What has Joe done to me?

[kenandkids]

And, of course, this is per household; and the size of the average household has been steadily shrinking. On a per-PERSON basis income has actually been rising.

Table with row headings in column A and column headings in rows 4 and 5.
Table P-1. CPS Population and Per Capita Money Income, All Races: 1967 to 2009
(Population as of March of the following year. Income in current and 2009 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars (28))
Year Number (thousands) Per capita income
Current dollars 2009 dollars
2009 (36) ---304,280 ---26,530 ---26,530
2008 ---301,483 ---26,964 ---26,862
2007 ---299,106 ---26,804 ---27,728
2006 ---296,824 ---26,352 ---28,034
2005 ---293,834 ---25,036 ---27,507
2004 (35) ---291,166 ---23,857 ---27,091
2003 ---288,280 ---23,276 ---27,145
2002 ---285,933 ---22,794 ---27,177
2001 ---282,082 ---22,851 ---27,685
2000 (30) ---279,517 ---22,346 ---27,833
1999 (29) ---276,804 ---21,239 ---27,341
1998 ---271,743 ---20,120 ---26,441
1997 ---269,094 ---19,241 ---25,638
1996 ---266,792 ---18,136 ---24,688
1995 (25) ---264,314 ---17,227 ---24,075
1994 (24) ---262,105 ---16,555 ---23,693
1993 (23) ---259,753 ---15,777 ---23,062
1992 (22) ---256,830 ---14,847 ---22,239
1991 ---251,434 ---14,617 ---22,449
-
For footnotes, see http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/ftnotes.html
For suggested citations, see http://www.census.gov/main/www/citation.html
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/cpsmar10.pdf[PDF].
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/index.html

I'm not sure what "rising" means on your world, but on mine it means the opposite of falling... which is what wages have been doing here. They are at a thirteen year low, in fact. Despite all of the bullshit spread on the right, those precious tax give-aways to billionaires hasn't raised income levels at all, it has kept them stagnant.

Assuming a minimum wage of $8,50 and a full time job of 40 hours a person will make $16,320 before taxes. That means that the current amount per cap is just over half again minimum wage. Not twice, not three times minimum wage. Notice the steady rise through the 90's and the stagnation that occurred after bushies cuts.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I'm not sure what "rising" means on your world, but on mine it means the opposite of falling... which is what wages have been doing here. They are at a thirteen year low, in fact. Despite all of the bullshit spread on the right, those precious tax give-aways to billionaires hasn't raised income levels at all, it has kept them stagnant.

Assuming a minimum wage of $8,50 and a full time job of 40 hours a person will make $16,320 before taxes. That means that the current amount per cap is just over half again minimum wage. Not twice, not three times minimum wage. Notice the steady rise through the 90's and the stagnation that occurred after bushies cuts.

Do I REALLY have to be the guy that mentions inflation?

REALLY?

:facepalm:

There is an underlying problem that exists within the free market - it's that as time rolls on your money becomes gradually more useless depending on the average income per household. THEN it is a matter of supply and demand.

Oh, Arty, quick question -
Why is it that the far-right conservative people that share your point of view are the ones that will sit on their ass while the rest of the country falls through like a rock through wet paper in order to make a political statement, simply because they know that their paycheck is coming, regardless of the welfare of the rest of the country?
This is twice in less than a year that they've sat on a political issue while threatening to crash the country with stiff-lipped inaction, on a few particular cases acts that were not even about economic stability but simply politics?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Other things happened in that time frame you know, like the minimum wage being raised three times (it's currently $7.25/hr, or ~$14k/yr). I'm curious what causal link you draw between tax cuts for the highest brackets and stagnant wages on average.

Ok, you got me - per capita wages have been flat. This is still far from the scenario you depicted of massive numbers of people entering minimum wage jobs. The per capita income is still almost twice federal minimum wage. Of course, the fun thing about per capita is that it also includes statistically significant numbers of unemployable people (children under 11, the terminally infirm, the seriously disabled, etc.) Even with all the 0s the numbers are still good.

There is an underlying problem that exists within the free market - it's that as time rolls on your money becomes gradually more useless depending on the average income per household. THEN it is a matter of supply and demand.

This is why we're talking in inflation-adjusted figures. Economics over time is ALWAYS discussed in inflation-adjusted figures. This is like asking a guy who designs airplanes if he accounted for variable air density. Yes, he does, he ALWAYS does.

Why is it that the far-right conservative people that share your point of view are the ones that will sit on their ass while the rest of the country falls through like a rock through wet paper in order to make a political statement, simply because they know that their paycheck is coming, regardless of the welfare of the rest of the country?

