Idealy teh 55% participation rate in the 50’s would be wonderful – if for the same reasons. You had two parent households, and only the dad worked and the mom stayed home (don’t get all in a huff about what I just posted). If we had two parent family’s today where only one parent worked (husand or wife) and one stayed home and took care of the kids (husand or wife), society would probably be much better.
Won’t happen again. Society has changed too much and the two parent one earner family is pretty much gone. Two parent family’s are a far cry from what they used to be as well.
Wages today are still “livable” is you don’t to all the extra non necessaties I mentioned in an earlier post.
So then, join me in fighting for LOWER participation rates by working toward higher wages, workers rights and protections, policies that minimize income inequality…fight for universal health care and better education and the infrastructure, both legislative and physical, that makes single income households possible again.
Hope you didn’t hurt yourself with that kind of a stretch.
Higher wages - should be earned not mandated or required.
Workers rights – should only involve health and safety issues.
There should NOT be policies for income inequity. If a company thinks a person needs to be paid whellbarrow loads of money then so be it. If a person starts a company and keeps a percentage of the stock for himself so be it.
Healthcare - companies can sell policies nationwide. Set amount re-embursed to hospitals/doc. Companies can not charge US citizens/pharmacies/insurance company more than they charge to sell a drug in another country. If a person could have afford insurance, any bills may not be discharged in bankrupcy court.
But I wouldn’t cap it at a dollar every ten years. That’s too low a percent increase per year (about 1%). I’d tie it to inflation (perhaps inflation*0.75).
