Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
FSogol
FSogol's Journal
FSogol's Journal
March 8, 2016
snip
When Orhun and Palazzolo compared households with similar consumption rates shopping at comparable stores — and controlling for two-ply TP — they found that the poor were less likely than wealthier households to buy bigger packages, or to time their purchases to take advantage of sales. By failing to do so, they paid about 5.9 percent more per sheet of toilet paper — a little less than what they saved by buying cheaper brands in the first place (8.8 percent).
Perhaps this sounds like a subtle discovery about minor household goods. But it supports a larger point about poverty: It's expensive to be poor. Or, to state the same from another angle: Having more money gives people the luxury of paying less for things.
Whole article by Emily Badger at WAPO
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/why-the-poor-pay-more-for-toilet-paper-and-just-about-everything-else/
x-posted to GD
"Why the poor pay more for toilet paper — and just about everything else"
There are several ways to save money on, say, a roll of toilet paper. You can reach for the cheaper version: the store brand, or the singly-ply TP, or the stuff that feels like packing paper. Or you can buy in bulk, saving on each roll per unit. Or you can stock up when the deal is good, like when the corner store offers two packs for the price of one.
The poor, who need all of these strategies, are much less likely to use the last two. They can't afford to, according to some revealing research by University of Michigan professor Yesim Orhun and Ph.D. student Mike Palazzolo (hat tip to Michigan Public Radio).
The poor, who need all of these strategies, are much less likely to use the last two. They can't afford to, according to some revealing research by University of Michigan professor Yesim Orhun and Ph.D. student Mike Palazzolo (hat tip to Michigan Public Radio).
snip
When Orhun and Palazzolo compared households with similar consumption rates shopping at comparable stores — and controlling for two-ply TP — they found that the poor were less likely than wealthier households to buy bigger packages, or to time their purchases to take advantage of sales. By failing to do so, they paid about 5.9 percent more per sheet of toilet paper — a little less than what they saved by buying cheaper brands in the first place (8.8 percent).
Perhaps this sounds like a subtle discovery about minor household goods. But it supports a larger point about poverty: It's expensive to be poor. Or, to state the same from another angle: Having more money gives people the luxury of paying less for things.
Whole article by Emily Badger at WAPO
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/why-the-poor-pay-more-for-toilet-paper-and-just-about-everything-else/
x-posted to GD
March 8, 2016
snip
When Orhun and Palazzolo compared households with similar consumption rates shopping at comparable stores — and controlling for two-ply TP — they found that the poor were less likely than wealthier households to buy bigger packages, or to time their purchases to take advantage of sales. By failing to do so, they paid about 5.9 percent more per sheet of toilet paper — a little less than what they saved by buying cheaper brands in the first place (8.8 percent).
Perhaps this sounds like a subtle discovery about minor household goods. But it supports a larger point about poverty: It's expensive to be poor. Or, to state the same from another angle: Having more money gives people the luxury of paying less for things.
Whole article by Emily Badger at WAPO
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/why-the-poor-pay-more-for-toilet-paper-and-just-about-everything-else/
"Why the poor pay more for toilet paper — and just about everything else"
There are several ways to save money on, say, a roll of toilet paper. You can reach for the cheaper version: the store brand, or the singly-ply TP, or the stuff that feels like packing paper. Or you can buy in bulk, saving on each roll per unit. Or you can stock up when the deal is good, like when the corner store offers two packs for the price of one.
The poor, who need all of these strategies, are much less likely to use the last two. They can't afford to, according to some revealing research by University of Michigan professor Yesim Orhun and Ph.D. student Mike Palazzolo (hat tip to Michigan Public Radio).
The poor, who need all of these strategies, are much less likely to use the last two. They can't afford to, according to some revealing research by University of Michigan professor Yesim Orhun and Ph.D. student Mike Palazzolo (hat tip to Michigan Public Radio).
snip
When Orhun and Palazzolo compared households with similar consumption rates shopping at comparable stores — and controlling for two-ply TP — they found that the poor were less likely than wealthier households to buy bigger packages, or to time their purchases to take advantage of sales. By failing to do so, they paid about 5.9 percent more per sheet of toilet paper — a little less than what they saved by buying cheaper brands in the first place (8.8 percent).
Perhaps this sounds like a subtle discovery about minor household goods. But it supports a larger point about poverty: It's expensive to be poor. Or, to state the same from another angle: Having more money gives people the luxury of paying less for things.