Why is it that people on the left expect serious answers to ridiculous, biased, leading questions? :roll: When did you stop beating your wife? Come up with an actual question and try again.

 

[Andiferous]

As one of this forum's original Communists, I might just take issue to this pointless arguing that lacks a point, obviously

 

[kenandkids]

Do I REALLY have to be the guy that mentions inflation?

REALLY?

There are two categories there, one for the actual income of the year and the second is adjusted to 2009 dollars.

 

[kenandkids]

Other things happened in that time frame you know, like the minimum wage being raised three times (it's currently $7.25/hr, or ~$14k/yr). I'm curious what causal link you draw between tax cuts for the highest brackets and stagnant wages on average.

Ok, you got me - per capita wages have been flat. This is still far from the scenario you depicted of massive numbers of people entering minimum wage jobs. The per capita income is still almost twice federal minimum wage. Of course, the fun thing about per capita is that it also includes statistically significant numbers of unemployable people (children under 11, the terminally infirm, the seriously disabled, etc.) Even with all the 0s the numbers are still good.

It also includes all of the millionaires who artificially inflate the numbers simply by being included. An average of actual, normal Americans who don't receive huge tax breaks and subsidies while hoarding the money or shipping it overseas would be far different.

In 2000 there was a high reached of 27,833, then shrub reduced taxes. Wages went down from that point. Only one year showed an increase, a whopping $201. In and of itself it might not be causal, yet your side insists that there is a causal relationship. More free money to millionaires and billionaires = more jobs and wages is the conservative rally scream. As we can see, this simply isn't true. Next time you hear some twit say that we need to lower taxes on the "job creators" (because newscorp doesn't allow their people to say wealthy any more) I hope you'll be intellectually honest and show them that the wealthy are NOT actually increasing wages or jobs.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

This is why we're talking in inflation-adjusted figures. Economics over time is ALWAYS discussed in inflation-adjusted figures. This is like asking a guy who designs airplanes if he accounted for variable air density. Yes, he does, he ALWAYS does.

Assumptions make asses out of you and me.
Unless you're the only one making them - then it's just you. And lulz for me.

Provide evidence.

Also, this:

It also includes all of the millionaires who artificially inflate the numbers simply by being included. An average of actual, normal Americans who don't receive huge tax breaks and subsidies while hoarding the money or shipping it overseas would be far different.

Why is it that people on the left expect serious answers to ridiculous, biased, leading questions? :roll: When did you stop beating your wife? Come up with an actual question and try again.

And no - this is not leading.

Fuck, who's the dogs sitting on the newspaper here? Last time, when I went half a paycheck for a week because shit shut down?
:lol:

They are playing politics with my paycheck. I don't know about you, but I work for a living. I have to eat and all that nonsense. And guess who got their full paycheck on time without delay?
The people sitting on the bill shoving politics into my paycheck.
Why are you using abortion as an excuse to hold my money from me? Money I worked for? Because they get payed at the end of the day regardless of the rest of the country's economic standing.

No one is suggesting that people cut their own paychecks. But if you're bitching about tax cuts, then cut your paycheck before anyone else in the country's.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

It also includes all of the millionaires who artificially inflate the numbers simply by being included. An average of actual, normal Americans who don't receive huge tax breaks and subsidies while hoarding the money or shipping it overseas would be far different.

Provide evidence for this claim.

In 2000 there was a high reached of 27,833, then shrub reduced taxes. Wages went down from that point.

Post hoc.

Only one year showed an increase, a whopping $201. In and of itself it might not be causal, yet your side insists that there is a causal relationship. More free money to millionaires and billionaires = more jobs and wages is the conservative rally scream. As we can see, this simply isn't true. Next time you hear some twit say that we need to lower taxes on the "job creators" (because newscorp doesn't allow their people to say wealthy any more) I hope you'll be intellectually honest and show them that the wealthy are NOT actually increasing wages or jobs.

Guilt by association - I don't argue for tax cuts, just for spending cuts. Kindly discuss things that I've actually said, not your imagination.

Provide evidence.

Ahem:

If you would have read the FIRST PAGE, you would see that all figures are in 2009 dollars.

I submit the first page of every economics report spanning more then one year. :roll: There's questioning assumptions, and then there's ignoring the obvious in order to be deliberately obtuse.

They are playing politics with my paycheck. I don't know about you, but I work for a living. I have to eat and all that nonsense. And guess who got their full paycheck on time without delay?
The people sitting on the bill shoving politics into my paycheck.
Why are you using abortion as an excuse to hold my money from me? Money I worked for? Because they get payed at the end of the day regardless of the rest of the country's economic standing.

