Our Thirty Year Experiment

[saveliberty]

Median really is not a relevant figure here. If a millionaire increases his income by 100,000, that gets averaged among all workers. It appears that everyone is being upwardly mobile, which in fact, is not the case.

The median is the middle, not the average. The average is the average.

In your example, if everyone has zero gain and the millionaire has a $100k gain, then the average will rise. However, the gain of the middle person will still be zero. Using the median is meant to remove distortions caused by the average.

Definitions of median (n)
me·di·an [ mdee ən ]
middle point: a point, line, part, or plane that is in the middle
middle in set of ordered values: the middle value in a set of statistical values that are arranged in ascending or descending order
midpoint in frequency distribution: the value in a frequency distribution above and below which values with equal total frequencies appear
Synonyms: middle, average

Mean: The average of a numerical set. It is found by dividing the sum of a set of numbers by the number of members in the set.
Median: The value of a numerical set that equally divides the number of values that are larger and smaller.
Mode: The value of a numerical set that appears with the greatest frequency.

WikiAnswers - Define median mode and mean

I have not looked all the way through the statistics in the thread, but the only median figures I saw so far were related to percentage breakdowns of how the median family spent their income and one showing that household incomes had stagnated from 1976 to 2006. Hardly compelling evidence for your point of view.

 

[Mini 14]

Well, it's been thirty years now. Thirty years since "Reaganomics" was begun and what has been the result? For many at this site I suspect that this time frame may exceed their memories (they may not be old enough). Some of us though do remember a time before soaring budget deficits, wild military spending and destructive un-restrained greed.

There was a time when one worker could support a family. Typically mom could stay home to raise the children and nurture productive citizens. Now it takes two or even three incomes just to keep a family in a home.

Middle class families could expect to send their children to college, save for retirement, go to the doctor and even have two weeks of paid vacation. Not any more. Now more and more people are slipping into a "new" class of American citizens, that being the "working class", those who work low paying jobs which provide no benifits and leave people living pay check to pay check. AKA the working poor.

Before "supply siders" began setting national policy America was the greatest producer of finished goods in the world. Now we are the greatest importer of finished goods, sending our money to other countries for the necessities of daily life. We were the greatest crediter nation, now we are the greatest debter nation.

Huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations along with massive government spending on the military was suppossed to spur our economy. It did to an extent because the government outlays amounted to a economic "stimulus package".

Unfortunately, the huge tax cuts coupled with foolish reductions on import tariffs were simply an incentive for the capitalists to liquidate assets here in America, pocket the proceeds and then use some of it to re-open the factories they closed in other countries where labor and environmental standards were weak or non-exisitent. It's been great for capitalists, bad for the vast majority of Americans. High taxes on capitalists provide and incentive for profits to be re-invested in the companies thus enlarging and strengthening them, leading to higher employment and wages.

"Trickle-down" theory coupled with the right wing assault on organized labor has served to drive down the cost of labor. Now you may think that you are immune to this lowering of the wage base because you have a college education, but there are people in China and India with the equivalent education who will work for a third what you will. I'm a General Building Contractor and one of the structural engineers I work with was shocked to find out that he had lost a job to a firm in India which engineered an entire house for only $1500.00, far less than the $7600.00 he had bid.

Of course some jobs can't be out sourced, like construction or meat packing. So, for those jobs the capitalists imported labor, all those illegal immigrants the right wing pretends to be so upset about. But of course, we don't have an illegal immigration problem, we have an illegal employment problem. Start rounding up illegal employers, fining or even sending them to jail and over night the illegal immigration problem would go away. As a side benifit we could stop demonizing Americans who "look" foreign.

So, now after this thirty years experiment the results are definitive. Huge federal debt, ever inceasing budget deficits, falling wages, falling rates of home ownership, almost non existent personal savings rates. And some how half of America has been fooled into believeing it is the result of "socialism".

It is important to note that free enterprise and capitlalism are not necessarily the same thing. Remember that a capitalist is one who makes all their money from intrest and dividends, everyone else is labor, regardless of what color your collar is.

