Economics: Laughing at the Left!

[PoliticalChic]

1. “Except for the rich, the incomes of Americans have stagnated for years!” A rallying cry the Leftists, and the statistics-challenges. Or, am I being redundant?

a. Seems easy enough to nail down the statistical proof, one way or another, eh?
Gosh- what am I saying?... if it wasn’t easy, the Lefties wouldn’t be involved in the first place.


2. The charge is that there has been very little change in the average real income of American households over a period of decades. And there is proof of that: income adjusted for inflation rose by only 6% from 1969 to 1999…stagnation? There it is: simple proof for the simple mi… never mind.

a. You see, it is also true that the average real income per person rose by 51% over that same period!!! http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

b. The explanation? Changes in the average number of persons per household was declining over that period! It also varies with racial and ethnic groups and with income brackets.

c. Income comparisons using household statistics are far less reliable indicators of standard of living than individual income data.


3. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


4. As one can see, the hand-wringers of the Left have a golden opportunity to mislead those unwilling- or unable- to do their own research and analysis…and they do.

a. “While the incomes of most American households have remained stubbornly flat over the past three decades,… An analysis of household income from 1969 to 1996 showed…” From Barbara Vobejda in the Washington Post.

 

[Mr. H.]

Per capita consumption= fast food, candy, chips, soda, PS3's, LCD TV's...

 

[Dragon]

The word "average" in bullet point 2.a invalidates your entire argument.

Let's see if you can figure out why.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The word "average" in bullet point 2.a invalidates your entire argument.

Let's see if you can figure out why.

The specific message of the OP is that an understanding of ecomomics proves that the American worker has prospered over the recent decades, rather than either stagnated or fallen backward.

The sub text is that those who have been mislead by the Progressives/Leftists/Democrats in their efforts to gain power via a class warfare strategy have acted as uneducated dullards.


So sad, In Drag, that the subject proved recondite relative to your ability.

For future reference, keep this in mind:
Silence is golden. Duct tape is silver.

 

[Dragon]

The specific message of the OP is that an understanding of ecomomics proves that the American worker has prospered over the recent decades, rather than either stagnated or fallen backward.

Right, I understood that that was what you intended to show. But the word "average" in bullet point 2.a of your OP invalidates your entire argument, meaning that you have not shown what you intended to show.

Again, let's see if you can figure out why.

 

[Big Fitz]

1. “Except for the rich, the incomes of Americans have stagnated for years!” A rallying cry the Leftists, and the statistics-challenges. Or, am I being redundant?

a. Seems easy enough to nail down the statistical proof, one way or another, eh?
Gosh- what am I saying?... if it wasn’t easy, the Lefties wouldn’t be involved in the first place.


2. The charge is that there has been very little change in the average real income of American households over a period of decades. And there is proof of that: income adjusted for inflation rose by only 6% from 1969 to 1999…stagnation? There it is: simple proof for the simple mi… never mind.

a. You see, it is also true that the average real income per person rose by 51% over that same period!!! http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

b. The explanation? Changes in the average number of persons per household was declining over that period! It also varies with racial and ethnic groups and with income brackets.

c. Income comparisons using household statistics are far less reliable indicators of standard of living than individual income data.


3. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


4. As one can see, the hand-wringers of the Left have a golden opportunity to mislead those unwilling- or unable- to do their own research and analysis…and they do.

a. “While the incomes of most American households have remained stubbornly flat over the past three decades,… An analysis of household income from 1969 to 1996 showed…” From Barbara Vobejda in the Washington Post.

Yep. Kinda like the cry of "The minimum wage should be a living wage".

Jason Lewis just had a researcher on his show monday I think it was talking about who actually HAD a minimum wage job. In over 90% the jobs were NOT the primary income in a family, but the secondary income OR the job of a child or elderly person included in the family. In cases where you had a single mom, they discovered something more shocking. Most single women on minimum wage jobs over the course of 10 years, did not REMAIN on a minimum wage job for more than a few years before getting off the bottom either by promotion, new job or marriage.

