Everything is Shit: Tracking the Great Enshittening

[52-80 19076]

9 hours ago, Covri said:

Straight from your source, rent going up above average in previous years which historically affects lower income folks more.

 

Tip: you can overlay the actual data series so you don't need to hand draw a fictitious red line.

Here's the change in price of rent vs disposable income of people earning in 21-40th percentile.  Is that lower income enough for you?

The first image starts at the beginning of the data set availability (1984).

The second image starts at your chosen period of 10 years ago (2014).

 

Can you point to the historically-affecting thing on the graph?

[52-80 19076]

7 hours ago, choripan said:

FWIW, 5280, utilizing *household* income as a measure is in problematic because it doesn't account for the (something like) doubling of two-earner households since the 70s or something like that.

Also false.

This is change of two-earner+ households, since the start of the 1984 income data series from above.  It's gone down.

The average in the 1970s was 57.44%. The last measurement was in 2019 at 59%.  That is not... a double.

 

This information comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economics Supplements 1968-2020.  And recomiled in the 2021 BLS' Womens Databook.  Feel free to verify it for yourself.

[Fudge Nuggets 19144]

First drop comes with the dot com recession. Second drop comes with the GFC.  Maybe they will wake up and update it for COVID / boomer retirements. 

[Guest]

Yogi Berra said something about this theory of American dystopia some of your fuckers  embrace.

Nobody goes there any more.  It's too crowded.

[Neonmoon 38127]

6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

So, how about that Wendy’s surge pricing? 

I just don’t understand the logic. Assuming there is a surge in demand around noon. You don’t have a lack of supply. Just sell more burgers. There is a reason some place aren’t open 24/7, there is little demand at 4am. They don’t stay open and charge less due to low demand. They don’t sell burgers. It makes sense.

Surge pricing only makes sense if there is a lack of supply, which there is not. 

[Bevo 13516]

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I just don’t understand the logic. Assuming there is a surge in demand around noon. You don’t have a lack of supply. Just sell more burgers. There is a reason some place aren’t open 24/7, there is little demand at 4am. They don’t stay open and charge less due to low demand. They don’t sell burgers. It makes sense.

Surge pricing only makes sense if there is a lack of supply, which there is not. 

[956 Worldwide 34410]

46 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I just don’t understand the logic. Assuming there is a surge in demand around noon. You don’t have a lack of supply. Just sell more burgers. There is a reason some place aren’t open 24/7, there is little demand at 4am. They don’t stay open and charge less due to low demand. They don’t sell burgers. It makes sense.

Surge pricing only makes sense if there is a lack of supply, which there is not. 

It makes sense if you think you can charge more because people are hungry.  
 

I do think this will backfire, when you’re a national chain with minimal difference in product to other burger slingers, the commercials write themselves. 
 

Restaurants do this already, kind of. Happy Hour or charging less for a burger at the bar than the same burger in the restaurant at dinner seating. But that is always predictable. 

[choripan 790]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Also false.

This is change of two-earner+ households, since the start of the 1984 income data series from above.  It's gone down.

The average in the 1970s was 57.44%. The last measurement was in 2019 at 59%.  That is not... a double.

 

This information comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economics Supplements 1968-2020.  And recomiled in the 2021 BLS' Womens Databook.  Feel free to verify it for yourself.

 

You cherry picked by having the data start in the 80s when my initial post said "the 70s or something like that."

25% dual earner in 1960 to 60ish percent these days is a huge jump.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10138]

All these charts remind me of this text from a Fortune article last month:

First, we need to help people make sense of their world, not tell them what to think. That means listening closely to people’s experiences. If they’re afraid they can’t pay their bills, we need to help them make sense of that lived reality. That starts by taking that lived reality seriously, not just telling people things are fine.

When we listen to people, it becomes clear that aggregate statistics no longer reflect the reality most people live in. Unemployment may be low, but if you can only find work at low wages and irregular hours, things aren’t fine. Inflation may be dropping, but if your paycheck no longer covers your rent (the way we measure inflation doesn’t adequately capture housing costs), things aren’t fine. If you’re two percent better off than last year, but you were on the edge of disaster last year, things aren’t fine.

