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

[LoneLaugher]

An economist would never argue this point in the manner that you have. Period.

LOL, and your credentials in economics is what? I keep offering $2000 if I'm wrong about mine...you need to show you believe in your stupid accusation by backing it up with 2K.

You're honestly...other than a handful of the flakiest chicks I've ever seen like dotcom, Lakhota, and Candy....the dumbest poster on this board.

Everyone knows you're nothing but a troll.

But I'm willing to entertain your economics credentials. So let's hear em???

You are clearly jealous. I've already told you that I took 2 ( two ) courses in economics in college. And.....I've got as good a grasp on the subject as you. I know enough not to take a date in time and accuse a president of causing the median income to decline when the decline began long before he took office. Any economist would insist on a more nuanced position.

You wish you had as much credibility here as I have. Keep wishing. It isn't within your capability. Do a poll on it, bitch.

By the way...the term credentials...with an "S" at the end....is followed by the word "are"....not "is". Go back and repeat third grade.

I usually don't read your shit, so NO, I hadn't read it.

Now shit-for-brains, let's talk about your credentials and mine.

I have a master's degree in Economics. You know.....it's called a graduate degree. I also have an Executive MBA with emphasis in economics. You know....a second graduate degree. Both in fancy schools you wish you could've attended. I've done 4 econ doctoral courses and been writing the econ thesis for over 10 years.


Ok now dumbass, I know you're a complete idiot when it comes to math, but my background surpasses yours by so much, I just knocked you out of relevance.


So I don't know what school you got those two econ courses in, but I'd ask them for a refund it I were you...because dude, you're the village idiot when it comes to simple issues, let alone complex issues.


Now.....keep bumping my thread, you do provide a value there. Other than that, your questions aren't even intelligent, let alone your "analysis," fool.


Get it?

Got it?

Good.

I do not believe you. Never have. I'd expect to be more impressed by someone with that level of education.

This is the front lines, this is the level where people need to be educated. I'm tired of preaching to the choir. The people I work around already get this stuff.


Economics is counterintuitive. I want more people to understand such a critical topic. That's why I'm here in the trenches. People in the trenches don't wanna hear high-browed explanations. They just want to know how it impacts them.

Bull. You are lying about your credentials. We can all see that.

 

[EconChick]

LOL, and your credentials in economics is what? I keep offering $2000 if I'm wrong about mine...you need to show you believe in your stupid accusation by backing it up with 2K.

You're honestly...other than a handful of the flakiest chicks I've ever seen like dotcom, Lakhota, and Candy....the dumbest poster on this board.

Everyone knows you're nothing but a troll.

But I'm willing to entertain your economics credentials. So let's hear em???

You are clearly jealous. I've already told you that I took 2 ( two ) courses in economics in college. And.....I've got as good a grasp on the subject as you. I know enough not to take a date in time and accuse a president of causing the median income to decline when the decline began long before he took office. Any economist would insist on a more nuanced position.

You wish you had as much credibility here as I have. Keep wishing. It isn't within your capability. Do a poll on it, bitch.

By the way...the term credentials...with an "S" at the end....is followed by the word "are"....not "is". Go back and repeat third grade.

I usually don't read your shit, so NO, I hadn't read it.

Now shit-for-brains, let's talk about your credentials and mine.

I have a master's degree in Economics. You know.....it's called a graduate degree. I also have an Executive MBA with emphasis in economics. You know....a second graduate degree. Both in fancy schools you wish you could've attended. I've done 4 econ doctoral courses and been writing the econ thesis for over 10 years.


Ok now dumbass, I know you're a complete idiot when it comes to math, but my background surpasses yours by so much, I just knocked you out of relevance.


So I don't know what school you got those two econ courses in, but I'd ask them for a refund it I were you...because dude, you're the village idiot when it comes to simple issues, let alone complex issues.


Now.....keep bumping my thread, you do provide a value there. Other than that, your questions aren't even intelligent, let alone your "analysis," fool.


Get it?

Got it?

Good.

I do not believe you. Never have. I'd expect to be more impressed by someone with that level of education.

This is the front lines, this is the level where people need to be educated. I'm tired of preaching to the choir. The people I work around already get this stuff.


