Let's have that political discussion.

[Claeyt]

So you're admitting you don't actually know what it means to be "working poor."

'The Working Poor' are generally considered families who work full time but still fall under the government's poverty line and require some housing or food assistance because they're wages are so low. What do you think they are?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-canadians-dont-understand-ted-cruzs-health-care-battle/2013/09/25/ee2d6e6e-25d9-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html

I read it the first time you linked it, and found it unpersuasive. Why do you think an opinion piece by a left-wing writer in a left-wing rag with no supporting data is going to be effective?

Like I said earlier, only Right-wing lunatics believe the Washington Post isn't generally a responsible non-partisan news source. The rest of the world views the paper as centrist, only the American Right believes otherwise. It shows how out of touch with the center of American Political Thought you really are.

Please, pontificate how all the data referenced in this report doesn't really count, because you don't like the Fraser Institute.

You're making this too easy. The study was "Created" and has been manipulated by the Fraser Institute, an extreme Canadian right-wing libertarian think tank with the stated goal of ending universal health in Canada and fighting Environmentalism and any environmental regulation. The Fraser Institute was created and funded by the MacBlo corporation Corporation to fight the growing environmentalism in British Columbia in the 70's. It grew as a resource for extraction and commodities corporations and a voice for their political interests.

Currently their largest yearly funding donor is...... wait for it........ you guessed it....THE KOCH BROTHERS !!!

You really need to find other sources of information besides the Koch Brothers Paul.

You're being lied to by them and you don't even know it. When you regurgitate their misinformation campaign onto the web you're only doing their bidding and proving how ignorant the American right-wing can be.

At every turn in this thread, you've had to result into either attacking the source, misrepresenting data, or concocting fabrications entirely. When cornered, you change the subject until you take too much of a beating there as well. You've still yet to advance a persuasive argument for any of your positions.

I won this argument awhile ago because something like 7 out of your 10 sources of information you gave were funded by the Koch Brothers.

These libertarian pseudoscience extremist think tanks aren't actually information. They manipulate the numbers in their "Studies" to show their argument in a more positive light. They aren't legitimate news sources and they are a tool of the American right-wing propaganda machine. Your use of their science here proves your argument to be false simply because the counter-argument they present is bought and spewed, while mine are coming from non-partisan organizations such as the CBO, and legitimate news sources such as 'The New York Times', 'The Washington Post' and 'The Guardian' with journalistic standards.

Groups like the Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, Freedom Works and the Fraser Institute are being paid to create misinformation towards their Funder's economic and political goals and by posting these false studies onto the web and disseminating them to right wing sources and readers like you, they spread them even further and get more and more Google hits until eventually your search function is full of them because you've searched other similar sites before. Free your mind from their lies Paul.

One more, just for kicks:
http://www.freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/Canadians-visit-U-S-get-health-care

This article shows how flexible the Canadian health care system is when it comes to urgent care. The government actually drove this guy across the bridge to Detroit to get him faster care. It's a myth that waiting times are extraordinarily longer in Canada. The Detroit Free Press writer has written tons of articles about Americans crossing that same river for simple care and drug needs much less urgent than angioplasty like that Candadian guy needed.

The article was actually cited in this article from 'Foreign Policy'as being misused by the right to create the myth of huge wait times in Canada.

[wormcsa]

I said the exact opposite about single person households actually.

Yes there are more single parents and unmarried couples but I doubt their significance to the real household income as they would have just been included as single person households before. They may have a slight influence on household income if not factored in but they don't have much influence on any of the average income amounts.

I admitted that they probably had a slight influence, and you showed that they increased 5% as a total of households since 1980 which I will stand by as a slight increase. What you and Wormsca are forgetting is the increase in two worker households since 1980. This should have increased the household income share but didn't.

