Tucker Carlson is Half Right

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JimG

Guest
Reading this reminded me that in my first real job, my employer paid married men more than single men for the same work. The reason, I was told (single at the time) was that they had a family to support. That practice is now illegal.

The first papal encyclical I was required to study was Rerum Novarum. It recommended a living wage, a “family wage.” That would also be illegal now.

 
Back when most women didn’t work or at least in a professional capacity, paying married men more was a moral response.

Now most families rely on two bread winners, people are marrying later or may not be having children.

Deductions for the family are probably the right approach to provide some family support without enabling other biases that enter when an employer can arbitrarily set different wages for the same work.
 
Reading this reminded me that in my first real job, my employer paid married men more than single men for the same work. The reason, I was told (single at the time) was that they had a family to support. That practice is now illegal.
Not so sure how the employer would benefit from that., though.

You’d think if that were the case, if that were my policy to hire married men more than single men for the same job. I’d just hire more single men (or women) so I could pay them less for the same job and help my own bottom line.

Just like, if it were really true that women earned 59 cents for every dollar that men earned for the same job, employers would try to hire as many women as possible.

I know that in the 1940s at my mother’s former employer they had “men’s jobs” and “women’s jobs” and they’d pay the women very little because they knew they could. But that’s not the same as men and women (or married men and single men) at the same job.
 
Since it’s against the law (at least in the US) to ask marital status when interviewing, how would you know you were hiring a married/single person.
 
Does anyone know “why” wages went from enough to support a family to both need to work to make it?

I’m sincerely asking…when I was young a family could live on one wage earner and now, pretty much the average family can not. Which came first? Stagnant wages that made a two income family necessary or a two or a two income family leading to stagnant wages?

When my husband and I were first married and I became pregnant about 6months later, working never even entered my mind…nor did it need to. By the time I had my second child, we were really struggling to make ends meet and I knew that I would enter the workforce in a few more years if wages didn’t rise enough to help! Wages didn’t and I started working part time, then full time.

Looking back, I had the luxury of being a stay at home mother that was never a choice for my children and will probably never be a choice for my grandchildren. Do I blame corporate greed or personal greed?
 
Maybe both. When I first started out in mortgage banking many decades ago, a wife’s income was either not counted for qualification or counted only partially, because it was thought that she would at some point elect to stay home to raise children. But that changed, and the effect was that more applicants could now qualify for home loans. Consequently, home prices rose at a faster rate, and soon it really did take two incomes to qualify for the loan.
 
Interesting question. Maybe all people can wear a gold band on their finger to level the playing field. 🙂

Or would that be deception?
 
Last edited:
a two income family leading to stagnant wages
I believe it was the later. When women first entered the workforce full time (after World War II - between the 1950s and 1980s), it typically made those two income families financially more comfortable and was often disposable income (except for the very poor). It allowed them to buy fancy houses, cars, etc.

However, as more and more women came into the workforce, it essentially doubled the number of candidates for most white collar jobs.

Then, supply and demand kicks in. Since the white collar employer now had twice the number of potential employees, the wages for professional / white collar jobs began to stagnate.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
Maybe both. When I first started out in mortgage banking many decades ago, a wife’s income was either not counted for qualification or counted only partially, because it was thought that she would at some point elect to stay home to raise children. But that changed, and the effect was that more applicants could now qualify for home loans. Consequently, home prices rose at a faster rate, and soon it really did take two incomes to qualify for the loan.
This is a very good point! Yes, loans, used to be based on 1 income, not both. But when they started to allow people to take loans based on both incomes, it “locked” the family into 2 incomes.
 
Last edited:
Not so sure how the employer would benefit from that., though.
Maybe because a married man is more stable - less likely to quit and move to another town, particularly if he’s the only one working outside the home.
 
Not so sure how the employer would benefit from that., though.
A married man (or woman) is working for his/her family, and not just him/herself. Therefore, the job is more important to them because they are responsible for others.

While this might not be as important in professional careers, where the single person is trying to move up the the latter, it does play a role in service and blue collar jobs - especially if the job isn’t glamours.
 
Some would blame the feminist’s myth that a woman could have it all that came to fruition in the 70’s and 80’s. A generation has tried to fulfill this myth and failed abysmally.
 