Economics is counterintuitive. I want more people to understand such a critical topic. That's why I'm here in the trenches. People in the trenches don't wanna hear high-browed explanations. They just want to know how it impacts them.

Bull. You are lying about your credentials. We can all see that.

Dare you to cough up $2000 to back up your assertion. I'm certainly willing to.

We can pick the person everyone thinks is the most fair minded mod...I suspect that's FLTENN ....after you cough up the 2K, I'll email him my degrees. Money can go to USMB kitty. If I don't have those degrees, I'll pay 2K.

 

[EconChick]

I'll wait, but I won't wait too long. Every time I've asked one of you libs to seriously back up your lying assertions, 100% of the time they run.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are clearly jealous. I've already told you that I took 2 ( two ) courses in economics in college. And.....I've got as good a grasp on the subject as you. I know enough not to take a date in time and accuse a president of causing the median income to decline when the decline began long before he took office. Any economist would insist on a more nuanced position.

You wish you had as much credibility here as I have. Keep wishing. It isn't within your capability. Do a poll on it, bitch.

By the way...the term credentials...with an "S" at the end....is followed by the word "are"....not "is". Go back and repeat third grade.

I usually don't read your shit, so NO, I hadn't read it.

Now shit-for-brains, let's talk about your credentials and mine.

I have a master's degree in Economics. You know.....it's called a graduate degree. I also have an Executive MBA with emphasis in economics. You know....a second graduate degree. Both in fancy schools you wish you could've attended. I've done 4 econ doctoral courses and been writing the econ thesis for over 10 years.


Ok now dumbass, I know you're a complete idiot when it comes to math, but my background surpasses yours by so much, I just knocked you out of relevance.


So I don't know what school you got those two econ courses in, but I'd ask them for a refund it I were you...because dude, you're the village idiot when it comes to simple issues, let alone complex issues.


Now.....keep bumping my thread, you do provide a value there. Other than that, your questions aren't even intelligent, let alone your "analysis," fool.


Get it?

Got it?

Good.

I do not believe you. Never have. I'd expect to be more impressed by someone with that level of education.

This is the front lines, this is the level where people need to be educated. I'm tired of preaching to the choir. The people I work around already get this stuff.


Economics is counterintuitive. I want more people to understand such a critical topic. That's why I'm here in the trenches. People in the trenches don't wanna hear high-browed explanations. They just want to know how it impacts them.

Bull. You are lying about your credentials. We can all see that.

Dare you to cough up $2000 to back up your assertion. I'm certainly willing to.

We can pick the person everyone thinks is the most fair minded mod...I suspect that's FLTENN ....after you cough up the 2K, I'll email him my degrees. Money can go to USMB kitty. If I don't have those degrees, I'll pay 2K.

Nope. No need. I already know you don't have the degrees. It's obvious.

 

[EconChick]

I've been right about everything I've said on this board. (Like this OP.) I can't help you're too indoctrinated to see it.

 

[EconChick]

I usually don't read your shit, so NO, I hadn't read it.

Now shit-for-brains, let's talk about your credentials and mine.

I have a master's degree in Economics. You know.....it's called a graduate degree. I also have an Executive MBA with emphasis in economics. You know....a second graduate degree. Both in fancy schools you wish you could've attended. I've done 4 econ doctoral courses and been writing the econ thesis for over 10 years.


Ok now dumbass, I know you're a complete idiot when it comes to math, but my background surpasses yours by so much, I just knocked you out of relevance.


So I don't know what school you got those two econ courses in, but I'd ask them for a refund it I were you...because dude, you're the village idiot when it comes to simple issues, let alone complex issues.


Now.....keep bumping my thread, you do provide a value there. Other than that, your questions aren't even intelligent, let alone your "analysis," fool.


Get it?

Got it?

Good.

I do not believe you. Never have. I'd expect to be more impressed by someone with that level of education.

This is the front lines, this is the level where people need to be educated. I'm tired of preaching to the choir. The people I work around already get this stuff.


Economics is counterintuitive. I want more people to understand such a critical topic. That's why I'm here in the trenches. People in the trenches don't wanna hear high-browed explanations. They just want to know how it impacts them.

Bull. You are lying about your credentials. We can all see that.

Dare you to cough up $2000 to back up your assertion. I'm certainly willing to.

