Scotty

I'm not responsible for whatever it is you read. Norway's much smaller population means most of it's oil production is exported, which brings a lot of money into the country. Norway's population is less than one sixth that of Canada's but it actually exports more oil than we do. Imagine Alberta if it had 100% of Canada's oil exports, and got to keep every dollar, forwarding none to the feds. That's Norway.

Mulcair will have a lot of left wing zealots in his party who, if he's to be believed, will be very angry about his turning the party towards the centre. A lot of them are in the public service unions, where it's okay to be a zealot since you suffer no financial penalty for it. They can be placated, to some extent by the NDP removing the restrictions Harper put on raises, and dropping the tory plans to cut back benefits. And it's not like the majority of the NDP aren't extremely sympathetic to union members to begin with.

Public servants are not "the working class". They're the petty bourgeois, and very comfortably ensconced within the upper ranges of society. The people who could be called working class are the ones working for low wages and no benefits. None of them are public servants.

That includes the public service unions, who will demand a big pay raise and benefits increase under an NDP government to keep believing. The last time an NDP leader tried to move the party rightward the unions were very unhappy. They'll bite their tongues to get Harper out, but afterwards they're going to be a lot more demanding.

One of the things people need to price into an NDP government is the big pay and benefit increases the federal civil service unions will get. The labour unions, especially the rich public service unions play a major role within the NDP and have a quarter of the delegates to every convention. They will expect a big reward from any NDP government, and that will mean major bucks.

It costs hundreds of times more to process and house and feed refugees here than to do the same back where they originated, which is most often Turkey. If the opposition wants to help them it ought to forward some money to Turkey and let the Turks do it. Today's bitching and crabbing by the opposition because of that picture of the drowned dead boy leaves out that the boy and his family were completely safe in Turkey. They left Turkey, trying to get to Greece, not so they'd be safer but because they wanted to make it to rich Europe.

Norway has a huge oil industry with a very small population. And they're not a G7 country.

It's been seven years of the financial crisis so quit complaining. The tax cuts you guys keep bringing up were probably one of the reasons we didn't follow most of the world into a deeper recession since they helped stimulate consumer spending.

Gee, could it be that resource industries play a much bigger role here than in most G7 countries? Got a lot of mining and oil production in France and Italy, do they?

I agree with the first, but dispute the others. Women haven't changed all that much. If you look at career choices for women, they still tend to prefer the sort of nurturing, caring, helping sort of jobs. Women flock to jobs as teachers and early childhood educators, as nurses and doctors and therapists and homecare workers. In business, women seem to prefer the human resources department. Women shy away from STEM careers almost entirely. Only 13% have ever concerned a career in a STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) field. As for men, it would be silly to say they haven't changed. They've changed enormously, especially the younger generation. I'm not sure how much for the better that is, mind you, as the younger men I know tend to be pretty narcissistic and self absorbed, drama queens, some of them, and given to crying at inappropriate times. In other words, they've become more like some women.

I asked which of the above which I am taking for granted most people would acknowledge as factual really needed to be proven.

Granted. But did they get a better life? Did those women working in Wal-Mart get a better life? Because there is a hell of a lot more of them than there are women executives and fighter pilots.

You can't make such a direct statement using a term like 'living beyond their means'. What does that even mean in real terms? If people were content to not own a house, a car, a cell phone, have internet or cable, and didn't mind living in a really crummy apartment, then they could raise kids without two incomes? You didn't used to need a really good job to raise a family on a single income. People only want now what their parents and grandparents had with those single jobs. My grandfather worked in retail, in a department store, in charge of the menswear section. He had a wife, three children, a house he paid for, with a pool in back, and a car. Nowadays anyone who wants that has to be earning a six figure salary, and even then it's touch and go.

Let's examine what I guess I take to be facts. First, one income households used to be the norm. Now two income households seem to be necessary. Yet these two income households are no better off financially than the one income households used to be. Second. The number of people who are single even going into their middle years has skyrocketed over the past generation. You have an enormous number of men and women, easily a third of the population, possibly more, who will never have a spouse now. That's sad, and it will lead to all kinds of societal problems which include rising loneliness, suicide, etc. Third. There are way less kids now. Women are not having kids in large part because they're not in stable, long-term relationships, and because they're working, and because they can't afford to have many kids since they can't do without that additional income, and/or the cost and availability of child care. Do you think any of these need to be substantially proven with cites?

I don't think so. My perception of it now and at the time was that those who embraced feminism were those who felt restless and bored with the traditional female role of wife and mother.

I didn't think I needed to make a case that the two income family was now just about a requirement. Why do you suppose it used to be the exception? People working fairly ordinary jobs used to be able to support a family which consisted of a wife and usually three or four kids reasonably well. Can you put forth a reason why that stopped happening? And it stopped happening well before offshore outsourcing.

The single mother having difficulty raising children is just one aspect of singlehood. I was thinking more of the diminished lives of such people, living alone, especially after their kids are raised. I know some single mothers whose whole lives are centered on their kid or kids. When those kids leave they're lives will become very, very empty.

No, it was born out of women being bored.

No. It was born out of ambition and restlessness of some women, generally women who came from well-off families and went to university. They weren't content to simply marry an be someone's wife and mother. With which I can sympathize, by the way. It's good that such women now have all kinds of career choices. I'm saying that this has not been good for the majority of women.

This is the thing. I can't see how we are. In some cities in the US and Europe now 40% or more of households consist of one person living alone. In Manhattan it's 50% Stockholm its 60%. This is a social phenomenon which has no good side to it as people age.

No, but that was always a small minority. Most husbands pay child support, and wind up living in poverty themselves unless they have a very good job. That's nonsense. I know a lot of women who divorced their husband or constantly dump their partners for little things, and I've watched them getting older - alone, never able to find that perfect man they think they deserve. I know women who are in their late thirties now and haven't had a steady boyfriend for ten years because they need this ideal person, and quite honestly they aren't good enough for such a man. They're going into middle age with a growing belly and widening hips and diminishing hope of ever finding a real life partner. And the ones that have a kid, when that kid leaves that's mostly their life now. What do they do then? Buy a cat?

And a lot of women to be single, too. A LOT of women leading lives that are no more fulfilling and often less than their grandmothers were. The reason couples HAD to stay together in the past was tradition and the difficulty of women getting either jobs or financial support from the husband. I think the latter is mainly assured now. I agree that women needed to have the ability to support themselves in the cases like you describe, but most women were, if you ask older women quite content to stay home all day. I also think divorce has increased isn't because of alcoholic husbands but because people expect near perfection from their partners and don't get it. And by perfection I mean excitement, partying, constant romance, etc. And because both parties are so busy with jobs and feeling overwrought with it all.

It was a thought which occurred to me, to be honest, when I was shopping a Wal-Mart and seeing all those tired looking middle aged women who had been on their feet all day in their little blue outfits. This is what feminism has wrought for women? These women didn't strike me as having benefited from feminism at all, and most jobs are closer to theirs than to some high flying executive. That means most women are doing lousy work they probably don't like very much in order that the very few can have great careers. I don't know why you guys need to agonize over the damn title anyway.

Are you saying only Mcmansions require two family incomes? My perception is almost any family but the wealthiest requires two incomes to avoid poverty.

There is no rule which says you need a cite to start every discussion. Why should I post someone else's opinion in order to validate my own?