Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, January 25, 2023

Walmart Inc (NYSE: WMT) prepared to hike average hourly wages for its 340,000 U.S. store workers at about 3,000 stores starting in February to tap employees in a tight domestic labor market.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The minimum wage will rise by up to $2 to $14-$19 per hour, depending on the location. [...] The hikes, however, still lag rivals [...] which offered minimum pay of at least $15 an hour since 2021.

So, still bottom-of-the-barrel wages. About what you would expect from a company that told its full-time workers to go on welfare, sucking up public resources, while Walton's heirs sit on $170 billion for winning the Birth Lottery.

#1 | Posted by censored at 2023-01-25 11:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

This will sweep over the rest of businesses in the US as they will have to compete with bigboxmart. Look for the outrage from medium and small business owners to bitch wildly about this complete with Faux Noise running story after story about how these workers don't deserve the money while simultaneously aggressively pushing to restrict the number of migrant workers at the southern border.

#2 | Posted by Nixon at 2023-01-25 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I rarely shop ay Walmaet due to long check-out lines and poor cusyomer service vut I can obly imagine being sn employee there trying to handle the hordes of impatient customrts so a pay increase is good news.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2023-01-25 12:08 PM | Reply

$17 to $17.50 isn't even 3%.
Clearly Walmart isn't feeling enough pressure.

#6 | Posted by YAV at 2023-01-25 12:34 PM | Reply

How do we get rid of you?

#8 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-01-25 01:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

How do we get rid of you?

You can't. Luftwaffles is in jail but the noise continues unabated.

#9 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-25 01:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why does WAL*MART want to cause inflation?

I'm sure someone who understands economics as only a Republican can will be along shortly to explain how raising wages for the poor raises prices for the poor even higher.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 01:20 PM | Reply

Yup comrades! Get used to high prices. Tax breaks for the top USA capitalist 1% are not cheap.

#11 | Posted by wolfdog at 2023-01-25 01:39 PM | Reply

"Clearly Walmart isn't feeling enough pressure."

They must be, either they wouldn't have needed to raise wages at all.

Wal-Mart, like every other employer, will purchase the type and quality of labor it needs at the going market rate.

They can't pay less...why would they pay more?

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-25 02:35 PM | Reply

-why would they pay more?

To hire better workers. But they don't want to. There is a market for lower grade workers and they can be bought for the wages they currently offer.

They aren't interested in better quality workers.

Take a look at walmart workers.......then recognize that walmart is hiring exactly what they want.

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2023-01-25 02:55 PM | Reply

$15 an hour is $600 per week at full time, no vacations, every week.

It's $2,598 per month. After taxes, it's $2,432 per month.

With the cheapest 1 bedroom apartment at $900, that's $1,532. (Yeah, you're gonna get robbed in that --------)

Basic utilities, internet and phone: $200
Groceries: $600 (welcome to 2023)
Hope you enjoy taking the bus: $50

Now you have about $650 to cover EVERYTHING else including health insurance

Now save your way out of poverty.

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-01-25 03:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not to come to Walmart's (or any Big Box Store's) defense
(because they largely have no defense for their policies),
but Walmart jobs are not what is deemed 'skilled labor'.

Sad truth, but it is a 'skill set economy', as I've preached
to my son countless times (he could and would verify that).

You don't like starvation wages, you don't like backbreaking
labor and long hours, find or develop a SKILL.

A skill (be it white collar or blue collar) that people deem
at least semi-valuable.

Walmart (along w most of the other Big Box Stores) should be a
temporary position in life as you develop further education/skills,
or it can be a semi-retired position for someone at the end of
their work career. Expecting anything that resembles a mid to high
paying career at any of these places (outside of management) is a
fool's dream...

#15 | Posted by earthmuse at 2023-01-25 03:33 PM | Reply

"Now save your way out of poverty."

Without the poor, who would Republicans blame for America's problems* **?

