SF: For future reference

[Cancel7]

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.

I see you switched from wages to income.

Now, tell us guru, what was the average hours worked per week in 1980, and what are they today?

Then, tell us, guru, that as the hours worked has risen, have they risen for women, more and more of whom are working too?

Then, tell us, guru, that if women and men are working longer hours, and more and more women are working, why would the average income not go up?

And then, take your phony stats, and sell them to Cawacko. The boy is buying.

Me, I think the stock is a loser.

 

[Topspin]

this thread should be called turbo-libsrmoronsoneconomics

6% up is horrible but .7% down is just down.

Cypress was either a rock sniffers assistant or a junior programmer.
No engineer or finance person can screw up an explantion that bad.

If the economy is this good under Hillary they will be dancing.

 

[cawacko]

I see you switched from wages to income.

Now, tell us guru, what was the average hours worked per week in 1980, and what are they today?

Then, tell us, guru, that as the hours worked has risen, have they risen for women, more and more of whom are working too?

Then, tell us, guru, that if women and men are working longer hours, and more and more women are working, why would the average income not go up?

And then, take your phony stats, and sell them to Cawacko. The boy is buying.

Me, I think the stock is a loser.

I'm saying this tounge-in-cheeck but do you notice that when you say wages were supposedly higher back in the day was during the time women weren't working and were for the most part at home taking care of the family? Is that coincidence or a major factor?

 

[Cancel7]

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.

No, it's not a better indicator. It leaves out how many hours a household is working. If you have a household where one person is working, (more common in 1980 and earlier than it is today) and you compare that to a household where two people are working, you are telling nothing.

Wages, are the indicator.

You dropped that because you got popped on it, and now you're on to income, which is a red herring.

But, what am I doing on this thread, when I actually advised Cypress to get off it for his own sanity, because I assumed you must be driving him as crazy as you are driving me. Though, he has far more patience than I do.

No matter how much you twist and dance the last two drops end up in your pants. Why do I keep thinking of that when I read your posts on this thread SF?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) Yes, I used the data from the Census bureau that Water provided. It gives a better picture of ALL income rather than just wages. So if you are determining if people are better off now vs. Pre-Reagan... don't you want to see ALL of their income?

2) I don't know... many people in this country are not hourly and thus it is damn near impossible to say. I suppose we could look at hourly workers, but what does this have to do with income? Are you suggesting that people are working longer hours now vs. then?

3) I don't know the gender breakdown either. More and more women are working... very true. I thought that was the whole argument behind equal employment opportunity. Some women may be working because they "have" to... others because they "choose" to.... I have never seen a breakdown of that. Nor do I think it matters with regards to this topic.

4) No, increased hours only increases WAGES for HOURLY workers. It has no effect on the WAGES of salaried workers nor does it effect median INCOME (other than the effect on hourly workers wages). MEDIAN Income is what tells you how those in the middle are doing. It doesn't change based on how many people in a household are working.

5) I thought you were done with this thread????

 

[Cancel7]

I'm saying this tounge-in-cheeck but do you notice that when you say wages were supposedly higher back in the day was during the time women weren't working and were for the most part at home taking care of the family? Is that coincidence or a major factor?

Women do earn less than men, I think we are at 80 cents on the dollar now. So it could be a factor, I don't know.

Certainly, women being homemakers and not working, is a huge factor in income, however.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"No, it's not a better indicator. It leaves out how many hours a household is working. If you have a household where one person is working, (more common in 1980 and earlier than it is today) and you compare that to a household where two people are working, you are telling nothing. "

Darla, that is just silly. If Income leaves it out, then Wages must also. Because Income INCLUDES Wages. Everything that is included in Wages is included in Income. Income simply adds in other sources of revenue.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"You dropped that because you got popped on it, and now you're on to income, which is a red herring. "

Wrong again.... his wages show that it was stagnant... which is why I showed the complete picture. Because NO economist would agree that people are worse off after Reagan took over. It is an idiotic argument., because AGAIN you are looking at ONE piece of the picture, instead of the whole picture.

For someone who is done with this thread... you sure seem to be posting a lot.

