SF: For future reference

Me thinks far to many turbo-libs take the Iraq victory to mean the whole country is pissed economically.
the top 40% can lose it for the dems, each quintile up the ladder votes in much higher% than the on below. If the real middle class households $80,000 ish in income think the dems are out to take their money we wind up with Mitt or Rudy.
 
Me thinks far to many turbo-libs take the Iraq victory to mean the whole country is pissed economically.
the top 40% can lose it for the dems, each quintile up the ladder votes in much higher% than the on below. If the real middle class households $80,000 ish in income think the dems are out to take their money we wind up with Mitt or Rudy.

Nobody's talking about taking their money Top. Calm down, your comfort won't be disturbed.

But for instance, this "free trade" thing. That's going to be an issue. Sorry.
 
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.

Ok. Well, we can think all we want to, but if you take a look at the populist streak in many first termers who won in 06, that starts to indicate something else. But on its own, doesn't mean that much. Come 08, then we might have a pattern, and that does mean something.
 
stiffling trade would drastically slow the economy, dems wont touch it.

The problem is not all Americans understand that so when politicians talk only about losing jobs overseas, not jobs we've gained, people listen to their protectionist talk.
 
The problem is not all Americans understand that so when politicians talk only about losing jobs overseas, not jobs we've gained, people listen to their protectionist talk.

LOL. Yep, that's the problem Cawacko. People who have lost their jobs and gotten one of those "gained" jobs that pay 25 % less, just "don't understand".

If only they weren't so stupid, they'd vote Republican!
 
Using AVERAGE income (mean income) is indeed misleading. We are talking about MEDIAN income. Please learn the difference.

You are the one who does not get it. The difference between income and earned wages. The entire income scale is skewed greatly by the few who get large amonts of income.
 
LOL. Yep, that's the problem Cawacko. People who have lost their jobs and gotten one of those "gained" jobs that pay 25 % less, just "don't understand".

If only they weren't so stupid, they'd vote Republican!

Umm many of the stupid oned you refer to did vote for Bush....
Stupid people will fall for any line, that is why they buy the heck out of lottery tickets.
 
LOL. Yep, that's the problem Cawacko. People who have lost their jobs and gotten one of those "gained" jobs that pay 25 % less, just "don't understand".

If only they weren't so stupid, they'd vote Republican!


Sure if you are one of the individuals who lost their job you would be pissed. But when you take a macro view of the United States free trade benefits our country more than it hurts it.

Supporting free trade is not about getting more people to vote Republican its about understanding the overall benefits free trade has for our country.
 
Umm many of the stupid oned you refer to did vote for Bush....
Stupid people will fall for any line, that is why they buy the heck out of lottery tickets.

Yeah, "stupid people" you reference don't understand the benefit of free trade hence "fall for" the Democrat protectionist line. Isn't that right uscitizen. What is a "thinking" or "non-stupid" person suppose to think about free trade?
 
You are the one who does not get it. The difference between income and earned wages. The entire income scale is skewed greatly by the few who get large amonts of income.

AGAIN, you are WRONG. If you use either MEAN income or MEAN wages... BOTH are skewed by those at the top... they are BOTH skewed upwards.

The MEDIAN Income and MEDIAN wage are not skewed at all... not a bit by those very high net worth individuals. It is because they do NOT take a an average. The MEDIAN is the MIDDLE.

Look them up if you are having so much trouble with this.
 
Sure if you are one of the individuals who lost their job you would be pissed. But when you take a macro view of the United States free trade benefits our country more than it hurts it.

Supporting free trade is not about getting more people to vote Republican its about understanding the overall benefits free trade has for our country.

Unregulated free trade, is bad for the country "overall".

We need to get some balance for the working man in those agreements. This is not all about corporations lining up at the trough with their greasy mouths to get more juicy fat in their mouths. Well, actually it is all about that.

But that's what is going to change. And it's not "the dems' who are going to change it.

It's the people. We the people. For the people. By the people. Not, we the corporations. For the corporations. By the corporations.

The people. That is who these whores in Dc are supposed to be working for you know.
 
Umm many of the stupid oned you refer to did vote for Bush....
Stupid people will fall for any line, that is why they buy the heck out of lottery tickets.

That's true! "the lottery is an additional tax on people too stupid to understand probability theory" ;)
 
Middle Class= anyone who works for a living at a reasonable wage
Upper Middle Class = anyone who works for a living with a better living wage
Lower Middle Class=anyone who works for a living without benefits or a reasonable wage
Poverty=anyone who retires from Middle Class or lower...sad but true
also poverty =anyone who fails to work for a living and not receiving welfare benefits...:corn:
 
"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"

I see, you wanted to switch from wages to income.

