Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
hmmm, both you and Econchick seem to be saying you won't accept any charts or graphs at all because you're assuming dishonesty on the part of whoever is posting the graph.
That seems odd, since the whole point of this thread is Econchick stating as fact the results of a graph from investors.com (and the IBD) but both say they got their info from Sentier Research who claims they got it from BLS microdata. Microdata is not publicly released and cannot be double checked.
Personally, I see no reason to doubt their conclusions, which match the more time lagged officially produced data from different Census surveys.
I posted a link to the data on the BLS site about 20 posts ago. You have to use subtraction to get the month to month change that was in the graph that nycarbineer posted.hmmm, both you and Econchick seem to be saying you won't accept any charts or graphs at all because you're assuming dishonesty on the part of whoever is posting the graph.
I only speak for myself, but the hate sites are renowned for dishonesty. I generally distrust any cite that does not link to the source. ThinkProgess producing a graph and claiming the numbers come from the BLS has little impact on me, because I know ThinkProgress is dishonest and will manipulate or openly fabricate data.
That seems odd, since the whole point of this thread is Econchick stating as fact the results of a graph from investors.com (and the IBD) but both say they got their info from Sentier Research who claims they got it from BLS microdata. Microdata is not publicly released and cannot be double checked.
Personally, I see no reason to doubt their conclusions, which match the more time lagged officially produced data from different Census surveys.
Credibility of the source is important. I know that investors.com is a reputable outfit, just as I know the Soros sites are disreputable.
hmmm, both you and Econchick seem to be saying you won't accept any charts or graphs at all because you're assuming dishonesty on the part of whoever is posting the graph.
I only speak for myself, but the hate sites are renowned for dishonesty. I generally distrust any cite that does not link to the source. ThinkProgess producing a graph and claiming the numbers come from the BLS has little impact on me, because I know ThinkProgress is dishonest and will manipulate or openly fabricate data.
That seems odd, since the whole point of this thread is Econchick stating as fact the results of a graph from investors.com (and the IBD) but both say they got their info from Sentier Research who claims they got it from BLS microdata. Microdata is not publicly released and cannot be double checked.
Personally, I see no reason to doubt their conclusions, which match the more time lagged officially produced data from different Census surveys.
Credibility of the source is important. I know that investors.com is a reputable outfit, just as I know the Soros sites are disreputable.
hmmm, both you and Econchick seem to be saying you won't accept any charts or graphs at all because you're assuming dishonesty on the part of whoever is posting the graph.
I only speak for myself, but the hate sites are renowned for dishonesty. I generally distrust any cite that does not link to the source. ThinkProgess producing a graph and claiming the numbers come from the BLS has little impact on me, because I know ThinkProgress is dishonest and will manipulate or openly fabricate data.
That seems odd, since the whole point of this thread is Econchick stating as fact the results of a graph from investors.com (and the IBD) but both say they got their info from Sentier Research who claims they got it from BLS microdata. Microdata is not publicly released and cannot be double checked.
Personally, I see no reason to doubt their conclusions, which match the more time lagged officially produced data from different Census surveys.
Credibility of the source is important. I know that investors.com is a reputable outfit, just as I know the Soros sites are disreputable.
Well, the direct link is Bureau of Labor Statistics DataI posted a link to the data on the BLS site about 20 posts ago. You have to use subtraction to get the month to month change that was in the graph that nycarbineer posted.hmmm, both you and Econchick seem to be saying you won't accept any charts or graphs at all because you're assuming dishonesty on the part of whoever is posting the graph.
I only speak for myself, but the hate sites are renowned for dishonesty. I generally distrust any cite that does not link to the source. ThinkProgess producing a graph and claiming the numbers come from the BLS has little impact on me, because I know ThinkProgress is dishonest and will manipulate or openly fabricate data.
That seems odd, since the whole point of this thread is Econchick stating as fact the results of a graph from investors.com (and the IBD) but both say they got their info from Sentier Research who claims they got it from BLS microdata. Microdata is not publicly released and cannot be double checked.