I claimed that average household size has shrunk, which is most pronounced in the bottom 40% US households. You retorted that divorce rate has dropped, which would make a logical person think you disagreed with the former statement. Obviously there are other factors involved besides divorce. Fewer people get married now. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/1 ... 47290.html Households are now less likely to have an employed adult child still living at home. Yes, you have a valid point that this is somewhat offset by increased female participation in the workforce, and by counting cohabitation as a single household. My point is that we can eliminate all these confounding factors by using "median income." So why don't you? Because then the data would be less supportive of your arguments.

Real median income is now down to pre-Reagan numbers

Has changed to

it does show that we've fallen to 1989 levels in un-adjusted income.

Notice 1989 is not pre-Reagan. And finally,

[Middle class wages] also down as a share of wealth from when Reagan took office.

As a "share of wealth," then yes correct. I suggest you use "share of wealth," for your arguments. There is still much to which to object, but at least you would be making factually correct statements.

When you adjust for the massive income growth for the richest tax percentiles and take them out you can see the fall of middle class wages to pre-Reagan amounts.

Why would you take out the "richest tax percentiles," when calculating the median? Do you know what "median" means or do you think it is a synonym for "mean?" If you eliminated the top 1% from the data in 1980 (or whatever year you choose) and the present, what effect do you think that would have on their comparable medians?

[Claeyt]

I said the exact opposite about single person households actually.

Yes there are more single parents and unmarried couples but I doubt their significance to the real household income as they would have just been included as single person households before. They may have a slight influence on household income if not factored in but they don't have much influence on any of the average income amounts.

I admitted that they probably had a slight influence, and you showed that they increased 5% as a total of households since 1980 which I will stand by as a slight increase. What you and Wormsca are forgetting is the increase in two worker households since 1980. This should have increased the household income share but didn't.

I claimed that average household size has shrunk, which is most pronounced in the bottom 40% US households. You retorted that divorce rate has dropped, which would make a logical person think you disagreed with the former statement. Obviously there are other factors involved besides divorce. Fewer people get married now. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/1 ... 47290.html Households are now less likely to have an employed adult child still living at home. Yes, you have a valid point that this is somewhat offset by increased female participation in the workforce, and by counting cohabitation as a single household. My point is that we can eliminate all these confounding factors by using "median income." So why don't you? Because then the data would be less supportive of your arguments.

Average household income, median income levels or average wages. Whatever you use they're down since the Bush Tax cuts and at or below their levels in the 80's.

Real median income is now down to pre-Reagan numbers

Has changed to

it does show that we've fallen to 1989 levels in un-adjusted income.

Notice 1989 is not pre-Reagan.

When you remove the top 1% of income earners you see that everyone else is down to pre-Reagan numbers. True this wouldn't be the median income. I should have said average income or average wages.

Why would you take out the "richest tax percentiles," when calculating the median? Do you know what "median" means or do you think it is a synonym for "mean?" If you eliminated the top 1% from the data in 1980 (or whatever year you choose) and the present, what effect do you think that would have on their comparable medians?

You'd take out the richest 1% to show the massive distortion the rise in their incomes has on the median income.

Again, I'll use average income this time instead of median income. When you factor the average income without the top 1% of income earners, the adjusted average income has fallen to pre-Reagan levels.

[wormcsa]

Average household income, median income levels or average wages. Whatever you use they're down since the Bush Tax cuts and at or below their levels in the 80's.

When you remove the top 1% of income earners you see that everyone else is down to pre-Reagan numbers. True this wouldn't be the median income. I should have said average income or average wages.

You'd take out the richest 1% to show the massive distortion the rise in their incomes has on the median income.

Again, I'll use average income this time instead of median income. When you factor the average income without the top 1% of income earners, the adjusted average income has fallen to pre-Reagan levels.

Sorry, no this not correct. If you use averages, as opposed to median, your argument breaks down completely. Your whole argument rests on rising inequality, which means the average has been going up much faster than the median. It is not only the top 1% who have seen their incomes raise faster than the rest of the country, as you can see in your beloved CBO study. These fundamental misunderstandings about means and medians is a clear indicator that you are far out of your depth.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... capita.PNG
Note: I am aware that average income and gdp per capita are not the same thing, but they are closely enough correlated and the pattern so obvious that I don't feel the need to post anything more specific.

