Oooh oooh, we should make a thread like this, things our president actually believes. I’ve got one: Our president believes you need ID to buy groceries.

( twitter | raw text )

Yeah, I think the closest analog is the Ron Paul types talking about how inflation was really 10%....just look at oil and gold! It’s more partisan than fact based. “Ask your Uber driver” is the new “every housewife knows inflation is out of control”.

You either miss her point or get it are are pretending to miss it. Either way, not impressed.

It's just BS. It's like Ikes being fixated on $.77 to the $1 stat for how much women are paid. And he pretends he's not here as a partisan hack.

Nah I get her point. Regular people are working more hours for less money and can’t make ends meet, unemployment is going down but things are really getting worse etc. It’s super easy to understand, just hard to make an honest, data driven case for. But it’s a partisan issue so you don’t really need anything but anecdotes or feelings to say it. Conservatives were saying the same stuff during the #so_called_Obama recovery.

Were they? I remember them saying the numbers were cooked, don't recall anything about stagnant wages other than blaming that on business owners being squeezed by taxes and regulation while recording record profits.

No worse word in the English language than partisan. Just the facts, ma'am, thank you.

No, no you don't.... And its not super easy to understand, unless you ****ing living it.

You may think you have an understanding of poor folk, you don't & never will. Even if you happened to become poor, and live like that for the rest of your life, you still would not understand poor folk... **** I hate people like you so much.

They said that also...but remember masons whole Obama is why I can’t give out raises this year BS? That magically slid into the Trump poker boom with hardly anything changing lol. To be fair all politicians/partisans do it to some extent but the Mason style right wing hacks were far more blatant/stupid about it than most Dem partisans at least.

Of course every Dem ever has talked about "folks workin' two and three jobs" (who does that sound like?) But that's sometimes a problem for dessin and sometimes not. But, he's all about the facts and not a partisan hack? Or he's absolutely full of ****?

as long as you live with your head up your ass, sure

Pretty sure low paying jobs suck regardless of the unemployment rate.

The word bipartisan means-some-larger than usual deception is being played out... George Carlin.

Wasn't there a time when one member of the family (the husband) could support the entire family, multiple kids and all, with one blue-collar job? Back then, unemployment must have been sky high if you count women. These days, if either person in the marriage loses their job (or one of their jobs), it's a financial emergency. But they can rest assured that Max crunched the numbers and their life couldn't be better.

Women were about 22% of the workforce in 1950 and about 45% now. If you just talk about married women I'm sure the change is more dramatic. So families have increasingly had to work two paying jobs instead of one. But it gets complicated of course. Real family income has surely risen because of that.

How you compare income and wealth across time could be looked at though. A falling standard of living could mean less financial security and not just income and wealth.

( twitter | raw text )

Or maybe this max fella just knows what unemployment means. We’re literally getting into Trump level “real unemployment is 40%!” talking points now. The real lesson in all of this is to look at overall numbers that paint a full, consistent picture. When you look at an individual number like labor force participation the data can be skewed by longer term cultural trends, like women wanting to work or an aging population.

Unemployment doesn't take into account people who aren't actively seeking jobs. So, no, unemployment wouldn't have been sky high. It's wrong to think of unemployment as a measure of what percentage of the population is employed. It's a percentage of the labor force that isn't employed.

( twitter | raw text )

It’s cute how you argue both sides when nobody takes the other position.

My point is that now, just about everyone has to seek at least one job, whereas before, a large swath of the population could stay at home because one income-generating job between two people was good enough. Unemployment numbers don't tell much of the story.

In the past, "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" meant getting a job. Now, getting a job doesn't mean ****, you either need a job + welfare or 2 jobs and that's just to support a single person. You have to get the right job or invent the next Facebook or else oh well, you're just another lazy inferior poor person who didn't pull yourself up by the bootstraps. You should have thought of that before you decided not to get an engineering degree. (Oh wait, you wanted to but you couldn't afford it because college is like 10x the cost these days.)

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )