|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
unmarried households dominate for the first time...
#6176091 - 10/16/06 06:09 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
Quote:
"Overall, what I see is a situation in which people -- especially children -- will be much more isolated, because not only will their parents both be working, but they'll have fewer siblings, fewer cousins, fewer aunts and uncles," the scholar argued. "So over time, we're moving towards a much more individualistic society."
this is nothing less than a resounding victory for the corporatist right..despite rhetoric to the contrary from both liberals and conservatives (including king george himself)...and the reasons should be clear ..a an atomized society of isolated individuals simply cannot organize any kind of political resistance against repugnican campaign sponsors that will remain fully organized and connected above and beyond the isolation of the ppl comprise them...this is further demonstration by the acceleration of this trend under KG..even though he speaks the opposite...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Annapurna1]
#6176334 - 10/16/06 07:47 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
14 million headed by single women (families) 5 million headed by single men (families) 30 million unmarried men and women living alone 55.2 million traditional households (married couples +)
OK, so I see a total of 74.2 million families, or 71.2% of American households consisting of families. Where is the isolation here?
Not to mention, how do we know that those 30 million unmarried men and women who live alone do not have an extended family of relatives and friends?
I do not see a basis for your premise in these statisitics.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Veritas]
#6176533 - 10/16/06 08:49 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
quite correct...the link doesnt given any clue as to how the "expert" i quoted in the thread post reached his conclusion based on the statistics...moreover..he represents the premier neocon stink tank..the american enterprise institute...so he might very well be trying to push off some neocon wet dream as a valid conclusion to be drawn from the report...
OTOH..those words coming from their mouths reveals not merely an aspect.. but at least a pillar.. if not the essence.. of the neocon agenda..which is often overlooked ..
Quote:
But in the future there will be no wives and no friends...There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother.
[george orwell]...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Hank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Annapurna1]
#6177595 - 10/17/06 07:09 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Exactly, the family unit is being broken down, one protest at a time. I think it started with the feminist movement in the 60's. Not that women's rights are a bad thing, but when mothers no longer care for their family in the way it has been done for thousands of years, there could be problems.
Of course, materialism and the constant push of the gay agenda among many other things are speeding this up. I think it is all to make the people weak and easier to control. But hey, what do I know?
-------------------- Capliberty: "I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Annapurna1]
#6178178 - 10/17/06 11:12 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Oh what a quaint book, I might have to start reading that at some point
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Hank, FTW]
#6178388 - 10/17/06 12:26 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
alpharedecho said: Exactly, the family unit is being broken down, one protest at a time. I think it started with the feminist movement in the 60's. Not that women's rights are a bad thing, but when mothers no longer care for their family in the way it has been done for thousands of years, there could be problems.
which is why ive always been very skeptical about feminism..even though i often get called that name myself...i posted another thread on this topic way back when...its an ancient thread so some lynx may be broken ..
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4306038#Post4306038
and even when mothers do manage to make enough time for the kids..the father has long since been given the old curbside treatment.. and somebody..namely big brother..has to fill those shoes...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Vvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Annapurna1]
#6178471 - 10/17/06 12:48 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Women tend to work because they have to. Instead of blaming a liberation movement, blame stagnant wages and a faulty economic system.
|
Hank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Vvellum]
#6178520 - 10/17/06 12:57 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I blame materialistic people.
-------------------- Capliberty: "I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "
|
Turn
Hey Its Free!

Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Hank, FTW]
#6178614 - 10/17/06 01:22 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Thats right we are become more alone, even back in the 1800's Toqueville saw this happening in America. For some reason Democracy encourages people to only care for themselvs, I don't quite understand it myself. But yes! Must somehow reverse this trend
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Vvellum]
#6179408 - 10/17/06 04:32 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bi0 said: Women tend to work because they have to. Instead of blaming a liberation movement, blame stagnant wages and a faulty economic system.
first of all..im a bit curious as to how a "liberation movement" could have produced a maggie thatcher and an ann coulter (just to name two)...second of all..one would intuitively expect stagnant wages and a faulty economic system to be the result..rather than the cause..of an overnight doubling of the labour force ..
between 1973 and 2005..median household income increased from ~$40000 to $46326..but the 1973 figure is for a single-income household..whereas the 2006 figure is a for a dual-income household (it doesnt actually say that in the report..since that would make king george look bad..nor is it that clear-cut either)..that means that individual median income stands at $23163..down 42% from 1973...(source ..US census [PDF] (chart on p11))...the reason why its 42% and not 50% is because there were still some two-income families in 1973 and there are still some one-income-two-parent families today...another way to look at it is that the second income only adds 15.8%.. hardly worth it when the social costs of neoconservatism..etc are taken into account...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Annapurna1]
#6180068 - 10/17/06 07:23 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
this is nothing less than a resounding victory for the corporatist right
yep, they're in deep... controlling who gets married, who stays married, who has kids, how many kids they have... single households are up? chalk up another neocon victory!!! 
edit: cannot type tonight
Edited by wilshire (10/17/06 08:14 PM)
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Annapurna1]
#6180318 - 10/17/06 08:20 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Annapurna1 said:
Quote:
"Overall, what I see is a situation in which people -- especially children -- will be much more isolated, because not only will their parents both be working, but they'll have fewer siblings, fewer cousins, fewer aunts and uncles," the scholar argued. "So over time, we're moving towards a much more individualistic society."