[Claeyt]

Sorry, no this not correct. If you use averages, as opposed to median, your argument breaks down completely. Your whole argument rests on rising inequality, which means the average has been going up much faster than the median. It is not only the top 1% who have seen their incomes raise faster than the rest of the country, as you can see in your beloved CBO study. These fundamental misunderstandings about means and medians is a clear indicator that you are far out of your depth.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... capita.PNG
Note: I am aware that average income and gdp per capita are not the same thing, but they are closely enough correlated and the pattern so obvious that I don't feel the need to post anything more specific.

GDP per capita has nothing to do with what we're talking about and is not correlated with income.

Chief and I just argued about the graph on this wiki page some pages back. It shows median income in 2011 dollars based on race but you can clearly see it shows all races lost median income since the nineties. It's not adjusted for the middle class or anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

[wormcsa]

Now you've tried to switch topics back to median income? The previous post you said explicitly said you were talking about "average" income, and NOT "median." Average is highly correlated to GDP per capita, whereas median is not necessarily. When the top 40% gets wealthier, but the bottom 60% stagnates (which is what has happened,) the median stagnates, but the average goes up. This is called math.

Here is an example of average and median wages:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... _blog.html

You brought up averages without understanding what they are, not me:

Again, I'll use average income this time instead of median income. When you factor the average income without the top 1% of income earners, the adjusted average income has fallen to pre-Reagan levels.

http://www.the-crises.com/income-inequa ... -the-us-3/
Average income (removing top 1%) never drops below pre-Reagan. So yes, your statement was factually incorrect, yet again.

it shows median income in 2011 dollars based on race but you can clearly see it shows all races lost median income since the nineties.

So are we talking about the nineties or pre-Reagan? Please stop changing your arguments every time you are shown to be wrong, and pretending that is what you meant all along.

[Claeyt]

Everybody please read these articles by wormcsa, especially you Paul. They support my point about Reaganomics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-median-us-wage-in-2010-was-just-26363-government-reports/2011/10/20/gIQAdabX0L_blog.html
http://www.the-crises.com/income-inequa ... -the-us-3/
So are we talking about the nineties or pre-Reagan? Please stop changing your arguments every time you are shown to be wrong, and pretending that is what you meant all along.

You've jumped in to this argument not even knowing what we're arguing about. The argument Paul and I were having was that Reaganomics had a negative affect on the middle class. You've proven my point for me.

As for median and average wages, none of those graphs are adjusted for the growth in payroll taxes or other income taxes. Some of them aren't even adjusted for inflation. If we're not even going to use Real Wages then what's the point.

Real hourly.jpg (78.08 KiB) Viewed 4628 times

productivity.jpg (80.46 KiB) Viewed 4628 times

[MagicManICT]

It's different because in one version you're middle class, and in the other you're barely scraping by and having to hunt and fish to put food on the table. You're changing your story to have it fit the current narrative you're pushing. You know, like a liar.

We grew most of our own food and butchered animals for meat. We definitely ate fish we caught. I don't think Magic meant he was so poor that the only food they had was what they caught. I think he just meant that it was part of what they ate

To clarify, it wasn't the only meat we had, but more often than not, it was deer. Quite frequently it was beans for protein, too, but that's fine because I can still live on beans only. Before my parents were divorced, we had a good sized vegetable garden, too. It wasn't necessary at that point in our family's life, but it was my dad's project for the weekends. After eating a tomato out of the garden, you never want to touch something from a store ever again. After, we were so busy and nobody would be home to tend it, so no point in wasting money to plant it. When we kids were older, we grew a few veggies, but not like when I was little.

Speaking of gardens, I read a study not very long ago showing that a family of 4 can supply nearly all the vegetables they need for a year on a single acre of land. I had seen a gentleman from south-central LA that had started "urban gardening" by growing various vegetables in the right-of-ways between the sidewalk and street (it was a video interview on Carson Daily, and the guy being interviewed spoke of his TED talk, which led me to further information on it all). You know, this would resolve a lot of health issues in and of itself by just making sure that we eat better every day!

