Income Stagnation...There Isn't Any!

[RandomVariable]

It is a false question.

I see you motto is ‘I never finish anythi”

What is 'a false question'?
I'm beginning to see the problem: work on being articulate.

I tried to find a passage which best served my purpose. From http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1333/1/ZENO.html:

Lynds notes that we can almost solve Zeno's paradox using calculus. That however raises the problem that calculus, like Catholicism, assumes the impossible, namely that we can actually complete an infinite series of additions thus reaching (instead of merely approaching) a limit. It's not really a satisfying answer philosophically. More importantly, Lynds seems to miss the point: paradoxed exist not to be solved but rather to teach problem solving! It is axiomatic that a paradox presents a "red herring" - that it present a problem other than the real problem that it presents - in order to force the student to discover a solution by questioning their ordinarily unquestioned assumptions. Lynds definitely succeeds in doing what the paradox is intended to compel, "thinking outside of the box". But Lynds does not compel a solution to the paradox first due to flawed method, and second because the paradox is unsolvable as it is comparing incommensurates, namely distance/time with distance/distance. The paradox however is not incommensurate in the sense of the trisection of an angle. Rather it is incommensurate because it is comparing two different entities (at least for classical physics...). Thus Zeno posed what, in his time, was a false question. In our time however since we see that space/time are one convertible thing the question may not in fact be paradoxical and may be able to be solved: though Lynds has not compelled the solution he proposes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Yes, the immigrant how comes to this country and works hard, works ....."

I lived that experience.

What kind of education did you have before you moved here?

Have you heard of the expectancy theory?

Why do you ask?

Let's see a little structure in your posts!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is a false question.

I see you motto is ‘I never finish anythi”

What is 'a false question'?
I'm beginning to see the problem: work on being articulate.

I tried to find a passage which best served my purpose. From http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1333/1/ZENO.html:

Lynds notes that we can almost solve Zeno's paradox using calculus. That however raises the problem that calculus, like Catholicism, assumes the impossible, namely that we can actually complete an infinite series of additions thus reaching (instead of merely approaching) a limit. It's not really a satisfying answer philosophically. More importantly, Lynds seems to miss the point: paradoxed exist not to be solved but rather to teach problem solving! It is axiomatic that a paradox presents a "red herring" - that it present a problem other than the real problem that it presents - in order to force the student to discover a solution by questioning their ordinarily unquestioned assumptions. Lynds definitely succeeds in doing what the paradox is intended to compel, "thinking outside of the box". But Lynds does not compel a solution to the paradox first due to flawed method, and second because the paradox is unsolvable as it is comparing incommensurates, namely distance/time with distance/distance. The paradox however is not incommensurate in the sense of the trisection of an angle. Rather it is incommensurate because it is comparing two different entities (at least for classical physics...). Thus Zeno posed what, in his time, was a false question. In our time however since we see that space/time are one convertible thing the question may not in fact be paradoxical and may be able to be solved: though Lynds has not compelled the solution he proposes.

See....your A.D.D. is showing.......

What is 'the false question'?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Income Stagnation...There Isn't Any!

Once again, PC's slip is showing: no need to return.

 

[RandomVariable]

Income Stagnation...There Isn't Any!

Once again, PC's slip is showing: no need to return.

It is Monday morning, once again I have made the best cup of coffee on the planet, and I have PC's precarious mind to mess with. Life is good.

 

[RandomVariable]

1. "Yes, the immigrant how comes to this country and works hard, works ....."

I lived that experience.

What kind of education did you have before you moved here?

Have you heard of the expectancy theory?

Why do you ask?

Let's see a little structure in your posts!!

You're answering a question with a question. Why would you do such a thing?

 

[RandomVariable]

I see you motto is ‘I never finish anythi”

What is 'a false question'?
I'm beginning to see the problem: work on being articulate.

I tried to find a passage which best served my purpose. From http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1333/1/ZENO.html:

Lynds notes that we can almost solve Zeno's paradox using calculus. That however raises the problem that calculus, like Catholicism, assumes the impossible, namely that we can actually complete an infinite series of additions thus reaching (instead of merely approaching) a limit. It's not really a satisfying answer philosophically. More importantly, Lynds seems to miss the point: paradoxed exist not to be solved but rather to teach problem solving! It is axiomatic that a paradox presents a "red herring" - that it present a problem other than the real problem that it presents - in order to force the student to discover a solution by questioning their ordinarily unquestioned assumptions. Lynds definitely succeeds in doing what the paradox is intended to compel, "thinking outside of the box". But Lynds does not compel a solution to the paradox first due to flawed method, and second because the paradox is unsolvable as it is comparing incommensurates, namely distance/time with distance/distance. The paradox however is not incommensurate in the sense of the trisection of an angle. Rather it is incommensurate because it is comparing two different entities (at least for classical physics...). Thus Zeno posed what, in his time, was a false question. In our time however since we see that space/time are one convertible thing the question may not in fact be paradoxical and may be able to be solved: though Lynds has not compelled the solution he proposes.

