Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

My Parents Managed to Raise Two Kids on One Salary. That's Impossible Today -- What Happened?

By Jared Bernstein, Berrett-Koehler Publishing. Posted April 25, 2008.


It takes two parents to earn what one did only a few generations ago. Something's gone very wrong.
41d44ezroul.ss500
crunch
Advertisement

The following is an excerpt from Jared Bernstein's new book, "Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed?" (Berrett Koehler, 2008).

My dad had a full-time job, but my mom didn't, and they managed to raise, feed, house, and educate two kids on one salary. I can't do that today. Why not? What happened?

What happened was that the real earnings of lots of people, mostly male people, so husbands in this case, started to slip. At the same time, some of the very costs mentioned -- a home and a college education -- grew a lot faster than average inflation.

That's bad.

Also, over the last 30 years, the job market has opened up much more for women, who have made impressive gains that have helped to offset their husbands' wage stagnation.

That's good.

But it also means that family members are spending a lot more time in the job market. That's bad, or at least it's stressful.

There are three problems here and one positive development.

Problem 1: Men's earnings.


Real median hourly wage, husbands and wives, 1979-2006. (Graph is based on author's analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.)

The hourly earnings of some men -- and not a trivially small group -- have done poorly over the last few decades. As shown above in the graph, the typical married man in his prime earning years, age 25 to 54, saw his real median wage fall a couple of percent from 1979 to 2006. His female counterpart made a lot more progress; her real hourly wage rose 30 percent, and she also worked a lot more hours. And if we cut the data a little further and look at husbands with at most a high school degree -- and only a minority of husbands were college educated over these years (16 percent in the mid-1970s; 30 percent today) -- we find a real wage loss of 8 percent over these 27 years.

But before you spouses out there start humming "Hit the road, Jack," recognize that it's not their fault. These men have been caught in the crossfire of a set of trends that have ripped the bottom out of their earnings capacity. The loss of unionized factory jobs has meant the slow bleed of high-productivity jobs in a sector where these guys had some bargaining power -- clout that enabled them to channel some of that growth into the household.

The fact is, when a man goes from making stuff to providing services, especially a man without a college degree, his wage falls between 15 and 20 percent, and he loses most of his fringe benefits. What explains a loss of that magnitude? It's not just the difference in the efficiencies between the two sectors, the so-called productivity differential -- the fact that services create less value added per hour than factory work. It's also that there's a lot more wage inequality in services, and when income grows in that sector, it tends to flow to the top.

That's where you most clearly see men's loss of bargaining power playing out; and outside of the public sector, unions have been hard-pressed to get a foothold in services. Wal-Mart has shut down operations rather than entertain the possibility of their workers forming a union.

At any rate, given that most of these men were working full time, full year, families had one (legal) strategy to undertake if they wanted to offset those negative male wage trends: more work by wives.

Problem 2 and Good Development 1: Women's increased presence in the paid labor market.

The increase in women's participation in the paid labor market over the last 40 years is widely appreciated as a huge change in our economy, our culture, and our families. Back in the mid-1960s, about 40 percent of women worked; in 2006, it was about 60 percent. And, while gender wage discrimination was and is a problem, women have made important gains in education and experience, and some have successfully penetrated barriers in high-end professions like law and medicine.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: family, wages, jared bernstein, crunch, salary

Jared Bernstein is a senior economist and director of the Living Standards Program at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington D.C. He is the author of "Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed?" (Berrett Koehler, 2008).



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Mission ADMONISHED!
Posted by: williameon on Apr 25, 2008 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you Working three jobs, with No health care or Benefits?
"Uniquely American" The Chimp!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mission ADMONISHED! Posted by: writer7
K.I.S.S.
Posted by: carbon-based on Apr 25, 2008 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the statement that Americans got by on one salary is a fable long past. I grew up in the 50's 60's and both my parents worked when my older brother had to go to college.. Should I blame JFK?

If I remember correctly in my economics class the advent of credit cards fueled increase prices - more money to buy things with. Arabs decide to nationalize the oil industry taking all western infrastructure investments and raising oil prices far beyond reason. Reasons for high costs can go on and on.

Today, even discounting the foreclosure problem, many more people own their own homes than in the 50's and 60's. The norm back then was one car per family - today I suspect at least 2 is the norm.

The saying he who dies with more toys wins is still holding true.

Over the long run, Americans have more possessions... but that doesn't mean life is better.. Keep it simple and be happy...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: carbon-based
» That is THE BIG LIE Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: pfeifer999
» HOLD ON! Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: HOLD ON! ~ But------ Posted by: Sissy
» RE: HOLD ON! ~ But------ Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: lasarte-oria
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: John Wilbur
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: pfeifer999
» yours is the right question Posted by: e rice
» RE: yours is the right question Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: john mont
» RE: That is THE BIG LIE Posted by: carbon-based
» gloomy Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Actually it's the big TRUTH that's the problem Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: Lector
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: Sissy
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: Sissy
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: Sissy
» The REAL American Idol Posted by: carbon-based
consumer society
Posted by: handwaver on Apr 25, 2008 2:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The other important fact that no one mentions is the difference in lifestyle - my parents lived a nice middle-class life with only one wage earner...BUT

They had one car - they had one telephone - dining out was rare, and then it was a family style, inexpensive place - they had one TV - most food was made from scratch - vacations were few and by car

Today people have 3 and 4 TV's, they pay cable or dish, they have a computer and a laptop, an Iphone, Ipod, pay hefty monthly internet and cell bills, own at least 2 vehicles and various other motorized toys, eat out several times a week, belong to a fitness club, get massages, have 4 or 5 phones, expensive sound systems (at home and in the car, a GPS, a Balckberry (with data plan, of course, have a nice bottle of wine every week, buy imported or premium beer, single malt scotches yadayadayada ad infinitum

The problem is one of lifestyle, not income - we consume like starving pigs on pot and then wonder why we can't live on one wage? Think back to how your parents lived, what they had and consumed...compare it with your lifstyle now - you might begin to understand just how rampant our materialistic culture has enslaved us all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: consumer society Posted by: paulaH
» RE: consumer society Posted by: Sissy
» RE: consumer society Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: consumer society Posted by: Elmo409
» In YOUR world maybe! Posted by: Gravitas
» go for it Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: consumer society Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: consumer society Posted by: Sissy
» working til you die Posted by: paulaH
» Kill Your Television Posted by: frantaylor
the value of the dollar has been falling for years
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Apr 25, 2008 2:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wages have not been keeping up with inflation

these days i'd sleep with my mouth closed if i had gold teeth

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's worse than that.
Posted by: lfish on Apr 25, 2008 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has been going on for a long time and it is a much bigger problem than even the author reports. In the 50's and 60's, when I grew up, our family of four survived quite comfortably on the income of my father. Most of the families in our middle class neighborhood had similar numbers of kids and typically did quite well on a single, blue-collar level salary. It was the rare exception to have a friend whose mother wasn't home all day. In addition, medical costs were low enough, that most people didn't even worry about health insurance and most of the kids of my generation were able to get college educations without accumulating any debt. Finally, people worked fewer hours, had a less frantic life style and weren't constantly clawing to make a few more dollars.

I don't think the current situation is any accident. During the same period of time, corporate profits have gone up dramatically. I think that corporations have used the desire of women to enter the work force as a "tool." Over the past 50 years, as more and more women entered the work force, the number of two-income families increased. If two people are working to support a household, the family income goes up and corporations can gradually lower wages without people noticing. If the same thing had happened during the era of single incomes, the populations would have screamed bloody murder.

