Just Left The Waffle House

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

You are flat wrong. In the 50s (and I was there) a very large majority of families lived on the fathers income. Mom stayed home and took care of the home & kids. You couldn't possibly be over 60 or you would know how wrong you are. The two income family is a result of inflation and Americans' desire for a higher standard of living. The destruction of the nuclear family (largely as a result of government welfare policies) has created a class of under educated unskilled workers with no prospects for a better life.

Your own memories don't reflect reality. In 1966, 40% of American women were earning a wage according to this link. And that doesn't include students, retired women, and yes, housewives. Take this chart which measures women as a % of total people in the work force and remember, women account for about 50.1% of the total population:



What does this tell you? That even in your idyllic 50's, more than 30% of women were working outside the home, meaning 60% or more of all women eligible to work (i.e. not students, retirees, or otherwise incapable), held down jobs. By 1975, that number was about 80%.

Leave it to Beaver represented only a small portion of true Americana, and certainly not minorities in the 1950's. If you want good read on the history of the American family through the years, I say start with this one.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

You can't have a free market system if you don't repeal the requirement for hospitals to treat people with life-threatening emergencies. So are you willing to have people die due to the lack of ability to pay or do you not really want a free market system?

All markets are regulated to some degree. I am saying triage the ER and eliminate all trivial cases. I'll give you a real life example. Medicare allows for 60 days of nursing home care for a patient coming out of the hospital. When a patient (usually elderly) is approaching the 60th day the nursing staff at the nursing home will "discover" that Mrs. Smith isn't breathing properly (wink wink) and call an ambulance to take her to the ER. Mrs. Smith gets admitted to the hospital and several days later, when she is found to be breathing properly after all, she is discharged back to the nursing home and Medicare pays for another 60 days. ER physicians call them GOOMERs which stands for Get Out Of My ER. As a tax payer you are paying for this nonsense.

[malligator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Well, in the example you gave, it's still demonstrably lower (by evaluative purposes) ability. I think it's unfair to say those standards are arbitrary without being able to specifically qualify that.

I'll take a kid that gets a 3.5 in this:

http://www.ece.ufl.edu/academics/und...s/bsee2012.htm

Over a kid that gets a 4.0 in this:

http://www.advising.ufl.edu/prehealt...neTimeline.pdf


But what do I know? I didn't get a 4.0 in engineering school so I'm really not smart enough to judge doctors.

Although, I'll admit a lot of engineers would be better research doctors. Many are...how should I put this...socially awkward.

[GataBaitx3]

Originally Posted by malligator

I'll take a kid that gets a 3.5 in this:

http://www.ece.ufl.edu/academics/und...s/bsee2012.htm

Over a kid that gets a 4.0 in this:

http://www.advising.ufl.edu/prehealt...neTimeline.pdf

But what do I know? I didn't get a 4.0 in engineering school so I'm really not smart enough to judge doctors.

My gf had a 3.25 in ECE.

[Gatormb]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

The food at WH is surprisingly good and affordable if you don't mind the "ambiance". lol

Scattered, smothered, covered and topped (with Bert's Chile). Good enough for Lewis Grizzard, good enough for me!

[Gatormb]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I went to a Waffle House once with my wife when visiting Tampa. That is the last time we will every walk into a WH. Not a good experience

Southern franchise. Must have recognized the accent.

I kid.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Your own memories don't reflect reality. In 1966, 40% of American women were earning a wage according to this link. And that doesn't include students, retired women, and yes, housewives. Take this chart which measures women as a % of total people in the work force and remember, women account for about 50.1% of the total population:



What does this tell you? That even in your idyllic 50's, more than 30% of women were working outside the home, meaning 60% or more of all women eligible to work (i.e. not students, retirees, or otherwise incapable), held down jobs. By 1975, that number was about 80%.

Leave it to Beaver represented only a small portion of true Americana, and certainly not minorities in the 1950's. If you want good read on the history of the American family through the years, I say start with this one.

