3 ms·

"Those are roughly 40% and 55% increases. How is that not exciting?" Why are we even discussing this if you can't see that it's been essentially unchanged sinc

by gozo 11y ago

"Those are roughly 40% and 55% increases. How is that not exciting?" Why are we even discussing this if you can't see that it's been essentially unchanged since the '70s? Similarly rents has gone up as percentage of income and housing prices just went through a boom and bust cycle and has been far higher on average the last decade than before. Sure, there are other factors to look at, but you are very much skewing the numbers to you liking as you accused others of having done in you first post in this thread.

hodwik 11y ago
Uh, what? There's been an almost 25% growth in median real income from 1970 at 21k to 2007 at 28k. And it's not exactly like we're really pushing the Republican economic vision. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the entire OECD. http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/corporate-tax-rates-for-web_0.png http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/corporate-tax-rates-...
- wtallis 11y ago
  You're reading the wrong line on the graph because you're not reading the comments you're replying to. The median income for men is what was cited as being essentially flat since 1970. You can't simply pretend that a different argument was made and refute that.
  - refurb 11y ago
    I didn't think the focus was men. I keep hearing how there has been no wage growth since the 1970s and this data seems to indicate that's not true.
    - wtallis 11y ago
      It doesn't, since annual income and hourly wage aren't the same thing, and are related through a variable (hours worked) that has changed significantly since 1970 for women. If the only income increases are largely due to working more hours, then that is obviously a trend that's got major downsides and must soon hit a limit. The luxury of having a stay-at-home parent only provided a limited amount of slack.
      - hodwik 11y ago
        From above -- First, no, that data is only for full-time, year-round employees. https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/2014/p36AR.xls https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/peopl... Second, employees are working less hours now than before, so if you think that line of argumentation flies, it actually supports my position -- adding an additional 12.5% to per capita median income per hour. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRU...

by gozo 11y ago

hodwik 11y ago

Uh, what? There's been an almost 25% growth in median real income from 1970 at 21k to 2007 at 28k. And it's not exactly like we're really pushing the Republican economic vision. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the entire OECD. http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/corporate-tax-rates-for-web_0.png http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/corporate-tax-rates-...

wtallis 11y ago
You're reading the wrong line on the graph because you're not reading the comments you're replying to. The median income for men is what was cited as being essentially flat since 1970. You can't simply pretend that a different argument was made and refute that.
- refurb 11y ago
  I didn't think the focus was men. I keep hearing how there has been no wage growth since the 1970s and this data seems to indicate that's not true.
  - wtallis 11y ago
    It doesn't, since annual income and hourly wage aren't the same thing, and are related through a variable (hours worked) that has changed significantly since 1970 for women. If the only income increases are largely due to working more hours, then that is obviously a trend that's got major downsides and must soon hit a limit. The luxury of having a stay-at-home parent only provided a limited amount of slack.
    - hodwik 11y ago
      From above -- First, no, that data is only for full-time, year-round employees. https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/2014/p36AR.xls https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/peopl... Second, employees are working less hours now than before, so if you think that line of argumentation flies, it actually supports my position -- adding an additional 12.5% to per capita median income per hour. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRU...