it's not an excuse it's the way it is and there is no way to force them to vote on a bill.. businesses that utilize illegal workers gain substantial advantages in the markets and well the US has a very "pro-business" undertone.
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Half of fast food workers need public aid
- Thread starter Bowden
- Start date
it's not an excuse it's the way it is and there is no way to force them to vote on a bill.. businesses that utilize illegal workers gain substantial advantages in the markets and well the US has a very "pro-business" undertone.
First, tl;dr
Thirdly, I am speaking moar of charity. If moar people helped others directly there would be no need for the gov't to do it. But most people just can't be bothered.
D) I said 41%, not 4.1%
I Get Empirical on Minimum Wage
Economics,
So Paul Krugman et al. are telling us that the empirical literature shows that minimum wage laws don?t have a discernible impact on teen unemployment. Yet another right-winger myth flushed down the toilet.
I went and looked at the paper Krugman says documents this fact. I was a little concerned because it seemed to be saying (I?m paraphrasing of course) that yes, if you just naively look at the states that have higher minimum wage laws, then they have lower employment growth, but once you correct for the broader trends in employment growth among states, then the impact of the minimum wage laws per se disappears. For example, it might just so happen that states that have bad weather, also have state-level minimum wage laws higher than the federal floor, and so earlier researchers incorrectly blamed the low employment growth on the minimum wage burden.
This sounded a little fishy to me, so I decided to do my own, very naive, straightforward look at the data. I first used this map from the Department of Labor to organize the 50 states into two groups: Those with minimum wages higher than the federal level, and all others. (The map says it?s accurate as of January 1, 2013.) Then I downloaded the Local Area Unemployment Statistics from the BLS to get state-level data broken down by age. I used this Excel table to get the unemployment rate among 16-19 year olds by state. Here?s what I found?and I am sorry but putting the two PNG files together is the only way I can figure out to present this quickly:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/02/i-get-empirical-on-minimum-wage.html
These results are pretty striking. First of all: Notice how high the teen unemployment rate is, across the country. If minimum wage laws have no effect, why should this be so? I am not denying that Krugman could come up with some story, but prima facie this fact in and of itself is a feather in the cap of the Econ 101 textbooks. (Specifically, we?d expect 16-19 year olds to have the lowest productivity, and so they would be disproportionately hurt by an absolute minimum wage law.)
Now then, if we look at the 19 states that have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, the average unemployment rate among teens is 25.2%. In contrast, if we look at the 31 states that have either no state-level minimum wage or one that equals the federal level, the average teen unemployment rate is 21.5%. A pretty big difference, and this is from sample sizes of 19 and 31. It?s not as if you?ve got California driving the result. (And of course, last time I checked, California had pretty nice weather.)
But beyond the arithmetic averages is the clustering of the states, in their respective groups, when you rank them from the highest to lowest teen unemployment rates. The most striking result to me: If you look at the top 5 and the bottom 5, you find: Four of the top five states have higher-than-federal minimum wages, while only 1 out of the bottom five does. I?m not sure how to set up the statistical problem, but I think that would be an incredibly unlikely result, if minimum wage laws had nothing to do with teen unemployment rates.
Furthermore, if you look at the top and bottom 10, you get: Out of the top 10, six of them have higher-than-federal minimum wages, while out of the bottom 10, only 1 does.
And then, just looking at the top and bottom halves: The top half has 13 states with higher-than-federal minimum wages, while the bottom half has the other 6.
Before you guys go shouting these results from the mountaintops, I really would appreciate it if somebody could reproduce my results. I did this fairly quickly Saturday night, and it?s possible I mislabeled one of the states etc. But these seem like pretty powerful results, especially since they back up what is literally textbook economics. So if someone could double check my work, that would make me more confident in publicizing this.
Economics,
So Paul Krugman et al. are telling us that the empirical literature shows that minimum wage laws don?t have a discernible impact on teen unemployment. Yet another right-winger myth flushed down the toilet.
I went and looked at the paper Krugman says documents this fact. I was a little concerned because it seemed to be saying (I?m paraphrasing of course) that yes, if you just naively look at the states that have higher minimum wage laws, then they have lower employment growth, but once you correct for the broader trends in employment growth among states, then the impact of the minimum wage laws per se disappears. For example, it might just so happen that states that have bad weather, also have state-level minimum wage laws higher than the federal floor, and so earlier researchers incorrectly blamed the low employment growth on the minimum wage burden.
