I lost 20 pounds the last year or two by not eating thanks to the booming economy.
I'm down 40ish in a year. I mean, it's weight I've been trying desperately without success to lose for years, but eventually I'm going to run out. And then when it's 3am on a Tuesday and I'm lying awake mentally working through my budget for the 11th time that week I go "I've been stressed and skipped meals before and never lost weight, do I have cancer? Because I really can't afford that."
Wow, lucky! /s
When the economy is bad, prices go up, wages stay low and we get fucked. When the economy is good, prices go up, wages stay low and we get fucked.
Seriously fuck the economy, it only benefits the 1% so why should I care? That's why you do the minimum the your job requires, don't ever give extra, don't be a "team player", cause come pay time there is no team
Well, many conflate the economy with the stock market. To me, If wages are flat and people are hurting, the economy is not good. The stock market may look good, but if the middle class isn’t growing from the bottom the economy sucks. Like right now.
That's why you do the minimum the your job requires, don't ever give extra, don't be a "team player", cause come pay time there is no team
I learnt that the hard way.
But you can donate sick pay to a coworker who got attacked in a home invasion, or hurt in a car accident or needed a life saving surgery! You can even donate to a fundraiser for a coworker run by an employer announcing double the profits of 33 years ago and paying for fewer benefits than ever.
I wish I knew what planet you're living in where you think our generation has it good
Poster offered up evidence. You've just attacked them. It's clear who has more faith in their position. It's clear who arguing with their reason and which is arguing with their emotions.
While I agree that people in social media users have biases and ignore even a reputable evidence, but with economics though, it's complicated. One economic metric alone is sometimes not enough, has limitations and therefore doesn't give the full picture. I don't know much about purchasing power parity to comment on it, but the best example I can give is on GDP or gross domestic product. A country that has high GDP in let's say, $100 billion, shows that the country is rich. That implies that the population in that country are also also wealthy enough, right? Not really. If the GDP per capita/person is in $1,000 in that country, as opposed to US's of over $60,000, then the people in that country are not affluent enough.
Immense wealth is nothing if they're not distributed equitably. The higher purchasing power of Americans is taken on average but does not take into account that certain areas do not have higher purchasing power. California would have higher purchasing power as opposed to rural folks in the Rust Belt. And the latter are Trump supporters for a reason.
I agree with your point, but don't see how it makes sense here. The article doesn't just throw out a single metric that would be misleading due to wealth inequity. There's a whole section about real wages over the income distribution. It's much more granular.
You shouldn't believe every source on the internet
True. And the least trustworthy source is some random in the comments section making baseless claims. Treasury.gov is at least a thousand times more reliable than that. Probably safe to say a million times. Hell, if you can't believe treasury.gov, what would you trust?
The one where I don't listen to social media narratives. Look at the data
Slightly better is still living paycheck to paycheck.
Also jobs are up but that’s because many are having to work two and three jobs.
People work fewer hours now than before
Now show the productivity chart
When you work part time jobs you generally don’t get benefits (paid by the company) but you will get welfare and food stamps when you work at Walmart for 39 hours a week, for example.
Why won’t you celebrate the booming economy!
I lost 20 pounds the last year or two by not eating thanks to the booming economy.
I'm down 40ish in a year. I mean, it's weight I've been trying desperately without success to lose for years, but eventually I'm going to run out. And then when it's 3am on a Tuesday and I'm lying awake mentally working through my budget for the 11th time that week I go "I've been stressed and skipped meals before and never lost weight, do I have cancer? Because I really can't afford that."
Wow, lucky! /s
When the economy is bad, prices go up, wages stay low and we get fucked. When the economy is good, prices go up, wages stay low and we get fucked.
Seriously fuck the economy, it only benefits the 1% so why should I care? That's why you do the minimum the your job requires, don't ever give extra, don't be a "team player", cause come pay time there is no team
Well, many conflate the economy with the stock market. To me, If wages are flat and people are hurting, the economy is not good. The stock market may look good, but if the middle class isn’t growing from the bottom the economy sucks. Like right now.
I learnt that the hard way.
But you can donate sick pay to a coworker who got attacked in a home invasion, or hurt in a car accident or needed a life saving surgery! You can even donate to a fundraiser for a coworker run by an employer announcing double the profits of 33 years ago and paying for fewer benefits than ever.
The average American can afford more now, not just the top 1% https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-purchasing-power-of-american-households
I wish I knew what planet you're living in where you think our generation has it good
Poster offered up evidence. You've just attacked them. It's clear who has more faith in their position. It's clear who arguing with their reason and which is arguing with their emotions.
While I agree that people in social media users have biases and ignore even a reputable evidence, but with economics though, it's complicated. One economic metric alone is sometimes not enough, has limitations and therefore doesn't give the full picture. I don't know much about purchasing power parity to comment on it, but the best example I can give is on GDP or gross domestic product. A country that has high GDP in let's say, $100 billion, shows that the country is rich. That implies that the population in that country are also also wealthy enough, right? Not really. If the GDP per capita/person is in $1,000 in that country, as opposed to US's of over $60,000, then the people in that country are not affluent enough.
Immense wealth is nothing if they're not distributed equitably. The higher purchasing power of Americans is taken on average but does not take into account that certain areas do not have higher purchasing power. California would have higher purchasing power as opposed to rural folks in the Rust Belt. And the latter are Trump supporters for a reason.
I agree with your point, but don't see how it makes sense here. The article doesn't just throw out a single metric that would be misleading due to wealth inequity. There's a whole section about real wages over the income distribution. It's much more granular.
You shouldn't believe every source on the internet
True. And the least trustworthy source is some random in the comments section making baseless claims. Treasury.gov is at least a thousand times more reliable than that. Probably safe to say a million times. Hell, if you can't believe treasury.gov, what would you trust?
The one where I don't listen to social media narratives. Look at the data
Slightly better is still living paycheck to paycheck.
Also jobs are up but that’s because many are having to work two and three jobs.
People work fewer hours now than before
Now show the productivity chart
When you work part time jobs you generally don’t get benefits (paid by the company) but you will get welfare and food stamps when you work at Walmart for 39 hours a week, for example.
Here's the productivity chart