Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Weekend Economists Celebrate M-O-T-H-E-R, May 9-11, 2014
M-O-T-H-E-R
"M" is for the million things she gave me,
"O" means only that she's growing old,
"T" is for the tears she shed to save me,
"H" is for her heart of purest gold;
"E" is for her eyes, with love-light shining,
"R" means right, and right she'll always be,
Put them all together, they spell "MOTHER,"
A word that means the world to me.
- Howard Johnson
There's nothing as prone to sentimentality as the abstract concepts of Motherhood and Mother.
The Catholic Church knew this well, and exploited the Madonna concept for all it was worth, equating their Mother of God with all Other Mothers of Other Gods, to facilitate conversion of the faithful pagans and propagation of the Faithful.
Patriarchy also exploited Motherhood, as the reason why women were not equal to men, and therefore "protected", "restricted", and ultimately, exploited.
And then Freud came around and really stirred the pot. But that's another story.
In my own experiences with motherhood, I never found that Motherhood was ever honored except in the breach. A court will rip children away from their mothers at the slightest provocation or pretext. Attaining Motherhood means only that one takes on additional burdens for an undetermined length of time, with no guaranty of support, monetary or otherwise.
Many fertile women are taking the easy way out, and forgoing the pleasures of children entirely.
Women by Number of Children Ever Born by Race, Hispanic Origin, Nativity Status, Marital Status, and Age: June 2010
Total women Total women----------- 0---- 1---- 2--- 3---- 4--- 5-6-- 7+
ALL RACES
All Marital Classes
15 to 44 years 61,481 100.0 47.1 16.9 20.4 10.4 3.4 1.5 0.3
.15 to 19 years 10,273 100.0 94.6 4.4 0.6 0.3 - - -
.20 to 24 years 10,493 100.0 70.5 18.1 9.0 2.0 0.3 0.1 -
.25 to 29 years 10,501 100.0 47.6 22.7 18.7 7.8 2.3 0.8 0.1
.30 to 34 years 9,923 100.0 29.7 19.2 29.2 14.3 5.2 2.1 0.4
.35 to 39 years 9,917 100.0 19.7 18.5 32.6 19.7 5.9 3.1 0.4
.40 to 44 years 10,374 100.0 18.8 18.5 33.3 19.1 6.8 2.7 0.8
Total women Total women----------- 0---- 1---- 2--- 3---- 4--- 5-6-- 7+
ALL RACES
All Marital Classes
15 to 44 years 61,481 100.0 47.1 16.9 20.4 10.4 3.4 1.5 0.3
.15 to 19 years 10,273 100.0 94.6 4.4 0.6 0.3 - - -
.20 to 24 years 10,493 100.0 70.5 18.1 9.0 2.0 0.3 0.1 -
.25 to 29 years 10,501 100.0 47.6 22.7 18.7 7.8 2.3 0.8 0.1
.30 to 34 years 9,923 100.0 29.7 19.2 29.2 14.3 5.2 2.1 0.4
.35 to 39 years 9,917 100.0 19.7 18.5 32.6 19.7 5.9 3.1 0.4
.40 to 44 years 10,374 100.0 18.8 18.5 33.3 19.1 6.8 2.7 0.8
Childlessness Up Among All Women; Down Among Women with Advanced Degrees
By Gretchen Livingston and D’Vera Cohn
I. Overview
Nearly one-in-five American women ends her childbearing years without having borne a child, compared with one-in-ten in the 1970s. While childlessness has risen for all racial and ethnic groups, and most education levels, it has fallen over the past decade for women with advanced degrees.
The most educated women still are among the most likely never to have had a child. But in a notable exception to the overall rising trend, in 2008, 24% of women ages 40-44 with a master’s, doctoral or professional degree had not had children, a decline from 31% in 1994.
By race and ethnic group, white women are most likely not to have borne a child. But over the past decade, childless rates have risen more rapidly for black, Hispanic and Asian women, so the racial gap has narrowed. By marital status, women who have never married are most likely to be childless, but their rates have declined over the past decade, while the rate of childlessness has risen for the so-called ever-married — those who are married or were at one time.
Among all women ages 40-44, the proportion that has never given birth, 18% in 2008, has grown by 80% since 1976, when it was 10%. There were 1.9 million childless women ages 40-44 in 2008, compared with nearly 580,000 in 1976...
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-among-all-women-down-among-women-with-advanced-degrees/
Let us consider what this means to the economy, on this special weekend.
