Log Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 I'm glad you and/or your wife didn't lose their jobs during that time or any other calamities. My point is that two incomes provide security and redundancy to protect the family against the unforeseen problems of life.Yes, your point is a variant of "If you leave my employ, what will become of you?"
Bond...James Bond Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Yes, your point is a variant of "If you leave my employ, what will become of you?"More like "if you leave employment and rely on one income you lose financial security."
Nominee Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 I can state unequivocally that Nominee does, in fact, share what she has with others, and has her heart in the right place. If anyone gets on her case about this topic I will EAT THEM.
Log Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Non sequitur? More like "if you leave employment and rely on one income you lose financial security."And that's different than what I attributed to you... how, exactly? Edited March 30, 2012 by Log
thesometimesaint Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) James....James Bond:Actually I did lose several jobs in that time. Finally becoming so disabled I couldn't work. Fortunately we've always been conservative in our money habits, and have outstanding insurance to make up for any shortfall. Edited March 30, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Nominee Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Non sequitur?No, the name of the song he is singing to you.
Bond...James Bond Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Sorry. I don't listen to bad music.And that's different than what I attributed to you... how, exactly?Not much just being contrarian.
katherine the great Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 KtG:With over 50% of the population as women it might not be such a bad idea to have a job if something unfortunate happens in a marriage.Or at least some kind of marketable skill and backup plan just in case... I make sure my husband has good life insurance too. I'd rather have him, but if I have to be a widow, I'd rather be a rich one than a poor one.
Log Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Sorry. I don't listen to bad music.Nobody thinks they do, do they?Nevertheless, the song was not cited as an example of exquisite artistry, but simply because your worldview seems to mesh with the sentiments expressed therein.Not much just being contrarian.Contention sucks. Edited March 30, 2012 by Log
Bond...James Bond Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 James....James Bond:Actually I did lose several jobs in that time. Finally becoming so disabled I couldn't work. Fortunately we've always been conservative in our money habits, and have outstanding insurance to make up for any shortfall.That's great but anecdotal (just like anecdotes of women I could tell who lost their homes because they were reliant on their husband). Times have also changed in terms of insurance, disability, and the social net as conservatives have severely weakened and continue to batter away at the social safety net.
Analytics Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) More like "if you leave employment and rely on one income you lose financial security."It cuts both ways. If a family has one breadwinner and his or her earning capacity is reduced, the other is available to make up the difference. If they rely upon both spouses to make money, if something happens to either one, they are in trouble.Incidently, haveyou seen the cover of the current edition of TIME? Maybe it's time for the father to stay home with the kids.http://www.time.com/...0120326,00.html Edited March 30, 2012 by Analytics
Bond...James Bond Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Nobody thinks they do, do they?I guess not. Contention sucks.Not when it comes to fighting the outdated argument that women should stay in the home while only men work. That 1950s "Leave It To Beaver" trope just doesn't work in modern America unless the breadwinner is bringing home big money. I would *love* for it to be possible for one person to make enough to pay for everything and live comfortably but it's just not realistic in most cases to do and remain comfortable.
Bond...James Bond Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 It cuts both ways. If a family has one breadwinner and his or her earning capacity is reduced, the other is available to make up the difference. If they rely upon both spouses to make money, if something happens to either one, they are in trouble.Incidently, haveyou seen the cover of the current edition of TIME? Maybe it's time for the father to stay home with the kids.http://www.time.com/...0120326,00.htmlI haven't read Time in years lol. But it seems natural Analytics since women are going to college in greater numbers than men nowadays. And I agree with your point that most people are going to spend pretty much however they make collectively, but I stand by my point that two incomes are better than one because if one becomes none it's a definite problem.
Log Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 Not when it comes to fighting the outdated argument that women should stay in the home while only men work. That 1950s "Leave It To Beaver" trope just doesn't work in modern America unless the breadwinner is bringing home big money. I would *love* for it to be possible for one person to make enough to pay for everything and live comfortably but it's just not realistic in most cases to do and remain comfortable.I'm not sure I could pack more arrogance and condescension into three sentences. You win the internet! 2
thesometimesaint Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Bond....James Bond:I think we ALL should be independent enough that if we or our spouces are no long able to carry the financial load our families don't suffer the financial consequences by loosing their home. I have no love for what conservatism has morphed into over the last couple of decades. It is a far cry from what I grew up with. 1
Bond...James Bond Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Who says I can't support my family while being with them? Maybe your idea of support and mine are different? We have what we NEED. And for the record, again, I hope for more in the future but not at the expense of my children's upbringing.Well good luck. I hope you get more in the future.
Bond...James Bond Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Bond....James Bond:I think we ALL should be independent enough that if we or our spouces are no long able to carry the financial load our families don't suffer the financial consequences by loosing their home. I have no love for what conservatism has morphed into over the last couple of decades. It is a far cry from what I grew up with.I totally agree.
Bond...James Bond Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 I'm not sure I could pack more arrogance and condescension into three sentences. You win the internet!Thanks for the concession speech. I like em short and sweet so I can get back to arrogancing and condescending.
Log Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 Thanks for the concession speech. I like em short and sweet so I can get back to arrogancing and condescending.So long as you refuse to let pesky facts hinder you, you'll do just fine.
Yirgacheffe Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 No worries Yirgacheffe. I found it...I concede.I am dismayed. He loved and believed strongly in the United Nations. He wrote of this. I knew it already. But I had no idea just how far John Paul thought it should go. In a letter directed to the United Nations he goes further, calling on the need for government legislation and subsidization to help women become equally influential in public and business life:---Letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, 26 May, 1995Of course I don't consider a letter to the U.N. to be binding on my conscience. But it is as authoritative as the opposite opinion of Pius XII.Hi 3DOPI read Pope Pius XII address to Catholic women's organizations and while he does indeed promote women being in the home he also seems to, like John Paul II believe that women can make a valuable contribution to society outside the home. Both appear to see women as possessing qualities that are needed in the public sphere. Pius presents it as something unmarried women and women with more time on their hands (grown children?) should apply themselves to and at one one point asks if it may be Divine Providence that just as women are entering the public sector there is a large group of women who may find themselves widowed or unable marry. (was there a shortage of marriageable men at the end of WWII?) John Paul sees it more as a universal challenge for not only all women but all people. But both present it as a situation where the participation of women in political and social life will primarily be beneficial for children. I don't know anything about this being binding on conscience, but I would think that these two men considered these issues carefully and I'm sure prayed for guidance before they gave their addresses and so what they said would at least be important enough to reflect on and "taken to heart" so to speak. But I have noticed that religious "leader's" words are often given light weight or shunted aside as not doctrine or just opinion when their words are found disagreeable. 1
Analytics Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 I haven't read Time in years lol. But it seems natural Analytics since women are going to college in greater numbers than men nowadays. And I agree with your point that most people are going to spend pretty much however they make collectively, but I stand by my point that two incomes are better than one because if one becomes none it's a definite problem.I have to disagree. A household with two incomes has greater exposure to losing some of their income in a downturn. A household with one income has half the exposure to a downturn, and if it experiences a downturn, the other spouse is available to pick up the slack.
MorningStar Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 No regrets that if you'd gotten a job 10 yrs ago you might have been a 1/3 of a way into paying a 30 yr mortgage instead of spending money for rent you'll never see again?Nope. Especially since the market went to crap and we would be stuck in a "starter home" that we hate. At least we have the freedom to move. I've met too many people who are stuck with houses they can't sell. My kids are more important. My relationship with my kids and their upbringing matters in the eternities. My house doesn't. 3
Log Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 Nope. Especially since the market went to crap and we would be stuck in a "starter home" that we hate. At least we have the freedom to move. I've met too many people who are stuck with houses they can't sell. My kids are more important. My relationship with my kids and their upbringing matters in the eternities. My house doesn't.Do you mean to say that, by failing to follow the almighty dollar with pure fidelity, your family's lives have been blessed? Blasphemy! Do you not know financial security is the highest good anyone can strive for? 2
Recommended Posts