* when there isn't a Democrat in the White House to blame.
** when there isn't a drag queen other than George Santos to blame.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 03:34 PM | Reply

"You don't like starvation wages, you don't like backbreaking
labor and long hours, find or develop a SKILL"

I did that.
And it only cost me fifty grand! (Until Uncle Joe helps me out.)
Not everyone is stupid enough to take on that level of financial risk.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 03:35 PM | Reply

Life is a gamble, what can I say? But one doesn't need a Ph.D to make money. Hell, I make 6 figures working for the
government w only a Bachelor's degree, but I know plumbers and house builder jack-of-all-trades that earner far more than I do. The key is to not be at the bottom of the pyramid for long. Anyone with half a brain or a skill can make a middling salary @ 50k. Partner that with another 50k salary, and you've suddenly got 100k.

Not saying it's easy. But there are ways...

#18 | Posted by earthmuse at 2023-01-25 05:15 PM | Reply

Where would the plutocrats be without their cheap labor pool of wage slaves?

#19 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2023-01-25 05:42 PM | Reply

You don't like starvation wages, you don't like backbreaking
labor and long hours, find or develop a SKILL.

#15 | POSTED BY EARTHMUSE

That might be the most brainwashed comment on this site in 2023.

You have to be "skilled" labor to earn a living wage? Since when? 2000?

Before that, you had a full time job, you can take care of yourself. Hell before 1980, you could graduate high school, go down to the mill, get a job with no experience or skills, buy a damn house, a car and raise a family on that job.

Jesus Christ! I don't want to know what you think an actual skilled worker should get paid. $25 an hour and a gold ------- star? "Congrats! You spent years developing a skill. No more taking the bus for you! You can now afford a rusted out Honda Civic and the ability to go to the doctor twice a year!"

#20 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-01-25 06:50 PM | Reply

50k.
#18 | POSTED BY EARTHMUSE

---- me....

I didn't see this comment until after #20.

You really said it... $25 an hour and a gold ------- star for skilled labor...

Jesus Christ, you really said it...

#21 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-01-25 06:53 PM | Reply

"That might be the most brainwashed comment on this site in 2023."

^
It's representative of the "Since 1975" economic reality.

You want to get ahead? You're only gonna get ahead if you're in the 20% of households.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 06:54 PM | Reply

Earthmuse went full boomer. You never go full boomer.

#23 | Posted by Kreator at 2023-01-26 03:17 PM | Reply

"To hire better workers. But they don't want to. There is a market for lower grade workers and they can be bought for the wages they currently offer."

They don't need to hire engineers to stock shelves. In fact, if the market is sufficiently stocked, they may not even care how long a person stays with the company.

As with any other factor of production, you purchase what you need to get the job done. Why buy a first-class ticket if your objective is simply getting from point A to point B?

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-26 04:21 PM | Reply

"It's $2,598 per month. After taxes, it's $2,432 per month."

My first job after separating from the military in 1998 paid $1000 per month. That's $1816 in 2022$.

And I thought I was frickin' rich. Far more money than I had earned as an E-4 on active duty. Plus, I got weekends off and wasn't working 70 hours per week.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-26 04:25 PM | Reply

#18

Unfortunately, it seems that there are a dearth of young people wanting to go into the trades. Even if you can make far more than some of those with bachelors, and even masters degrees.

When I lived in ND, there were welders in the oil fields making $7k per week. Probably half that was per diem, but even then, $180k per year isn't bad when all your housing, meal and transportation costs are accounted for.

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-26 04:28 PM | Reply

"You have to be "skilled" labor to earn a living wage? Since when? 2000?"

Snoofy would tell you, "since 1975."

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-26 04:29 PM | Reply

"Before that, you had a full time job, you can take care of yourself. Hell before 1980, you could graduate high school, go down to the mill, get a job with no experience or skills, buy a damn house, a car and raise a family on that job."

Economics, my friend.

After WWII, the US was the last industrialized economy left on the planet. If you wanted a TV, or a refrigerator, or a blender, or a bulldozer, you bought something that was manufatured in the US. This gave labor a lot of pricing power, as the costs were just passed on to consumers.

As Europe and Asia rebuilt and rejoined the global marketplace, competition increased. Firms worldwide were now competing for the same customers. US firms had to lower costs in order to remain competitive, which meant lower wages.

