On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 19:49:39 +0100, Opheila wrote:

> Hey asshole , my wife works at Walmart - as do quite a few people I
> know , and while we/they ain't rich , almost all of them/us are
> white . And the store they work at looks nothing like that pathetic
> place Squirts posted the photos of . FWIW , my wife said their store
> looks like that - for a day or two before/after a "major weather
> event" . And another thing , if that really IS a Walmart , corporate
> would have that manager gone in a heartbeat for that level of
> mismanagement . If there's no product to sell , there's no profit .
> And if there's one thing WM watches like a hawk it's profit .

Terry figured it out. That's not really a Walmart. I built a store
that looks like Walmart, stocked it with some merchandise including
some "Great Value" brand products (that you can see in some of the
pictures), and then hired some people to pretend they're customers -
just so I could discredit Walmart. And I almost got away with it!
Drat, foiled again!

Corporate doesn't care about profit, they care about the bottom
line. The grocery department is very labor intensive. And like I
mentioned, you can still turn a profit in slotting fees while not
selling anything. The money they're saving on labor apparently is
more significant than selling cheap shit at rock bottom prices for
negligible profit. Anybody who wants real food shops ta H-E-B
anyway.

-sw

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:38:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 11:46:05 AM UTC-5, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>
>> my Walmart and those around me do not look like that. No. The
>> Walmarts located here just aren't like that. Sometimes in the hot
>> Spring the plants in the garden center look pretty wilted. And you
>> can notice when they are shifting over from the Christmas season
>> trees, bulbs, etc., to fertilizers, pots and seeds, BBQ grills and
>> charcoal.
>> Janet US
>>
> Mine either, Janet. They're stocking throughout the day and that includes
> the grocery area.

Ironically, I actually saw two workers in the grocery section (and
they were actually working!). They were moving the products from
the back of the shelves to the front and facing the labels out. To
give the *illusion* that the shelves were kinda full without
actually restocking anything.

-sw

"Opheila" wrote in message ...

On 11:08 11 Oct 2018, Sqwertz > wrote in
:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 19:49:39 +0100, Opheila wrote:

> Hey asshole , my wife works at Walmart - as do quite a few people I
> know , and while we/they ain't rich , almost all of them/us are
> white . And the store they work at looks nothing like that pathetic
> place Squirts posted the photos of . FWIW , my wife said their store
> looks like that - for a day or two before/after a "major weather
> event" . And another thing , if that really IS a Walmart , corporate
> would have that manager gone in a heartbeat for that level of
> mismanagement . If there's no product to sell , there's no profit .
> And if there's one thing WM watches like a hawk it's profit .

Terry figured it out. That's not really a Walmart. I built a store
that looks like Walmart, stocked it with some merchandise including
some "Great Value" brand products (that you can see in some of the
pictures), and then hired some people to pretend they're customers -
just so I could discredit Walmart. And I almost got away with it!
Drat, foiled again!

Corporate doesn't care about profit, they care about the bottom
line. The grocery department is very labor intensive. And like I
mentioned, you can still turn a profit in slotting fees while not
selling anything. The money they're saving on labor apparently is
more significant than selling cheap shit at rock bottom prices for
negligible profit. Anybody who wants real food shops ta H-E-B
anyway.

-sw

==

lol

===

Thank you for your contribution, Anthony Bourne!

I have never seen empty shelves and bins like that at any grocery source. Yes, it is the manager.
If it were my main source, I would send those images to "corporate," and see if that would improve
things. It certainly couldn't hurt.

N.

On 10/9/2018 2:46 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

> I suspect that they monitor my buying habits and deliberately run out
> of things when they know I'll need them. They're in cahoots with the
> guy from the gas station who reports when my tank is getting empty so they
> know to raise the prices before I come to gas up.

Not so much lately, but in previous years it seemed like my store
would be annoyed by having to continually restock popular items
so they'd just stop carrying them.

nancy

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.

nancy

On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 9:43:13 AM UTC-4, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 2:46 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> > I suspect that they monitor my buying habits and deliberately run out
> > of things when they know I'll need them. They're in cahoots with the
> > guy from the gas station who reports when my tank is getting empty so they
> > know to raise the prices before I come to gas up.
>
> Not so much lately, but in previous years it seemed like my store
> would be annoyed by having to continually restock popular items
> so they'd just stop carrying them.