Personally, I see no reason to doubt their conclusions, which match the more time lagged officially produced data from different Census surveys.
Credibility of the source is important. I know that investors.com is a reputable outfit, just as I know the Soros sites are disreputable.
Well, the direct link is Bureau of Labor Statistics DataI posted a link to the data on the BLS site about 20 posts ago. You have to use subtraction to get the month to month change that was in the graph that nycarbineer posted.hmmm, both you and Econchick seem to be saying you won't accept any charts or graphs at all because you're assuming dishonesty on the part of whoever is posting the graph.
I only speak for myself, but the hate sites are renowned for dishonesty. I generally distrust any cite that does not link to the source. ThinkProgess producing a graph and claiming the numbers come from the BLS has little impact on me, because I know ThinkProgress is dishonest and will manipulate or openly fabricate data.
That seems odd, since the whole point of this thread is Econchick stating as fact the results of a graph from investors.com (and the IBD) but both say they got their info from Sentier Research who claims they got it from BLS microdata. Microdata is not publicly released and cannot be double checked.
Personally, I see no reason to doubt their conclusions, which match the more time lagged officially produced data from different Census surveys.
Credibility of the source is important. I know that investors.com is a reputable outfit, just as I know the Soros sites are disreputable.
And then go to "More Formatting Options" and select 1 month change and you get
Well, the direct link is Bureau of Labor Statistics DataI posted a link to the data on the BLS site about 20 posts ago. You have to use subtraction to get the month to month change that was in the graph that nycarbineer posted.hmmm, both you and Econchick seem to be saying you won't accept any charts or graphs at all because you're assuming dishonesty on the part of whoever is posting the graph.
I only speak for myself, but the hate sites are renowned for dishonesty. I generally distrust any cite that does not link to the source. ThinkProgess producing a graph and claiming the numbers come from the BLS has little impact on me, because I know ThinkProgress is dishonest and will manipulate or openly fabricate data.
That seems odd, since the whole point of this thread is Econchick stating as fact the results of a graph from investors.com (and the IBD) but both say they got their info from Sentier Research who claims they got it from BLS microdata. Microdata is not publicly released and cannot be double checked.
Personally, I see no reason to doubt their conclusions, which match the more time lagged officially produced data from different Census surveys.
Credibility of the source is important. I know that investors.com is a reputable outfit, just as I know the Soros sites are disreputable.
And then go to "More Formatting Options" and select 1 month change and you get
I'm still trying to figure out how Sentier Research is considered both biased and unbiased depending on what website is talking about their reports.Well, the direct link is Bureau of Labor Statistics DataI posted a link to the data on the BLS site about 20 posts ago. You have to use subtraction to get the month to month change that was in the graph that nycarbineer posted.hmmm, both you and Econchick seem to be saying you won't accept any charts or graphs at all because you're assuming dishonesty on the part of whoever is posting the graph.
I only speak for myself, but the hate sites are renowned for dishonesty. I generally distrust any cite that does not link to the source. ThinkProgess producing a graph and claiming the numbers come from the BLS has little impact on me, because I know ThinkProgress is dishonest and will manipulate or openly fabricate data.
That seems odd, since the whole point of this thread is Econchick stating as fact the results of a graph from investors.com (and the IBD) but both say they got their info from Sentier Research who claims they got it from BLS microdata. Microdata is not publicly released and cannot be double checked.
Personally, I see no reason to doubt their conclusions, which match the more time lagged officially produced data from different Census surveys.
Credibility of the source is important. I know that investors.com is a reputable outfit, just as I know the Soros sites are disreputable.
And then go to "More Formatting Options" and select 1 month change and you get
Sadly, they'll just reject the BLS itself as some sort of biased.
You Lie! Median household incomes at all-time high under Obama!So with everything Obama has tried to spin or lie about, he's not been able to dispute this OP: Median household incomes are nowhere near as high as they were under Bush.
And the economy is about to get worse.
