SF: For future reference

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...

Hey topper, on two boards, is there anyone who thinks you know shit from shinola about much of anything? Because if there is, I haven't run into them, so give me their screename, I'd like a reference.
 
like I said dumbest engineer, most of the ones I know are rich.
Your a complete moron, post Reagan we dominate the world in your Idol Jimmy Carter's time we were on par with Russia.
 
"You yourself admitted "average" income is bullshit. Because Income is not normally distributed data. "

Which is why I am telling idiots like you to NOT look at average income but DO look at MEDIAN income. You fucking moron.

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

No you fucking retard. It does NOT MATTER if you are looking at wages or at income... What matters is if you are looking at the MEDIAN wage or income or the MEAN wage or income. The MEDIAN NEVER SKEWS THE DATA. YOU ALWAYS HAVE EQUAL NUMBERS OF PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE MEDIAN. ALWAYS. THAT IS WHY IT IS WHAT IS USED.

Skewing the numbers because of high income/wage individuals has nothing to do with using INCOME vs. using WAGES. You fucking moron... how many times do I have to say it before you two idiots realize it is true????

"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."

Lets try this...

You have a wage of 40k... you have CDs that produce 2k of income per year.

Assume you have no other source of revenue and that you keep the CDs invested.

You have $42k in disposable income for the year.

If we look solely at WAGES... that would suggest you have $40k in disposable income.

If we look at INCOME... that woudl suggest you have $42k in disposable income.


So one is equal to the disposable income, the other understates disposable income by 2k.

Please explain how wages is the better gauge.
 
cypress must have not been alive in the Jimmy Carter stagflation days. Double digit inflation and interest rates, of course wages went up.
Dam, get this tool a Wall Street Journal before all the Tia's think we're as stupid as he is.
 
Cypress said:
Again: Please provide similar income data for 1946 to 1975.
Click to expand...

Again you fucking moron... the starting point is the point in time which Reagan took office.

But please... look at your data and explain the large DOWNTURN in wages that occured from 1966 to 1980. Was this because of Reagan? or because people weren't so unionized then?

You said that income since Reagan had declined. It did not. It is up over 30% on average. You were initially wrong.... now you are outright lying about it.
 
"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."

That is quite hypocritical of you since you refuse to do the same. The numbers show you are flat out wrong. You have no clue when it comes to the difference between median and mean. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the differences in Income and Wages. But you do fail constantly to comprehend any of this. You ignore all examples and continue to parrott your idiotic talking points.
 
he's a rich engineer that is now going through that guilt turbo-lib phase.
This generations verison of the old step over a homeless person to spit on someone wearing fur.
 
Here's a good article, that explains in good part, why I would not accept income as a meanginful indicator, but more importantly, I think explains what I have been tryign to say about people in America, other than top and his gassy friends, are feeling right now. And how this is going to keep playing out in elections. In my opinion.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0828-02.htm
 
Topspin said:
he's a rich engineer that is now going through that guilt turbo-lib phase.
This generations verison of the old step over a homeless person to spit on someone wearing fur.
Click to expand...

How you coming on that reference top?

And who stepped over a homeless person to spit on someone wearing fur?
 
Superfreak said:
"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."

That is quite hypocritical of you since you refuse to do the same. The numbers show you are flat out wrong. You have no clue when it comes to the difference between median and mean. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the differences in Income and Wages. But you do fail constantly to comprehend any of this. You ignore all examples and continue to parrott your idiotic talking points.
Click to expand...


Please provide the same income data for the period 1946-1975

Until you do, we have no way of comparing the pre-reagan era (1946-1980) to the post-reagan era (1980-today)

As much as you've tried to misdirect, delete posts, and spin, that what this conversation was always about: pre-reagan verus post-reagan.


We already know, and you've already conceded, that post-reagan GDP and wages, were worse than pre-reagan.
 
