When the argument is that inequality is too extreme and we should consider some form of redistribution to the working man, then we hear that the working man is fine, he's got the latest cell phone, he's got a flat screen TV, and "even our poor are fat". But when a different agenda is being pushed, as here, then it's all about the "poor working man".Quote from jem:
Lets figure the cost of a basket of goods the average family spends money on... but lets take out the costs of food, energy and rent or percent of income going to pay for housing.
Oh look inflation is not bad because although crayons and furniture went up, computers went down.
Quote from Ricter:
When the argument is that inequality is too extreme and we should consider some form of redistribution to the working man, then we hear that the working man is fine, he's got the latest cell phone, he's got a flat screen TV, and "even our poor are fat". But when a different agenda is being pushed, as here, then it's all about the "poor working man".
Edit: before I forget, the gold standard is never coming back. That's never as in "not ever". Sorry, Randroids. : )
Quote from Ricter:
When the argument is that inequality is too extreme and we should consider some form of redistribution to the working man, then we hear that the working man is fine, he's got the latest cell phone, he's got a flat screen TV, and "even our poor are fat". But when a different agenda is being pushed, as here, then it's all about the "poor working man".
Edit: before I forget, the gold standard is never coming back. That's never as in "not ever". Sorry, Randroids. : )
Quote from Tsing Tao:
Is someone advocating the gold standard somewhere in this thread?
As for the poor working man, we're talking wages. Regardless of whether or not the poor working man has the latest gadgets, his wages are stagnant, and certainly below inflation. I, honestly, could care less. But don' t try to pass off the argument that wages are rising faster than inflation for the majority of the populace.