sf wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:09:27 -0700, Abiquiu > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 19:41:21 -0700, Abiquiu > wrote:
>>>
>>>> sf wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:28:36 -0700, Abiquiu > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> sf wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:09:11 -0700, Abiquiu > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sf wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:47:10 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Didn't the US always have strong labor unions? Why do they allow Walmart
>>>>>>>>>> to pay employees too little to live off?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Walmart thrives in "Right to Work" states, which is code for "union
>>>>>>>>> busting" states, but their citizens are too ignorant to understand
>>>>>>>>> that nuance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More work, less jobs to china.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More people on welfare in spite of having a job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> More people with ANY work at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Woop tee do.
>>>>>
>>>> Beats sitting at home with a SNAP card and daytime TV, by a lot!
>>>
>>> Part time work at best, hours varying weekly, lucky to have a TV....
>>> and still on SNAP.
>>>
>>
>> Oh no, almost EVERYONE has TV, in fact the number of welfare recipients
>> with a cell phone, cable, even a gaming console is astounding.
>
> How many poor people do you know?
>
A measure more than I'd think is healthy in a modern world.

They mostly swap for stuff I'd call older but still is pretty modern.