Whole article by Emily Badger at WAPO
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/why-the-poor-pay-more-for-toilet-paper-and-just-about-everything-else/
March 8, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/07/i-could-not-win-michael-bloombeg-rules-out-a-presidential-run/
After all the wailing & gnashing of teeth over Bloomberg, why the crickets now when he doesn't run?
‘I could not win': Michael Bloomberg rules out a presidential run
Former New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said Monday that he will not run for president this election cycle.
“I’m flattered that some think I could provide this kind of leadership,” he said in an essay posted on the website Bloomberg View. “But when I look at the data, it’s clear to me that if I entered the race, I could not win.”
Bloomberg, 74, one of the world’s wealthiest men, used the essay to put to rest months of speculation over whether he would enter the race — and thereby scramble an already chaotic contest — as well as to criticize Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.). A Bloomberg candidacy could tip the election in their favor, he said, adding, “That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.”
Former New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said Monday that he will not run for president this election cycle.
“I’m flattered that some think I could provide this kind of leadership,” he said in an essay posted on the website Bloomberg View. “But when I look at the data, it’s clear to me that if I entered the race, I could not win.”
Bloomberg, 74, one of the world’s wealthiest men, used the essay to put to rest months of speculation over whether he would enter the race — and thereby scramble an already chaotic contest — as well as to criticize Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.). A Bloomberg candidacy could tip the election in their favor, he said, adding, “That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/07/i-could-not-win-michael-bloombeg-rules-out-a-presidential-run/
March 7, 2016
Rest of the Petula Dvorak WAPO article at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-trump-effect-is-contaminating-our-kids--and-could-resonate-for-years-to-come/2016/03/07/594a7f46-e47a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz
‘The Trump Effect’ is contaminating our kids — and could resonate for years
Think we’re in for a disastrous four years if Donald Trump is elected president?
You’re being optimistic. Given what some of our children are learning from him, it may take an entire generation to recover from the hateful rhetoric he has aimed at immigrants, Muslims and Blacks Lives Matter protesters.
Trump’s vitriol is making it off the campaign trail and into the lingua franca of children at an alarming rate. Just watch coverage from Trump rallies to hear the next phrases kids will be slinging at school.
“Build the wall!” That was the chant at a high school basketball game in Indiana last week, directed by kids from a majority-white school who held up Trump signs and yelled at the opposing players and fans, who were from a predominantly Latino school.
You’re being optimistic. Given what some of our children are learning from him, it may take an entire generation to recover from the hateful rhetoric he has aimed at immigrants, Muslims and Blacks Lives Matter protesters.
Trump’s vitriol is making it off the campaign trail and into the lingua franca of children at an alarming rate. Just watch coverage from Trump rallies to hear the next phrases kids will be slinging at school.
“Build the wall!” That was the chant at a high school basketball game in Indiana last week, directed by kids from a majority-white school who held up Trump signs and yelled at the opposing players and fans, who were from a predominantly Latino school.
Rest of the Petula Dvorak WAPO article at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-trump-effect-is-contaminating-our-kids--and-could-resonate-for-years-to-come/2016/03/07/594a7f46-e47a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz
March 1, 2016
Voted this morning in No Va at 8. Was vote 126 on the Democratic side. Only 58 votes on the GOP.
No one had any tables set up (except the libertarians with some petition to get on the ballot.)
Ms FSogol said, "Libertarians, you mean like Rand Paul?"
Petition guy, enthusiastically, "Yeah!"
Ms FSogol, "Good Gawd, No way."
Although about double the votes as a normal non-presidential local election, plently of parking, no line, no traffic. Low turnout imo, huge HRC win.
x-posted to Viriginia
Added: Strange primary. No signs were posted and I've seen no signs around neighborhoods. In the last few weeks, I've seen about a dozen Bernie stickers, a few HRC, two Trump, and a Cruz. The GOP seems to hate all their candidates.
March 1, 2016
Voted this morning in No Va at 8. Was vote 126 on the Democratic side. Only 58 votes on the GOP.
No one had any tables set up (except the libertarians with some petition to get on the ballot.)
Ms FSogol said, "Libertarians, you mean like Rand Paul?"
Petition guy, enthusiastically, "Yeah!"
Ms FSogol, "Good Gawd, No way."
Although about double the votes as a normal non-presidential local election, plently of parking, no line, no traffic. Low turnout = huge HRC win, imo.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Northern VA
Member since: Fri Oct 29, 2004, 10:34 AM
Number of posts: 45,464
