Marriage among equals breeds inequality - Economist William Watson
Tue, 2007-05-15 08:08
#1
Marriage among equals breeds inequality - Economist William Watson
Tue, 2007-05-15 08:08
#2
Marriage among equals breeds inequality
Rich people in love can upset the statistics on equality
WILLIAM WATSON
Freelance
quote:
If you love equality - and what Canadian doesn't?- you might want to start thinking about regulating marriages. Why's that? Maybe you saw Statistics Canada's Andrew Heisz on the news last week talking about his new study on income inequality. One reason it's rising, he said, is that successful people seem to prefer marrying other successful people. Combine two high incomes and the family thus formed has a really high income, thus bumping up inequality.As befits a civil servant, Heisz did not consider the policy implications, but if you were following closely, it probably occurred to you that if only we could persuade brainy female judges, scientists and executives to hitch up with beer-swilling, trailer-park types, then family incomes would be more even. Or, as happened in the 1990 romantic comedy Pretty Woman, starring Richard Gere and Julia Roberts, more corporate CEOs could take up with call girls who can't pay the rent (as difficult as it was to imagine Roberts as an unsuccessful prostitute).
[url=http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=2c4a32a4-f9c0-4783-9078-7... View of Article-Montreal Gazette[/url]
Tue, 2007-05-15 08:36
#3
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Marriage among equals breeds inequality
Rich people in love can upset the statistics on equality[/b]
What a nasty slag on the working class. Beer-swilling trailer park boys or hookers, indeed.
Tue, 2007-05-15 08:52
#4
Another voice heard from, on the same subject:
quote:
What's really driving the prosperity gap? Well, here's one factor you don't hear much about: High-achieving women.It's obvious when you think about it. Higher-earning women tend to marry higher-earning men, and together they tend to make a pile of money. Even a pair of teachers can easily bring in $131,000 a year - more than enough to put them in the top 10 per cent of Canadian families by income. Forty years ago, most of these high-earning married women would have been at home.
"Highly educated women have always been attracted to highly educated men, so there's nothing new there," says Andrew Heisz, a senior researcher at Statistics Canada. "The difference is that there are a lot more highly educated women now than in the past, so a lot more power couples."
[url=http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC... Margaret Wente [/url]
Tue, 2007-05-15 09:35
#5
From that last article:
quote:
The difference between the haves and the have-nots isn't only about income. It's also about education, skills, attitudes, behaviour and expectations. It's also about parental investment.
This is important. Almost [url=http://worthwhile.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/p... of university students make the decision to go to university before they turn 15. Kids that age aren't doing cost-benefit analyses; they're following an example.
Tue, 2007-05-15 09:48
#6
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
This is simply bullshit for the credulous, of course. The monied class has always married within its own ranks.
And as Linda McQuaig has pointed out so many times that the author should be embarrassed, comparison of 1976 stats with today's is impossible, as in 1980(?) [i]- I'm going by memory here -[/i] Statscan stopped collecting data about the truly wealthy, simply counting all those who earn over 100K as earning 100K+. We no longer have any verifiable information available about our filthy rich.
Tue, 2007-05-15 09:50
#7
Sven
People who are similarly situated and have common interests will naturally gravitate towards each other.
I’ve also heard numerous professional women comment to me that many single men they meet feel intimated by women who are professionals and earn a good coin. For many men, I suspect it’s a matter of not having the power to influence or control what happens in a relationship—as these women can more easily say, “Fuck off,” and then leave a bad relationship because they are independent financially. So, it doesn’t surprise me that higher-income professional women tend to marry like-positioned men.
Finally, I suspect that a very large percentage of people meet their mates due to the work. If you’re a woman corporate lawyer, you’re going to be spending most of your work time with other professionals and well-to-do businesspeople. So, it’s quite natural that many friendships and romances occur in those circles.
Tue, 2007-05-15 09:52
#8
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]This is simply bullshit for the credulous, of course. The monied class has always married within its own ranks.[/b]
What qualifies including someone in the "monied class"?