This sounded a little fishy to me, so I decided to do my own, very naive, straightforward look at the data. I first used this map from the Department of Labor to organize the 50 states into two groups: Those with minimum wages higher than the federal level, and all others. (The map says it?s accurate as of January 1, 2013.) Then I downloaded the Local Area Unemployment Statistics from the BLS to get state-level data broken down by age. I used this Excel table to get the unemployment rate among 16-19 year olds by state. Here?s what I found?and I am sorry but putting the two PNG files together is the only way I can figure out to present this quickly:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/02/i-get-empirical-on-minimum-wage.html
These results are pretty striking. First of all: Notice how high the teen unemployment rate is, across the country. If minimum wage laws have no effect, why should this be so? I am not denying that Krugman could come up with some story, but prima facie this fact in and of itself is a feather in the cap of the Econ 101 textbooks. (Specifically, we?d expect 16-19 year olds to have the lowest productivity, and so they would be disproportionately hurt by an absolute minimum wage law.)
Now then, if we look at the 19 states that have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, the average unemployment rate among teens is 25.2%. In contrast, if we look at the 31 states that have either no state-level minimum wage or one that equals the federal level, the average teen unemployment rate is 21.5%. A pretty big difference, and this is from sample sizes of 19 and 31. It?s not as if you?ve got California driving the result. (And of course, last time I checked, California had pretty nice weather.)
But beyond the arithmetic averages is the clustering of the states, in their respective groups, when you rank them from the highest to lowest teen unemployment rates. The most striking result to me: If you look at the top 5 and the bottom 5, you find: Four of the top five states have higher-than-federal minimum wages, while only 1 out of the bottom five does. I?m not sure how to set up the statistical problem, but I think that would be an incredibly unlikely result, if minimum wage laws had nothing to do with teen unemployment rates.
Furthermore, if you look at the top and bottom 10, you get: Out of the top 10, six of them have higher-than-federal minimum wages, while out of the bottom 10, only 1 does.
And then, just looking at the top and bottom halves: The top half has 13 states with higher-than-federal minimum wages, while the bottom half has the other 6.
Before you guys go shouting these results from the mountaintops, I really would appreciate it if somebody could reproduce my results. I did this fairly quickly Saturday night, and it?s possible I mislabeled one of the states etc. But these seem like pretty powerful results, especially since they back up what is literally textbook economics. So if someone could double check my work, that would make me more confident in publicizing this.
yes really. I said "GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE". I did not say "welfare"
You can add up just your numbers on welfare, food stamps and unemployment, and you will get a figure of approximately 20% of the US population. Now add medicare, medicaid, SSI, subsidized housing, education subsidies...
Go see what number you get. Hell, it may be 50%!
Even More Thoughts on the Minimum Wage
I am still in a mild state of shock that so many professional economists apparently doubt that demand curves slope downward. I admit upfront that I have not spent more than an hour or so looking through the latest literature reviews on the topic. Nonetheless, I remain unrepentant: I think increasing the price of unskilled labor by 24% will make employers hire fewer labor hours. The burden of proof is on the doubters to show why this isn?t so.
In addition to the compelling logic of ?demand curves slope downward,? we also have the casual empiricism of my last post, and now we?ve also got the below chart (brought to my attention by John S in the comments), taken from an AEI blog post but not sure who the original creator is:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2013.02-Min-Wage.jpg
Wow, look at that. It?s almost as if employers respond to incentives on the margin.
It?s true, there are papers that look at ?natural experiments? and somehow throw away logic and evidence such as the above chart. Let me run through some issues quickly:
Monopsony. One claim is that the Econ 101 logic breaks down because employers have market power. But hang on a second. If you want to tell me that the wages of, say, brain surgeons are below the competitive equilibrium, since there are only a few employers who can form a cartel, then OK I?ll at least give you a few moments to make your case. But you?re telling me there is a cartel of employers who are willing to hire unskilled labor?! That is literally the most non-specific factor of production on planet Earth. You need labor for everything, and by definition, unskilled labor is not suited for one occupation more than another.
