On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 08:15:29 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton wrote:

> 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

Obviously you aren't following what I'm saying again. I'm not going
to explain it again like I mistakenly took the time to do in the
trick or treat thread and you snipped it all and ignored.

-sw