SF: For future reference

"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!"

Again you fucking moron...

1) WAGES were stagnant from 1981 to 2005... not declining... this is from your own fucking numbers

2) GDP growth was deliberately contained to help maintain growth at a sustainable rate and this has had a positive effect on the economy. Also, with regards to growth, I have already provided you with an example of why a slower growth rate does not necessarily equate to slower growth in terms of buying power.... but as usual YOU IGNORE it

3) As for the median income... AS I SAID.... BUT YOU IGNORED by including the teens and those over 65... it was done to keep it simple for you. By taking them out, the numbers IMPROVE, because the 15-24 age group had the WORST rate of increase and those over 65 were also under the average. Which means both are having a negative effect on the average. But once again, you will fucking ignore this because it doesn't fit into your preconceived piece of bullshit
 
Duhla you said it not me.
those charts look like they are going up to me.
Cypress neve stepped foot in an economics class, free trade made the economy take off. It's called Globalism, one of the affects is it has and will lower unskilled workers pay while raising the incomes of those that are trying to gain skills and contributing much more to the economy. it will continue
 
He is also the king of cherry pickers and strawmen.

Notice how he suddenly changed the dates yet again for the argument... Now his charts only go to 1997, he refuses to provide a link to the site he obtained the charts from and he makes up shit then acts like I said it. Pathetic little shit. At least when it comes to this topic. He is too wrapped up in trying to show that everything was sooooooo much better when a larger portion of the population was unionized. He simply cannot handle the fact that the middle class is better off today than it was twenty six years ago.
 
Topspin said:
Duhla you said it not me.
those charts look like they are going up to me.
Cypress neve stepped foot in an economics class, free trade made the economy take off. It's called Globalism, one of the affects is it has and will lower unskilled workers pay while raising the incomes of those that are trying to gain skills and contributing much more to the economy. it will continue
Click to expand...

No, I didn't say it, and that's why you can't get the post, you lying sack of shit.

This is a low for you Top.
 
Topspin said:
then you copied it under one of the charts in your post. My bad, I wasn't expecting you to say that.
Click to expand...

Ok. Good. See, you have me all wrong Top. My button isn't being called a spinster, or being told I can't get a man...my button is being accused of something I didn't say or do.
 
Superfreak: "Once again, Cypress ignores the fact that his cute little charts only go to 1997."


Data for 2000-2005:

Wage and Salary Data is flatlined. Stagnant.

In fact, if you did a statistical trend analysis, there would be a slight downward trend in wage and salary


Wage20002005.jpg


from: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
 
you are too fucking funny Cypress.... you cannot join the median income chart with a wage and salary chart. They are NOT the same data moron. Also, these charts AGAIN leave out the data that shows the INCREASES in 1998, 1999 and 2000. How very convenient for you.

you managed to figure out how to cut and past the link to your charts yet?
 
Note that after about 1980, median earnings of men flat-lined and went stagnant:

Earningsupto2005.jpg


Even while worker productivity skyrockets. From 1987 to 2006, worker productivity increased 52%, while men's earnings basically flat-lined during the past two decades

productivity.jpg
 
again tool, you are looking at earnings only on that chart... that you yet again managed to cut and paste yet you STILL have not been able to do so with the link to the site you are pulling these from.....

WHY????

Also... what caused productivity to go up? Was it all do to employees or was it to due to increased technology?

Now, to be clear so that you don't get confused again, the following ONLY relates to the investment universe... NOT ALL JOBS... I am just using this as an example....

But within investments, I am 20 times more efficient today than I was 15 years ago and the industry is at least double that again since 1980. Why? What was the fundamental change? Oh yeah, this nice little thing called the tech revolution. Internet allowing us to research stocks within seconds. Software that allows us to perform technical analysis in a fraction of the time it used to take us. Client data pulled up in seconds. Trades done electronically and executed within seconds (for market orders at least).

Just because there are productivity gains, you cannot attribute that all to workers. In my case it was due to an investment in technology by my industry. Many other industries have seen similar increases due to tech. That said.... Within service oriented companies it is likely to be far more prevalent than in say manufacturing.

Now... AGAIN... please post the link to the site(s) that you are getting these charts from.
 
Now... AGAIN... please post the link to the site(s) that you are getting these charts from.


Its from your OWN link doofus. You'll have to click around on the hyperlinks to find it yourself. Why? Not because I'm as asshole, but because when I begged you time after time to provide median income data that didn't just go to 1974, you totally ignored me.


As for productivity - that almost always comes in part from technology. Are you suggesting corporations should make record profits based on productivity gains, but that employees who actually do the work shouldn't also benefit?
 
A Quick Review of the Pre-Reagan Era (1946-1980) to the Post-Reagan Era (1980-2006)

"Health of the working Middle Class"

*Sources: Census Bureau and US Bureau of Labor Statistics


-Economic Performance

The pre-Reagan era outperformed the post-reagan era in terms of the of GDP and rate of growth of the median real income.


-Head to Head Metric Comparisons

The pre-reagan era was characterized by higher weekly payroll earnings, as measured in constant dollars, compared to the post-reagan era.

The post reagan era was characterized by falling take home pay and stagnant real income for men, marginally higher real income for women.

Overall household income in the post reagan era made modest gains, largely because women spouses had to enter the workforce.


-Productivity and Compensation

The post-reagan era has been characterized by large increases in productivity, and consequently large increases in corporate profits, and CEO compensation. These increases in wealth and CEO compensation tied to productivity were not shared with workers, who's weekly earnings fell, and whose real income either stagnated, or rose modestly, depending on which demographic one measure.
 
Last edited:
Completely free trade disembodied from other values is child prostitution, slavery, and empowering enemies to build armies against us.

People opposed to globalism are not opposed to trade, they're opposed to trade which ruins their lives, families and nations.
 
Cypress said:
Now... AGAIN... please post the link to the site(s) that you are getting these charts from.


Its from your OWN link doofus. You'll have to click around on the hyperlinks to find it yourself. Why? Not because I'm as asshole, but because when I begged you time after time to provide median income data that didn't just go to 1974, you totally ignored me.


As for productivity - that almost always comes in part from technology. Are you suggesting corporations should make record profits based on productivity gains, but that employees who actually do the work shouldn't also benefit?
Click to expand...


The difference Cypress, is that I provided a link to all data that I presented. You didn't. You asking for me to go and find additional data that was not relevant to my point is not the same as my asking you to provide data that you are using to try to spin your way away from the original argument.
 
Cypress said:
A Quick Review of the Pre-Reagan Era (1946-1980) to the Post-Reagan Era (1980-2006)

"Health of the working Middle Class"

*Sources: Census Bureau and US Bureau of Labor Statistics


-Economic Performance

The pre-Reagan era outperformed the post-reagan era in terms of the of GDP and rate of growth of the median real income.


-Head to Head Metric Comparisons

The pre-reagan era was characterized by higher weekly payroll earnings, as measured in constant dollars, compared to the post-reagan era.

The post reagan era was characterized by falling take home pay and stagnant real income for men, marginally higher real income for women.

Overall household income in the post reagan era made modest gains, largely because women spouses had to enter the workforce.


-Productivity and Compensation

The post-reagan era has been characterized by large increases in productivity, and consequently large increases in corporate profits, and CEO compensation. These increases in wealth and CEO compensation tied to productivity were not shared with workers, who's weekly earnings fell, and whose real income either stagnated, or rose modestly, depending on which demographic one measure.
Click to expand...

So bottom line... what Cypress is saying is that he refuses to address ANY of the counterpoints to his idiotic claims. Nice debate/discussion tactics... totally ignore the other persons points and keep parrotting your claims over and over again. We are done.
 
SF: “the median income is HIGHER now than it was in 1981. 30% higher. 30% MORE purchasing power.”

You keep tossing this statement out, even though its been addressed time after time.


Refer back to Census Graphs, if you wish to confirm these data:

1) Median family income and per capita income is up. In the range of 30%

2) Mens earnings have stagnated from 1980-2005. They may have gone upmaybe a nominal 1 or 2% at best, over the last quarter century. In effect, they have flatlined.

3) Women’s earnings have gone up around 30% from 1980 to 2005

4) Women’s participation in the work force went from around 20% in 1947 to 62% in 1997; i.e., most women are in the labor force NOW, the vast majority WERE NOT in the labor force then.

5) Therefore, almost all the gain in median family income (the infamous 30%) you like to brag about, came BECAUSE the women spouse, or woman household member went to work

6) You like to claim, “so what, they wanted more money and they got it!”.

I contend that human beings aren’t robots. If two people have to both work full time as opposed to one person (a 100% increase in labor participation) to only make an increase of 30% in earnings (or income), that is what you call falling behind. i.e, More work, and NOT a commensurate amount of more money.

Do you understand the concept??? A 100% increase in a family’s labor participation, for only a commensurate 30% increase in earnings or income? That’s not a square deal. These aren’t robots were talking about.

I’m quite sure that for many working families, one spouse would like to stay home, at least until the kid is in elementary school. But, its not financially viable for them.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
SF: “the median income is HIGHER now than it was in 1981. 30% higher. 30% MORE purchasing power.”

"You keep tossing this statement out, even though its been addressed time after time. "

You have yet to address this issue. You keep trying to break down segments of the population....

Please look at the ACTUAL census numbers if you have a problem with the math, we can help you out.

"1) Median family income and per capita income is up. In the range of 30%"

There, see... NOW you just agreed again. Per capital income is up. Do you understand what per capita means?

"2) Mens earnings have stagnated from 1980-2005. They may have gone upmaybe a nominal 1 or 2% at best, over the last quarter century. In effect, they have flatlined. "

Lets see... you showed two charts... one that ended in 1997 and the second that started in 2000. Conveniently leaving out the fact that median income rose in 1998, 1999 and 2000.

"3) Women’s earnings have gone up around 30% from 1980 to 2005"

There earnings went up. True. There was a concerted effort to try to get equal pay for equal work. Still a long way to go in correcting that.

"4) Women’s participation in the work force went from around 20% in 1947 to 62% in 1997; i.e., most women are in the labor force NOW, the vast majority WERE NOT in the labor force then. "

The above has NO effect on median income other than to make the population size larger.

"5) Therefore, almost all the gain in median family income (the infamous 30%) you like to brag about, came BECAUSE the women spouse, or woman household member went to work"

Again, when you look at median income, that tells you what is happening to the middle class. There are single people that are a part of the middle class, there are married couples, there are partners, there are old people and young. Median income simply tells you how the class AS A WHOLE are doing.

Or are you eliminating all non-married indiviudals from your middle class theory?

"6) You like to claim, “so what, they wanted more money and they got it!”. "

No.... I said that many do enter the workforce for an increase in household income.

"I contend that human beings aren’t robots. If two people have to both work full time as opposed to one person (a 100% increase in labor participation) to only make an increase of 30% in earnings (or income), that is what you call falling behind. i.e, More work, and NOT a commensurate amount of more money."

Again, you are making the assumption that they both HAVE to work. Which is false on average... because if median income is higher now than it was in 1981, then they have 30% more purchasing power than they did then.

"I’m quite sure that for many working families, one spouse would like to stay home, at least until the kid is in elementary school. But, its not financially viable for them.
Click to expand...

This is where you go astray yet again... please define "working families"... then tell us why you leave out the rest of the middle class when you say the middle class is worse off now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top