Why do both parents have to work nowadays?

Fathom

Reverse mortgages. Increasing TV ads in US. Targeting aging Baby Boom parents. 62 & older. Spend 30 years paying mortgage. Now reverse. Banks get them coming and going. Will this be the next recessionary bubble? Massive Baby Boom. Millions in reverse as aging parents try to get by. Banks don't sell real estate until parents die.

armabelle

Fathom wrote: »

Reverse mortgages. Increasing TV ads in US. Targeting aging Baby Boom parents. 62 & older. Spend 30 years paying mortgage. Now reverse. Banks get them coming and going. Will this be the next recessionary bubble? Massive Baby Boom. Millions in reverse as aging parents try to get by. Banks don't sell real estate until parents die.

Do a lot of people take reverse mortgages? First time I hear of this actually

PMBC

iguana wrote: »

That sort of wealth can bring the type of problems normal people can't imagine though. You become a type of celebrity, even if you don't court media attention, people will know who you are so you can never have a real private life. You can never be 100% sure of any of your friendships or love interests. Even something as normal as a one night stand for a single person could easily be tomorrow's clickbait. And if you cheat on a partner you are a great target for blackmail.

I think there have been studies done that show there is a peak level of wealth that helps a person achieve maximum happiness and beyond that the wealth tends to become a stressor rather than an alleviation.

Re studies done...; yes I read that a few years ago. The levels of money were surprisingly low IMHO- but not to be laughed at in any manner. Something like $45k after which more did not bring any (?more) happiness. Does that sound right. Perhaps the figures were for nett income rather than gross.

armabelle

PMBC wrote: »

Re studies done...; yes I read that a few years ago. The levels of money were surprisingly low IMHO- but not to be laughed at in any manner. Something like $45k after which more did not bring any (?more) happiness. Does that sound right. Perhaps the figures were for nett income rather than gross.

I don't see how you could study something like that. People are all different and some are happier than others just by their genetic make-up. Others might be more attractive and there are studies that show that attractive people also tend to be happier and have easier lives. Some people are healthier than others and they say good health brings happiness too so how could any study account for these differences in people? Also, please note that my examples are things that money just cannot buy. Someone ugly with heaps of cash may have a not-so-nice life compared to someone attractive that everyone likes. Or, no matter how much money you have, if you don't have good health, forget about being truly happy. Women do tend to go for men with lots of money because of the security it brings them and their kids but only god will decide how your kids come out and no amount of money in the world decides those things.

PMBC

As usual Google yields something on that issue. Book by Daniel Kahemann which reads as being very academic and is based on US data. The figure is way different from what I mentioned earlier. It seems as if an optimum income is around $75k. A few caveats on that -
Its US data
He differentiates between happiness and life satisfaction
My quick scan didn't reveal whether it was nett or gross family income.
So there.

armabelle

PMBC wrote: »

As usual Google yields something on that issue. Book by Daniel Kahemann which reads as being very academic and is based on US data. The figure is way different from what I mentioned earlier. It seems as if an optimum income is around $75k. A few caveats on that -
Its US data
He differentiates between happiness and life satisfaction
My quick scan didn't reveal whether it was nett or gross family income.
So there.

Have read a book of his but found it to be a bit like the guy spent so much time thinking about these things that he had to come up with something conclusive. A lot of social science books are like that. I believe human beings are far too complex to be measured in those ways.

PMBC

armabelle wrote: »

I don't see how you could study something like that. People are all different and some are happier than others just by their genetic make-up. Others might be more attractive and there are studies that show that attractive people also tend to be happier and have easier lives. Some people are healthier than others and they say good health brings happiness too so how could any study account for these differences in people? Also, please note that my examples are things that money just cannot buy. Someone ugly with heaps of cash may have a not-so-nice life compared to someone attractive that everyone likes. Or, no matter how much money you have, if you don't have good health, forget about being truly happy. Women do tend to go for men with lots of money because of the security it brings them and their kids but only god will decide how your kids come out and no amount of money in the world decides those things.

