President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Uncle Ted]

Shame on Drumpf for scaring the good people of Hawaii!

[old_gregg]

he was playing golf

[Walter Sobchak]

Shame on Drumpf for scaring the good people of Hawaii!

[Omaha 680]

And then there were obviously no procedures in place to quickly send out a notification that it was a false alarm because that took 30 or 40 minutes after the initial alert. So nuts.

[Uncle Ted]

And then there were obviously no procedures in place to quickly send out a notification that it was a false alarm because that took 30 or 40 minutes after the initial alert. So nuts.

You have to wonder what people did in their “last 30 or 40 minutes”... maybe there will be a bunch of babies born in HI 9 months from now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bluegoose]

You have to wonder what people did in their “last 30 or 40 minutes”... maybe there will be a bunch of babies born in HI 9 months from now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ken Jennings tweeted out prayers to all those in Hawaii who finally came clean with their spouse in their final moments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

Good news, guys. It turns out that Trump is the LEAST racist person in America. Phew!

[Uncle Ted]

Good news, guys. It turns out that Trump is the LEAST racist person in America. Phew!

Don't forget a stable genius and the american dream!

[Northwestcoug]

[creekster]

what are Durbin and the Democrats thinking by pushing this s-hole line of opposition in the media? They know that DACA is linked to the government funding issue and the deal has to be completed in short order. Wouldn’t they be better off in trying to get a deal done and then revealing what Trump said? Doesn’t that give them maximum leverage? The way they’ve handled it, they have simply entrenched Trump and are focused on an issue that, ultimately has no bearing on anything except for opinions that almost everyone already held about Trump anyway. Their strategy here eludes me.

[creekster]

I actually think this is one way Trump wins more often than he should. People are so repulsed by his uncouth personal style that they fail to take him seriously and failed to use prudent, winning strategies when dealing with him. Even though he is crass, prejudiced and a clown, the fact is he is promoting policies and many people like the policies he promotes. The Democrats would do well to remember this. It’s far too easy to make fun of him and ignore why some of the things he does work.

[Uncle Ted]

what are Durbin and the Democrats thinking by pushing this s-hole line of opposition in the media? They know that DACA is linked to the government funding issue and the deal has to be completed in short order. Wouldn’t they be better off in trying to get a deal done and then revealing what Trump said? Doesn’t that give them maximum leverage? The way they’ve handled it, they have simply entrenched Trump and are focused on an issue that, ultimately has no bearing on anything except for opinions that almost everyone already held about Trump anyway. Their strategy here eludes me.

It is pretty simple... The GOP'ers are now in power so that means that now the Dems are the obstructionists. It is a simple role reversal.

[creekster]

But obstruction to what end in this instance? They might Have had both sides of it if they had played it differently.

[Uncle Ted]

But obstruction to what end in this instance? They might Have had both sides of it if they had played it differently.

IDK... Dems are without logic.

[Uncle Ted]

I actually think this is one way Trump wins more often than he should. People are so repulsed by his uncouth personal style that they fail to take him seriously and failed to use prudent, winning strategies when dealing with him. Even though he is crass, prejudiced and a clown, the fact is he is promoting policies and many people like the policies he promotes. The Democrats would do well to remember this. It’s far too easy to make fun of him and ignore why some of the things he does work.

The dem voters may not remember all those policies that he promoted with the exception of one... and the fact that no democrat voted for it. How many folks work at Walmart again?

[Moliere]

The dem voters may not remember all those policies that he promoted with the exception of one... and the fact that no democrat voted for it. How many folks work at Walmart again?

But trickle down economics don't work...

[bluegoose]

But trickle down economics don't work...

It's all that money they were able to save by closing down 63 Sam's Club stores.

[Moliere]

It's all that money they were able to save by closing down 63 Sam's Club stores.

You don't save money by closing down stores unless those stores are already losing money or aren't providing a decent enough return.

My response was flippant. Trickle down works but not in the way people want it to work. These workers are probably ecstatic about a $2/hour raise, which is a 20% raise. However, the reality is that if you look at their earnings increase relative to management or those that participate in equity plans, it's probably more of a relative decrease in spending power. That's why I laugh when everyone looks at their growing 401k as if they are getting more rich, when in fact, unless they have more than the average person in their 401k, they are actually losing money/spending power on a relative basis.

[frank ryan]

The dem voters may not remember all those policies that he promoted with the exception of one... and the fact that no democrat voted for it. How many folks work at Walmart again?

Walmart is laying off a bunch of people, closing stores, automating more of their cashiers, eliminated a lot of management but they raised their hiring wage by a dollar!

[Moliere]

Walmart is laying off a bunch of people, closing stores, automating more of their cashiers, eliminated a lot of management but they raised their hiring wage by a dollar!

Closing unprofitable stores and automating processes are not bad things, neither is eliminating needless management.

[creekster]

Walmart is laying off a bunch of people, closing stores, automating more of their cashiers, eliminated a lot of management but they raised their hiring wage by a dollar!

It is nice to see you showing such great nuance in your views of the economy. Or even of Walmart itself.

[Uncle Ted]

Walmart is laying off a bunch of people, closing stores, automating more of their cashiers, eliminated a lot of management but they raised their hiring wage by a dollar!

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords! I love the robot cashiers and use them all the time. Those robots don't make small talk which I like. I just like to pay for my crap and go.

Closing unprofitable stores and automating processes are not bad things, neither is eliminating needless management.