Additionally, increasing automation drove a shift from more unskilled workers to fewer skilled workers managing tasks that low-skilled workers would have previously accomplished. This further drove down wages for unskilled workers.

What you're not taking into account is that, adjusted for inflation, consumer goods were far more expensive in the three decades following the end of WWII. In 1960, the purchase of something as (currently) insignificant as a blender or a toaster would have been a significant expense. Which is why during that time there were so many different types of repair operations. If your TV broke, you'd take it in to get it fixed. Today you would dump it and get a new TV. You couldn't really do that if you had shelled out $3k (2022$) for a television.

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-26 04:37 PM | Reply

"Jesus Christ! I don't want to know what you think an actual skilled worker should get paid."

They should get paid whatever salary they negotiate with their employer. As I'm retiring from the military, I recently went through that process.

But to answer your question, the average salary for someone in the trades (an electrician), is ~$50k per year.

The average salary for a software engineer is ~$119k.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-26 04:40 PM | Reply

"You want to get ahead? You're only gonna get ahead if you're in the 20% of households."

You're not going to get there by complaining about the top 20% of households.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-26 04:41 PM | Reply

"I worked every third day"

^
"From Each, According To His Ability."

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-26 05:45 PM | Reply

"Economics, my friend."

Is this the same economics that explaims why the bottom 80% of households had much larger gains in income, prior to 1975?

Or did economics itself change, right around 1975?

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-26 05:48 PM | Reply

"Is this the same economics that explaims why the bottom 80% of households had much larger gains in income, prior to 1975?"

Since you've never taken an econ class, consider #28 a free lesson.

"Or did economics itself change, right around 1975?"

In a manner of speaking, yes.

High wages for unskilled workers in the post-war years was a fluke brought on by the conditions I mentioned previously. In 1975, a high school graduate could expect to earn around 83% of what a college grad would earn. In 2018, a high school grad could expect to earn 48% of what a college grad would earn on average. These are averages, of course. There were plenty of jobs that didn't require a college degree that were filled by college grads because the pay was better than what they would make if they put their education to use. Why? Because there was less demand for skilled labor.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-26 06:14 PM | Reply

Now lets do public school teachers.

You get what you pay for.

#39 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2023-01-26 07:11 PM | Reply

"In a manner of speaking, yes."

^
That's just a long way of saying "no."

You're making the argument that Capitalism puts most people in poverty at the expense of making a few people rich.

I hope you understand that I agree with you. The price-gouging and greediness and unequal income distribution where only the rich get richer that we've seen since 1975 is the true face of Capitalism.

What we had from 1945 to 1975 was in COVIDeqaue terms a "massive supply chain disruption" which forestalled Business As Usual from taking place.

But once all the need for unskilled labor was obviated, for example by adopting unskilled labor in China, things went back to they way they've always been. More or less.

Which is pretty much what Piketty says.

Of course, the simple calculus here, in Piketty's terms, is the return to capital exceeds the return to labor. (This probably isn't a shock since it's called Capitalism and not Laborism.)

Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-first Century" explained
ideas.ted.com

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-26 07:35 PM | Reply

The best thing about Googling "Piketty Capital" is Heritage Foundation comes up second. Naturally, they're not even willing to conceded that the economy for most of human existence has been characterized by a few very wealthy people living off the backs of the poor -- or that it would be wrong if it that were the way of the future! www.heritage.org

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-26 07:40 PM | Reply

That's just a long way of saying "no."

If anything, that's a long way of saying "yes." Is english not your first language?

"You're making the argument that Capitalism puts most people in poverty at the expense of making a few people rich."

Absolutely, patently, demonstrably untrue. This is where you need to abandon your slobbering affair with Marxian economic theories and take an econ class. While you're in the process of doing that, do some research. There is not a single income quintile that has become poorer over the last 56 years. All have remained stagnant or increased.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 08:08 AM | Reply

I hope the house GOP votes to defund the woke parts of economics soon.

The only solution to any issue we face is to capitalism our way out of it.

If capitalism isn't working for you and your less than slave wage earning ass simply capitalism harder.

#44 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 08:55 AM | Reply

"I hope you understand that I agree with you. The price-gouging and greediness and unequal income distribution where only the rich get richer that we've seen since 1975 is the true face of Capitalism."

Price-gouging is nearly impossible, but I have to ask...are you opposed to unions? Because they're probably the best example of price-gougers.

Furthermore, Capitalism is the reason there are now more middle-class people on earth than not.

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 09:01 AM | Reply

"What we had from 1945 to 1975 was in COVIDeqaue terms a "massive supply chain disruption" which forestalled Business As Usual from taking place."

Not really. Prior to WWII, there wasn't a lot of global trade. At least not imports into the US. It was only after WWII that Asian and European economies entered the global marketplace and began competing with the US.

Really, the situation in the US was one where US firms competed against each other for US business. After WII, the US was the only game in town. It was a whole new paradigm.

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 09:04 AM | Reply

"Of course, the simple calculus here, in Piketty's terms, is the return to capital exceeds the return to labor. (This probably isn't a shock since it's called Capitalism and not Laborism.)"

The losses to capital exceed the losses to labor as well. That's for business investments where return is a function of useage and risk. You can buy low risk bonds, but the interest you receive is very low, and only reflective of the cost of use by the issuer.

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 09:06 AM | Reply

Capitalism is the reason there are now more middle-class people on earth than not.

#45 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Not to mention all of that delicious and nutritious lead in baby food.

Win/win.

#48 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 09:06 AM | Reply

"Naturally, they're not even willing to conceded that the economy for most of human existence has been characterized by a few very wealthy people living off the backs of the poor."

I would agree when it came to feudal, serf, and slave states, but if you look at the US, you can't really say the very wealthy are living off the backs of the poor. If anything, the poor are living off the backs of the wealthy.

#49 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 09:07 AM | Reply

"Not to mention all of that delicious and nutritious lead in baby food."

Yeah. Food in socialist countries is way healthier. I'm sure most Cubans are glad they were not born in the US.

#50 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 09:08 AM | Reply

The healthcare, education, and housing is better there too, #50.

They must not be capitalisming hard enough.

#51 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 09:11 AM | Reply

www.workers.org

You better get down there and teach them how to capitalis, #50.

#52 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 09:23 AM | Reply

"The healthcare, education, and housing is better there too, #50."

Really.

I'm sure you could find at least one Cuban who is willing to trade places with you.

Hundreds of thousands of Cubans have risked their lives to get out of Cuba and into the US.

Something like 100 USans have gone the other direction.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 09:54 AM | Reply

#53

Citation, please?

Or are we discussing your feelings?

If so, find a therapist.

#54 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 10:07 AM | Reply

"You better get down there and teach them how to capitalis, #50."

Sheeeeiit.

If Cuba ever capitalismed, those homeowners there (about 90% of the population) would be scrambling to sell. With an average income of $11k per year, they could likely sell thier house and make more than they would have in 20-30 years of work. They could airbnb that thing and make more than they would working.

Of course, if capitalism ever blossomed in Cuba, it would basically be a Hawaii for resident of the east coast of the US. Kinda like it was before the commies took it.

Capitalism. It's why there are now more middle-class people on earth than not.

#55 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 10:07 AM | Reply

Capitalism. It's why there are now more middle-class people on earth than not.

#55 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

And also why all of thaf delicious and nutritious lead is being fed to babies here.

Win/win.

Full circle in a matter of minutes..

#56 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 10:15 AM | Reply

Granted, it's an old metric. Many of those USans who fled south were 60s-era commies. many are probably dead by now.

en.wikipedia.org

As to how many Cubans have fled Cuba for the US:

1959-1962, 248k
1965-1973, 260k
1980 Mariel Boatlift, 125k
As of August 17th, 2022, 178k Cubans had fled the country, surpassing all previous immigration waves.

www.bloomberg.com

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 10:24 AM | Reply

"And also why all of thaf delicious and nutritious lead is being fed to babies here."

Is it?

Is there a demand for leaded baby food in the US I wasn't aware of?

