Author
|
Topic: Marriage among equals breeds inequality - Economist William Watson
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 15 May 2007 08:08 AM
Marriage among equals breeds inequality Rich people in love can upset the statistics on equality WILLIAM WATSON Freelance quote: If you love equality - and what Canadian doesn't?- you might want to start thinking about regulating marriages. Why's that? Maybe you saw Statistics Canada's Andrew Heisz on the news last week talking about his new study on income inequality. One reason it's rising, he said, is that successful people seem to prefer marrying other successful people. Combine two high incomes and the family thus formed has a really high income, thus bumping up inequality.As befits a civil servant, Heisz did not consider the policy implications, but if you were following closely, it probably occurred to you that if only we could persuade brainy female judges, scientists and executives to hitch up with beer-swilling, trailer-park types, then family incomes would be more even. Or, as happened in the 1990 romantic comedy Pretty Woman, starring Richard Gere and Julia Roberts, more corporate CEOs could take up with call girls who can't pay the rent (as difficult as it was to imagine Roberts as an unsuccessful prostitute).
Print View of Article-Montreal Gazette
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090
|
posted 15 May 2007 08:52 AM
Another voice heard from, on the same subject: quote: What's really driving the prosperity gap? Well, here's one factor you don't hear much about: High-achieving women. It's obvious when you think about it. Higher-earning women tend to marry higher-earning men, and together they tend to make a pile of money. Even a pair of teachers can easily bring in $131,000 a year - more than enough to put them in the top 10 per cent of Canadian families by income. Forty years ago, most of these high-earning married women would have been at home. "Highly educated women have always been attracted to highly educated men, so there's nothing new there," says Andrew Heisz, a senior researcher at Statistics Canada. "The difference is that there are a lot more highly educated women now than in the past, so a lot more power couples."
Margaret Wente
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 15 May 2007 09:35 AM
From that last article: quote: The difference between the haves and the have-nots isn't only about income. It's also about education, skills, attitudes, behaviour and expectations. It's also about parental investment.
This is important. Almost two-thirds of university students make the decision to go to university before they turn 15. Kids that age aren't doing cost-benefit analyses; they're following an example.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 15 May 2007 10:49 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: This is important. Almost two-thirds of university students make the decision to go to university before they turn 15. Kids that age aren't doing cost-benefit analyses; they're following an example.
But wouldn't students from high income families find it a lot easier in making that decision without facing a quarter century worth of debt repayment as the price for seeking higher ed in Canada ?. I'm sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning that skyrocketing tuition fees are justified "because there were too many rich kids getting a free ride" wrt PSE in Canada. The median earned-income for workin Canadians in 2004 was only $25, 400. Canadian students are more than $20 billion dollars in student loan debt. Canada didn't accumulate $20 billion dollars worth of national debt between WWI and 1974. I guess 15 year-olds in Cuba decide to become doctors at greater per capita rates than us for some strange reason. Is it breeding and genetics, or is it because they don't have to enter into an arrangement for a quarter century of indentured servitude as the price for accessing higher ed ?.Come on! [ 15 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 15 May 2007 11:46 AM
I think I see your point, Stockholm.However...I think that because those are the only career options open to women at the time, that it likely also mattered what their father did. So, a doctor might marry a secretary - BUT, that secretary might also have a Bachelor's Degree and be the daughter of a white-collar guy. A doctor would likely have been less likely to marry, say, a housecleaner whose mother was a server and whose father was a bricklayer.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 15 May 2007 12:09 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: I guess Stephen is only saying that kids follow by example. He's not overreaching by suggesting that kids from well off families face the same obstacles in pursuing higher education as do kids from poor families. Because that's just not the case. Fasmily physicians in Canada are more likely than before to come from better off families. And let's face it, twelve years of training to become a GP is all about ability to pay and less about merit or desire as it was before the defunding of PSE.
Fidel, I think I'm a good example of what Stephen Gordon refers to. My own family, in and of itself, was relatively poor. Sometimes there was little food, no owning of property, no television or cable for extended periods of time, sometimes bell would cut off the phone, et cetera. On the other hand, I personally was exposed to the wealthier way of life. I was insanely jealous and bitter. We had a fantastic library in the neighbourhood so I learnt a whole lot of the world by following current events and other things, and I learnt how important things like education are. Also, I somehow had a scholarship to a private school, so the attitude among my friends was university (or Yeshiva). And therefore I didn't think anything of it. Going to higher education was the only way to go I knew of and hence I was going to do that. Ten years later I'm now done and heading to graduate school, though with ~18k in student loans (which right now I don't think is that big a deal). Attitude and cultural influences matter a lot. What Margaret Wente is alluding to is that even though absolute poverty is dropping - "poor" kids now have cable tv and clothing, relative poverty still matters. I think she's correct about the difference in cultural exposure, and also that we need new ways of approaching these challenges. An upper middle class will have an advantage over a lower income kid not purely because of money. It's all those experiences, and the knowledge from the parents' careers... I suspect these things matter more than access, which is fairly good in Canada.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 15 May 2007 12:10 PM
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Stockholm: That's probably true - though in those days if a woman was pretty enough - social class differences could be overlooked. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I think the same is true now.
Of course it still happens to some extent, but here is the thing. I'll give you an example. I have a female friend with a professional job, whose husband is a corporate lawyer. Sometimes five couples get together where the 5 hubbies all work as partners at the same firm. Four of the five men have wives who are either lawyers, doctors or businesswomen. One lawyer has a blond "trophy wife" who works in retail to amuse herself. Apparently, it is always awkward when they get together because the "trophy wife" has nothing to constribute to the conversation and there is a lot of derisive gossip about her hunsband having married someone with no career or education etc... 30 years ago, it would have been the norm for a bunch of male high-powered lawyers to have wives who were either housewives or had some low level job - and no one would even remark on it. Nowawadays, it is almost embarrassing for a high powered porofessional person to marry someone who doesn't have matching credentials.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 15 May 2007 12:31 PM
Mr. Watson, he of the National Post and C.D. Howe Institute, needs to spray toxic goo on the conclusion that income inequality is increasing in Canada. So, he says: quote: And despite the popular impression that inequality is out of control, whereas in 1976 Canadians in the top 10th of the income distribution made only 8.01 times as much after taxes and transfers as people in the bottom 10th, in 2004 they made 8.85 times as much--which is hardly a whopping increase
Actually, I think it is a significant increase. But I also don't presume that the 1976 statistic reflects an acceptable reality. 8 to 1 is too much inequality. 9 to 1 is even worse, by 10% or so. And of course those studies don't deal with the REALLY disgusting segments, those who are in the top 1%, or even the top .1% No, better to write jokey-hokey baloney. Maybe someone gullible will believe it.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 15 May 2007 12:38 PM
Andrew Jackson's take: quote: My take is that “homogamy” does indeed play a role as suggested by earlier StatsCan work. However, the tax data for INDIVIDUALS clearly show a surge in top tail driven income inequality as the top 1% or so have disproportionately benefited from economic growth. This has been closely documented for Canada by Saez and Veall to 2000 (see their working paper at http://papers.nber.org/papers/W9607 My quick take on the most recent tax data is that the trend continues very strongly in that direction- the income share of those making more than $100,000 and especially more than $250,000 - the top one half of one percent or so - is rising fast. (Preliminary 2004 tax data show that the top one half of one percent making more than $250k now “earn” about 10% of all income, even more if you adjust for the untaxed portion of capital gains.)
I've blogged on the Saez-Veall paper before; it's remarkable just how concentrated the gains at the top end f the income distribution have been.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 15 May 2007 01:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tommy_Paine: Anyone who has witnessed the spousal support paid out in failed marriages where there is a wide income gap would be nuts to marry someone who makes substantially less than themselves.
My first wife and I were married for nine years. Both of us are professionals and we made roughly the same amount of money. Our divorce was simple (literally cost us a grand total of $130—for the filing fee—cuz I did the work myself and it was simple). No spousal support needed (and since we had no kidlets, we had none of those difficult issues to deal with). The split, financially, was a breeze. quote: Originally posted by Michelle: That's weird that they would think in such a way. Because, I, a lowly "secretary" who has worked retail as recently as a few years ago, have never found myself with "nothing to contribute" to the conversation when around lawyers or other professionals.
