You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] Ban_Circumcision 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago  (edited ago)

I see that you're a blind cuck who trusts the governments inflation numbers they run in these models, at 2%, when it fact it is higher around 6%. And thjey are 2017 dollars, not end of 2018 dollars, which is where we are today, thats another 2-6% inflation.

This article only talks about household income, not individual income, like the point you said at the end. But this isn't necessarily a good thing, because it still means people are over worked and overtaxed(2+ payrolls to tax in a household) just to get by.

I don't see how this is an encouraging graph, because looking at those pverty rates from 12.7 to 12.3 thats only .4% who got out of that ranking.

Again, what we need is a rise in wages that compensates for inflation every year, not a rise in people working in a household. I don't see how this is a positive article or anything

Just wait until the depression hits and people in those households lose their jobs and they cant afford their present situations.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-12/end-growth-among-haves-dooms-growth-among-haves-have-nots-alike

[–] bilog78 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I see that you're a blind cuck who trusts the governments inflation numbers they run in these models

I'm impressed by your extrapolationg capabilities.

Again, what we need is a rise in wages that compensates for inflation every year, not a rise in people working in a household. I don't see how this is a positive article or anything

Did you perchance get the idea I was somehow disagreeing with this point of yours, or do you simply fail at reading comprehension in general?