3 ms·

Given the way that problems in Japan have effected the population -- many men as well as women are out of work; the phenomenon of hikkikomori affects predominat

Given the way that problems in Japan have effected the population -- many men as well as women are out of work; the phenomenon of hikkikomori affects predominately men; death by overwork affects men as well as women -- why do you think the "biggest issue" is making it "easier for women to work and succeed"?

mc32 10y ago
At this point, things seem intractable --unless the gov can spur or induce people to reproduce. More women in the workforce means more workers, more money in the economy, more viability for families, more progress, more development, more real demand for goods and services etc.
- slv77 10y ago
  Senator Warren's boom the Two Income Trap says that in the US the second income went mostly into higher land prices, childcare and transportation. The net benefit accrued mostly to the old (more workers per retiree), the government (more work now taxable) and the rich (who held assets that rose in price). The problem isn't that there isn't enough income it the distribution of the income.
  - mc32 10y ago
    I think her mistake is in attribution. Things are more expensive where people have more income (but that's not bad -it allows for power equilibrium). That's not to say that taxation could have affected this in some way, but there were and are many other things at play not the least the dive into globalization and foreign labor competition in the low skills sector.
    - slv77 10y ago
      In the book I think she makes a pretty strong case that the wide disparity between public schools in the US is a major driver of real estate costs. A single income family that is outbid for access to good schools through real estate prices may send a spouse to work to get access. The single income family that is now excluded may do the same. Eventually you reach a tipping point where every family is expending maximum income to fit into districts with good schools. One thing I believe the book missed is that having two income families also has the impact of degrading the very same school districts as the book ignores the contributions of the non-working parent. Parents who are dedicated full time to raising children volunteer at school, have more well adjusted children and their social networks stabilize neighborhoods. The same forces that move families to send a spouse to work are the same that degrade the very schools that they want access to. The result I believe is a game of survivor where couples with children bid for smaller and smaller islands of the middle class and more couples opt out of having children. How schools are funded is obviously an issue in the US but also explicit tax transfers from single income families to dual income families through things like childcare credits and mortgage deductions also contribute to the demise of the single income family.
  - fjdlwlv 10y ago
    Interesting that she wrote a book and then ignored her findings when planning her own life.
    - douche 10y ago
      Senator Warren fulfills the primary qualification for being an elected official: being able to lie out of both sides of her mouth at the same time.
      - solidsnack9000 10y ago
        What a contribution to the dialogue, man.
        kesselvon 10y ago
        Senator Warren is now the new boogieman female politician to be derided after HRC made her exit
        williamgb 10y ago
        How so?
    - solidsnack9000 10y ago
      Someone might write about the declining returns available to education but still go on to a great career with a CS PhD. We can't apply secular trends directly to our own lives. Elizabeth Warren has a career that is exceptional in many ways.
    - slv77 10y ago
      That is addressed in her book... Senator Warren is obviously an advocate for women having the opportunity to work and have a career while the book analyzes the system wide implications of those individual choices. She makes a convincing case that the results have been for parents to assume more financial risk to raise children and that the risk is higher for single income families and higher still for single income/single parent families. Some points that really crystallized for me from her book her analysis of household spending for a single income household in the 1970's compared to a more recent dual income household. Once you take out the higher mortgage payment (to get access to good schools), childcare (to support the second income), medical care and transportation (to support the second income) the household in the 1970's had more disposable income at the end of the month than the two income modern family even though the modern family has a much higher household income. She primarily advocates for tax and policy changes to reduce the system wide impacts on families with children.
- solidsnack9000 10y ago
  > More women in the workforce means more workers, more money in the economy, more viability for families, more progress, more development, more real demand for goods and services etc. You aren't really making an effort to demonstrate this, or your earlier point that the "biggest issue" is making it "easier for women to work and succeed". In Japan right now, it's not just that women are underemployed -- men are underemployed, as well. "Death by overwork" affects women as well as men. This would seem to speak to an overwhelming level of power on the part of employers, not a need for more workers. I am really puzzled by the idea that the core problem in Japan has anything to do with the relative involvement of women in the work force.

