Bread bags and economic progress

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

McCardle just crushes it

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-29/joni-ernst-s-bread-bags-and-economic-progress

Joni Ernst, who is just a few years older than me, had a much more affluent childhood than the generation that settled the prairies, and more affluent still than the generations before them. But in many ways, she was much poorer than the people making fun of her on Twitter, simply because so many goods have gotten so much more abundant. Not just processed foods and flat-screen televisions -- the favorite target of people who like to pooh-pooh economic progress. But good and necessary things such as shoes for your children and fresh vegetables to feed them, even in winter.

In every generation, we forget how much poorer we used to be, and then we forget that we have forgotten. We focus on the things that seem funny or monstrous or quaint and darling. Somehow the simplest and most important fact -- the immense differences between their living standards and ours -- slides right past our eye. And when Ernst tried to remind us, people didn't say "Wow, we've really come a long way"; they pointed and laughed.

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

#waronwomen

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

There you have the left encapsulated. Lack of self-awareness and lack
of humility, compiled into a raison d'etre.

--
There comes a time when you should stop expecting other people to make
a big deal about your birthday. That time is age 12. -- Dave Barry

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), "The Cheesehusker, Trade
Warrior" <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>In every generation, we forget how much poorer we used to be, and then we f=
>orget that we have forgotten.

I don't quite agree. My wife's grandfather was a tenant farmer who
changed farms every three years until he was in his 60s an got a job
with the county road department. They raised 8 children - all worked
and all were responsible. They married before they had kids and their
kids did the same. He never owned or even drove a car. And when we
went fishing or hunting I looked for the money he left in the car to
pay for gas so I could return it to him. My mom's dad owned a
peckerwood sawmill and my dad's dad was a farmer.

I think they were rich except for money - much richer than the liberal
trash that surrounds us now.

>We focus on the things that seem funny or mon=
>strous or quaint and darling. Somehow the simplest and most important fact =
>-- the immense differences between their living standards and ours -- slide=
>s right past our eye. And when Ernst tried to remind us, people didn't say =

>"Wow, we've really come a long way"; they pointed and laughed.

Better living standards - in some respects. Their horses got them to
town and church. My car gets me thousands of miles away to pretty much
the same thing. So, ya got ya a pnone in ya pocket - it would have
been a burden to them. If you wanted to know the number of acres of
cotton they could look and tell you while you were waiting for the
calculator to warm up.

They didn't travel very far. I have and all it means is that I
travelled sorta far. A good 1909 SVDB cent cost me $500 - they walked
arond with them in their pockets.

Life expectancy? Short, but LBJ and Obie lived too long.

Even poor people were happy 100 years ago. If you think we have come
very far you are using the wrong measuring stick.

Hugh

[xyzzy]

People aren't making fun of her because they look down on those with less. They are making fun of her because they believe she is lying about being poor. From a cursory level of google research, she definitely does seem to be stretching it.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Their lack of self-awareness obviously cannot fathom the humility
that would cause someone to be thrifty, even though conceivably their
family budget could have stretched to galoshes.

I grew up that way. Other kids had name-brand tennis shoes I lusted
after -- I got Sears. I didn't have a fancy lunch box. We didn't have
a fancy new car every couple of years. Other families afforded those things.

Of course, 50 years later the people who spent their money on that stuff
are no doubt regretting it, as they have nothing to show for their long
lives working.

I guess they love poor people in the same way that Obama does. After all,
after 6 years of his policies there are a lot more of them.

--
Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second time you
make it. -- unknown

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

I guess I'm a little confused by it all. I grew up relatively affluent in Nebraska. We used bread bags on occasion just to keep the socks dry. They were handy because we could just throw them away when we got to school. That just seems like a bit of Plains pragmatism.

Doug

[Michael Press]

In article <d2ed6d2c-372a-4aa7...@googlegroups.com>,

"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> McCardle just crushes it
>
> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-29/joni-ernst-s-bread-bags-and-economic-progress

Mom told me about her summers. Walking across a stubble field was a trial.

--
Michael Press

[Michael]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:32:28 PM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:

We envied people who could afford real store bought bread. To us, bread bags were like jewel-studded Nike court shoes.

[naberha...@gmail.com]

She's likely not stretching it. I live a very similar life when young....I have my dad records from his first years of farming throught the sixties....they farmed for almost no profit...I would go so something else before I would work that hard for naught.


