Econ III
Peony of Two Sleepy Mommies has shared some great thoughts in emails. She brings up a stumper: two-income families tend to weaken the market for modest homes. Builders only build big houses now. My friend Ham of Bone can no longer buy a stripped down, $6,000 new Geo Metro simply because they no longer make them. There wasn't enough Hambones out there.
So the freedom of one-income families to purchase reasonably-priced items is being decreased, and so we are to some extent held bound by the decisions of our neighbors, just as, more tragically, unborn babies are killed because a majority of people once believed that abortion was acceptable.
_
Follow up on Bill Gates: I'll never forget one of the questions on EWTN forum. Someone asked, "was it better for Bill Gates, when he became a millionaire, to have given away his money? Or was it better that he become plough the profits back in the business, become a billionaire, create well-paying jobs and later give tens or hundreds of millions to charity?"
_
Finally, part of the equation is whether you consider wealth to be a zero sum game, a pie that cannot grow. Back in college, my Econ prof said that is not true, but envy can skew our judgement.
Update: Peony also wrote: "I think the two-income trap got rolling in part because of the desire for instant gratification -- not just the desire to buy more stuff, but the desire for recognition and diversion. Some people find working to be much more fun and rewarding than caring for their own children."
"When I was working minimum wage, there were plenty of people there who were there for their livelihood. The companies depended on them; the students were just there to caulk the gaps and fill in for summer vacations."
No comments:
Post a Comment