I think the reason this might initially sound plausible to people, is that there aren?t a lot of teenagers working all over the place. You just see them concentrated in a few areas, like fast-food restaurants. But do you know why? Because of the ()#%$#$ minimum wage (and school attendance laws)!
You actually do see young people in various professional businesses and halls of government. They?re called interns. So we?ve got lots of young people finding employers willing to take them on at $0/hour, and yet apparently there is this ?indeterminate bargaining zone? where employers? quantity of labor demanded is the same between 1 cent and $7.25 (or $9). Does this range also count as a ?modest increase?? Or does even Krugman admit that getting rid of the minimum wage altogether would help reduce the 25%+ teen unemployment rate, while increasing it from $7.25 to $9 would be negligible in the other direction?
Studies look at employment growth, not unemployment rates. Apparently the standard thing to do in these studies is look at how much the absolute amount of employment or labor hours changes, rather than looking at the unemployment percentage. The idea (I gather) is that a high minimum wage can draw people into the labor market who can?t find a job, but these people wouldn?t have had a job anyway, so it?s not a strike against the system. Only if employers actually reduce the quantity demanded, can we say (some) workers are hurt. But even on its own terms, this argument fails. The most desperate, vulnerable people are the ones who will work for, say, $5/hour. At that rate, fewer middle-class college kids will enter the labor market. But bump up the wage rate to $7.25, and now a bunch of suburban white kids take a part time job at Pizza Hut to make a little extra money. Even if the total payroll and hours worked doesn?t change, it still means these kids bump out the new immigrant who barely speaks English and needs to get his foot in the door to establish a work history.
Studies correct employment growth for broader trends. My very quick reading of the literature suggested that the empirical studies in the olden days did find a strong connection between a minimum wage hike, and reduced hiring among teens. But, the newer wave of studies disputes that finding. One of the ?corrections? the new studies make, is to adjust the change in teen hiring compared to the broader labor market, which presumably isn?t affected by a minimum wage hike. Yet hang on a second. Even in the ?natural? experiments, I would imagine a state legislature that jacks up the minimum wage is also more likely to do other ?progressive? things that hurt employment growth. So things still move in the same direction, but now you?re not going to get as clear a signal; it?s hard to disentangle why the teenagers in California can?t get a job?is it because of the minimum wage hike, or because of their outrageously progressive income tax code?
Studies focus on fast-food employment across county or state lines. Again, I am not claiming to be an expert on this stuff, but it looked like a lot of the really ?compelling? studies looked at natural experiments where you had similar conditions except a chain of restaurants fell in one jurisdiction that raised its minimum wage, while the other restaurants in the chain fell in an adjacent jurisdiction that didn?t. Seems like a perfect laboratory test right? But hang on. If the minimum wage in one state makes it profitable for the restaurant to bite the bullet and install a bunch of labor-saving machinery (like the drink dispensers that you put the cup under and hit a button and walk away, unlike what they used to do when I was growing up where you had to hold the cup in place on the nozzle), then it would be pretty easy for that restaurant chain to use the same, new design when opening up new locations in other states with the original minimum wage. By the same token, even longitudinally looking at the same actual restaurant, once they redesign the place to be run by (say) 4 responsible teenagers and a manager, instead of (say) 9 goof-off teenagers and a manager, then even if that state later abolishes its higher-than-federal minimum wage, the damage is done; the restaurant isn?t going back to the old model.
How does this square with the Keynesian story about monetary stimulus? Finally, how the heck does this whole minimum wage digression line up with Krugman et al. constantly telling us that the problem in Europe and elsewhere, is that wages are too high relative to the price level? They tell us that if we engage in a currency war, we?ll all be better off because prices will rise, making it profitable for employers to hire once again. So, are they saying prices will need to rise by more than 24 percent, in order for the teen unemployment rate to budge?
I?m sorry, I just get the feeling that the story changes to fit the progressive policy of the day. And again, I am not burying my head in the sand and refusing to accept something obvious: On the contrary, I am saying demand curves slope downward, and I can point to all sorts of obvious evidence to back that up. Indeed, the Keynesians themselves think employers follow the same logic I?m talking about, when it comes to their proposals for monetary stimulus.
