If LBJ wasn't such a liar, would he be rated one of the best presidents ever?

SF, did you delete a post, or entirely re-write it?

You were saying something about inflation adjustment, that I was going to respond too. Now that post appears to be gone.
 
Average weekly pay, in real wages, adjusted to constant 1982 dollars at the beginning of reagans term was

$277.35 a week in 1981

When Reagan left office it was

$267.27 in 1989.


Clinton managed to reverse the Reagan/PoppyBush trend on wages*, but then they plummeted again under George Junior.


*Wages went up from $258/week to $275/week under Clinton.
 
Wow... thats a real tough break for you Cypress.... now you are seeing things that aren't there... that truly explains your delusional "thoughts".

;)
 
Superfreak said:
"1982 272.74 -1.66%
1983 277.50 1.75%
1984 279.22 0.62%
1985 276.23 -1.07%
1986 276.11 -0.04%
1987 272.88 -1.17%
1988 270.32 -0.94%
1989 267.27 -1.13%
1990 262.43 -1.81%
1991 258.34 -1.56%
1992 257.95 -0.15%
1993 258.12 0.07%
1994 259.97 0.72%
1995 258.43 -0.59%
1996 259.58 0.44%
1997 265.22 2.17%
1998 271.87 2.51%
1999 274.64 1.02%
2000 275.62 0.36%
2001 275.38 -0.09%
2002 278.91 1.28%
2003 279.94 0.37%
2004 277.57 -0.84% "

So from your own site... the wages under Reagan and beyond went UP... not much... but up... not down. which is what I said. Yes, they are down from 1964 (by the way... what happened to 1960-1963... do we get to just lob off parts of the decade when discussing the 60/70's vs 80/90's?

So the decrease in wages occurred in the 70's. Which is what we have been telling you. The 70's sucked for the economy, they sucked for the workers, they sucked for unemployment, inflation, high interest rates. Much of which occurred thanks to all the wonderful federal government intervention established under Johnson.

Thanks again for failing to read your own site. I do want to commend you on cherry picking your data above... good work trying to hide the numbers under Reagan. (and yes, I returned the cherry picking favor)

I also would like to commend you for picking the data from working life, which does not link directly to the US Labor website data it is using. Very convenient.
Click to expand...

Nah, you were denying any decrease in wages took place at all, and that's why you made your sarcastic challenge. You said only an idiot would claim that people had it better then than they do now.

Now you are changing your story, but originally it was about the gdp.

You are really full of shit on this thread Superfreak, and I'm not even going to read it anymore, because I think you have gone from bullshitting to outright lying. And it's making me feel pissed at you. So knock yourself out for the next two days with your bullshit here.

And, you deleted a post. As soon as you realized that inflation adjusted would make it frigging worse.
 
Cypress said:
Average weekly pay, in real wages, adjusted to constant 1982 dollars at the beginning of reagans term was

$277.35 a week in 1981

When Reagan left office it was

$267.27 in 1989.

Clinton managed to reverse the Reagan/PoppyBush trend on wages*, but then they plummeted again under George Junior.

*Wages went up from $258/week to $275/week under Clinton.
Click to expand...

Wow... so NOW we are going to compare Clinton to Reagan? I thought we were comparing the 60/70 time frame to the 80/90 time frame.

1) Reagan's last full year was 1988 so the number is $270.

2) Of course they went down under the first Bush... the economy doesn't tend to do well under tax increases... thought we had already covered that.

Now, would you like to discuss all the economic factors that effected these changes under Clinton and Bush Jr as well? Or are we going to continue arbitrarily picking data points?
 
Okay damo...this is your time to...

step into the fray...who above is telling the truth about deleted threads???:corn:
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
Nah, you were denying any decrease in wages took place at all, and that's why you made your sarcastic challenge. You said only an idiot would claim that people had it better then than they do now.

Now you are changing your story, but originally it was about the gdp.

You are really full of shit on this thread Superfreak, and I'm not even going to read it anymore, because I think you have gone from bullshitting to outright lying. And it's making me feel pissed at you. So knock yourself out for the next two days with your bullshit here.

And, you deleted a post. As soon as you realized that inflation adjusted would make it frigging worse.
Click to expand...

No one has forced you to read this far Darla...
 
Okay, when someone resorts to deleting posts, outright lying, and refusing to admit they were wrong when they asked about falling wages, I think my work here is done.
 
Cypress said:
Okay, when someone resorts to deleting posts, outright lying, and refusing to admit they were wrong when they asked about falling wages, I think my work here is done.
Click to expand...

1) Where have I been outright lying?

2) You have constantly refused to admit you were wrong on this thread

3) You have constantly refused to address the salary example I gave Darla... because you know your whole average rate theory is crap.

4) You have not shown where the middle class salaries have gone down. You have shown where inflation adjusted salaries as a whole have gone down. There is a difference.

5) Then you began discussing Clinton vs. Reagan when the discussion was the 60/70 time frame as compared to the "Reagan era" as you called it.

So please, continue with your false outrage.

and yes, I edited a post because I wanted to add to it and also realized that your numbers were inflation adjusted, which is why I deleted that portion. Selective reading got me. The delusional post was meant to be humorous. But I forgot many libs are lacking in that area.
 
Superfreak said:
Water... yes, there is still a lower income class... there always will be. But are they better off than those in their income class were in the 60's and 70's?

Yes, the rich have gotten richer. But many in the middle class have moved up into the upper class. Some from the lower have moved to the middle and some have taken a hit.

But all in all, we are better off as a country than we were in the 60's and 70's.

That said, I would be interested to see your per capita GDP growth numbers to compare with median income growth.
Click to expand...

I did a long essay on it once.

I believe you can get them at the Census beaureau... let me go and google...

Ah!

Here it is:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p10ar.html

That shows the median and mean incomes in inflation adjusted and non-inflation adjusted dollars.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/incpertoc.html

And this is a whole bunch of historical income data, including the above.
 
Cypress said:
SPECULATION



SPECULATION


-FACT: Economic growth in the pre-reagan years (1946-1980) was superior to the post reagan years (1980-2006).

-ASSERTION: In the pre-reagan years, a family could live a nice, comfortable life virtually anywhere in the United States - from Akron to San Diego - on one spouses income.

In the post-reagan years, large swaths of the country - from the rust belt, to small town america - are not economically viable to support a large healthy middle class.


I think that is a fair and accuarte assertion, broadly speaking.



SF: I'm just looking at and using raw data. I could care less what academic wankering and speculation is posted on that link. I don't automatically assume that the hypotheses of academic wankers are neccessarily true. That's why they're called hypothesis. They're essentially guesses, that aren't ground-truthed by testing.

That's why I'm relying strictly on the raw data. Cawacko asserted that the post reagan years were a golden age for the middle class, and that "all this wealth" had been created since 1980. Not accurate. On an inflationary-adjusted composite average, the economy and wealth was growing better in the pre-reagan years.
Click to expand...

Cypress, average standard of living today is far better than average standard of living during those periods. You can "support" a family by 30's standards very easily today. If "supporting" means you need 3 cars, 4 computers, and 7 TV sets (what my family has in this region where one spouse supposedly cannot "support" a family), then no, I guess some regions the average family can't support that.
 
In the post Reagan years, median income growth has really been consistent to pre-Reagan years, while the rich were benifitting mainly. From this, I take, all the previous economic policies did was hurt the rich. I just don't see much sense in that. Even if it doesn't help the poor, there's no reason just to hurt the rich for the sake of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top