For a while, it seemed like every time I discovered something "new"
that I liked, it was discontinued not long afterward.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2018-10-11 9:43 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 2:46 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
>> I suspect that they monitor my buying habits and deliberately run out
>> of things when they know I'll need them.Â* They're in cahoots with the
>> guy from the gas station who reports when my tank is getting empty so
>> they
>> know to raise the prices before I come to gas up.
>
> Not so much lately, but in previous years it seemed like my store
> would be annoyed by having to continually restock popular items
> so they'd just stop carrying them.
>

I sincerely doubt that the stores get annoyed about having to restock
shelves because needing to be restocked means that the product sold, and
they are in the business of selling.

On 10/11/2018 10:15 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2018-10-11 9:43 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

>> Not so much lately, but in previous years it seemed like my store
>> would be annoyed by having to continually restock popular items
>> so they'd just stop carrying them.
>>
>
> I sincerely doubt that the stores get annoyed about having to restock
> shelves because needing to be restocked means that the product sold, and
> they are in the business of selling.

It was just a joke we made because it happened all the time. No, I
did not think the stock people were deleting the item from the
inventory system.

nancy

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

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 07:13:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton wrote:

> For a while, it seemed like every time I discovered something "new"
> that I liked, it was discontinued not long afterward.

That's why I'm hating Costco more and more. They're phasing out all
the tasty stuff in favor of more expensive organic, gluten free,
non-tasty stuff.

-sw

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:15:44 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> On 2018-10-11 9:43 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> Not so much lately, but in previous years it seemed like my store
>> would be annoyed by having to continually restock popular items
>> so they'd just stop carrying them.
>
> I sincerely doubt that the stores get annoyed about having to restock
> shelves because needing to be restocked means that the product sold, and
> they are in the business of selling.

But its entirely possible that suppliers wanted to raise the price
on items that were sold at introductory costs, and Walmart dumped
them because they always insist that suppliers lower their prices,
never raising them.

-sw

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.

Cindy Hamilton

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

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

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:
snip
>>
>> 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.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

I really hope you just rattled that off and didn't think about what
you said.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 02:51:44 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 07:13:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
>> For a while, it seemed like every time I discovered something "new"
>> that I liked, it was discontinued not long afterward.
>
>That's why I'm hating Costco more and more. They're phasing out all
>the tasty stuff in favor of more expensive organic, gluten free,
>non-tasty stuff.
>
>-sw

Ditto

On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 12:14:22 PM UTC-4, U.S. Janet B. 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:
> snip
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >Cindy Hamilton
>
> I really hope you just rattled that off and didn't think about what
> you said.

No, I did think about it. Do people need cellphones? Do kids need
expensive team sports? Can they get along sharing a room? Can
they buy their clothes second-hand? No, No, No, and Yes.

Could they simply be raised the way we were? Yes.

Cindy Hamilton

On 10/13/2018 2:36 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 12:14:22 PM UTC-4, U.S. Janet B. 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:
>> snip
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> I really hope you just rattled that off and didn't think about what
>> you said.
>
> No, I did think about it. Do people need cellphones? Do kids need
> expensive team sports? Can they get along sharing a room? Can
> they buy their clothes second-hand? No, No, No, and Yes.
>
> Could they simply be raised the way we were? Yes.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>

Yes, that is correct. Just like the family that both parents have to
work so he can drive a BMW and she has a huge SUV and the family spends
a week at Disney. If you want to work to pay for it, your choice, but
don't tell me you "have" to work instead of staying home for the kids.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 11:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 12:14:22 PM UTC-4, U.S. Janet B. 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:
>> snip
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> I really hope you just rattled that off and didn't think about what
>> you said.
>
>No, I did think about it. Do people need cellphones? Do kids need
>expensive team sports? Can they get along sharing a room? Can
>they buy their clothes second-hand? No, No, No, and Yes.
>
>Could they simply be raised the way we were? Yes.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

It seems to me you are describing middle income families. If we are
talking about 78% of wage earners, there are an awful lot of people in
that group that struggle to have basic necessities. They don't think
in terms of entitlement.

On 10/13/2018 7:08 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 11:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 12:14:22 PM UTC-4, U.S. Janet B. 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:
>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>>> I really hope you just rattled that off and didn't think about what
>>> you said.
>>
>> No, I did think about it. Do people need cellphones? Do kids need
>> expensive team sports? Can they get along sharing a room? Can
>> they buy their clothes second-hand? No, No, No, and Yes.
>>
>> Could they simply be raised the way we were? Yes.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> It seems to me you are describing middle income families. If we are
> talking about 78% of wage earners, there are an awful lot of people in
> that group that struggle to have basic necessities. They don't think
> in terms of entitlement.
>

The definition of basic necessities seems to have been sliding though.
Food? Sure. Clothing? Yes, sneakers are but the don't have to be $150
Nike.

Yes, the bottom end of that 78% are struggling but I don't know what
portion that is on the curve. I think the upper end of it is partly self
inflicted.

On 2018-10-13 5:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 10/13/2018 7:08 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 11:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 12:14:22 PM UTC-4, U.S. Janet B. 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:
>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>
>>>> I really hope you just rattled that off and didn't think about what
>>>> you said.
>>>
>>> No, I did think about it.Â* Do people need cellphones?Â* Do kids need
>>> expensive team sports?Â* Can they get along sharing a room?Â* Can
>>> they buy their clothes second-hand?Â* No, No, No, and Yes.
>>>
>>> Could they simply be raised the way we were?Â* Yes.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> ItÂ* seems to me you are describing middle income families.Â* If we are
>> talking about 78% of wage earners, there are an awful lot of people in
>> that group that struggle to have basic necessities.Â* They don't think
>> in terms of entitlement.
>>
>
> The definition of basic necessities seems to have been sliding though.
> Food?Â* Sure.Â* Clothing?Â* Yes, sneakers are but the don't have to be $150
> Nike.
>
> Yes, the bottom end of that 78% are struggling but I don't know what
> portion that is on the curve. I think the upper end of it is partly self
> inflicted.
Careful!!! You are beginning to sound like those well-off people who
blame the poor for being poor.

On 10/13/2018 9:13 PM, graham wrote:
> On 2018-10-13 5:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 10/13/2018 7:08 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 11:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 12:14:22 PM UTC-4, U.S. Janet B.
>>>> 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:
>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>>
>>>>> I really hope you just rattled that off and didn't think about what
>>>>> you said.
>>>>
>>>> No, I did think about it.Â* Do people need cellphones?Â* Do kids need
>>>> expensive team sports?Â* Can they get along sharing a room?Â* Can
>>>> they buy their clothes second-hand?Â* No, No, No, and Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Could they simply be raised the way we were?Â* Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>>> ItÂ* seems to me you are describing middle income families.Â* If we are
>>> talking about 78% of wage earners, there are an awful lot of people in
>>> that group that struggle to have basic necessities.Â* They don't think
>>> in terms of entitlement.
>>>
>>
>> The definition of basic necessities seems to have been sliding though.
>> Food?Â* Sure.Â* Clothing?Â* Yes, sneakers are but the don't have to be
>> $150 Nike.
>>
>> Yes, the bottom end of that 78% are struggling but I don't know what
>> portion that is on the curve. I think the upper end of it is partly
>> self inflicted.
> Careful!!! You are beginning to sound like those well-off people who
> blame the poor for being poor.

No, I'm talking about the people that made a decent wage but don't know
how to manage it. I'm broke and have no money for food since I bought
those $300 sneakers.

On 2018-10-13 11:23 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 10/13/2018 9:13 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 2018-10-13 5:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>>> Yes, the bottom end of that 78% are struggling but I don't know what
>>> portion that is on the curve. I think the upper end of it is partly
>>> self inflicted.
>> Careful!!! You are beginning to sound like those well-off people who
>> blame the poor for being poor.
>
> No, I'm talking about the people that made a decent wage but don't know
> how to manage it.Â* I'm broke and have no money for food since I bought
> those $300 sneakers.

A while back I was helping out at the food bank at my wife's church and
some teen had designer back pack and an iPhone that obviously had a data
plan. If I was so broke that I could not afford to buy food I don't
think I would be blowing the money I did have on luxuries like that.

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

On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:37:58 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> A while back I was helping out at the food bank at my wife's church and
> some teen had designer back pack ...

Channel? Gucci?

Just by saying "designer backpack" you pretty much imply you're
exaggerating.

-sw

On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:37:58 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2018-10-13 11:23 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 10/13/2018 9:13 PM, graham wrote:
>>> On 2018-10-13 5:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, the bottom end of that 78% are struggling but I don't know what
>>>> portion that is on the curve. I think the upper end of it is partly
>>>> self inflicted.
>>> Careful!!! You are beginning to sound like those well-off people who
>>> blame the poor for being poor.
>>
>> No, I'm talking about the people that made a decent wage but don't know
>> how to manage it.* I'm broke and have no money for food since I bought
>> those $300 sneakers.
>
>A while back I was helping out at the food bank at my wife's church and
>some teen had designer back pack and an iPhone that obviously had a data
>plan. If I was so broke that I could not afford to buy food I don't
>think I would be blowing the money I did have on luxuries like that.