It is imperative that we raise the wage base. Falling wages lead to a diminished tax base, the results of which can be seen in our crumbling infrastructure which decreases the chance of economic oportunity.

For almost fifty years after WWII America had rising wages and prosperity for all, then came the "Reagan Revolution" and we can see the results of this Thirty Year Experiment.

Well, I'm 48 and graduated college at 20, so I entered the workforce fully almost exactly 30 years ago. Its been a good ride, and I'm stepping back from work now, investing what I've earned in new businesses and starting to travel more. The last 3-4 years have been bad, but I invested in some businesses that I thought would do well in a bad economy and they have done VERY well.

I'd say the last 30 years have been good to me. And most of the rest of America that was willing to work hard and save.

Those who spent on credit or beyond their means, well, it doesn't matter who was President or who was in Congress. You can't legislate responsibility and common sense.

 

[Toro]

the rise in wages subtracting inflation.


That equals the buying power of your wages.

What I posted was the real increase in income. In economics, "real" means after inflation. Real wages have been rising over the past 30-40 years.

Is that the true inflation figures or the one that excludes energy and food?

How about wages over the last 10-15 years?

It is all inflation, including food and energy.

I believe that if you include the last few years, income has been stagnant the past decade.

 

[Toro]

the rise in wages subtracting inflation.


That equals the buying power of your wages.

What I posted was the real increase in income. In economics, "real" means after inflation. Real wages have been rising over the past 30-40 years.

No, just the median of inflation adjusted wages of a specific set of workers. Which workers are included in that set and which workers are not included?

All workers.

 

[Toro]

Nope, I still don't.

Then that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Synthaholic]

Poor people don't hire very many people.

Laws which punish The Rich inevitably end up hurting those in the service and product businesses patronized by The Rich and the companies in which they lessen their investments.

A good example is the boating industry, which lost thousands of jobs when The Rich were punished with a luxury tax.

If a tax kept them from buying their yacht, then they weren't really rich, you dope.

 

[asterism]

What I posted was the real increase in income. In economics, "real" means after inflation. Real wages have been rising over the past 30-40 years.

No, just the median of inflation adjusted wages of a specific set of workers. Which workers are included in that set and which workers are not included?

All workers.

What source are you using that correctly counts all workers?

 

[asterism]

Nope, I still don't.

Then that's your problem, not mine.

Perhaps.

Although if you aren't getting your point across in a way that others can understand and you don't care, then it appears you are just talking to yourself.

 

[boedicca]

Poor people don't hire very many people.

Laws which punish The Rich inevitably end up hurting those in the service and product businesses patronized by The Rich and the companies in which they lessen their investments.

A good example is the boating industry, which lost thousands of jobs when The Rich were punished with a luxury tax.

If a tax kept them from buying their yacht, then they weren't really rich, you dope.

Moron. Kerry bought is yacht in New Zealand (although not due to this tax). Make things too expensive in the U.S., and the activity is driven off shore. Increasing taxes on people who make $200K or more will hurt GDP growth in the U.S., which will certainly hurt minimum wage types like you.

 

[Toro]

No, just the median of inflation adjusted wages of a specific set of workers. Which workers are included in that set and which workers are not included?

All workers.

What source are you using that correctly counts all workers?

census

 

[asterism]

All workers.

What source are you using that correctly counts all workers?

census

It's debatable that the census accurately counts all workers. However, if your source is the census and this thread is about the last 30 years then you are at best dealing with old data.

 

[Toro]

Nope, I still don't.

Then that's your problem, not mine.

Perhaps.

Although if you aren't getting your point across in a way that others can understand and you don't care, then it appears you are just talking to yourself.

When I tell you directly what I am saying, then offer different sets of statistics to back it up, and you still can't understand, basic education of the topic at hand is outside of my purview.

 

[Toro]

What source are you using that correctly counts all workers?

census

It's debatable that the census accurately counts all workers. However, if your source is the census and this thread is about the last 30 years then you are at best dealing with old data.

Are you serious? Of course it deals with old data. How the hell do you get data from 30 years ago without it being old data?

