Week of December 14, 2008 - December 20, 2008
How's This For An "Outside The Box" Idea?
Since we're in the mode of thinking BIG, and spending more magic money than will be repaid in a couple of generations, how's this for an idea?
What if, instead of concentrating so much on creating new jobs, we decrease the NEED for some of them?
I have long felt that the women's movement, while great in many aspects, has not served all of us well. Back in the day, we only needed one wage earner in a family to keep everyone with a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. When women joined the workforce in mass, by choice, the standard of living flew up and prices did, as well. Now it takes 2 wage earners to keep up, and women HAVE to work outside the home, whether they want to or not.
In my own family, I have 2 women who want to stay home with their children, but in order to keep their houses, HAVE to go back to work. One gets to take a year off, the other 6 months. In this country they are both VERY fortunate to be able to do that, but neither WANT to go back to work until their kids are at least in school all day.
What if we somehow subsidized women such as these so they could stay home with their children for say, 5 years, while the country gets back on its feet? That would open up jobs for women who WANT to work, and men who need to (let's face it, as sexist as that sounds, legally men are still required to support their families) and allow those women who NEED to work outside the home, but don't want to, to stay home.
The benefits are that moms would be raising their own kids for longer (novel idea, don't you think?) which seems to be a healthier way to do things and the competition for jobs would be temporarily reduced. Families would be a little less stressed. The need to "consume" to create jobs might decrease some.
My daughter-in-law currently receives 60% of her pay in disability payments, and with reductions in costs of her being home (fewer meals out, cooking from scratch, no commute costs, etc.) they are able to make ends meet w/o having to dip into savings (yes, we taught them to save!) She is DREADING having to go back to work. If she continued receiving these payments, she wouldn't need to, and her job would be freed up for someone who WANTS to work.
Now I'm sure there are some downsides to this. Re-entry into the workforce down the road for all these women would cause a whole new set of problems. It would be expensive, but we're printing it as fast as we can spend it, why not spend it on something that actually helps shore up our foundation (better adjusted kids?)
Is this just a completely crazy idea, or can it be modified into something worth considering as we figure out how to fix this mess?
What if, instead of concentrating so much on creating new jobs, we decrease the NEED for some of them?
I have long felt that the women's movement, while great in many aspects, has not served all of us well. Back in the day, we only needed one wage earner in a family to keep everyone with a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. When women joined the workforce in mass, by choice, the standard of living flew up and prices did, as well. Now it takes 2 wage earners to keep up, and women HAVE to work outside the home, whether they want to or not.
In my own family, I have 2 women who want to stay home with their children, but in order to keep their houses, HAVE to go back to work. One gets to take a year off, the other 6 months. In this country they are both VERY fortunate to be able to do that, but neither WANT to go back to work until their kids are at least in school all day.
What if we somehow subsidized women such as these so they could stay home with their children for say, 5 years, while the country gets back on its feet? That would open up jobs for women who WANT to work, and men who need to (let's face it, as sexist as that sounds, legally men are still required to support their families) and allow those women who NEED to work outside the home, but don't want to, to stay home.
The benefits are that moms would be raising their own kids for longer (novel idea, don't you think?) which seems to be a healthier way to do things and the competition for jobs would be temporarily reduced. Families would be a little less stressed. The need to "consume" to create jobs might decrease some.
My daughter-in-law currently receives 60% of her pay in disability payments, and with reductions in costs of her being home (fewer meals out, cooking from scratch, no commute costs, etc.) they are able to make ends meet w/o having to dip into savings (yes, we taught them to save!) She is DREADING having to go back to work. If she continued receiving these payments, she wouldn't need to, and her job would be freed up for someone who WANTS to work.
Now I'm sure there are some downsides to this. Re-entry into the workforce down the road for all these women would cause a whole new set of problems. It would be expensive, but we're printing it as fast as we can spend it, why not spend it on something that actually helps shore up our foundation (better adjusted kids?)
Is this just a completely crazy idea, or can it be modified into something worth considering as we figure out how to fix this mess?
Advertisement
I Swear, We'll Fight About Anything!
I just ran across an article in the Huff Post that has me shaking my head...I swear, we'll fight about ANYTHING!
"We do not have our first black president," the author Christopher Hitchens said on the BBC program "Newsnight." "He is not black. He is as black as he is white."
A Doonesbury comic strip that ran the day after the election showed several soldiers celebrating.
"He's half-white, you know," says a white soldier.
"You must be so proud," responds another.