Armabelle generally I agree with you. The Beatles song 'Money cant buy me love' comes to mind. And my granny's saying 'health is wealth'. I only said that there were studies. Having said that Daniel Kahnemann is a fairly highly respected writer and academic. So I wouldn't dismiss his book completely.

armabelle

PMBC wrote: »

Armabelle generally I agree with you. The Beatles song 'Money cant buy me love' comes to mind. And my granny's saying 'health is wealth'. I only said that there were studies. Having said that Daniel Kahnemann is a fairly highly respected writer and academic. So I wouldn't dismiss his book completely.

I found his book interesting. I really enjoy social sciences and behavioral economics and have read lots of authors so definitely wouldn't dismiss it just don't always agree with the findings completely. I understand the desire to study and know these things is a worthy pursuit just don't know if it is possible really because there are so many factors and you would have to have replica people by which to perform the study accurately.

We do need a certain amount of wealth else even the most attractive, healthiest person will be unhappy so there is some truth in the fact that we need wealth but we should not have to work so hard just to survive nowadays IMO. I think with so much wealth in the world, there needs to be more balance and people deserve better so they can have more free time. It makes no sense that with so much technology people aren't working a lot less by now. They should be working at least 4 day weeks not 5...at the VERY least

Wanderer78

Read a story some time ago of a billionaire IT chap that was struggling to find a life partner. Felt very sorry for the chap. Seemed very sad and lonely. Money doesn't solve all!

armabelle

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Read a story some time ago of a billionaire IT chap that was struggling to find a life partner. Felt very sorry for the chap. Seemed very sad and lonely. Money doesn't solve all!

...and then if you had the billions and people did want be your partner, I wonder if you would ever be content in knowing that the real reason was not your money. I wonder if rich people have this problem

Wanderer78

armabelle wrote:

...and then if you had the billions and people did want be your partner, I wonder if you would ever be content in knowing that the real reason was not your money. I wonder if rich people have this problem

I'd have to read the article again but I think he did have thrust issues which is understandable. I also suspect possible autism and/or aspergus etc

armabelle

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/23/baby-crisis-europe-brink-depopulation-disaster

So now, not only are both parents having to work but population growth is plummeting

this is just crazy

The thread title should be changed to: Why do both parents have to work nowadays if the families are shrinking

So we work more for families that are smaller or non-existant. WTF?

blinding

armabelle wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/23/baby-crisis-europe-brink-depopulation-disaster

So now, not only are both parents having to work but population growth is plummeting

this is just crazy

The thread title should be changed to: Why do both parents have to work nowadays if the families are shrinking

So we work more for families that are smaller or non-existant. WTF?

Somebody is screwing us and its not the procreation / enjoyment type of screwing:eek:

mahoganygas

I read this last night and it made me think of this thread:

The world is increasingly designed to depress us. Happiness isn’t very good for the economy. If we were happy with what we had, why would we need more? How do you sell an anti-ageing moisturiser? You make someone worry about ageing. How do you get people to vote for a political party? You make them worry about immigration. How do you get them to buy insurance? By making them worry about everything. How do you get them to have plastic surgery? By highlighting their physical flaws. How do you get them to watch a TV show? By making them worry about missing out. How do you get them to buy a new smartphone? By making them feel like they are being left behind.

To be calm becomes a kind of revolutionary act. To be happy with your own non-upgraded existence. To be comfortable with our messy, human selves, would not be good for business.

regi3457

blinding wrote: »

Somebody is screwing us and its not the procreation / enjoyment type of screwing:eek:

Nobody is screwing anybody unwillingly. People accept their position in the economic food chain else they would do what they have done throughout history... revolt or go to war. The powers that be depend on peoples ignorance in this day and age to be able to extract the most out of each man and (and more recently women too) and humanity obliges. Thinking requires effort and after working so much, most would rather be vegetables on the couch instead of questioning the world around them.

It is actually kind of funny that women have only recently joined the workforce to the extent in which they have. This is so convenient as it now extends output to the female race which now must work as well to sustain the same lifestyle as before. I wonder what the real reason those rights were granted just as I wonder if slavery was abolished because felt bad or because those slaves were no longer needed and people could be enslaved in far better ways.

The majority of people in this world are only oranges and they must be squeezed until there is no juice left. But hey you get a pension so it must be worth it right?

