Okay, that's kinda amusing.... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :
I guess with the increase in gun ownership, shot- gun weddings must be on the increase then. From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record Just to update my post. Hey Mike, good news...birth rates for unmarried women are actually on the decline! Don't let that keep you from volunteering with the YWCA though! Products - Data Briefs - Number 162 - August 2014 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm Products - Data Briefs - Number 162 - August 2014 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm Print page Download page: PDF [624 KB] Contact Us: National Center for Health Statistics 3311 Toledo Rd Room 5419 Hyattsville, MD 20782-2064 1 (800) 23... View on www.cdc.gov http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emily.mae50@...> wrote : Out of wedlock births are definitely on the rise. Here's an analysis of this: I don't get this journal so can't see the original.....but here is the brief: *This Policy Brief was prepared for the Fall 1996 issue of the Brookings Review and adapted from "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States," which appeared in the May 1996 issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof RE: "Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the difference. I was questioning your assumption about what you think "feminists" are thinking. That statement about translated to me as something you assume that "feminists" think. I figured that you had these "wonderful social programs" in mind - the ones that you think the "feminists" are hoping to replace the father with, when you said that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : I think you missed the point. There is *no* social program that can make up for not having both parents to successfully raise a child.You wouldn't think that with an ever expanding welfare system and ever increasing out of wedlock birth rate, considering all of the various birth control that is easily available. From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 1:35 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record What?!? I am always wary of those who speak with much judgment about things they have no experience with. Curiously, what social programs are you thinking of that make up the difference for an absent parent? I'm talking about the ones that would service the "feminist" woman, who deceived the poor, hapless, male into donating his sperm or having sex with her, and then kicked him to the curb, thinking to herself, "I don't need him....or his money......I have a "social program" I can depend on to make up the difference!" Kids do need a support network when growing up. Have you thought about how you could help? If you can't put yourself out there for "those people" on a personal level, perhaps you could work with Habitat for Humanity? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Most people do and want to contribute and always have. And Yes, I may be somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the traditional authority figures in a home. From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 9:10 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record Your first point is an idealistic, not a realistic viewpoint. As long as humans procreate and follow their hormonal urges, babies will be born. That's just the way it is. Planning, higher education and a learned skill prior to starting a family is a great idea and I'm all for it, but it's just not going to be the case for all. You can't legislate life, after all. Should the children born of children and the poor not merit the same care and attention and value of those born to career couples? Society has a responsibility for its members. Humans are social creatures. The idea that there is some large population "getting by on charity" by choice is a perpetrated myth - no one wants to be in that position. Most people want to contribute, want to work, want to be educated, want to be valued. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : A better option is, don't start a family until *you* can provide a complete and adequate living for all of those that *you* are responsible for. That usually starts with good planning along with a higher education and/or learned skill. If people ever developed the attitude that nobody owes them anything, everybody would be better off and a lot of problems could be prevented in the first place. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam. Avoid the suffering before it comes! If you are prepared to go through life depending on charity to get by, then you should to be prepared for the worst and hope for the better. Maharishi used to say *Deserve then desire*.BTW, that was supposed to be frying *fries* not *fires*. From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record Not sure what "fry fires" refers to, but it is true that a single parent who is the exclusive provider, making $15/hr, cannot afford the cost of daycare. This is why support networks are required—education and opportunity—for the good of the all. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income. Their income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids. From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ To argue that the minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is completely anachronistic. View on thebillfold.com http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Geee Emily, neither. These jobs have traditionally been considered entry level jobs, where people go to learn skills and get job experience, so they can build a resume and move on to bigger and better things. They were never intended to be a primary source of income to support a family, but maybe a secondary supplemental income. If someone sees flipping burgers as a carrier, there's something seriously wrong with them and maybe counseling might awaken them to seek something better. You set $15 an hour as a minimum wage, and you'll have Liberal arts graduates taking those jobs in a heart beat. What's left for the person that couldn't even finish high school? Dealing drugs? Maybe it would be better for society, in general, if we had a little more faith in people and their natural abilities and expect better of them, not settling for a bare minimum and owing them more for less.< My *beef* with MickeyD's? I don't frequent them as much as Ann might suggest because my personal experience is that there is a strong tendency to get the order wrong. Why? I don't know. Maybe they don't speak or read English well enough in some cases or maybe they're young and immature,not focused or paying attention. I've never been rewarded for poor job performance with a raise but have been promoted for excellent performance. Sorry to say, but my empathy in this matter is reserved for the truly handicapped or those that want to do more and are willing to prove it, not those that want more to just get by. From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's employees? What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job. From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a sausage McMuffin. So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that cheap meal will cost a bit more 'cause the fast food outlet will have to pay their employees more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike.
