Posted on 08/19/2005 5:46:36 AM PDT by SLB
You do realize that those household income figures are based on single-income families in the 1970s and two-income families in 2005? In other words, just the baseline requires twice the work now as it did then to achieve parity, and it comes at the cost of removing parents from their childrens' lives.
This is hardly surprising. It is the primary philosophical/ideological conflict in Western civilization since the late eighteenth century: the conflict between traditionalist culture and Romantic culture. It is one of the things I highlight in my Literature course.
All ideologies or philosophies are based on assumptions. Even the most basic logical structures (the syllogism: If A=B & B=C then A=C) depend on premises for their conclusions. Go back far enough in the logical process, and the premises have to be assumed, rather than proved. This tends to be one of the bases for the evolution vs. creationism arguments... the premises that they start from makes any agreement on conclusions impossible.
For most of the history of the West, certain premises about the fundamental nature of human beings have prevailed. Traditional culture began from the basic belief that humanity is born in sin, or fundamentally flawed with the capacity for evil. Part of this assumption is based on Judeo-Christian religious values (see "original sin"). When you assume this about humanity, certain attitudes and beliefs MUST follow. If humanity is fallen, then the job of parents becomes one of training children to be proper adults (restricting their natural "evil" impulses), and the job of society is to protect its citizens from the harm that may inflict upon each other. The Founding Fathers subscribed to this view, as they based our government on the belief that no one could be trust with power... that we are all imperfect and flawed beings.
However, starting with Jean Jacques Rousseau, and finding a powerful voice through poets and philosophers in Europe, another culture grew to challenge traditionalist culture. It started from the basic assumption that man was a tabula rasa, a clean slate, and that a child represented true innocence. Once you assume this, you must then logically progress to views that hold (as did Rousseau) that it was adults (who had been unfortunately warped by their maturation) and the society that they built that robs children of their innocence (hence the "noble" savage of Romantic literature... unwarped by "modern" culture). So, unlike the traditionalist who sees the primary purpose of childhood to be to prepare the child for his life as an adult, the Romantic saw childhood as a time of innocence that every person should aspire to return to.
Or, in brief, to call a liberal (the lineal descendants of the Romantics) child-like is a compliment to them... they see children as being the purest of beings. This is why emotion is so important to them, as it is the primary decision-making tool of a child. And it is why we constantly look at liberals and want to tell them to "grow up"...
</repost>
We all felt we had an important role to play, even if it was just catching dinner down by the creek with a cane pole and a few worms.
When you are 9 or 10, bringing home dinner is a point of pride, even if you do have to clean it!
Working on the farm helped, though it was my Grandfather's farm, just a half mile through the woods.
Dad did not farm, but he took us hunting and fishing a lot, was involved in the community (as was mom), and taught us that we could do virtually anything if we wanted to take the time to learn. He was fearless about building something, working on an engine, whatever needed to be done. He would get the manual and figure it out, if he did not already know how.
The family business (or a family project) just might bring that relevance back.
We are remodeling our house (built in 1912) around ourselves while living there (one room at a time), and involving our live-in grand children--mostly girls (and those who do not live with us) as much as possible, within their abilities and interests.
They are interested, more so than in watching TV.
They are not only picking up skills, which translate to self confidence and self respect, but they are feeling a part of something bigger than any one of us individually. It really makes a difference.
William Golding had the answer to this one.
I really don't get guys like Sam Walton. You work your entire life to create a succesful business and make yourself wealthy, and yet you do not enjoy the fruits of your labors. What's the point? He could have kept on living in that crappy house and not had to go through the effort and toil of creating Wal-Mart.
He was worth over $9 Billion then. Their kids got 0, none, nada help from dad as they entered adulthood.
That's just stupid, and incredibly selfish. One of the things that smart rich families do in this country is use their wealth as a foundation for giving their next generation a leg-up. What is the point of creating that wealth if it does not benefit your family? Sure, your kids learn some lessons about the values of hard work. But they would learn much more valuable lessons if dad used his wealth as a way to get them top-notch educations and advantages over their peers.
It is a uniquely (wrong-headed) American notion to make one's children start from scratch with every generation.
Your remodeling project and how you're involving the kids sounds wonderful. I wish I had done more of that when my children were in the elementary & junior high years. As it was, when my kids were old enough for paid jobs, it was VERY hard to get them to do that-- I had to push and nag, push and nag, and deprive them of money, but I did it! ;) Both worked full-time every summer and part-time during much of the school year.
You would be amazed how many parents just allowed their teens to drift & play, working very little or not at all. Heck, I know one young man who wasn't forced to work by his parents until the summer after his freshman year in college-- almost 20 years old. And, I know lots more who worked only very intermittently and very little. For quite a while my daughters thought I was really mean (and stingy) on this issue.
But, now my daughters (18 & 19) like working-- they like their increasing financial independence and they even like how it helps to structure their time. Both will be in college this year, and both will also work part-time. Meanwhile, they've drifted away from the friends who still mostly just hang out, and found other friends who are also progressing towards adulthood.
Welfare roles are much smaller than they were a decade ago.
That’s part of why I said "So assuming everything’s equal, which it’s not but there are inequalities favoring both sides,".
I could list several details supporting claims that homes and incomes between now and then make them both more and less expensive than the dry numbers indicate. But for a variety of reasons, respectfully, I don’t think discussions between people with their minds made up, heals dug in and ignoring counter evidence accomplishes much.
Life’s short. Best regards.
I bet that you haven’t had to hire a plumber or electrician lately. And if they are good, and sober, they can be a boss making 6 figures before their kids hit college.
"That's why I don't get excited when the Bush administration brags about the low unemployment rate. People are employed alright...and making less than half of what they were. "
Would it change your mind if I showed you figures indicating that real median wages have been steadily rising?
I guess it all comes down to whether you find the modern lifestyle to be a higher quality of life than the one that previous generations of Americans lived. I don't. And as someone who would like to live a traditional type of life, with moral values, intact families, and kids, the institutional and cultural conditions are far harder today than they were when the WW2 generation passed the torch.
I suppose if I wanted to bugger men in highway restrooms, then I might consider today's conditions to be higher quality.
You could be right. Walton said the money was just a side-product of doing what he loved doing (running a business). He didn't need it in his day to day life. As far as the kids, there may not be a good ansswer. Like I said, Paris Hilton contributes nothing to her family or organization, other than wasting money. Too much too soon. Bill Gates seems to have the right idea: He says his kids will only get $5 million apiece when they reach adult age. That is certainly enough to live on and start an empire with, but how do you keep from spoiling them into useless dregs when you personally control such enormous capital? It's a very unique problem for the uber wealthy only.
Strange that you’ve ended two of your 5 post to me with such an out of the blue reference to homosexuality.
In every generation there was, are and will be people ignoring their generations faults and proclaiming the next to be going to hell in a hand basket. People often see what they want to see.
It's not out of the blue at all. I think it is, symbolically, the epitome of where the boomer generation has led us as a nation. If you assume a deviant, destructive lifestyle, then the modern life is of higher quality. If you have a traditional lifestyle, then the modern life is not.
If all you see is what you want to see, ignoring the problems of the past generations, and you see is black, then I expect you’ll conclude that.
And if parents tried to require school aged children to do a couple of hours of serious chores every day, or go to bed without dinner, the parents would be charged with child abuse, and the children hauled away by "social services".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.