52 moms have responded )

12,224

26

264

The other day I heard a woman state that when women started working it screwed up our work force in America.



That before women started working in mass amounts, the man could make enough money to support his family. That the women could stay home and not stress about needing to work. That because women now work, we're more likely to be forced to work in order to pitch in and support the family.



They also said that since women are now involved in the job market there are less available jobs. That because of of women working there is a reduction in jobs available. And because of the reduction of jobs available, they believe women working has also contributed to an overall decrease in the average (middle income) amount of pay offered to men.



So this person believes that basically...... women working contributed to there being less jobs available, the jobs that are available pay less and women are now more likely to be forced to contribute to the household income by working.



Do you think this is true? Why, why not?



I have no opinion about this as of yet. Thought it would be great to discuss.



I'd like to provide 1 fact for the debate though, from the US dept of Labor:

People total in the labor force: 144,427,000

Men: 77,502,000

Women: 66,925,000

http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics...

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Sara - posted on 06/29/2011

9,313

50

586

You know, something else that has really impacted people in the last 30 years or so is credit cards and debt. My grandparents never had a credit card, they didn't have student loans. I think the idea of credit and amassing large amounts of debt to be paid off have changed how much money people need to make to get by. There are a lot of people who chose to buy things when they really don't have the money for it, but they want it so they put it on a credit card and then pay it off, plus interest, for years to come. People these days just tend to live beyond their means from what I can see, and I think that really impacts the standard of living. Just my two cents...

Mary - posted on 06/29/2011

3,348

31

123

I do want to expand on something that Sara mentioned earlier about the changes in expenses. Since I'm older than many of you, I actually did grow up in the seventies. In comparison to my parents, I, as an adult and parent, do have a lot more in the way of monthly bills than they did. It's all about technology - I have monthly cable/internet/phone bill that just didn't exist back then.

In the seventies (I use this because Nichole brought up her grandfather) the only cost involved in watching TV was buying the set. We had an antenna on the roof, and those adjustable rabbit ears on the top of the set. There were the 3 major networks, PBS, and maybe two other stations (if I recall correctly, there were precisely 7 channels to chose from before the advent of cable). There were no VCR/DVD players, either. I think I was 10 before we got our first VHS, and could rent movies from the local shop, and although cable was around earlier, my parents didn't partake in that luxury until I was in college. I think it was 1990 before they got it, and even then, my father bitched and moaned every month about paying for the basic service; no HBO or other upgrades there!

Our phones consisted of two, basic rotary phones. Hell, I think we didn't even get call waiting until I was in college. There were no extensive choices of phone packages, other than a long distance "plan" that they didn't get until I went away to college. Cell phones, for either themselves OR their to kids, were not even an option. I currently have, in addition to a landline bundled into my TV/internet package, a monthly bill for our two iphones. That's an expense that simply didn't exist back in the seventies.

Now, are these specific examples "luxuries"? Technically, yes, they are. But, some of them are just expected "basics" in today's society.

My sister has two kids in grade school. Their teachers/school mostly communicate any issues or announcements through email. They expect a parent to be immediately reachable during the school day via cell phone. If I got sick at school, and my mom was out at the grocery store, the nurse would call, and just not get an answer (I don't think they even had an answering machine until I was in college, either!). Hell, if she was gabbing on the phone, they just got a busy signal! There was no expectation of immediate access.

The high school I attended now requires that ALL students have their own laptops. Granted, it is a private school, but still, it is an additional expense, above and beyond tuition, that the parents of today must pay, that my parents never had to deal with.

Technology has given us many wonderful advantages, but with it, there have been a host of "necessary" expenses as well. It's certainly a contributing factor in why that truck driver's salary, alone, is no longer able to meet the monthly expenses of four kids.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 06/28/2011

21,273

9

3058

Nope, we have reduced jobs because we send all our work over seas. Whoever person this is, needs to wake up....it is the 21st century...where are all your jobs? Look at your childrens toys. Take note of the word "CHINA" stamped on the foot.

Krista - posted on 06/29/2011

12,562

16

847

Personally I will also add that by women working they are also forcing their children to be raised by others in order for them to work. It is really quite sad IMO.

Stow your pity. You have no freaking clue about working moms if you can say something like that.

Do you honestly think that we working moms just bring our kids to daycare willy-nilly and don't communicate with the providers?