We can pick the person everyone thinks is the most fair minded mod...I suspect that's FLTENN ....after you cough up the 2K, I'll email him my degrees. Money can go to USMB kitty. If I don't have those degrees, I'll pay 2K.

Nope. No need. I already know you don't have the degrees. It's obvious.

LOL, you won't back your assertions up because you know you're a liar.

We all know you're a liar with no inner core. LOL

I could care less what you believe. We all know one thing. You sure don't believe it very much.

LOL

 

[EconChick]

You blinked shit-for-brains. Now back to the topic, MEAN INCOME DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

 

[Antares]

You blinked shit-for-brains. Now back to the topic, MEAN INCOME DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

LL IS transparent............and ill informed, but he is our little knucklehead.

 

[EconChick]

Back to making fools of you idiot libs:

Here's Joe Biden's Chief Economist saying same thing my OP says.



http://www.msnbc.com/alex-witt/watch/median-household-income-down-323557443745

Median household income down despite jump in Q2 GDP


Jared Bernstein, former Chief Economist for Vice President Biden and Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, joins Alex Witt to explain why the good news this week from the Commerce Department that U.S. corporations reached record profits in the second quarter means little for consumers

 

[EconChick]

You blinked shit-for-brains. Now back to the topic, MEAN INCOME DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

LL IS transparent............and ill informed, but he is our little knucklehead.

I know, he's like a petulant child. I feel kinda sorry for him...I suspect he has a learning disorder.

That would explain why he doesn't see the obvious OP.

 

[Antares]

You blinked shit-for-brains. Now back to the topic, MEAN INCOME DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

LL IS transparent............and ill informed, but he is our little knucklehead.

I know, he's like a petulant child. I feel kinda sorry for him...I suspect he has a learning disorder.

That would explain why he doesn't see the obvious OP.

It's all about protecting Obama to him, sort of a daddy figure LL feels compelled to shield.

 

[EconChick]

You blinked shit-for-brains. Now back to the topic, MEAN INCOME DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

LL IS transparent............and ill informed, but he is our little knucklehead.

I know, he's like a petulant child. I feel kinda sorry for him...I suspect he has a learning disorder.

That would explain why he doesn't see the obvious OP.

It's all about protecting Obama to him, sort of a daddy figure LL feels compelled to shield.

I predict one day LL will be saying the same things we are.....sometimes it takes a lot of life experience before people see it.

 

[pinqy]

But neither is it reality that someone can be both employed and unemployed in any meaningful defintions of the words.

I'm not an economist like EconChick, but I am a finance guy and finance is a branch of economics.

My understanding of "employed" is that it means fully employed. Clearly you're right logically, part time employment is not unemployment. However, when I hear the stat unemployed, I hear in my mind they are not fully employed. I believe that's the way economists normally look at it.

No, it's not how economists look at it. First off, you'd have to define "fully employed" in a meaningful way. I've been fully employed at 4 hrs/week in that that was all I wanted/needed and would not/could not have accepted a full time job.To set an arbitrary number of hours for someone to be considered employed is well, arbitrary. And arbitrary and subjective are really bad things when each household in the survey represents about 4,000 individuals.

It's not technically right to say employed and "unemployed" for that, but it's easier to say the unemployment rate than saying the "not fully employed" rate.

How about calling it the U-6 measure of underutilization? Which is what is done. The main difference is since the point is to look at the labor market activity, the category is "part time for economic reasons:" those willing and available to work full time but working part time due to lack of available work.

If you think about it, there are other even more serious issues with it.

Well, there are, but you haven't mentioned any, though Econchick has touched on the problem of non-sampling error. No one is saying the measures are perfect. But the definitions are for a technical purpose and not some political scheme.

Like that it doesn't count people who want jobs and have given up.

Do you consider real estate holdings to be available funds? No? That's why people who aren't looking aren't classified as unemployed...they're not available for work until/unless they do look. If someone looks for work and fails, that tells us something about the job market. But it's a given that those who don't try to work won't work. They tell us no more about the market conditions than those who don't want to work. They can be considered as potentially available as they are in the U-4, U-5, and U-6 underutilization, if there are indications that they might start looking soon.

Also, it counts people who are say accountants working at Burger King as employed when they are not fully employed.