[Ikpeip]

Everybody please read these articles by wormcsa, especially you Paul. They support my point about Reaganomics.

Missed the mark again, Claeyt. The first link discusses median wages vs. mean wages over a period of time which does not intersect, at all, with Reagan's presidency.

The second link discusses income disparity, which has already been shown to be a faulty metric for the health of an economy: http://forum.salemthegame.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7651&start=120#p98718

You've jumped in to this argument not even knowing what we're arguing about.

No, he knows exactly what this debate is about. He was trying to illustrate to you why you're making a fool of yourself by confusing metrics, misrepresenting data, and failing to address the topic at hand. However, your poor reading comprehension has thwarted his efforts.

The argument Paul and I were having was that Reaganomics had a negative affect on the middle class. You've proven my point for me.

No, the argument we are having is that Reaganomics had a positive effect on the United States economy. Searching this thread for my posts containing the phrase "middle class" will confirm this.

My point has been made earlier in the thread without a proper counter-argument from you. I will repeat it here. During the Reagan years:
-The economy grew an average of 3.2% annually, higher than the years both before and after Reagan's presidency. By the end of Reagan's second term, the U.S. economy had increased by approximately 33%

-The unemployment rate fell from 7.6% to 5.5%


-Inflation and interest rates plummeted. Inflation dropped from 13.5% to 4.1%, while the prime interest rate dropped from 21% to 10%


-Real median family income rose from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989


-For the poorest quintile, real family income increased 6%, while before and after Reagan's presidency it decreased


-Real per-capita income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989

-The stock market tripled in value from 1980 to 1990

As for median and average wages, none of those graphs are adjusted for the growth in payroll taxes or other income taxes. Some of them aren't even adjusted for inflation. If we're not even going to use Real Wages then what's the point.

First, the source link for that graph on the wikipedia page you linked is broken.

Second, your graph fails to account for increased employment during Reagan's presidency (20 million jobs added), and the increase in hours worked on average, per person. Taking this into account leads to a growth in real median family income, as shown above.

Third, your graph fails to account for non-wage compensation. Total compensation during Reagan's presidency increased by 7.22%

Fourth, and finally... even if you were to ignore the two previous points, your chart damns your claims rather than supporting it. Reagan came into office and ended a freefall of the real average hourly earnings, as you can see by looking at the slope of the graph you linked. As I mentioned above, the sourcing for the graph you linked resulted in a 404 when one tried to get at the actual data, but I was able to turn it up here, on page 374: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERP-2012/pdf/ERP-2012.pdf.

I'll begin by recreating the graph you linked, to show we're using essentially the same dataset:


Next, we'll plot instead the change in real wages, beginning with the four years before Reagan's presidency, and continuing throughout his two terms:

As everyone except you can clearly see from this chart, Reagan's policies reversed an accelerating trend of sharp drops in real wages.

Faithfully,

-Paul the Paymaster

[Ikpeip]

To clarify, it wasn't the only meat we had, but more often than not, it was deer. Quite frequently it was beans for protein, too, but that's fine because I can still live on beans only. Before my parents were divorced, we had a good sized vegetable garden, too. It wasn't necessary at that point in our family's life, but it was my dad's project for the weekends. After eating a tomato out of the garden, you never want to touch something from a store ever again. After, we were so busy and nobody would be home to tend it, so no point in wasting money to plant it. When we kids were older, we grew a few veggies, but not like when I was little.

One of the plants I'm assigned to is in a rural area - almost all of the workers (both floor and office) are avid deer hunters, and most are also farmers raising crops, chickens, pigs, and cattle. From time to time they'll bring in salsa made from tomatoes/peppers they've grown, or meats to grill.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say I'd "never want to touch something from a store ever again," I do have to admit that it does all taste better fresh.

Faithfully,

-Paul the Paymaster