[jlisenbe]

You got the link right. Now maybe you can start on those "advanced calculations".

This is the first chart. Kind of really makes the case, doesn't it? As to the fact that some states are doing better than others, hasn't that always been the case? Anyone who has even the most simple understanding of median income knows that some people make above the median and others make below it. That was true during the Obama years and it's still true. It will always be true. It's an absurd objection to say, "Well, not everyone is making a lot of money." That's been known for centuries by everyone willing to pay even the slightest ounce of attention to it. It will always be the case, but it doesn't change the very plain and simple truth that when median income goes up, it is a good thing.

Your median income stat is but the headline dude

You do realize you gave a link to a site concerning...median income???

[talaniman]

You do realize that the rise though steady over the years, is also showing signs of slowing down significantly? That's the macroeconomy, but let's look at it by state to understand the differences.

You do realize you gave a link to a site concerning...median income???

Just exploring your premise, in relation to mine.

[jlisenbe]

You do realize that the rise though steady over the years, is also showing signs of slowing down significantly?

So your complaint is that median income is rising but not as fast as you would like?

As to the state by state comparison, if you're pointing out that some states do better than others, then that's fine. I thought everyone in American already knew that, but if you feel the need to point that out, then mission accomplished. It does nothing to change the fact that a rising median income is a good thing and shows that most people are doing better financially.

What are those "advanced calculations" you promised us? You haven't even put down a number, not even a simple addition problem.

[jlisenbe]

In the meantime, in last night's debate Joe Biden gave us the startling news that since 2007, 150 million Americans have been killed in gun violence, "more than in all the wars!" I think the ole neurons just aren't firing very efficiently anymore.

[talaniman]

So your complaint is that median income is rising but not as fast as you would like?

As to the state by state comparison, if you're pointing out that some states do better than others, then that's fine. I thought everyone in American already knew that, but if you feel the need to point that out, then mission accomplished. It does nothing to change the fact that a rising median income is a good thing and shows that most people are doing better financially.

What are those "advanced calculations" you promised us? You haven't even put down a number, not even a simple addition problem.

Lets just move along to the next step and may I ask if median income is in your mind less significant than per capita income in your mind? Or did you ignore that further breakdown of state stats?

In the meantime, in last night's debate Joe Biden gave us the startling news that since 2007, 150 million Americans have been killed in gun violence, "more than in all the wars!" I think the ole neurons just aren't firing very efficiently anymore.

Don't watch debates and have already voted in the primary.

[jlisenbe]

Lets just move along to the next step and may I ask if median income is in your mind less significant than per capita income in your mind? Or did you ignore that further breakdown of state stats?

This is the "advanced calculations"???

Median income can be calculated on a per capita basis or on a household basis. You get the same result since median household income is arrived at by multiplying per capita income by 2.2. In other words, it has been rising for several years in both cases since one cannot rise without the other one rising. They are tied together. So to answer your question, neither one is less significant than the other in my mind since they both show precisely the same thing.

The meaningless comment about state stats has already been dealt with as being well known by every person who has ever sat down and thought about it for even thirty seconds.

So what's your point?

How did you already vote, by absentee ballot? Your primary is in March.

[talaniman]

This is the "advanced calculations"???

Median income can be calculated on a per capita basis or on a household basis. You get the same result since median household income is arrived at by multiplying per capita income by 2.2. In other words, it has been rising for several years in both cases since one cannot rise without the other one rising. They are tied together. So to answer your question, neither one is less significant than the other in my mind since they both show precisely the same thing.

The meaningless comment about state stats has already been dealt with as being well known by every person who has ever sat down and thought about it for even thirty seconds.

So what's your point?

How did you already vote, by absentee ballot? Your primary is in March.

No guy we are at the very early stages of advanced calculations and already you're lost? Not very encouraging, but easily understandable. My point remains the same, THE RICH HAVE AND WILL GET RICHER, AND THE POOR WILL GET EVEN POORER! Like most equations their are constants and variables by which to plug in factors so the factors you leave out skews the final results which I have mentioned several times. Price increases eat up and reduce the effects of a paycheck so a few bucks gain can be wiped out rather easily for lower income folks and indeed for those in the middle as well. Missing a few bucks due to things beyond your control are huge factors that can wipe family finances out real fast. So while you talk about how good we are doing, at least acknowledge that is only half true at best.

So explain your multiplier to me of 2.2 and how it's derived if you can.

We vote early in Texas! Much easier that way.

[jlisenbe]

No guy we are at the very early stages of advanced calculations and already you're lost?

Probably because you haven't done any calculations. Zero. Nada. None at all. Do you understand what a calculation is? It involves numbers, kind of like 2 + 2 = 4. You've done no advanced calculations or, for that matter, simple calculations. You've done none at all. Not any at all. Not the first one. Is that beginning to become clear?

So while you talk about how good we are doing, at least acknowledge that is only half true at best.

It is certainly true, as I have said many times, that not everyone is participating in this improving economy. That, of course, is always true and has always been true. It about on the level of saying that the sun rises in the east and then pretending you have said something profound.

