Why did Business Turn against the Family?

31 Oct

Mark Moncrieff observes and comments.

I’d add that keeping women in the workforce after WWII (unlike after WWI, when they went home) eventually allowed for the relative decrease in salaries (in terms of purchasing power) for all employees, over time; this was no doubt realized, and seized upon by greedy and unscrupulous employers. (Consider that a single middle-class salary could support an entire family quite comfortably, able to maintain that middle-class status, in the 1950s; whereas now, it takes two working middle-class people to maintain such an existence. Surely, this was foreseen, and considered good for business, even though surely self-evidently not so much so for families.)


15 responses to “Why did Business Turn against the Family?

  1. weak stream

    November 2, 2015 at 9:46 pm

    The need for two incomes now versus then is a consequence of inflation. Women that worked in the fifties that didn’t really need to were looking at what I call a ‘Marginal Dollar’ standard. Thinking they are linearly better off with dollar number 100,000 as dollar number one. A big error of perception then and now.

  2. Will S.

    November 3, 2015 at 1:21 am

    Yes, and I’m sure that inflation of that magnitude was foreseen, and planned.

    Women were their own worst enemy, as usual.

  3. bluebird of bitterness

    November 3, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    I think the population control zealots were behind this. In the name of women’s liberation, lure women out of the home and into the paid labor force, which drives down wages, which makes two incomes necessary for survival, leading to the demise of that anachronistic (and despised) creature, the full-time mother. Result: fewer children born, population growth stalled or even reversed. Score one for the anti-population crowd.

    • Will S.

      November 3, 2015 at 12:28 pm

      I hadn’t considered that, but it makes sense.

      I’m certain it was orchestrated, in some capacity, whether consciously or unconsciously; that businesses saw an opportunity to effectively lower relative wages.

      Now they force North American workers to compete with Chinese and Mexicans who will work for little, and so wages are driven even lower, more temps are employed rather than full-time hires, and so on.

  4. weak stream

    November 4, 2015 at 6:00 am

    But it’s not business that’s ‘pro inflation’. It comes from the financial ‘rentier’ class. The class that produces nothing. The problem with not making this distinction is that all other roads lead to communism/collectivism. Gold standard, please.

  5. Will S.

    November 4, 2015 at 10:18 am

    Not sure I understand to whom you are referring to – do you mean offspring / descendents of successful businessmen who are living off their family’s accumulated wealth?

  6. weak stream

    November 4, 2015 at 1:41 pm

    Yep. As well as the political class and the newer generation of finance guys that are riding the wave of this era of fraudulent credit creation. That it’s legal for business to act as they do is the problem. The political class gives them clearance for this via unethical trade deals. The middle class was sold the fiction which is the ‘service economy’. Someone has to produce something for goodness sakes. We can’t all get rich selling each other cheeseburgers and insurance policies. I also have a problem with the term ‘robber baron’. These are not slave lords. There is an extremely slippery slope toward communism and various other forms of collectivism that we will confront if we’re not careful.

  7. Will S.

    November 5, 2015 at 2:27 am

    Indeed, by ‘businesses’, I include such folks of that ilk, who as you point out are indeed far more likely to enact such things than actual businesspeople.

    I have wondered how long we can go on outsourcing manufacturing to China, etc.

    I mean, to have a viable consumer economy, you need to have people who actually have wealth to spend – and not just rich folks, but middle class ones, too. If you kill the middle class, you will doom your society, ultimately, surely.

  8. Eric

    November 5, 2015 at 6:22 am

    There’s essentially no difference between cartel capitalism and socialism. The problem is that the Government, Media, Academia, and Wall Street exist in a symbiotic relationship and they have the same goals and agendas.

    The Stock Market, as it exists today, is essentially public-owned. A corporate monopoly and a government bureaucracy are basically no different.

  9. weak stream

    November 5, 2015 at 9:53 am

    Eric and Will, completely agree. And none of the collectivists structures can exist without a central bank. The bank is the main ingredient in any kind of command economy. What’s never talked about these days is the complicity of the middle class. The middle class has been bought off by home equity loans and credit cards. It’s disturbing to see how quickly people will sell their integrity and their dignity. Of course, printing all this money has its consequences from a macro economic standpoint. Historians, because they don’t properly understand economics, never point out that Hitler had no choice but to start a war.. he had run the wealth/capital stock of Germany to the ground with his programs.

  10. Larry Olsen

    November 25, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    A little more historical knowledge would help you a lot.

  11. Will S.

    November 26, 2015 at 1:48 am

    I have a decent amount of historical knowledge, I’d wager. Taxes benefit the State, not businesses; why did businesses embrace prog dogma, is the question under discussion here; I know why the State has embraced it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s