We need to talk about that reality–economic inequality, corporate power, and economic insecurity.

[52-80 19076]

45 minutes ago, choripan said:

 

You cherry picked by having the data start in the 80s when my initial post said "the 70s or something like that."

25% dual earner in 1960 to 60ish percent these days is a huge jump.

You funny man.  Serious question, did you even read the post to which you are responding?

"Cherry picked by having data start in the 80s..."

I plotted the data from 1984, because that matches the data FROM THE PRECEDING POST, where the LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD was first made available.  Feel free to lobby your complaint to the Bureau of Labor Services.

"my initial post said "the 70s or something like that."

I *also* gave you the rate of 2+ earners in the 70s.  It is 57.44%.  Which is virtually same as 2019.  It's in the 8th column in case you're having trouble.

"25% dual earner in 1960 to 60ish percent these days is a huge jump."

Why move goalpost to the 1960s?

 

This is a larger dataset covering all married opposite-sex couples in the US.  It is not a smaller subset of married couples WITH children under 18.

When you mention the "household income" in relation,  the household is from a large survey covering all "consumer units" (CU), not households-with-small-children? I actually like Pew Research, but the larger raw data is available to examine yourself...

 

Edited February 28 by 52-80

[Parliament 14121]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I do think this will backfire, when you’re a national chain with minimal difference in product to other burger slingers, the commercials write themselves. 
 

 

I presume surge pricing was just a random idea that leaked and they were a long way from implementing.

[choripan 790]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

You funny man.  Serious question, did you even read the post to which you are responding?

"Cherry picked by having data start in the 80s..."

I plotted the data from 1984, because that matches the data FROM THE PRECEDING POST, where the LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD was first made available.  Feel free to lobby your complaint to the Bureau of Labor Services.

"my initial post said "the 70s or something like that."

I *also* gave you the rate of 2+ earners in the 70s.  It is 57.44%.  Which is virtually same as 2019.  It's in the 8th column in case you're having trouble.

"25% dual earner in 1960 to 60ish percent these days is a huge jump."

Why move goalpost to the 1960s?

 

This is a larger dataset covering all married opposite-sex couples in the US.  It is not a smaller subset of married couples WITH children under 18.

When you mention the "household income" in relation,  the household is from a large survey covering all "consumer units" (CU), not households-with-small-children? I actually like Pew Research, but the larger raw data is available to examine yourself...

 

I set the goalposts at 70s or something like that. Never moved 'em, unless you think the 60s isn't something like that. Semantics there.

Point is, regardless of whether 50 or 60 years ago (stop fixating on the trees and catch the forest), the transition to de facto dual-earner being required for most people is an enshittening of QOL, even if just for peace of mind that, if you choose to both work, you're not in too much trouble if one of the two earners loses their job bc you could live off of one income.

[immamac 42513]

What if the reason everyone could afford a house and car and all this other stuff is because they bought modest houses and cars in places that made sense? Not everyone lived downtown back in the day and not everyone drove a car with all the bells and whistles of today. 

you can still buy a 17k brand new car with warranty. You just have to know how to drive stick. Houses have gotten absolutely enormous in the US. Accounting for areas becoming more desirable or big high paying jobs being concentrated in different areas is also something to consider when people talk about the affordability of things. It was always most expensive to be closest to the best employers. There just happens to be a lot more good employers employing people who can afford living close to those places. 

I also have a feeling that discretionary income spend is drastically different than it was back then. The “Starbucks” effect so to speak. Same with eating out. Same with a lot of convenience based spending that is discretionary. It feels like people are paying more than they used to to be lazier than they were. 

[Incredulity 11541]

8 minutes ago, immamac said:

What if the reason everyone could afford a house and car and all this other stuff is because they bought modest houses and cars in places that made sense? Not everyone lived downtown back in the day and not everyone drove a car with all the bells and whistles of today. 

you can still buy a 17k brand new car with warranty. You just have to know how to drive stick. Houses have gotten absolutely enormous in the US. Accounting for areas becoming more desirable or big high paying jobs being concentrated in different areas is also something to consider when people talk about the affordability of things. It was always most expensive to be closest to the best employers. There just happens to be a lot more good employers employing people who can afford living close to those places. 