Tue, 2007-05-15 10:49
#9
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]This is important. Almost [url=http://worthwhile.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/p... of university students make the decision to go to university before they turn 15. Kids that age aren't doing cost-benefit analyses; they're following an example.[/b]
But wouldn't students from high income families find it a lot easier in making that decision without facing a quarter century worth of debt repayment as the price for seeking higher ed in Canada ?.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning that skyrocketing tuition fees are justified "because there were too many rich kids getting a free ride" wrt PSE in Canada. The median earned-income for workin Canadians in 2004 was only $25, 400.
Canadian students are more than $20 billion dollars in student loan debt. Canada didn't accumulate $20 billion dollars worth of national debt between WWI and 1974.
I guess 15 year-olds in Cuba decide to become doctors at greater per capita rates than us for some strange reason. Is it breeding and genetics, or is it because they don't have to enter into an arrangement for a quarter century of indentured servitude as the price for accessing higher ed ?.Come on!
[ 15 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Tue, 2007-05-15 11:19
#10
There is some truth to this. Once upon a time, there was more class mobility through marriage. It used to be that a doctor (male) would marry a nurse (female) and a lawyer (male) would marry a secretary or a flight attendant (female). It was rotten that in those days, it was mostly only men who worked as well payed professionals - but at least there was some possibility for women to "marry up" into a higher household income bracket.
Nowadays - a doctor (male) marries a doctor (female) (or they might be of the same sex too - but let's not go off on a tangent) and a lawyer (male) marries a lawyer (female) etc... and so now you have high educated people with very well-paying jobs marrying each other and having really, really high household incomes. The days when a nurse or a secretary from a more humble background and with less education could marry into the upper middle class are OVER.
Don't get me wrong. I think its a very good thing that women are now very high represented in the professions and are earning way more money than before and have careers etc... - but it is creating a phenomenon of more and more filthy rich double income households - with or without kids.
Tue, 2007-05-15 11:40
#11
I think what was more common in the past was that the daughters of lawyers and doctors married lawyers and doctors, but stayed home and raised a family. Now they are more likely to work. So instead of one income, these families have two incomes. This widens the gap.
Tue, 2007-05-15 11:43
#12
I guess Stephen is only saying that kids follow by example. He's not overreaching by suggesting that kids from well off families face the same obstacles in pursuing higher education as do kids from poor families. Because that's just not the case. Fasmily physicians in Canada are more likely than before to come from better off families. And let's face it, twelve years of training to become a GP is all about ability to pay and less about merit or desire as it was before the defunding of PSE.
Tue, 2007-05-15 11:46
#13
I think I see your point, Stockholm.
However...I think that because those are the only career options open to women at the time, that it likely also mattered what their father did.
So, a doctor might marry a secretary - BUT, that secretary might also have a Bachelor's Degree and be the daughter of a white-collar guy.
A doctor would likely have been less likely to marry, say, a housecleaner whose mother was a server and whose father was a bricklayer.
Tue, 2007-05-15 11:54
#14
That's probably true - though in those days if a woman was pretty enough - social class differences could be overlooked.
But the point is (I think) that once upon a time you tended to have one high wage earner per family, whereas now you often have two in the same family and in a way that leads to more concentration of wealth.
Tue, 2007-05-15 11:56
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]That's probably true - though in those days if a woman was pretty enough - social class differences could be overlooked. [/b]
I think the same is true now.
Tue, 2007-05-15 12:00
#16
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I think the same is true now.[/b]
The differences are that now it helps maybe half as much for a man to be pretty, and that because beauty standards are becoming ever more artificial and thus expensive to maintain, they'll end up correlating with wealth.
Tue, 2007-05-15 12:09
#17
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]I guess Stephen is only saying that kids follow by example. He's not overreaching by suggesting that kids from well off families face the same obstacles in pursuing higher education as do kids from poor families. Because that's just not the case. Fasmily physicians in Canada are more likely than before to come from better off families. And let's face it, twelve years of training to become a GP is all about ability to pay and less about merit or desire as it was before the defunding of PSE.[/b]
Fidel, I think I'm a good example of what Stephen Gordon refers to.
