Chart: The sweat of your brow, by Rachel Maddow

[LJ_Reloaded]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/21/9612512-chart-the-sweat-of-your-brow

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=laura-conaway40FCA945-6A89-8C7C-BFED-B656C8F26359.jpg

Ezra Klein today runs a year-in-charts post that's purely the excellent. It includes the Toil Index, by the excellent economist Robert Frank. Basically, it shows why it's so hard for working people to live decently these days. Working families are running faster and faster just to afford the same things their parents enjoyed, namely decent homes and decent schools for the kids.

This is the same territory Elizabeth Warren began mapping in the early 2000s, with The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke. The thesis from Ms. Warren was that families need to have two parents cranking away all the time in order to stay in the middle class. If something happens to one parent, she wrote, like a layoff or an injury, then it all falls apart.

Here's betting you can relate.

 

[great lover]

If you read "Ten Big Lies about America", you'll know that Rachel is just plain wrong!

 

[Bob Waters]

You could turn around and make the argument that women entering the working world en mass drove prices up. In 'our parent's day' - i.e. up through the early 70's - when most families were single income, the sheer fact that most families had less cash kept prices down. When 2 incomes became the norm the amount of disposable income went up and so did prices. Demand drives price.

 

[RightField]

Isn't it tragic what the Democrats have wrought that's led to this unfortunate situation?

 

[great lover]

You could turn around and make the argument that women entering the working world en mass drove prices up. In 'our parent's day' - i.e. up through the early 70's - when most families were single income, the sheer fact that most families had less cash kept prices down. When 2 incomes became the norm the amount of disposable income went up and so did prices. Demand drives price.

Give the man a cigar!

We desire more things today than we did in the previous decades.

 

[richard_daily]

You could turn around and make the argument that women entering the working world en mass drove prices up. In 'our parent's day' - i.e. up through the early 70's - when most families were single income, the sheer fact that most families had less cash kept prices down. When 2 incomes became the norm the amount of disposable income went up and so did prices. Demand drives price.

You could only make that argument if you were an idiot.

 

[great lover]

You could only make that argument if you were an idiot.

Ah, the wisest man on lit. Please tell us how Bob's wrong...

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You could only make that argument if you were an idiot.

Don't ever call me a misogynist again, dude. THAT right there was real misogyny.

 

[richard_daily]

Don't ever call me a misogynist again, dude. THAT right there was real misogyny.

Just because he's MORE dumb than you about it, doesn't make you any less dumb about it.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/21/9612512-chart-the-sweat-of-your-brow

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=laura-conaway40FCA945-6A89-8C7C-BFED-B656C8F26359.jpg

Here's betting you can relate.

Not really....I make more than min wage via good ol' capitalism..I produce and sell to the highest bidder while giving the gov the finger as hard as I can. I give what would be income tax to charities of MY choice not the fucking governments.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Not really....my mother makes more than min wage via good ol' capitalism.. she sells her ass to the highest bidder.

^^^ Edited for truth.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Just because he's MORE dumb than you about it, doesn't make you any less dumb about it.

Hey, would you agree to be beaten to a pulp by a woman? You said Andrea Dworkin was cool for saying that shit.

 

[richard_daily]

Hey, would you agree to be beaten to a pulp by a woman? You said Andrea Dworkin was cool for saying that shit.

Ummm, she's been dead for a while now.

That said, I think it would be cool to watch her do it to you...

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Ummm, she's been dead for a while now.

What does that matter? You said she was cool.
So why not volunteer to go through what she said all men should go through?

That said, I think it would be cool to watch her do it to you...

Considering that you aren't man enough to do it yourself, of course.

Make no mistake, if she were alive and tried to do that to me, she would get vivisected on video as a warning to all the other Feminazis of the world. I'm far beyond caring about the illegality of that.

 

[richard_daily]

What does that matter? You said she was cool.
So why not volunteer to go through what she said all men should go through?


Considering that you aren't man enough to do it yourself, of course.

Make no mistake, if she were alive and tried to do that to me, she would get vivisected on video as a warning to all the other Feminazis of the world. I'm far beyond caring about the illegality of that.

I have no interest in beating you up and threatening you... just making fun of you, because of how clueless you are about women.

 

[phrodeau]

What does that matter? You said she was cool.
So why not volunteer to go through what she said all men should go through?


Considering that you aren't man enough to do it yourself, of course.