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
International payment systems Visa and MasterCard will be forced to provide Russian authorities with multi-billion dollar security deposits if they wish to continue working in the country beyond July 1, under a law signed by President Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin press service said Monday.
The law on a national payment system, which seeks to guarantee uninterrupted service of payments in Russia by foreign payment systems and prevent them from cutting services to Russian clients, as Visa and MasterCard did in response to U.S. sanctions in March.
Foreign payment systems will be forbidden by the law to unilaterally cut services to Russian clients and require them to base their processing center in Russia. They will also have to leave a security deposit at the Central Bank equivalent to the value of two days of transactions processed in Russia. Visa and MasterCard, which together service about 90 percent of payments in Russia, processed $1.9 billion per day last year, meaning that they will be obliged to relinquish about $3.8 billion to the Central Bank.
http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/05/financial-war-update-putin-passes-law-requiring-3-8bln-security-payments-from-visa-mastercard/
Hmmm. Smarter than the Average Bear...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree
Childfree is defined as people who are fertile and intend to not have children, people who have chosen sterilization without having had children, or women past childbearing age who were fertile but chose not to have children, or people who are otherwise infertile but their infertility has no impact on their desire to not have children.
The term was coined in the English language late in the 20th century and is used to describe people who have made a personal decision not to have children. The term childfree also describes domestic and urban environments in which children are not welcome. In this sense, the term is the opposite of child-friendly, which describes environments that are safe and welcoming for children. The meaning of the term childfree extends to encompass the children of others (in addition to one’s own children) and this distinguishes it further from the more usual term "childless", which is traditionally used to express the idea of having no children, whether by choice or by circumstance. The term 'child free' has been cited in Australian literature to refer to parents who are without children at the current time. This may be due to them living elsewhere on a permanent basis or a short-term solution such as childcare (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2011).
The availability of reliable contraception along with support provided in old age by systems other than traditional familial ones has made childlessness an option for some people in developed countries. In most societies and for most of human history choosing to be childfree was both difficult and undesirable. To accomplish the goal of remaining childfree, some individuals undergo medical sterilization.
History
St. Augustine wrote in the year 388 of the Manichaeans, who believed that it was immoral to create children, and thus (according to their belief system) trap souls in mortal bodies. To try to prevent this they practiced periodic abstinence.
Christian sects whose views could be seen as supporting a childfree position include the Shakers, a Protestant sect that opposed procreation, along with the Skoptsy and the Cathars. In 12th and 13th centuries, the Cathars were a community which might have understood the contemporary idea of childfree. They accommodated sexual relations but considered procreation undesirable on theological grounds, regarding all matter as intrinsically evil. Most childless communities, such as monasteries or other religious communities, chose celibacy and organised single sex accommodation as means of achieving childlessness but did not regard children as undesirable. Such religious communities were childless (but not necessarily childfree) in order to devote their time to the service or worship of God or even to the care of other people’s children. They also had concerns about legal requirements to bequeath the community's property to offspring.
Commonly shared beliefs
Supporters of living childfree (e.g. Corinne Maier, French author of "No Kids: 40 Reasons For Not Having Children"
cite various reasons for their view:
competing familial or social obligations, such as role as primary caregiver for disabled parents, siblings, spouse
economic insufficiency
lack of access to support networks and resources
personal well-being
existing or possible health problems, including genetic disorders[6]
fear that sexual activity may decline.[7]
various fears (for example, of being trapped or disappointed) as well as fears for the child
damage to relationships or difficulties with them
fear and/or revulsion towards the physical condition of pregnancy, the childbirth experience, and recovery (for example the erosion of physical desirability)
belief that one can make a greater contribution to humanity through one's work than through having children
perceived or actual incapacity to be a responsible and patient parent
view that the wish to reproduce oneself is a form of narcissism
the absence of a partner one deems fit to sexually reproduce with
belief that it is wrong to bring a child into the world if the child is unwanted
belief that it is wrong to intentionally have a child when there are so many children available for adoption
concern regarding environmental impacts such as overpopulation, pollution, and resource scarcity
antinatalism, the belief that it is inherently immoral to bring people into the world. That is, one may generally wish to spare a potential child from the suffering of life.
belief in a negative, declining condition of the world and culture and not subjecting a child to those negative conditions. This includes concerns that calamitous events (e.g., global warming effects, war, or famine) might be likely to occur within the lifetime of one's children and cause their suffering and/or death.
belief that people tend to have children for the wrong reasons (e.g. fear, social pressures from cultural norms)
adherence to the principles of a religious organization which rejects having children
dislike of children
uncertainty over the stability of the parenting relationship
lack of interest
belief that one is too old to have children
career orientation
Childfree is defined as people who are fertile and intend to not have children, people who have chosen sterilization without having had children, or women past childbearing age who were fertile but chose not to have children, or people who are otherwise infertile but their infertility has no impact on their desire to not have children.