Why must a secondary job (as found in over 90% of the cases, to belabor a point) be a wage that could support them all? I see no need.

Oh and also, they found in areas with HIGHER minimum wage through state or local law, unemployment was higher and hiring was much more infrequent, with jobs going to much more qualified candidates, leaving the old and young (second jobbers) unable to find income and making the hardship much worse on the 'single mother' trying to make ends meet. In essence HURTING the poor the worst by eliminating possible job growth through making the positions too costly, so businesses did without because the alternative was to go out of business.

Oops.

Damn you empirical evidence! Damn youuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!

 

[uscitizen]

ahh the age old deception of avg income over avg wages.
A few Wall street bonuses and such skew the averages all to hell on income.

 

[Truthmatters]

You should easily be able to convince the American people that their lives have improved greatly then right?


How many have lost their jobs, homes, savings, healthcare, cars and evern a vision of the future where their lives improve?


Have fun OP

 

[Big Fitz]

Per capita consumption= fast food, candy, chips, soda, PS3's, LCD TV's...

Collection agents are always amazed at the poor's ability to maintain the 5 'C's.

Cellphone
Car
Cigarettes
Candy
Cable

But can't pay their bills or rent on time if at all.

 

[Truthmatters]

yeap those righties sure know how to get people voting for them.

Its as if they dont need real Americans to vote for them so they can just trash them to excite the base.


I guess they cheat really well

 

[PoliticalChic]

The specific message of the OP is that an understanding of ecomomics proves that the American worker has prospered over the recent decades, rather than either stagnated or fallen backward.

Right, I understood that that was what you intended to show. But the word "average" in bullet point 2.a of your OP invalidates your entire argument, meaning that you have not shown what you intended to show.

Again, let's see if you can figure out why.

Let's see if we can add some more fuel to the argument.....

1. The increases in income is partially responsible for the decreasing size of households, as it enables more to live in their own separate homes.

a. Take as an example, a low income household whose income increases above the poverty level. As a result, the family relieves overcrowding by having some members move to their own dwelling. Better? Well, the Lefties will now count the two resulting households as an increase in the number of ‘families’ in poverty!
The alchemy of the Left.
The Left can alway take lemonade and make lemons out of it.

b. But in high income families, the “rich,” household size is often the explanation for increased income. With 39 million in households in the lowest 20% vs. 64 million in the households with the top 20% of earnings, it’s easy to see the reason for the disparity.

But wait! The number of workers in those households is even more telling! The top 20% had 19 million heads of households who worked, compared to fewer than 8 million in the bottom 20%! See Sowell, “ Economic Facts and Fallacies, “ chapter five, and Income Inequality: How Census Data Misrepresent Income Distribution

c. Further, the educational backgrounds and skills of the two quintiles are far from comparable.

6. And when reading the propaganda about poverty incomes, realize that they leave out the income transfers from various government programs: benefits are substantial and the recipients pay nothing. Those in the bottom 20% of income recipients receive over 70% of their income in such transfers.
Now, why doesn’t the Old Left Media tell this?

a. In 2001 cash and in-kind transfers accounted for 77.8% of said recipients’ income. How fair is it for the Left to tell you that their income is actually 22.2% of what it actually is? Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 28

b. This tends to explain how Americans living below the poverty level spend $1.75 for every $1 of income. The Myth of Widespread American Poverty
The Myth of Widespread American Poverty


So....neither has the American worker stagnated, nor are the 'poor' starving and homeless.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Per capita consumption= fast food, candy, chips, soda, PS3's, LCD TV's...

Collection agents are always amazed at the poor's ability to maintain the 5 'C's.

Cellphone
Car
Cigarettes
Candy
Cable

But can't pay their bills or rent on time if at all.