My child is raised by my husband and myself. Before hiring our sitter, we spoke at length about her childcare philosophies, about our childcare philosophies, and made sure that we were on the same page. Our sitter is simply our proxy. Raising a child means that you are instilling your own values on that child. And that's not what she is doing --- she is working as our proxy to instill OUR values.

Getting away from that offensive comment, and back to the OP, I do think that inflation is a major factor.

Salaries have NOT kept pace with prices. Back in the '70's, my folks bought a nice house for less than 3X my dad's salary. I work in the exact same field as my dad. If I tried to buy an identical style house, also new, in that same town, it would cost 4-5 X my salary.

Yes, there are some men who make enough that they can support their entire family. However, for the most part, families can no longer get by on one blue-collar income.

Besides, I think we're idealizing the past a bit. Sure, "back in the day", only the dad worked. But even then, if the dad had a low-level blue collar job, the family would struggle like hell to keep the roof over their heads and food on the table.

Basically, I think our economy is in a bit of a vicious cycle: more and more things are automated. This results in fewer jobs. Hence, unemployment rates go up. People have less money, so demand for low-cost goods increases. In order to make their goods at a lower cost, corporations cut costs. Some of those costs are salaries. So then people are making even less. But they can't look elsewhere for a better-paying job, because there ARE none. So they also increase the demand for lower-priced goods. Companies cut costs even more. The demand for lower priced goods increases. Companies realize that they can get their goods REALLY cheaply from China, where human rights are non-existent. They cut more jobs, increasing unemployment, and increasing the demand for cheap goods, which results in even more and more businesses outsourcing to cheaper countries. So your everyday consumer goods are getting cheaper and cheaper, while basic necessities like housing and utilities are getting more and more expensive. And the country's wealth keeps flowing into the hands of corporations.

Here's an example: In 1979, the top 1 percentile of the US population held 19.9% of the country's wealth.

In 2007, the top 1 percentile of the US population held 34.6% of the country's wealth.

The rich...they be gettin' richer.

Jodi - posted on 06/29/2011

3,562

36

3907

"Do you really have to caplocks stuff and ask me if I understand you? Because I think that's kind of rude. It would have been kinder of you to try to help me understand by explaining things differently or elaborating more."



Um, Nichole, I merely Caps locked to emphasise, not to be rude. Why do you have to be so sensitive about it. There was no attack. I was trying to explain what I meant. The Do you understand MY point was in response to your "I think that's my point", when in fact you missed the original point entirely, so I was trying to explain it better.



If you want to accuse anyone of drama, you're the only one that seems to have created it. I was simply answering the OP and trying to explain it a bit more. I can't control your perception, but you could stop taking everything as an attack.

52 Comments

View replies by

Jodi - posted on 07/03/2011

3,562

36

3907

$20 an hour is pretty standard in Australia.....in fact, it is probably a bit light on. The minimum casual wage is around $19 an hour for an adult (this means it is against the law to pay less than that to a casual worker), no matter where you live here. But of course, that's not what you take home......

Jessica - posted on 07/03/2011

547

0

3

Their is always someone who is desperate enough. Also, in my area THOSE jobs don't exist, so it ISN'T those jobs... it is normal everyday "cushy" stuff. The jobs out here that "lazy" Americans do, are what they are taking. They just don't wanna pay the salary Erin. I agree, women HAVE always worked, and more started to work BECAUSE one salary wasn't enough. My great great grandmother worked because her husband was too damn LAZY and SOMEONE needed to "bring home the bacon", so YES, women HAVE always worked. My mother taught me to appreciate everything I have. no "entitlement" here. I am STILL trying to find a job I can do with my disabilities even though I cannot do so many different jobs it isn't funny. Their is only a few I can do, and they are at HOME.... so completely unavailable because those are the FIRST to go.... therein causing scam artists to flourish with FAKE jobs. However, I have plenty of friends that have problems with the work availability and discrimination against anyone NOT Mexican (sick of ppl thinking it is just white ppl), NOT black, or NOT any color except white. If you are white, then at-least where I live, you must speak Spanish (does not matter if you know 4 languages and meet every qualifier), be able to ACT like your Mexican, be able to throw any NON color heritage in your closet and pretend to NOT BE white. However Their is ONE exception. If you wish to work at a church run, church based, or otherwise "faithful" business, they will employ their fellow "followers"... but me and mine don't fit under that rule. I am pagan, so those places "won't" hire me anyway. Otherwise I am screwed. I know enough Japanese to get by, am fluent in ASL (if a bit rusty), British English and I am quite good at my first language called American English. Though on the women s fault front... actually it is the governments fault. They print money they can't back up and distribute it, lessening its value, and then the cost of living goes UP. Women work because sometimes the alternative of NOT having two incomes, is to be POVERTY stricken.