The feminism that arrived in the 70’s and 80’s were more of a large city phenomenon and completely absent in midtown Wyoming. It eventually may have trickled in but stagnant wages definitely came first there!

Perhaps there wasn’t a single cause and effect but a feeding off of each…as some families depended more on two wages, corporations took advantage and froze wage growth which led to more women joining the workforce yada yada… I just remember being able to live on one income and within a few years, I had to work if we wanted to eat and make the rent. Inflation was a large part of the problem as well!
 
The feminism that arrived in the 70’s and 80’s were more of a large city phenomenon and completely absent in midtown Wyoming. It eventually may have trickled in but stagnant wages definitely came first there!
Major economic shifts typically originate in one sector of the economy and then spread.

The working woman started primarily an urban city professional. The effects of this started in the cities and suburbs first. Then eventually started to filter into rural America.
 
40.png
signit:
Not so sure how the employer would benefit from that., though.
Maybe because a married man is more stable - less likely to quit and move to another town, particularly if he’s the only one working outside the home.
In my own, limited experiences, the men who’ve stayed longest at our office have been the single guys.

One reason for that could be that the salaries are somewhat lower than what people can earn elsewhere, and men & women with families to support may find higher salaries elsewhere.
 
Slightly off topic, but working in a job you hate enough does kill the political instinct.

Politics is economics and personalities. Personalities is taken care of – servile fear and hatred of boss and coworkers. Economics – I still haven’t got a raise, and I am only doing this job for money. Work a job you hate and you won’t cry a single tear with Sean Hannity for the one percent, nor will you fear immigrants on the border or the ubiquitous George Soros – all that is sweated out of you every eight hours every day. You are exhausted just thinking about your job.
 
Last edited:
The first papal encyclical I was required to study was Rerum Novarum. It recommended a living wage, a “family wage.”
And Republicans would be the first to say that it’s “too political” and we “need a new Pope.”
 
A couple of things.

As the mother of two daughters–one single and one married–I would NOT want to see my single daughter (who is 35 and has been on her own since she was 19) struggling to survive on a “ladies’ Income” while her married male co-workers brought home bigger incomes.

I think wages should be paid for the job done. That’s one reason I’m against an increase in minimum wage–the wage is appropriate for the job done.

Another thought–will one of the partners in a same-sex marriage be paid more than the other individual? Not likely!

Finally–we’re not going to go back in time. What needs to happen is that parents need to educate their boys from birth that they need to choose a life work that will enable them to adequately support a wife and children. That doesn’t have to mean college and a huge loan debt. My brother went to a two-year trade school and has worked as a welder for over thirty years. From the beginning, his salary was more than mine, and I graduated from college and a hospital internship and passed a registry exam! There are plenty of skilled trades for men who prefer an “active” job rather than a “desk” job."

There are also jobs in sales that don’t necessarily require a college education, but a love of selling and an ability to do so.

And there’s the military, which gives all kinds of benefits to those who serve. The housing loans and health care (it’s not all scandalous and horrible) are pretty good.

And there is the option that many of our 1950s/1960s father took back then–they worked at TWO jobs to support their family. All my life, my father worked as a pipe-fitter for 8 hours plus mandatory overtime (factories were booming then!), and then he would take off for his parents’ farm, where he would work for another 8 hours. And on weekends, he took on free-lance building jobs, mainly plumbing (back when there was no requirement to use a specially-trained plumber), and other odd jobs. AND when I was a teenager, he and my mother started dealing in antiques, mainly furniture, and they would go to sales and auctions and buy and sell. AND–he had a side business of copper wire–he would buy old air conditioners and other things that had copper wire, take them apart, and find the copper wire–it’s still worth money and we still see people driving up and down the street looking for “junk” that has copper wire.

And…although we had what we needed, we didn’t live extravagantly.The very idea of a walk-in closet would have been laughable back then!

And our pleasures and recreations were home-centered–television shows, tossing a softball around, fishing with cane poles, listening to records, playing with toys.

I did take piano lessons, but I actually had my first job in 7th grade playing for a church. So it was a useful investment, not just a fun thing for me to do.

BTW, my dad had an 8th grade education (he finished his high school GED when he was in the Army). My mother had an 8th grade education.

I believe that men CAN support a family, but they have to be trained to work hard and go with a career that matches their abilities and they might have to work two or more jobs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top