Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Unemployment numbers
- This topic has 30 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
cabal.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 25, 2010 at 8:42 AM #17105February 25, 2010 at 9:06 AM #517642
UCGal
ParticipantThat’s probably a good point. It fits our household… I’m still working, Hubby was unemployed (U3) earlier this year, then rehired part time (U6) several months ago… We haven’t had any issues because we always planned so we could live on one salary if we had to. And this past year proved we’d planned correctly.
But – a lot of households NEED 2 incomes – mortgages, car payments, etc consume more than one income… those families are hurting.
February 25, 2010 at 9:06 AM #517783ParticipantThat’s probably a good point. It fits our household… I’m still working, Hubby was unemployed (U3) earlier this year, then rehired part time (U6) several months ago… We haven’t had any issues because we always planned so we could live on one salary if we had to. And this past year proved we’d planned correctly.
But – a lot of households NEED 2 incomes – mortgages, car payments, etc consume more than one income… those families are hurting.
February 25, 2010 at 9:06 AM #518565ParticipantThat’s probably a good point. It fits our household… I’m still working, Hubby was unemployed (U3) earlier this year, then rehired part time (U6) several months ago… We haven’t had any issues because we always planned so we could live on one salary if we had to. And this past year proved we’d planned correctly.
But – a lot of households NEED 2 incomes – mortgages, car payments, etc consume more than one income… those families are hurting.
February 25, 2010 at 9:06 AM #518217ParticipantThat’s probably a good point. It fits our household… I’m still working, Hubby was unemployed (U3) earlier this year, then rehired part time (U6) several months ago… We haven’t had any issues because we always planned so we could live on one salary if we had to. And this past year proved we’d planned correctly.
But – a lot of households NEED 2 incomes – mortgages, car payments, etc consume more than one income… those families are hurting.
February 25, 2010 at 9:06 AM #518311ParticipantThat’s probably a good point. It fits our household… I’m still working, Hubby was unemployed (U3) earlier this year, then rehired part time (U6) several months ago… We haven’t had any issues because we always planned so we could live on one salary if we had to. And this past year proved we’d planned correctly.
But – a lot of households NEED 2 incomes – mortgages, car payments, etc consume more than one income… those families are hurting.
February 25, 2010 at 9:57 AM #517677lostkitty
ParticipantSure, I agree people are hurting, but just thinking this may explain away a big chunk of the missing distress from the economy that everyone ‘expected’ to see if unemployment reached these levels. Two incomes down to one means one can stay unemployed for a much longer period of time without all hell breaking loose. They can cut down on vacations, cars, childcare, etc, They can resort to getting rid of the albatross of a home if need be as well.
February 25, 2010 at 9:57 AM #517818ParticipantSure, I agree people are hurting, but just thinking this may explain away a big chunk of the missing distress from the economy that everyone ‘expected’ to see if unemployment reached these levels. Two incomes down to one means one can stay unemployed for a much longer period of time without all hell breaking loose. They can cut down on vacations, cars, childcare, etc, They can resort to getting rid of the albatross of a home if need be as well.
February 25, 2010 at 9:57 AM #518600ParticipantSure, I agree people are hurting, but just thinking this may explain away a big chunk of the missing distress from the economy that everyone ‘expected’ to see if unemployment reached these levels. Two incomes down to one means one can stay unemployed for a much longer period of time without all hell breaking loose. They can cut down on vacations, cars, childcare, etc, They can resort to getting rid of the albatross of a home if need be as well.
February 25, 2010 at 9:57 AM #518253ParticipantSure, I agree people are hurting, but just thinking this may explain away a big chunk of the missing distress from the economy that everyone ‘expected’ to see if unemployment reached these levels. Two incomes down to one means one can stay unemployed for a much longer period of time without all hell breaking loose. They can cut down on vacations, cars, childcare, etc, They can resort to getting rid of the albatross of a home if need be as well.
February 25, 2010 at 9:57 AM #518346ParticipantSure, I agree people are hurting, but just thinking this may explain away a big chunk of the missing distress from the economy that everyone ‘expected’ to see if unemployment reached these levels. Two incomes down to one means one can stay unemployed for a much longer period of time without all hell breaking loose. They can cut down on vacations, cars, childcare, etc, They can resort to getting rid of the albatross of a home if need be as well.
February 25, 2010 at 6:51 PM #518538paramount
ParticipantDuring the 1930’s Great Depression women were not in the workforce like they are today (in terms of numbers) – we know that. As a result the impact was more severe on families back then when the family patriarch lost his job.
Fast forward to today, in an age of extreme materialism where many families and women choose fancy SUV’s and houses over raising their children, and yes they are somewhat insulated from unemployment.
They have also raised the cost of living as well.
On the other hand, there are still many people like myself who choose to live a modest life, in a 1500 sq. ft. house in an affordable area (for the working class) that allows one parent or the other to raise their children – because they make that a priority over SUV’s and houses.
February 25, 2010 at 6:51 PM #518885ParticipantDuring the 1930’s Great Depression women were not in the workforce like they are today (in terms of numbers) – we know that. As a result the impact was more severe on families back then when the family patriarch lost his job.
Fast forward to today, in an age of extreme materialism where many families and women choose fancy SUV’s and houses over raising their children, and yes they are somewhat insulated from unemployment.
They have also raised the cost of living as well.
On the other hand, there are still many people like myself who choose to live a modest life, in a 1500 sq. ft. house in an affordable area (for the working class) that allows one parent or the other to raise their children – because they make that a priority over SUV’s and houses.
February 25, 2010 at 6:51 PM #518632ParticipantDuring the 1930’s Great Depression women were not in the workforce like they are today (in terms of numbers) – we know that. As a result the impact was more severe on families back then when the family patriarch lost his job.
Fast forward to today, in an age of extreme materialism where many families and women choose fancy SUV’s and houses over raising their children, and yes they are somewhat insulated from unemployment.
They have also raised the cost of living as well.
On the other hand, there are still many people like myself who choose to live a modest life, in a 1500 sq. ft. house in an affordable area (for the working class) that allows one parent or the other to raise their children – because they make that a priority over SUV’s and houses.
February 25, 2010 at 6:51 PM #518104ParticipantDuring the 1930’s Great Depression women were not in the workforce like they are today (in terms of numbers) – we know that. As a result the impact was more severe on families back then when the family patriarch lost his job.
Fast forward to today, in an age of extreme materialism where many families and women choose fancy SUV’s and houses over raising their children, and yes they are somewhat insulated from unemployment.
They have also raised the cost of living as well.
On the other hand, there are still many people like myself who choose to live a modest life, in a 1500 sq. ft. house in an affordable area (for the working class) that allows one parent or the other to raise their children – because they make that a priority over SUV’s and houses.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.