Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Trump Administration
Author Message
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #8881
RE: Trump Administration
(09-17-2019 02:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Watching the testimony of Lewandowski before the House Committee on Impeachment. Kind of comical listening to the Dems try to lay traps and then seeing their frustration as Lewandowski doesn't bite. I thought the "gentleman" from Ohio was going to blow a gasket.

What do you guys here think of the ongoing efforts to impeach Trump? Waste of time due his innocence? Waste of time due to the Senate not going to? vote for removal? Waste of time when there are more important things to attend to?
I would say, all of the above. JMHO.

The only two Ohio members on the Judiciary are Chabot and Jordan -- both Repubs.

Which Dem are you referring? I am watching the tape right now. Only 3 mins in and Nadler is looking fairly pissed.....
09-17-2019 05:57 PM
Find all posts by this user
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,344
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1293
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #8882
RE: Trump Administration
I thought about my response and would like to add to it...

In addition to 1950's (or 1970's or 1990's) healthcare being dirt cheap, so too would 1970's cars or TVs or computers or even food options. You didn't USED to be able to buy fruit in the winter, you know? Hotels and movie theaters used to ADVERTISE that they had Air Conditioning... and very few 18yr olds used to go rent their own apartments, buy cars, fly to other countries for vacations etc etc etc

As generations pass, the expectations continually rise for the next generation. This isn't unique to your generation nor mine... That's not the cost of living... it's the cost of an increasing standard of living.
09-17-2019 06:55 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,700
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #8883
RE: Trump Administration
(09-17-2019 06:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I thought about my response and would like to add to it...

In addition to 1950's (or 1970's or 1990's) healthcare being dirt cheap, so too would 1970's cars or TVs or computers or even food options. You didn't USED to be able to buy fruit in the winter, you know? Hotels and movie theaters used to ADVERTISE that they had Air Conditioning... and very few 18yr olds used to go rent their own apartments, buy cars, fly to other countries for vacations etc etc etc

As generations pass, the expectations continually rise for the next generation. This isn't unique to your generation nor mine... That's not the cost of living... it's the cost of an increasing standard of living.

Just have to look at real costs over time to see how things have changed with respect to affordability. Costs of card have remained relatively neutral, along with apparel and household furnishings.

While you’re right that increase in quality (for lack of a better word) has increased, at the same time the costs to produce those increases has sometimes increased (see TV technology). So I don’t think it’s so easy to say that cars would be appreciably cheaper without X, because the cost of X may be inconsequential.

https://howmuch.net/articles/price-chang...t-20-years
09-17-2019 07:17 PM
Find all posts by this user
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,344
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1293
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #8884
RE: Trump Administration
(09-17-2019 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just have to look at real costs over time to see how things have changed with respect to affordability. Costs of card have remained relatively neutral, along with apparel and household furnishings.

While you’re right that increase in quality (for lack of a better word) has increased, at the same time the costs to produce those increases has sometimes increased (see TV technology). So I don’t think it’s so easy to say that cars would be appreciably cheaper without X, because the cost of X may be inconsequential.

https://howmuch.net/articles/price-chang...t-20-years

What I'm saying is the cost to deliver 3 network stations and 2 local access ones (what we had in the 1970's) is vastly less than what it takes to deliver thye hundreds of channels plus all of the other content we have.

And the cost to build a 1972 F150 in 2020 with 1972 bumpers, tire technology, radio, fuel economy and crumple zones is a small fraction of what it costs to build a 2020 F150 in 2020.

Lots of the 'x' you're talking about, like being able to watch 100 channels or surf the internet or fix nearsightedness or transplant a heart or or survuve a 50mph crash or have almost no damage from a 5mph one or ship product anywhere overnight or get fruit from Chile in winter etc etc, the cost in previous years was infinite.

Your article absolutely misses the fact of healthcare entirely. In 1998, the standard of care for heart disease was a $100,000 surgery with a 20% survival rate, which was often denied. Today that same procedure costs $20,000 and the survival rate is 80% and is almost always covered. The cost goes up only because before we only gave that care to people who were absolutely going to die without it and had a reasonable life ahead of them. Today we give it to people experiencing relatively mild symptoms or are 90 years old.

