The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Regf2, SomeInquirer, Wee Shuggie, Bodhi Zaffa, anaxios2022
5,881 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
5 members (Fr. Al, theophan, 3 invisible), 107 guests, and 17 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#186900 03/27/06 03:15 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1
Ray S. Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1
I just read this article:
The EU\'s baby blues [news.bbc.co.uk]

For a "Orthodox" country Greece has the LOWEST birth rate in Europe. Even lower than the Dutch eek They have on average 1.29 children.

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 337
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 337
As long as families cannot support themselves off of one spouses income, I would expect families to continue to get smaller.

I heard an interesting theory a while back. I'm not an economics student, so take it or leave it..it was interesting though.

In the 1950's and before families would have the mother stay at home, and the father work, and excluding the depression, this usually was enough income to support a family. When the feminist revolution occured and women we made to feel less if they did not have a family AND a career, the workforce doubled in the following years. With twice as many workers, the demand and value of the worker dwindled, reducing "real wages".

I, personally, don't know if it's that wages went down, or that when two income families became the norm, they drove housing prices up...probably a combination of the two.

Just my two cents. Just found an opportunity to complain about how hard it is to support a family on one income (in my case 1.5 incomes)

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,930
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,930
Well that is a true statement. A lot of women are returing to the home exactly for that reason. Of course the main reason is they want to be home with their family. But what they have found is that the second income is going to pay childcare and all that, often leaving the family owing more money than what is brought in, or just breaking even.

I guess the difference is now the one that returns is the one who makes the least income. So you have stay at home moms and stay at home dads. biggrin Equal Opportunity Employment!

My daughter has a friend with MS, recently married they are hoping to have a family. She realizes because of her health she is not very patient and also works for Social Security. He is self employed - and makes less money and benefits that she does. So he will be the stay at home dad.

Pani Rose

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 77
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 77
Quote
Originally posted by Nathan:
As long as families cannot support themselves off of one spouses income, I would expect families to continue to get smaller.

I heard an interesting theory a while back. I'm not an economics student, so take it or leave it..it was interesting though.

In the 1950's and before families would have the mother stay at home, and the father work, and excluding the depression, this usually was enough income to support a family. When the feminist revolution occured and women we made to feel less if they did not have a family AND a career, the workforce doubled in the following years. With twice as many workers, the demand and value of the worker dwindled, reducing "real wages".

I, personally, don't know if it's that wages went down, or that when two income families became the norm, they drove housing prices up...probably a combination of the two.

Just my two cents. Just found an opportunity to complain about how hard it is to support a family on one income (in my case 1.5 incomes)
I think this is only part of the reason. Remember, in the 1950s the US emerged from WWII as the undisputed military, economic and industrial power in the world. The rest of the industrialized world was still recovering.

Combine that with the very restrictive immigration laws at the time and the fact that many women married early and did not work outside the home. This scenario allowed most husbands to find work and support a family even if modestly so.

This last point is important because in the 50s, the typical middle class family had one car or none, one television set (not to mention none of the gadgets we can't live without today), access to affordable doctors and hospitals, and smaller houses on average than today. And in those small houses their 2.5 kids probably eek shared bedrooms!

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 77
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 77
The trend seems to be also that those with less income are having more children not fewer.

I think it has more to do with how seriously religious a couple is. Of course, this isn't always the case but the growth of secularism in Europe and the US has more to do with the drop in the birth rate than economic reasons.

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1
This may shed some light from Greece's Mediterranean neighbor---

Italian women shun 'mamma' role

EU states are trying to understand why the birth rate is falling - and if anything can be done to stem the decline. All this week, the BBC News website is asking women in various countries about how they feel about being asked to have more babies, and how easy or difficult they find combining motherhood and work.
Here, the BBC's Rome correspondent Christian Fraser asks why Italy - a predominantly Roman Catholic country that has always loved children - has stopped having them.

....to read the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4739154.stm

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Z
Member
Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Dear Nathan you said:

"In the 1950's and before families would have the mother stay at home, and the father work, and excluding the depression, this usually was enough income to support a family. When the feminist revolution occured and women we made to feel less if they did not have a family AND a career, the workforce doubled in the following years. With twice as many workers, the demand and value of the worker dwindled, reducing 'real wages'."