That kind of underemployment is simply impossible to measure. It's far too subjective and far too dependent on individual experience. While we all know it occurs, there's just no way to capture it.

 

[EconChick]

But neither is it reality that someone can be both employed and unemployed in any meaningful defintions of the words.

I'm not an economist like EconChick, but I am a finance guy and finance is a branch of economics.

My understanding of "employed" is that it means fully employed. Clearly you're right logically, part time employment is not unemployment. However, when I hear the stat unemployed, I hear in my mind they are not fully employed. I believe that's the way economists normally look at it.

No, it's not how economists look at it. First off, you'd have to define "fully employed" in a meaningful way. I've been fully employed at 4 hrs/week in that that was all I wanted/needed and would not/could not have accepted a full time job.To set an arbitrary number of hours for someone to be considered employed is well, arbitrary. And arbitrary and subjective are really bad things when each household in the survey represents about 4,000 individuals.

It's not technically right to say employed and "unemployed" for that, but it's easier to say the unemployment rate than saying the "not fully employed" rate.

How about calling it the U-6 measure of underutilization? Which is what is done. The main difference is since the point is to look at the labor market activity, the category is "part time for economic reasons:" those willing and available to work full time but working part time due to lack of available work.

If you think about it, there are other even more serious issues with it.

Well, there are, but you haven't mentioned any, though Econchick has touched on the problem of non-sampling error. No one is saying the measures are perfect. But the definitions are for a technical purpose and not some political scheme.

Like that it doesn't count people who want jobs and have given up.

Do you consider real estate holdings to be available funds? No? That's why people who aren't looking aren't classified as unemployed...they're not available for work until/unless they do look. If someone looks for work and fails, that tells us something about the job market. But it's a given that those who don't try to work won't work. They tell us no more about the market conditions than those who don't want to work. They can be considered as potentially available as they are in the U-4, U-5, and U-6 underutilization, if there are indications that they might start looking soon.

Also, it counts people who are say accountants working at Burger King as employed when they are not fully employed.

That kind of underemployment is simply impossible to measure. It's far too subjective and far too dependent on individual experience. While we all know it occurs, there's just no way to capture it.

With all due respect, Pinqy, and I do respect you. I think you keep digging the hole. You keep revealing what's wrong with government statistics.

 

[EconChick]

The fact we have the lowest Lab Part Rate since 78 is having an impact but not well accounted for.

 

[zeke]

You are clearly jealous. I've already told you that I took 2 ( two ) courses in economics in college. And.....I've got as good a grasp on the subject as you. I know enough not to take a date in time and accuse a president of causing the median income to decline when the decline began long before he took office. Any economist would insist on a more nuanced position.

You wish you had as much credibility here as I have. Keep wishing. It isn't within your capability. Do a poll on it, bitch.

By the way...the term credentials...with an "S" at the end....is followed by the word "are"....not "is". Go back and repeat third grade.

I usually don't read your shit, so NO, I hadn't read it.

Now shit-for-brains, let's talk about your credentials and mine.

I have a master's degree in Economics. You know.....it's called a graduate degree. I also have an Executive MBA with emphasis in economics. You know....a second graduate degree. Both in fancy schools you wish you could've attended. I've done 4 econ doctoral courses and been writing the econ thesis for over 10 years.


Ok now dumbass, I know you're a complete idiot when it comes to math, but my background surpasses yours by so much, I just knocked you out of relevance.


So I don't know what school you got those two econ courses in, but I'd ask them for a refund it I were you...because dude, you're the village idiot when it comes to simple issues, let alone complex issues.


Now.....keep bumping my thread, you do provide a value there. Other than that, your questions aren't even intelligent, let alone your "analysis," fool.


Get it?

Got it?

Good.

I do not believe you. Never have. I'd expect to be more impressed by someone with that level of education.

This is the front lines, this is the level where people need to be educated. I'm tired of preaching to the choir. The people I work around already get this stuff.


Economics is counterintuitive. I want more people to understand such a critical topic. That's why I'm here in the trenches. People in the trenches don't wanna hear high-browed explanations. They just want to know how it impacts them.

Bull. You are lying about your credentials. We can all see that.

Dare you to cough up $2000 to back up your assertion. I'm certainly willing to.