I also have a feeling that discretionary income spend is drastically different than it was back then. The “Starbucks” effect so to speak. Same with eating out. Same with a lot of convenience based spending that is discretionary. It feels like people are paying more than they used to to be lazier than they were. 

Both my parents grew up in the Americana(50's and 60's) era of suburbia in single income homes.

They both grew up in families of four, 2 bedroom 1 bath houses, no attached garage, 1 car, 1 television, rarely dined out, public school, a couple family vacations their whole childhood.

[Nicole44 22027]

[Brisketexan 104537]

59 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

They both grew up in families of four, 2 bedroom 1 bath houses, no attached garage, 1 car, 1 television, rarely dined out, public school, a couple family vacations their whole childhood.

Sure.  My folks didn't have it so nice, but they aspired to that, and that's pretty close to what I grew up in, 1970s equivalent (modest home in a neighborhood that was in a far-out burb when we moved in, a fancy dinner out for most of my life was Red Lobster, family vacations were almost all road trips to visit grandparents in S. TX, Mexico, and family in Louisiana -- one big trip to Colorado, another two to Florida.  Biggest luxury/sacrifice was private school -- and it was a strain for us).

But today, in many/most cities, the "modest home" isn't really an option anymore because it's not economically viable to build (land cost is too high, doesn't make economic sense to build a starter home on the lot).  Because both parents work, we now have two cars (have to, because 99% of American cities have shit for mass transit).  And substitute the TV of the 1960s-70s with "total entertainment expense" today ("a 21-inch (diagonal) GE color television in 1965 had an advertised price of $499, which is equal to $4,724 in today's dollars") - I bought a damn nice 55 inch LG TV for something like $500, and then when you add in streaming services, consider our phones as entertainment devices....your annual "entertainment" costs are probably pretty similar.  It's not "extravagant" to have a TV, a smartphone, and several streaming plans - that's actually comparable to the "we had one TV" standard of the 1960s.  And finally, family vacations....the vast majority of Americans take pretty modest vacations - again, as a percentage of their annual income, vacation expense (even including a flight on Spirit Airlines, and your hotel room in Nashville to see the Opry or whatnot) is pretty similar to what we spent loading up in the Family Truckster and road-tripping to Jellystone National Park.

[Captainant 27403]

2 hours ago, immamac said:

you can still buy a 17k brand new car with warranty. You just have to know how to drive stick. Houses have gotten absolutely enormous in the US. Accounting for areas becoming more desirable or big high paying jobs being concentrated in different areas is also something to consider when people talk about the affordability of things. It was always most expensive to be closest to the best employers. There just happens to be a lot more good employers employing people who can afford living close to those places. 

Counterpoint - there aren't any small and reasonable houses to buy if you look around. If you want small, you're renting or got extremely lucky with your timing on buying. Hell just on my street in the last couple years I've seen a few small older homes with a nice yard get knocked down and replaced with a t-bone neighborhood of nuts to butts townhouses

2 hours ago, immamac said:

I also have a feeling that discretionary income spend is drastically different than it was back then. The “Starbucks” effect so to speak. Same with eating out. Same with a lot of convenience based spending that is discretionary. It feels like people are paying more than they used to to be lazier than they were. 

DAE avocado toast???

[immamac 42513]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Counterpoint - there aren't any small and reasonable houses to buy if you look around. If you want small, you're renting or got extremely lucky with your timing on buying. Hell just on my street in the last couple years I've seen a few small older homes with a nice yard get knocked down and replaced with a t-bone neighborhood of nuts to butts townhouses

DAE avocado toast???

I mean culturally it's shifted away from brunch at someone's hosted house/event and now it's brunch at a restaurant where someone could probably order avocado toast that is a lot more than if they had avocados at their friends house etc. Thats more my point than the actual ordering avocado toast. It's that people for no real reason that I understand go to meet at a bar to drink and not talk to anyone else outside their group, when they could drink at one of their own huge houses or backyards for a fraction of the cost. 