Nothing you have posted refutes what I said. Your own numbers reveal that in the 50s 70% of mothers were still in the home raising their children. The homemakers started to go to work in the 1960s and the trend has increased ever since. As the culture has collapsed morally and economically and Americans have chased materialism women have chosen or been forced to enter the work force. Were it not for the current requirement for two incomes to support the average family mom would be home with the kids and unemployment would disappear. Wages would also rise as the smaller workforce would be in greater demand. Yes we had a more conservative lifestyle in the fifties but we were a happier and safer society. We have sacrificed a great deal to chase the materialistic lifestyle of today.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by malligator

I'll take a kid that gets a 3.5 in this:

http://www.ece.ufl.edu/academics/und...s/bsee2012.htm

Over a kid that gets a 4.0 in this:

http://www.advising.ufl.edu/prehealt...neTimeline.pdf


But what do I know? I didn't get a 4.0 in engineering school so I'm really not smart enough to judge doctors.

Although, I'll admit a lot of engineers would be better research doctors. Many are...how should I put this...socially awkward.

I think you're getting caught up in the perception of "smart."

Being great at an engineering field does not make one "smart" in the general sense that they'd inherently be good at medicine. A 4.0 is a reflection not just of the material, but also the student's devotion to said material. I'd take a 4.0 in anything mildly medically related in a doctor over a 3.5 in interstellar physics. When my heart's failing, you're ability to ace space-time theorem is wholly uninteresting to me.

People who decide what could make a great doctor don't do so on a whim, and I think it's unfair to judge those criteria from afar.

[QGator2414]

While gpa does explain some things it certainly does not explain who you would want performing medical procedures on you. You can have a 4.0 student that has limited ability wrt dexterity and ability to perform delicate procedures...

[vertigo0923]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

Nothing you have posted refutes what I said. Your own numbers reveal that in the 50s 70% of mothers were still in the home raising their children. The homemakers started to go to work in the 1960s and the trend has increased ever since. As the culture has collapsed morally and economically and Americans have chased materialism women have chosen or been forced to enter the work force. Were it not for the current requirement for two incomes to support the average family mom would be home with the kids and unemployment would disappear. Wages would also rise as the smaller workforce would be in greater demand. Yes we had a more conservative lifestyle in the fifties but we were a happier and safer society. We have sacrificed a great deal to chase the materialistic lifestyle of today.

a lot of people were totally screwed over in the fifties. LOTS of people. it was certainly not any kind of utopia.

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

Nothing you have posted refutes what I said. Your own numbers reveal that in the 50s 70% of mothers were still in the home raising their children. The homemakers started to go to work in the 1960s and the trend has increased ever since. As the culture has collapsed morally and economically and Americans have chased materialism women have chosen or been forced to enter the work force. Were it not for the current requirement for two incomes to support the average family mom would be home with the kids and unemployment would disappear. Wages would also rise as the smaller workforce would be in greater demand. Yes we had a more conservative lifestyle in the fifties but we were a happier and safer society. We have sacrificed a great deal to chase the materialistic lifestyle of today.

You misread the chart. Even in the 1950's, over 30% of the work force were women. That does not mean 30% of women were working, but rather out of 100 workers, about 33 were female. So take 10 married couples in the 50's and assume every male worked. Now, to get to over 30% female work participation, 1/2 of the married women would also be working. 5 out of 15 (1 in 3) of the total work force were women, even in the 1950s.

Yes I know this is a little too simplistic and doesn't take married women versus unmarried into account. But then again, assuming 100% male employment is also fallacious. Fact is, majority of lower class American households have always been duel income. As have no less then 50% of middle class households. Your romanticism and Leave it to Beaver ideals have never been the norm.

[neisgator]

Originally Posted by magnafides

Ok, that makes sense. It's okay, we can always trust businesses to do the right thing, I'm sure that they'll reverse their decision to help that poor lady.

