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

[EconChick]

No matter how you spin it, median household income is down under Obama.

Period.

But please keep this thread alive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No matter how you spin it, median household income is down under Obama.

Period.

But please keep this thread alive.

So what? It was down under Bush from where he came into office. Why don't you start a maniacal thread about that?

 

[AceRothstein]

Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.

(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?

6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........

Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.

Try the UE 6 numbers kid.

U-6 is down along with U-3. That's what I keep pointing out to prove that Econ's thread premise is wrong.

WE ALL KNOW U-6 IS THE REEEEEEEEEEEEEAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE....JUST AS IT HAS BEEN IN PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS. And as you know shit-for -brains......that rate is 12%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


So saying 12% is down from 13% is stupid.

Is saying 11.8% is down from 17.1% stupid as well?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Just the latest intellectually dishonest thread by a hardcore partisan ideologue, so popular on USMB.

As if Obama inherited a thriving, growing economy and wrecked it.

.

 

[pinqy]

Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.

(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?

6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........

Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.

Try the UE 6 numbers kid.

The U-6 is not a measure of unemployment. It is Unemployed plus marginally attached to the labor force plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus the marginally attached.

To call a measure including people with jobs and people not trying to work as the "actual" unemployment rate defies reason.

Horse Hockey, only in "We must protect Obamaland".

How convenient, you don't want to include underemployment or those who have given up looking.

Wait...."include underemployment?" Which is it? Are they UNemployed or UNDERemployed? In an UNemployment measure, why would you include UNDERemployed? And why would you include people not trying to work as unemployed? That's always been every technical definition.

 

[pinqy]

Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.

(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?

6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........

Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.

Try the UE 6 numbers kid.

U-6 is down along with U-3. That's what I keep pointing out to prove that Econ's thread premise is wrong.

WE ALL KNOW U-6 IS THE REEEEEEEEEEEEEAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE....JUST AS IT HAS BEEN IN PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS. And as you know shit-for -brains......that rate is 12%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

What 6th rate unaccredited degree mill did you get your degree from that you would consider people who have jobs as "really unemployed?"

 

[EconChick]

.

Just the latest intellectually dishonest thread by a hardcore partisan ideologue, so popular on USMB.

As if Obama inherited a thriving, growing economy and wrecked it.

.

Oh, look....my favorite idiot that doesn't know difference between MEAN and MEDIAN. LOL, you will never live down how little you understand about doing economic stats.


Oooops.


Show me where Obama has brought median income up to $55, 589 like Bush did.



I'm waiting........



Crickets

















LMAO

 

[Mac1958]

.

Just the latest intellectually dishonest thread by a hardcore partisan ideologue, so popular on USMB.

As if Obama inherited a thriving, growing economy and wrecked it.

.

Oh, look....my favorite idiot that doesn't know difference between MEAN and MEDIAN. LOL, you will never live down how little you understand about doing economic stats.


Oooops.


Show me where Obama has brought median income up to $55, 589 like Bush did.



I'm waiting........



Crickets

















LMAO

See what I mean?

.

 

[EconChick]

(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?

6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........

Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.

Try the UE 6 numbers kid.

U-6 is down along with U-3. That's what I keep pointing out to prove that Econ's thread premise is wrong.

WE ALL KNOW U-6 IS THE REEEEEEEEEEEEEAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE....JUST AS IT HAS BEEN IN PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS. And as you know shit-for -brains......that rate is 12%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

What 6th rate unaccredited degree mill did you get your degree from that you would consider people who have jobs as "really unemployed?"

Oh, some of those fancy schools you dumbasses put on a pedestal.

As for not GRASPING that part time means that most of those people would rather be fully employed is why you're a great example of why BLS is so fucked up.

 

[pinqy]

Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.

(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?

6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........

Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.

Try the UE 6 numbers kid.

The U-6 is not a measure of unemployment. It is Unemployed plus marginally attached to the labor force plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus the marginally attached.

To call a measure including people with jobs and people not trying to work as the "actual" unemployment rate defies reason.

You're unbelievable.