Did you see this amazing stat?
"This tends to explain how Americans living below the poverty level spend $1.75 for every $1 of income. The Myth of Widespread American Poverty"
The Myth of Widespread American Poverty

 

[PoliticalChic]

yeap those righties sure know how to get people voting for them.

Its as if they dont need real Americans to vote for them so they can just trash them to excite the base.


I guess they cheat really well

"Several Democratic presidential candidates, including frontrunner Howard Dean, also support felon voting.

A cynic may be forgiven for suspecting that the motivation behind such support has as much to do with political expediency as principle.

Several recent studies contend that even allowing for their expected lower participation rates, the restoration of voting rights to felons would have shifted the outcome of a number of recent congressional elections. This tantalizes the felon-vote movement. But the movement receives its greatest inspiration from the 2000 election fiasco in Florida. Felon-vote proponents claim that had felons who have completed their sentences been permitted to vote in Florida, Gore would be president today. And they're probably right.
The restoration of voting rights to felons is decidedly unpopular with the electorate. For example, in 1998, more than 80 percent of Utah voters approved a measure to bar inmates from voting. In 2000, the Massachusetts electorate, among the most liberal in the country, voted for a constitutional amendment barring felon inmates from voting.

But overwhelming public opposition has not deterred felon-vote advocates. They've simply resorted to a receptive judiciary to achieve their objective
As David Lampo notes, these distinctions are immaterial to many felon-vote advocates. Their aim is nothing less than the wholesale restoration of voting rights to all convicts — and that suggests an agenda that's more partisan than altruistic."

Peter Kirsanow on Felon & Election 2004 on National Review Online


So.....wanna guess which party stands four-square behind felons?

 

[Dragon]

Once again, PC, the word "average" in bullet point 2.a of your OP invalidates your entire argument. Nothing you have posted since then corrects this mistake, and you have yet to demonstrate that you understand why. So let me explain it to you.

An "average" or mean is found by summing all values in a sequence and dividing by the number of such values. Thus, to find the "average income" of Americans, you would add the income of all Americans and then divide by the number of Americans.

Now let me illustrate why, if you want to talk about income inequality, the average or mean is the wrong value to use. Consider two groups of ten people with annual incomes as follows:

Group 1:

1. $100,000
2. $100,000
3. $100,000
4. $100,000
5. $100,000
6. $100,000
7. $100,000
8. $100,000
9. $100,000
10. $100,000

Group 2:

1. $1,000,000
2-10 $0

Would you not agree that the income distribution in Group 2 is far more unequal than in Group 1? But the "average income" of both groups is the same: $100,000. "The average income" and "the income of an average person" are not the same value.

You cannot prove anything about income inequality in the U.S. by using "average income" as a measure.

 

[Big Fitz]

Once again, PC, the word "average" in bullet point 2.a of your OP invalidates your entire argument. Nothing you have posted since then corrects this mistake, and you have yet to demonstrate that you understand why. So let me explain it to you.

An "average" or mean is found by summing all values in a sequence and dividing by the number of such values. Thus, to find the "average income" of Americans, you would add the income of all Americans and then divide by the number of Americans.

Now let me illustrate why, if you want to talk about income inequality, the average or mean is the wrong value to use. Consider two groups of ten people with annual incomes as follows:

Group 1:

1. $100,000
2. $100,000
3. $100,000
4. $100,000
5. $100,000
6. $100,000
7. $100,000
8. $100,000
9. $100,000
10. $100,000

Group 2:

1. $1,000,000
2-10 $0

Would you not agree that the income distribution in Group 2 is far more unequal than in Group 1? But the "average income" of both groups is the same: $100,000. "The average income" and "the income of an average person" are not the same value.

You cannot prove anything about income inequality in the U.S. by using "average income" as a measure.

means both groups can live similar lifestyles as long as they remain in budget.

This proves nothing is wrong.

As a matter of fact, if the million dollar person invests wisely, he actually comes out ahead thanks to interest and investment capability. So why are we pissed off about this? Oh that's right... it's not YOUR money.