Looks like Texas is only closing three sam's clubs... all in H-Town. Of course, since they opened that new Costco just up the street from me I don't go to Sammy's much any more so maybe they will close that one as well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's why I laugh when everyone looks at their growing 401k as if they are getting more rich, when in fact, unless they have more than the average person in their 401k, they are actually losing money/spending power on a relative basis.

Help me understand this. This would seem to imply that the economy is a zero sum game, which is most certainly not true. What am I missing?

[old_gregg]

It is nice to see you showing such great nuance in your views of the economy. Or even of Walmart itself.

creek this is a stupid post, just a heads up. frank’s post does not speak to the general economic or business wisdom of the move, but is an indictment of the narrative that wm is suddenly labor-friendly. you sure are quick to jump down his throat.

[Moliere]

Help me understand this. This would seem to imply that the economy is a zero sum game, which is most certainly not true. What am I missing?

I'm being too simple with it, but if your wages go up $1 and mine go up $2, then I have more buying power relative to you. You are happy, until you find out that the same thing we want to buy just increased in price by $1.25, so while I end up ultimately happy, you actually end up with less buying power even though you are paid more. Like you mention, it's not a zero sum game so my comment is overly simplistic, but over the long run I think it would hold true, especially as costs creep up due to the increased wages. If prices stay constant, then all benefit, but that's rarely the case, especially for normal and luxury goods.

I'm not saying the increased wages aren't good, they definitely are, but they'd be even better in times when the economy isn't humming along so nicely.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm being too simple with it, but if your wages go up $1 and mine go up $2, then I have more buying power relative to you. You are happy, until you find out that the same thing we want to buy just increased in price by $1.25, so while I end up ultimately happy, you actually end up with less buying power even though you are paid more. Like you mention, it's not a zero sum game so my comment is overly simplistic, but over the long run I think it would hold true, especially as costs creep up due to the increased wages. If prices stay constant, then all benefit, but that's rarely the case, especially for normal and luxury goods.

Therefore, shouldn't the metric for your 401K be whether or not it is beating inflation? How much money you have relative to other people has nothing to do with the buying power of your money, right? Everybody can have more buying power over time with a growing economy.

Back to your original statement, if someone has the average amount of money in a 401K, it is not likely very much. I was curious about this so I looked it up. It varies a little by year, but not much.

Average 401k balance = ~$100K

But get this, the median is much worse:

Media 401K balance = ~$26-30K

Yikes!

http://time.com/money/4357248/retire...guard-balance/

[creekster]

creek this is a stupid post, just a heads up. frank’s post does not speak to the general economic or business wisdom of the move, but is an indictment of the narrative that wm is suddenly labor-friendly. you sure are quick to jump down his throat.

You are giving me a heads up that this is a stupid post? Your magnanimity knows few bounds.

The narrative began at the macro level and ended at the WM example. Sorry if my posting doesn't met your or others' standards for intelligence, but you've already announced that I am not smart so I just have to try the best I can. Buddy.

[creekster]

I'm being too simple with it, but if your wages go up $1 and mine go up $2, then I have more buying power relative to you. You are happy, until you find out that the same thing we want to buy just increased in price by $1.25, so while I end up ultimately happy, you actually end up with less buying power even though you are paid more. Like you mention, it's not a zero sum game so my comment is overly simplistic, but over the long run I think it would hold true, especially as costs creep up due to the increased wages. If prices stay constant, then all benefit, but that's rarely the case, especially for normal and luxury goods.

I'm not saying the increased wages aren't good, they definitely are, but they'd be even better in times when the economy isn't humming along so nicely.

SO Walmart does its part by both giving bonuses and firing people?

[old_gregg]

It is nice to see you showing such great nuance in your views of the economy. Or even of Walmart itself.

You are giving me a heads up that this is a stupid post? Your magnanimity knows few bounds.

The narrative began at the macro level and ended at the WM example. Sorry if my posting doesn't met your or others' standards for intelligence, but you've already announced that I am not smart so I just have to try the best I can. Buddy.

yowza, creek. you don’t get to be an acerbic asshole and also be the victim. in your eagerness to be a dick to frank, you missed the boat. truly do not understand why you don’t occupy your time with something other than condescending to the level of us lowly folk when it makes you so unpleasant all the time.

[Moliere]

Therefore, shouldn't the metric for your 401K be whether or not it is beating inflation? How much money you have relative to other people has nothing to do with the buying power of your money, right? Everybody can have more buying power over time with a growing economy.

Back to your original statement, if someone has the average amount of money in a 401K, it is not likely very much. I was curious about this so I looked it up. It varies a little by year, but not much.

Average 401k balance = ~$100K

But get this, the median is much worse:

Media 401K balance = ~$26-30K

Yikes!

http://time.com/money/4357248/retire...guard-balance/

If you are simply beating inflation, then you probably won't be retiring any time soon. But I guess my point is that you and I are killing it off of this economy since we have 401K balances that are growing. We'll both have great retirements and even good lives prior to retirement because we both have brokerage accounts. I'm doing really well because part of my pay is in stock adn my company's stock is doing well. People getting a $1k bonus and $1/hour pay raise are happy, but the divide will continue to grow between those that have savings/investments and those that live paycheck to paycheck. I guess they can afford to upsize their McDonald's meal now, which is great, but I'll be flying to Europe and taking cruises.

And yikes! at those 401k balances. It's sad that some people have so little will power when it comes to saving. I konw people that are cashing out their retirement to pay for their kids' bad deeds/choices. Heck, my inlaws are still funding five of their children in some form or fashion, and they are all grown, married, and graduated from college.