How could you tell it was a designer backpack?` There are data plans
for less than $10 per month, certainly cheaper than maintaining a land
line. There are places that sell used cell phones for really cheap.
Janet US

On 2018-10-14 8:52 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:37:58 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2018-10-13 11:23 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2018 9:13 PM, graham wrote:
>>>> On 2018-10-13 5:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes, the bottom end of that 78% are struggling but I don't know what
>>>>> portion that is on the curve. I think the upper end of it is partly
>>>>> self inflicted.
>>>> Careful!!! You are beginning to sound like those well-off people who
>>>> blame the poor for being poor.
>>>
>>> No, I'm talking about the people that made a decent wage but don't know
>>> how to manage it.Â* I'm broke and have no money for food since I bought
>>> those $300 sneakers.
>>
>> A while back I was helping out at the food bank at my wife's church and
>> some teen had designer back pack and an iPhone that obviously had a data
>> plan. If I was so broke that I could not afford to buy food I don't
>> think I would be blowing the money I did have on luxuries like that.
>
> How could you tell it was a designer backpack?` There are data plans
> for less than $10 per month, certainly cheaper than maintaining a land
> line. There are places that sell used cell phones for really cheap.
> Janet US
>
You should know by now that when Dave finds one damaged or rotten apple,
he discards the whole barrel!

I have the cheapest flip phone possible...$29...and I have to renew the data plan for X number of
minutes every month or 6 months or 9 months for the privilege of leaving it in my car 24/7 for
emergency calls only. The problem is, they don't have a plan that doesn't include X number of
minutes every time I renew coverage, so now I have over 11,000 minutes. The phone people
won't take them as a donation to somebody relying on a charity, so I asked around, and the VA
will take them, but only as a loaded "minute card," worth X amount of money. They have promised
to call me if they have someone's cell number who can use them, but so far, no call. (They have to
have a Tracfone cell number in order for the donation to work. So the minutes keep adding up.)

N.

On 2018-10-14 10:52 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:37:58 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2018-10-13 11:23 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2018 9:13 PM, graham wrote:
>>>> On 2018-10-13 5:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes, the bottom end of that 78% are struggling but I don't know what
>>>>> portion that is on the curve. I think the upper end of it is partly
>>>>> self inflicted.
>>>> Careful!!! You are beginning to sound like those well-off people who
>>>> blame the poor for being poor.
>>>
>>> No, I'm talking about the people that made a decent wage but don't know
>>> how to manage it.Â* I'm broke and have no money for food since I bought
>>> those $300 sneakers.
>>
>> A while back I was helping out at the food bank at my wife's church and
>> some teen had designer back pack and an iPhone that obviously had a data
>> plan. If I was so broke that I could not afford to buy food I don't
>> think I would be blowing the money I did have on luxuries like that.
>
> How could you tell it was a designer backpack?`

Really? They tend to be well branded.

> There are data plans
> for less than $10 per month, certainly cheaper than maintaining a land
> line. There are places that sell used cell phones for really cheap.

New iPhones? Those cheap data plans have extreme limits on them. They
are enough to get your email and do couple hours surfing each month.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 13:33:51 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2018-10-14 10:52 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:37:58 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-10-13 11:23 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2018 9:13 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-10-13 5:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the bottom end of that 78% are struggling but I don't know what
>>>>>> portion that is on the curve. I think the upper end of it is partly
>>>>>> self inflicted.
>>>>> Careful!!! You are beginning to sound like those well-off people who
>>>>> blame the poor for being poor.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm talking about the people that made a decent wage but don't know
>>>> how to manage it.* I'm broke and have no money for food since I bought
>>>> those $300 sneakers.
>>>
>>> A while back I was helping out at the food bank at my wife's church and
>>> some teen had designer back pack and an iPhone that obviously had a data
>>> plan. If I was so broke that I could not afford to buy food I don't
>>> think I would be blowing the money I did have on luxuries like that.
>>
>> How could you tell it was a designer backpack?`
>
>Really? They tend to be well branded.
>
> > There are data plans
>> for less than $10 per month, certainly cheaper than maintaining a land
>> line. There are places that sell used cell phones for really cheap.
>
>New iPhones? Those cheap data plans have extreme limits on them. They
>are enough to get your email and do couple hours surfing each month.
>