Even child care and nursery costs are being manipulated. I'd point out that 'day care' is one of those areas where I suspect you would be correctly arguing that its hard to earn 'a living wage'... yet costs have risen because the demand for care now includes services (or insurance and class size limits) that didn't happen before.

Otherwise, such an obviously labor intensive industry would be far closer to the avg hourly earnings chart

Absolutely, the cost of the components of a TV have gone down by a ton, but the cost of the content has gone up 100 times. FOr cars, it's the cost of regulation and standards. For daycare or healthcare, the costs of insurance, regulation and the demands from consumers for more/better care.

Lasix surgery used to cost $10,000, was done in a hospital and you were in the hospital for 2 days. Now it's more like $1500 at an 'eye center' and you go home in a few hours.

Education is a bit of a farce and books are a complete scam. There are projects (Rice is part of them) who provide most text books for most classes for free. Education, the game is to charge $50k and then give most students scholarships to make the average cost of attendance more like $15k. Of course the numbers vary, but that's why RIce used to charge a low tuition and then subsidize professors with the endowment. Now they subsidize students and pay the professors from the revenue.
09-17-2019 08:09 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #8885
RE: Trump Administration
(09-17-2019 05:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-17-2019 05:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
Quote:
Quote: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/averag...rs-2060808

"Average hourly earnings for non-management private-sector workers in July were $22.65, up 3 cents from June and 2.7% above the average wage from a year earlier, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s in line with average wage growth over the past five years: Year-over-year growth has mostly ranged between 2% and 3% since the beginning of 2013."


You really want to argue that wages haven't been stagnant for the past few decades?

Did you read what I quoted?

I*f wages are growing at 2-3%/year, and inflation is almost zero, what can we conclude?

TMCNN

You do know what inflation is, right? You need to look at real wages, which account for inflation and changes in cost of goods/living.

And what is TMCNN?

Changes in the cost of goods/living is the definition of inflation. So what has been the inflation rate recently? The Fed thinks it is pretty low.

Too Much CNN.
09-17-2019 08:11 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #8886
RE: Trump Administration
(09-17-2019 05:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-17-2019 02:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Watching the testimony of Lewandowski before the House Committee on Impeachment. Kind of comical listening to the Dems try to lay traps and then seeing their frustration as Lewandowski doesn't bite. I thought the "gentleman" from Ohio was going to blow a gasket.

What do you guys here think of the ongoing efforts to impeach Trump? Waste of time due his innocence? Waste of time due to the Senate not going to? vote for removal? Waste of time when there are more important things to attend to?
I would say, all of the above. JMHO.

The only two Ohio members on the Judiciary are Chabot and Jordan -- both Repubs.

Which Dem are you referring? I am watching the tape right now. Only 3 mins in and Nadler is looking fairly pissed.....

I didn't catch his name, but he was visibly frustrated when Lewandowski wouldn't fall for his "do you still beat your wife" type of questioning. He was just a couple of people ahead of Jordan.

Sheila J. Lee made a fool of herself twice. The first was when one of the Republicans said that Putin and others would be pleased with the actions of the useful idiots on the committee. She only objected to "idiots' - she didn't deny they were useful in spreading a lack of confidence in the electoral system.

Then she ranted during her five minutes.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/17/politics/...index.html
(This post was last modified: 09-17-2019 09:55 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
09-17-2019 08:17 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #8887
RE: Trump Administration
Lad is the proponent of the "nothing has changed...ever" school of economic thought.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008

From Lad's link.
(This post was last modified: 09-17-2019 08:23 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
09-17-2019 08:21 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,700
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #8888
RE: Trump Administration
(09-17-2019 08:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-17-2019 05:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-17-2019 05:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
Quote:
Quote: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/averag...rs-2060808

"Average hourly earnings for non-management private-sector workers in July were $22.65, up 3 cents from June and 2.7% above the average wage from a year earlier, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s in line with average wage growth over the past five years: Year-over-year growth has mostly ranged between 2% and 3% since the beginning of 2013."