The term was coined in the English language late in the 20th century and is used to describe people who have made a personal decision not to have children. The term childfree also describes domestic and urban environments in which children are not welcome. In this sense, the term is the opposite of child-friendly, which describes environments that are safe and welcoming for children. The meaning of the term childfree extends to encompass the children of others (in addition to one’s own children) and this distinguishes it further from the more usual term "childless", which is traditionally used to express the idea of having no children, whether by choice or by circumstance. The term 'child free' has been cited in Australian literature to refer to parents who are without children at the current time. This may be due to them living elsewhere on a permanent basis or a short-term solution such as childcare (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2011).
The availability of reliable contraception along with support provided in old age by systems other than traditional familial ones has made childlessness an option for some people in developed countries. In most societies and for most of human history choosing to be childfree was both difficult and undesirable. To accomplish the goal of remaining childfree, some individuals undergo medical sterilization.
History
St. Augustine wrote in the year 388 of the Manichaeans, who believed that it was immoral to create children, and thus (according to their belief system) trap souls in mortal bodies. To try to prevent this they practiced periodic abstinence.
Christian sects whose views could be seen as supporting a childfree position include the Shakers, a Protestant sect that opposed procreation, along with the Skoptsy and the Cathars. In 12th and 13th centuries, the Cathars were a community which might have understood the contemporary idea of childfree. They accommodated sexual relations but considered procreation undesirable on theological grounds, regarding all matter as intrinsically evil. Most childless communities, such as monasteries or other religious communities, chose celibacy and organised single sex accommodation as means of achieving childlessness but did not regard children as undesirable. Such religious communities were childless (but not necessarily childfree) in order to devote their time to the service or worship of God or even to the care of other people’s children. They also had concerns about legal requirements to bequeath the community's property to offspring.
Commonly shared beliefs
Supporters of living childfree (e.g. Corinne Maier, French author of "No Kids: 40 Reasons For Not Having Children"
cite various reasons for their view:
when its best-educated women, presumably best endowed with intelligence, do not propagate?
It's a permanent brain-drain, that's what. The gene pool is depleted of the results of generations of successful experimentation in breeding.
Add into that the likelihood that the best-educated men aren't producing new generations, too, and where does that leave us?
Is intelligence counter-productive to reproduction?
In a large study of Australians, 13% of men aged 45-59 were childless, which was higher than the rate among similarly aged women (10%). Furthermore, Australian men in high status occupations were more likely to be in partnerships, which in turn was associated with a reduced likelihood of being childless. Those Australian findings also have a parallel in the U.K., in which men’s wealth was inversely related to the likelihood being childless. Thus, the social standing men garner through work impacts reproductive outcomes, linkages that suggest selection continues to operate on men. Not all men become fathers...
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-evolving-father/201311/non-dads-or-childless-men
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-evolving-father/201311/non-dads-or-childless-men
...For men, particularly amongst those who had experienced a broken marriage, it was the most ambitious, the highly educated and those in professional occupations who were relatively more likely to be childless.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=C6606415AA8596C6D9AD7D5F55877D3A.journals?fromPage=online&aid=1637204
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=C6606415AA8596C6D9AD7D5F55877D3A.journals?fromPage=online&aid=1637204
More childlessness
The percentage of men without children has increased in successive generations. One in six men born shortly after World War II does not have any children, compared with one in four born in the period 1960-1964.
Relatively fewer women than men are childless. One in five women born in the period 1960-1964 do not have any children. The number of childless women also increased by less. One reason for the higher childlessness among men is that more men remain single.
http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2010/2010-3135-wm.htm
The percentage of men without children has increased in successive generations. One in six men born shortly after World War II does not have any children, compared with one in four born in the period 1960-1964.
Relatively fewer women than men are childless. One in five women born in the period 1960-1964 do not have any children. The number of childless women also increased by less. One reason for the higher childlessness among men is that more men remain single.
http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2010/2010-3135-wm.htm
4/9/14 FED UP - Official Trailer
This is the movie the food industry doesn't want you to see. FED UP blows the lid off everything we thought we knew about food and weight loss, revealing a 30-year campaign by the food industry, aided by the U.S. government, to mislead and confuse the American public, resulting in one of the largest health epidemics in history. From Katie Couric, Laurie David (Oscar winning producer of AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH) and director Stephanie Soechtig, FED UP will change the way you eat forever.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-rally-in-european-government-debt-2014-5
The above chart tells one of the most important stories in the world of economics. It shows the yield on Italian 10-year bonds.
