Posted on 09/25/2012 7:57:45 PM PDT by KittenClaws
This is the way world ends, not with a bang but a whimper - T.S. Elliot.
A whimper? Of course! We can't afford outrage because we work for a living.
We poo-poo the OWS crowd and the liberals when they march for their deviant causes. Of course they have this time we say, they don't work for a living as we do! We laugh at their folly.
We can't carry signs or march on washington, we are too busy working. We don;t see that we have become too busy being something that long ago quit being anything other than funds for those who rally against us.
While we make fun of the OWS crowd and those like them, they use our indirect support to bring this country down.
We are SUPPORTING our own downfall. Worse than that, we are feeling superior doing it!
even Wikipedia has dismissed and debunked that crap
Sorry about your car. So far, no one has crashed into my car.
I suspect its more a general disenchantment with Obama, Democrats, Mitt Romney, Republicans and in fact the entire political process.
MyLife has it right. They’re the bloated dinosaurs they used to laugh at and it’s their turn in the tub. You want revenge? Subvert their kids.
Exactly. In the parlance of the time, THEY are the man. Excellent post. I do this, whenever possible.
If you have a telephone and some spare time, phone round to rally voters to come out. If you are of a religious bent, then you can always pray. If you have a computer go on the blogs and opinion websites and try and persuade people to the truth of the matter. I doubt you will ever change the minds of the Hardcore liberals but you might just plant a seed or a doubt in some. After all, we can hardly blame people for being liberal if that is the only worldview that they ever hear.
Those not of the more direct parasitic bent are often the philosophical spawn of college deferments from the Vietnam Era. (Sociologists, etc. who could not cut hard science but whose mommy and daddy had enough scratch to make professional students).
Bravo! Sadly, the inflation which followed when the two-paycheck tipping point was reached has made it tough for many households to get by without two wage-earners. The money was worth decidedly less after the Carter years.
What inflationary two check tipping point? What are you talking about? That’s not how inflation works.
When over half of the formerly one wage-earner households had two incomes, the price of housing, vehicles, and dangnear everything else went up. While there was a gap in there when people could afford more stuff, it didn't last. There was more money in the economy, and it became worth less. The wages which would have sustained a household just didn't get the same at the store and it became more difficult to get by on just one paycheck.
That is inflation.
That is a coincidence. More people working does not equal higher prices. Assuming they were actually producing something of value, it would mean lower prices. That is, in a free market. Which we don’t have, especially in money. Hence inflation.
Let me put it this way. You seem to be saying that because more people were working there was more money in the economy. Which is a fallacy. You might as well say prices went up because sellers felt like it. It would at least make mire sense.
It wasn’t just more people working, but more people working per household. When you take household income and increase it by 50-100%, yet there are none of the purchases of homes and appliances to go along with that, you have more money floating around in the economy. There was more money while the expenses were about the same for a little while. The increase was in disposable income. That’s what made inflation possible.
The inflationary policies have just gone on steroids. Few can afford to retire now, which hurts the young people in getting a decent job. It’ a real CLUSTER!
I’m sorry, but that’s gobbletygook. It doesn’t work that way.
Let me try in short words.
With two people with jobs in the household (they were commonly married, after all), the household had more money to spend.
One household, two paychecks.
This meant a couple had more money that was not needed to pay the bills.
When there is 'extra' money in an economy on a widespread basis, some save, some spend, but prices tend to go up.
I live very close to a boom town (in North Dakota). When oil activity started going up fast, rent was not far behind. Keep in mind that these were units built before the boom, and rent went up by a factor of five or more as the boom started. Initially, it was not hard to find a place, but for many (not employed in the oil industry) it was hard to afford it.
Many of the folks living in campers up here did so to save money, not because there was no housing, at least until the boom had been going on for a year or so.
Had the money not been 'available', the prices and rents would not have been sustainable.
Now, envision on a national scale, half of households having that 'extra' disposable income.
If you don't think it worked that way, perhaps you can explain why prices rose the way they did during the period of transition from single wage-earner families to two wage-earner families.
Most economic theory is gobbledygook, anyway, but I'm game to hear your explanation.
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.