See....your A.D.D. is showing.......

What is 'the false question'?

Thank you very much, A.D.D. Is not on the list. Besides the question of whose sock I am is still being determined. How can one misquote themselves? You said “'a false question'”. But to answer your question, not the one you asked but supposedly the one you meant, the part that starts with “Q.15”.

 

[mudwhistle]

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
This brilliant quip is attributed to Benjamin Disraeli.


It is illustrative of the fact that bogus and/or misread statistics are used by the Left to persuade the populace that they are being cheated, their income stagnated, through no faults of their own, while the 'rich get richer."

Sadly....the ploy is eminently successful with the 'less than informed.'






1. The current version of the ploy is 'income inequality.'
It is as much a lie as most of the other gambits and fabrications the Left uses to mislead, and to accrue power.
The basic lie is "you should be doing a lot better...you're being cheated by the greedy 1%....we are the only ones that care about you!"

a. First of all...there is no perennial group in America known as the "1%." It is merely a snapshot of the economy at the moment: economic mobility constantly moves folks in and out of said group, and every other economic quintile.

“Of individuals who were in the lowest income quintile in 1975, 5.1 percent were still there in 1991, 14.6 percent had moved up to the second quintile, 21 percent to the middle quintile, 30.3 percent to the fourth quintile and 29 percent to the highest quintile. Of those in the highest quintile in 1975, 62.5 percent were still there in 1991, while 0.9 percent had fallen all the way to the bottom fifth.” http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf


b. And...to disabuse oneself of any idea that the Left cares about anyone....simply look at the party that has led the 10 worst performing cities for half a century, and the truth is staring you in the face.
. DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP!

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected
a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)… since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)…. since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)… since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)… since 1952;

Newark, NJ (10th)… since 1907.
Top 10 Poorest Cities run by Democrats « Scattershooting





2. Now, how about 'economic stagnation'...the idea that there has been little or no growth in the wealth of the average citizen.

a. “In the 25 years from 1980 to 2004, a period during which U.S. gross domestic product per person grew by almost two-thirds, the wages of the typical worker actually fell slightly after accounting for inflation.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/03/11/AR2006031101051.html

b. Here is where that Disraeli quote comes in. The statistics that claim the above fail to include the value of benefits such as health insurance and retirement benefits, etc., which have represented a growing share of compensation over the years.
See Cox and Alm, “The Myths of Rich and Poor,” p.21


c. The w2 is not what you get in compensation.....the benefits represent about 30% in addition to salary.
If 30% Of Pay Is Benefits, What About Independent Contractors? - Forbes


d. And....the hidden increases:
The stock market boom of the ‘90’s caused IRA and 401(k) plans to triple: http://federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/annuals/a1995-2004.pdf

Yet while the largest part of the gain went to the bottom 99% of income earners, none was reported on income tax returns, and therefore none of it showed up in income distribution studies based on income tax return data.

But the greatest part of the capital gains of the rich were outside such accounts and thus were reported on returns. This exaggerated and misidentified changes in income distribution.

Capital gains tax rate cuts in ’97 and in 2003 caused a surge in reportable capital gains realizations outside of tax-protected retirement accounts. The sharp cut in the rate on dividends in 2003 caused a similar surge in dividends paid and reported. These changes caused distortions in comparing trends in incomes for top income earners versus others.


e. Nor do these sophists separated full time workers from part time (part time work has been growing, another indicator of rising prosperity). Of course, including the weekly wages of part timers pulls down the statistical average.



So...am I disputing that incomes have 'stagnated'?

You betcha.'

We've had a pay freeze in the DoD for 5 years.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I tried to find a passage which best served my purpose. From http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1333/1/ZENO.html:

Lynds notes that we can almost solve Zeno's paradox using calculus. That however raises the problem that calculus, like Catholicism, assumes the impossible, namely that we can actually complete an infinite series of additions thus reaching (instead of merely approaching) a limit. It's not really a satisfying answer philosophically. More importantly, Lynds seems to miss the point: paradoxed exist not to be solved but rather to teach problem solving! It is axiomatic that a paradox presents a "red herring" - that it present a problem other than the real problem that it presents - in order to force the student to discover a solution by questioning their ordinarily unquestioned assumptions. Lynds definitely succeeds in doing what the paradox is intended to compel, "thinking outside of the box". But Lynds does not compel a solution to the paradox first due to flawed method, and second because the paradox is unsolvable as it is comparing incommensurates, namely distance/time with distance/distance. The paradox however is not incommensurate in the sense of the trisection of an angle. Rather it is incommensurate because it is comparing two different entities (at least for classical physics...). Thus Zeno posed what, in his time, was a false question. In our time however since we see that space/time are one convertible thing the question may not in fact be paradoxical and may be able to be solved: though Lynds has not compelled the solution he proposes.