You didn't adjust for inflationYou Lie! Median household incomes at all-time high under Obama!So with everything Obama has tried to spin or lie about, he's not been able to dispute this OP: Median household incomes are nowhere near as high as they were under Bush.
And the economy is about to get worse.
I'm still trying to figure out how Sentier Research is considered both biased and unbiased depending on what website is talking about their reports.Well, the direct link is Bureau of Labor Statistics DataI posted a link to the data on the BLS site about 20 posts ago. You have to use subtraction to get the month to month change that was in the graph that nycarbineer posted.hmmm, both you and Econchick seem to be saying you won't accept any charts or graphs at all because you're assuming dishonesty on the part of whoever is posting the graph.
I only speak for myself, but the hate sites are renowned for dishonesty. I generally distrust any cite that does not link to the source. ThinkProgess producing a graph and claiming the numbers come from the BLS has little impact on me, because I know ThinkProgress is dishonest and will manipulate or openly fabricate data.
That seems odd, since the whole point of this thread is Econchick stating as fact the results of a graph from investors.com (and the IBD) but both say they got their info from Sentier Research who claims they got it from BLS microdata. Microdata is not publicly released and cannot be double checked.
Personally, I see no reason to doubt their conclusions, which match the more time lagged officially produced data from different Census surveys.
Credibility of the source is important. I know that investors.com is a reputable outfit, just as I know the Soros sites are disreputable.
And then go to "More Formatting Options" and select 1 month change and you get
Sadly, they'll just reject the BLS itself as some sort of biased.
I am guessing that the blip was census workers.Ironically, some of the damage to median incomes that has occurred has been from changes that conservatives SUPPORT, such as:
Conservatives constantly argue for smaller government, well, there it is.
But that declining blue line represents hundreds of thousands of jobs, and their wages, disappearing.
The CPI has not been an inflation index since 1980. It is only a substitution index. The PPI all commodities has not been altered as much & more closely reflects real inflation. Real inflation adjusted household income tanked all the way through the Bush administration. Only a complete idiot would try to defend Bush's inflation, income or job record.You didn't adjust for inflationYou Lie! Median household incomes at all-time high under Obama!So with everything Obama has tried to spin or lie about, he's not been able to dispute this OP: Median household incomes are nowhere near as high as they were under Bush.
And the economy is about to get worse.
However, since 2012, it's started to go back up again. Not a lot, but the first real increase since the recession.
No, it is a measure of inflation, using a cost of living index model. I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "substitution index."The CPI has not been an inflation index since 1980. It is only a substitution index.
No, it is a measure of inflation, using a cost of living index model. I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "substitution index."The CPI has not been an inflation index since 1980. It is only a substitution index.
No, it is a measure of inflation, using a cost of living index model. I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "substitution index."The CPI has not been an inflation index since 1980. It is only a substitution index.
Weird formatting issue. sorry.No, it is a measure of inflation, using a cost of living index model. I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "substitution index."The CPI has not been an inflation index since 1980. It is only a substitution index.
I didn't say that. That's not my quote.
Untrue. Because tastes and spending patterns change over time, it is necessary to take that into account when measuring price changes. For example, one of the problems with the CPI in the early 80's was that personal computers were not in the index at all, because the basket was from 1972. The CPI is still designed to measure the price changes at a constant standard of living. A geometric means index was instituted at the base item level because a Laspeyres type index shows the maximum bound of change while a geomeans reduces that slightly to give a more realistic look. A Laspeyres type index is still used at all other levels. The basket is updated much more frequently and better reflects changing patterns.No, it is a measure of inflation, using a cost of living index model. I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "substitution index."The CPI has not been an inflation index since 1980. It is only a substitution index.
Pre-Reagan's voodoo economics, the CPI met the cost parameters most desired by the public to maintain their constant standard of living. Since 1982 government consistently turned the CPI away from measuring the price changes in a fixed-weight basket of goods and services, to a quasi-substitution-based basket of goods, which destroyed the concept of the CPI as a measure of the cost of living of maintaining a constant standard of living.
