Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
This article is about 1 year old..
"the rates of unplanned pregnancies and births among poor women now dwarf the fertility rates of wealthier women, and finds that the gap between the two groups has widened significantly over the past five years. The other, by the Center for Work-Life Policy, documents rates of childlessness among corporate professional women that are higher than the childlessness rates of some European countries experiencing fertility crises. Childlessness has increased across most demographic groups but is still highest among professionals. "
"43 percent of the women in their sample of corporate professionals between the ages of 33 and 46 were childless. The rate of childlessness among the Asian American professional women in the study was a staggering 53 percent."
"Then, reinforcing the cycle, the very fact of having a child increases a woman's chances of being poor."
I think I didn't make myself clear there. My fault. I absolutely agree that career oriented women have fewer kids and start later than other groups. I was more concerned with your statement about the GOP benefiting self-sufficient and affluent people more than the Dems could. If you're talking about business owners and the very wealthy, I agree because of tax breaks. But even upper middle class folks can be brought down by a loss of one income or a sudden health issue for them or their parents. And the loss of retirement income due to market shenanigans can devastate anyone. At most the GOP policies may mean a bit more take home pay for me, but I see nothing else of benefit in them. And if you keep widening the gap between rich and poor and go on shrinking the middle class, you end up with an 18th century France type of situation where the wealthy have it all and the vast majority haven't got money to live, let alone prosper.
I've argued that paying a "living wage" to burger flippers is self defeating because as the bottom tier of the wage earners gains discretionary income, they spend it and demand goes up. Then, of course, the prices go up and pretty soon you reach a new equilibrium where it costs $8 for the burger and $300k for a one bedroom shack. But you do need a middle class that is comfortable enough to spend money and keep the economy going. Otherwise it all falls apart. Since 2007 or so there have been way too many formerly comfortable middle class wage earners who have reverted to paycheck to paycheck living. Granted, much of that is their own fault, but much of it is due to corporate greed, the shipping of jobs overseas, and a very unfair stock market. I would like to see the markets more heavily regulated and supervised, not less so.
I watch Formula One racing and have seen the nastiness that is the air in places like India and China. We don't have that problem here because of regulations governing pollution. I don't want to see those rolled back, although I would like to see more sanctions against polluting countries than we've seen. Hurricane Sandy is getting some blame for Romney's loss. Yet the GOP is still arguing that global warming is a myth even as they blame a storm that was largely a product of global warming. The lack of acceptance of science by the GOP drives me nuts.
I certainly don't think the Dems have it all figured out. Far from it. And I detest the far left wingnuts as much as I do the far right ones. But in my admittedly humble estimation, Obama's policies deserve more time to take effect. I don't like seeing the debt grow either, but cutting taxes and gutting the last remaining safety nets for the poor is not going to change the debt problem. We need some reasonable across-the-board cuts and some reasonable tax increases to solve this (if it's even possible at this point). I just don't see any reasonableness in the current GOP policies.