My own family, in and of itself, was relatively poor. Sometimes there was little food, no owning of property, no television or cable for extended periods of time, sometimes bell would cut off the phone, et cetera. On the other hand, I personally was exposed to the wealthier way of life. I was insanely jealous and bitter. We had a fantastic library in the neighbourhood so I learnt a whole lot of the world by following current events and other things, and I learnt how important things like education are. Also, I somehow had a scholarship to a private school, so the attitude among my friends was university (or Yeshiva). And therefore I didn't think anything of it. Going to higher education was the only way to go I knew of and hence I was going to do that. Ten years later I'm now done and heading to graduate school, though with ~18k in student loans (which right now I don't think is that big a deal).
Attitude and cultural influences matter a lot. What Margaret Wente is alluding to is that even though absolute poverty is dropping - "poor" kids now have cable tv and clothing, relative poverty still matters. I think she's correct about the difference in cultural exposure, and also that we need new ways of approaching these challenges. An upper middle class will have an advantage over a lower income kid not purely because of money. It's all those experiences, and the knowledge from the parents' careers... I suspect these things matter more than access, which is fairly good in Canada.
Tue, 2007-05-15 12:10
#18
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Stockholm:
That's probably true - though in those days if a woman was pretty enough - social class differences could be overlooked.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I think the same is true now.
Of course it still happens to some extent, but here is the thing. I'll give you an example. I have a female friend with a professional job, whose husband is a corporate lawyer. Sometimes five couples get together where the 5 hubbies all work as partners at the same firm. Four of the five men have wives who are either lawyers, doctors or businesswomen. One lawyer has a blond "trophy wife" who works in retail to amuse herself. Apparently, it is always awkward when they get together because the "trophy wife" has nothing to constribute to the conversation and there is a lot of derisive gossip about her hunsband having married someone with no career or education etc...
30 years ago, it would have been the norm for a bunch of male high-powered lawyers to have wives who were either housewives or had some low level job - and no one would even remark on it. Nowawadays, it is almost embarrassing for a high powered porofessional person to marry someone who doesn't have matching credentials.
Tue, 2007-05-15 12:16
#19
Anyone who has witnessed the spousal support paid out in failed marriages where there is a wide income gap would be nuts to marry someone who makes substantially less than themselves.
Tue, 2007-05-15 12:17
#20
That's weird that they would think in such a way. Because, I, a lowly "secretary" who has worked retail as recently as a few years ago, have never found myself with "nothing to contribute" to the conversation when around lawyers or other professionals.
I think it's too bad that your female friend is such a classist, sexist snob. I tend to avoid having friends like that.
Tue, 2007-05-15 12:23
#21
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]Anyone who has witnessed the spousal support paid out in failed marriages where there is a wide income gap would be nuts to marry someone who makes substantially less than themselves.[/b]
Yep. Talk about an economic disincentive. Besides, in this day and age many people are looking for a marriage of equals, rather than the big husband or little wife. I don't deny that there are people like that out there but it seems less and less common.
Tue, 2007-05-15 12:26
#22
It wasn't so long ago that many men felt it was a "threat to their masculinity" for their wife to work AT ALL!
Nowadays, the attitude is more like "honey, you better have a six digit income so we can afford a cottage in the Muskokas in addition to our pile in Rosedale"
Tue, 2007-05-15 12:31
#23
Mr. Watson, he of the National Post and C.D. Howe Institute, needs to spray toxic goo on the conclusion that income inequality is increasing in Canada. So, he says:
quote:
And despite the popular impression that inequality is out of control, whereas in 1976 Canadians in the top 10th of the income distribution made only 8.01 times as much after taxes and transfers as people in the bottom 10th, in 2004 they made 8.85 times as much--which is hardly a whopping increase
Actually, I think it is a significant increase. But I also don't presume that the 1976 statistic reflects an acceptable reality.
