![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/305\/2023\/03\/cranach-seal.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nSecond jobs; women as closet conservatives; and why does it take so long to build things anymore?<\/p>\n
Second Jobs<\/h4>\n
The economy added 303,000 jobs in March, according to recent headlines, a sure sign that Bidenomics is working and happy days are here again!<\/p>\n
Well, according to Joseph LoBue in the Federalist<\/a>, there is rather more to the story than that.\u00a0 There was no increase in the number of full-time jobs.\u00a0 In fact, in March there were 6,000 fewer<\/em> full-time jobs, part of a steady decline\u00a0 over the last four months, during which 1,787,000 fewer Americans found full-time employment.<\/p>\n The increase is due largely to part-time jobs.\u00a0 And 75% of these are second<\/em> jobs.\u00a0 Which means, according to LoBue, that<\/p>\n Under the Biden economy, the number of people who have had to simultaneously work\u00a0both<\/em>\u00a0a full-time job\u00a0and<\/em>\u00a0a second part-time job just to make ends meet has hovered at historical highs. In March, the number of people who added a second part-time job on top of their other full-time employment totaled 225,000. The Democrats\u2019 \u201cgood news\u201d is just you having to work longer and harder to survive.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Or, in the words of the title of his article, Biden Is Only \u2018Adding\u2019 Jobs Because Americans Need Extra Side Hustles To Make Ends Meet<\/a>.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a sign of Americans\u2019 work ethic and of the dynamism of the free market economy that \u201cside hustles\u201d are possible.\u00a0 I think of the Uber drivers that I increasingly rely upon.\u00a0 Is this phenomenon a manifestation of America as the \u201cland of opportunity\u201d or a sign of a dysfunctional economy?<\/p>\n I\u2019d be glad to hear from any of you who have taken on a \u201cside hustle.\u201d\u00a0 Are you doing that to get ahead, or just to make ends meet?<\/p>\n Women are far more likely than men to embrace progressive causes.\u00a0 And yet in private they tend to hold conservative views.<\/p>\n Kimberly Begg<\/a> writes about this paradox in the Federalist<\/em>:<\/p>\n Among all women (80 percent of whom did not identify as conservative): 79 percent think a stay-at-home mom is equal in success to women in a professional field; 74 percent think kids should have the opportunity to attend a school of their choice, regardless of zip code; 71 percent oppose transgender surgeries for minors; 68 percent plan to be married with at least one child by the time they\u2019re 30; 64 percent think hook-up culture is harmful to women; and 62 percent oppose men competing in women\u2019s sports.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And yet many women are hesitant to express what they really believe:<\/p>\n The KAConsulting survey reveals that 42 percent of all women conceal or downplay their views. Among these, 75 percent cite the desire to avoid conflict, and another 10 percent fear losing friends or family. Among self-identified conservative women, 50 percent conceal their views and, in addition to avoiding conflict, 10 percent fear \u201cbeing canceled\u201d and 9 percent fear a negative effect on their grades.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why is that?\u00a0 Beggs says, \u201cStudies show that young women spend more time on social media and are more likely to conform to a group than young men.\u201d\u00a0 The social media culture tends towards progressivism, and it is viciously hateful to dissenters.\u00a0 Beggs also cites \u201cwomen\u2019s prioritization of friendships and family relationships.\u201d\u00a0 They don\u2019t want to stir up conflicts or hurt anyone\u2019s feelings.<\/p>\n But surely in the privacy and anonymity of the voting booth women should be able to register what they really think.\u00a0 The conservatism found in this study is cultural conservatism, and it makes sense that women as custodians of the family and the bearers of children would be protectors of culture.\u00a0 But perhaps that doesn\u2019t always correlate with political<\/em> conservatism.\u00a0 The same protective impulses might translate into economic liberalism, believing that redistributing wealth would help people in need and that restricting gun ownership would make children more safe.\u00a0 And some convictions take priority over others.<\/p>\n How would you account for this?<\/p>\n After a huge cargo ship brought down the Francis Scott Key bridge in Baltimore, experts are saying that rebuilding it will likely take a decade, at the cost of up to $800 million.<\/p>\n Stephen Green<\/a> observes that this is twice as long as it took the first time to build the bridge some 50 years ago, at four times the cost.\u00a0 Back then the entire structure cost the equivalent of $200 million in inflation-adjusted dollars.<\/p>\n Such a long time frame is not unusual.\u00a0 He cites a civil engineering professor<\/a> who said, \u201cProjects that large take rarely less than 10 years.\u201d\u00a0 Another story<\/a> from the Associated Press, quotes the same engineer, Ben Shafer:<\/p>\n \u201cThe lead time on air conditioning equipment right now for a home renovation is like 16 months, right?\u201d Schafer said. He continued: \u201cSo it\u2019s like you\u2019re telling me they\u2019re going to build a whole bridge in two years? I want it to be true, but I think empirically it doesn\u2019t feel right to me.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Green notes that, by contrast, putting a man on the moon took seven and half years.\u00a0 The Hoover Dam took five years.\u00a0 And the Empire State Building only took one year.<\/p>\n Factors for the bridge rebuild taking so long, according to the AP story<\/a>, range from \u201cthe design of the new bridge to how swiftly government officials can navigate the bureaucracy of approving permits and awarding contracts.\u201d<\/p>\nWomen Tend to Be Closet Conservatives<\/h4>\n
Why Does It Take So Long to Build Things Anymore?<\/h4>\n