SF: For future reference
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Okay, now we’ve got a little more data. It doesn’t cover the entire pre-reagan era (1946-1980) but, its got more data than SF has been willing to give us.
How has the rate of increase of Real Median Household Income compare pre-reagan (1967-1980), versus post-reagan (1980-2005) ?
*RESULTS:
-Median Income increased at an average rate of approx. $355/year, from 1967 to 1980.
-Median Income increased at an average rate of approx. $253/year from 1980 to 2005.
CONCLUSIONS:
Median Income Increased at a faster rate in the pre-reagan era (1967-1980) compared to the post Reagan era (1980-2005).
Real wages increased on average, through the pre-reagan era (1947 to 1980). Real wages decreased on average, in the post-reagan era (1980 to 2004).
Economic growth (GDP) in the pre-reagan era outperformed GDP growth in the post-reagan era
How has the rate of increase of Real Median Household Income compare pre-reagan (1967-1980), versus post-reagan (1980-2005) ?
*RESULTS:
-Median Income increased at an average rate of approx. $355/year, from 1967 to 1980.
-Median Income increased at an average rate of approx. $253/year from 1980 to 2005.
CONCLUSIONS:
Median Income Increased at a faster rate in the pre-reagan era (1967-1980) compared to the post Reagan era (1980-2005).
Real wages increased on average, through the pre-reagan era (1947 to 1980). Real wages decreased on average, in the post-reagan era (1980 to 2004).
Economic growth (GDP) in the pre-reagan era outperformed GDP growth in the post-reagan era
Last edited:
We shall see.
Yelling opinions at each other and calling names on this board, doesn't prove anything.
Nov 08 will hold some weight, however.
We'll see if most of America worships, and actually licks the ass of, oil companies the way you do Topper.
We'll see who is out of touch. It's probably me. I'm in denial. I mean, I see tons of people walking around with t-shirts that say "I heart Exxon Mobil".
No really.
Topspin
Verified User
Duhla, most people hate oil companies leftards and rightwingnuts alike.
I hope there's gas shortage in your area next crisis and we'll see how you keep hating the genius's that have brought you cheep gas for 50 yrs so much so that the whole country is like crack addicts unable to give up the sweet necter.
I hope there's gas shortage in your area next crisis and we'll see how you keep hating the genius's that have brought you cheep gas for 50 yrs so much so that the whole country is like crack addicts unable to give up the sweet necter.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
What page of that did you pull your data from?
I'm not an engineer, dumbass. That NGO I might work with doesn't just use engineers.
BTW:
The pre-reagan era, outperformed the post-reagan era in every category that's been mentioned on these threads.
weekly wages
median real income
Economic growth (GDP)
Go to figure one. Use your scroll.
And don't ask me any more questions. I asked you to provide more median income data, and you dodged me.
Now, I know why. The farther back in time you go in the pre-reagan era, the more it evidently outperforms the post-reagan era....even in real median income.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I went to figure one you tool.... it is a chart... it does not give the exact data points. So how did you calculate your yearly average? Did you simply pull it out of your ass?
The point you were making is that the middle class is worse off... how can it be worse off if their buying power is INCREASING???? Are you really that fucking retarded?
The point you were making is that the middle class is worse off... how can it be worse off if their buying power is INCREASING???? Are you really that fucking retarded?
Basic arithmetic dumbass. Do I really have to explain this?
It gives the number for starting and ending points:
2005: $46,326
1967: $35,379
The trend crosses at almost exactly $40,000 in 1980, the year reagan was elected. $40,000 is close enough.
Now, do the math.
The average rate of increase ($$ per year) was higher in the years before reagan, than after reagan.
edit: sorry about the dumbass comment. I shouldn't get mad about this. Its pretty funny actually
Last edited:
Very good Topper!
First, you stun the entire board earlier today, by correctly using the word "than". Now, you've finally had this epiphany.
You are coming along very well grasshopper, though, we are going to have to keep you in the "special classes" for a bit longer.
Okay, SF. The circle is complete.
We already determined that wages and economic growth (GDP) in the pre-reagan era (1947-1980) outperformed those in the post-reagan era (1980-present).
After conceding that, you went on to hang your hat on median income data. Which we agree is a different measure than payroll wages.
