Keynesian Economics and Liberal Democrat Policies increase the Cost of Raising Children

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 30th, 2012

Week in Review

A generation or two ago people got married to raise a family.  The husband typically earned the money.  And the wife raised the family.  On a single salary.  A time when most children grew up in a two-parent household.  Where boys grew up playing with toy guns.  But never took a real one to school.  Today it’s a lot harder to raise a family on a single income (see Cost of Raising a Child Up to $235K—Before College by Chris Wadsworth, special to USA TODAY, posted 12/24/2012 on CNBC).

According to the latest statistics released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, parents will spend an average of $235,000 to raise a child born in 2011 to the age of 17. (And that’s not taking into account any savings for college).

Housing, food, clothing, health care, child care, schooling … the list of compulsory expenses goes on and on. Discretionary spending such as family vacations, birthday gifts, music lessons and the like are mostly extra…

The greatest share of these expenses is housing, which is 30 percent of the total. It’s followed closely by child care and education at 18 percent and food at 16 percent…

“Our day care expense for just our older son was over $1,000 a month,” Sutton says. “If we had put our younger son in day care as well, it would have been about $2,200 a month. That was more than our mortgage payment.”

We hear this all of the time.  But we never really hear the why.  Why is it that it takes two incomes to raise a family these days?  Forcing parents to pay so much for day care that they could buy another house with that money.  Why that house expense is so expensive.  And why education and food costs so much.  So let’s look at the why.  And here’s why.  Keynesian economics.  And liberal Democrats.

Liberal Democrats champion Keynesian economics as it sanctions what they want to do most.  Tax, borrow, print and spend.  When Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold the great devaluing of the dollar began.  In 2012 it took $8.21 to buy what $1 would by in 1955.  A $15,000 house in 1955 would cost about $127,000 today.  So that’s part of the reason why housing is so expensive.  The other reason is that Keynesian monetary policy.  Where the Federal Reserve (America’s central bank) kept interest rates artificially low to encourage people to buy houses.  Which they did.  In droves.  Driving up the price of housing.  Creating housing bubbles.  The last one bursting into the subprime mortgage crisis.  Giving us the Great Recession.

But it’s just not the Federal Reserve devaluing the dollar.  Gasoline cost about $0.23/gallon in 1955.  If you adjust that for inflation it would bring it up to $1.89 today.  At the end of summer 2012 the average gasoline price was $3.72/gallon.  Which is a $1.83 premium over the inflation-adjusted price.  A 96.8% increase in price.  What caused this near doubling in price?  Well, the American Left has shut down a lot of oil drilling due to environmental issues.  Raising the cost of crude oil.  Which increased the cost of gasoline refined from that crude oil.  Further, new environmental regulations have increased the cost of refining.  Requiring a plethora of blends depending on the time of year.  Further increasing the price of gasoline.

Higher gasoline prices make everything more expensive wherever gasoline is used.  On the farm.  The transportation from the farm to the food processor.  Transportation from the food processor to the food wholesaler.  Transportation from the food wholesaler to the food retailer.  Transportation from the family home to the grocery store and back.  High gasoline prices raise prices everywhere.  And consume more of the family budget.

Education is the one industry no one every blames those in control of the industry for being greedy.  No one every blames our universities for their high tuition fees.  They blame the taxpayers who don’t approve higher taxes to subsidize the high cost of education.  Which is high due to very generous pay and benefit packages for teachers, professors, administrators and support personnel.  Much more generous than those found in the private sector.  Why do they get away with this when liberal Democrats attack business owners for being greedy?  Because business owners don’t have as their primary mission to produce Democrat voters.

So what is increasing the cost of raising children so much?  Liberal Democrat policies.  They depreciate the currency, inflate the cost of housing (and cause Great Recessions), add huge regulatory costs that increase prices throughout the supply chain and create and protect a privileged class.  Consuming more and more of the family budget.  Making it ever more costly to raise children.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to a New Study only when Women Satisfy their Sexual Desires can they Earn Higher Wages

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 1st, 2012

Week in Review

Apparently women need sex just as much as men say they do.  At least according to a new study showing a direct link between a woman’s earnings potential with the amount of sex she is able to have.  That is, birth control pills have been responsible for closing the income gap between men and women (see Birth-control pill access contributed to women’s wage increases, study says by Elizabeth Flock posted 3/30/2012 on The Washington Post).

New research has found that the early availability of the birth control pill is responsible for about a third of women’s wage increases relative to men since the 1960’s, Live Science reports…

“As the pill provided younger women the expectation of greater control over childbearing, women invested more in their human capital and careers,” study researcher and University of Michigan economist Martha Bailey said in a statement, according to Live Science.

Using data from a longitudinal study of women, Bailey and her colleagues found that there was a crucial difference for women who lived in states where women could get the pill without parental permission at age 18, and states where the age was 21.

Women in early-access states, researchers said, no longer had to choose at 18 between investing in their career or investing in a husband. They could do both, without the fear of pregnancy…

By the 1980s and 90s, the women who had early access to the pill were making 8 percent more each year than those who didn’t, according to the study.

And they say men have too much sex on the mind.  So the only thing that had been holding women back all these years from higher earnings was their out of control sex drive?  Interesting.  A sex drive that was so intense that before birth control pills the only choice a woman had was to get married and start having babies to satisfy her burning sexual desires.  But the birth control pill freed her from that.  Now she could do both.  Have a career.  And satiate that all but insatiable sexual appetite of hers.  By having lots of sex.  Without the “fear of pregnancy.”  At least, according to this study.

Really?  By that logic then only men who were getting regular sex have ever earned a decent living.  Funny, as I’ve worked with a lot of men who weren’t getting any.  Nerds.  Geeks.  The beautiful only on the inside.  The short, balding fat guys.  These guys weren’t tearing it up every weekend.  No.  They played video games.  Read comic books.  Went to topless bars.  Or watched Internet porn.  The kinds of things that make women say, “Eew.”  The same women these guys hoped to date.  But never did.  So, no, these guys weren’t getting any.  Yet they were making a pretty decent living.

Women can do, and have done, what these guys have done.  Not have sex.  And still have productive careers.  So I’m not buying that degrading conclusion that women are slaves to their sexual desires.  And can only earn a decent living when they can have on-demand sex.  Perhaps a more reasonable explanation for the shrinking of the earning disparity is this.  Women began earning more when they were forced to work longer before starting their families.  Because of the high cost of raising a family.  And were forced back to work soon after having children because of the need for two incomes to raise a family.  It fits the data.  For LBJ’s Great Society increased taxes greatly in the Seventies.  And the inflation of the Seventies made everything cost more.  Making paychecks not buy as much as they once did.  Hence the need for two incomes to raise a family.  Which has kept women in the workforce longer than they wished.  To afford the families they wanted to raise.  And because they worked longer they began to earn more.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,