All this was going on during an era in which workers were becoming more and more productive, making more and more products for less cost. This means that corporations have been reaping of a double reward of paying workers less money while productivity was going up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DEAR GOD what about the MEN?!?!?!?
Posted by: wagadog on Apr 25, 2008 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
screw 'em.

I blame the patriarchy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just another victim Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: DEAR GOD what about the MEN?!?!?!? Posted by: MartianBachelor
World Population Was 2.5 Billion in 1950. Since then we've added another 4 Billion People
Posted by: opmoc on Apr 25, 2008 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its not surprising that we have got poorer as a result and have to work twice as hard just to stand still.

The planet has limited resources to share amongst the entire population.

The more people there are, the less there is for each individual.

We are now running out of food and Billions will starve to death.

Increasing the food supply isn't a solution - because we will just have more children to eat it.

Education and contraception is the only graceful solution - but this is barred by religious lunatics promoting large families.

Welcome to poverty and death. The poorest will go first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» and if they did.... Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: and if they did.... Posted by: Sushi
» RE: and if they did.... Posted by: pfeifer999
My Parents Managed to Raise Two Kids on One Salary. That's Impossible Today -- What Happened?
Posted by: LMNOP on Apr 25, 2008 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was by design, not bad luck.

Over those same decades, somehow the monied class has become the ruling class. Roughly speaking, there are two visions for our society: an egalitarian vision, in which the government exists to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for the average citizen, and the elitist vision, in which both the government and the general population exist to serve the fortunate few.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the elitists had the money and the power, and there were two classes essentially. Somehow, the champions of the people dethroned them, and by mid century, the average American was wealthy and free under the provisions of progressivism and the New Deal. We still had the wealthy, but they didn’t run the country. They had economic power, but not undue political power. Somehow, that has reverted. Now the wealthy own the government again, and the egalitarian vision, once defended by citizen and consumer advocacy entities like unions, the press and the Democratic Party, is undefended and well on the way to being dismantled.

In the elitist vision, American citizens are capital, just like machines and working animals. They are working units that can generate wealth for the monied class if they are also the ruling class. They all cost some money for maintenance, but no more. Like all capital, farm animals (largely a thing of the past now) and slaves got whatever rations, shelter, and basic veterinary or medical service were necessary to keep them in the fields (add the cost of clothing for the humans and saddles for the horses). Machines got the mechanical equivalent: whatever power supply, enclosure structure, replacement parts and mechanical service they required to remain productive. None of these things was for the benefit of the machine, farm animal or slave.

In the elitist vision, which has been gradually retooling the American landscape since it began inflicting its vision on the American landscape in the Reagan years (following a long period of organizing and preparation), the American citizens are to be converted back into capital, which means a state of peonage. We ordinary citizens are being converted from a middle class with rights, considerable leisure time and the means to enjoy that freedom into a peonage. So, you lose your unions, your overtime, your pensions, your benefits, your raises, your job security, your forty-hour work week and your worker protections, and your ability to have half of the household stay home all day.

When they are done, both of you will work all day at jobs that injure your health for subsistence wages, getting just enough to keep you alive, assuming that you don’t need much for that. If your illness disables you or can’t be remedied cheaply, you will be left to die and be replaced with a unit that does work – like a mule

