Antiseptic,

OK. So what's your point?

Lexi, that graphic is obviously based on the US situation, which is somewhat worse than ours, since ours is masked by redistribution and welfare spending to the tune of 35% of gross tax receipts. Once that unsustainable subsidisation of lifestyle is taken into account, I suspect our own situation would look very similar, if not a whole lot worse. I'm struck by how similar the household debt curve looks to the productivity curve that the ABS produced and I referenced in the original post. The correlation seems very good; is there a causal relationship? I suspect so

Feminism is quite simply about transferring wealth from middle-income families who now require 2 breadwinners to those who control capital, who have increased "productivity" and increased cashflows out of people doing just as they've always done. the only difference is that now they have little choice but to do it for pay, since that's what is needed for minimal access to house purchase and to live the consumer dream. As Pelican said earlier, it's a con.

Don't you feel just a little silly for falling for it?

Dear Antiseptic,

I don't understand your references to feminism
or people being "conned" to having two income
families. In my case - My husband being self-
employed for a greater part of his life - meant
that he didn't have a secure income which is what
we needed in order to survive, raise our family,
put food on our table, and pay for the basic
essentials. I've always worked full-time to supplement
what was needed. We both shared and did what needed
to be done as I imagine many other couples did and
continue to do.

But Thanks for explaining your take on things.
You may feel it's all some sort of "con."
To me - it's simply life - you do what both of you
feel needs to be done - sharing things equally.
Neither of us has ever based our actions on "roles"
or our gender. "Your job," "My job,"
That has never come into the equation.

Lexi, it's not a question of "your job, my job", or whther you WANT to work. You have NO choice if you want to own a home or live a comfortable lifestyle as a family. This is the great con and you seem to have fallen for it. If you choose to take time off to raise a child or simply because you like taking care of the home, as Benk and squeers say they do, would you be able to contemplate that if there was no Government subsidy paid? When the whole paid maternal leave business was being dicussed, lots of women on very good incomes claimed they couldn't.

Moreover, none of the benefits from the increased productivity over the past 30 years have flowed to low or middle-income people in the US, according to that chart. Productivity has increased by 80%, while average wages have increased by just 7%. Meanwhile, the proportion of women in the paid workforce has increased to over 70% and will increase to close to parity with men once the retiree bubble dissipates, I suspect. It would be nice to get some solid data on that.

We have mining money generated by a few very high-income earners to prop up the illusion that this is not a losing game all round, but the money will run out in a few years. Where will that leave those who require welfare to prop up their incomes when two people working just isn't enough to sustain a family, let alone one as it was when I was a boy?

My point is that the model isn't sustainable. What will succeed it?

Dear Antiseptic,

I've raised my children. I took the time off to do it,
while working full-time, and completing my degree with
the help of my husband. We own our own home. And we
never at any time received any help from the government.
We managed on our own. As far as helping those who
can't manage on their own. I'm a firm believer in the
Government helping those that need help. As has always
been the case. I do not agree with you that this "model"
as you put it is unsustainable. Part of the problem in
the US is that the rich do not pay their fair share of
taxes - they receive tax cuts that they shouldn't.
And if they only gave up some of their enormous
spending on their military expenditure -
they may just solve some
fo their financial problems. It's a question of
priorities.

Lexi, when we had Keating's recesssion we had to have just 20% of national receipts went to welfare and redistribution. That was only 20 years ago, just after the time that wages started to flatline in the US despite productivity continuing to climb unabated. Today, over 35% does. What has changed and how long do you think we can sustain that sort of increase in government spending? If you had children today, would you be able to afford the time off without the handouts? Try to be honest about it Lexi, and overcome the blind adherence to partisan politics: This has occurred under both Labor and Liberal.