mc32 10y ago

At this point, things seem intractable --unless the gov can spur or induce people to reproduce. More women in the workforce means more workers, more money in the economy, more viability for families, more progress, more development, more real demand for goods and services etc.

slv77 10y ago
Senator Warren's boom the Two Income Trap says that in the US the second income went mostly into higher land prices, childcare and transportation. The net benefit accrued mostly to the old (more workers per retiree), the government (more work now taxable) and the rich (who held assets that rose in price). The problem isn't that there isn't enough income it the distribution of the income.
- mc32 10y ago
  I think her mistake is in attribution. Things are more expensive where people have more income (but that's not bad -it allows for power equilibrium). That's not to say that taxation could have affected this in some way, but there were and are many other things at play not the least the dive into globalization and foreign labor competition in the low skills sector.
  - slv77 10y ago
    In the book I think she makes a pretty strong case that the wide disparity between public schools in the US is a major driver of real estate costs. A single income family that is outbid for access to good schools through real estate prices may send a spouse to work to get access. The single income family that is now excluded may do the same. Eventually you reach a tipping point where every family is expending maximum income to fit into districts with good schools. One thing I believe the book missed is that having two income families also has the impact of degrading the very same school districts as the book ignores the contributions of the non-working parent. Parents who are dedicated full time to raising children volunteer at school, have more well adjusted children and their social networks stabilize neighborhoods. The same forces that move families to send a spouse to work are the same that degrade the very schools that they want access to. The result I believe is a game of survivor where couples with children bid for smaller and smaller islands of the middle class and more couples opt out of having children. How schools are funded is obviously an issue in the US but also explicit tax transfers from single income families to dual income families through things like childcare credits and mortgage deductions also contribute to the demise of the single income family.
- fjdlwlv 10y ago
  Interesting that she wrote a book and then ignored her findings when planning her own life.
  - douche 10y ago
    Senator Warren fulfills the primary qualification for being an elected official: being able to lie out of both sides of her mouth at the same time.
    - solidsnack9000 10y ago
      What a contribution to the dialogue, man.
      - kesselvon 10y ago
        Senator Warren is now the new boogieman female politician to be derided after HRC made her exit
        williamgb 10y ago
        How so?
  - solidsnack9000 10y ago
    Someone might write about the declining returns available to education but still go on to a great career with a CS PhD. We can't apply secular trends directly to our own lives. Elizabeth Warren has a career that is exceptional in many ways.
  - slv77 10y ago
    That is addressed in her book... Senator Warren is obviously an advocate for women having the opportunity to work and have a career while the book analyzes the system wide implications of those individual choices. She makes a convincing case that the results have been for parents to assume more financial risk to raise children and that the risk is higher for single income families and higher still for single income/single parent families. Some points that really crystallized for me from her book her analysis of household spending for a single income household in the 1970's compared to a more recent dual income household. Once you take out the higher mortgage payment (to get access to good schools), childcare (to support the second income), medical care and transportation (to support the second income) the household in the 1970's had more disposable income at the end of the month than the two income modern family even though the modern family has a much higher household income. She primarily advocates for tax and policy changes to reduce the system wide impacts on families with children.
solidsnack9000 10y ago
> More women in the workforce means more workers, more money in the economy, more viability for families, more progress, more development, more real demand for goods and services etc. You aren't really making an effort to demonstrate this, or your earlier point that the "biggest issue" is making it "easier for women to work and succeed". In Japan right now, it's not just that women are underemployed -- men are underemployed, as well. "Death by overwork" affects women as well as men. This would seem to speak to an overwhelming level of power on the part of employers, not a need for more workers. I am really puzzled by the idea that the core problem in Japan has anything to do with the relative involvement of women in the work force.