*edited*

Please also note. I have nothing against those who come over and work hard to learn English, and contribute to the community.... and actually BE part of the country... even if illegally. I merely have a problem with coming over and NOT learning the language and expecting US to cater to THEM while they piss all over us. In case you didn't' notice? I LIVE in Arizona. The state other states boycotted (not sure if that ended), because of us closing the borders. I have nothing against immigrants per say, just the ones who make my life, along with so many other lives, a living HELL.

[deleted account]

I would just like to reiterate everything Sylvia said, women have ALWAYS worked! My husband likes to argue this OP w/me all the time... it falls on deaf ears! There is nobody in my circle of ppl or close family that are making $20/hr singley... Too many people are living extroadinary lengths in comparrison to 30+ years ago... For all of those who get educated they find themselves w/no job because they pretty much have to wait for someone to die/retire/move to get in anywhere. Then they have enormous debts and no job to pay them off with. In regards to the illegal immigrants... would you like their job? The wonderful feelings of entitlement that Americans sit on keep them from taking jobs in agriculture etc... Maybe now people would be a little mor einclined to take a job in that industry but this is purely out of desperation. So I don't think it is solely the rate of illegals in our society, atleast not in my opinion.

Becky - posted on 07/03/2011

2,892

44

93

If anything, the fact that more women have entered the workforce has created more jobs, providing care for their children. The sad thing is that childcare jobs are undervalued and underpaid.

Sylvia - posted on 07/02/2011

1,315

8

34

It's true about the cost of living, too. In the early 1970s my parents bought a 4-bedroom house, 2 storeys plus basement, that cost twice my dad's salary. They put 50% down, which they borrowed from my mom's parents.

In 2006, DH and I bought a 2-bedroom, 2-bath third-floor flat that cost almost *three* times our *combined* salaries. We put only 5% down, and even that we were able to do only because my grandma left me some money in her will and we'd been saving it for that purpose.

In the 1970s, you couldn't have got a mortgage if you could only put 5% down. OTOH, in the 1970s you wouldn't have been paying that much for a 2-bedroom flat.

I found this cool cost-of-living comparison calculator: http://www.aier.org/research/worksheets-... It tells me that the $30K my parents paid for their house in 1971 is equivalent to $149K in 2006 (the year we bought our place); but to buy a house anything like that size, in anything like an equivalent neighbourhood, would have cost us more like $600K. (At least. It's not a fancy house, but it's big.) According to the same calculator, my dad's 1971 salary of $15K would be equivalent to about $74K in 2006. I don't remember exactly what either DH or I was making in 2006, but together our salaries would have come within $5K in either direction of that amount. (As I said to my mom at the time, "Mommy, if we could find a house that cost only twice our annual income, we'd be so happy we'd be dancing naked in the streets.") So it's certainly clear that earning power has not kept pace with housing costs...

Mind you, the AIER is American, and the jobs and mortgages I'm talking about are all in Canada, which (a) has health care and (b) doesn't depend to the same extent on a vast racialized economic underclass. So the numbers may not be 100% equivalent. I think the basic trend is the same, though.

Diane - posted on 07/01/2011

45

25

12

I don't think women working caused the change in living standards or the need for multiple incomes. It is a fallacy of false cause to believe so. More women work now for many cultural reasons, but far and away the most common reason is that money isn't as valuable as it used to be. If you are unclear what I mean, I highly recommend reading up on inflation, fiat currencies and the federal reserve system. Our currency is being printed faster than any culture has printed currency in the history of the world, all backed by the assumption that the US' economy will always get bigger and will therefore be able to pay its debts. When we have bad economic times, the fed floods the economy with cheap capital to keep people buying and the market running. The net result of this is inflation. I hate to say it, but I think it is going to get worse for everyone, ... world wide.

Jessica - posted on 07/01/2011

547

0

3

In our area it isn't women.... it is the businesses who hire illegal immigrants who can't speak a lick of English and then our government ignores it unless to put it on the news. Again, I don't think it is women, I think it is "undocumented workers".



