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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (69676)	4/9/2012 1:11:31 AM
From: Wayners	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 103300

You are very right on this one but not sure you explained it correctly. It goes back to basic economics. In the beginning when women first started entering the work force, it was a financial bonanaza to the family, but as more and more women entered the workforce, all it did was drive down wages due to the excess supply of readily available labor. What we ended up with is dysfunctional families, the same real income as before and now both parents worked full time. Before all of this, women didn't work and didn't need to and the families and children were normal and the family real income was much higher than before.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (69676)	4/27/2012 6:33:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

There was NOT* significantly 'more income PER PERSON'... the term you are searching for is "per FAMILY".* No the term that I am accurately using is per person, your apparently arguing per employee. If more people work, for about the same amount of money, income per person goes up. Income per family probably would also go up (unless families shrink, which they did but not enough), income per employee stays the same. But that wasn't the case since average income per worker went up (so the other two went up even more). (Income includes but does not equal wages).