Dating for Fedora Loungers?

[Feraud]

2x the number in the workforce = 1/2 the pay for each and the children raised by disinterested third parties. What a leap forward.

Actually two parents in the workforce = double the income.

I hope you are not making the ridiculous leap of logic that because two parents work they value their children so little as to leave them in the hands of just anyone?

Let's reserve judgement against people we know nothing about and stick to facts.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's also good to keep in mind that as far back as 1940, women made up 40 percent of the workforce, and if they had kids they'd park them with neighbors or relatives or leave them home by themselves while working. There's nothing especially modern-era about women who work. Stephanie Koontz's study "The Way We Never Were" makes for very illuminating reading on this subject.

 

[HepKitty]

What I would promise would be to never take what she does for me for granted. To love, protect & respect her. To let her know she's my partner and that nothing or no one is more important to me. To make sure she always knows that she makes every minute of every day better. After that everything else is just details.

well certainly don't take her for granted. but if you have such high standards for her, why don't you live up to them yourself? not taking care of oneself is a big turn-off, and thinking that one doesn't have to try as hard as the other does is deplorable. are you really saying that it's a requirement that she look like a goddess but what you look like is just "details?" really? I'm not saying everyone has to look like a supermodel but everyone can at least maintain good hygiene, dress well but w/in budget, keep healthy eating and exercise habits overall, that's not unreasonable. what is unreasonable is thinking that mere talk will be good enough for her. remember the cliches, talk is cheap and put up or shut up?

 

[Feraud]

Thanks Lizzie. As I was typing I was wondering what that number was.

 

[HepKitty]

It's also good to keep in mind that as far back as 1940, women made up 40 percent of the workforce, and if they had kids they'd park them with neighbors or relatives or leave them home by themselves while working. There's nothing especially modern-era about women who work. Stephanie Koontz's study "The Way We Never Were" makes for very illuminating reading on this subject.

also worthy of note, that in the 40s women held MEN's jobs, even the dangerous ones. like the WASP pilots, they taught, they tested planes after repair, they pulled "trailers" so that the troops could have target practice... never mind the ground-based factory workers, welders, etc

so no nothing wrong with women working. but there is something wrong with men who think they don't have to do anything because women work now too

 

[facade]

Actually two parents in the workforce = double the income.

I hope you are not making the ridiculous leap of logic that because two parents work they value their children so little as to leave them in the hands of just anyone?

Let's reserve judgement against people we know nothing about and stick to facts.

Two parents in the work force means two incomes, yes. But not double the income. A glutted workforce means increased job competition which means lower wages & benefits for all. Simple supply and demand, the more in demand my job is the less I have to pay someone to fill it. Great system for the wealthy, not so great for everyone else.

Parents value their children. But unless one has a close relative helping out, one has to leave their children in the hands of someone who values them a whole lot less than they do. And during that time they are learning someone elses values which may not necessarily coincide with the values of the parents. Its not a value judgement against the parents. They have to do whats necessary to get by, but its not the best thing for the kids either.

 

[facade]

well certainly don't take her for granted. but if you have such high standards for her, why don't you live up to them yourself? not taking care of oneself is a big turn-off, and thinking that one doesn't have to try as hard as the other does is deplorable. are you really saying that it's a requirement that she look like a goddess but what you look like is just "details?" really? I'm not saying everyone has to look like a supermodel but everyone can at least maintain good hygiene, dress well but w/in budget, keep healthy eating and exercise habits overall, that's not unreasonable. what is unreasonable is thinking that mere talk will be good enough for her. remember the cliches, talk is cheap and put up or shut up?

It all depends. Clearly you value those things so if my spouse felt similarly then I would be taking her for granted were I to do as you suggest. I would be saying hey thanks for all the wonderful things you do for me but its too much effort for me to do this to make you happy. However other people may be just as happy growing fat together. Therefore its not really about specifics, its about wanting to do what makes the other person happy.

 

[JimWagner]

Two parents in the work force means two incomes, yes. But not double the income.

Depends entirely on what kind of jobs each hold, doesn't it?

A glutted workforce means increased job competition which means lower wages & benefits for all.

Wages have pretty much increased over the past 50 years, haven't they? If you have facts to the contrary, let's see them.

Simple supply and demand, the more in demand my job is the less I have to pay someone to fill it. Great system for the wealthy, not so great for everyone else.

This assumes a steady state job market with no growth. Clearly not the case except in the most recent years.

Parents value their children. But unless one has a close relative helping out, one has to leave their children in the hands of someone who values them a whole lot less than they do. And during that time they are learning someone elses values which may not necessarily coincide with the values of the parents.

Clearly the emotionally charged party line of the "family values" crowd.

Its not a value judgement against the parents. They have to do whats necessary to get by, but its not the best thing for the kids either.

My wife an I have both always worked, raised two kids, and absolutely not a single thing you've said has been true in our case.