I kept asking you time after time to show the median income data for ALL of the relevant pre-reagan era (1946-1980) so we could make a comparison of the two eras.
I understand now why you didn't comply with my request. I just found the US Census data for median household income, going back to the 1940s.
And, as even the Title on the US Census Graph suggests, median household income grew faster in the pre-reagan era, and slowed in the post-reagan era:
So we can now conclude that for every economic parameter, you have tried to toss out there, the pre-reagan era outperformed the post-reagan era:
in
Real Wages
Median Household Income
Economic Growth (GDP)
We already determined that wages and economic growth (GDP) in the pre-reagan era (1947-1980) outperformed those in the post-reagan era (1980-present).
After conceding that, you went on to hang your hat on median income data. Which we agree is a different measure than payroll wages.
I kept asking you time after time to show the median income data for ALL of the relevant pre-reagan era (1946-1980) so we could make a comparison of the two eras.
I understand now why you didn't comply with my request. I just found the US Census data for median household income, going back to the 1940s.
And, as even the Title on the US Census Graph suggests, median household income grew faster in the pre-reagan era, and slowed in the post-reagan era:
So we can now conclude that for every economic parameter, you have tried to toss out there, the pre-reagan era outperformed the post-reagan era:
in
Real Wages
Median Household Income
Economic Growth (GDP)
Lao Tse
Verified User
Nothing in particular I guess. Just that this country was not necessarially founded just for the honorable freedom and justice for all reasons we were taught in school. It was brought about by the elite of the colonies. and was funded by worthless money. At the beginning of the revoloution, x amount of paper money would be a months pay for a soldier, the same face amount would not buy one pound of cheese by the time it was over.
This country was founded on worthless money and rampant inflation
So we are therefore bound to the foolishness of statist fiat money? I don't think so.
Oh, and SF? Since you hung your hat on median income, you know what?
The modest gains in median income seen since the reagan era (which pale in comparison to the pre-reagan era), have come because women in the work force have made modest gains.
Men's wages have been losing ground since the era of reagan. And let's be honest. In most working families, the man is still the primary bread winner. Not always. But, mostly.
Do you still disagree with me, that the golden era of the middle class was 1945 to 1980?
The modest gains in median income seen since the reagan era (which pale in comparison to the pre-reagan era), have come because women in the work force have made modest gains.
Men's wages have been losing ground since the era of reagan. And let's be honest. In most working families, the man is still the primary bread winner. Not always. But, mostly.
Do you still disagree with me, that the golden era of the middle class was 1945 to 1980?
Lao Tse
Verified User
Oh, and SF? Since you hung your hat on median income, you know what?
The modest gains in median income seen since the reagan era (which pale in comparison to the pre-reagan era), have come because women in the work force have made modest gains.
Men's wages have been losing ground since the era of reagan. And let's be honest. In most working families, the man is still the primary bread winner. Not always. But, mostly.
Do you still disagree with me, that the golden era of the middle class was 1945 to 1980?
See cypress, americans who built this nation, this nation which has created the modern world and facilitated globalization, with our blood, are being screwed out of the fruits of our labor. Anything else would be nationalism or racism.
Now Superfreak, notice the title on the U.S. Census Bureau Graph.
Until recently, the sons generation could be expected to do much better than the father's generation.
Note how all that has turned around. Increasingly, young men aren't doing as well as their father's generation:
Until recently, the sons generation could be expected to do much better than the father's generation.
Note how all that has turned around. Increasingly, young men aren't doing as well as their father's generation:
Topper the data don't lie. These graphs come directly from the US Census Bureau.
On average, the middle class and working people did better in the decades before reagan. I note that you haven't (and can't) dispute the data.
For the record, I said in the first thread, that the Reagan era economy (1980-today) has been pretty kind to the wealthy, the affluent, and the most of the professional upper middle classes. So you can stop with your "upper quintile" nonsense.
On average, the middle class and working people did better in the decades before reagan. I note that you haven't (and can't) dispute the data.
For the record, I said in the first thread, that the Reagan era economy (1980-today) has been pretty kind to the wealthy, the affluent, and the most of the professional upper middle classes. So you can stop with your "upper quintile" nonsense.