People like meeting out, I get it. Bars have existed for a long time, I get that too. I don't think that the way people interact at bars is at all the same today as it used to be and now the prices at bars are significantly more margin filled than before as well. It's more the "see and be seen scene" that I'm talking about. It's not that it hasn't always existed, it's just now that it exists in a ubiquitous fashion it seems. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19330]

25 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Counterpoint - there aren't any small and reasonable houses to buy if you look around. If you want small, you're renting or got extremely lucky with your timing on buying. Hell just on my street in the last couple years I've seen a few small older homes with a nice yard get knocked down and replaced with a t-bone neighborhood of nuts to butts townhouses

DAE avocado toast???

A few years ago they built a really large "affordable housing" community over by my kids high school. It was one of those developments that looked like old row houses. Narrow, 2 story, with the garage around back on an ally. My son and I used to drive through there to get to one of the Brushy Creek MUD lakes we liked to bass fish. Every house under construction had a sold sign in the front yard. Every one of them was also for rent, most listed by the same agent. So a huge chunk of this development that was supposed to be affordable housing got bought up by investors and turned into rental properties. 

[RDCanecutter 26246]

On 2/26/2024 at 6:08 PM, Surly Bevo said:

Neato.... $15 Frosties

https://gizmodo.com/wendys-wants-uber-surge-pricing-in-2025-1851288108?s=04&fbclid=IwAR1xqzZ0E8OWemhTiNWdAQCAmoA6m352N56hvS6SzkSRd90Xk3snC2EzmbA

How much does it cost to get a cheap blender and chuck some ice cream in it?

[Deej 76524]

29 minutes ago, immamac said:

I don't think that the way people interact at bars is at all the same today as it used to be

Depends on where you drink.

 

[mdmost 42827]

I enjoying listening to Marketplace on NPR as I'm making dinner. They had an interesting segment on whether starter homes still exist. The home we're in was our "starter home". We were supposed to live here for a bit then move on to something else. That was in 2004. If we were to move on now, I'm not actually sure what we could afford, either in Dallas or outside of it. Sure, it would be nice to have a nicer home but I quite enjoy the lower payment we're making.

https://www.marketplace.org/2024/02/27/are-we-finished-with-starter-homes/

 

Edited February 28 by mdmost

[RDCanecutter 26246]

20 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Ripping people off is a business model.  And it's one that works because it's ubiquitous.  I encounter it regularly, and I don't have the fucking time or energy to fight every assfucking businesses try to give me.  I am far from alone.

Why do you hate convenience fees. We are here to help you. That'll be 12.99 plus our convenient Payment Acceptance Fee.

[RDCanecutter 26246]

3 hours ago, immamac said:

What if the reason everyone could afford a house and car and all this other stuff is because they bought modest houses and cars in places that made sense? Not everyone lived downtown back in the day and not everyone drove a car with all the bells and whistles of today. 

you can still buy a 17k brand new car with warranty. You just have to know how to drive stick. Houses have gotten absolutely enormous in the US. Accounting for areas becoming more desirable or big high paying jobs being concentrated in different areas is also something to consider when people talk about the affordability of things. It was always most expensive to be closest to the best employers. There just happens to be a lot more good employers employing people who can afford living close to those places. 

I also have a feeling that discretionary income spend is drastically different than it was back then. The “Starbucks” effect so to speak. Same with eating out. Same with a lot of convenience based spending that is discretionary. It feels like people are paying more than they used to to be lazier than they were. 

You're onto something with how expectations have bloated up for the "same" things.

In grad school at Texas I rented a room in a 1940s house near campus. (OF COURSE it's gone and underneath foo-foo shit now.) You may know that grad students don't get paid much and that they are traditionally expected to be depressed about it. But one day I'm sitting in my 1940s room, wondering what 1940s people did, and it occurs to me that I have everything for a 1940s middle class life: cook some food on the stove, read a book from a great library, catch a bus, do my job, hang out with friends in the back yard with beer somebody scrounged up. Also I was banging my mid-20s girlfriend on the reg or just noodling around on the acoustic guitar, maybe riding my bicycle if I got bored. The kind of shit people jet off to Costa Rica to do.