Make no mistake, if she were alive and tried to do that to me, she would get vivisected on video as a warning to all the other Feminazis of the world. I'm far beyond caring about the illegality of that.

Sounds misogynistic to me.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

so lets jack up the cost for the business and wonder why more jobs are shipped overseas.

you are truly an ignorant person

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/21/9612512-chart-the-sweat-of-your-brow

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=laura-conaway40FCA945-6A89-8C7C-BFED-B656C8F26359.jpg

Ezra Klein today runs a year-in-charts post that's purely the excellent. It includes the Toil Index, by the excellent economist Robert Frank. Basically, it shows why it's so hard for working people to live decently these days. Working families are running faster and faster just to afford the same things their parents enjoyed, namely decent homes and decent schools for the kids.

This is the same territory Elizabeth Warren began mapping in the early 2000s, with The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke. The thesis from Ms. Warren was that families need to have two parents cranking away all the time in order to stay in the middle class. If something happens to one parent, she wrote, like a layoff or an injury, then it all falls apart.

Here's betting you can relate.

 

[Bob Waters]

Don't ever call me a misogynist again, dude. THAT right there was real misogyny.

That wasn't misogyny, it's economics. The issue at hand was the majority of American households going from 1 income to 2 and it's effect on prices. I made no value statement at all as to whether women working was a good or a bad thing. Personally I think it's a wonderful thing as we were underutilized 50% of our intellectual capital prior. One of the side-effects of that, however, was increased prices.

I don't get why the hard-core left is so quick to reject any notion of unintended negative consequences of positive social change as racism/sexism/***ism.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Because your point is stupid.

It's not that there aren't possibly all sorts of problems that come along with a social change. I'd be willing to bet thatone of the reasons US test scores plumetted is because we don't have a lot of stay at home moms. If higher prices were the problem (and in many cases they aren't higher when adjusted for inflation) if this was true then we should have seen prices continue to rise and to rise faster and faster.

What you probably mean is that wages would be higher if there weren't so many of us out there competing for the same jobs. A world where employers are competing to get workers (at all levels) not just in a few cases.

 

[Bob Waters]

Because your point is stupid.

It's not that there aren't possibly all sorts of problems that come along with a social change. I'd be willing to bet thatone of the reasons US test scores plumetted is because we don't have a lot of stay at home moms. If higher prices were the problem (and in many cases they aren't higher when adjusted for inflation) if this was true then we should have seen prices continue to rise and to rise faster and faster.

What you probably mean is that wages would be higher if there weren't so many of us out there competing for the same jobs. A world where employers are competing to get workers (at all levels) not just in a few cases.

My point isn't stupid at all. My point was when 2 income homes became the norm the average household income rose. When incomes rise across the board so do prices - higher disposable income means more buying. Buying creates scarcity which raises prices until a new equilibrium is reached.

 

[garbage can]

You could only make that argument if you were an idiot.

Only an idiot would respond to your idiocy

 

[Bob Waters]

Only an idiot would respond to your idiocy

Damn. I responded. Maybe he WAS right!

 

[RobDownSouth]

You could turn around and make the argument that women entering the working world en mass drove prices up. In 'our parent's day' - i.e. up through the early 70's - when most families were single income, the sheer fact that most families had less cash kept prices down. When 2 incomes became the norm the amount of disposable income went up and so did prices. Demand drives price.

The end of cheap energy with the oil shock of 1973 had more to do with price hikes than any two-parents-working derpderpderp Teahadist talking point.

And why was there an oil shock? Because the USA re-supplied Israel in the Yom Kippur War. "Pay any price, bear any burden, yada yada..."

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

That wasn't misogyny, it's economics. The issue at hand was the majority of American households going from 1 income to 2 and it's effect on prices. I made no value statement at all as to whether women working was a good or a bad thing. Personally I think it's a wonderful thing as we were underutilized 50% of our intellectual capital prior. One of the side-effects of that, however, was increased prices.

I don't get why the hard-core left is so quick to reject any notion of unintended negative consequences of positive social change as racism/sexism/***ism.

Going by this rabidly insane logic maybe we should have kept men out of the workplace. Imagine how many FEWER workers would be competing for jobs then!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You people are so full of shit.

Mostly its government that causes inflation via regulations, taxes, borrowing, and hiring. Scarcity causes the rest of it, but every scarcity creates a cheaper substitute unless the government prevents it.