Yet somehow, the old empirical consensus on the minimum wage has been overturned by a wave of new studies of ?natural experiments,? so I?m giving reasons in this post why those studies might be missing the obvious conclusion staring us all in the face: Making teenagers 24% more expensive in the middle of a depression is not the way to help teenagers.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/02/even-more-thoughts-on-the-minimum-wage.html
I am still in a mild state of shock that so many professional economists apparently doubt that demand curves slope downward. I admit upfront that I have not spent more than an hour or so looking through the latest literature reviews on the topic. Nonetheless, I remain unrepentant: I think increasing the price of unskilled labor by 24% will make employers hire fewer labor hours. The burden of proof is on the doubters to show why this isn?t so.
In addition to the compelling logic of ?demand curves slope downward,? we also have the casual empiricism of my last post, and now we?ve also got the below chart (brought to my attention by John S in the comments), taken from an AEI blog post but not sure who the original creator is:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2013.02-Min-Wage.jpg
Wow, look at that. It?s almost as if employers respond to incentives on the margin.
It?s true, there are papers that look at ?natural experiments? and somehow throw away logic and evidence such as the above chart. Let me run through some issues quickly:
Monopsony. One claim is that the Econ 101 logic breaks down because employers have market power. But hang on a second. If you want to tell me that the wages of, say, brain surgeons are below the competitive equilibrium, since there are only a few employers who can form a cartel, then OK I?ll at least give you a few moments to make your case. But you?re telling me there is a cartel of employers who are willing to hire unskilled labor?! That is literally the most non-specific factor of production on planet Earth. You need labor for everything, and by definition, unskilled labor is not suited for one occupation more than another.
I think the reason this might initially sound plausible to people, is that there aren?t a lot of teenagers working all over the place. You just see them concentrated in a few areas, like fast-food restaurants. But do you know why? Because of the ()#%$#$ minimum wage (and school attendance laws)!
You actually do see young people in various professional businesses and halls of government. They?re called interns. So we?ve got lots of young people finding employers willing to take them on at $0/hour, and yet apparently there is this ?indeterminate bargaining zone? where employers? quantity of labor demanded is the same between 1 cent and $7.25 (or $9). Does this range also count as a ?modest increase?? Or does even Krugman admit that getting rid of the minimum wage altogether would help reduce the 25%+ teen unemployment rate, while increasing it from $7.25 to $9 would be negligible in the other direction?
Studies look at employment growth, not unemployment rates. Apparently the standard thing to do in these studies is look at how much the absolute amount of employment or labor hours changes, rather than looking at the unemployment percentage. The idea (I gather) is that a high minimum wage can draw people into the labor market who can?t find a job, but these people wouldn?t have had a job anyway, so it?s not a strike against the system. Only if employers actually reduce the quantity demanded, can we say (some) workers are hurt. But even on its own terms, this argument fails. The most desperate, vulnerable people are the ones who will work for, say, $5/hour. At that rate, fewer middle-class college kids will enter the labor market. But bump up the wage rate to $7.25, and now a bunch of suburban white kids take a part time job at Pizza Hut to make a little extra money. Even if the total payroll and hours worked doesn?t change, it still means these kids bump out the new immigrant who barely speaks English and needs to get his foot in the door to establish a work history.
Studies correct employment growth for broader trends. My very quick reading of the literature suggested that the empirical studies in the olden days did find a strong connection between a minimum wage hike, and reduced hiring among teens. But, the newer wave of studies disputes that finding. One of the ?corrections? the new studies make, is to adjust the change in teen hiring compared to the broader labor market, which presumably isn?t affected by a minimum wage hike. Yet hang on a second. Even in the ?natural? experiments, I would imagine a state legislature that jacks up the minimum wage is also more likely to do other ?progressive? things that hurt employment growth. So things still move in the same direction, but now you?re not going to get as clear a signal; it?s hard to disentangle why the teenagers in California can?t get a job?is it because of the minimum wage hike, or because of their outrageously progressive income tax code?