I say:

I love to come up with my own conspiracy theories. Well this is it! I always wondered if the pressure on women to go into the work field was edged on by our government's economic policy makers. That way we would have a bigger labor force so that we could stay ahead of the game with Germany and Japan.

Zenovia

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 138
C
I also support the Zoghby Initiative
Offline
I also support the Zoghby Initiative
C
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 138
I fully believe that nathan was right about middle class women working being a major element in the de-valueing of labour. As we can see this used to be something only done by communist pinkos!

from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/p_mrs.html
Mrs. America: Women's Roles in the 1950s
American society in the 1950s was geared toward the family. Marriage and children were part of the national agenda. And the Cold War was in part a culture war, with the American family at the center of the struggle.

A Propaganda War
Embedded in the propaganda of the time was the idea that the nuclear family was what made Americans superior to the Communists. American propaganda showed the horrors of Communism in the lives of Russian women. They were shown dressed in gunnysacks, as they toiled in drab factories while their children were placed in cold, anonymous day care centers. In contrast to the "evils" of Communism, an image was promoted of American women, with their feminine hairdos and delicate dresses, tending to the hearth and home as they enjoyed the fruits of capitalism, democracy, and freedom.

The "M.R.S." Degree
In the 1950s, women felt tremendous societal pressure to focus their aspirations on a wedding ring. The U.S. marriage rate was at an all-time high and couples were tying the knot, on average, younger than ever before. Getting married right out of high school or while in college was considered the norm. A common stereotype was that women went to college to get a "Mrs." (pronounced M.R.S.) degree, meaning a husband. Although women had other aspirations in life, the dominant theme promoted in the culture and media at the time was that a husband was far more important for a young woman than a college degree. Despite the fact that employment rates also rose for women during this period, the media tended to focus on a woman's role in the home. If a woman wasn't engaged or married by her early twenties, she was in danger of becoming an "old maid."

Single and Pregnant
If remaining single in American society was considered undesirable, being single and pregnant was totally unacceptable, especially for white women. Girls who "got in trouble" were forced to drop out of school, and often sent away to distant relatives or homes for wayward girls. Shunned by society for the duration of their pregnancy, unwed mothers paid a huge price for premarital sex. In reality young women were engaging in premarital sex in spite of the societal pressure to remain virgins. (This made them believe that) There was a growing need for easy, safe, effective, reliable and female-controlled contraceptives.

Large Families
Not only did most married women walk down the aisle by age 19; they also tended to start families right away. A majority of brides were pregnant within seven months of their wedding, and they didn't just stop at one child. Large families were typical. From 1940 to 1960, the number of families with three children doubled and the number of families having a fourth child quadrupled.

Stay-at-Home Moms
This was also the era of the "happy homemaker." For young mothers in the 1950s, domesticity was idealized in the media, and women were encouraged to stay at home if the family could afford it. Women who chose to work when they didn't need the paycheck were often considered selfish, putting themselves before the needs of their family.

Decades of Childbearing
But even for happy homemakers, pressures were mounting. In a departure from previous generations, it was no longer acceptable for a wife to shut her husband out of the bedroom. Starting in the 1950s sex was viewed as a key component of a healthy and loving marriage. (From some peoples perception) Without an effective female-controlled contraceptive, young wives faced three decades of childbearing before they reached menopause.

The Pill Welcomed
(So Unfortunately) By the late 1950s, (many of the) both single and married American women were ready and waiting for a new and improved form of birth control. When the Pill was introduced, (some of) the social factors affecting women's reproductive lives contributed significantly to the warm reception women across the country gave the Pill.

Needless to say looking back on the changes in society, the pill is curse on humanity. The solutions for women to not be treated like slaves are to be solved by....I can't think of the answer at the moment, I will get back to you later.

So than In 1970, [Supreme Court Justice] Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that. [There are many others, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute at Stanford, which date from the 1940s.]

And now, as the New York Times Magazine quoted Paul Weyrich, who started the Heritage Foundation, they have 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts. They have a huge, very good operation, and they understand their own moral system. They understand what unites conservatives, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.