And unless you have the body of a skinny chic, a working woman is hard to find here too. They are not shy about hiring a woman for eye candy instead of her work ethic.

Adrienne - posted on 06/30/2011

110

19

10

Thank you Sylvia for posting what I was thinking! If you look at history - as far back as we have recorded documentation, women have worked. It was a matter of classes/social strata.

And Sherri, I'm right there with you! If one of us could make $20/hour for 40 hours a week, there would be no struggles at all. As it is, my husband technically makes $100/hr but is self employed and starting up his own Hypnotherapy practice so that money doesn't come along regularly (yet). And even if it did, I would still work. I loved the year that I was able to stay home with our youngest, but I would make a LOUSY SAHM now. I go stir crazy if I'm cooped up with no adult intellectual conversation and activities (just a little ADHD there). That and I have educational and career goals. Frankly, as much as my son misses me during the day it makes our time in the afternoons/evenings and on the weekends that much better and he's better off having a mommy that is satisfied than with one who has the woulda coulda shoulda's.

Sherri - posted on 06/30/2011

9,593

15

391

Oh my gosh to make $20 a hour we would be absolutely golden making that much an hour. We would have every bill paid and have quite a bit left over for vacations and most anything we could need or want.

I also agree that not only has cost of living increased since the 70's but so have our wants.....cable, more cars, more appliances, All the expensive electronics, kids must be in every activity, have name brand clothing, the newest of shoes. etc, etc.

Sylvia - posted on 06/30/2011

1,315

8

34

People who make this argument are forgetting two really basic things: that the world existed before the 1950s, and that class exists.

Women have always worked. Women in pre-industrial societies did enormous amounts of work -- agricultural work, domestic work, making things, mending things -- fetching water is still the major occupation of women in traditional societies, which is why when you build the water infrastructure that brings clean drinking water within a reasonable distance of where people live, the lives of women and girls are miraculously transformed -- they're no longer spending 75% of their waking hours each day shlepping to a water source and back just to keep their families alive. Women were domestic servants, they were wet-nurses, they were nurses-for-hire. Women's labour was vital in producing food and clothing and in keeping the food available year-round (through various labour-intensive forms of preservation) and the clothing in good repair.

And large numbers of women have worked for wages at least since the Industrial Revolution (also, don't forget domestic servants). Women (and children) did piecework at home or ran sewing, spinning, and weaving machines in factories. Women were still domestic servants -- maids, nannies, nurserymaids, cooks, housekeepers, nurses, governesses, teachers. (In Canada at one time, the vast majority of teachers in the thousands of mostly one-room schools across the country were women. Unmarried women, because married ones weren't allowed o_O.)

The only women who didn't have to work, in fact, were those who could afford to hire other women to do the work for them. (That's where my point about class comes in.)

During the Great War, women worked as nurses and nursing assistants and so on but also in munitions factories, as bus and train conductors, as drivers, etc. During World War II they did all those things and were also recruited -- and drafted -- as Land Girls (doing farm labour to help feed everyone), as nurses and ambulance drivers, as radar operators, drivers, air-raid wardens, aircraft and artillery technicians ... Hundreds of women worked at Bletchley Park, hundreds of thousands in the WAAF, ATS and WRNS. The Allied victory would literally have been impossible without the work of these women. Unfortunately, they were also paid very poorly relative to men -- from that point of view things have changed a lot, although full pay equity? definitely not there yet :P

The reason two-income families have become the norm has nothing to do with women's having screwed up the work force and everything to do with the fact that we are all now conditioned to think we need a sh*tload of stuff that we really don't need. (Or wouldn't need, if things were arranged a little differently.) Why do so many families have two cars? Because they live in surburbs planned in such a way that to get anywhere at all, you have to get in your car and drive there. And why do so many people live in such unpleasant places? Because we have absorbed the idea that a family of four needs a 2500-square-foot house, and that you're a failure as an adult if you don't own the home you live in. (Which is such a bizarre idea, really.) Our expectations -- where we live, what we wear, what gadgets we own, where we go on holiday, what we eat, how much freedom and responsibility we give our kids, what work we do for ourselves and what work we pay others to do, etc., etc. -- have changed dramatically over the past few generations, and our household incomes are struggling to keep up, which is how so many of us end up so deeply in debt.