Studies focus on fast-food employment across county or state lines. Again, I am not claiming to be an expert on this stuff, but it looked like a lot of the really ?compelling? studies looked at natural experiments where you had similar conditions except a chain of restaurants fell in one jurisdiction that raised its minimum wage, while the other restaurants in the chain fell in an adjacent jurisdiction that didn?t. Seems like a perfect laboratory test right? But hang on. If the minimum wage in one state makes it profitable for the restaurant to bite the bullet and install a bunch of labor-saving machinery (like the drink dispensers that you put the cup under and hit a button and walk away, unlike what they used to do when I was growing up where you had to hold the cup in place on the nozzle), then it would be pretty easy for that restaurant chain to use the same, new design when opening up new locations in other states with the original minimum wage. By the same token, even longitudinally looking at the same actual restaurant, once they redesign the place to be run by (say) 4 responsible teenagers and a manager, instead of (say) 9 goof-off teenagers and a manager, then even if that state later abolishes its higher-than-federal minimum wage, the damage is done; the restaurant isn?t going back to the old model.
How does this square with the Keynesian story about monetary stimulus? Finally, how the heck does this whole minimum wage digression line up with Krugman et al. constantly telling us that the problem in Europe and elsewhere, is that wages are too high relative to the price level? They tell us that if we engage in a currency war, we?ll all be better off because prices will rise, making it profitable for employers to hire once again. So, are they saying prices will need to rise by more than 24 percent, in order for the teen unemployment rate to budge?
I?m sorry, I just get the feeling that the story changes to fit the progressive policy of the day. And again, I am not burying my head in the sand and refusing to accept something obvious: On the contrary, I am saying demand curves slope downward, and I can point to all sorts of obvious evidence to back that up. Indeed, the Keynesians themselves think employers follow the same logic I?m talking about, when it comes to their proposals for monetary stimulus.
Yet somehow, the old empirical consensus on the minimum wage has been overturned by a wave of new studies of ?natural experiments,? so I?m giving reasons in this post why those studies might be missing the obvious conclusion staring us all in the face: Making teenagers 24% more expensive in the middle of a depression is not the way to help teenagers.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/02/even-more-thoughts-on-the-minimum-wage.html
Bowden
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,798
- Reaction score
- 736
- Points
- 0
If you posted a video of you saying that while lying naked in bed on your stomach staring into the video camera with a pouty look on your face it would go viral and if you ran for congress you would probably be elected.
Some people think of all government assistance as "welfare." Now technically, that's not true. I would lump food stamps in with welfare, and probably housing assistance too. Not necessarily unemployment, because that's technically an insurance program you pay into when you are employed. But if you look at the figures Bowden posted and just add "welfare" and food stamps together you get 59,500,000 people, divided by the approximately 300 million Americans, equals 19.833% on "welfare" plus food stamps.
And again, I never said "welfare." I did say, "government assistance" because I knew people wouldn't fucking read it because they'd be too eager to prove me wrong and show how smart they thought they were. Food stamps? Housing assistance? Sounds like fucking welfare to me. According to Merriam-Webster, we should throw Medicaid and Medicare into the "welfare" category too.
Welfare - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary[h=2]wel?fare[/h] noun \ˈwel-ˌfer\ : a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc.
: the state of being happy, healthy, or successful
1
: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>
2
a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need
b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed
Ironic that it's other definition is, the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity. LOL!
That is incorrect.
it's already happening.
Exactly right my friend, its called electoral votes. California cant get their own shit in order but they get 55, makes no sense
here are some of the obvious causes of the increase in youth unemployment, none of them having to do with the minimum wage.
* the transition over the decades from a labor intense manufacturing economy to one that is primarily service based.
* the overall unemployment rate in the US has been steadily creeping up the past 50 years
Civilian Unemployment Rate (UNRATE) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
* the unemployment rate of young workers is increasing across the OECD in country's with and with out minimum wage laws.
http://www.oecd.org/std/labour-stats/HUR_03e13.pdf
* the percentage of the global population that comprises the "youth age" range drastically increased by 15% in the past 15 years.
* rising inequality has decreased aggregate demand, US real GDP growth has been sluggish for the past 30+ years. extreme inequality will only inhibit growth more and more as time goes on.
* there are less jobs for all US workers to return to after each major recession starting in the mid 80's. this includes the three groups of workers from college educated, some/no college and high school educations and below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B11Bu4wc_ss2Qk9DUWYtRmxLOE0/edit?usp=sharing
* US labor participation rate never recovered from the minor 2001 downturn, only to plunge far lower after the 2008 downturn.
Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate (CIVPART) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
* Labors share of the national income is at an 60year slow, that obviously will contributed to the decreased lack of demand
Nonfarm Business Sector: Labor Share (PRS85006173) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
* the Velocity of M2 Money Stock has also tanked since the late 1990's.
Velocity of M2 Money Stock (M2V) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
"The velocity of money is the frequency at which one unit of currency is used to purchase domestically- produced goods and services within a given time period. In other words, it is the number of times one dollar is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time. If the velocity of money is increasing, then more transactions are occurring between individuals in an economy. The frequency of currency exchange can be used to determine the velocity of a given component of the money supply, providing some insight into whether consumers and businesses are saving or spending their money. "
why would anyone except the youth unemployment rate to have decreased? I'm surprised it's not a Greece levels by now.
* the transition over the decades from a labor intense manufacturing economy to one that is primarily service based.
* the overall unemployment rate in the US has been steadily creeping up the past 50 years
Civilian Unemployment Rate (UNRATE) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
* the unemployment rate of young workers is increasing across the OECD in country's with and with out minimum wage laws.
http://www.oecd.org/std/labour-stats/HUR_03e13.pdf
* the percentage of the global population that comprises the "youth age" range drastically increased by 15% in the past 15 years.
* rising inequality has decreased aggregate demand, US real GDP growth has been sluggish for the past 30+ years. extreme inequality will only inhibit growth more and more as time goes on.
* there are less jobs for all US workers to return to after each major recession starting in the mid 80's. this includes the three groups of workers from college educated, some/no college and high school educations and below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B11Bu4wc_ss2Qk9DUWYtRmxLOE0/edit?usp=sharing
* US labor participation rate never recovered from the minor 2001 downturn, only to plunge far lower after the 2008 downturn.
Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate (CIVPART) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
* Labors share of the national income is at an 60year slow, that obviously will contributed to the decreased lack of demand
Nonfarm Business Sector: Labor Share (PRS85006173) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
* the Velocity of M2 Money Stock has also tanked since the late 1990's.
Velocity of M2 Money Stock (M2V) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
"The velocity of money is the frequency at which one unit of currency is used to purchase domestically- produced goods and services within a given time period. In other words, it is the number of times one dollar is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time. If the velocity of money is increasing, then more transactions are occurring between individuals in an economy. The frequency of currency exchange can be used to determine the velocity of a given component of the money supply, providing some insight into whether consumers and businesses are saving or spending their money. "
why would anyone except the youth unemployment rate to have decreased? I'm surprised it's not a Greece levels by now.
ok... the president won enough electoral votes to be president. he still won and it's time crybabies sucked in their quivering little chins and got over it.
lol
The quantity of Obama votes was much less than half the quantity of the U.S. population. Many didn't vote. You can't claim that most people support him and his policies simply based on him winning the election.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,111
- Reaction score
- 590
- Points
- 113
Ok I was wrong thanks for shedding light on that. In my opinion its the moral compass of that majority vote that has this country in the predicament it is in. One example would be women with children, that have boyfriends of 9 years that will probably remain unmarried for the rest of their lifes due to the fact they don't wont to loose their governmement assistance. If the boyfriend has a full time job, does that make it a two income household?
Marriage is statistically one of the easiest ways for people to advance financially. As far back as the Pruitt-Igoe housing complex women have had to hide the fact they have a boyfriend from big government.
This is actually why most military members get married is because of the housing allowance.
going off of Bdad... I would honestly never would have pursued my wife if she was not driven and career oriented. just like no woman should not go after a guy who is not either. At the same time its the opposites job to support them in getting to where they need to be. My wife and I lived paycheck to paycheck for a LONG time because she was a student for 7 years. I paid all her loans off as they came in so we got no debt, but by doing this we had ZERO money to go on trips, buy nice things and ect. But i made that sacrifice to support my wife and thats what people need to realize. They have to make sacrifices to get a head and also support their other half.
not any more, those days are over. median incomes for males in the US have stagnated and have been falling for many years while that of women have increased because of their dominance in healthcare.
once the eldest child reaches 18 there is no more government assistance.
skeptical the whole hidden boyfriend thing is some huge problem.
![[SIL]](/data/avatars/s/71/71385.jpg?1646166172){kind=avatar}