Maybe people should look to buy Cuban or North Korean baby food then. No capitalisming there.

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 10:25 AM | Reply

Is there a demand for leaded baby food in the US I wasn't aware of?

#58 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Are you 12 or just stupid?

Or stupid and 12?

What there is is a need to pollute the planet for profit and to increase profit margins by growing food in the most ------ up dirt imaginable, because that makes it cheaper and it makes the shareholders happy.

Thanks capitalism.

Keep on capitalisming!

#59 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 10:53 AM | Reply

'With an average income of $11k per year"

Middle class, right?

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-27 11:04 AM | Reply

"The losses to capital exceed the losses to labor as well."

What is a loss to labor?
How is this even possible?

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-27 11:06 AM | Reply

"You're making the argument that Capitalism puts most people in poverty at the expense of making a few people rich."

"Absolutely, patently, demonstrably untrue."

Demonstrate it using the income distribution since 1975 then.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-27 11:11 AM | Reply

Is Capitalism the reason for Global Warming?

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-27 11:13 AM | Reply

#59 You should try the food in Venezuela. That's some good Socialism stuff right there.

#64 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-27 11:14 AM | Reply

"but if you look at the US, you can't really say the very wealthy are living off the backs of the poor."

Sure you can.
For example, Tucker Carlson, the Section 8 slum lord.
For example, GEO Group.
For example, the regressive overall tax burden.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-27 11:15 AM | Reply

"you can't really say the very wealthy are living off the backs of the poor"

Unless, of course, you analyze the actual equation.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-27 11:34 AM | Reply

MadBomber, Trump's tax cuts make up 25% of US debt.

Remind us what happens when debt exceeds GDP, according to you.

Are you here to tell us that's worse for the rich than anyone else?

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-27 11:56 AM | Reply

#67 The tax cuts amount to $7.5 Trillion in debt? Did you mean to type "deficit"?

#68 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-27 12:03 PM | Reply

Ever been to Venezuela, #64 or are you trying to get in touch with your feelings too?

There are people who can help.

Hang in there.

#69 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 12:26 PM | Reply

The CBO estimated that implementing the Act would add an estimated $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years,[7] or about $1.891 trillion after taking into account macroeconomic feedback effects, in addition to the $9.8 trillion increase forecast under the current policy baseline and existing $20 trillion national debt.[8] --Wikipedia

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-27 12:28 PM | Reply

I love the way the brains of these,,,, "people" I guess, for lack of a better word, work.

Twice on this thread it's been:

"So if you don't like it here go to a place that I heard was rrreeeeaaaaallllyy bad and that your neighbors can't find on a map because their half retarded due to the fact that education cuts into the bottom line."

#71 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 12:49 PM | Reply

#67 The tax cuts amount to $7.5 Trillion in debt? Did you mean to type "deficit"?

#68 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

No. They meant debt. Do you not know the difference?

Trump added $7.8 trillion to the national DEBT.

#72 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-01-27 12:54 PM | Reply

"Trump added $7.8 trillion to the national DEBT.

#72 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2023-01-27 12:54 PM"

OK. That's not what he said though. He said the Trump "tax cuts" added that much.

#73 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-27 12:55 PM | Reply

"What there is is a need to pollute the planet for profit and to increase profit margins by growing food in the most ------ up dirt imaginable, because that makes it cheaper and it makes the shareholders happy."

Yeah. The North Koreans are way more concerned about where they grow thier crops. Actually, no. They don't care. Even leaded food is still food.

The good news is that, in a capitalist system, you have options. Gerber puts lead in their products, fine. Don't buy Gerber. Buy something else. make your own. Have someone else make it for you. The possibilities are endless.

#74 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 12:58 PM | Reply

"What is a loss to labor? How is this even possible?"

It's not possible for labor to suffer a loss unless one in enslaved.

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 12:59 PM | Reply

"Demonstrate it using the income distribution since 1975 then."

Income inequality and poverty are two VERY different things. There is a greater delta between highest earner in the top 1% and the lowest. That doesn't mean the lowest is impoverished.