Former rsfcker Sue Kelso posted a good point on facebook though....she said instead of this story about how tough she had it personally growing up, she should have talked about Iowas history as a leader in women and minority rights among other things. I thought she had a point....

Still, WaronRepublicanWomen continues.

[michael anderson]

This is true for some things and not for others. I would bet that safe and nice housing for the working poor in many areas has become much more difficult to attain for example.

[agavi...@gmail.com]

> She's likely not stretching it. I live a very similar life when young....

How you doin dude?

[Michael Press]

In article <71440d56-b3f8-4ba7...@googlegroups.com>,

naberha...@gmail.com wrote:

> Former rsfcker Sue Kelso posted a good point on facebook though....she said instead of this story about how tough she had it personally growing up, she should have talked about Iowas history as a leader in women and minority rights among other things. I thought she had a point....

Are you here mouthpiece?

--
Michael Press

[RoddyMcCorley]

She sounded like she was right out of "Queen for a Day."

A fucking dolt.

--
False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul
with evil.

Pennsylvania - Tá sé difriúil anseo.

[RoddyMcCorley]

On 1/30/2015 1:41 PM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2015-01-30, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:59:24 AM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>>> On 2015-01-30, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> McCardle just crushes it
>>>>

> Of course, 50 years later the people who spent their money on that stuff
> are no doubt regretting it, as they have nothing to show for their long
> lives working.
>
> I guess they love poor people in the same way that Obama does. After all,
> after 6 years of his policies there are a lot more of them.
>

Be truthful and acknowledge that the poverty rate began to rise during
the Bush years. It has started to drop over the past two years as the
economy has strengthened. But there are still about 45 millinon
residents living in poverty. About one in seven individuals in the U.S.
lives in poverty.

[Michael Press]

In article <mahmkg$phe$1...@dont-email.me>,

RoddyMcCorley <Roddy.M...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 1/30/2015 1:41 PM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> > On 2015-01-30, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:59:24 AM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> >>> On 2015-01-30, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> McCardle just crushes it
> >>>>
>
> > Of course, 50 years later the people who spent their money on that stuff
> > are no doubt regretting it, as they have nothing to show for their long
> > lives working.
> >
> > I guess they love poor people in the same way that Obama does. After all,
> > after 6 years of his policies there are a lot more of them.
> >
> Be truthful and acknowledge that the poverty rate began to rise during
> the Bush years. It has started to drop over the past two years as the
> economy has strengthened. But there are still about 45 millinon
> residents living in poverty. About one in seven individuals in the U.S.
> lives in poverty.

What is poverty rate? Fraction of the population on welfare?
That decreased consistently until Johnsons's poverty program.
Since then the poverty rate steadily increased, as it should
for a poverty program. Are you complaining? Then end the poverty program.

--
Michael Press

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 23:45:43 -0500, RoddyMcCorley
<Roddy.M...@verizon.net> wrote:

>Be truthful and acknowledge that the poverty rate began to rise during
>the Bush years. It has started to drop over the past two years as the
>economy has strengthened. But there are still about 45 millinon
>residents living in poverty. About one in seven individuals in the U.S.
>lives in poverty.

You can give Obie credit for one thing. Poverty used to be mostly a
black thing, but not anymore.

Hugh

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Why? Is that the main problem facing our country? It is not. Priorities
are priorities. It's like you're buying into the "war on women" crap.

Women in the western world are as advanced as they have ever been, and
to some extent as advanced as they want to be. They make as much money
as men, once you adjust for what they do and what they *want* to do.

Our big problem right now is the entitlement culture, not women's rights.
But not if you were to listen to the left.

--
How far can you open your
mind before your brains
fall out?

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2015-01-31, RoddyMcCorley <Roddy.M...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1/30/2015 1:41 PM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>> On 2015-01-30, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:59:24 AM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>>>> On 2015-01-30, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> McCardle just crushes it
>>>>>
>
>> Of course, 50 years later the people who spent their money on that stuff
>> are no doubt regretting it, as they have nothing to show for their long
>> lives working.
>>
>> I guess they love poor people in the same way that Obama does. After all,
>> after 6 years of his policies there are a lot more of them.
>>
>
> Be truthful and acknowledge that the poverty rate began to rise during
> the Bush years. It has started to drop over the past two years as the
> economy has strengthened.