You really want to argue that wages haven't been stagnant for the past few decades?

Did you read what I quoted?

I*f wages are growing at 2-3%/year, and inflation is almost zero, what can we conclude?

TMCNN

You do know what inflation is, right? You need to look at real wages, which account for inflation and changes in cost of goods/living.

And what is TMCNN?

Changes in the cost of goods/living is the definition of inflation. So what has been the inflation rate recently? The Fed thinks it is pretty low.

Too Much CNN.

So what I’m saying is if you don’t look at real wages and just look at absolute, you’re not comparing apples to oranges.

See this graph: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...r-decades/

Real wages have barely budged since the early 70s.

My link is likely the original source for what you presented. It’s just that your source ignored the second paragraph.

Quote:Average hourly earnings for non-management private-sector workers in July were $22.65, up 3 cents from June and 2.7% above the average wage from a year earlier, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s in line with average wage growth over the past five years: Year-over-year growth has mostly ranged between 2% and 3% since the beginning of 2013. But in the years just before the 2007-08 financial collapse, average hourly earnings often increased by around 4% year-over-year. And during the high-inflation years of the 1970s and early 1980s, average wages commonly jumped 7%, 8% or even 9% year-over-year.

After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.
09-17-2019 11:08 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,700
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #8889
RE: Trump Administration
(09-17-2019 08:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad is the proponent of the "nothing has changed...ever" school of economic thought.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008

From Lad's link.

That data doesn’t account for inflation. The link I provided showed graphs that used the data and did account for inflation.
09-17-2019 11:12 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #8890
RE: Trump Administration
(09-17-2019 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-17-2019 08:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad is the proponent of the "nothing has changed...ever" school of economic thought.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008

From Lad's link.

That data doesn’t account for inflation. The link I provided showed graphs that used the data and did account for inflation.

You sure put a lot of faith in inflation. That graph shows wages up 28.2% in the 10 years plus on the graph.

Now find me something that says inflation is up 28.2% for the same period.
09-17-2019 11:22 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #8891
RE: Trump Administration
The article lad points to seemingly directly contradicts his original assertion that the real wage for 25-35 year olds has dropped.

The article notes that even if *all* of those in that age group were in the last tenth of wage earners, even those real wages have gone *up* by 3% --- meaning that the 'bucket of goods' that could be bought with the average bottom tenth has gone up by the 3% in that time. Not dropped as the claim was.
09-18-2019 01:52 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,700
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #8892
RE: Trump Administration
(09-17-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-17-2019 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-17-2019 08:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad is the proponent of the "nothing has changed...ever" school of economic thought.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008

From Lad's link.

That data doesn’t account for inflation. The link I provided showed graphs that used the data and did account for inflation.

You sure put a lot of faith in inflation. That graph shows wages up 28.2% in the 10 years plus on the graph.

Now find me something that says inflation is up 28.2% for the same period.

Did you look at the Pew Research article I posted?
09-18-2019 06:55 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,700
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #8893
RE: Trump Administration
(09-18-2019 01:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The article lad points to seemingly directly contradicts his original assertion that the real wage for 25-35 year olds has dropped.

The article notes that even if *all* of those in that age group were in the last tenth of wage earners, even those real wages have gone *up* by 3% --- meaning that the 'bucket of goods' that could be bought with the average bottom tenth has gone up by the 3% in that time. Not dropped as the claim was.

My original claim is that real wages have stagnated - not dropped. Big difference there, and I’m not sure why you would so blatantly change what I said. Why do that?

