|
Logic question
On Aug 17, 4:13*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 6:36*am, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:08:43 -0400, wrote: BTW isn't "30 years ago" about when you say the middle class started getting screwed. 37 actually. The middle class is shrinking because the upper class is growing Steve Horwitz from the Austrian Economists blog writes: really? there are 20,000,000 millionaires in the US? and how does this relate to the fact the middle class hasnt had a raise in 37 years? The reality, as it turns out, is different. From 1980 to 2006, the percentage of US households earning $100,000 or more (in constant 2006 dollars) grew from 8.6% to 19.1 and what percentage of this was accounted for by a growth in dual income families? care to answer? The percentage between $75k and $100K grew from 10.3 to 11.3 percent IOW no growth... . At the other end, the percentage under $15K fell from 16.6% to 13.4% and the percentage between $15K and $34K fell from 26.2% to 23.3%. Thus all three categories below $35K fell a total of 6.1 percentage points. a few percentage...hardly any change at all. The middle classes fell too, though by less. The sum total across the $35K to $75K categories fell by 5.4 percentage points. In other words: the net movement of households was an 11.5 percentage point gain in households above $75K and a net reduction of 11.5 percentage points in houses below $75K. So the percentage above $75K rose from 18.9% to 30.4%. That is, it increased by over 50%. Let me repeat that: over 30% of US households in 2006 earned above $75K compared to under 20% in 1980 and what percentage of these changes can be related to differences in composition of houselholds, 2 income families, etc? well, actually...quite alot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...ited_States#Ho... "From 1969 to 1996, median household income rose a very modest 6.3 percent in constant dollars... The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy."- John McNeil, US Census Bureau =============== so what we see is that middle class income grew hardly at all...and those changes that DID occur were largely due to women entering the workforce in greater numbers. haha... you really need to learn to read for content. From the same wiki page, just above your quote: "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. While the proportion of wives working year-round in married couple households with children has increased from 17% in 1967 to 39% in 1996, the *proportion* of such households among the general population has *decreased*." (fewer two-income households) "In 1969, more than 40% of all households consisted of a married couple with children. By 1996 only a rough quarter of US households consisted of married couples with children. As a result of these changing household *demographics*, median household income rose relatively slowly despite an ever increasing female labor force and a *considerable* increase in the percentage of college graduates." (higher incomes, more females, but fewer dual income households) Your statement that "those changes that DID occur were largely due to women entering the workforce in greater numbers." is completely opposite of your own cites viewpoint!! They are saying that the reason it rose slowly is "changing household demographics", namely that there are LESS two-income households! Your own quote: "The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the *size* and *composition* of households *rather* than a reflection of a stagnating economy." completely DISPROVES your false assertion that it is because of stagnant wages. Rather, it's "changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy." YOUR OWN QUOTE!!! Wow. Just... wow. I'm done. |
Logic question
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:51:01 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote: On Aug 17, 4:13*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: The reality, as it turns out, is different. From 1980 to 2006, the percentage of US households earning $100,000 or more (in constant 2006 dollars) grew from 8.6% to 19.1 and what percentage of this was accounted for by a growth in dual income families? care to answer? and what percentage of these changes can be related to differences in composition of houselholds, 2 income families, etc? well, actually...quite alot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...ited_States#Ho... "From 1969 to 1996, median household income rose a very modest 6.3 percent in constant dollars... The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy."- John McNeil, US Census Bureau =============== so what we see is that middle class income grew hardly at all...and those changes that DID occur were largely due to women entering the workforce in greater numbers. haha... you really need to learn to read for content. From the same wiki page, just above your quote: "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. While the proportion of wives working year-round in married couple households with children has increased from 17% in 1967 to 39% in 1996, the *proportion* of such households among the general population has *decreased*." (fewer two-income households) which accounts for ALOT of the decrease and stagnation in middle class incomes...as i've been saying. yes. thanks. i already knew that. Your statement that "those changes that DID occur were largely due to women entering the workforce in greater numbers." is completely opposite of your own cites viewpoint!! They are saying that the reason it rose slowly is "changing household demographics", namely that there are LESS two-income households! ?? since when did dual income households all of a sudden become those without children? Your own quote: "The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the *size* and *composition* of households *rather* than a reflection of a stagnating economy." completely DISPROVES your false assertion that it is because of stagnant wages. Rather, it's "changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy." YOUR OWN QUOTE!!! Wow. Just... wow. I'm done. WTF?? where...where did i ever say the economy was stagnating? what did you do? call rush and ask for a stupidity transplant? YOU YOURSELF JUST ADMITTED MIDDLE CLASS INCOME WAS STAGNANT! you kind of overlooked those words, didn't you? do you see them in your OWN quote? see them above?? and why did this occur? because the elties continued to drain the middle class of ANY increase in wages. as productivity increased, the elites siphoned that off for themselves. as women entered the workforce, per capita wages dropped as the workforce expanded. so tell me, oh right wing genius.... HOW DO STAGNANT WAGES PROVE THAT WAGES WERE NOT STAGNANT?? thanks. i'm done here |
Logic question