8 to 1 is too much inequality. 9 to 1 is even worse, by 10% or so. And of course those studies don't deal with the REALLY disgusting segments, those who are in the top 1%, or even the top .1%
No, better to write jokey-hokey baloney. Maybe someone gullible will believe it.
Tue, 2007-05-15 12:38
#24
[url=http://progecon.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/margaret-wente-and-inequality/]... Jackson's take:[/url]
quote:
My take is that “homogamy” does indeed play a role as suggested by earlier StatsCan work. However, the tax data for INDIVIDUALS clearly show a surge in top tail driven income inequality as the top 1% or so have disproportionately benefited from economic growth. This has been closely documented for Canada by Saez and Veall to 2000 (see their working paper at [url=http://papers.nber.org/papers/W9607]http://papers.nber.org/papers/W9607[...
My quick take on the most recent tax data is that the trend continues very strongly in that direction- the income share of those making more than $100,000 and especially more than $250,000 - the top one half of one percent or so - is rising fast. (Preliminary 2004 tax data show that the top one half of one percent making more than $250k now “earn” about 10% of all income, even more if you adjust for the untaxed portion of capital gains.)
I've [url=http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2007/04/income_d... on the Saez-Veall paper before; it's remarkable just how concentrated the gains at the top end f the income distribution have been.
Tue, 2007-05-15 13:07
#25
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]Anyone who has witnessed the spousal support paid out in failed marriages where there is a wide income gap would be nuts to marry someone who makes substantially less than themselves.[/b]
My first wife and I were married for nine years. Both of us are professionals and we made roughly the same amount of money. Our divorce was simple (literally cost us a grand total of $130—for the filing fee—cuz I did the work myself and it was simple). No spousal support needed (and since we had no kidlets, we had none of those difficult issues to deal with). The split, financially, was a breeze.
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]That's weird that they would think in such a way. Because, I, a lowly "secretary" who has worked retail as recently as a few years ago, have never found myself with "nothing to contribute" to the conversation when around lawyers or other professionals.[/b]
My significant other (of now ten years) and I are both lawyers (she actually makes better coin than I do). She worked as a “lowly” secretary for several years (and finally went to school at night to become a paralegal). She then worked as a paralegal for several years and went law school at night for her last four years as a paralegal. So, you really can’t classify a person as being interesting or not based on the job they are in. You have to take the time to talk with them to see if they are bright and interesting or…not. My advice: Treat everyone respectfully.
Tue, 2007-05-15 13:29
#26
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]8 to 1 is too much inequality. 9 to 1 is even worse, by 10% or so. And of course those studies don't deal with the REALLY disgusting segments, those who are in the top 1%, or even the top .1%[/b]
Did someone say the average income in Canada was about $25,000? At 8:1, that’s a max of $200,000 (that’s comfortable, but hardly “wealthy”—the person still needs to work).
If Bill Gates’ assets increase in value by 15% in a year (assuming a base of roughly $50B in assets), his earnings for the year are a ratio of 300,000:1 (or, of 37,500:1 relative to the person making $200k). Now, there’s a disparity worth discussing.
Wrestling with whether an 8:1 or 9:1 ratio is the “right” ratio seems like a premature discussion when you have truly wealthy people who make both the “9” and the “1” look like paupers.
Personally, I don’t care if someone makes many times my income. Good for them.
Besides, the only way to enforce an 8:1 ratio would be to take everything in excess of “8”. But, doing that would destroy meaningful risk tasking. Who would saving their money, mortgage their house and everything else they own, and invest it all in a business if they have a risk of losing it all only to max out at $200,000 at best? It would kill small business innovation, the generator of most new jobs. Who here would work for 25 to 30 years, scrimp and save, and then mortgage everything and invest their nest egg and everything else they have (say $400,000) to invest in a venture that might take off (and they increase their income from $125,000 to $200,000) or it might tank and they lose everything? Probably zero, if they understand anything about money and investing.
