On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 8:11:44 AM UTC-4, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 03:54:23 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 3:40:19 AM UTC-4, Sqwertz wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:59:27 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 10/11/2018 5:21 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:12:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Or are married and the husband has the income. My wife "retired" in her
> >>>>> early 20s. Loose definition of retired.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's old-fashioned nowadays. But she got in on it before it fell
> >>>> out of fashion :-) Nowadays it's not as simple.
> >>>
> >>> Knock wood the wage earner doesn't get sick or hurt, or worse.
> >>> Or leave.
> >>
> >> Divorce, layoff, being replaced by technology, single wage earner,
> >> feminism.... 78% of wage earners in the U.S. cant support a family
> >> of 3 on their own incomes anymore.
> >>
> >> -sw
> >
> > At least, not in the style to which they feel entitled.
>
> It's not about *feeling* "entitled" to a better lifestyle. A lot of
> those 78% are working just as hard or harder than the other 22%,
> especially when you consider they have two income earners. Do you
> really not pity so many of the teachers who get paid dirt wages for
> baby-sitting (and practically raising) their obnoxious, out of
> control kids 8 hours a day for 12 years?
>
> -sw

So only people in the 78th percentile raise children? Really?

I'll be sure to let the people I know raising a family on the median
income that they can't afford it.

Why on earth did you bring teachers into it?

Cindy Hamilton