A 3% change is pretty flat over almost 20 years, right? Especially when you look at the rest of the paragraph:

Quote:Meanwhile, wage gains have gone largely to the highest earners. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have risen 3% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution and 4.3% among the lowest quarter. But among people in the top tenth of the distribution, real wages have risen a cumulative 15.7%, to $2,112 a week – nearly five times the usual weekly earnings of the bottom tenth ($426).
09-18-2019 07:00 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,700
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #8894
RE: Trump Administration
(09-17-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-17-2019 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-17-2019 08:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad is the proponent of the "nothing has changed...ever" school of economic thought.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008

From Lad's link.

That data doesn’t account for inflation. The link I provided showed graphs that used the data and did account for inflation.

You sure put a lot of faith in inflation. That graph shows wages up 28.2% in the 10 years plus on the graph.

Now find me something that says inflation is up 28.2% for the same period.

OO - it would probably help your arguments if you actually looked at data. The annual inflation rate over the last 10 years was 1.54% (I think - I did the math mentally). Using that average rate, and compounding it year over year, that is a 16.5% increas based on inflation. But I’ve been talking about decades, not just the last decade, which starts in the middle of the Great Recession (and in a year with deflation) when wages were suppressed. You can run the 20 year numbers - too early for that mental math.

As I said to Tanq, a 3% increase in real wages in 20 years is pretty darn flat. If you want to argue that it isn’t, feel free to.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/in...ion-rates/
09-18-2019 07:10 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,700
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #8895
RE: Trump Administration
Interesting piece in the FT that touches on a lot of what has been discussed recently:

https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470...7ebd53ab77
09-18-2019 10:04 AM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #8896
RE: Trump Administration
(09-18-2019 07:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-18-2019 01:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The article lad points to seemingly directly contradicts his original assertion that the real wage for 25-35 year olds has dropped.

The article notes that even if *all* of those in that age group were in the last tenth of wage earners, even those real wages have gone *up* by 3% --- meaning that the 'bucket of goods' that could be bought with the average bottom tenth has gone up by the 3% in that time. Not dropped as the claim was.

My original claim is that real wages have stagnated - not dropped. Big difference there, and I’m not sure why you would so blatantly change what I said. Why do that?

A 3% change is pretty flat over almost 20 years, right? Especially when you look at the rest of the paragraph:

Quote:Meanwhile, wage gains have gone largely to the highest earners. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have risen 3% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution and 4.3% among the lowest quarter. But among people in the top tenth of the distribution, real wages have risen a cumulative 15.7%, to $2,112 a week – nearly five times the usual weekly earnings of the bottom tenth ($426).

And you also claim was so how much worse it was for young people. Dont play hide the pony with that one. Did you forget that or are you just trying to shuffle some dirt around and hide that one?

Second, real wages being flat in no way, shape, or form leads to the travails of all the poor youngsters you incessantly bemoan the plight of.

Third, wages are flat. The have been so since the 1960s. 50 years. Only *now* is this an emergency?

I mean good god, what this means is that the average wage gets the average pile of stuff. The real problem is when a national real wage plummets, that is, when the same normalized wage *doesnt* recapture what it could. But we are somehow bemoaning that, hey, people are no worse off thatn 50 gd years ago? Aand in fact more.

The data when you go back in time shows the 'real wage' only making a massive increase directly after WW2 -- which makes sense for two reasons. First, the end of the war and a huge untouched industrial base that was literally screaming along at war levels. Second, the base from which it came from was the Depression -- i.e. a biggest drop in 'real wages' this nation has really ever seen.

I will be happy to go back and find the very recent tomes you wrote about how 'young people have such a hard time and the worst time ever' in terms of wages. I really dont want to, but just accept your tome before it comes back into your face. So no, your thrust was about how badly the young people have had it in real wages. That collected data tells just the opposite story.

Please stop changing your story on us. It gets really gd tiring.
09-18-2019 10:09 AM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #8897
RE: Trump Administration
(09-17-2019 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-17-2019 06:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I thought about my response and would like to add to it...

