Traditional Values

[Dcdrac]

Traditional Values are just another way of keeping the serfs yapping at each other over trivia rather than paying attention to the things that are really going on.

It works, too.

You got it in one babes.

 

[Just thinking]

... In fact, even your claims about "free public schooling" in the 18th century didn't apply to everyone then, either.

No, not everyone had an "opportunity for a good education." Applying that to everyone is not in the least part of the American tradition.

Actually, it is .. sort of. I'm not going to claim that everyone had all the opportunities available at the start -- but it had to be a value that hung in there over time in order for it to eventually become universal. Sure there is going to be resistance among certain groups that would benefit otherwise, but the value was stronger than the resistance, as now there are far greater opportunities for more people than before -- rich and poor, blacks and whites. I don't think it fair to critique a value solely on the basis of universal application from the get go. There are (were) societies or peoples that don't value life as many western cultures now do ... does that not make it a valid value -- one that had endured many generations?

 

[NeilC]

Although it's simple to point out the intellectual inconsitencies with Traditional Values, what has replaced them appears to be no values at all other than maybe those you can sue for in a court of law.

This sums up most of my feelings towards much of socialism. It argues well but appears to me to be very keen to demolish the old-fashioned ways on the basis of various intellectual absolutes without necessarily understanding how those social paradigms actually worked nor the effect of the new ones they propose.

 

[Orwell]

Although it's simple to point out the intellectual inconsitencies with Traditional Values, what has replaced them appears to be no values at all other than maybe those you can sue for in a court of law.

This sums up most of my feelings towards much of socialism. It argues well but appears to me to be very keen to demolish the old-fashioned ways on the basis of various intellectual absolutes without necessarily understanding how those social paradigms actually worked nor the effect of the new ones they propose.

Uh? This sounds like a non sequitur to me. Care to explain?

 

[NeilC]

Not everything that argues well intellectually actually works in real life.

By putting absolute rights at the top of the agenda one can throw out the bathwater with the baby.

Since it is very hard to really understand the complex social mechanisms are in play one should be very careful in following an ideology. E.g. you might argue that absolute equality between the sexes is of paramount importance but does having women following the career paths of men make people happier? What effect does it have on their children? What effect to those children have on society? Twin salaries have pushed house prices sky high which has made it very hard for low paid workers to house themselves etc etc. Did anyone forsee all this or did they just see the right and put that ahead of everything else?

 

[egslim]

Twin salaries have pushed house prices sky high which has made it very hard for low paid workers to house themselves etc etc.

Are you sure about that?

How many working-class people owned their home, say, 60 or 100 years ago compared to now? Or in other words, has the situation actually improved or indeed deteriorated?

 

[Euromutt]

The trouble with "traditional values" is that they are nothing but nostaligia enshriend as public policy.

In an American context, most of the nostalgia has zero historical basis to boot. The term "traditional values" tends to hearken back to an idealized 1950s, free of crime, drugs, extramarital sex and homosexuals, and which never actually existed outside of Leave it to Beaver. If you have the time, money and inclination, pick up a copy Agathe Nesaule's A Woman in Amber sometime. It's autobiographical, and describes, among other things, living in Indiana in the late 1940s and early 1950s (after she'd immigrated from Latvia by way of several refugee camps in Germany). She describes coming close to being sexually assaulted by some creep in a movie theater, being afraid to walk the streets downtown at night, and how a brothel operated openly in the house next door (in a blue-collar residential neighborhood). Indiana, people. A lady who used to teach at my college also immigrated as a Latvian refugee, at about the same time and same age, and worked as an au pair in Scarsdale, until the 14 or 15 year-old son of the house approached her one night when the parents were out with his erection protruding from his pajamas. When she told the boy's parents, they didn't discipline him in order to instil "traditional values"; they fired her and pretended the whole thing never happened.