My significant other (of now ten years) and I are both lawyers (she actually makes better coin than I do). She worked as a “lowly” secretary for several years (and finally went to school at night to become a paralegal). She then worked as a paralegal for several years and went law school at night for her last four years as a paralegal. So, you really can’t classify a person as being interesting or not based on the job they are in. You have to take the time to talk with them to see if they are bright and interesting or…not. My advice: Treat everyone respectfully.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 15 May 2007 01:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house: 8 to 1 is too much inequality. 9 to 1 is even worse, by 10% or so. And of course those studies don't deal with the REALLY disgusting segments, those who are in the top 1%, or even the top .1%
Did someone say the average income in Canada was about $25,000? At 8:1, that’s a max of $200,000 (that’s comfortable, but hardly “wealthy”—the person still needs to work). If Bill Gates’ assets increase in value by 15% in a year (assuming a base of roughly $50B in assets), his earnings for the year are a ratio of 300,000:1 (or, of 37,500:1 relative to the person making $200k). Now, there’s a disparity worth discussing. Wrestling with whether an 8:1 or 9:1 ratio is the “right” ratio seems like a premature discussion when you have truly wealthy people who make both the “9” and the “1” look like paupers. Personally, I don’t care if someone makes many times my income. Good for them. Besides, the only way to enforce an 8:1 ratio would be to take everything in excess of “8”. But, doing that would destroy meaningful risk tasking. Who would saving their money, mortgage their house and everything else they own, and invest it all in a business if they have a risk of losing it all only to max out at $200,000 at best? It would kill small business innovation, the generator of most new jobs. Who here would work for 25 to 30 years, scrimp and save, and then mortgage everything and invest their nest egg and everything else they have (say $400,000) to invest in a venture that might take off (and they increase their income from $125,000 to $200,000) or it might tank and they lose everything? Probably zero, if they understand anything about money and investing. The Chinese understand this and they are going to have the largest economy in the world in a few decades—and it’s just going to grow from there. Life for the average Chinese person will be better then, too (more jobs and more money for the jobs they do have).
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 15 May 2007 01:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by Sven:
Did someone say the average income in Canada was about $25,000? At 8:1, that’s a max of $200,000 (that’s comfortable, but hardly “wealthy”—the person still needs to work). If Bill Gates’ assets increase in value by 15% in a year (assuming a base of roughly $50B in assets), his earnings for the year are a ratio of 300,000:1 (or, of 37,500:1 relative to the person making $200k). Now, there’s a disparity worth discussing. Wrestling with whether an 8:1 or 9:1 ratio is the “right” ratio seems like a premature discussion when you have truly wealthy people who make both the “9” and the “1” look like paupers. Personally, I don’t care if someone makes many times my income. Good for them. Besides, the only way to enforce an 8:1 ratio would be to take everything in excess of “8”. But, doing that would destroy meaningful risk tasking. Who would saving their money, mortgage their house and everything else they own, and invest it all in a business if they have a risk of losing it all only to max out at $200,000 at best? It would kill small business innovation, the generator of most new jobs. Who here would work for 25 to 30 years, scrimp and save, and then mortgage everything and invest their nest egg and everything else they have (say $400,000) to invest in a venture that might take off (and they increase their income from $125,000 to $200,000) or it might tank and they lose everything? Probably zero, if they understand anything about money and investing. The Chinese understand this and they are going to have the largest economy in the world in a few decades—and it’s just going to grow from there. Life for the average Chinese person will be better then, too (more jobs and more money for the jobs they do have).
I'm not sure, but I think he was talking about the Gini coefficient...
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 15 May 2007 02:13 PM
quote: Originally posted by 500_Apples: I'm not sure, but I think he was talking about the Gini coefficient...
No, he wasn't. And Sven, the concern isn't about the people who make $200k/yr. It's the people who are making north of $600k or $700k, just for showing up to work. If they were actually productive enough to justify those numbers, then there'd be little to complain about. But that doesn't appear to be the case. They're getting those big paychecks for no better reason than because they can. [ 15 May 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 15 May 2007 02:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by Sven:
The Chinese understand this and they are going to have the largest economy in the world in a few decades—and it’s just going to grow from there. Life for the average Chinese person will be better then, too (more jobs and more money for the jobs they do have).