Later I worked in Mexico for less money but overall better lifestyle. Mexico made me think of how my parents grew up in the USA, maybe similar material culture but still plenty of cool stuff to do for not much $.

[52-80 19076]

6 hours ago, choripan said:

Point is, regardless of whether 50 or 60 years ago (stop fixating on the trees and catch the forest), the transition to de facto dual-earner being required for most people is an enshittening of QOL, even if just for peace of mind that, if you choose to both work, you're not in too much trouble if one of the two earners loses their job bc you could live off of one income.

If you reflect on what you have just written, you might have unintentionally made a point that you probably dont want to make. 

ignoring the fact that the total household labor participation rate was the same as today… lets assume this fictitious, idealized single-earner household, what was that picture? the man, a union factory worker, having enough for house, car, and an annual vacation?

where do you think the woman is in that picture? her educational attainment and economic freedom?

the quality of life for the typical/median family, or the lower-class family, 50 or 60 years ago, its not what you think it is.

[Foosters 17725]

Think we figured it out guys. No increase in COL, housing prices are only high because people are greedy and want to live in mansions on Park Ave., and everything has remained about the same for the last 50 years.

Gonna head over 6th Street Journal and let everyone know the good news.

[52-80 19076]

In 1970, around 10% of adult women had a bachelors or better, and 40% of all women (not just married) participated in labor force. 

Today, their education rate is 45%, and labor participation is at 53%. 

The apparent narrative is that women are *now* forced to work. But roughly same proportion were working in the past, but they were less educated and earned far less. 

Fellas, should we ask the wimmenz if their situation has been enshittified?

*data: BLS and National Center for Education Statistics

[gofuckyourself 8121]

4 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

How much does it cost to get a cheap blender and chuck some ice cream in it?

Ice Cream? This is not a Wendy's, sir.

Frosty's are a bit more like Water, Sugar, Powdered MILK, Sunflower Creamer [Sunflower Oil, Maltodextrin, MILK Protein, Emulsifier (E471), Antioxidant (E306)], Whey (MILK), Cocoa Powder (3.7%), Stabiliser (E412), Flavouring (Flavouring, Dextrose), Carrageenan [Stabiliser (E407), Dextrin], Stabiliser (E415)

[Brisketexan 104537]

Mmmmm......"flavouring."  It's the "u" that makes it.

[RDCanecutter 26246]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Mmmmm......"flavouring."  It's the "u" that makes it.

That's wot makes your teef all wobbly like, innit.

[Neonmoon 38127]

8 hours ago, mdmost said:

I enjoying listening to Marketplace on NPR as I'm making dinner. They had an interesting segment on whether starter homes still exist. The home we're in was our "starter home". We were supposed to live here for a bit then move on to something else. That was in 2004. If we were to move on now, I'm not actually sure what we could afford, either in Dallas or outside of it. Sure, it would be nice to have a nicer home but I quite enjoy the lower payment we're making.

https://www.marketplace.org/2024/02/27/are-we-finished-with-starter-homes/

 

New 900 square feet homes have been popping up recently. A new type of “starter home”. Around $315K price point, which is affordable as fuck for my area. Anything below that is a double wide. 

[Bevo 13516]

13 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

When we listen to people, it becomes clear that aggregate statistics no longer reflect the reality most people live in. Unemployment may be low, but if you can only find work at low wages and irregular hours, things aren’t fine. Inflation may be dropping, but if your paycheck no longer covers your rent (the way we measure inflation doesn’t adequately capture housing costs), things aren’t fine. If you’re two percent better off than last year, but you were on the edge of disaster last year, things aren’t fine.

We need to talk about that reality–economic inequality, corporate power, and economic insecurity.