Not long ago, Italy was one of a handful of so-called "PIIGS" countries, peripheral European countries that investors were avoiding like the plague. Others in this category included Greece, Ireland, Spain, and Portugal. And even France made investors nervous. These countries had (and continue to have) high levels of government debt, and generally mediocre economies overall.
The fear was that the countries wouldn't be able to service their debt, and that they would possibly default and revert to their old currencies, leaving bond investors in the lurch.
But now look, Italian government bond yields are at their lowest levels in history. Not only has the trend reversed, the pendulum has swung far in the other direction. Investors are buying European government bonds like crazy.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-rally-in-european-government-debt-2014-5#ixzz31PGeQkmg
The above chart tells one of the most important stories in the world of economics. It shows the yield on Italian 10-year bonds.
Not long ago, Italy was one of a handful of so-called "PIIGS" countries, peripheral European countries that investors were avoiding like the plague. Others in this category included Greece, Ireland, Spain, and Portugal. And even France made investors nervous. These countries had (and continue to have) high levels of government debt, and generally mediocre economies overall.
The fear was that the countries wouldn't be able to service their debt, and that they would possibly default and revert to their old currencies, leaving bond investors in the lurch.
But now look, Italian government bond yields are at their lowest levels in history. Not only has the trend reversed, the pendulum has swung far in the other direction. Investors are buying European government bonds like crazy.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-rally-in-european-government-debt-2014-5#ixzz31PGeQkmg
http://www.businessinsider.com/increase-in-life-expectancy-2014-5
Here is something different, but it is important when looking at demographics ...
The following data is from the CDC United States Life Tables, 2009 by Elizabeth Arias released earlier this year.
The most frequently used life table statistic is life expectancy (ex), which is the average number of years of life remaining for persons who have attained a given age (x). ... Another way of assessing the longevity of the period life table cohort is by determining the proportion that survives to specified ages. ... To illustrate, 56,572 persons out of the original 2009 hypothetical life table cohort of 100,000 (or 56.6%) were alive at exact age 80. In other words, the probability that a person will survive from birth to age 80, given 2009 age-specific mortality, is 56.6%.
Instead of look at life expectancy, here is a graph of survivors out of 100,000 born alive, by age for three groups: those born in 1900-1902, born in 1949-1951 (baby boomers), and born in 2009.
There was a dramatic change between those born in 1900 (blue) and those born mid-century (orange). The risk of infant and early childhood deaths dropped sharply, and the risk of death in the prime working years also declined significantly.
Read more: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/05/the-projected-improvement-in-life.html#ixzz31PIROOXb
Here is something different, but it is important when looking at demographics ...
The following data is from the CDC United States Life Tables, 2009 by Elizabeth Arias released earlier this year.
The most frequently used life table statistic is life expectancy (ex), which is the average number of years of life remaining for persons who have attained a given age (x). ... Another way of assessing the longevity of the period life table cohort is by determining the proportion that survives to specified ages. ... To illustrate, 56,572 persons out of the original 2009 hypothetical life table cohort of 100,000 (or 56.6%) were alive at exact age 80. In other words, the probability that a person will survive from birth to age 80, given 2009 age-specific mortality, is 56.6%.
Instead of look at life expectancy, here is a graph of survivors out of 100,000 born alive, by age for three groups: those born in 1900-1902, born in 1949-1951 (baby boomers), and born in 2009.
There was a dramatic change between those born in 1900 (blue) and those born mid-century (orange). The risk of infant and early childhood deaths dropped sharply, and the risk of death in the prime working years also declined significantly.
Read more: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/05/the-projected-improvement-in-life.html#ixzz31PIROOXb
http://www.businessinsider.com/family-of-four-live-well-on-just-14000-per-year-2014-4
Jason and Danielle Wagasky
Danielle Wagasky, a stay-at-home wife and mother of two, has managed to stretch $14,000 a year to cover her family's needs for the past five years. That's less than a third of the $50,000 median household income in the U.S.
And, perhaps a little surprisingly, she wouldn't have it any other way.
Wagasky, 29, lives with her husband Jason, 32, and their two young children ages 9 and 7, in a three-bedroom family home in Henderson, Nevada. While Jason, a member of the U.S. Army, has been completing his undergraduate studies, the family's only source of income is the $14,000 annual cost of living allowance he receives under the G.I. Bill.