So explain your multiplier to me of 2.2 and how it's derived if you can.

https://www.thebalance.com/income-pe...istics-3305852

"There are three other widely-used measurements of income. Average household income is the most common in the United States. It tells you the income per household, which contains 2.2 people on average. That's why it's higher than income per capita. "

[Vacuum7]

No! You guys are all wrong about biden! He told s.c. Yesterday that he was running for the senate!!!

[talaniman]

Sure I have, you missed them as usual, either because you dismissed them, or they go against your rather broad narrative, or maybe both, so now I think we just slow walk the process so you can see that the number of REAL people and how they are affected over time bellies your median income theory of a great economy for everybody, as a stat to start with and must be dug down into for accuracy. It should be obvious I'm steering to individual outcomes and circumstances not the broader averages you favor.

As long as you stay with those averages you discount how bad it is that a vast number are left in this great economy or maybe you know and don't give a crap so see no need to address the inequality gap at all. In discounting the poor you will fail to grasp how the middle class is also diminished in the narrative which was one of your questions if I remember correctly. No I have nothing profound in this narrative and actually it's been known for decades now, but ignored by many, so never properly addressed in a productive way.

Goes way back to the supply side notion that people like the dufus pay the higher taxes and if it was lowered they in turn would create more jobs. They never have so let's just drop that LIE, and also the one about such tax cuts pay for themselves and that has never happened either, but it adds to the deficit and somehow that's okay? Thanks for the link though, one of my own favorites which explains very well most of what I have been saying under the TRENDS and SLOW CHANGES sections. That link also includes some interesting data that breaks it down even further and I assume you browsed those also am I right?

That leads you to advanced calculations my friend.

[jlisenbe]

Sure I have,

Yeah. Sure you have.

That leads you to advanced calculations my friend.

That certainly means that you have no idea how to do "advanced calculations". Linking to a page filled with links to other material is not doing calculations. You just don't know what you're doing or what you're talking about.

When you can show some of those advanced calculations, then count me back in. Otherwise, I'm done with this nonsense. Do the calculations you promised or find something to talk about that you actually understand.

Also tell us what those links lead to when clicked on. I feel absolutely sure you have no idea, but perhaps I am wrong.

[talaniman]

Yes as usual you're wrong, follow the links or NOT! Up to you, as I have provided what's needed, so keep squacking about MY chosen methods. Is that lazy or incompetence on your part, or both? You provided the link I might add. It actually says what I have been saying all along, So why should I give you more when you have it already? Makes no sense like all your postings. Rant on hopper grass.

[jlisenbe]

Exactly as I figured. You have no idea. I followed the links. I think you did not. I think that you googled the topic, found a link, and posted it to make it appear that you did something serious when you did not. But you can defuse that by simply doing these two very simple steps.

Do the calculations you promised or find something to talk about that you actually understand.

Also tell us what those links lead to when clicked on. I feel absolutely sure you have no idea, but perhaps I am wrong.

[talaniman]

Exactly as I figured. You have no idea. I followed the links. I think you did not. I think that you googled the topic, found a link, and posted it so make it appear that you did something serious when you did not. But you can defuse that by simply doing these two very simple steps.

Do the calculations you promised or find something to talk about that you actually understand.

Also tell us what those links lead to when clicked on. I feel absolutely sure you have no idea, but perhaps I am wrong.

Your post is irrelevant. Just tell us what you gleaned from the embedded links of the link YOU posted.

[jlisenbe]

Already have. In fact, I posted a quote from it that was in answer to your question. It went like this. "There are three other widely-used measurements of income. Average household income is the most common in the United States. It tells you the income per household, which contains 2.2 people on average. That's why it's higher than income per capita."

The difference is plain. I linked to an article that itself had a lot of information. Your link sent us to a page of links. It had virtually no data, but was a source of links to information. If you didn't take the links, then you had nothing.

I'm sure you know a lot about many things. I'm equally certain you know next to nothing about this topic. But you can show me that I'm wrong.

Do the calculations you promised or find something to talk about that you actually understand.

Also tell us what those links lead to when clicked on. I feel absolutely sure you have no idea, but perhaps I am wrong.

[talaniman]

Sorry you missed it, you always do, so go back and find it yourself. I kept my promise using your link and there was a truckload of data that backed up my position. Stop holding up the show so we can get to those rich guy deductions and hiding wealth from taxes and the influence of rich guys and corporations that influence the tax code more than you do for their own gains.

By this time next week we may have a better idea who the dem nominee will be.

[jlisenbe]

If you can't walk the walk, then don't talk the talk.

Do the calculations you promised or find something to talk about that you actually understand.

Also tell us what those links lead to when clicked on. I feel absolutely sure you have no idea, but perhaps I am wrong.

[paraclete]

what a load of irrelevant crap, I said this and I said that and My searches are better than your searches

[jlisenbe]

Read something else if it bothers you so much.

[paraclete]

I don't come here to read childish rants, that's for sure