SF: For future reference

"Overall income has flat lined essentially, for those that entered the labor force after 1980. "

Overall income as illustrated is UP 30% on the population as a whole... and that is adjusted for inflation. How the hell do you derive that as being flat?
 
cawacko said:
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?
Click to expand...

Cawacko, if I buy a house for 100k, and five years later it's worth 300k, I see where my "net worth" has increased...can you explain how this has increased my "income"?
 
"For 25-34 year olds income has risen 13.3% since Reagan came to office (inflation adjusted)

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

Even in your two age categories... BOTH have seen a rise in income adjusted for inflation. Meaning BOTH have more buying power today, than when Reagan first came into office.
 
cawacko said:
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?
Click to expand...


Cawacko, please stop making blanket statements that are not broadly substantiated by the facts.

GDP growth has been slower in the post-reagan era.

Weekly wages have fallen.

As for income, the only working adults that have benefited from the data SF gave are those in their 50s and 60s. i.e., those older people who got ensconsed in union and professional jobs before reagan, and bought houses when they were (relatively) cheaper. People who of are family-age, with mortgages and kids have seen their wages fall, and their overall income essentially flat-line.
 
"Wages are STILL the better measure of the day to day economic health of middle income families. But, I play your game. "

No, they are not. Income includes wages and all other INCOME they receive. How is it that taking away part of someones income is a "better" measure of their economic health?
 
"Also, those in their 50s and 60s got ensconsed in union jobs and professional jobs before Reagan."

What a load of crap. Union jobs were at most 20-30% of the labor force in when Reagan took office and are only 9-10% now. Being union or not has nothing to do with the overall numbers. Damn you are good at grasping for straws.

"So, they started climbing the ladder before reagan, they don't have kids to support, or mortgages to pay"

You don't think people in their 50's have kids to support? That all of their mortgages are paid off? That somehow no-one in their 50's or 60's is middle class?

"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."

A complete fucking lie. Their income has gone up as I mentioned... and it has done so after being adjusted for inflation. Which means their buying power is GREATER today than it was prior to Reagan taking office.
 
Superfreak said:
"Wages are STILL the better measure of the day to day economic health of middle income families. But, I play your game. "

No, they are not. Income includes wages and all other INCOME they receive. How is it that taking away part of someones income is a "better" measure of their economic health?
Click to expand...


1) please provide income data going back to 1946, so we can compare the pre-reagan era with the post reagan era. Your data only goes to 1974.


2) Wages have fallen, GDP growth is not as strong, and income growth for those in the family-bearing age group is a joke. Even for those in their 50s and 60s, income growth is not impressive.

The american workers productivity has gone up, what, a 100% since 1974? And you think a 0%, 6%, or 9, or 11% growth in income (depending on age demographic) over 30 years is awesome? lol.

Not when you consider that its NOT awesome, and on top of that, other economic parameters, like disposable income (wages) is DOWN or flat
 
"Cawacko, please stop making blanket statements that are not broadly substantiated by the facts. "

That is funny coming from you.

"GDP growth has been slower in the post-reagan era."

Not true... the GDP Growth RATE has been slower. GDP growth in terms of real dollars has increased. As demonstrated in the example that you continue to ignore. Funny how people address your points, but you completely ignore theirs... because it might burst your little unions rule bubble.

Weekly wages have fallen.

As for income, the only working adults that have benefited from the data SF gave are those in their 50s and 60s. i.e., those older people who got ensconsed in union and professional jobs before reagan, and bought houses when they were (relatively) cheaper. People who of are family-age, with mortgages and kids have seen their wages fall, and their overall income essentially flat-line.
 
"As for income, the only working adults that have benefited from the data SF gave are those in their 50s and 60s. i.e., those older people who got ensconsed in union and professional jobs before reagan, and bought houses when they were (relatively) cheaper. People who of are family-age, with mortgages and kids have seen their wages fall, and their overall income essentially flat-line."

Again, with your completely unsubstantiated claims. The overall income for all groups was up. Each individual group was UP. The lowest gain was the young 15-24 group at about 9%. Everyone else was UP double digits. Adjusted for inflation.

You fucking liar.
 
Income is not a better measure when it is averaged out.
If veryone in a group of 10 has 1 dollar and I give one of them 10 more dollars that just raised the average income for that group by 100% ?
but 9 of them still just have 1 dollar....

Wages will typically not be as concentrated on just a few.
 
inlcome and net worth for median households is 70,000 and over 100,000 respectively. Not awesome but way better than pre reagan.
Cy sniffing that Castro dust again.
 
facts:


-Wages down in the reagan era compared to pre-reagan era

-GDP growth in reagan era underperforming GDP growth in pre-reagan era

-Income either flat, stagnant, or modestly up (age group dependent) since 1980. (No effort was made to give income data for 1946-1975). These "increases" or flat-lines are a JOKE compared to the GAINS in productivity by the american worker. Aren't you supposed to be rewarded for being more efficient, producting more, and contributing more? Isn't that the american dream???
 
Cypress said:
1) please provide income data going back to 1946, so we can compare the pre-reagan era with the post reagan era. Your data only goes to 1974."

