SF: For future reference

Also... YOUR source is workinglife.org. Now take a look at the numbers posted by Watermark on the other thread. They dispute your numbers completely. EVERY single age bracket improved since Reagan. Every one.
 
Superfreak said:
Darla... I like you... but you have no clue as to what you are talking about. His own numbers show that the middle class isn't worse off than it was in the 60's and 70's.

Re-read the thread if you so desire... I was not the one that changed the course of discussion. Cypress was. I simply addressed his changes.

Also, please do not tell me to "move on" when it is Cypress that started another thread on this topic. So if you want to move on, feel free to do so. No one is forcing you to read this thread that CYPRESS created.
Click to expand...

He started the thread, and you brought it back up today.

And, I do know what I am talking about. You changed the debate in mid-stream yesterday.

Whatever, go on all day about it. It bothers me that you think you are proving something, but I just won't read it anymore.
 
Lol....

uscitizen said:
The founding fathers were a bunch of affluent Masons. Some were smugglers, the darn British were cutting into profits.
Click to expand...


Well damn...maybe y'all should throw out all the Kennedy boys...since they made their original money smuggling Canadian Whiskey during prohibition!
 
"SUPERFREAK: The post-Reagan Years (1980-today) have been a golden age for the middle class with rising wages measured in real income.

-CYPRESS: The pre-Reagan years (1946-1980) were the golden age of the middle class, characterized by rising wages...the post-1980 years were characterized by stagnant wages"

Your problem Cypress is that you cannot stop trying to cherry pick data. The second is that you are refusing to look at any data other than what is on workinglife.org. The third is that you fail to address any critcism of your numbers. Fourth... find ANY economist that would agree that the country was better off pre-1981 vs post 1980. You will not find ANY.
 
Superfreak said:
"SUPERFREAK: The post-Reagan Years (1980-today) have been a golden age for the middle class with rising wages measured in real income.

-CYPRESS: The pre-Reagan years (1946-1980) were the golden age of the middle class, characterized by rising wages...the post-1980 years were characterized by stagnant wages"

Your problem Cypress is that you cannot stop trying to cherry pick data. The second is that you are refusing to look at any data other than what is on workinglife.org. The third is that you fail to address any critcism of your numbers. Fourth... find ANY economist that would agree that the country was better off pre-1981 vs post 1980. You will not find ANY.
Click to expand...

I see....Best tap dance ever: you've gone from claiming yesterday that real wages didn't rise in the pre-reagan years and weren't stagnant in the post-1980 years, to claiming my link is lying.

Can you please make up your mind, which spin your going to use to explain away the data?
 
Darla said:
He started the thread, and you brought it back up today.

And, I do know what I am talking about. You changed the debate in mid-stream yesterday.

Whatever, go on all day about it. It bothers me that you think you are proving something, but I just won't read it anymore.
Click to expand...

I addressed the thread because I did not see that he had started another one on the same topic. It is his reference thread.... therefore I wanted to have the arguments I made yesterday on it as well.

No, you are flat out wrong. And PLEASE, DO STOP READING it. You are adding nothing to the thread. It does sadden me that your mind is so completely closed that you cannot see anything other than his mindless rhetoric. All the numbers that show he is wrong.... yet you still want to ignore them along with Cypress. Please, be my guest.

Note how on this very thread, his argument has already changed from the 60/70's vs. 80's and beyond... to 1947-1980 vs. 1980 and beyond? Hmmmm... I wonder why????
 
Cypress said:
I see....Best tap dance ever: you've gone from claiming yesterday that real wages didn't rise in the pre-reagan years and weren't stagnant in the post-1980 years, to claiming my link is lying.

Can you please make up your mind, which spin your going to use to explain away the data?
Click to expand...

Not once did I state that wages didn't rise in the pre-reagan era. Not once. Oh king of strawman grasping for yet another straw are we?

Also, I did not claim your link was lying. I simply stated that YOUR source was workinglife.org which in turn sources the US bureau of labor stats. I provided an actual government website link. Try doing the same.

Also, quit ducking the fucking questions... What is your response to the census data that shows every age bracket improving since Reagan took over? Every single one.
 
Cypress... you also fail to address the fact that there was a major downturn in wages in the late 60's and 70's (using your own numbers). Why is this if things were better back then?
 
Superfreak said:
Also Cypress...

Why did you switch from comparing the 60/70's vs 80's and beyond to comparing 1946-1980 with 1980 and beyond?
Click to expand...

You really need to stop lying.

Ever since yesterday, I've been comparing the period 1946 to 1980 versus 1980 to today (the pre-reagan versus post-reagan years)
 
Superfreak said:
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.

There it is again Cypress... please explain how your numbers hold up to an ACTUAL US government site.
Click to expand...


I thought you were some kind of finance guru?

You do realize there's a difference between wages and income? If you don't you should look it up.

Suffice it to say, that wages measure the health of the working class. Income measures not only wages, but investment income, and other income that doesn't come from working.

Bill Gates doesn't draw a wage salary. Or, if he does, it pales in comparison to his total income. Therefore the "mean" income of Bill Gates and one thousand janitors might be around 20 million dollars. Does that mean those one thousand janitors are making 20 million dollars each? Of course not. That's why wages is used to measure the middle class, not income.

I agree that in the last thirty years, average income has skyrocted. Because the super affluent have done amazingly well. There is more wealth today, than 30 years ago. But, most of it went to the upper crust
 
Cypress said:
You really need to stop lying.

Ever since yesterday, I've been comparing the period 1946 to 1980 versus 1980 to today (the pre-reagan versus post-reagan years)
Click to expand...



We're done. this is not a cool debate, SF. You've been deleting posts, constantly spinning, lying, moving the goal posts, and constantly changing your argument.

I can't handle that kind of dishonest debate
 
Lets see... I'll cherry pick the years I want to use for comparison.... Lets say...

1965-1981 (the Cypress years) wages went from 310.46 to 277.35... a decline of 10.66%.

1981-1998 (Reagan era using same number of years) wages went from 277.35 to 271.87 a decline of 1.97%.

Funny how cherry picking data can make a difference.
 
Superfreak said:
Lets see... I'll cherry pick the years I want to use for comparison.... Lets say...

1965-1981 (the Cypress years) wages went from 310.46 to 277.35... a decline of 10.66%.

1981-1998 (Reagan era using same number of years) wages went from 277.35 to 271.87 a decline of 1.97%.

Funny how cherry picking data can make a difference.
Click to expand...


I've said since yesterday, that I was comparing the pre-reagan years versus the post reagan years. I've never changed or asserted anything else.

Your the one caught deleting posts when you write something that debunks your own case, and constantly moving the goal posts.
 
Cypress said:
We're done. this is not a cool debate, SF. You've been deleting posts, constantly spinning, lying, moving the goal posts, and constantly changing your argument.

I can't handle that kind of dishonest debate
Click to expand...

1) I changed one post, immediately after posting it, because I realized you had provided the information inflation adjusted and I was about to say you hadn't. That is not dishonest. I was correcting an error in my post and I told you that yesterday.

2) there is no spinning, you said the middle class is worse off. It is not. Use your own numbers for wages asshole. If there is inflation adjusted growth, then they cannot be worse off. The major downturn in wages occured from 1966-1981. SOURCE: YOUR OWN FRIGGIN DATA.

3) YOU are the one who changed the argument yesterday. YOU changed the timeframe, you brought up the wages, you brought up Reagan vs. Clinton. I simply went along with YOUR changes.

4) I will correct one comment. Looking back I do see that YOU did indeed CHANGE the timeframe yesterday. I apparently did not catch it then. I guess it was too much to keep up with all of your changes in argument.
 
Battleborne said:
Well damn...maybe y'all should throw out all the Kennedy boys...since they made their original money smuggling Canadian Whiskey during prohibition!
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken John Hancock was a rum runner. So I guess Kennedy was just following in our founding fathers footsteps.
 
Another lie.

Since yesterday, I've consistently said I was comparing the pre-reagan years (1946-1980) to the post-reagan years (1980 to today). I think I might have made one off handed comment about how the wage decline trend, was temporarily reversed in the 1990s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top