The Chinese understand this and they are going to have the largest economy in the world in a few decades—and it’s just going to grow from there. Life for the average Chinese person will be better then, too (more jobs and more money for the jobs they do have).
Tue, 2007-05-15 13:52
#27
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Did someone say the average income in Canada was about $25,000? At 8:1, that’s a max of $200,000 (that’s comfortable, but hardly “wealthy”—the person still needs to work).
If Bill Gates’ assets increase in value by 15% in a year (assuming a base of roughly $50B in assets), his earnings for the year are a ratio of 300,000:1 (or, of 37,500:1 relative to the person making $200k). Now, there’s a disparity worth discussing.
Wrestling with whether an 8:1 or 9:1 ratio is the “right” ratio seems like a premature discussion when you have truly wealthy people who make both the “9” and the “1” look like paupers.
Personally, I don’t care if someone makes many times my income. Good for them.
Besides, the only way to enforce an 8:1 ratio would be to take everything in excess of “8”. But, doing that would destroy meaningful risk tasking. Who would saving their money, mortgage their house and everything else they own, and invest it all in a business if they have a risk of losing it all only to max out at $200,000 at best? It would kill small business innovation, the generator of most new jobs. Who here would work for 25 to 30 years, scrimp and save, and then mortgage everything and invest their nest egg and everything else they have (say $400,000) to invest in a venture that might take off (and they increase their income from $125,000 to $200,000) or it might tank and they lose everything? Probably zero, if they understand anything about money and investing.
The Chinese understand this and they are going to have the largest economy in the world in a few decades—and it’s just going to grow from there. Life for the average Chinese person will be better then, too (more jobs and more money for the jobs they do have).[/b]
I'm not sure, but I think he was talking about the Gini coefficient...
Tue, 2007-05-15 14:13
#28
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]That's weird that they would think in such a way. Because, I, a lowly "secretary" who has worked retail as recently as a few years ago, have never found myself with "nothing to contribute" to the conversation when around lawyers or other professionals.I think it's too bad that your female friend is such a classist, sexist snob. I tend to avoid having friends like that.[/b]
I think the critical phrase there was "trophy wife". Michelle, you are much too smart to be a trophy wife.
Tue, 2007-05-15 14:13
#29
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
I'm not sure, but I think he was talking about the Gini coefficient...
No, he wasn't.
And Sven, the concern isn't about the people who make $200k/yr. It's the people who are making north of $600k or $700k, just for showing up to work. If they were actually productive enough to justify those numbers, then there'd be little to complain about. But that doesn't appear to be the case. They're getting those big paychecks for no better reason than because they can.
[ 15 May 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Tue, 2007-05-15 14:21
#30
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]The Chinese understand this and they are going to have the largest economy in the world in a few decades—and it’s just going to grow from there. Life for the average Chinese person will be better then, too (more jobs and more money for the jobs they do have).[/b]
Growth rates of China's market socialism, between six and ten percent for the last 21 years in a row, is unprecedented among all democratic capitalist third world economies. No capitalist state governments demand controlling interest, or a large minority share in all foreign corporations doing business in China. Beijing's communist government is still very interventionist wrt the economy.
Can El Salvador achieve China's growth and literacy rates ?.
What's holding Haiti back ?. Haiti is the freest trading nation in the Caribbean according to Washington.
Why are there 350 million chronically hungry people in democratic capitalist India today and tomrrow and the next day ?. That country exports food to the market, so where is the promise of capitalism there?.
Asia and India had the largest economy once already in history. Their sheer numbers suggest that they will be again in future.
Tue, 2007-05-15 14:27
#31
Fidel, this thread is about Canada.
Tue, 2007-05-15 14:40
#32
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]And Sven, the concern isn't about the people who make $200k/yr. It's the people who are making north of $600k or $700k, just for showing up to work. If they were actually productive enough to justify those numbers, then there'd be little to complain about. But that doesn't appear to be the case. They're getting those big paychecks for no better reason than because they can.[/b]
I know more than a few people who make that kind of money (and “north” of it). None of them make that kind of money “just for showing up to work”. That is more of a fantasy that many people choose to believe than a reality.
