hvilleherb
Verified User
You want someone to subsidize your rent and pay for YOUR fucking kid's college.
Liberals still don't get it. Some people are meant to work the lower paying jobs.
You want someone to subsidize your rent and pay for YOUR fucking kid's college.
As usual, you declare your absolute ignorance of reality, and your dick sucking qualities for Trump. Some day, and i seriously doubt it will happen in this lifetime, you might even grow a spine, and get off your knees:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ap-fact-check-trump-falsely-044729698.html
The point is that all of these right wing whiners are profiting while claiming, falsely so, that it is a benefit to the middle class. In the real world the middle class is struggling.
Hey grumpy, do you know what "median household income" means?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/soci...ons-to-worry-about-the-american-middle-class/
The real test is will my paycheck go up 4.1%. That’s how much GDP grew. If my earnings don’t go up then I haven’t shared in that increase in productivity.
Obviously not everyone's check will go up by 4.1% Some people are meant to work the lower paying jobs.
Clearly you don't understand a stock boy is just as important to a company as the CEO. At least that is liberal thinking on pay.
As a matter of fact I do but I'm not so sure you do.
"Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group." or you wouldn't be basing your opinion on "Social Mobility Memos" blog.
You do understand a blog is an opinion piece that can be slanted left or right?
Let us see if you can grasp this concept. From your blog:
"half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount."
Now, lets just say that 1000 people see a rise of 1 million in their income, and 100 million people see no rise in their income, what happens to the median income? Do you have a clue?
Remember when the numbers were cited each quarter under Obama? First we heard 'they're public sector jobs'...then that was disproved. Then it was 'they're low paying jobs'. Yes...maybe we should tax corporations that ship labor overseas?Indeed.
"Between 2015 and 2016, US median household income rose 3.2% from $57,230 to $59,039, according to a new report released by the U.S. Census Bureau on Tuesday.
"It's now the highest income year on record, beating the previous high of $58,655 in 1999 (all numbers are adjusted for inflation).
"The US poverty rate simultaneously declined about 1% to 12.7%, returning to nearly the same level as in 2007, prior to the recession. In total, 2.5 million fewer people were in poverty in 2016 than in 2015."
(https://www.businessinsider.com/us-census-median-income-2017-9)
~~~
Notice what years the data is for. Thanks, Obama.
Wow. You're a little slow on the uptake, huh?Clearly you are math deficient!!!!! half means 50% so 1,000 is nowhere near being half of one million. But nice try sport nice try.
You've done it now. You just triggered the libs, they'll be complaining about CEO pay non-stop.
Clearly you are math deficient!!!!! half means 50% so 1,000 is nowhere near being half of one million. But nice try sport nice try.
Did you adjust those numbers for inflation and purchasing parity power?
Biggest burn of the year! Give the Owl a Hoot.
Indeed.
"Between 2015 and 2016, US median household income rose 3.2% from $57,230 to $59,039, according to a new report released by the U.S. Census Bureau on Tuesday.
"It's now the highest income year on record, beating the previous high of $58,655 in 1999 (all numbers are adjusted for inflation).
"The US poverty rate simultaneously declined about 1% to 12.7%, returning to nearly the same level as in 2007, prior to the recession. In total, 2.5 million fewer people were in poverty in 2016 than in 2015."
(https://www.businessinsider.com/us-census-median-income-2017-9)
~~~
Notice what years the data is for. Thanks, Obama.
You really do not grasp the meaning of "median income" do you? There are approximately 156 million working Americans in the country. If 1000 in the upper half gain 1 million each, and then 1 million in the lower half gain nothing, what happens to the "median income"? It will not rise by 1 million each of course, but it will increase the "median income" a certain percentage making it appear as if the entire group had benefited.
Real Median household income is higher than it has been in 50 years. People have a spending problem more than an earning problem. If they didn't, corporate profits wouldn't be so high and the perceived wealth of all those 1%er stockholders wouldn't be so obscene.
I'm using a 6 year old phone and my business phone is now 3 years old. And I'm so busy here in Columbus that I increased prices by 30% to try to NOT get some bids, but I got the jobs anyway so now I have more money and less time to enjoy it. Damn you, Trump!
Oh PLEEEEEEEEEEASE! Are you so ignorant that you don't understand that "median income" is defined by class, not overall working population! I strongly suggest you get over your RDS and start looking at the real world.