How so? Because of the housing crash? Well, duuuhhhh.
And how does that excuse Obama's growth-dampening policies?

> But there are still about 45 millinon residents living in poverty.
> About one in seven individuals in the U.S. lives in poverty.

And what is poverty now was luxury 40 years ago. So? The big problem
is not poverty of resources, it is poverty of opportunity. We are
misallocating our resources to pad public-employee pensions, not to
improving educations. Look at the growth in school administrative
employees in the past 30 years. Tons more money spent on education,
with nothing to show for it. A bunch of people with piss-poor public
school educations and useless college degrees.

--
Some people have twenty years of experience, some people have
one year of experience twenty times over. -- Anonymous

[Futbol Phan]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 1:20:40 PM UTC-6, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2015-01-31, RoddyMcCorley <Roddy.M...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On 1/30/2015 1:41 PM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> >> On 2015-01-30, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:59:24 AM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> >>>> On 2015-01-30, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> McCardle just crushes it
> >>>>>
> >
> >> Of course, 50 years later the people who spent their money on that stuff
> >> are no doubt regretting it, as they have nothing to show for their long
> >> lives working.
> >>
> >> I guess they love poor people in the same way that Obama does. After all,
> >> after 6 years of his policies there are a lot more of them.
> >>
> >
> > Be truthful and acknowledge that the poverty rate began to rise during
> > the Bush years. It has started to drop over the past two years as the
> > economy has strengthened.
>
> How so? Because of the housing crash? Well, duuuhhhh.
> And how does that excuse Obama's growth-dampening policies?
>
> > But there are still about 45 millinon residents living in poverty.
> > About one in seven individuals in the U.S. lives in poverty.
>
> And what is poverty now was luxury 40 years ago.

How old are you to make such a ridiculous statement? What was luxury in 1975 is poverty today? For real?

Luckily, there are enough GOP pols who share and state these wild ideas that the electorate will respond and keep the White House blue for the foreseeable future.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2015-01-31, Futbol Phan <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 1:20:40 PM UTC-6, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>> On 2015-01-31, RoddyMcCorley <Roddy.M...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > On 1/30/2015 1:41 PM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>> >> On 2015-01-30, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:59:24 AM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>> >>>> On 2015-01-30, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> McCardle just crushes it
>> >>>>>
>> >
>> >> Of course, 50 years later the people who spent their money on that stuff
>> >> are no doubt regretting it, as they have nothing to show for their long
>> >> lives working.
>> >>
>> >> I guess they love poor people in the same way that Obama does. After all,
>> >> after 6 years of his policies there are a lot more of them.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Be truthful and acknowledge that the poverty rate began to rise during
>> > the Bush years. It has started to drop over the past two years as the
>> > economy has strengthened.
>>
>> How so? Because of the housing crash? Well, duuuhhhh.
>> And how does that excuse Obama's growth-dampening policies?
>>
>> > But there are still about 45 millinon residents living in poverty.
>> > About one in seven individuals in the U.S. lives in poverty.
>>
>> And what is poverty now was luxury 40 years ago.
>
> How old are you to make such a ridiculous statement? What was luxury
> in 1975 is poverty today? For real?

Apparently you don't remember when it was luxury to have:

-- Air conditioning
-- Car for every person in household
-- Eat out more than once a month
-- Have a computer or even a typewriter
-- Have your own personal phone
-- Have enough clothes for all family members
-- Have a laundry on premises

Tons of "poor" people have that stuff now.

> Luckily, there are enough GOP pols who share and state these wild
> ideas that the electorate will respond and keep the White House blue
> for the foreseeable future.

If they are shared by GOP pols, I guess that is the reason that the Republicans
are at a nearly century-long high-water mark in federal and state
legislative and gubernatorial positions.


--
It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams
because they grow old, they grow old because they
stop pursuing dreams. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 4:05:38 PM UTC-6, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> >> > But there are still about 45 millinon residents living in poverty.
> >> > About one in seven individuals in the U.S. lives in poverty.
> >>
> >> And what is poverty now was luxury 40 years ago.
> >
> > How old are you to make such a ridiculous statement? What was luxury
> > in 1975 is poverty today? For real?
>
> Apparently you don't remember when it was luxury to have:
>
> -- Air conditioning
> -- Car for every person in household
> -- Eat out more than once a month
> -- Have a computer or even a typewriter
> -- Have your own personal phone
> -- Have enough clothes for all family members
> -- Have a laundry on premises
>
> Tons of "poor" people have that stuff now.