Technology is also a factor -- in factories and on farms but also in offices, where so much clerical work was once done slowly by hand that is now automated or done quickly on computers ...

[deleted account]

I can agree with that Sara B. I think the statistic is 7/10* middle class Americans are living paycheck to paycheck...MIDDLE CLASS. That should not be. It's just keeping up with the Joneses...and putting it all on credit. We almost got caught up in that, but we (husband and I) woke up and realized what we were doing.

*I have no evidence to back that statistic up, but if I find something I'll post it.

√v^√v^√♥ - posted on 06/29/2011

12,224

26

264

Oh I am absolutely shocked at that one..... I knew a girl who lived with her parents then at about 17 bailed and moved in with her boyfriend. She could get a job left and right (petite blonde bubbly and pretty) and would throw the jobs away! Quit in 2 weeks because we were all going to the lake and she didn't want to miss it. I was apalled, I'd never get a job and 2 weeks later skip a date for such a frivolous reason! Also, I had been looking for a job for over a year, watched this girl get them and piss them away burned me bad. I heard that she has some 7,000$ in credit card debt because she got one and lived off of it for 2 years while her boyfriend worked. She has no health problems, is damn well capable of getting a job, and keeping it if she would just show up!? And yet, she chose not to work, get in debt and now that her and her boyfriend broke up she's on her own, in debt and wow......... working, finally?! I don't know how she's surviving though. It's a minamum wage job.



7,000 is also nothing to some of the amounts I have heard, but I just cannot believe the way people have incorperated debt into their lives so easily. Like it never affects them.



My boyfriend is this way to me sometimes. Doesn't quite care about bills by not paying them off right away, meanwhile I'm freaking out there's 10$ outstanding somewhere lol

√v^√v^√♥ - posted on 06/29/2011

12,224

26

264

The reason I asked where you were from is because it doesn't sound anything like the situation where we're at, in America. I pretty much was guessing you didn't live here

√v^√v^√♥ - posted on 06/29/2011

12,224

26

264

No offense but I wasn't the only one getting snippy. I'd like to drop the issue too, that was the whole point. Please don't drag it out. Thanks

Jodi - posted on 06/29/2011

3,562

36

3907

You are the ONLY one who took offense. But whatever......Can you understand no-one was attacking? I haven't seen any attacking in this discussion. I have seen disagreement. But not attacking. If you are seeing attacks, then maybe you need to assess YOUR issues? So far you have accused two people of attacking you and you "appear" to have taken it personally. Not knowing you, I can't say, but that IS the way it has come across.

Anyway, I have nothing against you personally, I was simply trying to respond to the OP, I believe everyone here has tried to respond to the OP, but I THINK perhaps you have read too much into it all. Not everyone is going to respond in the way you expect them to. In fact, probably no-one will. So don't try to control the conversation.

√v^√v^√♥ - posted on 06/29/2011

12,224

26

264

Jodi, I think it could have been worded nicer is all. That the way it was written was starting to head down Negative Road. That by talking like that to people, it puts them on the defense and well between the 4 of us who had started talking, I didn't want that. It wasn't looking promising. I don't want to cause drama. I pointed out what I thought and asked if that's what it was going to be, that it end, because I don't want to fight. I still stand by that and I'm getting really sick of everyone attacking eachother. I don't think it's a necessary part of talking to others. Thanks

[deleted account]

Obviously if all the married mothers stayed at home and looked after their kids there would be more jobs for men but unless the men got paid twice as much i think more kids would be brought up in poverty stricken homes.

Desiree - posted on 06/28/2011

910

17

13

Actually there is a llot of work out there it is just everyone want to work in a cushy job like IT instead of where it is needed like Trade. My son is a hands on person so when he gets to high school I will be looking to put him in a school that will train him in a trade as opposed to academicsbecause I believe that is were he is better suited. If he shows that he is best suited to music and classical Cello then I will adjust accordingly. But half our problems are that we just don't want to get our hands dirty. Engineers, plumbers millwrites can all call thier own price because trades are no longer jobs that are looked at with any kind of respect.

Amber - posted on 06/28/2011

1,909

13

145

Don't snap on me, but I just want to correct something.
We only have 300million people in the US, so we can't have illegals by the billions. Where are your numbers coming from?
Estimated illegal immigrants: 10.8 million (Department of Homeland Security)
Estimated unemployed Americans: 13.9 million (US Department of Labor)

You also have to take into account that unemployed people are only those of age to work, who are not attending school and are actively searching for a job. Illegal immigrant estimates include every age, whether they can work or not. So they two numbers really can't be compared for this purpose.


