Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mdb23
I grew up in a house where dad had a "good" job at GM. Mom stayed at home with the kids. I came home to dinner with the family, dad had regular days off, etc. We weren't rich by any means, but we were comfortable. Nice home, two decent (never new) cars, and we didn't want for any necessities. Dad made it to all of my games, was at the parent teacher conferences, etc... most of the families that I knew of were like this (single income), were stable, and divorce was rare.
Those days are gone.
My wife and I both have to work to make it. We live in a very modest older home, have chosen to only have one child, drive very modest used cars, and we still have the same 19" TV that we had in college. Our standard of living isn't any better than what either of us had growing up in single income families. The single income middle class family, at least from where I sit, is a thing of the past. To be "middle class," you almost have to have two incomes, which puts a strain on the "family unit" that worked so well for the generations before us.
|
I hear ya, and agree with your assessment at the micro level. The question you have to ask, though, is what were the good paying jobs in the "good ol' days", and what are they now?
I grew up in a paper mill town. Even lower level hourly guys were paid well, because they did something others weren't willing or able to do--in this case, make quality paper and work shifts in a semi-dangerous environment. Today, that town is dying because the paper company, who is beholden to its shareholders, found they could build a mill in Russia, pay less for environmental controls, pay workers less (but hire more of them because they're not nearly as productive), pay nominal shipping fees and in the end generate better profit margins. The mill still runs, but at a mere fraction of its former production rates, with fewer workers, and at reduced wages because demand isn't as high for their product. It sucks for the guys that gave the best part of their lives to the mill, but its an economic reality. The demand for higher priced domestically produced paper (or GM autos in your dad's case) is low, so prices adjust lower and wages follow.
In the end, supply and demand are strong drivers. Unfortunately in our society today, there's higher demand to watch a grown man toss a ball through a hoop (and a small supply of those who can do it well) than for a cop to help control crime, a paramedic to save lives after an accident or a soldier to kill the bad guys in a far away land rather than Main Street USA. All those unemployed auto workers out there aren't bad people, but they (or their unions) priced themselves out of a job. I deeply respect and appreciate the job you do as an LEO, but the societal demand for law enforcement isn't high enough (until things go wrong, that is) to warrant higher pay.
Economies and markets are dynamic; how many coopers do you run into nowadays? How about print setters? Many hand loom weavers? Technology advances and the competitive advantage of foreign markets giveth and taketh away. If someone wants a bigger piece of the pie, they have to be willing (and able) to invest the human capital required to move into a job with higher demand. Otherwise, the economic express train will zip along without them. I'm not claiming its fair, but its damn sure real.
Again, thank God you're doing what you do, 'cuz I sure wouldn't be willing to do it. However, if doing what you do means you struggle to make ends meet, and the struggle isn't offset by job satisfaction, then perhaps you need to investigate what you could do in today's economy that would bring in higher wages. Economic evolution is an efficient but cruel mistress.