Exactly - just as easy from the 80s

How about we add
fresh fruit and veggies year around
cheap and relatively healthy ready to eat meals
microwaves
color tvs - much less big ones
dvd players
Xboxes, etc
the wonders found in every iPhone
dishwashers
more than two pairs of shoes
world of information at your fingertips

etc

[michael anderson]

Again though, some essentials are more expensive today than in the 1970s and 1980s.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 5:35:35 PM UTC-6, michael anderson wrote:
> Again though, some essentials are more expensive today than in the 1970s and 1980s.

Like?

Those that are nominally "more expensive" - like perhaps housing and cars - are thus b/c the content is so incredibly better

[michael anderson]

reasonable housing in decent to good neighborhoods is more expensive. And take the quality of houses out of it if you like by just looking at what land cost(although I would disagree in some ways about the quality of housing....some really crappy low end stuff being built out there today whereas many homes from the 30s and 40s are still standing), which in many areas is the driving force for real estate costs anyways. The fact is it just cost a lot more as a percentage of working class peoples paychecks in most areas of the country for rent/mortgage.

Agree about cars- they are much better now and less expensive as a result.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 5:35:35 PM UTC-6, michael anderson wrote:

> Again though, some essentials are more expensive today than in the 1970s and 1980s.

such as?

[michael anderson]

Routine health care(in addition to rent/housing already mentioned).

[RoddyMcCorley]

On 1/31/2015 6:35 PM, michael anderson wrote:
>
> Again though, some essentials are more expensive today than in the 1970s and 1980s.
>

Remember guys, Mia likes to pay for pussy in stead of earning it.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2015-02-01, michael anderson <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Routine health care

In most cases, it is higher quality too.

> (in addition to rent/housing already mentioned).

Food and rent are *less* expensive, overall, than they were 40
years ago. The average family spends less of their income on
it as a percentage.

--
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
-- Wernher Von Braun

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 8:38:06 PM UTC-6, michael anderson wrote:
> Routine health care(in addition to rent/housing already mentioned).

sorry - missed that

not so sure about either of those frankly - the health care available to even the poorest of the poor doesn't exactly suck

as for housing - here too, the stock is way better than what was. If you're willing to live 2 to a room - like we used to, decent housing can be had, etc.

Not great housing mind you - then again, the housing in the 70s certainly wasn't great either.

[michael anderson]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 9:19:28 AM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 8:38:06 PM UTC-6, michael anderson wrote:
> > Routine health care(in addition to rent/housing already mentioned).
>
> sorry - missed that
>
> not so sure about either of those frankly - the health care available to even the poorest of the poor doesn't exactly suck

Im talking about the routine health care that everyone working to middle class(take the very poor out of it) gets and where quality has remained pretty consistent. I dont have any data with me but I really believe thats gone up. My last dental cleaning, for example, was 225 dollars. In 1980 money that would have been 75 dollars. There is no way a routine cleaning would have been 75 dollars at this office(which was in existence then) in 1980.

>
> as for housing - here too, the stock is way better than what was. If you're willing to live 2 to a room - like we used to, decent housing can be had, etc.
>
> Not great housing mind you - then again, the housing in the 70s certainly wasn't great either.

the size of the houses are bigger for middle class families yes....thats just a personal choice thing. People just dont build 1300 sq foot houses in middle class neighborhoods now like small families use to. but the building costs are only a part of it. Buying lots in those middle class(bit not super nice) neighborhoods has gone up I believe.
Especially in cities. I mean look what two bedroom apartments in decent areas of new york, san fran, miami costs. Even secondary cities like nashville, seattle, etc....I have to believe those have gone up over the last 30+ years.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 9:27:46 AM UTC-6, michael anderson wrote:
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 9:19:28 AM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 8:38:06 PM UTC-6, michael anderson wrote:
> > > Routine health care(in addition to rent/housing already mentioned).
> >
> > sorry - missed that
> >
> > not so sure about either of those frankly - the health care available to even the poorest of the poor doesn't exactly suck
>
> Im talking about the routine health care that everyone working to middle class(take the very poor out of it) gets and where quality has remained pretty consistent. I dont have any data with me but I really believe thats gone up. My last dental cleaning, for example, was 225 dollars. In 1980 money that would have been 75 dollars. There is no way a routine cleaning would have been 75 dollars at this office(which was in existence then) in 1980.
>

We're not talking middle class tho - we're talking poverty level.

