Union française Pneus Faits Quelqu'un ?

[Knotbuyinit]

I'm sure Obama can relate.

 

[signals]

I'll try. I was born in 1957. I was the 3rd of 4 kids. My mom and dad bought a nice little house in Orlando. Mom stayed home with the kids. We had one newer car. We took vacations every year. My dads job at that time? Clerk in a paint store. He was able to support a wife and three kids and live a middle class lifestyle...and pay taxes and put money back into the economy as a clerk in a paint store. Today that clerk would need to have his wife work too, they'd most likely rent, and they most likely would be on food stamps. Pay someone enough where they don't need food stamps and you've got a "living wage"

Then women demanded equal rights and joined the workforce meaning that you had to create more jobs and cut pay. Today the married couples are screwed because both man and woman have to work to obtain the salary the man(breadwinner) made for his spouse and family. Welcome to your liberal equal rights, Bucko

 

[RDU Jetblast]

Twice the people in the workforce does fit the supply/demand theory that would explain stagnant wages.

It applies to college tuition too, I suppose.

But I wont be the one to tell MYwife that America's problems his her fault!

Of course, that also means twice as many people kicking into social security and paying taxes.

And, if i had to guess, our gdp is probably much higher too.

 

[Kev3188]

...but while the costs of goods kept going up up up...the pay for labor stayed stubbornly low (unless you were a CEO). Then in the late 70's and early 80's, more moms were entering the workforce in order to make ends meet. Anybody notice that about the time families REQUIRED two incomes to make ends meet kinds of coincides with the delinquency of a lot of our kids?

Yes.

On an (at least semi) related note to the topic: Here's a column from this past Sunday's NYT...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/opinion/sunday/douthat-a-world-without-work.html?_r=0

 

[WorldTraveler]

Just to throw a thought into the conversation here...

There are a number of economists who now believe that maintaining high unemployment is necessary in order to allow western currencies to be devalued w/o causing inflation. When governments spend more than they take in and deficits rise, the currencies eventually have to be devalued.

Companies and individuals have to pay their bills or file for bankruptcy.

Sovereign countries can print money - which essentially in a global market becomes IOUs to global investors who are relatively more wealthy than the countries who print the money.

Deficit spending is directly tied to unemployment and lower wages since there is no basis for raising wages as long as there are people willing to work for the lower wages.

The US is following the same economic model that has existed in Europe and Japan for decades.

The French tire debate only highlights that the US is currently less socialistic than France which is precariously positioned between the UK and Germany and France's socialistic southern European neighbors, most of which are economic disasters.

The Euro masks the true economic differences that exist within EU countries and are far larger than exist between any two US states.

 

[777 fixer]

I'll try. I was born in 1957. I was the 3rd of 4 kids. My mom and dad bought a nice little house in Orlando. Mom stayed home with the kids. We had one newer car. We took vacations every year. My dads job at that time? Clerk in a paint store. He was able to support a wife and three kids and live a middle class lifestyle...and pay taxes and put money back into the economy as a clerk in a paint store. Today that clerk would need to have his wife work too, they'd most likely rent, and they most likely would be on food stamps. Pay someone enough where they don't need food stamps and you've got a "living wage"

Southwind would be the one saying he's lucky to have a job and is moocher on the rest of society. And if he tried to improve his lot in life he would accuse him of trying to screw over the job creators.

 

[Ms Tree]

Have you spoken to an aircraft mechanic lately? ; )-

Given all the lay offs in the industry and availability of countries with lower wages than the US I would say that the AMT's fall into the 'not a rare skill set' group otherwise their pay would reflect the availability of their skill set.

 

[Ms Tree]

Twice the people in the workforce does fit the supply/demand theory that would explain stagnant wages.

It applies to college tuition too, I suppose.

But I wont be the one to tell MYwife that America's problems his her fault!

Of course, that also means twice as many people kicking into social security and paying taxes.

And, if i had to guess, our gdp is probably much higher too.

Huh? Why would it be her fault?

 

[signals]

Twice the people in the workforce does fit the supply/demand theory that would explain stagnant wages.

It applies to college tuition too, I suppose.

But I wont be the one to tell MYwife that America's problems his her fault!

Of course, that also means twice as many people kicking into social security and paying taxes.

And, if i had to guess, our gdp is probably much higher too.

Not saying it is anyone's fault just stating a fact of the times that I was answering to. Today problems stem from being a world market, where we must compete with the world, including about wages.

And our GDP has been dropping since the 80s, the world's(including MEXICO) has been slowly rising.

 

[RDU Jetblast]

Huh? Why would it be her fault?

to Signals point in post 77, my wife is of the age were she would have demanded equal rights, entered the workforce and diluted the income of men by increasing the supply of workers. That would mean she is part of the problem. But she makes more than I do so I aint gonna blame her.

 

[Ms Tree]

AH. Got it. I don't read his crap anymore so I guess I missed that connection.

I guess the same argument could be made about letting minorities into the work force. Not to mention letting non-land owners .... Oh hell. Anyone who was not a white land owner. That where it all went down hill.

Arguments like women screwing up the work force are why I ignore him. Just not worth the time.

 

[southwind]

I'll try. I was born in 1957. I was the 3rd of 4 kids. My mom and dad bought a nice little house in Orlando. Mom stayed home with the kids. We had one newer car. We took vacations every year. My dads job at that time? Clerk in a paint store. He was able to support a wife and three kids and live a middle class lifestyle...and pay taxes and put money back into the economy as a clerk in a paint store. Today that clerk would need to have his wife work too, they'd most likely rent, and they most likely would be on food stamps. Pay someone enough where they don't need food stamps and you've got a "living wage"

OK, then ! We base a living wage on an individuals needs then. 2 guys, frying french fries at Burger King, working the same amount of hours, one is single, no kids, the other is married and has 4 kids, so................ the single dude is doing ok, since it's just him, but, in order for the married Dude, to make a "Living Wage", he has to be paid more, for the same job job the single dude's doing..........got it !

Born in 1959 here, Dad worked 2 jobs, very early on.............it's what you did to make it and apparently is taboo nowadays. I never really needed for nothing, we always had at least one car, sometimes 2, took vacations from time to time and everything turned out ok !
One thing he did teach me...............you've got to make it on your own !

 

[RDU Jetblast]

AH. Got it. I don't read his crap anymore so I guess I missed that connection.

I guess the same argument could be made about letting minorities into the work force. Not to mention letting non-land owners .... Oh hell. Anyone who was not a white land owner. That where it all went down hill.

Arguments like women screwing up the work force are why I ignore him. Just not worth the time.

I usually ignore him too. But I found the supply/demand thing interesting .

 

[SparrowHawk]

I usually do too. But I found it interesting .

If you go back to the early 1970's a few thinks were happening.

!. Nixon removed us from the Gold Standard in 1971.
2. Vietnam war was winding down.
3. Women began to join the workforce in significant numbers.
4. Mid 1970's began the collapse of Big Steel and other industries

Did women entering the workforce in significant numbers dilute the pool of workers? Yes It likely did. But no more so Then the Vietnam Vets reentering.that workforce. There were a lot of economic forces back then, some positive, some less so, however it is safe to say the economic landscape was altered.

 

[RDU Jetblast]

what would the world look like today had we stayed on the gold standard?