S/o tuition thread, this is not a a Jewish problem!

imaima ↓

Today at 9:09 am

amother OP wrote:

I only noticed the thread on tuition now, so I'm late to the discussion.
But I want to point out something that hasn't been said, and that is that this financial crisis we find ourselves in is not limited to the frum world. Yes, tuition is a frum problem, but it's only one expense out of many. .
This is actually a problem in the greater society as well. We are on a terrible trajectory which is leading towards disaster.
I found it frustrating that some posters (such as Raspberry on the other thread) think that the solution is to have less kids. It's extremely obtuse and dillusional to think that that would solve anything.

I recently heard a fascinating analysis by Jordan Peterson, on how we have arrived at this situation.

I will post the link here, but the relevant part is where he says the following:

Because women have access to birth control, they can now compete in the same domains, roughly, as men- and this creates a huge economic problem.
Years ago, it was still possible for a ONE income family to exist. But, since 1973, wages have been flat (except for the top 1 percent).
Why?
Because WE DOUBLED OUR LABOR FORCE.
When we doubled our labor force, we halved the value of labor. So now we are in a situation where it takes TWO PEOPLE to make as much as one did before!
We went from a situation when women's career options were relatively limited to where they are relatively unlimited and there were 2 incomes, to now, where women HAVE to work. They have no choice. But they only make half as much as they would have otherwise.

I found thus to be a startling analysis of where we are today and how we have come to this. Women's desire to work has created a domino effect where they now have no choice but to work.
This is a problem that is much bigger than just tuitions in the frum world.
The beginning of the talk is about how people need to prioritize having kids and family because that is actually what counts.

It's well worth a listen. (Around 11 minutes)
https://youtu.be/1FQQ7vcq-rM?s.....LROTO

But did you forget WHY women fought to be in the workforce?
Let me remind you.
Because widows and divorced women were doomed to poverty due to the fact that their careers were limited and they developed zero work skills while caring for their kids.

and if the frum community can prove anything, it shows that women can work despite not limiting their families. So they contribute to the effect despite not making use of BC

amother

↑ Iris

Today at 9:09 am

amother OP wrote:

1.Women are doubly represented in the public sphere. Of course they worked in their homes and on the fields. But now the job market is oversaturated, causing incomes to go down and dorcing women to work.
2. We didn't double our production because, as he goes on to say, men have been slacking off in proportion to women taking on more of the responsibility. Also, it's not about productivity as much as how much we earn from what we produce.

If this is the case then you still have the same size labor force as you did before. But simply comprised of women. The math ain’t mathin.

I agree men slacking off is a problem but I don’t think anyone in secular society is willing to address the true cause of it. Maybe Richard reeves. Maybe

↑ imaima

Today at 9:19 am

Some of the newer phenomena that I am observing as contributing to the crisis is the development of social media where people seem to earn money with little effort. At the same time there is shortage of handymen, nurses and what not because who wants to do hard work when you can unbox junk on Youtube?
The new generation of older teens (non-frum) don’t want hard work and don’t know how to do it, and often don’t see any role models.
This didn’t use to be the case. We grew up with understanding that you get paid for a service. The new generation of teens think that it’s stupid to try hard.

amother

Snowdrop

Today at 9:50 am

amother Leaf wrote:

The stock market is doing well and the unemployment rate has gone down. People seem to be doing well. It seems like this is just a Jewish problem...

The stock market doing well only helps people with disposable income that they have been able to put into the market.

Credit card debt and default is through the roof. The middle class is drowning, let alone the poor class. Housing is completely unaffordable, groceries are exorbitantly priced - these times are awful for everyone but the obscenely rich. Nearly everyone feels tight.

And I’m pretty sure the unemployment rate is being messed around with by politicians looking to have impressive sounding statistics, because the job market is trash. People are being laid off and it’s so hard to find a new job. Businesses are shutting down or switching to overseas employment for pennies on the dollar compared to US employees.

amother

NeonBlue ↓

Today at 9:57 am

amother Leaf wrote:

The stock market is doing well and the unemployment rate has gone down. People seem to be doing well. It seems like this is just a Jewish problem...

I don't think it is specifically a Jewish problem.

However there are issues that are unique to frum people - specifically tuition as well as the desire to live in certain very limited high cost of living neighborhoods.

In the secular world almost no one but the very rich send children to private school. Some do sacrifice somewhat to buy homes in areas with very good public school systems where housing and property taxes are higher but it is still much less expensive than private tuition for 12 or more years and you also are getting a house for that money.

Also in general the kind of demographic that is frum would generally be doing very well in the secular world in terms of income and other factors. People negate the value of a college education but the reality is that even if one doesn't major in STEM the life time earnings of a college graduate are far more than a high school graduate and there is also more career stability.

Women have been in the work force for a long time. My grandmother and her peers were school teachers in the 1950's. The difference is that opportunities expanded for women so that their daughters aspired to be lawyers and doctors instead of secretaries and teachers and nurses.

I haven't heard this kind of misogynistc propaganda about women being responsible for the poor economy - (here it is lack of jobs for men as well as inflation LOL

) since reading history on the propaganda after the end of WW II in which women were forced out of the workforce because the jobs needed to go to the men.

amother

Lightgreen

Today at 9:58 am

amother Leaf wrote:

The stock market is doing well and the unemployment rate has gone down. People seem to be doing well. It seems like this is just a Jewish problem...