Growth rates of China's market socialism, between six and ten percent for the last 21 years in a row, is unprecedented among all democratic capitalist third world economies. No capitalist state governments demand controlling interest, or a large minority share in all foreign corporations doing business in China. Beijing's communist government is still very interventionist wrt the economy. Can El Salvador achieve China's growth and literacy rates ?. What's holding Haiti back ?. Haiti is the freest trading nation in the Caribbean according to Washington. Why are there 350 million chronically hungry people in democratic capitalist India today and tomrrow and the next day ?. That country exports food to the market, so where is the promise of capitalism there?. Asia and India had the largest economy once already in history. Their sheer numbers suggest that they will be again in future.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 15 May 2007 02:40 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: And Sven, the concern isn't about the people who make $200k/yr. It's the people who are making north of $600k or $700k, just for showing up to work. If they were actually productive enough to justify those numbers, then there'd be little to complain about. But that doesn't appear to be the case. They're getting those big paychecks for no better reason than because they can.
I know more than a few people who make that kind of money (and “north” of it). None of them make that kind of money “just for showing up to work”. That is more of a fantasy that many people choose to believe than a reality. Are there people in that category? Yeah, but they are primarily trust-fund kids (and adults)—but that is a bit of a different subject (inheritance taxes). Of course, many will argue that a person cannot, by definition, be “actually productive enough to justify those numbers”. Is a hockey player worth $5 million per year? Well, hockey is a business with, what, $2B in annual revenue because people willingly part with their money for tickets and gear. So, if the money doesn’t go to the players, it goes to the owners. Again, I don’t care if someone makes $5 million or $50 million. Good for them.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052
|
posted 15 May 2007 03:19 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: From that last article:This is important. Almost two-thirds of university students make the decision to go to university before they turn 15. Kids that age aren't doing cost-benefit analyses; they're following an example.
Oh no, I spoke too soon. Talking aggregate totals in place of what "most" individuals are supposed to desire isn't great analysis either. I for one didn't care about getting college grades when I was younger but like many later in life, would have gladly upgraded my education if I could have afforded it. Instead I had to drop it before finishing my first term, despite getting straight As. If people don't want to go in the first place, or lack the modicum of intellect required, then the issue of costs is moot. Problem is it isn't moot as a broader societal issue, not when most decent jobs now require post-secondary educations. Too high tuitions is pre-stacking the deck in favour of old money and possibly less native talent or drive. Also hypocritical of governments which often use libertarian sounding arguments to justify cutting off the poor in other areas. Why was this old disagreement brought into this thread again anyhow? Tangentially related at best. [ 15 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 15 May 2007 05:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by jrootham:
I think the critical phrase there was "trophy wife". Michelle, you are much too smart to be a trophy wife.
Heh. Flattery'll get you everywhere. Seriously though - it wasn't just the critical phrase, it was the sexist phrase. What makes a woman a "trophy wife"? That she's pretty? And if a professional man marries a pretty woman who also happens to be poor, is he automatically a guy who goes for a trophy wife and she is automatically a gold-digger? From the terminology Stockholm says his creepy, classist friend uses, it sounds like this woman wouldn't have stood a chance with her husband's friends no matter what. I mean, okay, if the woman is just stupid, that's one thing. There ARE stupid people out there, and there are people who marry for looks alone. But I don't see what that has to do with class. Stockholm was using this example as why male professionals do not tend to marry working class women. The implication being that if they do, then at dinner parties, the working class woman will likely be a moron who will eat with her knife, have nothing intelligent to say to his bigshot friends and their nasty wives, etc. I just don't buy it. Perhaps that's what rich people are AFRAID of when it comes to marrying "beneath" them, but I don't think it's all that much of a reality. That said, I think there is some truth to the fact that class groups stick to their own groups, or not too far below. Or, if a rich professional marries or dates a working class person, the working class person likely has a decent amount of "social capital" such as a university education, or a white/pink collar job, or some kind of artist or whatever. I don't think you very often see high-powered executives taking out the server or the line cook at the local greasy spoon.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Phrillie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13965
|
posted 15 May 2007 07:01 PM
I would have hoped that "trophy wife" as a phrase would have been retired by now, especially on babble. When are we going to retire the myth that a beautiful woman has to be merely "eye candy."I come from an academic family and I guess an outsider would call them "upper class." Yet, my cousins and I have married varied and interesting people from ALL classes. There has been no discussion about marrying "up" or marrying "down." On a different note, Fidel, I was interested to see you put forward China as an emerging democratic economic power. Most of my friends go out of their way NOT to buy things made in fascist regimes.
From: Salt Spring Island, BC | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 May 2007 09:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: Fidel, this thread is about Canada.