The last sentence doesn't fit with the rest of the paragraph. If most people live in those conditions then income inequality isn't the issue. The issue is that the statistics and metrics being used are poor indicators of economic conditions of individuals and that national economic growth needs to be such that individual income outpaces inflation. Without knowing the details, personally I would assume that the metrics being used have been bastardized by politicians to fit a narrative that is incongruous with reality. I doubt economists just randomly chose bad measurements.

Edited February 29 by Bevo

[Bevo 13516]

48 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

New 900 square feet homes have been popping up recently. A new type of “starter home”. Around $315K price point, which is affordable as fuck for my area. Anything below that is a double wide. 

I live in a nice golf course community, in a nice, good sized house, with a nice pool and in a good suburban school district and I think we have been here about 8 years or so and we payed less than that. Now, people are looking at $800K for a similar home. And in most of the nice cities west of Texas, prices don't get any better.

[choripan 790]

14 hours ago, 52-80 said:

If you reflect on what you have just written, you might have unintentionally made a point that you probably dont want to make. 

ignoring the fact that the total household labor participation rate was the same as today… lets assume this fictitious, idealized single-earner household, what was that picture? the man, a union factory worker, having enough for house, car, and an annual vacation?

where do you think the woman is in that picture? her educational attainment and economic freedom?

the quality of life for the typical/median family, or the lower-class family, 50 or 60 years ago, its not what you think it is.

Nowhere did I say or imply that I support dual-earner with a regression to 1960s social norms. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

 

 

 

 

[Captainant 27403]

2 minutes ago, choripan said:

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

[52-80 19076]

14 minutes ago, choripan said:

Nowhere did I say or imply that I support dual-earner with a regression to 1960s social norms. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

I didn't accuse you of saying it explicitly, or implying it surreptitiously.  What do you think the word "unintentional" means?

However, what you bemoan is -- i quote -- "the transition to de facto dual-earner [from 50 or 60 years ago]...is an enshittening of QOL" , which implies the QOL conditions were better 50/60 years ago where single-earner was the norm.

1. the transition in dual-earner household is objectively false.  thats been shown with the BLS data.

2. the QOL 50/60 years ago is shittier across all dimensions.  this can be shown 1 million ways.

3. the marginally lower womens participation in workforce in the past is because they earned very little for their labor, due to their far lower education level.  wanting to return to 50/60s condition is not a good thing.  (its written in academia, but is also obvious, that higher pay potential induces people to WANT to work. if you dont cant earn much, you stay at home and care for the kids.  if you can earn a lot, you'd rather work and pay for a babysitter)

 

distrust of government data + denial of objective facts + yearning for conditions of decades past == are you guys accidentally doing a right-wing LARP?

 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10138]

Can you explain the large jump in dual employment for families with children while women's labor rate stays relatively flat?  Bunch of single women or women without kids deciding no longer to work or something?

[Captainant 27403]

That's some top tier trolling 52-80, to cherry pick phrases from a post and return to them solely to misrepresent your opposition as a straw man that you can more easily attack. I swear, it's remarkable the extent that you and incredulity and the rest of the surly IDW will lie to yourself and each other about what posters have posted. Fatty still thinks I use tiktok as an authoritative source for info after he read it from the monkeys flinging poo in the business board for chrissakes lol. 

 

With your 3rd bullet point, you're just simply accusing your opposition of doing what your "side" is actively doing, and trying to take away women's autonomy. There's active debate on several state legislatures about how "pregnant women have fewer rights", and it ain't the states seeking to reduce income inequality lol. 

You're just trolling at this point, I can't believe someone could earnestly hold the positions you do and understand what others have posted to be as you framed it. 

Edited February 29 by Captainant

[52-80 19076]

25 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Can you explain the large jump in dual employment for families with children while women's labor rate stays relatively flat?  Bunch of single women or women without kids deciding no longer to work or something?

firstly someone needs to share that actual dataset for the family w/ children.  all the stuff i post are available directly from bls, bea, census, etc, and aggregated through FRED. 

that said, i have a hunch:  its a cultural decision made by the mother/family early on.  CDC reports average age of 1st birth in 1970 was ~22.  average age of 1st birth in 2000 was 25.  Today, it's closer to 30.  Less educated families also have more children than educated ones.