 

[Cancel7]

1) Yes, I used the data from the Census bureau that Water provided. It gives a better picture of ALL income rather than just wages. So if you are determining if people are better off now vs. Pre-Reagan... don't you want to see ALL of their income? No, because it is misleading as it does not take into account, for instance, we know that a lot of people work two, even three jobs. Now, wages would take that into account, income does not. You cannot seriously propose that someone working two fulltime jobs is better off because they have a "higher income" than someone working one job, with lower income, but higher wages.

2) I don't know... many people in this country are not hourly and thus it is damn near impossible to say. I suppose we could look at hourly workers, but what does this have to do with income? Are you suggesting that people are working longer hours now vs. then? I'm suggesting that more people in the household are working, some of them, more than one job.

3) I don't know the gender breakdown either. More and more women are working... very true. I thought that was the whole argument behind equal employment opportunity. Some women may be working because they "have" to... others because they "choose" to.... I have never seen a breakdown of that. Nor do I think it matters with regards to this topic. This is completely off-topic. Who cares why women entered the workforce, for this particular matter. They entered it. If the head of household could support a family at one time, but now it takes two, that's the point, not why women entered the workforce in the first place.
4) No, increased hours only increases WAGES for HOURLY workers. It has no effect on the WAGES of salaried workers nor does it effect median INCOME (other than the effect on hourly workers wages). MEDIAN Income is what tells you how those in the middle are doing. It doesn't change based on how many people in a household are working. I've already addressed this nonsense in the first answer

5) I thought you were done with this thread???? I appear to have developed a brain tumor. However, I have health insurance, so unless my insurance company determines that treatment is "expermental" I will probably live. Here's hoping

In bold.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"No matter how much you twist and dance the last two drops end up in your pants. Why do I keep thinking of that when I read your posts on this thread SF?"

Because no matter how hard you try... you simply refuse to grasp the facts. You too cling to the desperate beleif that things have gotten worse for the middle class... because that is the Dem mantra and you have learned it well. Those damn Reps are destroying the middle class... yet the middle class is doing far better now than they were before the "reagan era" as Cypress calls it.

 

[Cancel7]

"You dropped that because you got popped on it, and now you're on to income, which is a red herring. "

Wrong again.... his wages show that it was stagnant... which is why I showed the complete picture. Because NO economist would agree that people are worse off after Reagan took over. It is an idiotic argument., because AGAIN you are looking at ONE piece of the picture, instead of the whole picture.

For someone who is done with this thread... you sure seem to be posting a lot.

Listen, don't make statements abotu what "No" or "all" economists would say.

Because they are impossible claims to back up.

"you always, you never". Bad words.

 

[Cancel7]

"No matter how much you twist and dance the last two drops end up in your pants. Why do I keep thinking of that when I read your posts on this thread SF?"

Because no matter how hard you try... you simply refuse to grasp the facts. You too cling to the desperate beleif that things have gotten worse for the middle class... because that is the Dem mantra and you have learned it well. Those damn Reps are destroying the middle class... yet the middle class is doing far better now than they were before the "reagan era" as Cypress calls it.

It's not a dem mantra. It's a populist viewpoint, and the evidence to back it up has already been posted, just because you refuse to accept it, doesn't matter.

None of this really matters. Because the middle class squeeze is real, and it's going to kick the republican party, and the dlc wing of the Democratic party, right in the ass and out of office.

That is why I largely believe debating this with you is not worth the time.

For the most part, I just smile, and think of election time.

 

[uscitizen]

With the growing income gap in America using "average" income is very misleading. Just the wall street guys bonuses skew the income avg for the entire state of NY.

Guys this is basic math, not economics.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Originally Posted by Superfreak
1) Yes, I used the data from the Census bureau that Water provided. It gives a better picture of ALL income rather than just wages. So if you are determining if people are better off now vs. Pre-Reagan... don't you want to see ALL of their income? No, because it is misleading as it does not take into account, for instance, we know that a lot of people work two, even three jobs. Now, wages would take that into account, income does not. You cannot seriously propose that someone working two fulltime jobs is better off because they have a "higher income" than someone working one job, with lower income, but higher wages.

