Oh Snap! Can anyone deny, Obama Nation= Food Stamp Nation? (The Obama surge)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yep we just saw $600+ million go to one company, I am sure poor programmer in that company is not going to see even a dime from that money.

We saw tens of billions go no-bid to one company and billions of those disappeared in the Iraqi desert with no accounting.

[Harsh_77 718]

We saw tens of billions go no-bid to one company and billions of those disappeared in the Iraqi desert with no accounting.

Never said that was right… that president did not promise the cleanup, change blah… blah….

Or

Is this a standard tactic used by dems… previous president did it

[Harsh_77 718]

Both. I thought that was pretty clear from my posts.

Yes. And wasn't that the message from both parties?

I guess you are forgetting what Obama said prior to his both the terms.

Change... power to ppl... cleanup.... will change DC... on and on.

Without which he would had got no support from younger generation.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Harsh_77

[Protocol417 161]

It's not about two working people earning more than one.... thats a given. It's about

The question is about why the lower skilled workers are making less A: they don't have the benefit of marriage that the earlier generation had.

Your sentence got cut off.

The trend apparently seems to follow from the 50s to today, except the numbers (and therefore gaps) got bigger, probably due to inflation, I'm imagining. (I don't think the chart mentions anything about their skill level, by the way.)

Also, it makes sense that this would occur. People who are unmarried tend to be younger, and younger people tend to make less money. That doesn't mean that marriage made them richer; it means time and experience did.

The chart tries to imply that being married makes you wealthier by comparing the income of a single male to a married male with a wife who stays at home, but this is not a fair comparison, and not just for the reason I just mentioned (single males tend to be younger than married males). Families with SAHM's typically have male heads of household who made more money even before the wife decided to stop working; this is why they can afford for the mother to stay at home in the first place, otherwise they'd be in the dual-income category. Correlation, not causation. If you took the males from the dual-income married category, separated their wives' income out, and added them in with the other married males to create one "husbands" category instead of two, I'm betting that line would dip closer to the single males' line.

It also doesn't say what they count as a "family". Is a cohabiting unmarried couple considered one "family", or two? Because if it's two, then of course the married couple will come out the rosier, since they're the only ones with a combined income, even though the living situations may be otherwise identical. That's just bad number crunching if that's how they did it.

For the record, I do believe marriage (or more importantly, child-rearing) does have a stabilizing effect. I just think the numbers are being compared in an incorrect manner to dramatize a preconceived point.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Never said that was right… that president did not promise the cleanup, change blah… blah….

Or

Is this a standard tactic used by dems… previous president did it

No, it's not a standard tactic, it's called perspective. No-bid contracts have been awarded for a long, long time. I just have to giggle when you right right wingers try and whip up scandals where there aren't any totally forgetting that there were plenty of them back when your folk ran the show. The main difference is that those scandals perpetrated by the right wing cost billions not merely millions. And anyone daring to call them scandals was labeled a traitor.

[Harsh_77 718]

No, it's not a standard tactic, it's called perspective. No-bid contracts have been awarded for a long, long time. I just have to giggle when you right right wingers try and whip up scandals where there aren't any totally forgetting that there were plenty of them back when your folk ran the show. The main difference is that those scandals perpetrated by the right wing cost billions not merely millions. And anyone daring to call them scandals was labeled a traitor.

Most common answer I have heard from any dems is republicans did it too.

You have already expressed reps are bad so forget about them passing the buck to guy at bottom of the totem pole but dems supposed to be so much better and care about other humans …. How many dollars are the developers are going to see from this contract?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I guess you are forgetting what Obama said prior to his both the terms.

Change... power to ppl... cleanup.... will change DC... on and on.

Without which he would had got no support from younger generation.

So Obama is a politician? Is that what you are saying? Did you figure that out just now?

[Harsh_77 718]

So Obama is a politician? Is that what you are saying? Did you figure that out just now?

Dang.... you said he was liar.

[BatmanUSA 105]

No, Danno. You are still not getting it. It is true that we're not the same society anymore. We are now effectively all slaves of corporate America. That's what has changed. It has somehow become acceptable that people are compensated below what it takes to survive in return for an honest day's work. That acceptance was necessary in order for corporations to continue to grow their bottom lines. And that is the central issue.

Other industrialized nations have the same trends you refer to in terms of fewer people getting married, the structure of the family changing, etc. That trend started there earlier than here and yet they don't have as huge a portion of their population unable to support themselves on the compensation from an honest day's work. That issue is more prevalent in the US than anywhere else in the industrialized world. And nowhere is it considered nearly as acceptable as here that profits rise while the middle class vanishes. Nowhere would anyone buy into the nonsense that rising corporate profits are what will re-build the middle class. Rising corporate profits don't benefit the middle class and below, they come at their expense.

increasing corporate profits, increasing stock values, increasing executive compensation.. none of these help middle and low income families. I don't think a majority of middle/low income families have investment portfolios... so why do we measure national financial health in relation to the Dow Jones.??

There was a question; would you pay 10-15 dollars for a Big Mac in order to support the workers to earn $15/hour... shouldn't the question be: Would McDonald's executives take a pay cut, would the share holders accept a lower dividend, so that employees can earn $15/hour.?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dang.... you said he was liar.

I said he was a politician. Not that there's much of a difference but I did not say he was a liar.

increasing corporate profits, increasing stock values, increasing executive compensation.. none of these help middle and low income families. I don't think a majority of middle/low income families have investment portfolios...

And there, in a one liner, you destroyed the entire economic policy platform of the GOP. Congratulations!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There was a question; would you pay 10-15 dollars for a Big Mac in order to support the workers to earn $15/hour... shouldn't the question be: Would McDonald's executives take a pay cut, would the share holders accept a lower dividend, so that employees can earn $15/hour.?

Bingo!

[mota bhai 2,675]

mconalds should go private no more worries about being sued by shareholdres for violating fiduciary duty

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

mconalds should go private no more worries about being sued by shareholdres for violating fiduciary duty

fiduciary duty should be understood as extending beyond the next quarter. the current race to the bottom is not a sustainable economic model. we are in for a crash. a real crash, 1920's style. what about fiduciary duty then? investors will be wiped out. we've been there before - well, our ancestors have. one would think we've learned something...

Edited October 28, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Danno 1,228]

Your sentence got cut off.

The trend apparently seems to follow from the 50s to today, except the numbers (and therefore gaps) got bigger, probably due to inflation, I'm imagining. (I don't think the chart mentions anything about their skill level, by the way.)

Also, it makes sense that this would occur. People who are unmarried tend to be younger, and younger people tend to make less money. That doesn't mean that marriage made them richer; it means time and experience did.

The chart tries to imply that being married makes you wealthier by comparing the income of a single male to a married male with a wife who stays at home, but this is not a fair comparison, and not just for the reason I just mentioned (single males tend to be younger than married males). Families with SAHM's typically have male heads of household who made more money even before the wife decided to stop working; this is why they can afford for the mother to stay at home in the first place, otherwise they'd be in the dual-income category. Correlation, not causation. If you took the males from the dual-income married category, separated their wives' income out, and added them in with the other married males to create one "husbands" category instead of two, I'm betting that line would dip closer to the single males' line.

It also doesn't say what they count as a "family". Is a cohabiting unmarried couple considered one "family", or two? Because if it's two, then of course the married couple will come out the rosier, since they're the only ones with a combined income, even though the living situations may be otherwise identical. That's just bad number crunching if that's how they did it.

For the record, I do believe marriage (or more importantly, child-rearing) does have a stabilizing effect. I just think the numbers are being compared in an incorrect manner to dramatize a preconceived point.

Thanks for your comment.

The married single comparison is no more complicated than on average- when you break it down by occupation class and age, married men tend to earn more simply because they have more incentive. Also the single guy at 40 is more likely to be paying child support, perhaps alimony. This is a huge drain on his net worth and the ability to accumulate wealth to pass on to any kids he has.

And when you have the duel income married couple, then they have the benefit of one house payment, one electric bill etc, this is huge even over a ten year period.

My main point is for LOWER EARNING PEOPLE, since they are less likely to be married than well off people, the net worth gap will be heightened irregardless of what else is going on in the economy.

I predict we can look forward to an ever growing divide in class..... and this will be trouble.

I'm not addressing the ubber rich CEO's I mean between the basic well educated class and the working class.

[BatmanUSA 105]

And there, in a one liner, you destroyed the entire economic policy platform of the GOP. Congratulations!

thank-you.... thank-you very much....! :-)