Yes, second wave feminist women getting into the democratic party are what made it become "pro-choice" and a different type of activist/minority coaltion base than before with less influence from their traditional socially conservative/fiscally liberal labour union base. Decline of union power started circa 1972 along with the rise of "globalisation" (by 2006 we are now in a post-globalisation period with an as of yet unknown title for the economics being shaped) the beginning of exporting american middle class began in 1972. Service economy began. Japanese cars came in during the oil embargo. More time started to be spent commuting distant lengthsin the 70's..less time for the family..family breaks down. Than comes non ecclesiastical approved divorce and remarriage.

"Martin Daly & Margo Wilson's study of family crime in Canada and the United States revealed that stepchildren are one hundred times more likely to be abused and eleven times more likely to be murdered by stepparents than biological parents"

"In 1997 sociologist Arlie Hochschild found that Americans increasingly defined home life as problematic and abrasive, and work life as satisfying and absorbing. A New York Times report of November 11, 1998, reveals that even children play less and "work" more"

The hunt for "quality time" with children reflects parental and communal dissatisfaction with catch-as-catch can child care are largely revolving around the demands of work. However "quality time" is a revealing absurd import from the world of management"

"In western industrial society people are now actors writing their own lines in their own script, in a play directed by forces larger than they can master. The shift is only subtly apparent to participants who do not see the larger picture because they are too busy adjusting their lives to the new conditions they now face." - Dr. Lionel Tiger, 1999

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 138
C
I also support the Zoghby Initiative
Offline
I also support the Zoghby Initiative
C
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 138
P.S. Xristos Anesti!
and also we're in a post globalisation period because globalisation failed. If it isn't obvious globalisation was not supposed to create large multinational corporations to eat up all the little businesses it was supposed to do the opposite and create even more little businesses. Well so much for the ideas of the late 60's eh, there's a few successes stories but for the most part they've been disasters. When it comes to politics and economics most of them are bunk on both sides of the political spectrum, in my opinion.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,924
Likes: 28
Moderator
Member
Online Content
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,924
Likes: 28
Christ is Risen!!! Indeed He is Risen!!!!!

The theory that I was taught, near the end of my undergraduate years (circa 1972), was that the need for two incomes stemmed from the fact that Lyndon Johnson pursued the VietNam war and started the Great Society--guns and butter at the same time--without raising taxes. It was the beginning of the long period of inflation that made the US almost a banana republic in terms of the value of a dollar by the time Ronald Reagan was elected.

One has to remember that the results of government actions take about ten years to take effect. And it took until the late 1970s for the full effect of the dual spending on guns and butter to take place.

These effects also ran through the 1980s when it took high interest rates to squeeze all the excess money out of the economy: so there was a high mortgage rate offered in the early 1980s of 22% before things started to drop. When I tell my son that my mortgage rate was 12%, he can't believe it (but I save everything so I can back it up with documents) wink . But I was just at the start of that upward spiral that ended at 22% around 1981. When I tell him that at one point there was a locally offered CD rate of 15.9% for three years, he wonders how anyone could afford to borrow.

Just another corner heard from,

BOB

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,924
Likes: 28
Moderator
Member
Online Content
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,924
Likes: 28
Christ is Risen!!! Indeed He is Risen!!!!!

How about thinking of this issue along with the one on the thread about Gadhafi claiming that Muslims will conquer Europe without violence? Where there is a need and a vacuum "nature" moves to fill it. There are lots of opportunities for people in Europe but there are fewer natives. That's what has propelled Muslims to move there from places where there is little opportunity. But the problem is that these new immigrants have brought along their culture and religion rather than being assimilated. And they obviously don't believe in the movement in Western countries thoughout the 20th century to limit the size of families in pursuit of the goals of self. Somehow we've adopted the idea that lots of family is no longer a desirable goal.

On the other hand, our culture, politics, and religion, being seen as separate aspects of our lives, don't seem to be able to deal with immigrants who see culture, religion, and politics to be one and the same--inseparable, seamless.

In Christ,

BOB


Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5