I shall summarize these lengthy economic studies quickly and succinctly so you needn't bother with reading them in their entirety.
When both parents work, there is nobody there to take care of the children.
Ergo, the feeding, raising, rearing and general "bringing up" of the child is foisted upon the government.
This necessitates a higher government spending as a percent of GDP which correlates with more labor force participation by women.
HOWEVER,
Because more and more women are working, this increases GDP per capita (which is a good thing)
HOWEVER,
Think about the two statements above.
Think about it....
THIIIIIINK ABOUT IT!!!!
KEEP THINKING!!!!
What do your economic spidey senses tell you!????!!!
And you will probably realize that in essence (and with an admittedly VERY broad stroke of a brush I am painting here) women have essentially given up being stay at home moms so they may work up the tax dollars to pay government paid strangers to bring up their own children.
READ THAT AGAIN
women have essentially given up being stay at home moms so they may work up the tax dollars to pay government paid strangers to bring up their own children.
Matter of fact, if you think about the plurality of jobs women pursue, it is simply to take care of other women's children (teachers, social workers, day care, nannies, etc.). But hey, at least they're not bothered bringing up their own icky yuck gross children. I mean, at least they don't have to spend time with them. I mean who wants to do THAT? They are too busy working up the money to pay taxes to pay some government worker to take care of their children. Thank god for outsourcing! I mean, otherwise you might have sit down dinners and conversation and a healthy nuclear family void of divorce.
Now imagine,
JUST IMAGINE (and I know this is going to be a revolutionary thought)
if ONE PARENT STAYED AT HOME TO BRING UP THEIR OWN CHILDREN
AND
ANOTHER PARENT WORKED TO SUPPORT THE FAMILY!
Then you wouldn't need to have two parents working because the government wouldn't need the taxes to bring up other people's children, because (drum roll please)....
YOU'D BE BLEEPING TAKING CARE OF YOUR OWN BLEEPING CHILDREN!!!!
I know! CRAZY STUFF! huh!? I mean, society should try that sometime! Oh, it would be experimental and we don't know what the results would be. But, pha, I don't have my "doctoroate in sociology" or "family psychology" so what do I know? I'm just an economist.
In the meantime I will continue to enjoy watching parents forced to slave away to pay other parents to take care of their children through forever increasing taxation so they can afford the outsourcing fee to pay governmental strangers to bring up those yucky icky gross children of theirs.
BIG Hat tip
Friday, February 4, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
It's Called "Capital Flight"
This one, with such a small mention in the Pioneer Press, almost slipped past the radar.
Of course, this is good that BP is shutting down it's refining capacity here (good luck finding a buyer). Because BP is an evil oil company and we don't want any of those jobs here in the US.
Of course, this is good that BP is shutting down it's refining capacity here (good luck finding a buyer). Because BP is an evil oil company and we don't want any of those jobs here in the US.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
"Well My Husband is a Republican, So So Am I!"
This is a really big pet peeve of mine.
And let me explain why.
Politics, tainted as it may be as a "hobby," is one of the more noble ones in that it shows you actually care about the country. THis is why this blog is here and arguably why you are here. You care about the future of the country and so you opine, theorize, and if you're particularly intellectually honest, study and research the facts and then form an opinion.
But Bruni, all of the sudden, deciding she is "not so left wing anymore" is just another example of a another typical leftist-turned-conservative because "her husband is conservative." It's akin to the "Sean Hannity Trophy Wives" I spoke about before where a "typical" 20 something girl with the politically correct liberal arts degree, swallows the leftist BS whole and skips along in la la liberal land during her 20's with no serious or rigorous thought given to her supporting a leftist ideology and what the ramifications are for her country and future in voting so.
Then comes along the first REAL challenge and responsibility she ever has face - a husband and children.
This heavy dose of reality does two things.
1. She now has something more important than her politics (her husband). And since supporting liberal causes was not really an passionate ideology for her as much as it was a "hobby" or something "fashionable" to do, she abandons it to pursue a family.