Pride is the center of racial identity, and some white people seem insulted by a perception that Obama is rejecting his white mother (even though her family was a centerpiece of his campaign image-making) or baffled by the notion that someone would choose to be black instead of half-white.
"He can't be African-American. With race, white claims 50 percent of him and black 50 percent of him. Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all," Ron Wilson of Plantation, Fla., wrote in a letter to the Sun-Sentinel newspaper.
Attempts to whiten Obama leave a bitter taste for many African-Americans, who feel that at their moment of triumph, the rules are being changed to steal what once was deemed worthless _ blackness itself.
"For some people it's honestly confusion," said Favor, the Dartmouth professor. "For others it's a ploy to sort of reclaim the presidency for whiteness, as though Obama's blackness is somehow mitigated by being biracial."
At a time when our our country is falling apart around us, I can hardly believe people are fussing about whether our President is black or white. Let's face it. He's both. He identifies as Black. How could he not? White mother or not, he would have had a tough time trying to "pass."
Can't we just let him be black? Why would any white person want to co-opt that? I guess in some bizarre way it made it easier for some white folks to vote for him because he has white blood (huh? When did blood become black or white? I thought it was red...) But come on...can't y'all just be glad for all of us that he's our President and let it go? One of the things that ran through my mind on election night, tears pouring down my face, was that now, black children would grow up knowing that in America, they can truly grow up to be ANYTHING they want, something my children have always known...Why would anyone want to take that away from them?
Preface: This post was started as a comment made on another blog. At Orlando's suggestion (with a cosign from Miguel and TheraP) I am making it into it's own post. For those of you are unaware of my journey of enlightenment here at TPM, please read an earlier post of mine that may help in your determination of how much credence to give my thoughts.
I absolutely do not understand the brouhaha over Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration.
This is not a slap in the face to anyone, and those who think it is would be well served to adjust their attitudes.
We are all Americans. Obama has said over and over that he wanted to be the President for all of the people of the United States, not the President of the Democratic Party. The Christians in this country are not going to go away, nor is the gay and Lesbian population, but attitudes on both sides can be changed. If this is not true, then we might as well give up now, we're screwed.
What is the point of going to all the trouble to elect a man who gives us such hope that this can be a different country, if all you really wanted was someone who was going to keep the polarization going, just from the left this time?
Somehow, some way, we have to come to a place where we start building some trust between the factions. If Obama can't do it, it can't be done. But we have to give him time to do it, in HIS way. We elected him to be him, not someone else. If people thought he was pretending to be someone he isn't to get elected, they are going to be disappointed.
Attitudes don't change overnight. As people get to know one another, fear dissipates. We've made a lot of progress in race relations. Obama is trying to introduce people to each other. He is attempting to show that people from different persuasions, different walks of life, different attitudes, can come together, work together, begin to have empathy for each other. They may never completely embrace each other, but they can come to a place where they can peacefully co-exist.
Some Christians say they will NEVER accept the normalization of gay practices. Well, not too long ago the Mormon Church did not allow blacks to hold the Priesthood. They do now. As more thinking Christians accept the idea that people don't CHOSE to be gay, hearts will soften.
I can see it already. My niece, a very conservative Christian, saw Obama speak at the Aids Forum at Saddleback Church, Rick Warren's church. She was so impressed with him that she not only voted for him, but changed affiliation, became a precinct captain and did everything she could to get him elected. She got past her feelings about gays and abortion to do it. I'm sure there are many others who did the same thing.
Orlando said (in a post at dagblog):
I agree whole-heartedly.
As far as Christian leaders go, Rick Warren is not such a bad guy. I would submit that he is doing a lot of soul searching during this process. I believe he is basically a man of honor who is doing the best he can to reconcile his religion and his understanding of the world, as I am.
He has made a gazillion dollars with his 40 days of Purpose/Purpose Driven Life books and accompanying materials. He promptly used some of that money to pay back the church he founded every penny of the money they ever paid him in salary and donates 90% of the proceeds in charitable works.It would not surprise me a bit if Obama is attempting to get him to soften his stance a bit in hopes that a new dialog will emerge between the people who listen to what he says and the gay community.
But every single time people from either side refuse to budge, refuse to try to see the other side's point of view, refuse to try to find some common ground on which to begin to repair the damage, we get further from the time when we can put all this ugliness behind us.
Give him a chance to make this work. Trust him. I believe he has a plan, a big picture. Let him unfold it. Quit 2nd guessing every move he makes. Quit keeping score. Be patient. We can do this.