I know what I meant to write so I can parse it.
Yeah.
I used to make about 4 times the wage I currently do. I not only supported myself, I support another adult, lent assistance to two more as needed, stimulated the economy by buying stuff, put money towards my retirement, and, oh, yes, had enough left over to fly airplanes as a hobby.
Now I’m barely supporting just myself.
I didn’t change - my old job went away.
Multiply by millions,.
Welcome to the twenty-teens.
The infamous twenty-teens, which have seen a reduction in non-farm payroll of nearly 17 million since 2010.
I assume you’re following the Huckabee-Drumpf-Ryan Protocol: Whenever a number would make Obama look good, reverse the sign, and send Kellyanne Conway to explain to Sean Hannity that your #AlternativeFact is just as valid as the #LameStream fact.
Wasn’t it Patrick Moynihan Daniel who said “Everyone is entitled to his own facts, but not his own opinions.” ?
How does this relate to Walmart?
How many of their employees are part time? How many want to be full time?
What does this mean?
I’m not authorized to speak for Mr. Ruken, but I think he was being sarcastic: he followed the Huckabee-Drumpf-Ryan Protocol in imitation of our leaders. In fact the huge job growth under Obama was unprecedented in scale. This fact offers a counterpoint to the less sanguine views of Mr. octopus:
Perhaps, to combat the whole idiocracy thing, the government should incentivize smart people to produce more children. Take an IQ test (with questions appropriate to preventing cultural discrimination), get above a certain mark and you’re good to go. At least the woman who has five kids with five different fathers might pick a better class of guy to have them with.
Like I said above. Jobs move in response to policy. Many so-called high paying jobs can now be done cheaper with non domestic labor or robots. I checked myself out at Target today. So did thousands of others. Bye bye jobs.
People think we can magically fix prices and create wealth merely by wishing it into existence via legislation. Economics doesn’t work that way.
Obviously, not all jobs are going overseas. But you can’t deny that jobs that once paid well with good benefits for moderately skilled people are shrinking in number.
Looking at my local agemates: people who didn’t go to college got married between the ages of 20 and 25, had 2-3 kids and stopped.
People who went to college got married between the ages of 25 and 40, were a lot more likely to have difficulty having children or deciding that “at our age, hell no”.
Actual income will vary from family to family but variations by type of activity are larger than by educational level. The owner of a mechanic’s shop makes more money than his workers (if he doesn’t he’s working extra for nothing), but has the same educational level; a nurse will have several years’ more schooling and make something in between.
what are people like the op going to do when we have “guaranteed income”? aka the modern version of “bread and circuses” ?
You’re welcome to make that argument and support that argument with data. I can show you that the number of jobs is increasing (BLS), that all measures of unemployment are decreasing (more BLS), that the percent insured is increasing (USCB), that the percent with employer-provided insurance is flat (more USCB), and that median household income is increasing (more more USCB), but we rely on you to show us the data on pay wellness and benefit goodness.
I’m eager to read what you find out.
That’s great. I’m glad you can claim to find a source to show number of jobs is increasing. Number of jobs doesn’t seem to be a meaningful statistic with regards to strength of an economy though. If I push a broom at your house and you push a broom at my house then that is real, full employment in a society of two. What it doesn’t demonstrate is the quality of that economy. Or the goodness of the benefits.
I cannot answer how your answers related to Walmart.
I’ll take it that your answers were meant as smoke and mirrors meant to distract.
First you claim jobs haven’t increased; now you claim that it doesn’t matter? Interesting.
Of course you’re correct that statistics reports can have biases or other flaws, and it’s good to identify those but the flaw you want to focus on is … sweeper swapping? 
I imagine there are some communities where wife-swapping is in vogue but AFAIK these activities are not reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics even when money changes hands.
If you don’t like employment figures as a proxy for economic prosperity, why not use constant-dollar GDP? How has that metric performed over the past 8 years?
Then let us know how your posts related to Walmart, because this is the first time you’ve mentioned it AFAIK and I certainly didn’t have Walmart in mind when I was responding to you.
You responded to a fact (most people living in poverty…) with misconceptions about part time workers as a whole (most people work part time…). If you were only taking about part time workers at Walmart, that’s fine. We can talk about Walmart. But I can only respond to what you posted, not what you think you posted.
The first time I responded to you I quoted a bit you had used responding to Kimstu talking about Walmart. Thus the connection.
Why are people reproducing like rabbits? TAX checks FOOD stamps & more fun benefits!
Whack-a-Mole
I just have to say this is a great thread title/username juxtaposition.