In addition to 1950's (or 1970's or 1990's) healthcare being dirt cheap, so too would 1970's cars or TVs or computers or even food options. You didn't USED to be able to buy fruit in the winter, you know? Hotels and movie theaters used to ADVERTISE that they had Air Conditioning... and very few 18yr olds used to go rent their own apartments, buy cars, fly to other countries for vacations etc etc etc

As generations pass, the expectations continually rise for the next generation. This isn't unique to your generation nor mine... That's not the cost of living... it's the cost of an increasing standard of living.

Just have to look at real costs over time to see how things have changed with respect to affordability. Costs of card have remained relatively neutral, along with apparel and household furnishings.

While you’re right that increase in quality (for lack of a better word) has increased, at the same time the costs to produce those increases has sometimes increased (see TV technology). So I don’t think it’s so easy to say that cars would be appreciably cheaper without X, because the cost of X may be inconsequential.

https://howmuch.net/articles/price-chang...t-20-years

Actually put your thinking cap on. That is actually baked straight into the definition of real wage. Flat means there is no relative change when indexed for inflation. Inflation is the change in cost of a 'pile of things'.

So you are now bitching that it takes the same relative work to but a hamburger or a car than it did not just 20 years ago that you seemingly like to fking cherry pick to fix it into your 'young people now are screwed' caterwaul, but actually 50 years?

I mean, think about what it takes to do a rising real wage? It kind of really only happens when you have the only factory in town and enjoy the entire fruits of all the people. Kind of like the US between 1940 and 1955.

It means that you are running along so unopposed in the market that you will have such an excess of production that everyone (literally) is employed and the only way to more localized work is to poach your already higher paid neighbors.

Do you *really* think that has existed at any time since, oh, say, the early 1960s? That is, when the flat real wage came into play. I mean globalization shot that ideal right out of the sky, and the only way to boost real wages is to somehow create full employment, massive more local demand for employment, and all without tipping into massive inflation.

When you figure that one out, please do tell. You would get a fing Nobel for that if you could implement that.
09-18-2019 10:19 AM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #8898
RE: Trump Administration
Actually decided to make sure there is no cha cha cha here

Quote: I agree that young people are better informed than years past because of how accessible information is, but are also less able to live on their own. Stagnant wages, higher costs of living, higher costs of healthcare, etc. have create that situation where living on their own is a lot more difficult.

You stated 'stagnant wages and higher costs' lad. That combination be definition is 'lower real wages' since those 'higher costs' are baked into the inflation rate. And inflation is baked into real wages by definition.

You *never* mentioned 'stagnant real wages', and your inclusion of 'higher costs' makes any claims of you meaning that kind of nonsensical.

If you meant to say 'stagnant real wages' and 'rising costs' would again be a definitional oxymoron. Just saying. Because the 'rising costs' are baked into the definition of 'real wages'. I wouldnt be dissing OO about 'actually looking at the data' when you have a pretty severe definitional problem going on.
(This post was last modified: 09-18-2019 10:32 AM by tanqtonic.)
09-18-2019 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #8899
RE: Trump Administration
(09-18-2019 07:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-17-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-17-2019 11:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-17-2019 08:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad is the proponent of the "nothing has changed...ever" school of economic thought.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008

From Lad's link.

That data doesn’t account for inflation. The link I provided showed graphs that used the data and did account for inflation.

You sure put a lot of faith in inflation. That graph shows wages up 28.2% in the 10 years plus on the graph.

Now find me something that says inflation is up 28.2% for the same period.

OO - it would probably help your arguments if you actually looked at data. The annual inflation rate over the last 10 years was 1.54% (I think - I did the math mentally). Using that average rate, and compounding it year over year, that is a 16.5% increas based on inflation. But I’ve been talking about decades, not just the last decade, which starts in the middle of the Great Recession (and in a year with deflation) when wages were suppressed. You can run the 20 year numbers - too early for that mental math.

As I said to Tanq, a 3% increase in real wages in 20 years is pretty darn flat. If you want to argue that it isn’t, feel free to.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/in...ion-rates/

Yeah, I have been looking at data, but your sneering superiority is noted.