I do agree that that is one of the many pieces of the problem, but I don't think it's even the largest. There are just too many issues with the problem to pin point one and say "Here it is, this is the problem right here"

It's a combination of the work force growing in numerous ways, automation decreasing the number of humans needed, jobs being outsourced to countries with cheaper labor, and the fact that we are still in a stalled economy.

√v^√v^√♥ - posted on 06/28/2011

12,224

26

264

I don't blame women in the workforce for anything. I think there are sooooo many contributing factors that lead to where we are, women, if anything, are a small issue.

We have illegals by the billions. Jobs being shipped overseas. Outrageous government spending causing taxes to hike and programs to be cut that only leads to more loss of money and therefore can contribute to the need for more to work. I couldn't believe how much of my check they took when I started working.

I just think it's interesting to think that if all the women suddenly quit working, we'd have that many more jobs open. But of course there are single moms who need to work, and things like women who choose to work, which I would NEVER want to take away that right of personal choice.

I think the most interesting thing I found was that the estimated amount of illegals in America was higher than the estimated amount of unemployed people. Seems pretty cut and dry to me - kick out illegals and there would be probably be a bunch of jobs popping up that the unemployed could work at lol another interesting thing to think about

Lady Heather - posted on 06/28/2011

2,448

17

91

Yeah, I think life expectancy is the biggest thing to impact employment in the last 100 years for sure. We've basically screwed ourselves by living a long time. Ha.

Amber - posted on 06/28/2011

1,909

13

145

Ohhh...and life expectancy has thrown a wrench in the system too.
At the turn on the 20th century, average life expectancy was 49.2 years old. So, people currently aren't even retiring until 15 years after the average person was already deceased 100 years ago.

When the new generation comes of age, the previous generation is still working with no intention of retiring any time soon. If they aren't leaving, their position isn't opening up for somebody else.

Lady Heather - posted on 06/28/2011

2,448

17

91

Well if only it were that simple, eh? Times have changed and more women just have to work. We have more single parent families than ever. Single mums can hardly stay home. We definitely have more "needs" than we had in the past that we have to work and pay for. Pensions are practically obsolete while our life spans get longer and longer so we need to save masses for retirement.

What this person fails to see is that removing women from the workforce would be removing a whole different perspective from the workforce. Diversity is a good thing I think. I'm a SAHM, probably will be for a long time now. But some women best serve the world by being in the workforce.

[deleted account]

Sharon, in YOUR defense, Deanna's post was worded very harshly. It's ludicrous to say that you are FORCING someone to raise your child. Maybe that's not how she meant it, but I was taken aback by it...and I'm a SAHM by choice.

[deleted account]

That's true Dyan, inflation is a problem. But there's also more 'stuff' that people 'need'. Expensive gadgets (like this laptop I'm typing on) and monthly fees that come with it (like my Internet bill) are costing people more money. Therefore people 'need' more money.

I have no problem with women and moms working. There are many talented, smart women out there that are a huge asset to the workforce.

However, *I* don't want to work. I want to stay home with my kids. I realize how incredibly lucky I am that we can afford to do this. We do live very simply (Internet is my luxury...lol). If my husband didn't have the awesome job that he has, I'd probably have to work...at least part time...to make ends meet. If the economy continues the way it is now, I'll be returning to work in a few years (mostly so that we can afford college tuition).

[deleted account]

You're right, it was viewed as a personal attack and I do apologize for my poor choice of wording. But I stand by the fact that so many career-oriented women should never, ever feel degraded or lessened becasue they love their work. And sorry, but daycare most certainly did not raise my child. That's poor wording on her end!

Amber - posted on 06/28/2011

1,909

13

145

Automation, technology, and population growth have all significantly changed the work force too.

I am a SAHM, but I have multiple college degrees and am re-entering the work force now that my son is starting school.

I graduated at the top of my class, in the Honor Society, and won faculty voted awards for being an outstanding student. I beat out all the males in my class for these honors. Why shouldn't I enter the work force? Why should I remain home so that some guy can have a job that I'm better qualified for?

