Median Household Incomes D O W N under Obama! I Do Mean D-O-W-N

[pinqy]

So, wait...you're claiming that Obama can (personally???) manipulate the employment numbers, the unemployment numbers, the GDP, but NOT household income?

Who said he is manipulating the GDP?

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

As for employment/unemployment, the way it's done is changing who you count. You don't make up numbers, you say unemployment is down by just not counting people.

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain how you think that works. I don't understand whatever process you're trying to describe. Who does what when and how? The definitions are clear and that's how people are classified. I'm not sure how you think anyone can change who is counted.

How do you change median income like that? People at median income are overwhelmingly w-2 employees reporting w-2 income, that's an easy measure and they report it all on their taxes. Give an example how you can easily change that like you can easily change who you count as unemployed?

Except the median income data Econchick is citing comes either from the Current Population Survey...the very same survey used for the unemployment rate, or the American Community Survey which is the replacement for the Long Form of the Census. W-2 s are not used.

 

[pinqy]

So, wait...you're claiming that Obama can (personally???) manipulate the employment numbers, the unemployment numbers, the GDP, but NOT household income?

Who said he is manipulating the GDP?

As for employment/unemployment, the way it's done is changing who you count. You don't make up numbers, you say unemployment is down by just not counting people. How do you change median income like that? People at median income are overwhelmingly w-2 employees reporting w-2 income, that's an easy measure and they report it all on their taxes. Give an example how you can easily change that like you can easily change who you count as unemployed?

Exactly. And Pinqy knows that.

Same with GDP number.

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

 

[kaz]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

 

[kaz]

Exactly. And Pinqy knows that.

Same with GDP number.

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, wait...you're claiming that Obama can (personally???) manipulate the employment numbers, the unemployment numbers, the GDP, but NOT household income?

Who said he is manipulating the GDP?

As for employment/unemployment, the way it's done is changing who you count. You don't make up numbers, you say unemployment is down by just not counting people. How do you change median income like that? People at median income are overwhelmingly w-2 employees reporting w-2 income, that's an easy measure and they report it all on their taxes. Give an example how you can easily change that like you can easily change who you count as unemployed?

Exactly. And Pinqy knows that.

Same with GDP number.

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

It's the old RWnut scheme to use a different unemployment measure now that a Democrat is president.

It's just a reminder of what's wrong with conservatives, intellectually that is.

 

[pinqy]

Exactly. And Pinqy knows that.

Same with GDP number.

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

But you said "changing who you count." What's the change?

 

[EconChick]

Exactly. And Pinqy knows that.

Same with GDP number.

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

These libs remind me of the desperation old Communists were showing after the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed. They still maintained how great Communism was in the face of its overwhelming failure.

These guys aren't Communists, but they're trying to hang onto Obama's failed policies that EVERYONE knows and is admitting (see Dems fleeing from O thread) are a failure, including all the Dems running for office.

 

[EconChick]

Exactly. And Pinqy knows that.

Same with GDP number.

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

I'm going to post your words in that post again, Kaz.

It's amazing how so few words can be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO profound. But this is what we used to call BLUF in the military meaning Bottom Line Up Front. The generals always wanted briefers to give them the BLUF as fast as possible.

Here's the BLUF of this thread, LOL:



They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed

 

[kaz]

Exactly. And Pinqy knows that.

Same with GDP number.

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

I'm going to post your words in that post again, Kaz.

It's amazing how so few words can be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO profound. But this is what we used to call BLUF in the military meaning Bottom Line Up Front. The generals always wanted briefers to give them the BLUF as fast as possible.

Here's the BLUF of this thread, LOL:



They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed

CEOs are exactly the same, and thank you, maam!

 

[pinqy]

Exactly. And Pinqy knows that.

Same with GDP number.

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

I'm going to post your words in that post again, Kaz.

It's amazing how so few words can be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO profound. But this is what we used to call BLUF in the military meaning Bottom Line Up Front. The generals always wanted briefers to give them the BLUF as fast as possible.

Here's the BLUF of this thread, LOL:



They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed

But kaz said "changing who you count." What's the change?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

 

[kaz]

Exactly. And Pinqy knows that.

Same with GDP number.

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

But you said "changing who you count." What's the change?

I didn't say that moron, I answered your question. EconChick said that.

 

[kaz]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

I react to what I read. What you wrote was seriously petty. Write better than she does and I'll agree with you.

 

[kaz]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

BTW, what motive of a fellow American did I say crazy things about? I said how employment numbers are manipulated, I didn't say Obama specifically did it, i answered the question asked. Also, the stench of the double standard of what you say about W and what you are now chastising me for even if I did say that, wow, reeks ...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

BTW, what motive of a fellow American did I say crazy things about? I said how employment numbers are manipulated, I didn't say Obama specifically did it, i answered the question asked. Also, the stench of the double standard of what you say about W and what you are now chastising me for even if I did say that, wow, reeks ...

I'll let you know the next time you shit on the motives of the POTUS or liberal Americans. You shouldn't have to wait long.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

I react to what I read. What you wrote was seriously petty. Write better than she does and I'll agree with you.

Bullshit. That bitch has lied about her credentials. Call her out on it. She is not an economist. It is not possible. No economist ignores data and history. No economist doesn't know where the charts and graphs they use come from. None.

 

[EconChick]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

Kaz DOES have a lot of econ credentials. I wish he'd go get a PhD and tell the big spending fuckers in DC how to actually run a stats shop.

But you??? You don't know the difference between an algorithm and a rhythm guitar. On of the dumbest people I've ever run across.

 

[kaz]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

BTW, what motive of a fellow American did I say crazy things about? I said how employment numbers are manipulated, I didn't say Obama specifically did it, i answered the question asked. Also, the stench of the double standard of what you say about W and what you are now chastising me for even if I did say that, wow, reeks ...

I'll let you know the next time you shit on the motives of the POTUS or liberal Americans. You shouldn't have to wait long.

You mean like you do to W? So your philosophy is do as you say, not as you do?

 

[EconChick]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

I react to what I read. What you wrote was seriously petty. Write better than she does and I'll agree with you.

Bullshit. That bitch has lied about her credentials. Call her out on it. She is not an economist. It is not possible. No economist ignores data and history. No economist doesn't know where the charts and graphs they use come from. None.

You're a desperate fucking idiot DEM that's melting down. Just like Obama is. That's because neither of you know shit about economics.

And if you had any balls, you'd put up 2 grand to see how heavy my econ credentials are. But you're a fucking cowardly lib that can only make shit up. And you're not even creative about it. LOL.

So go back to playing with yourself, bottom dweller.

 

[kaz]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

I react to what I read. What you wrote was seriously petty. Write better than she does and I'll agree with you.

Bullshit. That bitch has lied about her credentials. Call her out on it. She is not an economist. It is not possible. No economist ignores data and history. No economist doesn't know where the charts and graphs they use come from. None.

And it's my job to enforce your indignation? I like EconChick, but I only agree with what I agree with. Do you have any content on this or are you just trying to ostracize her and expecting me to help?