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Of course not! Posted by: Farasien
» you're sure? Posted by: e rice
» my apologies Posted by: e rice
» ahem...sensitivities Posted by: e rice
» my apologies to you Posted by: e rice
Heres an idea....
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Apr 25, 2008 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dropped my business card in a fishbowl a few years back and "won" a free lunch with a financial adviser. It has been so unbelievably helpful. It costs me $300 a year or year and a half.. at any rate it is money well spent. I am not rolling in $$$ yet, but I have some tools that help me realize the stunning abundance that is available if you plan wisely.. And you do not have to invest in nasty corporations to realize your goals.. Just be smart.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: willymack
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: mike1997
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» NO KIDDING Posted by: pfeifer999
Two with No Kids Still have a tough time
Posted by: Purple Girl on Apr 25, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been married since '92- Husbands a Union Carpenter ( 28 yrs), I've Got a Bachelors. He has a daughter which we paid child support until 8 yrs ago. We lived in CA until '94- but moved to MI so we could afford a Home. WE are not big spenders, but have always been caught in the credit card trap. We finaly bought a home in '01- They tried to get us to buy a 300,000- we bought a 130,000.We have no children and his daughter has been living on her own for the last 5 yrs (some help as needed)- Yet we are still Broke, still struggling to make ends meet every month. I'm amazed when even two adults have enough money to raise kids these days. Esp considering the type of jobs remaining in this country. I have an even number of married friends who decided not to have kids for that reason- I'm in my forties, this trend of economic depravity has been going on far longer than any 'economist' or 'Public Servant ' is willing to admit.Teh only reason we have not actually filed for bankrupcy (thus far) is because of our own foresight- bought a less expensive home with a Fixed Morgage. One I could afford when my husband gets 'slow'at work- which happens more & more each year. Michigan is the Canary in the National 'Coalmine' friends. It has become obvious to me there has been a Concerted Intention to bring this countries 'standard of living' down for Decades- Lead by the Incs, accomplished by legislators and financed by foreign Sponsors. We never really pulled out the Recession of the '70's-If we could fold time, '08 is being Traced onto '78

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A Singleton with No Kids Posted by: socialpsych
» Poor Planning Posted by: socialpsych
» No Children Ever Posted by: FoonTheElder
QUESTION:
Posted by: pfeifer999 on Apr 25, 2008 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe it's the taxes?

I know this has traditionally be a "Conservative Republican issue" but it's time to drop that partisanship and face facts. Neither party wants to allow you to spend your own money as you see fit; both are now aggressively in favor of confiscatory taxation.

In 1916 the highest Federal income tax rates were between 2% and 15%. To be in that top bracket you had to have an income of $1.5m. Economists can dispute the exact inflation rates, but that's the equivalent of about $20m in today's dollars, so only a very tiny percentage of taxpayers even fell into the top bracket.

Starting in 1917, when altruistic do-gooder politicians gave up on the idea of an independent, neutral, United States, free of what the Founders called "foreign entanglements" the Federal income tax rates have climbed consistently.

In 1917 a taxpayer with $40,000 in income was hit with a 16 percent rate; higher than the rate previously reserved for millionaires. The citizen with $1.5 million faced a tax rate of 67 percent.

The rates have become a political football, of course, and have bounced up and down slightly over the last 80 years. The trend has rolled on unabated, with only minor breaks.

Not only have the rates skyrocketed, the number of people paying income tax has also. In 1918 only about 5% of citizens paid income taxes; nearly every legal wage earner does today.

Once the Federal government started to build a world empire, it needed more and more and more of our money to do it. And to keep everyone from rioting in the streets, they started to invent "social programs" to appease the citizenry. Those cost money too, but they kept the populace in line while the Ivy League elite dragged us into more and more and more empire building.

Today, you are paying for 750+ military bases around the world, from Panama to Uzbekistan. And those are only the bases we know about.

Today, you are paying billions of dollars in taxes so that illegal immigrants can get medical care and free education.

Today, your government is sending billions of dollars to the governments of Israel and Egypt to buy their peace, for the sake of our prestige.

Who could actually wonder why we're feeling "squeezed"?

It's a cliche, but money is power. As long as we allow the cabal in Washington to keep taking our money, they will keep the power. I don't care if you're left, right, center, democrat, republican, independent, green, libertarian, socialist, or "other", keeping your tax dollars out of the government's hands and in your own is the only way we're going to change anything in this country. Don't let them define taxation as a "republican" issue, because it's not.