2. When kids come into the equation, HOOO BOY! Now the woman has genuine skin in the game in the future. And instead of being worried about whether there will be a Sex and the City 3, she now has plenty o' time to think about what kind of future her child will grow up in (which is why I LOVE it when liberal Gen X'ers start having children and all of the sudden start to take an interest in the federal deficit).
Of course, while this is disproportionately a phenomenon you see with women, men are the same to blame too. THough I like listening to him very much, Michael Medved was a liberal. And if I recall correctly Dennis Prager was one too (in his youth??? Or am I thinking of another talk show host?) Took my old man 55 years of life to finally get past "stage 1 thinking" and realize "just throwing money at the poor" doesn't solve anything. Here, I'm even more harsh on men because I want to say, "WHAT THE HELL!? Where the hell have you been??? You're FINALLY GETTING THIS NOW?! Great, thanks for effing up everything up with your past 30 years of voting. Oh, and look, you get to die off and not see the destruction you've wrought upon this country!"
Of course the catalyst which brings about men's realization that youthful leftism is stupid and ultimately unsustainable is usually the real world. The working world. That when you're done with college and the smoking pot and partying, you realize "claiming to be a liberal to score with chicks" might have some long term and serious consequences if you don't grow up. It's not because, "Oh, all of my buddies are Republican, so I am too!"
But now that I think about it. Perhaps not. How else can you explain union members religiously voting left all the time when Detroit has been gutted and the Iron Range is at a mere fraction it's former employment.
And let me explain why.
Politics, tainted as it may be as a "hobby," is one of the more noble ones in that it shows you actually care about the country. THis is why this blog is here and arguably why you are here. You care about the future of the country and so you opine, theorize, and if you're particularly intellectually honest, study and research the facts and then form an opinion.
But Bruni, all of the sudden, deciding she is "not so left wing anymore" is just another example of a another typical leftist-turned-conservative because "her husband is conservative." It's akin to the "Sean Hannity Trophy Wives" I spoke about before where a "typical" 20 something girl with the politically correct liberal arts degree, swallows the leftist BS whole and skips along in la la liberal land during her 20's with no serious or rigorous thought given to her supporting a leftist ideology and what the ramifications are for her country and future in voting so.
Then comes along the first REAL challenge and responsibility she ever has face - a husband and children.
This heavy dose of reality does two things.
1. She now has something more important than her politics (her husband). And since supporting liberal causes was not really an passionate ideology for her as much as it was a "hobby" or something "fashionable" to do, she abandons it to pursue a family.
2. When kids come into the equation, HOOO BOY! Now the woman has genuine skin in the game in the future. And instead of being worried about whether there will be a Sex and the City 3, she now has plenty o' time to think about what kind of future her child will grow up in (which is why I LOVE it when liberal Gen X'ers start having children and all of the sudden start to take an interest in the federal deficit).
Of course, while this is disproportionately a phenomenon you see with women, men are the same to blame too. THough I like listening to him very much, Michael Medved was a liberal. And if I recall correctly Dennis Prager was one too (in his youth??? Or am I thinking of another talk show host?) Took my old man 55 years of life to finally get past "stage 1 thinking" and realize "just throwing money at the poor" doesn't solve anything. Here, I'm even more harsh on men because I want to say, "WHAT THE HELL!? Where the hell have you been??? You're FINALLY GETTING THIS NOW?! Great, thanks for effing up everything up with your past 30 years of voting. Oh, and look, you get to die off and not see the destruction you've wrought upon this country!"
Of course the catalyst which brings about men's realization that youthful leftism is stupid and ultimately unsustainable is usually the real world. The working world. That when you're done with college and the smoking pot and partying, you realize "claiming to be a liberal to score with chicks" might have some long term and serious consequences if you don't grow up. It's not because, "Oh, all of my buddies are Republican, so I am too!"
But now that I think about it. Perhaps not. How else can you explain union members religiously voting left all the time when Detroit has been gutted and the Iron Range is at a mere fraction it's former employment.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)