See....your A.D.D. is showing.......

What is 'the false question'?

Thank you very much, A.D.D. Is not on the list. Besides the question of whose sock I am is still being determined. How can one misquote themselves? You said “'a false question'”. But to answer your question, not the one you asked but supposedly the one you meant, the part that starts with “Q.15”.

"You said “'a false question'”. "

No...you said 'a false question' in post #17



I asked you to what were you referring.

I am no longer interested.

 

[editec]

Lipstick on pig scholarship.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Income Stagnation...There Isn't Any!

Once again, PC's slip is showing: no need to return.

You supposedly perused a thread constructed with the artistic equivalent of a Rembrandt....and you post a response the verbal equivalent of finger painting.


But....you continue to work to ability.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lipstick on pig scholarship.

I bow to your expertise and experience with pigs.



Just one more hit-and-runaway post by an over-the-hill Liberal.

 

[Bombur]

General comment. The data chosen is clearly meant to try and focus on periods of recovery where growth was good. Namely the post 1980s recession and the 90s where income growth for the middle class was good. The trend of the 90’s was clearly temporary and cheery picking data. I would also point out that there is no doubt that our nation has advanced a lot in 30 years. Our wealth and technology has grown and that constitutes a benefit to everyone.

1. Strawman. There is no one group that is the 1%. The issue of income inequality is as much about how that 1% is different today compared to the 1% of 30 years ago. In order to understand the issue of income inequality it is very important to understand that we are talking about different people. To suggest that this is somehow a counter argument suggests to me that you really don’t know what the issue is about.

2. The contention is that real income has stagnated. The poorer you are the larger the impact medical inflation has on your bottom line. As for retirement benefits, the pension deals of the past are dying and many of the bills of the past are coming due today because of bad management in the past. This will distort these figures greatly. A 401K gain doesn’t show up and it didn’t show up in the past when it was a gain to a pension plan. Don’t be fooled.

3. a. immaterial. B. at best this demonstrates that people have to work more for the same income. C. Of course real GDP has grown. We are talking about how the benefit of that growth is concentrated towards the top.

4. Cherry picking data. The 90s were great. Everyone can be happy if we return to broad based growth like that. The problem is that the broad based growth o the 90s was largely due to a temporary shortage of labor.

5. Consumption has been held afloat by debt. It is always funny to watch people try and impress the uneducated with the power of compound interest. Ironically it is that power which makes these growth rates so important. A small difference over time grows and grows and grows.

Being blind to the problem will only prolong the problem and make the reckoning all the more painful.

 

[PoliticalChic]

General comment. The data chosen is clearly meant to try and focus on periods of recovery where growth was good. Namely the post 1980s recession and the 90s where income growth for the middle class was good. The trend of the 90’s was clearly temporary and cheery picking data. I would also point out that there is no doubt that our nation has advanced a lot in 30 years. Our wealth and technology has grown and that constitutes a benefit to everyone.

1. Strawman. There is no one group that is the 1%. The issue of income inequality is as much about how that 1% is different today compared to the 1% of 30 years ago. In order to understand the issue of income inequality it is very important to understand that we are talking about different people. To suggest that this is somehow a counter argument suggests to me that you really don’t know what the issue is about.

2. The contention is that real income has stagnated. The poorer you are the larger the impact medical inflation has on your bottom line. As for retirement benefits, the pension deals of the past are dying and many of the bills of the past are coming due today because of bad management in the past. This will distort these figures greatly. A 401K gain doesn’t show up and it didn’t show up in the past when it was a gain to a pension plan. Don’t be fooled.

3. a. immaterial. B. at best this demonstrates that people have to work more for the same income. C. Of course real GDP has grown. We are talking about how the benefit of that growth is concentrated towards the top.

4. Cherry picking data. The 90s were great. Everyone can be happy if we return to broad based growth like that. The problem is that the broad based growth o the 90s was largely due to a temporary shortage of labor.

5. Consumption has been held afloat by debt. It is always funny to watch people try and impress the uneducated with the power of compound interest. Ironically it is that power which makes these growth rates so important. A small difference over time grows and grows and grows.

Being blind to the problem will only prolong the problem and make the reckoning all the more painful.