That's funny, because it almost sounded like Watson was writing about democratic capitalist India where women marry well. Andrew Jackson straightens him out for sure. quote: Originally posted by Phrillie:
On a different note, Fidel, I was interested to see you put forward China as an emerging democratic economic power. Most of my friends go out of their way NOT to buy things made in fascist regimes.
Well then you'd better advise your progressive friends not to buy anything made in the USA either, because those two countries are major trading partners. And maybe tell the toffy-nosers to look up the word 'fascist' while they're at it.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phrillie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13965
|
posted 27 May 2007 09:27 AM
Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.Couldn't find toffy-noser. Fidel, get real, you equate the United States and China?
From: Salt Spring Island, BC | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phrillie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13965
|
posted 27 May 2007 03:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus: Funny, I would have hoped that the recent wave of trolls would have been retired by now. But the strategy of insulting everyone here as politely as possible seems to be working out for you all. And constructive conversation is continuously sidelined by threads such as this.
I'm sorry for my part in the thread thrift. As for the troll issue, I'm going to take a poll and abide by the results.
From: Salt Spring Island, BC | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662
|
posted 27 May 2007 08:40 PM
I suspect that economics, as well as classism, plays a factor in couples with similar incomes marrying.The salaries earned from most jobs do not stretch as far as they did 30, 40, 50 years ago. For instance, a man who is at the 70 percent tile in income (30% higher incomes, 70% lower incomes), probably could not afford the same lifestyle with that income as someone on the 70 percent tile could 30, 40, 50 years ago. So this man will naturally want a partner that is at a comparable income level. A partner with an income that's at least at the 50 percent tile would be desirable if this man wants the lifestyle his job might have afforded him, 30-50 years ago. Of course, the man has a hard time marrying a woman who is at the 90 percent tile or higher, because classism becomes a factor at those income levels. [ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jw
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12946
|
posted 03 June 2007 02:02 AM
There's enough data and thought to say there is some gender difference here. Men are more likely to marry up or down the economic scale, women are quite a bit less likely to marry down. At least, that's the way it looks right now.The REAL question is "Will that change?" Factors going into it are: - more female than male graduates - more males refusing to marry (the so-called marriage strike, which appears to be accelerating) - more males looking at the economic status of potential wife - shrinking number of high paid - low education jobs - the number of couples engaged in non-traditional marriage-labor setups (stay-at-home fathers for instance) What will happen? If the gap between male and female graduates gets too big and/or the marriage-strike grows large, then we will have social unrest as women are forced to change their mate-choices, (this is my own opinion). If neither happens, then the whole thing could well sort itself out.
From: Aylmer, ON | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 03 June 2007 08:53 AM
quote: Originally posted by jw: There's enough data and thought to say there is some gender difference here. Men are more likely to marry up or down the economic scale, women are quite a bit less likely to marry down. At least, that's the way it looks right now.The REAL question is "Will that change?" Factors going into it are: - more female than male graduates - more males refusing to marry (the so-called marriage strike, which appears to be accelerating) - more males looking at the economic status of potential wife - shrinking number of high paid - low education jobs - the number of couples engaged in non-traditional marriage-labor setups (stay-at-home fathers for instance) What will happen? If the gap between male and female graduates gets too big and/or the marriage-strike grows large, then we will have social unrest as women are forced to change their mate-choices, (this is my own opinion). If neither happens, then the whole thing could well sort itself out.
