@speechboy71 That's part of problem w/this discussion. W/rising inequality, even w/econ turning around, for actual PEOPLE it's often not.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel finish that thought. Can't discount stats that stronger growth, lower unemployment, business investment etc1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 GDP growth: benefits rich. Lower UE but lower wages: benefits rich. Business invest: benefits rich. Voila! THere's your econ.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 I'm not trying to simplify. I'm trying to say w/inEQ, the old stats aren't the ones to look to, bc improvments not shared.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel But go back to perception argument. If you have a job today and didn't 4 years ago you're likely to think you're better off3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 Depends. Did you lose your house and your savings, and after 99 weeks start at McDonalds? That's a common type of story.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Sure, that's a great counter example2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 It's not a COUNTER argument. We KNOW the new jobs are low paying. So we KNOW the trend is in that direction.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Well obviously that's not true of all new jobs4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@speechboy71 "Lower-wage occupations were 21 percent of recession losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth."
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Would love to discuss more but off to breakfast . Another time!0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.