You've not been stating facts. You've been spouting politics.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

It's also good to keep in mind that as far back as 1940, women made up 40 percent of the workforce, and if they had kids they'd park them with neighbors or relatives or leave them home by themselves while working. There's nothing especially modern-era about women who work. Stephanie Koontz's study "The Way We Never Were" makes for very illuminating reading on this subject.

:eusa_clap
Yup, my paternal great-grandmother worked in a glass factory according to the 1910 census. My paternal grandmother worked in a can factory according to the 1920 census My other grandmother was a nurse from 1949 (after she graduated high school!) up until she retired in 1994. All my female ancestors have been working class and (obviously) had children! They also had husbands that worked!

 

[Feraud]

My wife an I have both always worked, raised two kids, and absolutely not a single thing you've said has been true in our case.

Nor has it been the experience in our two income household.

 

[Lou]

Wages certainly have gone up, but what about the ratio of wages to expenses? I don't know, so this isn't a rhetorical question.

 

[Paisley]

Re: wages v. expenses, again, the standard of living has increased. And many of those so-called expenses are optional.

If you're thinking of household income, keep in mind that households now have fewer people. My parents raised a large family on one income--but in a house the size of the one I live in by myself.

 

[facade]

Wages certainly have gone up, but what about the ratio of wages to expenses? I don't know, so this isn't a rhetorical question.

In 1940 a gallon of gas was 11 cents.
In 1940 the average cost of new car was $850.00.
In 1940 a new house cost $3,920.00.

Costs in inflated dollars through 2009

What cost $.11 in 1940 would cost $1.66 in 2009
What cost $850 in 1940 would cost $12862.65 in 2009
What cost $3920.00 in 1940 would cost $59319.49 in 2009


So these basic staples are in most cases much higher in cost then what is simply due to inflation.

 

[Puzzicato]

Re: wages v. expenses, again, the standard of living has increased. And many of those so-called expenses are optional.

Exactly. If people didn't need 2 cars and a TV in every room I am fairly sure there would be fewer people with two incomes who are in debt up to their eyeballs.

 

[dhermann1]

But you'd have to say that the actual value of the car and house is much greater today. A 2010 car has well over twice the life expectancy of a 1940 car, and is safer, more reliable and more comfortable. Same with a modern home, many more features and amenities than in 1940. So you could say we're paying more, in constant dollars, but we're also getting more.
And of course the gas price increase is mostly taxes.
I'd like to see comparisons of annual salaries for specific jobs in 1940 and 2010.
These numerical comparisons are always very tricky, some real values rise over time, and some go down.
Now, to comment on another post above, and without trying to get too controversial, recent statistics show that the average middle class American family's income has remained flat for almost fifty years, in constant dollars. So both Facade and Paisley are correct. Paradoxical, but true.

 

[LizzieMaine]

One of the theses put forward in Koontz' book is that the fifties ideal of working Dad, stay-at-home Mom, 2.5 kids, owning a home in the suburbs with a new car in the garage is very much a historic anomaly, made possible during a very brief window in American history due to low-interest GI Bill mortgages, and an explosion in new housing construction that drove home prices down, the prevalence of high-wage, unionized jobs, and the opening of higher education to the average citizen due, again, to the GI Bill. She posits -- and I agree with her -- that the postwar middle class was an artificial construction which, in the long term, couldn't be sustained because the conditions that created it were themselves artificial. I think the history of the last fifty years bears that out.

 

[facade]

Exactly. If people didn't need 2 cars and a TV in every room I am fairly sure there would be fewer people with two incomes who are in debt up to their eyeballs.

Ah yes but then the entire economy collapses since its built on our spending ourselves into debt.

Internet "fact": 43% of American families spend more annually then they earn every year

 

[Paisley]

...recent statistics show that the average middle class American family's income has remained flat for almost fifty years, in constant dollars. So both Facade and Paisley are correct. Paradoxical, but true.

This is what I was saying about households: households are smaller than they used to be. Comparing my parents' household of seven people living in a small house in 1960 to my household of one in the same size house with possibly the same size income doesn't paint an accurate picture.

Many jobs from 1940 either don't exist anymore or have changed dramatically with technology.

And I agree it's not an apples-to-apples comparison regarding houses and cars. There's not only a difference in quality, but in the case of houses, there's been a great deal of government intervention that has affected prices.

What any of this has to do with dating, though, is beyond me.

 

[Undertow]

fftopic:
And here I'd read the title of this thread as if you were trying to carbon date one of us. Schucks!

 

[dhermann1]

I'm going to try to save this thread. The reason we're talking about these subjects is because the whole idea of dating naturally leads to marriage, procreation and family life. Which leads to economics which leads to politics. Let us return to the step one part, and leave the subsequent steps to other forums. OK?
What experience have people had with dating somebody new who was not into vintage, and trying to get them interested?