Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just find it strange that you and others consider cigarettes and lottery tickets necessities. I simply don't agree with that.
What? Where did anyone say or imply that. They aren’t necessities. They are wasteful spending of their own money. If the public didn’t supply them with necessities they would have to use their own money on their own necessities and not waste it on frivolous and unhealthy things. But society enables them to do just that. If they have money to waste then they aren’t so poor as to need someone else to supply their food.
What? Where did anyone say or imply that. They aren’t necessities. They are wasteful spending of their own money. If the public didn’t supply them with necessities they would have to use their own money on their own necessities and not waste it on frivolous and unhealthy things. But society enables them to do just that. If they have money to waste then they aren’t so poor as to need someone else to supply their food.
Did you read the study? Did you read the article linked in the OP?
What? Where did anyone say or imply that. They aren’t necessities. They are wasteful spending of their own money. If the public didn’t supply them with necessities they would have to use their own money on their own necessities and not waste it on frivolous and unhealthy things. But society enables them to do just that. If they have money to waste then they aren’t so poor as to need someone else to supply their food.
Did you actually read the article? My post (which your quote was responding to) was referencing the actual article in the OP. The idea that smoking and lottery tickets are necessities is strange.
This thread is becoming more and more entertaining! It wouldn't have been nearly as much fun if the OP had actually read the link she provided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Feel free to document how the poor's spending habits have changed since 2017.
Nope. You introduced the topic; it's up to you to back up your assertions. Debate 101.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebee Teepee
shopping at Wal-Mart, the ingredients for a McDouble would cost you $1.36 each (after tax).
Ground beef alone for a McDouble would cost more than $1. Then there's the bun and the accoutrements ... It's probably a wash, and with purchasing from McD's you don't have to buy the equipment to cook the beef.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90
You posted the article. We all read the article you posted.
I don't think the OP did, however.
Quote:
Are you now saying that the article you posted is misleading?
I owe you a couple of rep points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMansLands
Ah, bash the poor. What a lovely afternoon it is.
Are you poor? If not, then who are you to judge?
It's a common song and dance with some people who frequent this forum. They use old data, or purposely misuse or misinterpret data, to back up their fallacious points, and then double down by repeating the same misinterpretations over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
What makes you think I'm judging the poor?
Uh ... Your opening post?
Quote:
Elizabeth Warren specifically hassled Kroger's and other grocers for "supposed" profit-taking.
That is incorrect. She questioned Kroger giving bonuses to its top employees and shareholders instead of to its front line workers. Reading is fundamental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The study doesn't state that. It's only the article author's ridiculous opinion.
If it's so ridiculous, why did you bother posting it? To demonize the poor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000
The terms are defined in the article and study themselves. No need for you to redefine them to make yourself look better. There's a reason they took explicit steps to define luxuries and necessities for their study. So that people would not assume or pull up other definitions in which their study did not measure. Like you are doing now.
The utterly absurd conjecture is the one you have in the OP. The study does not assert that at all.
The study itself doesn't. The article's author tried to make a point by including cigarettes as an example, but that just exposes the article author's own ignorance.
Blows my mind that the OP didn't read the study they were citing.
That is, I think, a mere venial sin in the great scheme of things. I have in the past used articles from trusted sources that cited a study, if I felt it got the point across.
But I will admit that it's an interesting debate maneuver to post an article citing a study, and then fervently argue that the article's writer is 100% wrong - and doing so without citing the actual study. That may be a first.
That is, I think, a mere venial sin in the great scheme of things. I have in the past used articles from trusted sources that cited a study, if I felt it got the point across.
But I will admit that it's an interesting debate maneuver to post an article citing a study, and then fervently argue that the article's writer is 100% wrong - and doing so without citing the actual study. That may be a first.
This wouldn't surprise you so much if you had been following this OP on another very long very active thread that has been going for months now on this forum.
This wouldn't surprise you so much if you had been following this OP on another very long very active thread that has been going for months now on this forum.
You mean the one in which she has posted 545 times?
you mean the one in which she has posted 545 times?
How did you guess?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