So it was a cultural norm that women don't go to college (only 10% had a degree) but stay home and raise babies. Today, having a kid at 25-30 means you will already have a college degree, and can enter/return the workforce with good income.  If you already have multiple children with only a high school education, the math doesnt work out to get a minimum wage job and leave the rearing to someone else.

[Parliament 14121]

So how long until the enshittening thread returns to not being enshittened?  I’ll check back then.

[52-80 19076]

57 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That's some top tier trolling 52-80, to cherry pick phrases from a post and return to them solely to misrepresent your opposition as a straw man that you can more easily attack. I swear, it's remarkable the extent that you and incredulity and the rest of the surly IDW will lie to yourself and each other about what posters have posted. Fatty still thinks I use tiktok as an authoritative source for info after he read it from the monkeys flinging poo in the business board for chrissakes lol. 

 

With your 3rd bullet point, you're just simply accusing your opposition of doing what your "side" is actively doing, and trying to take away women's autonomy. There's active debate on several state legislatures about how "pregnant women have fewer rights", and it ain't the states seeking to reduce income inequality lol. 

You're just trolling at this point, I can't believe someone could earnestly hold the positions you do and understand what others have posted to be as you framed it. 

have you considered discussing these concerns with your therapist?

[Captainant 27403]

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

have you considered discussing these concerns with your therapist?

Yes, more personal attacks. 

At least you're consistent. 

[Incredulity 11541]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

That's some top tier trolling 52-80, to cherry pick phrases from a post and return to them solely to misrepresent your opposition as a straw man that you can more easily attack. I swear, it's remarkable the extent that you and incredulity and the rest of the surly IDW will lie to yourself and each other about what posters have posted.

Unbelievable lack of self-awareness is unbelievable.

 Anyone who doesn't specifically endorse Warren/Bernie/Squad are routinely accused of garggling orange cheeto balls....praying to an Orange God....endorsing NAZI fascism....

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

Surge pricing is good.

But how they implement will be key and whether Wendy’s franchises have the stomach to hang in there while consumers adjust is TBD. That said, Id like to see it become the norm almost everywhere.

[Brisketexan 104537]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Surge pricing is good.

But how they implement will be key and whether Wendy’s franchises have the stomach to hang in there while consumers adjust is TBD. That said, Id like to see it become the norm almost everywhere.

You say that now, but wait until 1) public shitters start charging for TP squares, and 2) they upcharge based on the detected pressure of your particular blowout.  Giant-ass bowl-spattering post-Taco Bell dump?  That'll be $5 a square, friendo.

[Bozo_Casanova 26271]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You say that now, but wait until 1) public shitters start charging for TP squares, and 2) they upcharge based on the detected pressure of your particular blowout.  Giant-ass bowl-spattering post-Taco Bell dump?  That'll be $5 a square, friendo.

They do that in Europe, and they have clean public toilets all over the place. Having to pinch it back will be a thing of the past!

[Brisketexan 104537]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

They do that in Europe, and they have clean public toilets all over the place. Having to pinch it back will be a thing of the past!

They don't do surge pricing.  But they do make me annoyingly carry a supply of 1 euro coins in case someone has to take a crap while out and about.  They need to start adding a QR code at the bathroom, and accepting Venmo payments or something like that.

[Chopper 17150]

41 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Unbelievable lack of self-awareness is unbelievable.

 Anyone who doesn't specifically endorse Warren/Bernie/Squad are routinely accused of garggling orange cheeto balls....praying to an Orange God....endorsing NAZI fascism....

How 'bout you go to CR where I presume you normally post? Or maybe back to your full-time job of being a youtube commenter.

Also learn how to spell gargle.

 

[Hefeweizen 5307]

This thread is a perfect microcosm of the Doctorow doctrine.

[Js1 85085]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They don't do surge pricing.  But they do make me annoyingly carry a supply of 1 euro coins in case someone has to take a crap while out and about.  They need to start adding a QR code at the bathroom, and accepting Venmo payments or something like that.

Had someone make that exact same thought while we were in CDMX over the weekend. But it’s only 7 pesos