 

[asterism]

Then that's your problem, not mine.

Perhaps.

Although if you aren't getting your point across in a way that others can understand and you don't care, then it appears you are just talking to yourself.

When I tell you directly what I am saying, then offer different sets of statistics to back it up, and you still can't understand, basic education of the topic at hand is outside of my purview.

I'm aware that people think those who don't understand their logic and points are uneducated, but that doesn't make their analysis correct.

 

[Toro]

Perhaps.

Although if you aren't getting your point across in a way that others can understand and you don't care, then it appears you are just talking to yourself.

When I tell you directly what I am saying, then offer different sets of statistics to back it up, and you still can't understand, basic education of the topic at hand is outside of my purview.

I'm aware that people think those who don't understand their logic and points are uneducated, but that doesn't make their analysis correct.

Its not my analysis. I am just posting the analysis of others.

The other source is from the Minneapolis Fed. The BLS will also confirm what I have been posting.

When one has multiple studies and sources confirming the same conclusions, it is reasonable to assume that the conclusion is correct. It is incumbent upon those questioning the conclusions to provide analysis contradicting the conclusions.

 

[asterism]

When I tell you directly what I am saying, then offer different sets of statistics to back it up, and you still can't understand, basic education of the topic at hand is outside of my purview.

I'm aware that people think those who don't understand their logic and points are uneducated, but that doesn't make their analysis correct.

Its not my analysis. I am just posting the analysis of others.

The other source is from the Minneapolis Fed. The BLS will also confirm what I have been posting.

When one has multiple studies and sources confirming the same conclusions, it is reasonable to assume that the conclusion is correct. It is incumbent upon those questioning the conclusions to provide analysis contradicting the conclusions.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

The oft used "median real income" stat is not from multiple sources, it derives from a statistical methodology put out by the BLS using establishment data from their survey and household data from the census survey.

It is one indicator of a larger overall situation and is faulty as anything but that.

 

[Toro]

I'm aware that people think those who don't understand their logic and points are uneducated, but that doesn't make their analysis correct.

Its not my analysis. I am just posting the analysis of others.

The other source is from the Minneapolis Fed. The BLS will also confirm what I have been posting.

When one has multiple studies and sources confirming the same conclusions, it is reasonable to assume that the conclusion is correct. It is incumbent upon those questioning the conclusions to provide analysis contradicting the conclusions.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

The oft used "median real income" stat is not from multiple sources, it derives from a statistical methodology put out by the BLS using establishment data from their survey and household data from the census survey.

It is one indicator of a larger overall situation and is faulty as anything but that.

It comes from different data sets. The BLS and the census are two different sources.

You look at different metrics to arrive at a conclusion. Median goes up? Check. Average higher? Check. All quintiles rising? Check.

You got anything to contradict this? If you do, I'm more than happy to see it, and I'll change my mind if you are right. But thus far, you have not produced anything, nor have I seen anything that contradicts this.

 

[asterism]

Its not my analysis. I am just posting the analysis of others.

The other source is from the Minneapolis Fed. The BLS will also confirm what I have been posting.

When one has multiple studies and sources confirming the same conclusions, it is reasonable to assume that the conclusion is correct. It is incumbent upon those questioning the conclusions to provide analysis contradicting the conclusions.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

The oft used "median real income" stat is not from multiple sources, it derives from a statistical methodology put out by the BLS using establishment data from their survey and household data from the census survey.

It is one indicator of a larger overall situation and is faulty as anything but that.

It comes from different data sets. The BLS and the census are two different sources.

Not exactly. It's two sets of raw data that are combined to form a single synthesis. That makes it one source.

You look at different metrics to arrive at a conclusion. Median goes up? Check. Average higher? Check. All quintiles rising? Check.

That is a solid basis, I agree.

You got anything to contradict this? If you do, I'm more than happy to see it, and I'll change my mind if you are right. But thus far, you have not produced anything, nor have I seen anything that contradicts this.

I haven't even commented on my opinion of the results you've posted yet, I'm trying to get at your logic and sources used for it.