One article I noted showed that over the exact same period as the graph, inflation was a cumulative 21.2% - lees that the 28.2%, Not sure what stagnation means to an engineer, but it mean to me that wages stayed the same.

Another that I looked at tracked the inflation year for year. For the the three years of Trump's administration, inflation has been steadily down: 1.9, 1.7, 1.5. Wages are steadily up, as noted elsewhere, an average of 2.7%. The lines are diverging. Again, not my idea of stagnation.

But in the end, what does it matter? The stagnation you brought up was an excuse for modern kids to not leave home, to stay with mom and pop. I don't see how that plays. I can't see some 25 YO lying on the couch moaning that it is takes as much in labor to buy a hamburger as it did 45 years ago.

"Stagnant wages, higher costs of living, higher costs of healthcare, etc. have create that situation where living on their own is a lot more difficult." - post 8872

And remember, I was there 45 years ago. They weren't lying on the couch then. I wasn't lying on the couch then. But I am glad to hear (thanks!) that I had it easier than kids today. I guess that excuses their ignorance. Such a tough life.

Your thesis would make my dad puke.
(This post was last modified: 09-18-2019 10:37 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
09-18-2019 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,700
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #8900
RE: Trump Administration
(09-18-2019 10:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-18-2019 07:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-18-2019 01:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The article lad points to seemingly directly contradicts his original assertion that the real wage for 25-35 year olds has dropped.

The article notes that even if *all* of those in that age group were in the last tenth of wage earners, even those real wages have gone *up* by 3% --- meaning that the 'bucket of goods' that could be bought with the average bottom tenth has gone up by the 3% in that time. Not dropped as the claim was.

My original claim is that real wages have stagnated - not dropped. Big difference there, and I’m not sure why you would so blatantly change what I said. Why do that?

A 3% change is pretty flat over almost 20 years, right? Especially when you look at the rest of the paragraph:

Quote:Meanwhile, wage gains have gone largely to the highest earners. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have risen 3% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution and 4.3% among the lowest quarter. But among people in the top tenth of the distribution, real wages have risen a cumulative 15.7%, to $2,112 a week – nearly five times the usual weekly earnings of the bottom tenth ($426).

And you also claim was so how much worse it was for young people. Dont play hide the pony with that one. Did you forget that or are you just trying to shuffle some dirt around and hide that one?

Second, real wages being flat in no way, shape, or form leads to the travails of all the poor youngsters you incessantly bemoan the plight of.

Third, wages are flat. The have been so since the 1960s. 50 years. Only *now* is this an emergency?

I mean good god, what this means is that the average wage gets the average pile of stuff. The real problem is when a national real wage plummets, that is, when the same normalized wage *doesnt* recapture what it could. But we are somehow bemoaning that, hey, people are no worse off thatn 50 gd years ago? Aand in fact more.

The data when you go back in time shows the 'real wage' only making a massive increase directly after WW2 -- which makes sense for two reasons. First, the end of the war and a huge untouched industrial base that was literally screaming along at war levels. Second, the base from which it came from was the Depression -- i.e. a biggest drop in 'real wages' this nation has really ever seen.

I will be happy to go back and find the very recent tomes you wrote about how 'young people have such a hard time and the worst time ever' in terms of wages. I really dont want to, but just accept your tome before it comes back into your face. So no, your thrust was about how badly the young people have had it in real wages. That collected data tells just the opposite story.

Please stop changing your story on us. It gets really gd tiring.


Can you explain what story has changed? Because you really are just putting a lot of words in my mouth, Tanq, and that's why you think my story has changed.

1) Never said that wage stagnation is just NOW becoming a problem. Was kind of hard for me to beat that drum prior to 1989...

2) I never said wage stagnation was the sole reason young people were worse off. If you couple wage stagnation with increase in specific items (like housing, secondary education, etc.) you see why young people have it worse off. There's no pony hiding - just a holistic evaluation that looks at real wages and real costs.

Maybe you're getting confused because I talked about real wages and real costs?
09-18-2019 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.