Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (618292)	7/6/2011 4:01:43 PM
From: TopCat	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1583424

"The average worker in this country is not doing that well despite all the talk about how prosperous the US is." The solution is obviously to raise taxes on the rich. Right, Moonbeam?

To: tejek who wrote (618292)	7/6/2011 4:58:48 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1583424

Ted, let me clarify what I said. Our materialistic society is resistant to single-income families for a variety of reasons. One of which is that the cost of living has shot up tremendously, especially real estate. As more and more families go dual-income, prices for just about everything go up. Eventually you can't keep up with the Joneses without both parents working. Another reason is the whole Little Prince syndrome. Everyone wants their kids to be princes and princesses. Parents are spoiling them rotten, even buying them premium fashions like Juicy Couture and True Religion jeans. (Male disclaimer: I knew nothing of these brands until I met my wife.) These parents also want to drive their kids around in big-honkin' SUVs, send them to shockingly elite preschools, and sign them up for all these extra-curricular activities which will no doubt cost a lot of money and gas. I know I'm probably describing the attitudes of the "upper middle-class" elite rather than the vast majority of America, but I'm pretty sure this mentality affects all classes, cultures, and races. Those who choose not to participate, or can't afford to, still have to deal with it among their peers. Even in low-income neighborhoods, more emphasis is put on the "bling" and the big tricked-out cars than on family and education. Anyway, back to my original point. Yes, if one of the parents stayed home to take care of the kids, the family may have less disposable income overall. But I would argue that the family may end up happier in the long term. The breadwinner can focus on excelling in his or her career (usually "his" because that's the way the sexes are hard-wired, but if it's "hers" I personally wouldn't mind), while the homemaker can focus on maintaining a nice comfortable home with (hopefully) well-behaved, well-loved kids. They'll have to shop at Costco and Old Navy instead of Whole Foods and Saks Fifth Avenue, but in my opinion the family is worth it. And even then, the parent who stays home doesn't have to do it for the rest of his or her life. Just long enough for the kids to be self-sufficient, like around the age of seven or so. But hey, WTFDIK? I still don't have kids yet. Tenchusatsu