Despite all odds, the family has barely any credit debt, no car payment, and no mortgage to speak of.
Wagasky has been sharing her journey to living meaningfully and frugally on her blog, Blissful and Domestic, since 2009.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/family-of-four-live-well-on-just-14000-per-year-2014-4#ixzz31PK2hzUe
Jason and Danielle Wagasky
Danielle Wagasky, a stay-at-home wife and mother of two, has managed to stretch $14,000 a year to cover her family's needs for the past five years. That's less than a third of the $50,000 median household income in the U.S.
And, perhaps a little surprisingly, she wouldn't have it any other way.
Wagasky, 29, lives with her husband Jason, 32, and their two young children ages 9 and 7, in a three-bedroom family home in Henderson, Nevada. While Jason, a member of the U.S. Army, has been completing his undergraduate studies, the family's only source of income is the $14,000 annual cost of living allowance he receives under the G.I. Bill.
Despite all odds, the family has barely any credit debt, no car payment, and no mortgage to speak of.
Wagasky has been sharing her journey to living meaningfully and frugally on her blog, Blissful and Domestic, since 2009.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/family-of-four-live-well-on-just-14000-per-year-2014-4#ixzz31PK2hzUe
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/23567-mothers-behind-bars
An exterior view of The Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, in Wetumpka, Ala., Feb. 6, 2014. Corrections officers have raped, beaten and harrassed women inside the prison for at least 18 years, according to a Justice Department investigation, but the appetite for costly reform in Alabama appears minimal as conditions remain bad and prisoners are still fearful despite the investigation. (Bob Miller/The New York Times)
For mothers behind bars, the prison walls are held up with patriarchy, racism and poverty. Injustice is the mortar that holds together the bricks of the prison industrial complex and the handcuffs worn by female inmates are still tightly linked to the shackles of slavery and oppression.
A law passed by the New Jersey Legislature in February 1804 declared the children born to slave mothers to be "free" at birth, but they still remained bound as servants to their mother's owners until their 20s. Two hundred years later and true abolition has yet to take place with the continued racialized criminalization of poverty and mothers behind bars, whose children remain bound to generational cycles of trauma and discrimination.
The legacy of children being entangled in the repercussions of legislation continues as Republican Governor Bill Haslam passed a law last month in Tennessee criminalizing women for their pregnancy outcomes. The law, which will disproportionately affect already marginalized mothers, would make it a crime to carry a pregnancy to term if you struggle with addiction or substance abuse. The punitive prosecution of pregnant mothers, charging them with criminal assault rather than creating better access to health care, was a move opposed by major medical associations, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and the American Civil Liberties Union.
By passing this bill, Gov. Haslam has disregarded the best interests of babies, who, when separated from their mothers in prison, will be deprived of the benefits of breastfeeding, bonding and attachment, which we know lead to better health outcomes.
An exterior view of The Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, in Wetumpka, Ala., Feb. 6, 2014. Corrections officers have raped, beaten and harrassed women inside the prison for at least 18 years, according to a Justice Department investigation, but the appetite for costly reform in Alabama appears minimal as conditions remain bad and prisoners are still fearful despite the investigation. (Bob Miller/The New York Times)
For mothers behind bars, the prison walls are held up with patriarchy, racism and poverty. Injustice is the mortar that holds together the bricks of the prison industrial complex and the handcuffs worn by female inmates are still tightly linked to the shackles of slavery and oppression.
A law passed by the New Jersey Legislature in February 1804 declared the children born to slave mothers to be "free" at birth, but they still remained bound as servants to their mother's owners until their 20s. Two hundred years later and true abolition has yet to take place with the continued racialized criminalization of poverty and mothers behind bars, whose children remain bound to generational cycles of trauma and discrimination.
The legacy of children being entangled in the repercussions of legislation continues as Republican Governor Bill Haslam passed a law last month in Tennessee criminalizing women for their pregnancy outcomes. The law, which will disproportionately affect already marginalized mothers, would make it a crime to carry a pregnancy to term if you struggle with addiction or substance abuse. The punitive prosecution of pregnant mothers, charging them with criminal assault rather than creating better access to health care, was a move opposed by major medical associations, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and the American Civil Liberties Union.
By passing this bill, Gov. Haslam has disregarded the best interests of babies, who, when separated from their mothers in prison, will be deprived of the benefits of breastfeeding, bonding and attachment, which we know lead to better health outcomes.