Are there people in that category? Yeah, but they are primarily trust-fund kids (and adults)—but that is a bit of a different subject (inheritance taxes).
Of course, many will argue that a person cannot, by definition, be “actually productive enough to justify those numbers”. Is a hockey player worth $5 million per year? Well, hockey is a business with, what, $2B in annual revenue because people willingly part with their money for tickets and gear. So, if the money doesn’t go to the players, it goes to the owners.
Again, I don’t care if someone makes $5 million or $50 million. Good for them.
Tue, 2007-05-15 14:46
#33
The thing is, much of that pay is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent#Paretian_Factor_Rent]economic rent:[/url] they're being paid more than they need to be paid in order for them to show up to work. It's a wasteful allocation of resources - resources that could be put to better use.
Tue, 2007-05-15 15:05
#34
Oh good, one I can agree with professor Gordon on. Carry on.
Tue, 2007-05-15 15:19
#35
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]From that last article:This is important. Almost [url=http://worthwhile.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/p... of university students make the decision to go to university before they turn 15. Kids that age aren't doing cost-benefit analyses; they're following an example.[/b]
Oh no, I spoke too soon. Talking aggregate totals in place of what "most" individuals are supposed to desire isn't great analysis either. I for one didn't care about getting college grades when I was younger but like many later in life, would have gladly upgraded my education if I could have afforded it. Instead I had to drop it before finishing my first term, despite getting straight As. If people don't want to go in the first place, or lack the modicum of intellect required, then the issue of costs is moot. Problem is it isn't moot as a broader societal issue, not when most decent jobs now require post-secondary educations. Too high tuitions is pre-stacking the deck in favour of old money and possibly less native talent or drive. Also hypocritical of governments which often use libertarian sounding arguments to justify cutting off the poor in other areas. Why was this old disagreement brought into this thread again anyhow? Tangentially related at best.
[ 15 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Tue, 2007-05-15 15:50
#36
Interesting thread.
Try being a farmer and asking out a lawyer\doctor.
Tue, 2007-05-15 17:39
#37
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]I think the critical phrase there was "trophy wife". Michelle, you are much too smart to be a trophy wife.[/b]
Heh. Flattery'll get you everywhere.
Seriously though - it wasn't just the critical phrase, it was the sexist phrase. What makes a woman a "trophy wife"? That she's pretty? And if a professional man marries a pretty woman who also happens to be poor, is he automatically a guy who goes for a trophy wife and she is automatically a gold-digger?
From the terminology Stockholm says his creepy, classist friend uses, it sounds like this woman wouldn't have stood a chance with her husband's friends no matter what.
I mean, okay, if the woman is just stupid, that's one thing. There ARE stupid people out there, and there are people who marry for looks alone. But I don't see what that has to do with class. Stockholm was using this example as why male professionals do not tend to marry working class women. The implication being that if they do, then at dinner parties, the working class woman will likely be a moron who will eat with her knife, have nothing intelligent to say to his bigshot friends and their nasty wives, etc.
I just don't buy it. Perhaps that's what rich people are AFRAID of when it comes to marrying "beneath" them, but I don't think it's all that much of a reality.
That said, I think there is some truth to the fact that class groups stick to their own groups, or not too far below. Or, if a rich professional marries or dates a working class person, the working class person likely has a decent amount of "social capital" such as a university education, or a white/pink collar job, or some kind of artist or whatever.
I don't think you very often see high-powered executives taking out the server or the line cook at the local greasy spoon.
Tue, 2007-05-15 18:01
#38
"That said, I think there is some truth to the fact that class groups stick to their own groups, or not too far below. Or, if a rich professional marries or dates a working class person, the working class person likely has a decent amount of "social capital" such as a university education, or a white/pink collar job, or some kind of artist or whatever."