... an atomized society of isolated individuals simply cannot organize any kind of political resistance against repugnican campaign sponsors
I don't understand how this argument follows at all.
The quoted scholar specifically states that he sees individuals being MORE INDIVIDUALISTIC in the future. That is exactly the opposite of the George Orwell quote you cite further down.
Individualistic people don't have more loyalty to "the party" they are more likely to think and act in their own best interests. Thus, even if we agree 100% with what the scholar says, this still wouldn't represent any sort of victory for the neocons.
As for women in the workplace, I think that has less to do with stagnant wages and more to do with the exact opposite: increased wages.
In the 1970s, women had woefully little access to high paying jobs, and in the lower-paying positions to which they did have access there was little-to-no room for advancement. This changed during the 1980s and 1990s, so that women now have access to higher paying jobs, as well as advancement and raises in lower-paying sectors.
As we all know about opportunity costs, simply put: the opportunity costs of not working are now higher than ever before. A woman with a college education can now make much more money than she could just twenty years ago, and so the opportunity cost for being a home-maker is much higher.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Economist]
#6180788 - 10/17/06 10:33 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Economist said: The quoted scholar specifically states that he sees individuals being MORE INDIVIDUALISTIC in the future. That is exactly the opposite of the George Orwell quote you cite further down.
Individualistic people don't have more loyalty to "the party" they are more likely to think and act in their own best interests. Thus, even if we agree 100% with what the scholar says, this still wouldn't represent any sort of victory for the neocons.
wrong...it is exactly what orwell said...there may or may not be any conscious sense of "loyalty to the party (or whoever)" as such..but the result will be the same..because in such an adversarial society..one can only serve ones' own interests by serving those of the ruling elite...
Quote:
As for women in the workplace, I think that has less to do with stagnant wages and more to do with the exact opposite: increased wages.
In the 1970s, women had woefully little access to high paying jobs, and in the lower-paying positions to which they did have access there was little-to-no room for advancement. This changed during the 1980s and 1990s, so that women now have access to higher paying jobs, as well as advancement and raises in lower-paying sectors.
its true that we can get all the jobs that we couldnt get before..but they pay 42% less on average...and its also worth pointing out the growth of the corporatist far right during this period too...somehow i very much doubt that its a mere coincidence...the only women that come out as winners in this are the neocunt elites sitting alongside their male counterparts in the fascist power circles.. hardly what i would call "equality"...
Quote:
As we all know about opportunity costs, simply put: the opportunity costs of not working are now higher than ever before. A woman with a college education can now make much more money than she could just twenty years ago, and so the opportunity cost for being a home-maker is much higher.
that opportunity cost adds up to a whopping $6326..or 15.8% of a median family income in 2006...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: wilshire]
#6180797 - 10/17/06 10:36 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wilshire said: this is nothing less than a resounding victory for the corporatist right
yep, they're in deep... controlling who gets married, who stays married, who has kids, how many kids they have... single households are up? chalk up another neocon victory!!! 
edit: cannot type tonight
yes and no...they dont actually control those things..but they do control the media..and all they need do is to promote a few negative role models on the TV in order to engineer a subservient society...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Turn
Hey Its Free!

Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Economist]
#6180800 - 10/17/06 10:37 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Economist said: The quoted scholar specifically states that he sees individuals being MORE INDIVIDUALISTIC in the future. That is exactly the opposite of the George Orwell quote you cite further down.
Alot of people want us to be Alone, not Individualistic. When we are alone, no one to talk to, noone to vent our frustration about things, noone to link up and form parties we are much more easier to control. Change come from large groups of people working all over, grassroots type things, but if we are alone, only caring about purchasing we are doomed
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Annapurna1]
#6181858 - 10/18/06 10:02 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Annapurna1 said: wrong...it is exactly what orwell said...there may or may not be any conscious sense of "loyalty to the party (or whoever)" as such..but the result will be the same..because in such an adversarial society..one can only serve ones' own interests by serving those of the ruling elite...
Main Entry: in·di·vid·u·al·ist Pronunciation: -list Function: noun 1 : one that pursues a markedly independent course in thought or action 2 : one that advocates or practices individualism - individualist or in·di·vid·u·al·is·tic /-"vij-
From Merriam Webster, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/individualistic
Annapurna1, if you choose to read something into the word "individualistic" that isn't actually part of the definition, that's fine, but then you've twisted the scholar's quote and you have no footing left.