AGAIN.... Income includes everything that is included in Wages. Everything. Again, some people may indeed be working longer hours. But that does not change the validity of income vs. wages. Income takes "wages" and ADDS other revenue streams.

2) I don't know... many people in this country are not hourly and thus it is damn near impossible to say. I suppose we could look at hourly workers, but what does this have to do with income? Are you suggesting that people are working longer hours now vs. then? I'm suggesting that more people in the household are working, some of them, more than one job.

Which DOES NOT CHANGE MEDIAN INCOME. Median Income is done on an individual basis... not a household basis. (otherwise you would be correct in assuming that it would skew the results)

3) I don't know the gender breakdown either. More and more women are working... very true. I thought that was the whole argument behind equal employment opportunity. Some women may be working because they "have" to... others because they "choose" to.... I have never seen a breakdown of that. Nor do I think it matters with regards to this topic. This is completely off-topic. Who cares why women entered the workforce, for this particular matter. They entered it. If the head of household could support a family at one time, but now it takes two, that's the point, not why women entered the workforce in the first place.

Actually the WHY they entered is relevant. If they had to enter the workforce because their spouses income was insufficient, that is completely different from a woman who enters because she wants to work.

4) No, increased hours only increases WAGES for HOURLY workers. It has no effect on the WAGES of salaried workers nor does it effect median INCOME (other than the effect on hourly workers wages). MEDIAN Income is what tells you how those in the middle are doing. It doesn't change based on how many people in a household are working. I've already addressed this nonsense in the first answer

Please explain to me then how Median Income is calculated in your world.

5) I thought you were done with this thread???? I appear to have developed a brain tumor. However, I have health insurance, so unless my insurance company determines that treatment is "expermental" I will probably live. Here's hoping

Well, tumor or not, I still love ya... despite this thread.

In bold.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Listen, don't make statements abotu what "No" or "all" economists would say.

Because they are impossible claims to back up.

"you always, you never". Bad words.

Ok.. there is a 99.999999999% probability that you will not find a single economist that will say this country is worse off since Reagan took office in 1981.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

With the growing income gap in America using "average" income is very misleading. Just the wall street guys bonuses skew the income avg for the entire state of NY.

Guys this is basic math, not economics.

Using AVERAGE income (mean income) is indeed misleading. We are talking about MEDIAN income. Please learn the difference.

 

[Cancel7]

Ok.. there is a 99.999999999% probability that you will not find a single economist that will say this country is worse off since Reagan took office in 1981.

Ok SF, I still love you too, and we can talk about it again, after we see what happens in the election. And I mean by comparing populist candidates vs dlc types and republicans. It's not a dem vs rep thing. Look at Buchanon, he is kind of a populist.

Because people know what their own financial situation is, and the country isn't happy. So let's see what happens.

 

[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."

Right Darla... things have obviously gotten "worse"

 

[cawacko]

It's not a dem mantra. It's a populist viewpoint, and the evidence to back it up has already been posted, just because you refuse to accept it, doesn't matter.

None of this really matters. Because the middle class squeeze is real, and it's going to kick the republican party, and the dlc wing of the Democratic party, right in the ass and out of office.

That is why I largely believe debating this with you is not worth the time.

For the most part, I just smile, and think of election time.

I disagree with you here. Looking at wages only is misleading because it does not take into account assets such as homes which we all know whose prices have risen dramatically over the past decade. Therefore while one may not be advancing rapidly on the pay scale at the office they are still leading a well to do middle class life. As a result I don't think the populist rhetoric will sell to the general electoric as you are hoping.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Ok SF, I still love you too, and we can talk about it again, after we see what happens in the election. And I mean by comparing populist candidates vs dlc types and republicans. It's not a dem vs rep thing. Look at Buchanon, he is kind of a populist."

I agree completely that it is not a dem vs. rep thing. Which is why we were discussing two different eras....

"Because people know what their own financial situation is, and the country isn't happy. So let's see what happens."

I agree that many are not happy. But I think the majority of that unhappiness is Iraq and healthcare related. Those should be the two largest issues in 2008. So it will depend on how the politicos approach them.