Income inequality is rich people bitching about richer people.

#76 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 01:01 PM | Reply

The North Koreans

#74 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

There's another quality sales pitch.

How many are we up to now?

"American capitalism: Hey, at least we made the place slightly less ------ up than North Korea."

#77 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 01:02 PM | Reply

"For example, Tucker Carlson, the Section 8 slum lord."

How so?

If Tucker Carlson were to die tomorrow, would the poor become less poor?

And your comment on section 8 slumlord doesn't even make sense, as it doesn't matter how much or how little the slumlord charges, it's the taxpayer who gets sent the bill. But for the sake of academic argument, how does the poor guy get less poor when the slumlord dies?

#78 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 01:10 PM | Reply

"For example, the regressive overall tax burden."

I read that argument as implying that high income earners are 'stealing' from the poor, but at fault because they don't support them even more than they already do.

But again, for arguments sake, the top 1% vanish. How does that change the labor value of anyone else?

#79 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 01:13 PM | Reply

You are now arguing about your feelings with yourself...

#76 "There is no such thing as poor people here."

#78 "There are poor people here and they won't get less poor if blah blah blah blah blah."

#80 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 01:13 PM | Reply

"Unless, of course, you analyze the actual equation."

Send it.

#81 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 01:13 PM | Reply

"Are you here to tell us that's worse for the rich than anyone else?"

Absolutely it is worse for the rich. They're the ones that are going to have to pay the bills.

Hell, if you're in the bottom 50% of income earners...more debt means more free chicken. More stuff you get than someone else will have to pay for.

#82 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 01:15 PM | Reply

"Income inequality is rich people bitching about richer people."

Wake me when my cost of living is the same as that in these poorer countries I'm supposed to compare us favorably to.

#83 | Posted by Hagbard_celine at 2023-01-27 01:15 PM | Reply

"Twice on this thread it's been..."

No, twice it's been, if you can't stop slobbering over this place, then GTFO. I'm sure there is someone who would happily replace you, and likely be the asset to society that I highly doubt you are capable of being.

#84 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 01:16 PM | Reply

#84

LOL

You have no idea where I live, you drooling bastard.

#85 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 01:19 PM | Reply

Lead in the food to help the bottom line of people who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

I'm telling you.

It's not helping you or your feelings.

#86 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 01:20 PM | Reply

"You are now arguing about your feelings with yourself..."

Nah. That's what you're doing.

Poverty is defined as the condition of being extremely poor. Not being less rich than someone else.

Just because Kendall makes more money than Kourtney does not mean Kourtney is impoverished. Even if Kourtney (or you) 'feels' that to be the case.

You and Snoofy should take an econ course together. You could be study buddies.

#87 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 02:33 PM | Reply

"Wake me when my cost of living is the same as that in these poorer countries I'm supposed to compare us favorably to."

It depends on how you want to live. If I were to build and furnish a house in Honduras similar to the ones I owned in the US, it would cost far, far more money.

If you wanted to live at the standard of living of the average Honduran, then yes, cost of living would be lower. But it would likely mean going without some of the amenities you are used to.

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 02:36 PM | Reply

"You have no idea where I live, you drooling bastard."

Does it matter?

There is ignorant trash everywhere. Your problem is finding someone to pay your bills.

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 02:37 PM | Reply

Does it matter?

#89 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Only if you don't want to sound like an ignorant ----.

I think we drove past that mile marker hours ago though.

#90 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 02:50 PM | Reply

"Only if you don't want to sound like an ignorant ----."

Me sound like an ignorant ----?

Let's re-attack this conversation once you've completed an econ course, m'kay?

Or just keep doing what you're doing and I'll keep reminding you how you should be a bit more appreciative of your betters.

(like your mom, I have a couple of spoiled kids of my own)

#91 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-27 03:01 PM | Reply

Me sound like an ignorant ----?

#91 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

It kind of just writes itself some days..

#92 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 03:06 PM | Reply

BTW.

It was real nice of her to tell you that they're your kids.

Even nicer that you pretend to believe her.

#93 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-27 04:50 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable

Drudge Retort