2 ms·
I'm confused - your post implies something I said does not reflect reality. Do you believe the BLS data I linked to is wrong? If you subtract increasing total c
by yummyfajitas 11y ago
I'm confused - your post implies something I said does not reflect reality. Do you believe the BLS data I linked to is wrong? If you subtract increasing total comp from flat wages, do you not get an increase in non-wage comp?
What, exactly, do you think I'm wrong about?
And why do you care only about male wages? I'll remind you that it's not 1973 anymore - women get to have careers if they want and compete economically with men.
- hiram112 11y agoThe point is that one income could provide for a family. Now two incomes cannot adequately do that. We're all under agreement that women having the chance to work is great. But I think many people, including most women I know, would be thrilled if they could afford to raise their kids instead of work (i.e. only one salary needed for the family unit, man or woman) should they choose. Even though we're supposedly so rich with IPhones, sugary foods a plenty, etc, these gains in income sure don't buy what they used to.
- yummyfajitas 11y agoThat's because the definition of "adequately" has grown faster than income. If you can reduce your standard of living to that of someone in 1973 you still can live on a single income (as demonstrated by data on real hourly comp). Of course, the law makes it very hard to reduce your standard of living that low. For example, Obamacare and similar laws make it illegal to sell cheap 1973 insurance (the kind of insurance where you die if the cure hit the market in 1974). Cheap "unsafe" 1973 cars are also illegal. Etc.
- SamReidHughes 11y agoFor what it's worth you can buy used cars that are, I'll presume for the sake of argument, cheaper than and better than new 1973 cars.