The working class is getting royally screwed.

percent of income means less because as the income of some elites rises they don't necessarily spend more for these basic categories.

this can obscure purchasing power being down.

bottom line, abandon percent of income analysis to get to the meat of it.
 
Flash said:
Based on what? Perceptions don't always equal reality.
Click to expand...

purchasing power.

plus, in addition. past performance is no indicator of future success. that's the fine print on globalist stupidity. a tsunami of inflation is spotted on the horizon.

the villagers are in the mountain banging the ancestral drum.
 
AssHatZombie said:
purchasing power.

plus, in addition. past performance is no indicator of future success. that's the fine print on globalist stupidity. a tsunami of inflation is spotted on the horizon.

the villagers are in the mountain banging the ancestral drum.
Click to expand...

How are you measuring purchasing power?
 
Mina said:
Is there a particular fact I shared that you're disputing, or does "full of shit" for you mean less "wrong about the facts" and more "hurtful to my feelings"?



No. I think the key difference is compassion. Many liberals, like me, have been economically successful, but we see that as coming with a moral obligation to pay it forward to others, to increase their chances to be successful, too. I think the conservative mindset is more like "well, I made it across that bridge, so it's time to burn it to the ground, so nobody uses it to overtake me."

As for Massachusetts being conservative, I suppose it depends on what you call conservative versus liberal. In the very traditional sense of the word "conservative," you could call Massachusetts conservative since it's full of people who favor policies that conserve our natural resources, for example, and people who favor taking a cautious approach when it comes to burdening the environment with pollutants. In that traditional sense, the radicals are those right-wingers in a rush to burn up all our fossil fuels and dump that into the air, blindly taking our chances with climate change.

However, in the sense that "conservative" is generally used in the US, Massachusetts is about as far from conservative as communities get here. It's a state that has voted for a Democrat for president in all but two elections in the last 60 years (even when a home-grown Republican, Romney, was on the ballot). It's a state where over 90% of the senate is Democrat, along with over 80% of the lower house of the legislature, and that hard tilt left has continued year after year for decades. It's a state where the biggest city hasn't elected a Republican mayor in about a century. It's a state that sends Congress members to Washington who routinely rank among the most liberal in the country. For example, Voteview's rank ordering by actual votes put Warren as the most liberal senator in the last session, while Markey was 5th-most liberal. Even the most conservative member of Massachusetts's Congressional delegation, Moulton is more liberal than 60% of the House.

https://voteview.com/congress/senate

It's a state that was first in the nation to embrace gay marriage. It's a state where Trump lost every county in both the elections, and where Biden demolished him by over 30 points. It's a state where even the leading Republicans, like Charlie Baker, tend to be pro-choice, pro-environmentalism, pro-gun-control, and anti-Trump

https://www.boston.com/news/politic...achusettss-strict-gun-laws-as-national-model/

If that's "conservative," then it would be great if there were more "conservative Republicans" in this country.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt you have been "economically" successful Mina. Unless that is what you consider being on public assistance.
 
Sailor said:
I highly doubt you have been "economically" successful Mina. Unless that is what you consider being on public assistance.
Click to expand...

I've worked for a living ever since getting out of school. How about you? I had you pegged for someone living off the Social Security dole and other forms of public assistance like Medicare. No?
 
Mina said:
I've worked for a living ever since getting out of school. How about you? I had you pegged for someone living off the Social Security dole and other forms of public assistance like Medicare. No?
Click to expand...

Your daily romps to the pickle park are not really considered work Mina.
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
That same lag time would apply to reductions in poverty; therefore, using reductions would not apply to the first year or two but could be attributed to the previous president.

That is my main point--trying to use these stats to demonstrate which party is "better" is unreliable and subject to too many variables. Using decrease in poverty (and teen birth rate) are different when using the average during each president and the percent of decrease. Then, lag time has not been considered. Then, if a president starts with a high number and it declines to the average level it will give him a large decrease. None of which are attributable to any policies he implemented.
Click to expand...

Yes, except is plain that Democrat policies favor the working class while Republican policies favor the rich.

Democrats approve of collective bargaining while Republicans always try to kill it.

And it is common knowledge that an individual attempting to bargain with a giant corporation is not apt to get very far.
 
Sailor said:
Not at all. Just pointing out a fact. You may go now.
Click to expand...

Still dodging it, I see. It's funny how cowardly people can be, even online. You'd think that if you were ever able to find your balls, it would be here. Well, keep looking and maybe they'll turn up.
 
Mina said:
Still dodging it, I see. It's funny how cowardly people can be, even online. You'd think that if you were ever able to find your balls, it would be here. Well, keep looking and maybe they'll turn up.
Click to expand...

Yawn. Nothing worse than a typical uneducated, limpwristed liberal muttering to itself.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,

Yes, except is plain that Democrat policies favor the working class while Republican policies favor the rich.

Democrats approve of collective bargaining while Republicans always try to kill it.

And it is common knowledge that an individual attempting to bargain with a giant corporation is not apt to get very far.
Click to expand...

Yet, the working class votes more Republican while upper income vote more Democratic or are more evenly divided. I think one reason is because many Democrats (as illustrated by JPP) look down on the white working class without college degrees; especially those from the South. You are not going to attract voters by calling them "deplorables."

I'm not arguing whether or not this is an accurate description, only that it is not going to get their votes.

"...since 2012, nonwhite working class voters have shifted away from the Democrats by 18 margin points, with a particularly sharp shift in the last election and particularly among Hispanics

Data since the 2020 election confirm a pattern of declining Democratic support among the nonwhite working class. Put another way: education polarization, it’s not just for white voters anymore. As a result, Democratic strength among the multiracial working class continues to weaken."

https://theliberalpatriot.substack.com/p/the-democrats-working-class-voter?s=r
 
Mina said:
That would be a reasonable way to look at it if people generally bought houses with cash. But they don't. They finance it, so the cost of the house is the cost of the mortgage for it. As you can see with my calculations, in terms of what the actual housing cost is for buying a median home today, it's far lower as a share of income than it was 40 years ago.



Try rereading. I proved the opposite.



You said "far more of Americans' income goes to housing and food costs per month than 40 years ago." That was the claim I was responding to. If you want to add fuel as a cost, we can do that. Let's look at costs per mile for a typical car.

In 1982, gas was $1.22 per gallon and the average light duty vehicle got 16.9 miles to the gallon. $0.072 per mile, approximately. Right now gas is $4.60/gallon, and the average light duty car gets 25.7 mpg. So, $0.179 per mile. So, with a median 1982 income, you could afford to pay for 325,458 miles. With a median income today, you can afford to pay 469,318. So, fuel's more affordable today, too.
Click to expand...

In the first place you used the median income when I was referring to basic income.

Not too many get out of high school and start making.... "$38K" a year, I believe you said it was?

Maybe I wasn't specific enough.

Back in the day, if you were willing to hustle, you could graduate High school and work and make it.

That may be possible today, but there's at least one weeks' worth of income they don't get to keep like people in the past could.

Using the "median income" is folly when working class incomes are conflated with 6 and 7 digit CEO salaries, which is exactly what you did.

Did you look up what the average basic income was in 1982? Hmm?

It was probably about $120-$140/wk. Look up how much minimum wage was then and multiply by 40.

$3.35 was minimum wage in 1982. $134/ wk for 40 hours. Before taxes.

https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/items/1982-united-states-minimum-wage

A proper comparison would be minimum wage today vs. median rent prices today, factoring in the food prices as well and comparing it to minimum wage then and rent prices and cost of food then.

I can do that, but it's apparent you're more proficient at doing things like that than me. IF you'd like to make an honest comparison in search of the truth, you could.

The bottom line is people just starting out are getting hosed today compared to previous years in America.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top