Disagree on many levels. First of all, you'll have to come up with a statistical distribution that can satisfy women being more likely to be marrying within their own class, and men being more likely to marry up or down. There are approximately as many women as men, with approximately the same rate of heterosexuality (I think there's an extra percentage point or two of gay men). Marriage strike? I think that gender stereotype is a bit outdated. And in general, men are more likely to pop the question (my anecdotal observation), but women file around two thirds of divorces (a statistic I learnt in class). The other problem with your model is that it assumes all women want to get married. Really, there are slightly more women than men, and men are slightly more likely to be homosexual than women are to be lesbian. One would think heterosexual men are at an advantage over heterosexual women in the dating game, being "picky" et cetera. And it's not the case, women have much easier time finding relationships when they want (at least the women I know). The distinction, I think, is that more women than men don't mind being single. There are a few men I know who don't want to be married, usually it's because they're afraid of divorce. Please come up with evidence of your marriage strike. Lastly, your comment about women being forced to marry down is very classist. I don't agree that if a woman with a law degree marries a hairdresser, a carpenter or a firefighter she's "setlling". I find that a very disturbing viewpoint. In general, advanced university degrees are overrated and we're going to realize that soon or we'll have an economic collapse. And I say this as someone with a B.Sc. whose beginning a doctorate at an elite university in the fall. [ 03 June 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ] [ 03 June 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668
|
posted 03 June 2007 07:49 PM
I still find the whole premise of this economist's view very flawed.Marriage among equals breeds inequality is his assertion. I think it's safe to say that a classic marxist perspective has consistenly recognized that there is a class system in place. Social mobility is quite restricted for the most part despite all the "American Dream" crap. There are certain circles that most of us never engage with on a peer level. So in some ways, the statement seems dishonest since it is really pretty much what it has always been. Best example is how the same pool of royals and aristocrats keep marrying among themselves. So I guess we should be assuming that the economist in question is making an observation about the "upper middle class" and how more women professionals in the workforce are skewing household incomes by attaching themselves to equally successful partners. Why is this an issue? How does it really breed inequality? The only new variable in the equation that I can see is that there are finally more women in professional fields earning decent incomes. I just don't understand why so much importance would be given to this fact in terms of societal inequality. The gap has little to do with how many women are in the workforce. There are women working all across the working and middle class spectrum and the reality of class structures is that those who are higher on the wage scale are probably from the same class as their partners who are also higher on the wage scale.
From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 June 2007 10:14 PM
I think we've all heard it said that women are putting off expensive education and careers in order to have babies while they are young and healthy. Or maybe it's the other way round in Canada. Ya that's it. A college or university education is what it takes to become middle class nowadays. But PSE is not a guarantee to middle classdom. Couples have more debt earlier in life than previous generations, and in most cases it delays taking on mortgages and babies and life in general. It's more expensive than ever for people to become "middle class." And if middle class means that each partner earns somewhere above the median income across Canada, about $25,400(2004 figures), then they are doing better than most. Middle class indeed, because Canadians know that $50K is not adequate to raise a family in a medium size to large city in this country.I think class mobility must have slowed somewhat with higher educational requirements determining incomes more than ever before. The guy who sits playing video games all day doesn't just up and decide to do college classes part-time, because those costs have risen too at greater rates than inflation and well above what the average McService job allows for. Reaching for the brass ring has become more about the ability to pay for access to higher ed than it is about personal desire or scholastic merit. And it helps a lot if they have money bags for parents. Or perhaps what the economist is suggesting is that women should marry for money and security before personal choice in the matter becomes a priority. That must be what he's trying tosay but doesn't have the audacity to say it. This economist doesn't dare say that our elected governments lied to us, and that most Canadians voted against FTA-NAFTA. And he won't say that those governments of the 1980's and 90's pretty much decided that Canadians, some of the most well-educated and informed people in the world, should not have decided those major issues by democratic choice anyway. No, he's simply bugging those Canadians who loathe our paternalistic governments for betraying democratic choice the way they have. I think it's political ideology for neo-Liberal reforms since the 1980's-90's in general that breeds inquality not people's choices. And nobody voted for this. In fact, the free traders promised everyone would be better off, and even that "stubborn child" poverty in Canada would disappear, because they knew better than the average Canadians who were raising concerns at the time. Economists opposed to Milton Friedman's nutty economic theories implemented in 1980's Chile and Britain and North America said at the time that Friedman's economics and democracy were incompatible. So this is how they get around the democracy end of it: by bullshiting people with lame commentaries like that one. I think Watson and low brows like him should be flown out over the Pacific in a military plane that comes back MT. [ 04 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
trippie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12090
|
posted 04 June 2007 09:44 PM
Its simple biology really..Females, in the majority, look for partrens that are at a social level that is the same or higher then their own. Men will take a woman from any level... Woman look at the males ability to provide. Men look at her appearence. Just because a woman can provide for herself now a days does not mean that millions of years of evolution go out the door... males have always been providers so they do not look at a woman for this. I don't agree with the statement that a women from a high social level can't get together with a male from a lower level. It's probable taht she does not see him as worthy but blames the male for not stepping up to the plate... [ 04 June 2007: Message edited by: trippie ] [ 04 June 2007: Message edited by: trippie ]
From: essex county | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|