"If tyranny ever comes to America, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

James Madison

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Thomas Jefferson

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: QUESTION: Posted by: hagwind
» Maybe it's regressive taxes? Posted by: B. Spoon
» uh sorry Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Who decides what a fair share is? Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: QUESTION: Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: QUESTION: Posted by: Quannah
» RE: QUESTION: Posted by: Amphetameme
» RE: QUESTION: Posted by: pfeifer999
» lighten up asilsfable Posted by: pfeifer999
» Question back: Posted by: SteveO
» answer Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Question back: Posted by: JSquercia
» trusts and charities Posted by: e rice
One parent working is not a norm in the world
Posted by: richieb on Apr 25, 2008 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grew up in communist eastern Europe. Both my parents worked and we had two families (plus a grandmother) living in a three bedroom apartment.

Having a stay at home mother is a privilege that is not an option for most people in the rest of the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Were the 50s an anomaly? Posted by: asilsfable
While we're at it, this article's frame is a little cockeyed
Posted by: hagwind on Apr 25, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author tries real hard to make up for it by saying that "Problem 2" is actually "Good Development 1," but framing the story in terms of male incomes and female incomes skews the results and obscures some truths about those good ol' days. First, as plenty of others have pointed out, plenty of women worked for pay back in the good ol' days. Second, the good ol' single-income family was predicated on the unpaid labor -- lots and lots of unpaid labor -- by one of the adults, and that adult was usually the woman. In the fairly rare instances where the woman didn't work, her "leisure" was predicated on the underpaid and maybe unpaid labor of servants and slaves. In this cash economy, not having access to cash (or credit) makes you extremely vulnerable. And that's at heart what women's liberation is really about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» it's cockeyed because Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: it's cockeyed because Posted by: Quannah
» RE: it's cockeyed because Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: it's cockeyed because Posted by: Quannah
» i don't know what happened Posted by: goatini
» RE: i don't know what happened Posted by: pfeifer999
» anyone who can read AlterNet Posted by: goatini
» RE: it's cockeyed because Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: it's cockeyed because Posted by: Quannah
» RE: it's cockeyed because Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: it's cockeyed because Posted by: Quannah
» Quannah how do THESE words taste? Posted by: pfeifer999
» ah, that's good Posted by: pfeifer999
Depends on how you look at it
Posted by: Toby on Apr 25, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of the commentors in this thread have pointed out important aspects of this complex situation. Among the most important is that the US with about 5% of the world population, consumes 25% of its resources. This, going back to the Eisenhower era and beyond, has given us a false idea of the normal lifestyle. Added to that,consider the gross exploitation inflicted by the present plutocracy and we see 2 major factors in what for many is a present decline. My father, who graduated from college in 1929, supported his family himself, had no mortgage, paid cash for everything - zero consumer debt -owned a large house and grounds in a very nice community, always had 2 cars and paid for my college education out of pocket - and yet his income was only that of a salaried professional (power engineer) working for a large corporation. I, also a professional, am mortgaged to the rafters, have only one small car - 4 years old - and my consumer debt (credit card) while lower than average, seems like a lot to me - and I save nothing - not a cent. HOWEVER, I have a lot more expensive electronic toys, have far more complex and advanced medical care available to me, have been to Europe many times (Father? Never) have way more clothes, books and stuff in general - and devote far more time to unpaid, charitable activity (and Dad was no slouch in that regard, to do him credit - I just have more resources available for such purposes - including time) so who lives better? Father's generation or me?
It all depends on where your values are and how you are adding up the accounts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Judge not lest ye be judged Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Domelady
Posted by: domelady on Apr 25, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As you can see from the first statistic the real change occurred when the Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Laws were changed that favored big business, this followed the Reagan years when the administration sold most of America to the highest bidder, caused the deficit to skyrocket and started the process of the necessity of women to work to make family ends meet.