We can pick the person everyone thinks is the most fair minded mod...I suspect that's FLTENN ....after you cough up the 2K, I'll email him my degrees. Money can go to USMB kitty. If I don't have those degrees, I'll pay 2K.

I wanna see dem degrees. Me thinks you got cheated. I wanna see dem so bad I'll put up two entire fucking dollars to see them. That's how much your degrees mean to me. 2$. And I think that's overpaying. According to my economic degree you ain't worth two cents.

 

[g5000]

I usually don't read your shit, so NO, I hadn't read it.

Now shit-for-brains, let's talk about your credentials and mine.

I have a master's degree in Economics. You know.....it's called a graduate degree. I also have an Executive MBA with emphasis in economics. You know....a second graduate degree. Both in fancy schools you wish you could've attended. I've done 4 econ doctoral courses and been writing the econ thesis for over 10 years.


Ok now dumbass, I know you're a complete idiot when it comes to math, but my background surpasses yours by so much, I just knocked you out of relevance.


So I don't know what school you got those two econ courses in, but I'd ask them for a refund it I were you...because dude, you're the village idiot when it comes to simple issues, let alone complex issues.


Now.....keep bumping my thread, you do provide a value there. Other than that, your questions aren't even intelligent, let alone your "analysis," fool.


Get it?

Got it?

Good.

I do not believe you. Never have. I'd expect to be more impressed by someone with that level of education.

This is the front lines, this is the level where people need to be educated. I'm tired of preaching to the choir. The people I work around already get this stuff.


Economics is counterintuitive. I want more people to understand such a critical topic. That's why I'm here in the trenches. People in the trenches don't wanna hear high-browed explanations. They just want to know how it impacts them.

Bull. You are lying about your credentials. We can all see that.

Dare you to cough up $2000 to back up your assertion. I'm certainly willing to.

We can pick the person everyone thinks is the most fair minded mod...I suspect that's FLTENN ....after you cough up the 2K, I'll email him my degrees. Money can go to USMB kitty. If I don't have those degrees, I'll pay 2K.

I wanna see dem degrees. Me thinks you got cheated. I wanna see dem so bad I'll put up two entire fucking dollars to see them. That's how much your degrees mean to me. 2$. And I think that's overpaying. According to my economic degree you ain't worth two cents.

If EconChick has a degree, it is from a diploma mill.

It's a very ancient saying
But a true and honest thought
That if you become a teacher
By your pupils you'll be taught

As a teacher I've been learning
You'll forgive me if I boast
And I've now become an expert
On the subject I like most

Getting to know you

Getting to know you
Getting to know all about you
Getting to like you
Getting to hope you like me



Read more: The King And I - Getting To Know You Lyrics | MetroLyrics

 

[zeke]

So fucking weird to hear someone claim they have all this knowledge of the economy and not be smart enough to understand that the drop in income happened during the other guys Presidency. As Mac explained to you more than once.

If the income presently is not as high as it has been in the near past, at least it is rising again. But you are too fucking stupid about wanting to blame Obama for EVERYTHING,. you can't even admit that a rising level of income is good...............even if it hasn't risen as high as in the past.

What in the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[g5000]

We first requested a Master’s degree in Economics for our president and C.O.O., Jason B.
Morris. In exchange for $75, they would send us a “genuine” diploma. For an extra $75, the
diploma mill would verify the degree by phone or email. So after a $150 payment, we were
on our way.

The Growing Threat of Diploma Mills

You will notice EconPoser never mentions her college by name.

 

[g5000]

So fucking weird to hear someone claim they have all this knowledge of the economy and not be smart enough to understand that the drop in income happened during the other guys Presidency. As Mac explained to you more than once.

If the income presently is not as high as it has been in the near past, at least it is rising again. But you are too fucking stupid about wanting to blame Obama for EVERYTHING,. you can't even admit that a rising level of income is good...............even if it hasn't risen as high as in the past.

What in the fuck is wrong with you?

She also believes a couple days of stock market drops is an accurate indicator of where the entire economy is going. And not only does she believe a two or three day read of the DJIA is macroeconomic, she actually squeals with glee at the prospect of the entire world going off the cliff!

We are looking at the dullest knife in the drawer here.