OttoPilot

regi3457 wrote: »

Nobody is screwing anybody unwillingly. People accept their position in the economic food chain else they would do what they have done throughout history... revolt or go to war. The powers that be depend on peoples ignorance in this day and age to be able to extract the most out of each man and (and more recently women too) and humanity obliges. Thinking requires effort and after working so much, most would rather be vegetables on the couch instead of questioning the world around them.

It is actually kind of funny that women have only recently joined the workforce to the extent in which they have. This is so convenient as it now extends output to the female race which now must work as well to sustain the same lifestyle as before. I wonder what the real reason those rights were granted just as I wonder if slavery was abolished because felt bad or because those slaves were no longer needed and people could be enslaved in far better ways.

The majority of people in this world are only oranges and they must be squeezed until there is no juice left. But hey you get a pension so it must be worth it right?

Not all people accept their place on the economic food chain, they set up businesses, upskill, change employers for better wages, move country.

And do you honestly think you are just sustaining the same lifestyle? So there been no improvement in living standards since women joined the workforce?

regi3457

OttoPilot wrote: »

Not all people accept their place on the economic food chain, they set up businesses, upskill, change employers for better wages, move country.

And do you honestly think you are just sustaining the same lifestyle? So there been no improvement in living standards since women joined the workforce?

Better wages sure but that doesn't change anything. It doesn't make you exempt from paying a large portion of your wages to taxes, it doesn't make you exempt from owing your life to paying off debt to banks, it doesn't make you exempt from routine economic crisis and the economy in general, you still proportionately take part no matter how much you earn. A high income person is just an extra juicy orange for the elite. There to be squeezed like the rest.

And no, no improvement in living standards since women joined. Show me a society that works 3 day weeks because of all the new fancy technology our generation has discovered. Show me a society that spends more time with family and friends because they can, where marriages last and where people are happy all the time. That is an increase in living standards not owing more money to debt and paying so the elite can continue to exploit the population via an economic system such as ours is today.

PMBC

I now remember a book read some years ago which was something like 'The difference between wanting and needing'.
We want consumer goods but we don't need them.

regi3457

PMBC wrote: »

I now remember a book read some years ago which was something like 'The difference between wanting and needing'.
We want consumer goods but we don't need them.

Another poster above said it well. That would be bad for business. Society must continuously be kept striving and believing they need more. Slowly but surely, the very things that actually do bring happiness and increase quality of life are exchanged until we are actually quite miserable deep inside. Like a horse that has been tamed, so have we been tamed to bear the burden of those that rule and exploit us at the expense of greater happiness without ever questioning...just accepting.

regi3457

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's about power, rather than wealth - and until democratic government is corrupted/taken-over completely, there's always more power to be gained.

Yes, corrupted is the right word but no need for force or violence. A very easy and peaceful way to do this (instead of protesting) would be for the vast majority of people to unite and jointly default on their debt. The economic system would plunder and a new one would have to be introduced.

armabelle

regi3457 wrote: »

Better wages sure but that doesn't change anything. It doesn't make you exempt from paying a large portion of your wages to taxes, it doesn't make you exempt from owing your life to paying off debt to banks, it doesn't make you exempt from routine economic crisis and the economy in general, you still proportionately take part no matter how much you earn. A high income person is just an extra juicy orange for the elite. There to be squeezed like the rest.

And no, no improvement in living standards since women joined. Show me a society that works 3 day weeks because of all the new fancy technology our generation has discovered. Show me a society that spends more time with family and friends because they can, where marriages last and where people are happy all the time. That is an increase in living standards not owing more money to debt and paying so the elite can continue to exploit the population via an economic system such as ours is today.

A 3 day work week should not be strange if now machines do all the work for us. I think that would make people happier and bring us back to our senses. Rest is important to feeling human and happy.

PMBC

armabelle wrote: »

A 3 day work week should not be strange if now machines do all the work for us. I think that would make people happier and bring us back to our senses. Rest is important to feeling human and happy.

Ah for the 3 day week. But will it turn out the way we thought; more leisure and family time?

iguana

OttoPilot wrote: »

And do you honestly think you are just sustaining the same lifestyle? So there been no improvement in living standards since women joined the workforce?

Well it's pretty much proven by those who have studied it that families in general are much worse off since 2 income families have become the norm. People have more consumer goods because consumer goods are cheaper, and that was going to happen one way or the other, but most have far less disposable income as a proportion of their income. Housing costs in particular have risen so extremely high as a proportion of income that people are no where near as well off as they were in the past.