Darla said:
Here's a good article, that explains in good part, why I would not accept income as a meanginful indicator, but more importantly, I think explains what I have been tryign to say about people in America, other than top and his gassy friends, are feeling right now. And how this is going to keep playing out in elections. In my opinion.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0828-02.htm
Click to expand...


exactly.

The american worker has become amazingly productive. Productivity gains are off the charts.

But, they are not matched by a comensurate increase in real wages. In fact, wages have stagnated.

The american dream is supposed to be that you are rewared for your contributions and production.
 
That article makes the same error that Cypress is making. When discussing Income... it talks about AVERAGE income... not MEDIAN income. In that sense, they are absolutely correct. Average income is skewed by the wealthy. Median income does not. How many times do I have to say this before you all comprehend it?

The article talks about median hourly wages falling 2% since 2003... well that eliminates all salaried employees from the discussion and thus is an entirely different discussion.
 
still waiting on you to provide the same income data from 1946 to 1975, so we can compare the pre-reagan and post-reagan eras.

We already know the pre-reagan era beats the post reagan era on real wages and economic (GDP) growith
 
2 economic morons with the same clueless approach.
More than 40% of people own stock and have net worths that are exponentially higher than pre Reagan.
This is where you fools fall off a cliff, top 35% are doing great, next 30% want to be in that group and don't buy into the classwarfare you are selling.
 
Cypress said:
exactly.

The american worker has become amazingly productive. Productivity gains are off the charts.

But, they are not matched by a comensurate increase in real wages. In fact, wages have stagnated.

The american dream is supposed to be that you are rewared for your contributions and production.
Click to expand...

As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s

Also, that. This is what people are feeling when they say, hey, you say the economy is good, and wall street is happy, me? I don't feel it. They don't feel it, because it's not hitting them, not because, as Cawacko would have us believe, they're "too stupid".
 
Topspin said:
2 economic morons with the same clueless approach.
More than 40% of people own stock and have net worths that are exponentially higher than pre Reagan.
This is where you fools fall off a cliff, top 35% are doing great, next 30% want to be in that group and don't buy into the classwarfare you are selling.
Click to expand...

Those "two economic morons" toppy, had their work published in the NY Times.

Now, it's true that Damo has been kind enough to publish some of your work, but your economic theories and opinions have been published where else?

And Fullpolitics.com don't count.
 
"We already know, and you've already conceded, that post-reagan GDP and wages, were worse than pre-reagan."

No we have not you fucking tool. The GDP growth RATE slowed down... GDP in terms of buying power increase was greater under Reagan... but you refuse to look at that.

Let's get this straight... if you are suggesting that there is a point in time that WAGES were higher... you are correct...they peaked in 1966. Then had a free fall until 1980. Which you have failed to explain.

The census data only goes back as far as it goes back. I cannot recreate data that does not exist.

Your whole premise was that the Reagan era was bad for the middle class. Yet despite the proof to the contrary you refuse to accept it.

You still have no clue when it comes to the differences in Income vs. Wages or Median vs. Mean.

So really, what is the point in discussing economics with an idiot that cannot even grasp the simple concepts?

Answer the question on the salary example I gave Darla... or the disposable income example I gave you? Then we can talk further.
 
I was referring to you and the clueless engineer.
people like you two will help the cons win in 08, no need for the dems to conceed the upwardly mobile middle class.
 
"still waiting on you to provide the same income data from 1946 to 1975, so we can compare the pre-reagan and post-reagan eras. "

Listen moron... how many times do you have to be told... if you have the 1980 numbers... you can tell whether or not Income increased from the time he took office or not. He is not responsible for the downturn that occured before he took office. He is only responsible for what has occured since then.

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend.
 
Topspin said:
I was referring to you and the clueless engineer.
people like you two will help the cons win in 08, no need for the dems to conceed the upwardly mobile middle class.
Click to expand...

Top, you look at everything as "us vs them" mostly because you are stuck in the "Me Me ME" mindset.

Not everybody is like you, and nobody is conceding any group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top