> >
> > as for housing - here too, the stock is way better than what was. If you're willing to live 2 to a room - like we used to, decent housing can be had, etc.
> >
> > Not great housing mind you - then again, the housing in the 70s certainly wasn't great either.
>
> the size of the houses are bigger for middle class families yes....thats just a personal choice thing. People just dont build 1300 sq foot houses in middle class neighborhoods now like small families use to. but the building costs are only a part of it. Buying lots in those middle class(bit not super nice) neighborhoods has gone up I believe.
> Especially in cities. I mean look what two bedroom apartments in decent areas of new york, san fran, miami costs. Even secondary cities like nashville, seattle, etc....I have to believe those have gone up over the last 30+ years.

Again - poverty level v working class.

Lots of reasons for housing prices increases tho - removal of old stock, stricter building rules, public housing requirements, less land, rent control, etc

[Futbol Phan]

Many working people with above minimum wage jobs have some of the things you list. To say that "tons" of people in real poverty have them and are living a comfortable life is just plain ignorant. You really need to spend some time in a truly poverty-filled area and see what it is actually like. Then you will stop deluding yourself.

I spent Tuesday and Wednesday in a public school near the United Center on the west side of Chicago. After having seen the existence that those people have and then to see you write that they are living in what you consider luxury -- well, you must be living in a very different world, where either you don't see it or you don't want to see it.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2015-02-01, michael anderson <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 9:19:28 AM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 8:38:06 PM UTC-6, michael anderson wrote:
>> > Routine health care(in addition to rent/housing already mentioned).
>>
>> sorry - missed that
>>
>> not so sure about either of those frankly - the health care available to even the poorest of the poor doesn't exactly suck
>
> Im talking about the routine health care that everyone working to
> middle class(take the very poor out of it) gets and where quality has
> remained pretty consistent. I dont have any data with me but I really
> believe thats gone up. My last dental cleaning, for example, was 225
> dollars.

Where do you go, Park Avenue? $80.00 is the price I pay.

> In 1980 money that would have been 75 dollars. There is no
> way a routine cleaning would have been 75 dollars at this office(which
> was in existence then) in 1980.
>
>
>>
>> as for housing - here too, the stock is way better than what was. If you're willing to live 2 to a room - like we used to, decent housing can be had, etc.
>>
>> Not great housing mind you - then again, the housing in the 70s certainly wasn't great either.
>
> the size of the houses are bigger for middle class families yes....thats just a personal choice thing. People just dont build 1300 sq foot houses in middle class neighborhoods now like small families use to. but the building costs are only a part of it. Buying lots in those middle class(bit not super nice) neighborhoods has gone up I believe.
> Especially in cities. I mean look what two bedroom apartments in decent areas of new york, san fran, miami costs. Even secondary cities like nashville, seattle, etc....I have to believe those have gone up over the last 30+ years.
>
>

--
The problem with Internet quotations is that many of them
are not genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

"Real" poverty? You want to limit it to less than the 16%, then?
Lots and lots of people who are in the 16% have these things. The
Census says 83% of people in poverty have air conditioning. 68%
have a washer and 63% a dryer. 44% have a dishwasher. 81% have
a cell phone.

> You really need to spend some time in a truly poverty-filled area
> and see what it is actually like. Then you will stop deluding
> yourself.

The poverty rate in the two counties I live in is above the
national average. And I know *many* people who are below the
poverty level, and I would bet I know more of them much better
than you do. (I work with recovering addicts and alcoholics,
many of whom are in poverty.) What is your experience?

>
> I spent Tuesday and Wednesday in a public school near the United
> Center on the west side of Chicago. After having seen the existence
> that those people have and then to see you write that they are
> living in what you consider luxury -- well, you must be living in a
> very different world, where either you don't see it or you don't
> want to see it.

The point is that what is poverty now is not nearly the same as
what poverty was 40 years ago. And if you don't know that, you
are simply ignorant.

--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer