SF: For future reference

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

Yes, but you kept changing what the "pre-Reagan" years mean. You also don't seem to grasp the fact that he took office in 1981 (not that it makes a big difference)

Nothing I wrote in that ONE post debunked a thing I said. I had posted that your numbers were not inflation adjusted, then I realized they were, so rather than start an argument on that point, I changed my post.... within a minute of posting it. So next time I will simply post a second post so that you don't cry so much about it. It was ONE fucking post that you want to blow up as something that has happened multiple times.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Are we talking avg income or avg earned wages here ? They are 2 very different things."

No, we are talking about the status of the middle class and whether or not the middle class is better off than they were pre-Reagan.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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

And if you would actually READ what I wrote... you will see I agreed that I was wrong on that point. You did CHANGE your argument yesterday. I just didn't catch it yesterday.

 

[uscitizen]

But the middle class definiton has slid a bit in that time frame as well making comparison a bit different.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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

See... THIS is where your problem lies... you don't even comprehend what the numbers are telling you. Bill Gates income will affect that AVERAGE income, it will not affect the MEDIAN income. That site has BOTH.

Mean income... the average of the populations income

Median income... the income of those at the 50th percentile. (aka... good example of middle class)

 

[Cypress]

SF claims that I wasn't talking about the pre-reagan era (1946-1980) versus the post-reagan era (1980 to today)

Superfreak: "YOU are the one who changed the argument yesterday. YOU changed the timeframe"

All the threads, where I specifically pointed out I was comparing the pre-reagan era (1946-1980) versus the post-reagan era (1980-today):


http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=92744&highlight=1946#post92744

http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=92391&highlight=1946#post92391

Cypress: “In this thread, I never suggested it was a Democrat vs. GOP thing. I am suggesting its an ideological thing. Broadly speaking, the New Deal Keynesian consensus before Reagan (1946-1980) versus Libertarian Reaganomics post-1980.”

http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=92365&highlight=1946#post92365

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

http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=92316&highlight=1946#post92316

Cypress: ”Do you agree that economic growth (GDP) was superior in the pre-reagan years (1946-1980), than in the post-reagan years (1980-2006)?”


http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=92245&highlight=1946#post92245

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"But the middle class definiton has slid a bit in that time frame as well making comparison a bit different."

True, the definition will change depending on who you ask. But the median income will tell you where the actual middle is. You can argue that the middle class is everything 20% above and below the line or 30% above and below the line... but it will not change where the actual middle is.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Cypress... please read the following that I posted on this thread....

"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."

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You would have saved yourself a lot of time had you simply read what I wrote. But you have a problem doing that don't you. Afraid that it will dispell your myth that the middle class is worse off than it was.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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

Now Cypress... notice how the median income is lower than the mean income for each of the groups. That is because the mean is skewed by the wealthier individual in each category. The median is not.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What? No more smart ass comments about understanding finance or economics?

No comments on the fact that you don't even understand the difference between mean and median income?

No comments on the fact that INCOME is a better gauge of how the middle class is doing than simply looking at WAGES?

Or are you simply dejected to the point that you cannot stand to look upon the failure of your argument?

 

[Cypress]

What? No more smart ass comments about understanding finance or economics?

No comments on the fact that you don't even understand the difference between mean and median income?

No comments on the fact that INCOME is a better gauge of how the middle class is doing than simply looking at WAGES?

Or are you simply dejected to the point that you cannot stand to look upon the failure of your argument?

1) Your data set only goes back to 1974. As you yourself admitted, we where trying to compare the pre-reagan era (1946-1980) to the post-reagan era (1980-today)

2) Even so, your data still support me. Rember I said that wages have been largely stagnant for the middle class is recent decades? Even if you look at another measure - Income - it still bears that out.

In your table, for the 25-34 year old demographic, median income was down 0.7% through the range of data.

For the 35-44 year old demographic, income went up about 6% over thirty years. Not impressive. Arguably stagnant. I'd like to see the income numbers for the whole pre-reagan years (1946 to 1980).


so, for working, middle income families (represented by your demographic range: 25 years old to 44 years old), wages have stagnated (dropped about 1%, see my previous post), while income over thirty years has risens a fairly pathetic 6%.

And wages are still a better measure of the working middle class's day to day ecnomic life. It's a measure of their disposable income. Their work pay. Income is not the same thing. And even that (income) has been relatively flat for working families.

 

[cawacko]

1) Your data set only goes back to 1974. As you yourself admitted, we where trying to compare the pre-reagan era (1946-1980) to the post-reagan era (1980-today)

2) Even so, your data still support me. Rember I said that wages have been largely stagnant for the middle class is recent decades? Even if you look at another measure - Income - it still bears that out.

In your table, for the 25-34 year old demographic, median income was down 0.7% through the range of data.

For the 35-44 year old demographic, income went up about 6% over thirty years. Not impressive. Arguably stagnant. I'd like to see the income numbers for the whole pre-reagan years (1946 to 1980).


so, for working, middle income families (represented by your demographic range: 25 years old to 44 years old), wages have stagnated (dropped about 1%, see my previous post), while income over thirty years has risens a fairly pathetic 6%.

And wages are still a better measure of the working middle class's day to day ecnomic life. It's a measure of their disposable income. Their work pay. Income is not the same thing. And even that (income) has been relatively flat for working families.

As an aside what defines "middle class" and a "working family"? Those terms get used a lot and I still don't know what there definition is, if they have one.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Cypress...

1) Yes, we are comparing the pre-Reagan to post Reagan... now take a look at every single age bracket post-Reagan... they all went up. Every single one. Which means the purchasing power of the middle class has increased over that time. Which disputes your assertation that they were worse off after Reagan took over.

2) Funny, I could have sworn you said that they could not buy what they used to be able to buy... that they could not live off of one income any more because they could no longer to afford it. Yet the data shows that they improved during the Reagan era (as you call it)

3) Wages are NOT a better indicator of whether people are better off or not. Because INCOME shows ALL monies being received. The difference between INCOME and WAGES is still disposable income. Income does not include unrealized gains. (which is another point all together)

4) I agree with CAWACKO... please define what you mean by "middle class" and "working family"

5) For 25-34 year olds income has risen 13.3% since Reagan came to office (inflation adjusted)

6) For 35-44 year olds inomce has risen 17.8% since Reagan took office.

7) Neither 5 or 6 suggests that income was stagnant since Reagan took office... which was another of your claims. Both of the groups you chose have more buying power today than they had prior to Reagan.

8) If you want to compare pre-Reagan to Reagan and beyond, then all you need is the prior years data, you do not need the entire time set. Because you are comparing where people were at prior to Reagan (1980) to what has happened since. It doesn't matter if there was a higher number in 1966 or whatever.... because any decline in wages prior to Reagan taking office were obviously not a result of the Reagan era. Those declines are attributed to Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter. PRE-Reagan.

 

[Topspin]

what a pussy, is there a bigger girly man on either site than cy. He makes Robdawg seem masculine. I heard avg hrly wages were $18hr up 4% last week that's not poverty.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

now... lets look at the older age groups that you left out...

15-24... income up 9.9% since Reagan

45-54.... income up 31.4% since Reagan

55-64.... income up 44.7% since Reagan

65+.... income up 34.2% since Reagan

For all workers age 15 and older.... up an average of 36.46% since Reagan came to office. Obviously by the above, the older workers did better than the younger ones, but ALL went up under Reagan. It was not stagnant at all.

 

[uscitizen]

now... lets look at the older age groups that you left out...

15-24... income up 9.9% since Reagan

45-54.... income up 31.4% since Reagan

55-64.... income up 44.7% since Reagan

65+.... income up 34.2% since Reagan

For all workers age 15 and older.... up an average of 36.46% since Reagan came to office. Obviously by the above, the older workers did better than the younger ones, but ALL went up under Reagan. It was not stagnant at all.

yeah a few billion here and there to a few really skew the income averges for everyone. Lets talk wages.

 

[Topspin]

If you look at married couples between 25 and 55 its way up.
I know that makes some of my fellow turbo-libs skin crawl but we have to adjust strategy to win. That old tape cypress is selling is a batamax tape.
were on Iphone downloads now.

 

[Cancel7]

If you look at married couples between 25 and 55 its way up.
I know that makes some of my fellow turbo-libs skin crawl but we have to adjust strategy to win. That old tape cypress is selling is a batamax tape.
were on Iphone downloads now.

No, you are talking income. You are not factoring in working wives, and longer hours.

The whole point was that, today, two people need to work if you want a house, kids, and a car. That's not how it used to be. Is household income up? Well, I guess that if two people are working instead of one, sure.

Hey, maybe we could do like the Mexicans do, and have 15 people per household. Imagine how high we'll be living on our increased household income then.

Get real.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

yeah a few billion here and there to a few really skew the income averges for everyone. Lets talk wages.

US... AGAIN... learn the difference between MEDIAN Income and MEAN Income. Mean Income is the average income... which can most certainly be skewed by the wealthy (as can MEAN wages... just not to as great a degree).

MEDIAN income is the 50th percentile. so if you had 101 people, it would be what the person at number 51 was making. It is not skewed by the income of the wealthy. It is a much better indicator of how people are doing than wages. Because wages is just that... wages. It does not include any other source of income. So it does not give you as complete a picture.