Typical big spending, Keynesian trained government statistician.

If someone is part time..................that means they're one foot IN and one foot OUT.

No one is voluntarily part time in your world? Besides which, the U-6 doesn't include all part timers, or even a significant percent. So even if we assume your ludicrous premise, how could the U-6 be "real" when it ignores so many part timers?

And how do you measure "one foot in and one foot out?" From 1976 to 1993 there was an alternative measure that included half of all part time workers in the numerator, but that's just arbitrary.

This is how statistics work: you have to have clear, unambiguous definitions without overlap. Otherwise your results will be nonsense.

 

[EconChick]

.

Just the latest intellectually dishonest thread by a hardcore partisan ideologue, so popular on USMB.

As if Obama inherited a thriving, growing economy and wrecked it.

.

Oh, look....my favorite idiot that doesn't know difference between MEAN and MEDIAN. LOL, you will never live down how little you understand about doing economic stats.


Oooops.


Show me where Obama has brought median income up to $55, 589 like Bush did.



I'm waiting........



Crickets

















LMAO

See what I mean?

.

I see you've been completely TROUNCED throughout this thread over and over and over, LMAO.

MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

Ooops

 

[EconChick]

(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?

6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........

Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.

Try the UE 6 numbers kid.

The U-6 is not a measure of unemployment. It is Unemployed plus marginally attached to the labor force plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus the marginally attached.

To call a measure including people with jobs and people not trying to work as the "actual" unemployment rate defies reason.

You're unbelievable.

Typical big spending, Keynesian trained government statistician.

If someone is part time..................that means they're one foot IN and one foot OUT.

No one is voluntarily part time in your world? Besides which, the U-6 doesn't include part timers, or even a significant percent. So even if we assume your ludicrous premise, how could the U-6 be "real" when it ignores so many part timers?

And how do you measure "one foot in and one foot out?" From 1976 to 1993 there was an alternative measure that included half of all part time workers in the numerator, but that's just arbitrary.

This is how statistics work: you have to have clear, unambiguous definitions without overlap. Otherwise your results will be nonsense.

Finally you get to the heart of what we conservatives have been saying is wrong with BLS stats.


You think in binary code.

Your brain cannot compute what I'm saying about part time.


You've just spit up the flem.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Just the latest intellectually dishonest thread by a hardcore partisan ideologue, so popular on USMB.

As if Obama inherited a thriving, growing economy and wrecked it.

.

Oh, look....my favorite idiot that doesn't know difference between MEAN and MEDIAN. LOL, you will never live down how little you understand about doing economic stats.


Oooops.


Show me where Obama has brought median income up to $55, 589 like Bush did.



I'm waiting........



Crickets

















LMAO

See what I mean?

.

I see you've been completely TROUNCED throughout this thread over and over and over, LMAO.

MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

Ooops

I see you've been thoroughly intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

The economy didn't turn around on a dime after Bush left office because the damage was too deep and too severe.

Ooooops.

.

 

[EconChick]

.

Just the latest intellectually dishonest thread by a hardcore partisan ideologue, so popular on USMB.

As if Obama inherited a thriving, growing economy and wrecked it.

.

Oh, look....my favorite idiot that doesn't know difference between MEAN and MEDIAN. LOL, you will never live down how little you understand about doing economic stats.


Oooops.


Show me where Obama has brought median income up to $55, 589 like Bush did.



I'm waiting........



Crickets

















LMAO

See what I mean?

.

I see you've been completely TROUNCED throughout this thread over and over and over, LMAO.

MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

Ooops

I see you've been thoroughly intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

The economy didn't turn around on a dime after Bush left office because the damage was too deep and too severe.

Ooooops.

.

Yo idiot, I'm just curious....did you make all these excuses for Bush after the attack on the economy of 9/11, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Funny, I don't see them anywhere.


I'll wait for your answer.

 

[EconChick]

.

Just the latest intellectually dishonest thread by a hardcore partisan ideologue, so popular on USMB.

As if Obama inherited a thriving, growing economy and wrecked it.