Wages are STILL the better measure of the day to day economic health of middle income families. Wages are the best measure of disposable income. But, I play your game.


1) Who gives a shit about teenagers income and college aged kids?

2) Working families are in the 30s and 40s age group. The one which have kids, mortgages, and massive bills.

3) Those demographics in their 50s and 60s are going better income wise since 1974. Again, you didn't provide the data to show how they did in ALL the pre-reagan years, since 1946. I wonder why?

Also, those in their 50s and 60s got ensconsed in union jobs and professional jobs before Reagan. So, they started climbing the ladder before reagan, they don't have kids to support, or mortgages to pay - so they're not the ones to be concered as much about. People in their 30s and 40s haven't had the range of opportunites the elder pre-reagan generation did. And their wages and income have essentially flat lined.

4) So, as we've demonstrated, after reagan, and after the generation that entered the work force after reagan:

-GDP growth has been slower
-Wages have gone down.
-Overall income has flat lined essentially, for those that entered the labor force after 1980.


Now, for the flat lining wages and income for those who entered the work force after reagan, and for ALL workers in terms of wages since 1980, consider this.

The promise of the american dream is that

1) The next generation does better than the previous one.


The reagan generation and the reagan economy was broadly outperformed in terms of GDP and wages by the pre-reagan economy. You didn't provide income data going back to 1946, so we can't compare that parameter.

2) If you work hard and contribute, you'll be rewarded

Since 1974, the american workers productivity has gone up, what, maybe a 100%?? And your telling me that falling wages, and basically flat-lined incomes for those in their 30s and 40s (or modest increases for those in their 50s and 60s) is a fair representation and reward for the american dream???




For working age middle income families wages are flat, and income has barely budged up. Older workers, that ensconsed themselves in the workforce before reagan, have seen modest increases in income.
 
Last edited:
I see, you wanted to switch from wages to income.

Wages are STILL the better measure of the day to day economic health of middle income families. Wages are the best measure of disposable income. But, I play your game.


1) Who gives a shit about teenagers income and college aged kids?

2) Working families are in the 30s and 40s age group. The one which have kids, mortgages, and massive bills.

3) Those demographics in their 50s and 60s are going better income wise since 1974. Again, you didn't provide the data to show how they did in ALL the pre-reagan years, since 1946. I wonder why?

Also, those in their 50s and 60s got ensconsed in union jobs and professional jobs before Reagan. So, they started climbing the ladder before reagan, they don't have kids to support, or mortgages to pay - so they're not the ones to be concered as much about. People in their 30s and 40s haven't had the range of opportunites the elder pre-reagan generation did. And their wages and income have essentially flat lined.

4) So, as we've demonstrated, after reagan, and after the generation that entered the work force after reagan:

-GDP growth has been slower
-Wages have gone down.
-Overall income has flat lined essentially, for those that entered the labor force after 1980.


Now, for the flat lining wages and income for those who entered the work force after reagan, and for ALL workers in terms of wages since 1980, consider this.

The promise of the american dream is that

1) The next generation does better than the previous one.


The reagan generation and the reagan economy was broadly outperformed in terms of GDP and wages. You didn't provide income data going back to 1946, so we can't compare that parameter.

2) If you work hard and contribute, you'll be rewarded

Since 1974, the american workers productivity has gone up, what, maybe a 100%. And your telling me that falling wages, and basically flat-lined incomes for those in their 30s and 40s (or modest increases for those in their 50s and 60s) is a fair representation and reward for the american dream???




For working age middle income families wages are flat, and income has barely budged up. Older workers, that ensconsed themselves in the workforce before reagan, have seen modest increases in income.



So what about all those folks who bought homes in the '80's and '90's? Millions and millions of them are middle class and millions and millions of them have experienced tremendous growth through home appreciation. How do you say there income has barely risen?
 
"Again, you didn't provide the data to show how they did in ALL the pre-reagan years, since 1946. I wonder why?"

Because you are the one that said they are doing worse since the Reagan era began. They are in fact ALL DOING BETTER. Total income rose on average by over 30% for the entire working population. That means they are doing BETTER than they were prior to Reagan taking office. Your whole premise about them doing worse is false. Unless you are somehow saying that the downturn in wages from 1966 to 1980 was somehow the fault of the Reagan era?

I'll let you in on a little secret... there are "working" families who are in their 20's and their are working families in their 50's. You definition is purely arbitrary and extremely insulting to everyone who works but doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of work.
 
Back
Top