On Aug 17, 5:01*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:51:01 -0700 (PDT), Jack "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. While the proportion of wives working year-round in married couple households with children has increased from 17% in 1967 to 39% in 1996, the *proportion* of such households among the general population has *decreased*." *(fewer two-income households) which accounts for ALOT of the decrease and stagnation in middle class incomes...as i've been saying. yes. thanks. i already knew that. That is NOT what you've been saying. You said: "what percentage of this (increase) was accounted for by a growth in dual income families? There actually is a DECREASE in dual-income families, which limited the observed INCREASE in income!! Your statement that "those changes that DID occur were largely due to women entering the workforce in greater numbers." is completely opposite of your own cites viewpoint!! They are saying that the reason it rose slowly is "changing household demographics", namely that there are LESS two-income households! ?? since when did dual income households all of a sudden become those without children? WTF?? Who said anything about children? Your own quote: "The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the *size* and *composition* of households *rather* than a reflection of a stagnating economy." completely DISPROVES your false assertion that it is because of stagnant wages. *Rather, it's "changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy." *YOUR OWN QUOTE!!! Wow. *Just... wow. *I'm done. WTF?? where...where did i ever say the economy was stagnating? what did you do? call rush and ask for a stupidity transplant? YOU YOURSELF JUST ADMITTED MIDDLE CLASS INCOME WAS STAGNANT! You're the one that linked to the article and posted that quote, not me. Sorry if it actually shoots your position in the head. "median household income" rose slightly. You do know what "median" means, right? It says there has been a rise in income, and the median income rise would be bigger if it weren't for the loss of two-income households. Not that the rise only happened because of women entering the workforce, which is what you said. HOW DO STAGNANT WAGES PROVE THAT WAGES WERE NOT STAGNANT?? They aren't. Your own link says "While household income has *increased*..." It completely DISPROVES your false assertion that it is because of stagnant wages. Rather, it's "changes in the size and composition of households (that make median income growth seem small) rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy (and wages)." thanks. i'm done here- You certainly are. |
Logic question
bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:17:30 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:10:16 -0400, wrote: you keep making the typical right wing mistake i argue from EVIDENCE you argue from FAIRY TALES that's why you can't understand what i'm saying. NO ONE...repeat NO ONE in the middle class got a raise i'm not sure how many ways i can tell you that to get it through your rush limballs polluted head. I know my son in law has doubled his salary since then but he moved and changed jobs. like i said, i argue from evidence. you? you argue from anecdote Give up your lame rant, Bob. You are dead wrong. fine. you go show me where the middle class got a raise, and i'll join the GOP PEOPLE get raises, not CLASSES of people, dip****. |
Logic question
On Aug 17, 5:48*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: That is NOT what you've been saying. *You said: "what percentage of this (increase) was accounted for by a growth in dual income families? *There actually is a DECREASE in dual-income families, which limited the observed INCREASE in income!! ??WTF? can you read? no one said...and no reference says...there has been *a DECREASE in dual income families. *in addition to being stupid are you illiterate? Except your own link: "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded. cya |
Logic question
Jack wrote:
On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:28:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote: That is NOT what you've been saying. You said: "what percentage of this (increase) was accounted for by a growth in dual income families? There actually is a DECREASE in dual-income families, which limited the observed INCREASE in income!! ??WTF? can you read? no one said...and no reference says...there has been a DECREASE in dual income families. in addition to being stupid are you illiterate? Except your own link: "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. |
Logic question
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:02:53 -0400, Larry
wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:17:30 -0400, wrote: like i said, i argue from evidence. you? you argue from anecdote Give up your lame rant, Bob. You are dead wrong. fine. you go show me where the middle class got a raise, and i'll join the GOP PEOPLE get raises, not CLASSES of people, dip****. what is the middle class? chopped liver? you are stupid, aren't you? oh...i forgot...to the right wing, the middle class should be slaves...not people |
Logic question
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:08:50 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: That is NOT what you've been saying. *You said: "what percentage of this (increase) was accounted for by a growth in dual income families? *There actually is a DECREASE in dual-income families, which limited the observed INCREASE in income!! ??WTF? can you read? no one said...and no reference says...there has been *a DECREASE in dual income families. *in addition to being stupid are you illiterate? Except your own link: "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded. gee. i guess, being right wing, you can't think the reference pointed out 2 facts -men's wages stagnated -womens wages increased until the 90's then THEY stagnated as well you right wingers with your little fairy tales gloss over details. but the details are the wooden stake in the heart of your little fables about how lazy the middle class is. cya |
Logic question
In article ,
says... bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:17:30 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:10:16 -0400, wrote: you keep making the typical right wing mistake i argue from EVIDENCE you argue from FAIRY TALES that's why you can't understand what i'm saying. NO ONE...repeat NO ONE in the middle class got a raise i'm not sure how many ways i can tell you that to get it through your rush limballs polluted head. I know my son in law has doubled his salary since then but he moved and changed jobs. like i said, i argue from evidence. you? you argue from anecdote Give up your lame rant, Bob. You are dead wrong. fine. you go show me where the middle class got a raise, and i'll join the GOP PEOPLE get raises, not CLASSES of people, dip****. 50% of the people in my group got cash raises this year, either in their salary or their bonus pool. I got a lousy restricted stock grant, I won't see any of the money until next year. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com