.

Oh, look....my favorite idiot that doesn't know difference between MEAN and MEDIAN. LOL, you will never live down how little you understand about doing economic stats.


Oooops.


Show me where Obama has brought median income up to $55, 589 like Bush did.



I'm waiting........



Crickets

















LMAO

See what I mean?

.

I see you've been completely TROUNCED throughout this thread over and over and over, LMAO.

MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

Ooops

I see you've been thoroughly intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

The economy didn't turn around on a dime after Bush left office because the damage was too deep and too severe.

Ooooops.

.

And if you want to get into that debate....we've already trounced you dumbass libs on that issues in many other threads.

The only intellectually dishonest person in this conversation is you, princess.

This thread is about the fact median income DOWN under Obama.

 

[pinqy]

Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.

Try the UE 6 numbers kid.

U-6 is down along with U-3. That's what I keep pointing out to prove that Econ's thread premise is wrong.

WE ALL KNOW U-6 IS THE REEEEEEEEEEEEEAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE....JUST AS IT HAS BEEN IN PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS. And as you know shit-for -brains......that rate is 12%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

What 6th rate unaccredited degree mill did you get your degree from that you would consider people who have jobs as "really unemployed?"

Oh, some of those fancy schools you dumbasses put on a pedestal.

As for not GRASPING that part time means that most of those people would rather be fully employed is why you're a great example of why BLS is so fucked up.

You changed the parameters. The question wasn't whether some would rather be fully employed, but whether they should be classified the same as those with NO employment.

And no one in the history of ever has included people who have jobs as unemployed (with the exception of those on government work projects during the Depression. And not everyone agreed with that)

One of your many problems is that you are utterly incapable of objective, empirical, analysis, and then assume that no one else is either.

So...back in the classroom:
Starting from square one, let's construct our models for examining the labor situation.
What do we want to measure? What definitions or characteristics will best allow us to look at it (keeping in mind that all classifications must be exclusive). And also we must try for as much objectivity as possible in our definitions so that neither two analysts could classify the same person in different categories nor could two people in identical situations be classified in two different categories.

Important things to consider: There is a difference between economic and non-economic factors:

I think I'll win my mental bet that you are neither capable nor interested in actually attempting such an exercise.

Bonus points if you can find any serious proposal by an actual economist to classify part time workers as unemployed.

 

[pinqy]

Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.

Try the UE 6 numbers kid.

The U-6 is not a measure of unemployment. It is Unemployed plus marginally attached to the labor force plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus the marginally attached.

To call a measure including people with jobs and people not trying to work as the "actual" unemployment rate defies reason.

You're unbelievable.

Typical big spending, Keynesian trained government statistician.

If someone is part time..................that means they're one foot IN and one foot OUT.

No one is voluntarily part time in your world? Besides which, the U-6 doesn't include part timers, or even a significant percent. So even if we assume your ludicrous premise, how could the U-6 be "real" when it ignores so many part timers?

And how do you measure "one foot in and one foot out?" From 1976 to 1993 there was an alternative measure that included half of all part time workers in the numerator, but that's just arbitrary.

This is how statistics work: you have to have clear, unambiguous definitions without overlap. Otherwise your results will be nonsense.

Finally you get to the heart of what we conservatives have been saying is wrong with BLS stats.

"We conservatives"????
You'll find yourself alone if you want such ambiguous classifications in statistics.

It's not a matter of conservative or liberal...it's a matter of measurement.

 

[EconChick]

Try the UE 6 numbers kid.

The U-6 is not a measure of unemployment. It is Unemployed plus marginally attached to the labor force plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus the marginally attached.

To call a measure including people with jobs and people not trying to work as the "actual" unemployment rate defies reason.

You're unbelievable.

Typical big spending, Keynesian trained government statistician.

If someone is part time..................that means they're one foot IN and one foot OUT.

No one is voluntarily part time in your world? Besides which, the U-6 doesn't include part timers, or even a significant percent. So even if we assume your ludicrous premise, how could the U-6 be "real" when it ignores so many part timers?

