3 ms·
When you actually look at the numbers, rather than simply believing the graphic, you will find that your data proves your opponent correct. The income levels t
by unprepare 11y ago
When you actually look at the numbers, rather than simply believing the graphic, you will find that your data proves your opponent correct.
The income levels that fell during the studied period:
15,000-24,999
25,000-34,999
35,000-49,999
50,000-74,999
75,000-99,999
Income levels that grew:
100,000-100,000+
100k + increased by 6%
75k-99k decreased by 1.1%
50k-74k decreased by 3.1%
But sure, you could make up your own categories for the data to make 75,000+ look like it went up, when in reality it was only 100,000+ that showed an increase.
The fact is that the middle class is shrinking, and wages are stagnant or falling.
I encourage you to actually check the sources linked in articles - when you find different categories of data in the article than the study, its likely something is being misrepresented.
- CWuestefeld 11y agoI don't think you're saying anything different, you're just missing how it proves the point. The key is that the number of people in the higher tiers increased, while the membership of the lower tiers went down. That's exactly what you said. But what it shows is people were shifting into those higher tiers. You're right that in all groups below $75K, the percentage of people in the group went down. While from $75K and up, the membership of each group increased (you've read that part of the data wrong, as the $75l-$99K group also increased.). That's precisely what my linked article says, and exactly what we'd like to see: people are shifting from lower groups into higher groups, across the board. EDIT: here's the spreadsheet from the census bureau I was working from: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0696.xls http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0696.x... (Excel spreadsheet)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]