Let's remember that the budget was balanced, the deficit was eliminated, leaving a surplus and projected elimination of the national debt in the foreseeable future, along with 21million jobs creation the lowering of unemployment, and the increase of equal pay for women during the leadership of the Clinton administration. Women didn't want to replace men in the workplace they just wanted to be free to seek out their dreams, many dreamt of being mothers full time but no chance of that now.

It is true that all was not perfect but perhaps if the Republicans had focused on what was good for America instead of what was good for the Republican party we could have achieved Health care, energy independence,(Reagan eliminated the Dept. of Energy), and the further reduction of gun violence,(which was continuing to reduce) thus using guns for their intended purpose, hunting, sharp-shooting and self defense.

Wake up America we still have a chance vote Democratic in the Congress and return a Clinton to the White House. She has the experience we need and the best advisor who is loved around the world and was admired by most Americans before this divisive campaign. Return Hope and Change from the couple who arrived from Hope and brought change to DC before and can do it again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Who brought us NAFTA? Posted by: makeadifference
» RE: Who brought us NAFTA? Posted by: Amphetameme
» EXACTLY Posted by: pfeifer999
» domelady Posted by: domelady
» corporations and taxes Posted by: e rice
» domelady Posted by: domelady
» RE: Domelady Posted by: Stockman71
» Domelady Posted by: domelady
Quiet Weapons for Silent Wars
Posted by: makeadifference on Apr 25, 2008 6:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google and read: "Quiet Weapons for Silent Wars".... American citizens are seeing the results of this plan. Wake up,.. what is happening is not an accident but a well designed and executed plan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The best of two systems
Posted by: richholland on Apr 25, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The communisme didnt work. To control everybody is costly but people had free education, cheap houses, health care free and a dream; The American Dream"
Now communisme lost and suddenly the so called Dream; your own house, a car etc. is much easier to obtain in Ireland then in USA.

American switch off the TV and awake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Economist my inflating derriere
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Apr 25, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A real economist would be talking about how the Federal Reserve is continually and deliberately inflating the money supply and declaring economic warfare against the poor and middle class. Everyone needs to understand this war and how they are waging it. The Fed, the CFR, and the Bush administration are the true "axis of evil".

My Youtube Ron Paul Playlist and Chris Martenson's Crash Course would be very helpful to that end.

The Bush administration encourages congress and the people to incur huge deficits. The deficits are paid with T-bills that the Fed exchanges for money. This is new money created out of thin air which inflates the money supply and drives up prices. The CFR controlled media propagates the myth that Bush (and Reagan before him) cut taxes, when in fact they raised taxes. (Except the money didnt even go to the treasury, it went directly to the rich, which makes it a much more devastating tax.) The CFR controlled media also helps to hide all knowledge of true inflation. I include all CFR controlled think tanks as part of the CFR media. There is no point in separating them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: conomist my inflating derriere Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» HE MENTIONED HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: conomist my inflating derriere Posted by: wearesilhouettes
Will she be able too?
Posted by: Hovey on Apr 25, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife and I raise One child on two salaries...Will she and her futre partner be able to?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The present non-system emerged from the breakup of the Bretton Woods system
Posted by: JimmyVaughan on Apr 25, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Financiers and politicians have cut the American standard of living in half over three decades, reducing the value of a dollar to 8 cents of the Eisenhower-Kennedy era; the typical American job now pays less than it did in 1960. This is the data "professional economists" love to avoid.

A viable human society cannot be founded on the usury and speculation which underlie "globalism".

Clearly "globalization" is a "system" in which a tiny world elite of plutocratic financiers attains fabulous wealth, while the middle class is crushed and billions suffer.

On August 15, 1971, President Nixon ended gold settlement among nations and fixed currency parities, and thus pulled the plug on the Bretton Woods world monetary system, the most successful world currency arrangement that the world has ever known. Since then, world economic growth has gone negative, into reverse, with net world deindustrialization in the US, the former USSR, eastern Europe, the UK, the EU, and elsewhere.

[