And how do you measure "one foot in and one foot out?" From 1976 to 1993 there was an alternative measure that included half of all part time workers in the numerator, but that's just arbitrary.

This is how statistics work: you have to have clear, unambiguous definitions without overlap. Otherwise your results will be nonsense.

Finally you get to the heart of what we conservatives have been saying is wrong with BLS stats.

"We conservatives"????
You'll find yourself alone if you want such ambiguous classifications in statistics.

It's not a matter of conservative or liberal...it's a matter of measurement.

Oh yeah.............measurements with fucked up assumptions have no bias.


Boy.....................you number crunchers........................about to get a big dose of reality.

 

[EconChick]

Try the UE 6 numbers kid.

U-6 is down along with U-3. That's what I keep pointing out to prove that Econ's thread premise is wrong.

WE ALL KNOW U-6 IS THE REEEEEEEEEEEEEAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE....JUST AS IT HAS BEEN IN PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS. And as you know shit-for -brains......that rate is 12%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

What 6th rate unaccredited degree mill did you get your degree from that you would consider people who have jobs as "really unemployed?"

Oh, some of those fancy schools you dumbasses put on a pedestal.

As for not GRASPING that part time means that most of those people would rather be fully employed is why you're a great example of why BLS is so fucked up.

You changed the parameters. The question wasn't whether some would rather be fully employed, but whether they should be classified the same as those with NO employment.

And no one in the history of ever has included people who have jobs as unemployed (with the exception of those on government work projects during the Depression. And not everyone agreed with that)

One of your many problems is that you are utterly incapable of objective, empirical, analysis, and then assume that no one else is either.

So...back in the classroom:
Starting from square one, let's construct our models for examining the labor situation.
What do we want to measure? What definitions or characteristics will best allow us to look at it (keeping in mind that all classifications must be exclusive). And also we must try for as much objectivity as possible in our definitions so that neither two analysts could classify the same person in different categories nor could two people in identical situations be classified in two different categories.

Important things to consider: There is a difference between economic and non-economic factors:

I think I'll win my mental bet that you are neither capable nor interested in actually attempting such an exercise.

Bonus points if you can find any serious proposal by an actual economist to classify part time workers as unemployed.

You really don't see all the ambiguity in this post???????????

 

[EconChick]

Try the UE 6 numbers kid.

U-6 is down along with U-3. That's what I keep pointing out to prove that Econ's thread premise is wrong.

WE ALL KNOW U-6 IS THE REEEEEEEEEEEEEAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE....JUST AS IT HAS BEEN IN PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS. And as you know shit-for -brains......that rate is 12%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

What 6th rate unaccredited degree mill did you get your degree from that you would consider people who have jobs as "really unemployed?"

Oh, some of those fancy schools you dumbasses put on a pedestal.

As for not GRASPING that part time means that most of those people would rather be fully employed is why you're a great example of why BLS is so fucked up.

You changed the parameters. The question wasn't whether some would rather be fully employed, but whether they should be classified the same as those with NO employment.

And no one in the history of ever has included people who have jobs as unemployed (with the exception of those on government work projects during the Depression. And not everyone agreed with that)

One of your many problems is that you are utterly incapable of objective, empirical, analysis, and then assume that no one else is either.

So...back in the classroom:
Starting from square one, let's construct our models for examining the labor situation.
What do we want to measure? What definitions or characteristics will best allow us to look at it (keeping in mind that all classifications must be exclusive). And also we must try for as much objectivity as possible in our definitions so that neither two analysts could classify the same person in different categories nor could two people in identical situations be classified in two different categories.

Important things to consider: There is a difference between economic and non-economic factors:

I think I'll win my mental bet that you are neither capable nor interested in actually attempting such an exercise.

Bonus points if you can find any serious proposal by an actual economist to classify part time workers as unemployed.

(keeping in mind that all classifications must be exclusive).

This is where you utterly fail.

Could someone with common sense please explain this to Pinqy?

Not talking about liberal idiots on here....talking about ppl with common sense.