Quote:
Annapurna1 said: its true that we can get all the jobs that we couldnt get before..but they pay 42% less on average...and its also worth pointing out the growth of the corporatist far right during this period too...somehow i very much doubt that its a mere coincidence...the only women that come out as winners in this are the neocunt elites sitting alongside their male counterparts in the fascist power circles.. hardly what i would call "equality"...
What are you even talking about?
All successful women are part of "facist power circles"? Can you even see the light of day through all of your ridiculous rhetoric?
Go ahead, you made the assertion, I want to see it proven. Prove to me that no successful women in America aren't part of a facist power circle. I'll be waiting for a response.
As for the 42% figure, where'd you get that, reading tea leaves?
Check out the BLS employment surveys, according to: http://www.bls[dot]gov/news.release/wkyeng.t04.htm
We can see that in the 1st through 3rd quartiles, the difference between women's weekly earnings and that of men is: 441 vs. 403 659 vs. 593 1017 vs. 874
Now, before you start in about the 4th quartile (which is unreported purposefully for identity protection purposes) I'd like to point out that at the 9th decile, the difference is: 1542 vs. 1266
Thus, no matter how you look at it, women ARE NOT earning 42% less. Perhaps if you took ultra-large meaningless averages that included Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, you could eventually get to a figure that approached 42%, but it would be completely meaningless from both a realistic and a statistical standpoint.
Quote:
Annapurna1 said: that opportunity cost adds up to a whopping $6326..or 15.8% of a median family income in 2006...
What? Where does this calculation even come from?
Again, look at the BLS numbers. The vast majority of women with Bachelors degrees or more (which is currently 1/3 of all working women) have access to the 3rd and 4th earnings quartiles, making $1000/wk or more. This is an opportunity that was simply not available 20 or 30 years ago.
I also never said that things were currently equal (though thanks for suggesting that I did). I merely pointed out that growth in available earnings is most likely responsible for a growth in the number of women working. I've yet to see anything disprove that.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Economist]
#6182364 - 10/18/06 12:06 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Annapurna1, if you choose to read something into the word "individualistic" that isn't actually part of the definition, that's fine, but then you've twisted the scholar's quote and you have no footing left.
the quote is much more than the single word "individualistic"...taken in its entirety..the earlier poster interprets it correctly ..
Quote:
Alot of people want us to be Alone, not Individualistic. When we are alone, no one to talk to, noone to vent our frustration about things, noone to link up and form parties we are much more easier to control. Change come from large groups of people working all over, grassroots type things, but if we are alone, only caring about purchasing we are doomed
and thats doubly true considering that that asshole (quoted in the link) was from the AEI...
Quote:
As for the 42% figure, where'd you get that, reading tea leaves?
i already explained the numbers in my earlier post..i will repost the census data link for your convenience..more specifically..the chart on p11 ..
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
Quote:
Thus, no matter how you look at it, women ARE NOT earning 42% less.
i dont know about women specifically..but the inference to be drawn from the chart is that a generic individual paycheck has shrunk on average 42% from 1973...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Annapurna1]
#6182751 - 10/18/06 01:51 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Annapurna1 said: the quote is much more than the single word "individualistic"...taken in its entirety..the earlier poster interprets it correctly ..
Quote:
Alot of people want us to be Alone, not Individualistic. When we are alone, no one to talk to, noone to vent our frustration about things, noone to link up and form parties we are much more easier to control. Change come from large groups of people working all over, grassroots type things, but if we are alone, only caring about purchasing we are doomed
Except that this isn't at all what the scholar speaking for the census stated. This is the opinion of someone with no credentials typing over the internet. If you prefer that to a scholar who's studied the census, that's your choice, but that doesn't mean its the best choice.
Quote:
Annapurna1 said: i already explained the numbers in my earlier post..i will repost the census data link for your convenience..more specifically..the chart on p11 ..
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
i dont know about women specifically..but the inference to be drawn from the chart is that a generic individual paycheck has shrunk on average 42% from 1973...
I don't understand. Did you mean to link something else?
On pg. 11 of the PDF, there's a decided gain in real family income. On pg. 11 of the document (pg. 18 of the PDF) the numbers have been adjusted to 2005 dollars, thus the median income in 2005 isn't anything close to 42% lower.
It is slightly lower, I'll give you that, but no more than 1-5%.
It *would* be much lower if the numbers were the same and the chart wasn't adjusted to 2005 dollars, but as it is clearly adjusted (hence the "Earnings in 2005 dollars" below the title) the 42% number doesn't even make sense.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: unmarried households dominate for the first time... [Re: Hank, FTW]
#6183707 - 10/18/06 06:56 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
alpharedecho said: Exactly, the family unit is being broken down, one protest at a time. I think it started with the feminist movement in the 60's. Not that women's rights are a bad thing, but when mothers no longer care for their family in the way it has been done for thousands of years, there could be problems.

What, father wouldn't be able to use the excuse that they just did a day's work to get out of doing things around the house and spending time with mother due to the fact that mother put in a day's work as well?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
|