Again you fucking moron. All you need is the data set in the year prior to Reagan to tell you whether we are better off now than when he took office.


"2) Wages have fallen, GDP growth is not as strong, and income growth for those in the family-bearing age group is a joke. Even for those in their 50s and 60s, income growth is not impressive. "

Again you LIE.... wages were stagnant, GDP growth RATE is was lower but still strong, Income growth was substantial... despite your constant lies to the contrary. Are you even looking at the fucking numbers or are you simply going to continue your infantile repeating of the same bogus lies over and over again????

"The american workers productivity has gone up, what, a 100% since 1974? And you think a 0%, 6%, or 9, or 11% growth in income (depending on age demographic) over 30 years is awesome? lol. "

Great... a complete change of topic. How common of you. Growth in income was up over 30% on average and that is adjusted for inflation. Take away the inflation and income was also up well over 100%. That said, to what extent was productivity up due to the workers? vs. increases in technology? You do realize that you can actually have a more productive worker while the worker actually REDUCES the amount of hours they are working. It is not always the case, but that has to factor in as well. But you are probably too fucking ignorant to understand that as well... aren't you.
Click to expand...
 
also tool... disposable income is not simply "wages". If you buy a CD and that creates dividends...those dividends are disposable income... but they are not a part of wages. THAT is why you look at INCOME rather than WAGES for a better gauge on how people are doing.
 
SF, you have 3 people, right on this page, who disagree with you about income being the best indicator. So that doesn't make Cypress a "tool" or a "fucking liar" , and this is getting out of hand.

What are you so angry about? Do you understand that no matter how angry you get and no matter how much you curse, neither myself, or cypress, or usc I should imagine, are going to get on the income bandwagon? Can you just calm down, it's a disagreement, it shouldn't be a fight to the death, should it?
 
Superfreak said:
Cypress said:
1) please provide income data going back to 1946, so we can compare the pre-reagan era with the post reagan era. Your data only goes to 1974."

Again you fucking moron. All you need is the data set in the year prior to Reagan to tell you whether we are better off now than when he took office.


"2) Wages have fallen, GDP growth is not as strong, and income growth for those in the family-bearing age group is a joke. Even for those in their 50s and 60s, income growth is not impressive. "

Again you LIE.... wages were stagnant, GDP growth RATE is was lower but still strong, Income growth was substantial... despite your constant lies to the contrary. Are you even looking at the fucking numbers or are you simply going to continue your infantile repeating of the same bogus lies over and over again????

"The american workers productivity has gone up, what, a 100% since 1974? And you think a 0%, 6%, or 9, or 11% growth in income (depending on age demographic) over 30 years is awesome? lol. "

Great... a complete change of topic. How common of you. Growth in income was up over 30% on average and that is adjusted for inflation. Take away the inflation and income was also up well over 100%. That said, to what extent was productivity up due to the workers? vs. increases in technology? You do realize that you can actually have a more productive worker while the worker actually REDUCES the amount of hours they are working. It is not always the case, but that has to factor in as well. But you are probably too fucking ignorant to understand that as well... aren't you.
Click to expand...

Again: Please provide similar income data for 1946 to 1975.

........

You yourself admitted "average" income is bullshit. Because Income is not normally distributed data.

Wages are far closer to being normally distributed, since the ultra-wealth live mostly on investment income, not payroll wages.

Everyone here, who isn't emotionally invested in spinning or sucking reagan's cock, knows that payroll wages are the key parameter of day to day economic health of working families.
Click to expand...
 
uscitizen said:
Income is not a better measure when it is averaged out.
If veryone in a group of 10 has 1 dollar and I give one of them 10 more dollars that just raised the average income for that group by 100% ?
but 9 of them still just have 1 dollar....

Wages will typically not be as concentrated on just a few.
Click to expand...

Are you just doing this to jerk my chain? No one is suggesting that you use AVERAGE Income (which is mean income). I said look at MEDIAN income.

That means if you have eleven people in the bar... you have FIVE below and FIVE above the median which is number 6.

If there incomes are:

1 billion
200,000
100,000
50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
24000
15000

Then the MEDIAN income would be what?

Answer: 40,000

The Average or MEAN income would be $109,124,000.

So obviously the MEAN skews the results dramatically. The
MEDIAN does not.
 
It makes Cypress the dumbest engineer I've ever come in contact with. everyone knows USC never stepped foot in a college.
Post Reagan era is the biggest creation of wealth in the history of the world.
Dems need to get off this glass half full shit while there's still time:clink:
 
Topspin said:
It makes Cypress the dumbest engineer I've ever come in contact with. everyone knows USC never stepped foot in a college.
Post Reagan era is the biggest creation of wealth in the history of the world.
Dems need to get off this glass half full shit while there's still time:clink:
Click to expand...

Jesus your a dumb ass cajun.

I never said a lot of wealth wasn't created since 1980.

Your dumb ass might want to go back to the beginning of the two relevant threads, and read them. This time, try not moving your lips when you read. You might actually comprehend better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top