1. " I would also point out that there is no doubt that our nation has advanced a lot in 30 years. Our wealth and technology has grown and that constitutes a benefit to everyone."

You should have stopped right there.



2. " Strawman. There is no one group that is the 1%. The issue of income inequality is as much about how that 1% is different today compared to the 1% of 30 years ago. In order to understand the issue of income inequality it is very important to understand that we are talking about different people. To suggest that this is somehow a counter argument suggests to me that you really don’t know what the issue is about."

"There is no one group that is the 1%."
Exactly what I stated.

"the issue of income inequality"
You are confused.....if there is economic mobility...which there is....then there is no such issue as 'income inequality.'

It is a political construct designed to lead folks....like you.



3. "...real income has stagnated."
Wrong.
We buy more and better products, and live better all the time.
You said it yourself.



4. Rather than go through a long thread that proved that said stagnation is a myth....let's take one of your points and show that you are both clueless, and have bought the Leftist propaganda like it was on sale....

"... the impact medical inflation has on your bottom line."

Obama actually has you believe that said expenditures were increasing prior to his socialized medicine plan.

Really?

Increases in healthcare expenditures:
2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/08/downgrading-american-medical-c/print






"Being blind to the problem will only prolong the problem and make the reckoning all the more painful."

The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.

 

[Bombur]

Income inequality is not simply about economic mobility. Economic mobility is about a % of the poor who can find a way to improve their lives compared to the parents. Income inequality is about the difference in income between the top and the bottom, how that difference changes over time, and the societal costs of that difference.

3. You are not actually arguing that income hasn't stagnated. You are just arguing that it is ok that it has because of technology growth. I actually agree that the harm of stagnating income is partially offset by increases in technology from a human impact perspective but there is still a clear cost to income inequality despite this change in technology. It helps to understand what the real cause of these problems are to realize why a change in technology doesn't help that much.

4. You just jumped from inflation to expenditures. Either way you didn't actually prove my point wrong.

Even by your own data expenditures were increasing. The issue has been the rate of increase and inflation.

 

[RandomVariable]

 

[Freemason9]

So in other words, the current income/wealth performance after 5 years of the Obama administration shows substantial gains since the Reagan years in terms of broad distribution and growth. I got it.

Also, I can't wait for PC's well-researched treatise on the "flat earth" nature of our world.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So in other words, the current income/wealth performance after 5 years of the Obama administration shows substantial gains since the Reagan years in terms of broad distribution and growth. I got it.

Also, I can't wait for PC's well-researched treatise on the "flat earth" nature of our world.

"....after 5 years of the Obama administration shows substantial gains..."

For purposes of clarity....are you a congenital liar, or simply stupid?






1.More than 6.7 million more Americans have been plunged into poverty since Obama became President.

2.Real household income is down 5%

3. Consumer prices are up 10.2%

4. Total federal debt is up 58%

5. Gasoline prices are up 82%

6. Food stamp recipients up 49%

7. Debt held by the public is up 89%

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

 

[Freemason9]

So in other words, the current income/wealth performance after 5 years of the Obama administration shows substantial gains since the Reagan years in terms of broad distribution and growth. I got it.

Also, I can't wait for PC's well-researched treatise on the "flat earth" nature of our world.

"....after 5 years of the Obama administration shows substantial gains..."

For purposes of clarity....are you a congenital liar, or simply stupid?






1.More than 6.7 million more Americans have been plunged into poverty since Obama became President.

2.Real household income is down 5%

3. Consumer prices are up 10.2%

4. Total federal debt is up 58%

5. Gasoline prices are up 82%

6. Food stamp recipients up 49%

7. Debt held by the public is up 89%

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

Now re-compute those figures using Reagan as a baseline.

LOL

 

[RandomVariable]

So in other words, the current income/wealth performance after 5 years of the Obama administration shows substantial gains since the Reagan years in terms of broad distribution and growth. I got it.

Also, I can't wait for PC's well-researched treatise on the "flat earth" nature of our world.

"....after 5 years of the Obama administration shows substantial gains..."

For purposes of clarity....are you a congenital liar, or simply stupid?






1.More than 6.7 million more Americans have been plunged into poverty since Obama became President.

2.Real household income is down 5%

3. Consumer prices are up 10.2%

4. Total federal debt is up 58%

5. Gasoline prices are up 82%

6. Food stamp recipients up 49%

7. Debt held by the public is up 89%

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

Bush, et. al., had the car of America heading at the wall at 80 mph and he quietly stepped out. Now you are pointing at all the carnage. If you are so smart how is it that you don't see that. Selectively blind perhaps. Or is it something more on the sinister side of reality. Some of both I imagine. You're too smart to be so innocent in your actions. What's in it for you?