I don't have to get a job. We could afford for me to never work again. Hell, we could afford for Chad to work part time and me to still never work again. I don't care. I have goals and dreams and need to be challenged. Being a SAHM is a time that I treasure and I'm very grateful that I got the opportunity. But this isn't enough to satisfy me for the rest of my life.

Chad and I have already figured out how we'll manage future children so that we can juggle careers and still raise our children. Considering his full time work week is 3 days a week and he takes an active role at home, it shouldn't be difficult. He's looking forward to me working more now that he's finishing up med school; he wants to be home with our next child/ren most of the time.

Rosie - posted on 06/28/2011

8,657

30

321

inflation is part of the reason why more women are having to work. shit, just in the 15 years i've been at my job i've seen the price of things rise so much it's unreal. a 50 lb bag of sunflower seeds used to be $6, now it's $30, a 40 lb bag of purina dog food used to be $11 now it's $20, etc. i havn't gotten a raise to compensate for all of this, i doubt many others have too.



i have a story that applies to this convo. my husbands great grandmother and i were talking a few weeks ago, and she told me that she was a teacher when she was younger, and single. when she got married they forced her to quit. they didn't want married women to be working.

√v^√v^√♥ - posted on 06/28/2011

12,224

26

264

Inflation, prices have changed, you think I'm off on the national average of income in the 70's vs now. Good points. Got it.



Do you really have to caplocks stuff and ask me if I understand you? Because I think that's kind of rude. It would have been kinder of you to try to help me understand by explaining things differently or elaborating more.



This is why people get defensive/offensive in dicussions, shut down, cannot talk to one another because of simply how things are worded and our need to be defensive and on attack mode constantly. I don't think a simple dicussion has any need for you to be using caplocks and the phrase 'Do you understand MY point?' because if you had just waited, you would have gotten my answer as I've been replying to you.



I don't want drama here. I don't want to fight. Why is it so hard to discuss things openly without attacking everyone else and getting so heated about things?



Now Deanna stated her views, simply put. She stated them and says she doesn't care what others have to say. Okay, not the best way to start an open honest discussion. But now Sharon took her statements way too personal and is on the defense/attack mode against Deanna.



Drama.



Sharon, if what you are saying is true Sorry you feel that women should be left at home with nothing to their name other than 'Homemaker'. you just personally attacked Deanna, me and all other simple stay at home mothers by saying we have nothing to us but home makers. That's truly offensive and a personal attack towards us. Not the best way to have an open honest discussion.



And well, that's all I want out of this. Open minded, fact based, discussings pros and cons, trading information.......... not personal attacks and women who can't get over their own attitudes for 5 minutes in order to TALK about something....... please, can we keep it civil and watch what we say?



Otherwise, I see no point in continuing this conversation.

Jodi - posted on 06/28/2011

3,562

36

3907

I use the following link as a reference:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html



Average wage in 2009: $40,711

Average wage in 1971: $6,497



Lets say this is based on a 38 hour week:



We have an average hourly rate of $20.61 in 2009, and we have an average hourly rate of $3.29 in 1971. So what your grandfather was earning was considered RICH (yes, rich). Hardly ANYONE earned that much. Whereas that is what everyone earns now. It is called inflation and it has been around forever (well, at least since the introduction of currency). You can't blame women in the workforce for that.

√v^√v^√♥ - posted on 06/28/2011

12,224

26

264

Yeah, that's one thing I do think is sad........ I had no real views on it one way or another before I had kids as it was just part of society but now that I have my own I couldn't imagine others raising them.

[deleted account]

I think it's bullshit. Why? I'm in Education, and traditional "old-fashion" teachers were all female! It was assumed that females made better teachers becasue we are natural "nurterers". Eh? Not sure I buy into it. I love my career and wouldn;t change a thing about my choices.


"Personally I will also add that by women working they are also forcing their children to be raised by others in order for them to work. It is really quite sad IMO"

I know this is just your opinion, but quite frankly, there are thousands of career-minded women like me that would make unbearable and horrible SAHMs. What is so wrong with a women enjoying a career? Do you really think ALL moms are cut-out to be happy-go-lucky SAHM types? Plus the phrasing of "forcing your child to be raised by others" is quite harsh. Yes, my child attended daycare/preschool and it was not by force at all. It was a huge advantage to him for social & emotional growth. Sorry you feel that women should be left at home with nothing to their name other than 'Homemaker'.