Michelle, that is what I was going to say. One thing I have noticed is family who have gone from working class to professional class being troubled by their offspring being 'working class'. Even 'after having all the opportunities'.
"I don't think you very often see high-powered executives taking out the server or the line cook at the local greasy spoon."
You mean Ralph Fiennes wouldn't date Jennifer Lopez in real life if she was a chambermaid?
Tue, 2007-05-15 18:15
#39
remind
Socrates addressed the equality issues, or parameters, in relationships long ago. He basically stated no relationship will last, if it is not based upon equality of some sort.
[ 15 May 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Tue, 2007-05-15 19:01
#40
I would have hoped that "trophy wife" as a phrase would have been retired by now, especially on babble. When are we going to retire the myth that a beautiful woman has to be merely "eye candy."
I come from an academic family and I guess an outsider would call them "upper class." Yet, my cousins and I have married varied and interesting people from ALL classes. There has been no discussion about marrying "up" or marrying "down."
On a different note, Fidel, I was interested to see you put forward China as an emerging democratic economic power. Most of my friends go out of their way NOT to buy things made in fascist regimes.
Tue, 2007-05-15 20:26
#41
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]I would have hoped that "trophy wife" as a phrase would have been retired by now, especially on babble. When are we going to retire the myth that a beautiful woman has to be merely "eye candy."[/b]
Perhaps when men want beautiful women to be more than eye candy?
Thu, 2007-05-17 07:53
#42
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Perhaps when men want beautiful women to be more than eye candy?[/b]
But they do! Any men that smart women want to hang out with, anyway.
Sat, 2007-05-26 20:19
#43
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]This is important. Almost [url=http://worthwhile.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/p... of university students make the decision to go to university before they turn 15. Kids that age aren't doing cost-benefit analyses; they're following an example.[/b]
I'm surprised you admit this - that the essential underlying point is that in many respects the nature of jobs hasn't changed, but what has, is this great societal impetus that regardless of whether it suits, getting a university degree is somehow the magic ticket to endless riches.
Sat, 2007-05-26 21:54
#44
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Fidel, this thread is about Canada.[/b]
That's funny, because it almost sounded like Watson was writing about democratic capitalist India where women marry well. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] Andrew Jackson straightens him out for sure.
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]On a different note, Fidel, I was interested to see you put forward China as an emerging democratic economic power. Most of my friends go out of their way NOT to buy things made in fascist regimes.[/b]
Well then you'd better advise your progressive friends not to buy anything made in the USA either, because those two countries are major trading partners. And maybe tell the toffy-nosers to look up the word 'fascist' while they're at it.
Sun, 2007-05-27 09:27
#45
Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Couldn't find toffy-noser.
Fidel, get real, you equate the United States and China?
Sun, 2007-05-27 09:32
#46
Phrillie, don't ask! Maybe then he won't tell!
Sun, 2007-05-27 10:11
#47
THREAD DRIFT!!!
Sun, 2007-05-27 10:37
#48
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]I would have hoped that "trophy wife" as a phrase would have been retired by now, especially on babble.[/b]
Funny, I would have hoped that the recent wave of trolls would have been retired by now.
But the strategy of insulting everyone here as politely as possible seems to be working out for you all. And constructive conversation is continuously sidelined by threads such as this.
Sun, 2007-05-27 15:38
#49
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]Funny, I would have hoped that the recent wave of trolls would have been retired by now.But the strategy of insulting everyone here as politely as possible seems to be working out for you all. And constructive conversation is continuously sidelined by threads such as this.[/b]
I'm sorry for my part in the thread thrift. As for the troll issue, I'm going to take a poll and abide by the results.
Sun, 2007-05-27 16:02
#50
Hi LTJ. Please stop this now. I'm sick of people being made to feel unwelcome if they deviate in the slightest from what you or some others consider acceptable.
If they've broken rules, notify a moderator. This sort of personal attack isn't acceptable.
Sun, 2007-05-27 16:42
#51
I think there are more smart and good looking women out there than male counterparts.