SF: For future reference

Cypress said:
Remember that I said 5 billion posts ago, that in today's middle class, both spouses typically have to work to make ends meet - in contrast to previous generations?

Well, here you go. Families where one spouse works as seen their household income decline

The modest gains in household income have only come, because we put the other spouse to work too. Which allegedly used to alarm "family values" cons. Kids at home with two working spouses:

twospousesworking.jpg
Click to expand...

And as I have said a billion times moron.... look at MEDIAN INCOME... NOT MEDIAN household income.... MEDIAN INCOME has risen after being adjusted for inflation by 30% since Reagan took office. That means the middle of the pack has shifted UP.

While there are certainly some families out there were both spouses HAVE to work.... it is not because income is shrinking. In many cases it is because they want to have a bigger home, better cars, more toys etc.... In some cases it is because they have crappy jobs that do not pay, but that is not the case the majority of the time. Because if the middle class is making more NOW than at the start of the Reagan era, there is no way you can justify your comments that they are worse off. No matter how many ways you try to dissect the data.
 
Cypress said:
1) Payroll wages down in post-reagan era.

2) GDP underperforming in the reagan era

3) Mens wages and income flatlining or dropping.

4) Modest increases in total household income only possible because the other spouse has to work.
Click to expand...

oh, and

5) Household income inequality has increased in the reagan era:

Inequality.jpg
 
Cypress said:
You truly are a fucking moron. If as you have already stated, the buying power of the middle class increased since 1981.... then HOW is it that they are doing WORSE?


Median household income is only up modestly, because we have to have both spouses working. Which is what I said a billion posts ago. And it's backed up by the census graphs i posted.

Having both spouses work, just to make ends meet, is not the sign of a healthy middle class.

1) Payroll wages down in post-reagan era.

2) GDP underperforming in the reagan era

3) Mens wages and income flatlining or dropping.

4) Modest increases in total household income only possible because the other spouse has to work.
Click to expand...


Again, moron....

1) Reagan took office in 1981... so wages were stagnant over that time, not down

2) GDP growth rate was deliberately slowed by Volker and Greenspan. As I said a thousand posts ago. But you continue to act as if that is a bad thing. Yet in fact it is a good thing. Because it keeps inflation under control. It keeps interest rates lower so that their is a more liquid money supply... which sustains the growth rate. Rather than going back to the roller coaster ride that occured prior to Volker.

3) The growth rate for women age 19.5 grew at 75%. What the fuck does it matter what a segment did. YOUR fucking argument was the middle class. For that you look at median income. Which was UP since 1981.

Your number four is complete bullshit. for the reasons I already mentioned above
 
Cypress you are a fucking moron. I am not wasting any more time with your bogus claims. If you truly think the middle class is worse off, then fine, live in your little kool-aid induced world that moveon.org has instructed you never to leave. You are proof that their are mindless drones on the left as well.
 
Superfreak: "ook at MEDIAN INCOME... NOT MEDIAN household income.... MEDIAN INCOME has risen after being adjusted for inflation by 30% since Reagan took office"


Incorrect. It's not in constant dollars.

The total non-constant dollar increase in median income as a percentage change has gone up 30%. See Census Bureau Graph:

Medianincomepercentgrowth.jpg



NOW,

Here's the census bureau graph for median income in constant dollars (i.e., where you can compare one year to the next on a constant dollar basis, not a total percent change basis)

MedianIncomeMen_Women.jpg



Note on a constant dollar basis, that men have been falling, or flatlining at best. In today's economy, only those families where both spouses have to work have modestly better median incomes - as noted in previous graphs.
 
he is a total moron, look at stock ownership today vs 40 yrs ago.
The middle class is WAY better off.
Cypress is Dukakis in Drag
 
Topspin said:
he is a total moron, look at stock ownership today vs 40 yrs ago.
The middle class is WAY better off.
Cypress is Dukakis in Drag
Click to expand...
Both seem to be ignoring that the goal of the Fed since Reagan first put Greenspan into office was to manage inflation and keep the cycles in the economy smaller. To do this some growth incentive was given up so that the downturns would be smaller and more manageable as well. This has been a positive at almost all aspects of the economy, it became safer to invest in the stock market and the majority of Americans now do so.

This created many paper millionaires, you know the ones described in the "Millionaire Next Door" and "Rich Father, Poor Father" books.
 
Topspin said:
he is a total moron, look at stock ownership today vs 40 yrs ago.
The middle class is WAY better off.
Cypress is Dukakis in Drag
Click to expand...

You don't have any right to call someone a "total moron" who has backed up every fucking thing they said on this thread, and you have backed up ZERO.

I don't know how SF is arguing with those last figures cypress put up, and I don't care. This is obviously at an impasse and should just be dropped.

But don't get the idea that someone can say "what a fucking moron" and everyone is like, oh yeah, they are a moron.

Because you just look like an ass.
 
Duhla, you should really get past the first page of the buisness section of the local rag you read, cause your clueless.
Damo, very nicely put. Didn't realize you were that up on the economy.
Cypress is a transparent turbo-lib who is way left of moveon.
And would gloriously pump these numbers if they were a dems. Yes he did find those articles that tell a piece of the picture. That's the problem with morons, they look at a page and think they know the book.
 
uscitizen said:
Duhhh. 40 years ago we had no 401K's most all retirement systems were employer based.
Click to expand...
This was what Greenspan and Reagan changed. To say this as if it wasn't a direct result of such is simply ignoring results.

To say that we are not better off running our own 401K rather than having some Government/Company bureaucracy doing it seems just plain crazy to me.
 
Topspin said:
Duhla, you should really get past the first page of the buisness section of the local rag you read, cause your clueless.
Damo, very nicely put. Didn't realize you were that up on the economy.
Cypress is a transparent turbo-lib who is way left of moveon.
And would gloriously pump these numbers if they were a dems. Yes he did find those articles that tell a piece of the picture. That's the problem with morons, they look at a page and think they know the book.
Click to expand...

Right, everything he posts "only tells a piece of the picture" and "is right, but doesn't tell the true story".

Do you know how much weasling it looks like has gone on in this thread? And from where I was sitting it wasn't coming from him.

I've never seen you post anything Top, that made me think you were of above-average intelligence. The reflection of yourself that you see, is not the same as the reflection you cast.
 
And I've never seen anything that tells me you understand business better than any high school graduate.
These things damo and I are saying aren't even picked up in business school. Its years of investing and reading the Wall street journal.
To ignore networth in a discussion of the middle class being worse off now vs pre Reagan is well High school level.
there are always fringe lefties putting out articles saying woo is me.
The vast majority of economist and business journalist would laugh at the we'er worse now theory.
 
Topspin said:
he is a total moron, look at stock ownership today vs 40 yrs ago.
The middle class is WAY better off.
Cypress is Dukakis in Drag
Click to expand...


Ummmm, moron?

Corporations have largely weaned their workers off pensions, and shuffled them into 401(k) retirement plans. It saves the corporation money.

I challenge you to ask any GOP congressman or senator, if they would give up their federal pension, for a cash-balance 401(k). I'll bet you money not a single one would accept that trade.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
This was what Greenspan and Reagan changed. To say this as if it wasn't a direct result of such is simply ignoring results.

To say that we are not better off running our own 401K rather than having some Government/Company bureaucracy doing it seems just plain crazy to me.
Click to expand...
Absolutely let your retirement depend on the whims of the market vs govt regulated and guaranteed benefits ;)
 
wow the uneducated rich guy chimes in, yeah that's not proof either.

USC that is added to you list of 1,000 moronic comments
 
The goal was to allow the Middle class to earn the same types of money as the Uber Rich. It is getting easier and easier to do exactly that. At the same time minimizing that "whims of the market" that you were talking about making it safer as well as more accessible.

It has worked and over 50% of the nation is invested in stocks. At the same time they get their "Government 'guaranteed'" SS payments sent off...

In the end they have both. It is only the sky-is-falling doomsayers that pretend that they are somehow no longer 'protected' by mother government.
 
Damocles said:
Duh. If you don't then you are foolish indeed. Your massive 1% return rate will surely pay off in the end.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

1% I am supposed to get near 20% and I am retired any day I want to be :)

I was not speaking for me but for friends I saw have to delay retirement because of a market downutrn. One did not live long enough to retire...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top