 |
Talaniman: Not getting into the CLASS WARFARE stuff....I just can not see the value of being bitter toward those that have more than I do, its just not valued added time and life is too short.....BUT, I do acknowledge that that you have a point about the rich in some regards....problem is that the rich are kind of like women: Can't live with them, can't live without them! There is a lot of truth in that analogy.
Not being bitter at all Vac, but you failed to explain why the cost of rent, bread and toilet paper goes up and my paycheck does NOT! The very notion of giving rich guys enough money to trickle down hasn't help me at all! How about you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
No....must admit: I never really got the big paydays when I made the bosses more money.....there was never a corresponding reaction that I could testify to be congruent....got big paydays and bonuses on mediocre years...no explanation, really.
The average person in America is much better off financially now than 30 years ago. I don't know about you, Tal, personally, but on average people are doing better. Your contention might be true for you, but it is not true for most people.
only in america
You of all people know that making a statement not supported by data as evidence is just your humble opinion. Opinions are okay, but do you have evidence that it's more than opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You should know by now that I can back up my statements. Read em and learn. These figures, btw, are already adjusted for inflation, so your price of bread is "baked in" already. I think my statement was thirty years, so we have gone from around 54K to around 62K and that is two years ago. It's higher than that now https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rough_2018.png
That doesn't mean they are better off, that measures medium income so that means it is influenced by the high rollers and multi-job families and doesn't measure what happens to the people on the bottom nor does it measure the impact of inflation
It's adjusted for inflation so it does measure that impact. It's been using the same metric for decades so whatever influences it now are the same things that influenced it fifty years ago.Quote:
That doesn't mean they are better off, that measures medium income so that means it is influenced by the high rollers and multi-job families and doesn't measure what happens to the people on the bottom nor does it measure the impact of inflation
Boy you would believe anything, I have a nice harbour side bridge going cheap, you can get at 50 year old prices, but you have to be quickQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
So when you run out of reason, you employ ridicule? I have found that most people like statistics except, of course, for the ones they DON'T like, and those are the ones that don't fit into their preconceived notions. You need to check out what "Real Median Household Income" means. It's not an invention of the Trump administration. It's been around for decades.
How many people you think fall below the median do you think as Clete has asked? That as important a FACT as your chart, which also shows the growth of the economy slowing. Not an unpredictable thing though.
How many people fall below the median? Well, just like ten or twenty or forty years ago, it would be a lot. That's kind of why its called a "median". It's an important fact that everyone who knows anything about statistics already would be well aware of.
How many people fall below the median NOW is the question. They are humans too, so should we just ignore them or something while we cheer those that are at and above. Can't think of doing a damn thing for them can you?
The median in statistics is always the middle value. So 50% of the people are above the median, and 50% are above the median, just like always. That never changes. It clearly shows that most people are making more now than in 2012. It is not an average, so it's not swayed just because the richest 100 double their income. I would think it is a valuable stat and a reliable one.
It measures incomes not people and what that shows is 50% of incomes are below the median, it doesn't tell you how many incomes are measured but there are more in the series than 50 years ago, many more, so it is another statistic that liesQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-middle-class/
If we accept the 29% of Americans below the median in a country of about 325M then 95,410,000 are below the median. If we accept that 12.3 as a poverty rate 40,467,000 are in poverty. That's a lot of folks by any measure to just blow off.
Well, there are more people making income now than 50 years ago, and so yes, there would more now than then. As to 50% of incomes are below the median, that's ALWAYS how it is. That's what a median is. It is a valid comparison to years past and that is its usefulness. It doesn't tell you how many incomes are measured? So? You have no valid criticism of this stat other than 50% of the incomes are below the median(by definition!) and it doesn't tell you how many incomes are measured. None of that is valid. You're just listing obvious truths about the stat.Quote:
It measures incomes not people and what that shows is 50% of incomes are below the median, it doesn't tell you how many incomes are measured but there are more in the series than 50 years ago, many more, so it is another statistic that lies
What part of median do you not understand, median is the mid point so 50% of incomes are below the median, how many are American citizens, well that is an unknownQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I only used the data given. No matter what data you use say 50% that's 160M bellow the median, but that figure does not allow for the number that is in the median so bring better data and we get more accurate figures. I get your inference about non Americans, but for the sake of argument we use for both above and bellow median as <50, and >50 respectively.
Either way you cut it, its still a lot of people which was my original point.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:29 AM. |