Well the decrease isn't really a decrease.
You know, just like the tax increase really isn't an increase.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

You misread the chart. Even in the 1950's, over 30% of the work force were women. That does not mean 30% of women were working, but rather out of 100 workers, about 33 were female. So take 10 married couples in the 50's and assume every male worked. Now, to get to over 30% female work participation, 1/2 of the married women would also be working. 5 out of 15 (1 in 3) of the total work force were women, even in the 1950s.

Yes I know this is a little too simplistic and doesn't take married women versus unmarried into account. But then again, assuming 100% male employment is also fallacious. Fact is, majority of lower class American households have always been duel income. As have no less then 50% of middle class households. Your romanticism and Leave it to Beaver ideals have never been the norm.

Gee Az, are you always this rough on the Beaver? I like how you throw around superlatives like "never" and "always". It must be neat to wear that smugness with such ease. Your math is a farce. Here are the statistics from the Bureau of Labor for 1950. It shows that 7 out of 10 jobs were held by men and 3 out of 10 were held by women. That means that 70% of women were in the home. The "norm" for 1950 was dad at work, mom at home. There are no figures for minorities and I suspect that many more women in that group were working. Having lived in that era I can tell you that at least in small town America we felt safe and crime was very rare. I'll take low unemployment and safe towns any day of the week.

[MastaG8r]

I can't relate. I live in Miami-Dade County. Crack houses yes. Waffle Houses no. Not a single one!

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

I can't relate. I live in Miami-Dade County. Crack houses yes. Waffle Houses no. Not a single one!

The WH here is quite good. I can't speak for the crack houses.

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

Gee Az, are you always this rough on the Beaver? I like how you throw around superlatives like "never" and "always". It must be neat to wear that smugness with such ease. Your math is a farce. Here are the statistics from the Bureau of Labor for 1950. It shows that 7 out of 10 jobs were held by men and 3 out of 10 were held by women. That means that 70% of women were in the home. The "norm" for 1950 was dad at work, mom at home. There are no figures for minorities and I suspect that many more women in that group were working. Having lived in that era I can tell you that at least in small town America we felt safe and crime was very rare. I'll take low unemployment and safe towns any day of the week.

Statistics lesson again, wargun. Approximately twice as many males as females in the workforce. That does not mean 66% all of men and 33% of all women were working, because we know male employment was over 90%. Let's look at 20 married couples and assume 19 out of the 20 men were working (95%). For women to then represent 30% of the total work force, you need at least 8 of the women working (8 women and 19 men working). That's nearly 40% of all women in the work force.

If you look at class, you see that the overwhelming majority of 1950's upper class women were not working. Remove the majority of them from the equation and the amount of women in the work force from middle and lower class households was around 50%.

Your memories from years gone by is a nice piece of nostalgia, but doesn't represent reality, especially for lower class families. If you were poor in the 1950's, your life didn't look like the Beaves'. And even in the middle class, good chance that if you mother didn't work, at least one of the your next door neighbors had a working mother. And by the 1960's, the number of working women only went up.

To quote someone else born in 1949, "The good old days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems" --Billy Joel

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Medical malpractice costs account for less than 3% of medical costs.

My understanding is the true cost of the malpractice threat is that doctors are running tons of normally unnecessary tests just to make sure that they don't leave a stone unturned that could leave them open to a malpractice case.

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by Gatormb

Scattered, smothered, covered and topped (with Bert's Chile). Good enough for Lewis Grizzard, good enough for me!

I get mine all the way and make it a double for 25 cents more!

[DaveFla]

Originally Posted by enviroGator

My understanding is the true cost of the malpractice threat is that doctors are running tons of normally unnecessary tests just to make sure that they don't leave a stone unturned that could leave them open to a malpractice case.

It is. But it's much easier to simply ignore that fact, and build a strawman argument in its place.

[dynogator]

Businesses have been cutting employees back to part-time status for years. Now they have can accelerate the trend, and blame it on Obama and insurance.