Jodi - posted on 06/28/2011

3,562

36

3907

Nichole, if your grandfather was earning $20 an hour driving a truck, he was VERY highly paid in comparison with the rest of society at that time. That's the point I am trying to make. That was not the average wage back then. Many other people didn't earn that sort of money back then, so using this as your base point is not making any point at all, because his wages were exceptional FOR THE TIME.

It is only common sense that $20 and hour back then and $20 an hour now is not going to be of the same value. $20 an hour now is probably much closer to the average wage, whereas back then it was exceptional. Do you understand MY point?

[deleted account]

I agree with the person that stated all of that and don't care who doesn't agree with me. Personally I will also add that by women working they are also forcing their children to be raised by others in order for them to work. It is really quite sad IMO.

√v^√v^√♥ - posted on 06/28/2011

12,224

26

264

Ohhhhhhh, I know nothing about Australia's economy.

I think that's my point.. 20$ an hour used to be well off. Over the years, it's become increasingly difficult to raise a family on

Jodi - posted on 06/28/2011

3,562

36

3907

See, that stuff isn't a major issue in Australia, and people still complain they never have enough money. We have a minimum wage and legislated conditions which include 4 weeks vacation plus sick leave entitlements. We have less than 6% unemployment - jobs are pretty easy to come by if you REALLY want one in most places. So I guess that's why I see the issue differently.

But let's be honest, $20 an hour in your grandfather's day would have been relatively well-off. I hardly think it would have been the norm. In fact, knowing the average income in the US, I can't imagine $20 an hour was the norm when your dad was raising you either.

√v^√v^√♥ - posted on 06/28/2011

12,224

26

264

True to an extent, but my grandpa raised four kids on 20$ an hour by driving a truck. He had benefits, bought a house, they went on vacations, fed everyone and had a stable life. My parents raised me on 20 an hour and the first house they purchased was after I moved out. They never had benefits and never took a vacation. Now, for my generation? 20 an hour is an even bigger struggle to live on. It's really going down hill fast. So we may have greater material needs/wants which may cause some to work. But what of those who cannot find a job? What about jobs average pay over the years decreasing? The lack of benefits and vacations offered? Middle class jobs? What jobs are really out there for them? There's a huge problem in this area, which this lady was referring to

Jodi - posted on 06/28/2011

3,562

36

3907

Actually, I don't believe that women in the workforce has anything to do with men not being able to make enough money to support his family. I believe that as a society, we have greater material needs/wants that we used to.

√v^√v^√♥ - posted on 06/28/2011

12,224

26

264

Actually, kids being 'kids' is a relatively new aspect of our culture and I don't think we created it to keep children out of the work force.

Like you said, women have always worked. So have children. We raise them in our likeness and gave them toys in the old days that mimiced what they were going to do as adults. Dolls/tools. Boys farmed with dad, girls cooked with mom. During the industrial revolution with the creation of factories, people started to think it was not safe working conditions for children. They fought for years and in 1938 the first law was finally passed reguarding minamum ages of children allowed to work. So, since 38, it's been a slow progression towards children actually having a childhood.

Right around the same time as childrens rights started to really become an issue, so did psychologists studying adolecense. So paired with beleifs children shouldn't work until a certain age, and the evolution of 'childhood' as a theory... I think this is where it naturally emerged to what we have now a days, the whole 'kids being kids' saying. This has only been around since the 40's and I'd bargain to say sooner because of how long it took to catch on and really fall into place in order to have what we have now.

Therefore, I disagree that we keep them out of the workforce for the simple benefit of having more jobs for adults available.

JuLeah - posted on 06/28/2011

3,133

38

694

Hummm ... well, I know you get this, but I point it out anyway. Women have always worked. We birth children ... we raise them, plow, harvest, hunt, can food, plant, sew, teach, shop .....

More jobs for men if women were not in the work force, yes. I mean is that not why we keep young people out of the work force so long? We keep them children long after their bodies are gorwn, we keep them in school, then in college .... it is to keep them out of the work force is it not? And, don't tell me college perpares them for a career .... well, some specilized degrees do, but most ready them to work in the mail room .... lowest rung of the ladder ... again, to save the real jobs for older others ....

Now, if kids got paid to attend school and be good students ... if parents that wanted to stay home got a pay check for their efforts .... then ... well, that would just be cool

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms