Posted on 05/26/2017 10:44:10 AM PDT by spintreebob
11,779 How many were Illegal and Refugees and career Welfare queens?
No mention of those facts. Start restricting what Food Stamps can buy to just nutritious food. More will drop off. No chips, dip, cookies, candy, soda, Red Bull, etc. no cash back so you can go buy Loto tickets, cigs or beer.
Since I do our grocery shopping both Kroger’s and Commissary that is what I see these Food Stamp users buy. ONLY exception is Military lower ranks with families who shop Commissary, they tend to avoid the non nutritious food and stick to the basics of fruit, veggies, dairy, meat and staples.
Are you suggesting wages and company provided benefits in private sector Middle America have not been stagnate for decades?
It's cruel for targeting a direct transfer benefit being exchanged for Democrat votes. When the Left can't buy votes, they are done.
Which is as the founding fathers envisioned it. Those states that wish to keep the benefits rolling on (without Federal help) can keep going until they go bust! The states that wisely manage their governments will prosper. And people will freely vote with their feet.
Once the liberal state goes belly up, the freeloaders can come back to the conservative state and find work - or go looking for another state with a generous teat.
IF my salary was in equivalent dollars to what I would have earned in 1968, I would be bringing home (after taxes!) close to $12K/month.
I’m nowhere near that. Less than 1/3 of that, matter of fact.
Wages have risen, yes, but inflation has destroyed the purchasing power of the money earned.
Then there is the huge rise in percentage taken in taxes...
Put another way, today the median household income is $56K. In 1999, it was around $45,000. But when you adjust for inflation in today's dollars, the 1999 # is closer to $58k.
Using your analogy, saying a home in 1960 cost $18,000 is irrelevant. Adjust for inflation and that home cost is $150k in today's dollars. Then you have to account for the fact that homes are 2x as large as they were in 1960 and that the fit/finish on the inside is typically much, much nicer. Given the increase in size of the home vs 1960, the nicer fit/finish of the home today, and the fact that median household income is higher than then, a $250k median home price today doesn't seem that crazy compared to the $150k in 1960 in real terms.
You evaded the question. Lets try again.
Are you suggesting wages and company provided benefits in private sector Middle America have not been declining and or stagnate for decades? Yes or no?
I did not evade the question - I answered your exact question directly - that is middle class wages - in REAL terms (they have increased nominally) - have stagnated since 1999. You just choose to ignore what I said. Secondly, you still don’t understand the difference between real (inflation adjusted) and nominal (as stated). When you see articles saying middle class wages have stagnated in recent years, they do not mean in nominal terms - they mean in real terms.
This is not complex. I’ll try one more time....
Are you suggesting wages and company provided benefits in private sector Middle America have not been declining and or stagnate for decades?
You can call it what ya want. Ya think those on the receiving end give a sh*t what you call it? Only a fool or someone in on the con-job would suggest wages/salaries and or company paid benefits have kept up with the cost of living for working middle America. Get real.
Yes, I feel the same sting. Our economy was wrecked by outsourcing everything that made us great. Hell, we even use Russian rocket engines.
You do know that salaries are, at a minimum 10X what they were in the ‘60s as well?
You just don’t get what I’m saying and the other poster was saying. We’re not arguing that wages haven’t kept up for middle class families in the last 20 years - they haven’t. We were arguing that your 1960 for $18k house was irrelevant because the median household income in nominal terms in 1960 was around $6k and today it’s around $57k. So if you take the $18k house and adjust for nearly 10x as much income nominally, $200k-$250k for median housing price isn’t that much difference than in 1960.
Without getting too far into the discussion, the household income in 1960 was mostly one income with low real tax rates overall compared to now, when two incomes are required to keep up.
This was mentioned way up thread. Some people just can’t quite grasp that little tid bit.
Again, while I don’t disagree, it’s irrelevant to the point. The other poster was comparing a nominal price (housing in 1960 vs housing in 2017) to a real (inflation adjusted) price (1999 income to 2017 income). Nominal household income - whether adjusted for dual income or not - is massively higher than in 1960 as our housing prices. The articles lamenting median household income stagnating in recent decades are comparing REAL income, ie inflation adjusted, income. If you inflation adjust the house from 1960, it’s barely lower than it is today - and today’s houses are 2x the size and have nicer fit & finish.
My salary went 10X+ since then. I guess that isn’t universally true. I agree that increases in cost of living have exceeded rise in incomes. My fellow Americans with the cash registers have become a lot more greedy than in the past.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.