The notion of "traditional values" is based on the notion that things used to be much better in the old days, before the hippies ruined everything, and the Democrats let them. But those days never actually existed; people at most pretended that crime and illicit sex didn't happen.

 

[NeilC]

It's impossible to be sure of things like that (which is part of my point). It's something I head a consultant from the Halifax say - that twin salaries was a major driving force in house prices. Seems pretty likely that it would have that effect.

It's just an example of how these things can work out. There are a million others. Take teenage pregnancy - in days gone by there was a huge amount of shame involved. People would disown their daughters and communities would look down on unmarried mothers etc. This was very rough for the girls. More modern sensibilities have meant that we've put the rights of the mother first and seen her as victim not criminal. We've made it so she can get benefits. We've made it sort of OK. This is good news for careless mums and those whose boyfriends up and leave. But the downside is that we have soaring teenage pregnancy, a large benefits overhead and arguable lots of youth delinquency associated with single parents and the releted poverty that often goes with it. So a small number of women benefit but how many suffer? I'm not judging it as right or wrong but merely pointing out how whent you knock the values down, the repercussions are often wideranging.

 

[Orwell]

About teenage pregnancies: I suggest you compare the rates of teenage pregnancies of countries where teenagers receive comprehensive sex-ed and access to birth control to the rates of pregnancy of countries where "traditional values" are still taken seriously.

 

[Pauliesonne]

I watched Pleasantville yesterday......

you know, the one with Tobey Maguire, Reese Witherspoon, William H Macy, Joan Allen, Jeff Daniels and others..........

SEE THE CONNECTION!!!!!!

 

[Just thinking]

How many working-class people owned their home, say, 60 or 100 years ago compared to now? Or in other words, has the situation actually improved or indeed deteriorated?

I'm not going to outright dispute your point, but wouldn't it perhaps be more correct to ask how many working class families (as a percentage) owned homes from a single income 60 or so years ago as compared to today? And just where did that single income stand on the balance of medean income levels?

As only one example -- my father was able to buy a house (worth over $320,000 today) with only an 8th grade education as a laborer back in 1953. (And raise a 2 child family with a stay-at-home-wife.) Think a laborer with an 8th grade education could do that today?

 

[egslim]

I'm not going to outright dispute your point, but wouldn't it perhaps be more correct to ask how many working class families (as a percentage) owned homes from a single income 60 or so years ago as compared to today?

I don't think so. Working to look after ones familiy consists of two parts, housekeeping and earning an income. But the former has become a much lighter task over the last 60 years, so more time can be spent on the latter. At the same time working weeks have shortened, so the saved time can be spent on housekeeping.

And just where did that single income stand on the balance of medean income levels?

That is indeed a variable which we'll probably never resolve.

As only one example -- my father was able to buy a house (worth over $320,000 today) with only an 8th grade education as a laborer back in 1953. (And raise a 2 child family with a stay-at-home-wife.) Think a laborer with an 8th grade education could do that today?

How many laborers today have an 8th grade education? In the Netherlands children are forced by law to go to school until they're 16 - I assume that equals 12th grade. And the government provides financial support such that every child can have at least 4 years of education more after that.

So I don't think one should compare 8th grade then and 8th grade now, but working class = 8th grade then and working class = 16th grade now.

 

[The Don]

I'm not going to outright dispute your point, but wouldn't it perhaps be more correct to ask how many working class families (as a percentage) owned homes from a single income 60 or so years ago as compared to today? And just where did that single income stand on the balance of medean income levels?

As only one example -- my father was able to buy a house (worth over $320,000 today) with only an 8th grade education as a laborer back in 1953. (And raise a 2 child family with a stay-at-home-wife.) Think a laborer with an 8th grade education could do that today?

IMO, housing has never been more affordable, it's that we also spend a shirt load of money on other stuff that simply wasn't bought back then such as:

- expensive holidays (rather than going camping)
- cars (how many families have more than one)
- technology (TV, cable, cellphones, internet, computers....)
- eating out (I recall eating out 1 or 2 times a year with my parents back in the 70s)
- leisure activities
- clothing
- booze and expensive food

If you led the kind of lifestyle my parents led back in the 70's then you too could afford an expensive house but you'd need to:

- almost never go out
- run one old car
- only go on cheap domestic holidays
- old eat wholesome, but cheap food
- have cheap low tech appliances
- make your own clothes and/or repair old ones

 

[NeilC]

About teenage pregnancies: I suggest you compare the rates of teenage pregnancies of countries where teenagers receive comprehensive sex-ed and access to birth control to the rates of pregnancy of countries where "traditional values" are still taken seriously.

I suggest you provide stats rather that getting others to look for them.

I'll bet countries where they have extreme traditional values like Saudi etc have a much lower rate of teegage preganance than even the best educated counties.

I'm not convinced you can merely educate your way out of social problems, even if you could get the education right, which you probably cannot. It's always the suggestion of the left that we can have our cake and eat it if only the education was better. I don't buy it. Social mechanisms like shame, peer pressure etc didn't arrive by accident or because people in times gone by were horrible people. All societies have them and they evolved because they do a job. I believe that by putting the rights of the individual first in almost all occasions there is a major price to be paid in terms of the breakdown in society and it's shared values.

 

[Just thinking]

I don't think so. Working to look after ones familiy consists of two parts, housekeeping and earning an income. But the former has become a much lighter task over the last 60 years, so more time can be spent on the latter. At the same time working weeks have shortened, so the saved time can be spent on housekeeping.

Welcome to Fantasyland -- what flavor Kool Aid may I pour for you?

OK, all kidding aside -- workweeks have indeed not shorteded, in fact they have lengthened considerably.

That is indeed a variable which we'll probably never resolve.

Well, it's a needed data point, to be sure. If home ownership from a single income over time is to be considered, one must look at where that income stacks up against all incomes. Having more people own homes is a meaningless statement -- one needs to look at percentages and affordability.

How many laborers today have an 8th grade education? In the Netherlands children are forced by law to go to school until they're 16 - I assume that equals 12th grade. And the government provides financial support such that every child can have at least 4 years of education more after that.

It doesn't matter how many today have that education -- can they afford a home on one salary? If not, why? Because the cost of home ownership has increased well above what most single salaries have over the past 2 generations. And why has that happened? -- that's the important question, and i believe dual salary incomes plays a role.

So I don't think one should compare 8th grade then and 8th grade now, but working class = 8th grade then and working class = 16th grade now.

Not fair. Why change the conditions? In fact, many high school graduates not intending college today don't seem to have the smarts of an 8th grader years ago.

 

[Just thinking]

IMO, housing has never been more affordable, it's that we also spend a shirt load of money on other stuff that simply wasn't bought back then such as: ...

If you led the kind of lifestyle my parents led back in the 70's then you too could afford an expensive house but you'd need to:

- almost never go out
- run one old car
- only go on cheap domestic holidays
- old eat wholesome, but cheap food (?)
- have cheap low tech appliances
- make your own clothes and/or repair old ones

I've heard that argument over and over so many times ... I've worked in both research and education and never have I been able to buy a home on what I made alone -- and I have 2 science degrees, a degree in math as well as computer software and teaching certifications. Maybe it's just not that easy in NJ, but a second income made it affordable. And now we have 2 cars (cars -- not SUV's or Trucks or Vans), both well over 10 years old each. The problem is, too big a chunk of income goes to taxes and energy costs.

I know all too well what it means to live on the cheap -- and it didn't afford me a house.

PS: The computer I'm typing this on is 8 years old.

 

[Camillus]

Take teenage pregnancy - in days gone by there was a huge amount of shame involved. People would disown their daughters and communities would look down on unmarried mothers etc. This was very rough for the girls. More modern sensibilities have meant that we've put the rights of the mother first and seen her as victim not criminal. We've made it so she can get benefits. We've made it sort of OK.

