Quote:
Originally Posted by GMAN
One unintended consequence of the women's movement has been inflation. Higher incomes result in inflation and that means higher prices. It becomes a vicious cycle. I read an article earlier today that discussed the causes of poverty. The primary cause, according to the article, was due to the decay of the family unit. Women are having children out of wedlock with no intention of marring the father. The government has encouraged this behavior with some of the programs that I listed previously. It was a rather lengthly article but mentioned some of the points listed in my post. I believe that if we can put the family back together that most of the problems we deal with in this country would go away.
While I do agree that higher income results in inflation, the past fifteen years also proves that holding income down is also very bad. Regardless what all the experts say (where "ex" means former, and "spert" is a drip under pressure), for the last fifteen years or so, income has been stagnant. As expenses have gone up, it meant less money that could be circulated in the economy, and that is at the bottom of the recent (?) recession. Most women I know began to join the workforce because a single income no longer supported a family. It required a double income to make ends meet.
But, I can't see where it's the fault of Dems or Reps, because it's INDUSTRY that has it's fingers on the controls of wages, and government either encourages or discourages what industry does. In the '70s and '80s, a single income was stretched to the point that it no longer was able to make ends meet. After 2000, even a double income no longer made ends meet. From what I can see, it's the tax codes that are obsolete and need to be re-written from top to bottom, and neither party is addressing that. If a single income had the ability to make ends meet, there would be more women (or "house-husbands") that would stay home and take care of the kids, and the family unit would be able to be restored.