SF: For future reference

Superfreak said:
Which is fine, if you wish to drop it. But then DROP it. You coming on here and defending that idiot just starts it all up again. It is OBVIOUS to anyone who reads the actual numbers and doesn't try to eyeball the numbers based on a chart.... or post charts that do not show the complete results... or post charts that start to segment the population based on gender, when the fucking argument was is the middle class AS A WHOLE doing better or worse since Reagan took office.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? You have been on here like a jackrabbit, don't accuse me of keeping it going.

I completely understood the gender issue, and thought right off when you switched, mid-stream, from wages to income, that it was due to women. And the whole point from the start, was that today, both spouses must work. So don't act like that's irrelevent.
 
You census table includes everybody from age 15 up to age 74.

That’s the wrong way to measure the health of the working middle class.

Please don’t insult my (or the board’s) intelligence by suggesting that teenagers, college kids, and the elderly are part of the “working middle class”. Teenagers are spoiled today. They won’t work for less than 9 dollars an hour. When I was a kid, I had a paper route that probably netted me 40 cents per hour.

As such, your table is not weighted properly to reflect the economic situation of the working middle class. Those people and families in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. It’s statistically biased against the very debate we’re having. You don't toss in the wages of teenagers, or old fogies to measure the health of the working middle class, you fool.


America's younger workers losing ground on income

From 2001 to 2004, median income fell 8 percent for householders under 35, a survey shows.

A new survey shows that median incomes fell for householders under 45, even as they rose for older ones, between 2001 and 2004.

Income fell 8 percent, adjusted for inflation, for those under 35 and 9 percent for those aged 35 to 44. The numbers add new weight to longstanding concerns about whether younger generations of Americans will achieve living standards that are better - or at least equal to - those of their parents.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0227/p01s04-usec.html
Click to expand...




Younger Men Income Lagging Behind their Father’s Generation:


Father_Sonincome.jpg


Mens’ income down. Overall household income up modestly, because wives are sent out to work:

MedianIncomeMen_Women.jpg
 
Darla said:
Excuse me? You have been on here like a jackrabbit, don't accuse me of keeping it going.

I completely understood the gender issue, and thought right off when you switched, mid-stream, from wages to income, that it was due to women. And the whole point from the start, was that today, both spouses must work. So don't act like that's irrelevent.
Click to expand...

AS I have said a hundred fucking times... I used INCOME because it represents ALL OF YOUR INCOME. WAGES DOES NOT. Which was where his idiocy began in the first place.

The idea that "both spouses HAVE to work" is your fucking opinion. Many CHOOSE to work, as I have said, so that they can have a bigger home, car, toys etc...

But if MEDIAN income is UP...then they do NOT HAVE to work. That said, there are SOME that do, but the majority it is a case of the median income not being enough for the LIFESTYLE they want. But comparing APPLES to APPLES you look at the median income to determine the buying power today vs. the past. IT IS HIGHER NOW than in 1981. so the middle class has NOT gotten worse. PERIOD.

But please, continue with the traditional dem rhetoric.... I am sure the kool-aid tastes good to you.
 
Cypress said:
You census table includes everybody from age 15 up to age 74.

That’s the wrong way to measure the health of the working middle class.

Please don’t insult my (or the board’s) intelligence by suggesting that teenagers, college kids, and the elderly are part of the “working middle class”. Teenagers are spoiled today. They won’t work for less than 9 dollars an hour. When I was a kid, I had a paper route that probably netted me 40 cents per hour.

As such, your table is not weighted properly to reflect the economic situation of the working middle class. Those people and families in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. It’s statistically biased against the very debate we’re having. You don't toss in the wages of teenagers, or old fogies to measure the health of the working middle class, you fool.







Younger Men Income Lagging Behind their Father’s Generation:


Father_Sonincome.jpg


Mens’ income down. Overall household income up modestly, because wives are sent out to work:

MedianIncomeMen_Women.jpg
Click to expand...

I know, but it's like :wall:
 
Superfreak said:
AS I have said a hundred fucking times... I used INCOME because it represents ALL OF YOUR INCOME. WAGES DOES NOT. Which was where his idiocy began in the first place.

The idea that "both spouses HAVE to work" is your fucking opinion. Many CHOOSE to work, as I have said, so that they can have a bigger home, car, toys etc...

But if MEDIAN income is UP...then they do NOT HAVE to work. That said, there are SOME that do, but the majority it is a case of the median income not being enough for the LIFESTYLE they want. But comparing APPLES to APPLES you look at the median income to determine the buying power today vs. the past. IT IS HIGHER NOW than in 1981. so the middle class has NOT gotten worse. PERIOD.

But please, continue with the traditional dem rhetoric.... I am sure the kool-aid tastes good to you.
Click to expand...

I don't give a fuck why you used income, I told you why I think it's BULLSHIT.
 
"You census table includes everybody from age 15 up to age 74."

It ALSO includes a breakdown of the different age brackets. Eliminate those 15-24.... that is fine with me... they had the WORST percentage gain and actually drag the average DOWN slightly. Eliminate those over 65 as well... they are retired... so fine... but they are right at a 30% increase, so it will not effect the overall average by eliminating them. So now you have those 24-65.... the workforce. STILL the average is up in all categories.... and on average it is up 30%. Do try to at least read the fucking data.

"Please don’t insult my (or the board’s) intelligence by suggesting that teenagers, college kids, and the elderly are part of the “working middle class”. Teenagers are spoiled today. They won’t work for less than 9 dollars an hour. When I was a kid, I had a paper route that probably netted me 40 cents per hour."

I never suggested that you fucking moron. I broke down each of the categories for you, but you ignored it. So don't insult the intelligence of the board with your fucking charts that most certainly do not tell the story of the middle class..... ESPECIALLY when your little charts only go to 1997... leaving out the increases in income in 1998, 1999 and 2000.

"As such, your table is not weighted properly to reflect the economic situation of the working middle class. Those people and families in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. "

As stated before, read the fucking data charts. Each age category is broken down.

"It’s statistically biased against the very debate we’re having. You don't toss in the wages of teenagers, or old fogies to measure the health of the working middle class, you fool. "

Again you fucking moron... the teenagers had the worst increase, so eliminating them IMPROVES the average. Those over 65 do not effect the overall rate of return (maybe a slight improvement). So eliminating both groups will only IMPROVE the average INCREASE.

But you are far too fucking ignorant to understand that aren't you. You have your new charts and you are going to keep posting them.... right... because that way Darla will believe you are showing evidence to back up your idiocy.
 
wives sent out to work, 10 turbo-lib points for Duhla
thow some lady named Brown has a poison dart with Duhla's name on it
 
thow some lady named Brown has a poison dart with Duhla's name on it

I'll tell ya, I've opened badly written fortune cookies that I've made more sense out of.
 
Topspin said:
that's real feminist of you to say woman are sent out to work. Duhla
Click to expand...

"I completely understood the gender issue, and thought right off when you switched, mid-stream, from wages to income, that it was due to women. And the whole point from the start, was that today, both spouses must work. So don't act like that's irrelevent."

Bold those words in the post.
 
Darla said:
"I completely understood the gender issue, and thought right off when you switched, mid-stream, from wages to income, that it was due to women. And the whole point from the start, was that today, both spouses must work. So don't act like that's irrelevent."

Bold those words in the post.
Click to expand...

Superfreaks contention: "Forget about falling weekly payroll wages, underperforming GDP, and flatlining household incomes or incomes for men! Look at the individual data for EVERYONE! And be sure to toss in the statisitics of teenagers, college kids, and retired people to skew the results away from a representation of working middle income families!"


As you said before Darla, this is self evident about the gender thing.

Men's real income has flat-lined or dropped in the reagan "revolution" era:

MedianIncomeMen_Women.jpg



Women's participation in the workforce has increased. Partly because women have become more empowered. But, also because families need to have two incomes - and the kids get shoved into day care:

Wivesinworkforce.jpg



And here we see evidence for the two spouse requirement: income has flatlined or gone down for families with one wage earner. But, with two wage earners, its managed to go up modestly:

twospousesworking.jpg
 
Once again, Cypress ignores the fact that his cute little charts only go to 1997. Ignores that disposes of three consecutive years of growth in median income. Ignores the fact that breaking down median income and trying to now spin this into women HAVE to work or that families HAVE to have duel incomes is ridiculous. While some may in the lower income class may HAVE to work.... the middle class does not and obviously the upper class does not as well.

The reason the middle class women are in the work force is AGAIN because they want a greater lifestyle than what the one income family can have. It does NOT mean that they CANNOT live the same lifestyle as couples did in the 60's etc... The reason we know this to be true is because the median income is HIGHER now than it was in 1981. 30% higher. 30% MORE purchasing power.

Now Cypress...please don't dodge this again... provide the link to the site that you are getting those charts from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top