World Turned upside down

[briansd1]

I believe that sdreator brought up some good points.

If people were happy to live in simply ulitarian 1500sf houses, they would have more money to spend on other things. Housing be be cheaper also.

But people want to live ornate houses, with community amenities and HOA. But the want to replace their cars and durables more frequently.

Since clothing, electronics, food now represent a smaller portion of income than in the past, then more could go to savings. But in general, we go out to eat more and we get fat and stressed out. People get stressed out keeping up with their peers.

As dave pointed out, the paradox of thrift would result lower economic growth.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]TV’s was just an example. My point was the same as yours. Technology has moved forward and societies expectations along with it. People consume alot more discretionary goods than before but because of globalization they are cheaper. Women weren’t forced into the work place, they demanded equal opportunity. I’m not one who beleives kids need stay at home Mom’s to be brought up properly. I beleive women workers are every bit as good as male workers. I also believe Dad’s can do a great job with kids too.

With less spent on consumer goods in todays society that freed up more money for long term/investment type expenditures. I understand the dangers of households having higher long term fixed expenses but beleive that is not worse (and maybe better) than people not being able to afford everday purchases. If housing is too expensive in a market like this, renting is a fine alternative.[/quote]

Options are always better than no options. While some may argue that SAHPs are not necessary, others can just as effectively argue the opposite. Elizabeth Warren was pointing out the fact that we no longer have the same options as we once did, and if you read “The Two Income Trap…” by Ms. Warren, you’ll better understand why two incomes have actually harmed us far more than they’ve helped, financially speaking.

Obviously, a woman’s ability to leave an abusive husband is a benefit of women entering the workforce, but, because so many families are dual-income, she is more likely to end up having less purchasing power and is more likely end up in poverty than a single/divorced woman in the 1960s or 1970s who held the same job.

BTW, Warren is not just talking about “housing prices around here,” she’s talking about housing costs, in general — that includes renting, even “over there.”[/quote]

Is a women’s ability to leave an abusive husband any more important than a husbands ability to leave an abusive wife and not be impoverished? I just dont get the feministic slant to your posts. We are all just people with our own frailties. I know as many strong women these days as weak men. I dont assign any credence to your feministic viewpoints.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]TV’s was just an example. My point was the same as yours. Technology has moved forward and societies expectations along with it. People consume alot more discretionary goods than before but because of globalization they are cheaper. Women weren’t forced into the work place, they demanded equal opportunity. I’m not one who beleives kids need stay at home Mom’s to be brought up properly. I beleive women workers are every bit as good as male workers. I also believe Dad’s can do a great job with kids too.

With less spent on consumer goods in todays society that freed up more money for long term/investment type expenditures. I understand the dangers of households having higher long term fixed expenses but beleive that is not worse (and maybe better) than people not being able to afford everday purchases. If housing is too expensive in a market like this, renting is a fine alternative.[/quote]

Options are always better than no options. While some may argue that SAHPs are not necessary, others can just as effectively argue the opposite. Elizabeth Warren was pointing out the fact that we no longer have the same options as we once did, and if you read “The Two Income Trap…” by Ms. Warren, you’ll better understand why two incomes have actually harmed us far more than they’ve helped, financially speaking.

Obviously, a woman’s ability to leave an abusive husband is a benefit of women entering the workforce, but, because so many families are dual-income, she is more likely to end up having less purchasing power and is more likely end up in poverty than a single/divorced woman in the 1960s or 1970s who held the same job.

BTW, Warren is not just talking about “housing prices around here,” she’s talking about housing costs, in general — that includes renting, even “over there.”[/quote]

Is a women’s ability to leave an abusive husband any more important than a husbands ability to leave an abusive wife and not be impoverished? I just dont get the feministic slant to your posts. We are all just people with our own frailties. I know as many strong women these days as weak men. I dont assign any credence to your feministic viewpoints.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]TV’s was just an example. My point was the same as yours. Technology has moved forward and societies expectations along with it. People consume alot more discretionary goods than before but because of globalization they are cheaper. Women weren’t forced into the work place, they demanded equal opportunity. I’m not one who beleives kids need stay at home Mom’s to be brought up properly. I beleive women workers are every bit as good as male workers. I also believe Dad’s can do a great job with kids too.

With less spent on consumer goods in todays society that freed up more money for long term/investment type expenditures. I understand the dangers of households having higher long term fixed expenses but beleive that is not worse (and maybe better) than people not being able to afford everday purchases. If housing is too expensive in a market like this, renting is a fine alternative.[/quote]

Options are always better than no options. While some may argue that SAHPs are not necessary, others can just as effectively argue the opposite. Elizabeth Warren was pointing out the fact that we no longer have the same options as we once did, and if you read “The Two Income Trap…” by Ms. Warren, you’ll better understand why two incomes have actually harmed us far more than they’ve helped, financially speaking.

Obviously, a woman’s ability to leave an abusive husband is a benefit of women entering the workforce, but, because so many families are dual-income, she is more likely to end up having less purchasing power and is more likely end up in poverty than a single/divorced woman in the 1960s or 1970s who held the same job.

BTW, Warren is not just talking about “housing prices around here,” she’s talking about housing costs, in general — that includes renting, even “over there.”[/quote]

Is a women’s ability to leave an abusive husband any more important than a husbands ability to leave an abusive wife and not be impoverished? I just dont get the feministic slant to your posts. We are all just people with our own frailties. I know as many strong women these days as weak men. I dont assign any credence to your feministic viewpoints.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]TV’s was just an example. My point was the same as yours. Technology has moved forward and societies expectations along with it. People consume alot more discretionary goods than before but because of globalization they are cheaper. Women weren’t forced into the work place, they demanded equal opportunity. I’m not one who beleives kids need stay at home Mom’s to be brought up properly. I beleive women workers are every bit as good as male workers. I also believe Dad’s can do a great job with kids too.

With less spent on consumer goods in todays society that freed up more money for long term/investment type expenditures. I understand the dangers of households having higher long term fixed expenses but beleive that is not worse (and maybe better) than people not being able to afford everday purchases. If housing is too expensive in a market like this, renting is a fine alternative.[/quote]

Options are always better than no options. While some may argue that SAHPs are not necessary, others can just as effectively argue the opposite. Elizabeth Warren was pointing out the fact that we no longer have the same options as we once did, and if you read “The Two Income Trap…” by Ms. Warren, you’ll better understand why two incomes have actually harmed us far more than they’ve helped, financially speaking.

Obviously, a woman’s ability to leave an abusive husband is a benefit of women entering the workforce, but, because so many families are dual-income, she is more likely to end up having less purchasing power and is more likely end up in poverty than a single/divorced woman in the 1960s or 1970s who held the same job.

BTW, Warren is not just talking about “housing prices around here,” she’s talking about housing costs, in general — that includes renting, even “over there.”[/quote]

Is a women’s ability to leave an abusive husband any more important than a husbands ability to leave an abusive wife and not be impoverished? I just dont get the feministic slant to your posts. We are all just people with our own frailties. I know as many strong women these days as weak men. I dont assign any credence to your feministic viewpoints.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]TV’s was just an example. My point was the same as yours. Technology has moved forward and societies expectations along with it. People consume alot more discretionary goods than before but because of globalization they are cheaper. Women weren’t forced into the work place, they demanded equal opportunity. I’m not one who beleives kids need stay at home Mom’s to be brought up properly. I beleive women workers are every bit as good as male workers. I also believe Dad’s can do a great job with kids too.

With less spent on consumer goods in todays society that freed up more money for long term/investment type expenditures. I understand the dangers of households having higher long term fixed expenses but beleive that is not worse (and maybe better) than people not being able to afford everday purchases. If housing is too expensive in a market like this, renting is a fine alternative.[/quote]

Options are always better than no options. While some may argue that SAHPs are not necessary, others can just as effectively argue the opposite. Elizabeth Warren was pointing out the fact that we no longer have the same options as we once did, and if you read “The Two Income Trap…” by Ms. Warren, you’ll better understand why two incomes have actually harmed us far more than they’ve helped, financially speaking.

Obviously, a woman’s ability to leave an abusive husband is a benefit of women entering the workforce, but, because so many families are dual-income, she is more likely to end up having less purchasing power and is more likely end up in poverty than a single/divorced woman in the 1960s or 1970s who held the same job.

BTW, Warren is not just talking about “housing prices around here,” she’s talking about housing costs, in general — that includes renting, even “over there.”[/quote]

Is a women’s ability to leave an abusive husband any more important than a husbands ability to leave an abusive wife and not be impoverished? I just dont get the feministic slant to your posts. We are all just people with our own frailties. I know as many strong women these days as weak men. I dont assign any credence to your feministic viewpoints.

[CA renter]

You can’t possibly be serious, sdr.

http://dpsinfo.com/women/history/timeline.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/property_law.html

[CA renter]

You can’t possibly be serious, sdr.

http://dpsinfo.com/women/history/timeline.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/property_law.html

[CA renter]

You can’t possibly be serious, sdr.

http://dpsinfo.com/women/history/timeline.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/property_law.html

[CA renter]

You can’t possibly be serious, sdr.

http://dpsinfo.com/women/history/timeline.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/property_law.html

[CA renter]

You can’t possibly be serious, sdr.

http://dpsinfo.com/women/history/timeline.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/property_law.html

[Jazzman]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jazzman]
As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.[/quote]

The use of the word “thug” was mine, and I’m familar with the Thugee of subcontinent fame.

As to the other royal houses: I’d agree with their frustration at his battlefield abilities (“brilliance” is a little strong, given his uneven record as commander of the Grand Armee), but you need to mention their frustration at his treachery, broken treaties and plundering as well..

He was considered a usurper and the royal heads of Europe were aghast when he crowned himself in front of the pope. Bad form and all that.[/quote]

Whatever his military record (or otherwise) may testify to, you will likely find more references to his brilliance than thuggery. I guess it largely depended on how much you were on the receiving end, that determined how much you ascribe to one or the other view. Wellington considered his presence on the battlefield to be the equivalent
of 40,000 troops, and his military tactics are said to have modernized warfare

[Jazzman]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jazzman]
As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.[/quote]

The use of the word “thug” was mine, and I’m familar with the Thugee of subcontinent fame.

As to the other royal houses: I’d agree with their frustration at his battlefield abilities (“brilliance” is a little strong, given his uneven record as commander of the Grand Armee), but you need to mention their frustration at his treachery, broken treaties and plundering as well..

He was considered a usurper and the royal heads of Europe were aghast when he crowned himself in front of the pope. Bad form and all that.[/quote]

Whatever his military record (or otherwise) may testify to, you will likely find more references to his brilliance than thuggery. I guess it largely depended on how much you were on the receiving end, that determined how much you ascribe to one or the other view. Wellington considered his presence on the battlefield to be the equivalent
of 40,000 troops, and his military tactics are said to have modernized warfare

[Jazzman]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jazzman]
As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.[/quote]

The use of the word “thug” was mine, and I’m familar with the Thugee of subcontinent fame.

As to the other royal houses: I’d agree with their frustration at his battlefield abilities (“brilliance” is a little strong, given his uneven record as commander of the Grand Armee), but you need to mention their frustration at his treachery, broken treaties and plundering as well..

He was considered a usurper and the royal heads of Europe were aghast when he crowned himself in front of the pope. Bad form and all that.[/quote]

Whatever his military record (or otherwise) may testify to, you will likely find more references to his brilliance than thuggery. I guess it largely depended on how much you were on the receiving end, that determined how much you ascribe to one or the other view. Wellington considered his presence on the battlefield to be the equivalent
of 40,000 troops, and his military tactics are said to have modernized warfare

[Jazzman]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jazzman]
As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.[/quote]

The use of the word “thug” was mine, and I’m familar with the Thugee of subcontinent fame.

As to the other royal houses: I’d agree with their frustration at his battlefield abilities (“brilliance” is a little strong, given his uneven record as commander of the Grand Armee), but you need to mention their frustration at his treachery, broken treaties and plundering as well..

He was considered a usurper and the royal heads of Europe were aghast when he crowned himself in front of the pope. Bad form and all that.[/quote]

Whatever his military record (or otherwise) may testify to, you will likely find more references to his brilliance than thuggery. I guess it largely depended on how much you were on the receiving end, that determined how much you ascribe to one or the other view. Wellington considered his presence on the battlefield to be the equivalent
of 40,000 troops, and his military tactics are said to have modernized warfare

[Author]

Posts