I work for a living too you know. Consider the situation - the country is in debt so far and spends so much more then what we have that unless we borrow a massive amount to pay off the deficit, incurring even more debt, horrible things will happen. A little hard negotiation to correct this situation is entirely called for. I don't entirely agree with either side currently engaged, but hard action must be taken.

No one is suggesting that people cut their own paychecks. But if you're bitching about tax cuts, then cut your paycheck before anyone else in the country's.

Show where I've "bitched about tax cuts". Some of my sources have, but that's tangential to what I was quoting them for.

 

[kenandkids]

It also includes all of the millionaires who artificially inflate the numbers simply by being included. An average of actual, normal Americans who don't receive huge tax breaks and subsidies while hoarding the money or shipping it overseas would be far different.

Provide evidence for this claim.

Seriously?

One person making $1 million lifts up 37 people to the average of $27k. That means 37 of your "0's" count as making a wage of $27000. A person with a $10 million salary lifts 370 of the people you call "0's" into making the average of $27k.

If everyone making +$10 million were not included, the actual numbers would be more accurate in representing the real America.


edit: 36 people get raised, not 37. I neglected to include the millionaire. The multi-millionaire raises 369, same reason.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

It also includes all of the millionaires who artificially inflate the numbers simply by being included. An average of actual, normal Americans who don't receive huge tax breaks and subsidies while hoarding the money or shipping it overseas would be far different.

Provide evidence for this claim.

That is the most intellectually dishonest post you've made this entire discussion. :I

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Provide evidence for this claim.

That is the most intellectually dishonest post you've made this entire discussion. :I

Quiet, you, I've been providing evidence and acknowledged I was wrong when there was evidence against me.

One person making $1 million lifts up 37 people to the average of $27k. That means 37 of your "0's" count as making a wage of $27000. A person with a $10 million salary lifts 370 of the people you call "0's" into making the average of $27k.

If everyone making +$10 million were not included, the actual numbers would be more accurate in representing the real America.


edit: 36 people get raised, not 37. I neglected to include the millionaire. The multi-millionaire raises 369, same reason.

Well, keep in mind, when people say "millionaire" they are usually referring to net worth, and we're talking about income. There really aren't that many. About 0.15% of households have that level of income, and a lot of those can be assumed to be dual-earner households. (Ballpark estimate from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States ). Now let's just say that with the multi-million income earners it works out to be equal to 0.1% of individuals making an income of one million. That would balance out 3.6% of the zero-earning population. However, the number of people under the age of 14 is about 20% of the population. ( http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2009-sa.html ) Not even close.

 

[kenandkids]

There really aren't that many. About 0.15% of households have that level of income, and a lot of those can be assumed to be dual-earner households.

Don't assume, it just makes you look like an ass.

Now let's just say that with the multi-million income earners it works out to be equal to 0.1% of individuals making an income of one million. That would balance out 3.6% of the zero-earning population. However, the number of people under the age of 14 is about 20% of the population. ( http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2009-sa.html ) Not even close.

I'm not sure you actually grasp the math here. Hundreds of CEOS make many tens of millions per year and many dozens of CEO's make hundreds of millions per year. This isn't worth, it is salary. Considering that the top 1% makes more than the bottom 65%, there is a direct rise of the bottom when the top is added to an equation.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

There really aren't that many. About 0.15% of households have that level of income, and a lot of those can be assumed to be dual-earner households.

Don't assume, it just makes you look like an ass.

~75% of the top 5% of households had two or more earners.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/hhinc/new05_000.htm

Now let's just say that with the multi-million income earners it works out to be equal to 0.1% of individuals making an income of one million. That would balance out 3.6% of the zero-earning population. However, the number of people under the age of 14 is about 20% of the population. ( http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2009-sa.html ) Not even close.

I'm not sure you actually grasp the math here. Hundreds of CEOS make many tens of millions per year and many dozens of CEO's make hundreds of millions per year. This isn't worth, it is salary. Considering that the top 1% makes more than the bottom 65%, there is a direct rise of the bottom when the top is added to an equation.

... You realize the US population is OVER 300 MILLION, yes? Hundreds (let's say 500) CEOs making tens of millions (50 million, let's say) would raise the average American salary by ... about $80. Even at the upper bound of your estimate it would be an increase of about $300, or about 1%. :roll: Add an upper bound of "dozens" making "hundreds of millions" and the increase is about 2.3% per person. I'm fairly sure that's less then the margin of error.