An Elizabeth Warren Quote Spreading On Social Media; Any Brainy Responses?

[BULLDOG]

Very true

And the American worker is the most productive on earth and has little to show for it
Where once a single wage earner could support a family, now two wage earners struggle to maintain the same standard of living

But go ahead and blame lazy workers

The standard of living is not a constant. The modern standard of living for today's American family, even for the "poor", is higher than its ever been. Much of this is due advancements in technology. We have lots of stuff today to make life easier that we didn't have just a few years ago.

A single wage earner today can easily support a family today at a 1950's standard of living. Own only one car, live in a small house with only one restroom, no computer, no cable TV or Internet, no air condition, low heating bill because of the small house. The wife stays home to take care of the kids so the family is not paying for daycare. The wife also pinches the pennies when shopping for food and cloths. The kids don't get tons of toys that they break quickly and get thrown away. I could go on and on.

No question my grandfather could not afford a computer or a cell phone

But he worked as a painter going to muster every day to pick up work. He was able to afford a house, a new car every seven years, healthcare and a retirement at 60.

A standard today's worker can't match

Houses in those days were half the size of modern houses. The didn't have granite counter tops, side-by-side refrigerators, chef style gas ranges, crown molding, brick pavers or swimming pools. Your father's new car didn't have air-conditioning, power windows, power door locks, ABS breaks, airbags, cruise control, premium sound, GPS or leather upholstery. Right up until the day he died my father bought cars without any these modern contrivances (except for the airbags) because he considered them to be extravagant luxuries.

Are you trying to say the working poor are poor because they have spent all their money on the things you listed? You see how stupid that is, don't you?

I think that the standard of who is considered "poor" is constantly being redefined. There will always be a bottom 10% of income earners. However, the bottom 10% today have much more stuff than the bottom 10% in earlier generations. However, people are getting upset because they can't keep up with the Jones ( the jones work on Wall Street by the way).

Worrying about feeding your kids and supplying a roof and healthcare on starvation wages is hardly just a matter of "Keeping up with the Jones's"

 

[Papageorgio]

Apple made 18 billion in the last quarter manufacturing at rock bottom wages overseas. Why is that a good thing?

"The Good Thing" is that as a result of the lower manufacturing cost, Apple's products are within the means of MOST PEOPLE to BUY THEM, thus MOST PEOPLE can receive the benefit that those products represent to them.

We call this THE NATURAL ORDER OF ECONOMICS, OKA: Capitalism.

They made 18 BILLION IN PROFIT in the quarter. What if they only made 9 billion, and the other half went to better wages,

even to wages high enough to bring decent jobs back to the US? Where's the harm?

There is no harm, but the liberal management doesn't want to do that, it is their choice. They could lower their prices also, but they chose not to do that. Liberal companies, such as Apple, Microsoft, GE and GM seem to be profit driven, just like conservative companies.

They are all greedy, they all seek government subsidies and exclusion of taxes, and laws that will benefit them. That is why I don't buy the liberal bullshit thar Warren spews, she is one of them, she even lied to get her education subsidized and has no remorse.

 

[bripat9643]

Houses in those days were half the size of modern houses. The didn't have granite counter tops, side-by-side refrigerators, chef style gas ranges, crown molding, brick pavers or swimming pools. Your father's new car didn't have air-conditioning, power windows, power door locks, ABS breaks, airbags, cruise control, premium sound, GPS or leather upholstery. Right up until the day he died my father bought cars without any these modern contrivances (except for the airbags) because he considered them to be extravagant luxuries.

Are you trying to say the working poor are poor because they have spent all their money on the things you listed? You see how stupid that is, don't you?

I'm telling you the poor are much wealthier now than they were 50 years ago. They all have cell phones, flat screen TVs, cable and air conditioning.

So now you are trying to say the poor are affluent. Another brain dead teabagger who believes all the right wing lies no matter how much reality shows him he is wrong. Did you make an active choice to be so ignorant, or is that just the best you can do?

Compared to the poor in 1950, yes, they are affluent. The definition of "affluent" has changed over the years, obviously.

So what does that have to do with what is considered affluent today?

You and your Komrades whined that the poor are worse off than they were 50 years ago. To prove that you have to compare their current living conditions with their living conditions 50 years ago.

How do you propose to demonstrate they are worse off?

 

[JoeMoma]

They pay more in taxes now than they did then, and spending on all of these services has increased in real dollars.

So, once again, how did cutting marginal tax rates harm the middle class?

Weak.....very weak

What percent of their income do they pay now compared to then?

Total dollars unadjusted for inflation and increased wealth is deceptive and you know it

What difference does it make what the percentage is? The bottom line is that they pay a larger share of total income taxes.

Once again....weak, very weak

That larger share is due to the immensely larger piece of the pie that they are taking

The people at the bottom are also receiving more in wages than they did 50 years ago, so who gives a fuck what share the top 1% is earning?

Is this just an act or are you fucking stupid?

Comparing wages to 50 years ago?

What is fucking stupid is using the "keeping up with the jones" method to define how bad off todays poor is rather than comparing today's poor to the poor of the past.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

They're jobs overseas. You people are dense.

So you feel then, that Apple should bring their manufacturing back to the United States, where they would pay the labor costs associated with such.

Now let me ask you, what percentage of the costs of US Manufacturing is relevant to overseas labor?

Let's say that its 50% of US Labor costs. (It's actually much less...)

Now I just paid $900 for an Apple iPhone 6 Plus. You're saying that that phone should have cost me $1350...

Hmm.... Now I waited for quite a while before I ungraded my phone, but over that time, having seen others using that phone, I found certain advantages to that device over the one I was using... and finally decided to pop for it. (Love it BTW...).

You're saying that where the phone was 50% more expensive, that it would provide US Citizens the benefit.

But, where it was more expensive, I'm sure you'd agree that fewer people would buy it, thus I would not have had the experience of seeing as many examples of that phone set against the phone I had... thus likely would not have realized the benefit and likely; again, I'm sure you'll agree... I would not have had the information which would have lead me to purchase mine.

So fewer phones would have sold... thus fewer US Citizens would be needed to build them, and with fewer sales, it's likely the fewer resources would be available for research, design and so fourth, so we're ONCE AGAIN: Looking at serious dimensioning returns where we consider the product of LEFT-THINK!

WOW~ You people are SO consistent!

 

[bripat9643]

The American working/middle class over the last 50 years went from the one earner household being the norm to the two earner household being the norm - mostly out of necessity.

Why is that better?

Taxation, due to the cost of sustaining the US Federal, State and Local Government has forced bot adults to work. Because the monies stripped from their earnings through all taxation, now consumes more than 50% of each earners check. Now this is a very complex calculus... but extrapolate from the data, what happens when two people are at issue; wherein one person used to earn 100%, but today that one person nets half as much as one person used to earn.

GO!

That's false.

Your graph doesn't take into consideration that many of the deductions that existed in 1980 are no longer on the books.

 

[rightwinger]

Weak.....very weak

What percent of their income do they pay now compared to then?

Total dollars unadjusted for inflation and increased wealth is deceptive and you know it

What difference does it make what the percentage is? The bottom line is that they pay a larger share of total income taxes.

Once again....weak, very weak

That larger share is due to the immensely larger piece of the pie that they are taking

The people at the bottom are also receiving more in wages than they did 50 years ago, so who gives a fuck what share the top 1% is earning?

Is this just an act or are you fucking stupid?

Comparing wages to 50 years ago?

I thought that's what all you dumb fucks were whining about, how people earn less than 50 years ago.

I compared standard of living

 

[JoeMoma]

Very few working Americans can afford McMansions with swimming pools, granite counters, two thousand dollar ranges and crown molding

They are more concerned with paying the rent, rising healthcare costs and maybe sending their kids to college

Have you shopped for a home these days? Those items are considered "must haves." They are standard on most new homes.

If someone were to contract to build a house like most middle class houses of the 1950s today, if would be considered a shack.

Or a double wide

A double wide would probably have more square feet of living area than the average house of the fifties.

lol, so that's your measure? The American working class needs to stay in the 1950's so the richer can get even richer?

No. It's showing that both the "poor" and the "rich" are getting richer.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What is fucking stupid is using the "keeping up with the jones" method to define how bad off todays poor is rather than comparing today's poor to the poor of the past.

So the poor of the past didn't desire to have the cool things that someone else had?

Just to be clear, you're speaking of "Human beings", right?

 

[bripat9643]

What difference does it make what the percentage is? The bottom line is that they pay a larger share of total income taxes.

Once again....weak, very weak

That larger share is due to the immensely larger piece of the pie that they are taking

The people at the bottom are also receiving more in wages than they did 50 years ago, so who gives a fuck what share the top 1% is earning?

Is this just an act or are you fucking stupid?

Comparing wages to 50 years ago?

I thought that's what all you dumb fucks were whining about, how people earn less than 50 years ago.

I compared standard of living

I already demonstrated that their standard of living is considerably better now than it was 50 years ago.

 

[JoeMoma]

The standard of living is not a constant. The modern standard of living for today's American family, even for the "poor", is higher than its ever been. Much of this is due advancements in technology. We have lots of stuff today to make life easier that we didn't have just a few years ago.

A single wage earner today can easily support a family today at a 1950's standard of living. Own only one car, live in a small house with only one restroom, no computer, no cable TV or Internet, no air condition, low heating bill because of the small house. The wife stays home to take care of the kids so the family is not paying for daycare. The wife also pinches the pennies when shopping for food and cloths. The kids don't get tons of toys that they break quickly and get thrown away. I could go on and on.

No question my grandfather could not afford a computer or a cell phone

But he worked as a painter going to muster every day to pick up work. He was able to afford a house, a new car every seven years, healthcare and a retirement at 60.

A standard today's worker can't match

Houses in those days were half the size of modern houses. The didn't have granite counter tops, side-by-side refrigerators, chef style gas ranges, crown molding, brick pavers or swimming pools. Your father's new car didn't have air-conditioning, power windows, power door locks, ABS breaks, airbags, cruise control, premium sound, GPS or leather upholstery. Right up until the day he died my father bought cars without any these modern contrivances (except for the airbags) because he considered them to be extravagant luxuries.

Are you trying to say the working poor are poor because they have spent all their money on the things you listed? You see how stupid that is, don't you?

I think that the standard of who is considered "poor" is constantly being redefined. There will always be a bottom 10% of income earners. However, the bottom 10% today have much more stuff than the bottom 10% in earlier generations. However, people are getting upset because they can't keep up with the Jones ( the jones work on Wall Street by the way).

Worrying about feeding your kids and supplying a roof and healthcare on starvation wages is hardly just a matter of "Keeping up with the Jones's"

It is when bellyaching about how much someone on Wall Street makes rather than taking steps to improve one's own skills and education to be able to earn a higher wage.

 

[JoeMoma]

What is fucking stupid is using the "keeping up with the jones" method to define how bad off todays poor is rather than comparing today's poor to the poor of the past.

So the poor of the past didn't desire to have the cool things that someone else had?

Just to be clear, you're speaking of "Human beings", right?

Of course the poor of the past desired the stuff that richer people of the past could afford.
I am not going to tie my happiness about how much I've prospered to how much someone else prospers. If I'm twice as well off as I used to be, I'm not going to get mad because Bob makes 10 times as much money as I do.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What is fucking stupid is using the "keeping up with the jones" method to define how bad off todays poor is rather than comparing today's poor to the poor of the past.

So the poor of the past didn't desire to have the cool things that someone else had?

Just to be clear, you're speaking of "Human beings", right?

Of course the poor of the past desired the stuff that richer people of the past could afford.
I am not going to tie my happiness about how much I've prospered to how much someone else prospers. If I'm twice as well off as I used to be, I'm not going to get mad because Bob makes 10 times as much money as I do.

Oh I agree... I was just using your post to leverage a point. You're doin' great.

 

[rightwinger]

Once again....weak, very weak

That larger share is due to the immensely larger piece of the pie that they are taking

The people at the bottom are also receiving more in wages than they did 50 years ago, so who gives a fuck what share the top 1% is earning?

Is this just an act or are you fucking stupid?

Comparing wages to 50 years ago?

I thought that's what all you dumb fucks were whining about, how people earn less than 50 years ago.

I compared standard of living

I already demonstrated that their standard of living is considerably better now than it was 50 years ago.

That stupid post about McMansions?

 

[JimH52]

WOW! Bonuses like that to the Uber-Rich probably make the repubs very happy!

 

[Plasmaball]

It should be illegal for companies to hand out bonuses the way they see fit?



You know what? This is not about any of that. This is about a democrat going to their cliches.

Class warfare
Race dividing
Gender dividing

We all know the fake native American (who somehow does not offend the hypocrite moron Lakota) points these things out in order to appeal to the large voting block.

Typical of democrats. That is all they have. Democrats are hypocrites about everything, and their constituency fall for it every time.

So, let us know what socialist utopian solution that is proposed from the fake lying Indian on how to stop companies from handing out bonuses the way they see it.

Class warfare
Race dividing
Gender dividing
theses are talking points from the right ... trying to convince their fellow republicans that this is what's happening .... this is what they want them to believe ...dodge the reality of things ... tell their followers that there is a class warfare, there is the dividing of races ...their is gender dividing ... these fools buy it hook line and sinker the are their worse best friends ...

Yeah, you are too brainwashed to see how your socialist party manipulates you.

To prove that you are nothing but a shill for the utopian democrats, why dont you tell us why companies cannot hand out bonuses the way they see fit. Should that be illegal in your socialist world? The government should disperse money but private companies can't. Got it.

not at all, but dont coming crying to me when you crash the economy again because you are doing the same practices as last time.

 

[JoeMoma]

WOW! Bonuses like that to the Uber-Rich probably make the repubs very happy!

Does this mean you will not be voting for a woman that gets 300K or more for giving a speech.

 

[rightwinger]

WOW! Bonuses like that to the Uber-Rich probably make the repubs very happy!

Does this mean you will not be voting for a woman that gets 300K or more for giving a speech.

She is also willing to increase the amount of taxes she pays on that $300K

Something Republicans aren't

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

WOW! Bonuses like that to the Uber-Rich probably make the repubs very happy!

Does this mean you will not be voting for a woman that gets 300K or more for giving a speech.

She is also willing to increase the amount of taxes she pays on that $300K

Something Republicans aren't

And that is relevant to what?

How does that help anyone? And I am speaking of the total culture... from her up?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... dont coming crying to me when you crash the economy again because you are doing the same practices as last time.

So you're saying that your opposition is demanding that sound, actuarial lending principle, be replaced by a perverse notion of 'Fairness', which will inevitably force a run on long term debt, driving up the value of the real property that secures that debt, just as inevitably driving the values of such beyond the means of the market to sustain those levels crashing all subsequent industries supporting such?

Seriously?

LOL! Folks, you cannot make this crap up... .