You are confusing teenage with unmarried. Teenage pregnancy per se was never viewed as a bad thing but being an unmarried mother was.

Sixty years ago an unmarried woman who became pregnant usually married the father to escape the social opprobrium. There was enormous social pressure on both parties to become hitched before (a) anyone found out and (b) the child was born "illegitimate".

 

[NeilC]

I think you'll find that in the 1950's, getting pregnant at 13 was considered bad.
Not that it changes the point anyway.

 

[The Don]

I've heard that argument over and over so many times ... I've worked in both research and education and never have I been able to buy a home on what I made alone -- and I have 2 science degrees, a degree in math as well as computer software and teaching certifications. Maybe it's just not that easy in NJ, but a second income made it affordable. And now we have 2 cars (cars -- not SUV's or Trucks or Vans), both well over 10 years old each. The problem is, too big a chunk of income goes to taxes and energy costs.

I know all too well what it means to live on the cheap -- and it didn't afford me a house.

PS: The computer I'm typing this on is 8 years old.

And yet, in real terms energy costs are much lower than they ever have been. Of course we use so much more energy than we used to. [mode = 4yorkshiremen] Growing up we didn't have central heating, in the winter my bedroom window often had frost on it, my parents wouldn't use the car for non-essential activites and energy use was restricted to essential activites only (cooking, cleaning and occasional TV) [/mode]

Looking at family Don expenditure, the parts in there my parents just simply would never have had:

- Eating out - £150/month
- Cellphone - £50/month
- Broadband - £20/month
- Gym membership - £90/month
- Booze - £100/month
- Running 2 cars (including depreciation, fuel, insurance and maintenance) - £500/month
- Clothes - £50/month
- Expenditure on electronic trinkets - £50/month

Add to this commuting costs (they always worked within 10 miles of home) and you've easily got the cost of a substantial homeloan there.

I would insist that any failure to afford housing is due to changes in spending priorities rather than a lack of income


I'm finding it difficult to find historical tax rates but the current one of 30% source doesn't seem too onerous

 

[Just thinking]

And yet, in real terms energy costs are much lower than they ever have been.

Not really -- during the 1970's gasoline shortage the price was over $1.50 per gallon; adjusting for inflation that would be over $4.80 a gallon today (in the USA). And I commuted over 100 miles total each day to a job that didn't offer a raise in over 3 years -- and then downsized hundreds of people out of work; me included.

Of course we use so much more energy than we used to. Growing up we didn't have central heating, in the winter my bedroom window often had frost on it, my parents wouldn't use the car for non-essential activites and energy use was restricted to essential activites only (cooking, cleaning and occasional TV) [/mode]

Looking at family Don expenditure, the parts in there my parents just simply would never have had:

- Eating out - £150/month
- Cellphone - £50/month
- Broadband - £20/month
- Gym membership - £90/month
- Booze - £100/month
- Running 2 cars (including depreciation, fuel, insurance and maintenance) - £500/month
- Clothes - £50/month
- Expenditure on electronic trinkets - £50/month

Add to this commuting costs (they always worked within 10 miles of home) and you've easily got the cost of a substantial homeloan there.

I would insist that any failure to afford housing is due to changes in spending priorities rather than a lack of income


I'm finding it difficult to find historical tax rates but the current one of 30% source doesn't seem too onerous

I'll agree with you that in my family too (as I grew up) the expenses you listsed weren't there, but they aren't for the most part with me now, nor were they there before I owned a home. I didn't have a cell phone, gym membership, Broadband or a Booze allowance -- and I never smoked. But the other key issue here is I never (except for a mortgage) went into debt. I owed nothing. I didn't even qualify for a credit card (as a teacher in my early years). The point I'm making is that with all my 'advantages' I was not able to do what my father before me could with far less education.