This is false. It has been the case for quite awhile that the stock market is doing well, but most people are struggling. We literally just had an election that hinged on this, that most people realized they were better off under Trump than under Biden. This election didn't exactly hinge on frum Jews. Also most economists have been quite skeptical of jobs reports, especially the most recent one. That the numbers are not telling the full story. Unemployment rate doesn't necessarily mean much. If everyone is employed but they're all flipping burgers or stocking store shelves, then yeah, the jobs numbers look great, but those people can't exactly be termed as "doing well".

Other weird stuff aside (re women working) yes, the op is correct that everyone is struggling right now, not just frum Jews. Yes, we have a specific unique expense, but inflation is real, wage stagnation is real, and the current economy is NOT doing well, but the government is using sleight of hand to avoid saying the R word so that we'll think everything is fine.

amother

↑ Jasmine ↓

Today at 9:59 am

amother Snowdrop wrote:

And I’m pretty sure the unemployment rate is being messed around with by politicians looking to have impressive sounding statistics, because the job market is trash. People are being laid off and it’s so hard to find a new job. Businesses are shutting down or switching to overseas employment for pennies on the dollar compared to US employees.

One common cause of artificially low unemployment is when businesses are hiring people very part time in order to exempt themselves from certain obligations.

amother

↑ NeonBlue

Today at 10:17 am

amother Jasmine wrote:

One common cause of artificially low unemployment is when businesses are hiring people very part time in order to exempt themselves from certain obligations.

I am not following unemployment statistics carefully at this point but there is also what is called "under employment" when people take jobs at lower salaries or below their qualifications in order to have any job.

I experienced this at times in my career when I would be forced to take a job that paid less than y prior position and also reported to a boss with less experience than I had. I took it because it was a job Very Happy

amother

↑ Aster

Today at 10:52 am

amother Leaf wrote:

The stock market is doing well and the unemployment rate has gone down. People seem to be doing well. It seems like this is just a Jewish problem...

The stock market has nothing to do with the real economy. Nothing.

Low unemployment doesn't mean a healthy economy. There are more people in the workforce with multiple jobs than ever before. This *tricks* the unemployment rate into thinking the employment picture is better than it really is.

Also, many people have jobs....but can't afford life. So it's great they're employed but it doesn't mean they are doing well at all.

What's more is that (I don't have the data in front of me) but I think around 30% of jibs created are government jobs/ Often times those jobs aren't real, aren't productive and only cost the taxpayer.

amother

↑ Jasmine

Today at 11:14 am

amother NeonBlue wrote:

Yes, unemployment statistics fail to account for people who are either literally not employed for enough hours or employed at a job that underutilizes/underpays them.

And when people hire part time employees or independent contractors for what should be full time jobs with benefits, they end up "employing" a lot more people, who then each individually are next to unemployed.

Really, we need a "gainful employment rate" number, but that's much harder to measure.

amother

Maroon

Today at 11:18 am

amother OP wrote:

It was not considered to be as regular and commonplace as it has been the last 30 years or so.
.

Your grasp of modern history is off. The model of working husband, sahm wife was the norm for only a relatively short period of post-WWII prosperity (which was the cause, not the effect, of women quitting work) until the 1960s. Before and after, working women were the rule except among the affluent. They may not have joined the highly-paid professions in any great numbers, nor did they get paid as much as men doing the same or similar work, but work they did, as nurses, teachers, secretaries, cashiers, hairdressers, dressmakers, cooks, domestics, sales clerks, caregivers, waitresses, and so on and on--anything they could do that would help keep food on the table and a roof overhead. If that meant taking in sewing at home, babysitting, or cleaning other people's houses--and sometimes it did--women worked.

And just so you know, 30 years ago isn't ancient history as you seem to think. I started working as an adult (as opposed to odd jobs to earn pocket money in my student days) close to 50 years ago, my mother started working roughly 80 years ago, and my grandmother and all her sisters over 125 years ago. They were typical.

One issue that is less of a problem today than it was as recently as the 1960s was forced retirement when a woman became pregnant, even if the work was no threat to the health of the mother or the child.

DrMom

Today at 11:32 am

Of course inflation and the rising cost of living affects everyone. But people who have high expenses relative to their earnings are more impacted because they tend not to have much in savings.

And people who have many children and send them to private schools will of course have higher expenses than those who have fewer children and/or send them to public schools. So unless they earn amazing salaries or have income from some other sources, they will feel the pinch more than the average family with 1.94 kids and $0 tuition bills to pay.

Last edited by DrMom on Tue, Dec 17 2024, 11:33 am; edited 1 time in total

ora_43

Today at 12:39 pm

amother Molasses wrote:

Sorry but how has nobody mentioned that without birth control, the birth rate would be at least double, thereby at least doubling the amount of boys who grow to be men who would be in the work force. Instead of all these extra women. The labor available would still be double

And as a quick look around the world will show you, poverty would be rampant.

The issue isn't just the number of workers in the market, but the number of non-workers that each working person has to support.

Eg your average American man is married with two kids, his wife also works. So two workers in the family, two non-workers. His brother and sister also work, so he doesn't support them. His parents work, or are retired, so he doesn't support them. Essentially his job needs to support 2 people.

Your average Afghani man is married with five kids. His wife doesn't work. His sisters don't work. His mother doesn't work. His father is retired, because his father's job involved hard physical labor and he's too old for it now - and 'retirement' means being supported by your children. So he and his two brothers support their two parents and two sisters. His one job needs to support 8.3 people.

amother

Orchid ↓

Today at 2:26 pm

amother Jasmine wrote:

The unemployment rate also does not include those who are not "actively looking for work", which is a large percentage (meaning, people have given up and are not registered with the government). Or in jail.

The unemployment rate is so strongly manipulated as to be almost meaningless.