My Tracfone plan costs me $99/year. That's for talk,text, web, gets
me 1300 minutes for each. You can refill minutes any time at many $
levels.
Did you see the story on the news about the white woman shopping in a
grocery store who got hysterical and accused a black boy (9 years old.
accompanied by his much younger sister and his mother) of groping her
ass? She called the police on him? Next day she had to come back and
view video footage of the little boy walking past her and his backpack
brushed against her.
You are like the white women who have been calling the police on these
innocent black men. You are looking for an excuse why someone is bad.
Always checking people out, calling them on cheating, stealing, taking
advantage,. Yet you have no knowledge of the full circumstances.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 13:33:17 -0600, U.S. Janet B. >
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 13:33:51 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>>On 2018-10-14 10:52 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:37:58 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-10-13 11:23 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2018 9:13 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-10-13 5:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, the bottom end of that 78% are struggling but I don't know what
>>>>>>> portion that is on the curve. I think the upper end of it is partly
>>>>>>> self inflicted.
>>>>>> Careful!!! You are beginning to sound like those well-off people who
>>>>>> blame the poor for being poor.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I'm talking about the people that made a decent wage but don't know
>>>>> how to manage it.* I'm broke and have no money for food since I bought
>>>>> those $300 sneakers.
>>>>
>>>> A while back I was helping out at the food bank at my wife's church and
>>>> some teen had designer back pack and an iPhone that obviously had a data
>>>> plan. If I was so broke that I could not afford to buy food I don't
>>>> think I would be blowing the money I did have on luxuries like that.
>>>
>>> How could you tell it was a designer backpack?`
>>
>>Really? They tend to be well branded.
>>
>> > There are data plans
>>> for less than $10 per month, certainly cheaper than maintaining a land
>>> line. There are places that sell used cell phones for really cheap.
>>
>>New iPhones? Those cheap data plans have extreme limits on them. They
>>are enough to get your email and do couple hours surfing each month.
>>
>
>My Tracfone plan costs me $99/year. That's for talk,text, web, gets
>me 1300 minutes for each. You can refill minutes any time at many $
>levels.
>Did you see the story on the news about the white woman shopping in a
>grocery store who got hysterical and accused a black boy (9 years old.
>accompanied by his much younger sister and his mother) of groping her
>ass? She called the police on him? Next day she had to come back and
>view video footage of the little boy walking past her and his backpack
>brushed against her.
>You are like the white women who have been calling the police on these
>innocent black men. You are looking for an excuse why someone is bad.
>Always checking people out, calling them on cheating, stealing, taking
>advantage,. Yet you have no knowledge of the full circumstances.

correction, I didn't mean to say black men because black children,
black women and black men have been reported.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 13:33:17 -0600, U.S. Janet B. >
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 13:33:51 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>>New iPhones? Those cheap data plans have extreme limits on them. They
>>are enough to get your email and do couple hours surfing each month.

(...)
>Did you see the story on the news about the white woman shopping in a
>grocery store who got hysterical and accused a black boy (9 years old.
>accompanied by his much younger sister and his mother) of groping her
>ass? She called the police on him? Next day she had to come back and
>view video footage of the little boy walking past her and his backpack
>brushed against her.

Besides, if a 9 year old would actually grope a woman's ass, should
she go all #METOO on him? He's probably checking her back pocket for
candy. And I mean real candy.

>You are like the white women who have been calling the police on these
>innocent black men. You are looking for an excuse why someone is bad.
>Always checking people out, calling them on cheating, stealing, taking
>advantage,. Yet you have no knowledge of the full circumstances.

A fair analysis of the man.

On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 2:33:24 PM UTC-5, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>
> My Tracfone plan costs me $99/year. That's for talk,text, web, gets
> me 1300 minutes for each. You can refill minutes any time at many $
> levels.
>
They have a card that you can renew for around $49 per year to keep your
service active without buying any additional minutes. They also have the
Maintenance Plan which is around $6.64 per month to keep your service
active without adding additional minutes.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 16:33:39 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 2:33:24 PM UTC-5, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>
>> My Tracfone plan costs me $99/year. That's for talk,text, web, gets
>> me 1300 minutes for each. You can refill minutes any time at many $
>> levels.
>>
>They have a card that you can renew for around $49 per year to keep your
>service active without buying any additional minutes. They also have the
>Maintenance Plan which is around $6.64 per month to keep your service
>active without adding additional minutes.

I usually buy a new Samsung thru QVC once a year. For $109 I get a
new phone plus full year of service (1300 minutes, talk, text, web)
and am able to roll over all my unused minutes from the previous
phone. I pass my old phone on to my husband. He's on Tracfone as
well and we are able to transfer phones and minutes for him as well. I
have my husband on the maintenance plan.
Janet US