Reply
America"s unemployment issues The Master 2 kids; Perth, Australia 19989 posts
2nd Nov '12

There"s a debate going on on facebook thats got me thinking.
If a man is able to provide adequately for his spouse/family is it then selfish for the woman to then seek out a career for herself when that job is needed by a man trying to provide for his family?
If married women weren't counted in the unemployment rate and were neither required or wanted in the work place so as to open up higher paying positions to men providing for their families (either wedded, defacto, or parents); would that in fact solve the unemployment/welfare problem in the US?
Not saying that women wouldn't be able to work if they're partner wssn't earning enough to provide for the family ... but if their wage wasn't 'needed' to provide for the family.

I'm His Amy He's My Rory 2 kids; Caldwell, Idaho 49345 posts
2nd Nov '12

The unemployment "rate" here is calculated by those collecting unemployment insurance, not by the actual number of unemployed. So there's some that have topped out on benefits, still looking for work, and can't get it that aren't counted in that. Housewives, unless getting unemployment benefits aren't counted either.

Devil Duckie 3 kids; New York 48700 posts
2nd Nov '12
Quoting The (super kinky) Master:" There"s a debate going on on facebook thats got me thinking. If a man is able to provide adequately for ... [snip!] ... partner wssn't earning enough to provide for the family ... but if their wage wasn't 'needed' to provide for the family. "


If I understand your question correctly, here is my answer.



Welfare and unemployment and different programs



Unemployment are those who have either been laid off or have other wise lost their job at no fault of their own. The amount you get is based on how much you made the previous year.



I am currently on unemployment and making less than minimum wage.



Welfare is based on current income. If you are making what the government determines to be decent income, which is counted before taxes (IE before you actually take any money home) It is relatively difficult to get help, regardless of how much you might need it. With welfare, you can be an at home mom, single mom, family w/two working parents. It doesn't matter, but you have to be making almost nothing. Funny enough, the program is easy to doupe. You just have to work under the table and they'd never know. That's why you hear people complaining about welfare recipients. You can walk into almost any office and you will see ladies w/ designer clothing and their nails done.




Like someone said, the unemployment isn't counted as a populous, only the one's collecting, so no. that wouldn't help the problem.

user banned 3 kids; Los Angeles, California 54034 posts
2nd Nov '12

So you mean- jobs would be primarily for men and women would more or less be expected to be housewives?

I'm His Amy He's My Rory 2 kids; Caldwell, Idaho 49345 posts
2nd Nov '12
Quoting Dr. Paradigm Shift:" So you mean- jobs would be primarily for men and women would more or less be expected to be housewives?"



I think she meant that if the man was successfully supporting the family, should the wife stay home to allow for another person to be able to support their family by having that job

user banned 3 kids; Los Angeles, California 54034 posts
2nd Nov '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting I'm His Amy He's My Rory:</b>" I think she meant that if the man was successfully supporting the family, should the wife stay home to allow for another person to be able to support their family by having that job"</blockquote>



Ahhhhh gotcha.




My answer is no. A woman with a successful husband shouldn't have to give up a career just because someone else can't find a job. I don't think it would do much for the unemployment rate, really.

snglemama 4 kids; Georgia 11978 posts
2nd Nov '12
Quoting The (super kinky) Master:" There"s a debate going on on facebook thats got me thinking. If a man is able to provide adequately for ... [snip!] ... partner wssn't earning enough to provide for the family ... but if their wage wasn't 'needed' to provide for the family. "


wtf? who then decides what is needed? my ex didn't think my income was "needed" when he made $30K a year. I certainly was not happy living off that.

Mrs cree Due November 23; 33 kids; Ontario 1907 posts
2nd Nov '12

That' topic is really pissing me off! Women have fought for years to be able to work not to mention men still make more money doing the same job. Women have a right to work what are we going back to the dark ages? Everyone should be able to have and maintain employment no matter their gender whose to say the women is not far more qualified to do do the job and do it right co pared to the man trying support the family. Maybe the women's husband will die and she will need to support her family ?

TheNuge 1 child; Pennsylvania 23152 posts
2nd Nov '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting The (super kinky) Master:</b>" There"s a debate going on on facebook thats got me thinking. If a man is able to provide adequately for ... [snip!] ... partner wssn't earning enough to provide for the family ... but if their wage wasn't 'needed' to provide for the family. "</blockquote>




I think that individuals consider this situation on a case by case basis. For example, SOMETIMES in small companies people will consider their coworkers situation when lay-offs are coming. Sometimes a "second-earner" will volunteer for the layoff rather than see the primary-earner lose their job.



The prolonged unemployment situation here is an anomaly for us. It's very unusual for their to not be more open jobs than people.
We don't have a problem with too many job-seekers. We have a problem with too few well-paying jobs.

SpaceCowgirl Due December 21; 3 kids; Oregon 20240 posts
2nd Nov '12

No. The job should go to whoever is most qualified regardless of what's in their underwear.