OttoPilot

regi3457 wrote: »

Better wages sure but that doesn't change anything. It doesn't make you exempt from paying a large portion of your wages to taxes, it doesn't make you exempt from owing your life to paying off debt to banks, it doesn't make you exempt from routine economic crisis and the economy in general, you still proportionately take part no matter how much you earn. A high income person is just an extra juicy orange for the elite. There to be squeezed like the rest.

And no, no improvement in living standards since women joined. Show me a society that works 3 day weeks because of all the new fancy technology our generation has discovered. Show me a society that spends more time with family and friends because they can, where marriages last and where people are happy all the time. That is an increase in living standards not owing more money to debt and paying so the elite can continue to exploit the population via an economic system such as ours is today.

Average work hours have fallen since the 1800s.

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

Marriages lasting is not a good measure of living standards because there was no divorce until fairly recently in the context of this discussion.

If high income people are not the elite then who is?

OttoPilot

regi3457 wrote: »

Yes, corrupted is the right word but no need for force or violence. A very easy and peaceful way to do this (instead of protesting) would be for the vast majority of people to unite and jointly default on their debt. The economic system would plunder and a new one would have to be introduced.

What one would you suggest?

regi3457

OttoPilot wrote: »

Average work hours have fallen since the 1800s.

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

Marriages lasting is not a good measure of living standards because there was no divorce until fairly recently in the context of this discussion.

If high income people are not the elite then who is?

Don't compare now to the 1800's. We need to compare to more recent times else it will take 3 -4 lifetimes to realize something is wrong. People work more and now their wives do too... and for what? To provide for diminishing children that are no longer being born? If anything people are too busy working to procreate. Perhaps a snag but I am sure the elite will come up a way to keep the golden goose laying those eggs. Incentives for childbirth anyone?

When you say "high" income we could be talking about different things. There are millionaires who you might consider "elite" but they have this status in spite of the extractive nature of the economy not because of it. If you think how much wealth there is and where and how it is channeled in the modern economy you can see frightening numbers. There is enough wealth for most people to be much wealthier than they are in this world and certainly enough to eliminate the suffering of billions. Over 50% of the worlds wealth lies in the pockets of a few. Who are they? Maybe some are known, maybe others are not. I don't have those answers. I wish I did but I don't need to have them to see that there is something wrong.

regi3457

OttoPilot wrote: »

What one would you suggest?

Yes you would question me because by now I am sounding like I have all the answers right? Well I don't. It would make for a good project and I could thing of a couple of ways. One way that I have considered is that people could trade more? Perhaps the web will come up with a way to help so that people can trade with each other without money? like having tokens on a site that you can use to redeem services and products?

mahoganygas

regi3457 wrote: »

Yes, corrupted is the right word but no need for force or violence. A very easy and peaceful way to do this (instead of protesting) would be for the vast majority of people to unite and jointly default on their debt. The economic system would plunder and a new one would have to be introduced.

I love how you jump from plundered economic system to introducing a new one without for a second mentioning what would happen in between.

There would be nothing easy or peaceful about a massive default on debt.

regi3457

mahoganygas wrote: »

I love how you jump from plundered economic system to introducing a new one without for a second mentioning what would happen in between.

There would be nothing easy or peaceful about a massive default on debt.

Don't like to blow my own horn but I also loved that. Thank you

Well, maybe this makes for another post but maybe you can share why you think it won't be peaceful? What would happen if everyone did that?

Harika

mahoganygas wrote: »

I love how you jump from plundered economic system to introducing a new one without for a second mentioning what would happen in between.

There would be nothing easy or peaceful about a massive default on debt.

The question also is, about this new fantastic economic system, what exactly it is? Cause when everything breaks together, usually the vultures that were on top before, will again rise as first and on top. So nothing will change? who will do it? The people? The people are usually very quick on handing the power to someone who offers a simple solution, while the better solution for them would be far more complex and takes time and energy.
Edit: To show you what effect the default has on all of us, like e.g. private pension and savings is debt from somewhere, if everyone defaults all your savings and the pension is gone. So it’s easy to say when you have only debts that everyone just needs to default and all is fine, what about the people that don’t have those luxury?