7 ms·

Also, I've seen your posts before. Often, you post links to data. I like data, and each time you post a link, I check it out. But, in the past I've been convinc

by ap22213 11y ago

Also, I've seen your posts before. Often, you post links to data. I like data, and each time you post a link, I check it out. But, in the past I've been convinced that you had cherry picked your data or misrepresented it. But, when I've queried you about it in the past, I'd gotten no response.

refurb 11y ago
He's linking to data from the Federal Reserve. What makes you think it's cherry picked? The fact that total compensation has increased over the past 20-30 years is not a secret. It's well known.
- ap22213 11y ago
  Cherry picking means presenting one set of data that supports an argument while ignoring others that don't. The data isn't from the fed but from BLS. And, a reading of the descriptions of what that data contains shows that it includes all non-farm works, including managers and executives, and even private business owners. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/art1full.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/art1full.pdf
lkrubner 11y ago
yummyfajitas prefers to offer an alternate history of the USA, full of "what might have been"s. There was an era from the 1930s to the 1950s when the top income tax bracket was taxed at 91%. In the early 1960s, the top tax was lowered to 70%, and it remained at that level till the big tax cuts of President Regan, who lowered the top tax to 28%, back in 1982. When the top tax rates were extremely high, most workers sought un-taxed benefits, rather than money. For instance, in the 1950s, any income in excess of $100,000 was taxed at a rate of 91%, but benefits such as health care and life insurance and company sponsored travel were not taxed. Therefore, during that era, it became common for top workers to demand non-monetary, un-taxed perks. The same forces also drove the middle class, who were also facing high taxes -- they sought those benefits that were un-taxed, since asking for more money ran into the penalty of very high taxes. Everything changed once President Reagan lowered taxes in 1982. Then it became much more common for workers to seek income. Seeking un-taxed benefits became less crucial, once taxes were lowered. For reasons that I don't understand, yummyfajitas prefers to flip this narrative, and suggests that workers sought non-monetary compensation after President Reagan had lowered taxes. That is both ahistorical and it doesn't even make rational sense. The median male wage has been in decline since 1973: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/the-wages-of-men/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/the-wages-of-men... Some people like to disguise this fact with rhetoric about the increasing quality of products. The debate over the standard of living can get very complex. There are thousands of variables that can be considered. To my mind, the strongest fact that effects this debate is that Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles the Consumer Price Index to keep track of the cost of an average basket of goods for an average American family, but rent is left out of the CPI. The ratio of the average wage to the average rent actually hit its happiest peak in 1958. For obvious reasons, this was also the peak year of the Baby Boom (if people have a more difficult time affording a place to live, then they will have fewer babies). Therefore, it is likely that men have seen a decline in wages since before 1973. That is, a full accounting of the median male wage, reduced by the full effects of inflation, including the impact on rent, suggests that men have seen an erosion of their standard of living since some point between 1958 and 1973.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  I'm confused - your post implies something I said does not reflect reality. Do you believe the BLS data I linked to is wrong? If you subtract increasing total comp from flat wages, do you not get an increase in non-wage comp? What, exactly, do you think I'm wrong about? And why do you care only about male wages? I'll remind you that it's not 1973 anymore - women get to have careers if they want and compete economically with men.
  - hiram112 11y ago
    The point is that one income could provide for a family. Now two incomes cannot adequately do that. We're all under agreement that women having the chance to work is great. But I think many people, including most women I know, would be thrilled if they could afford to raise their kids instead of work (i.e. only one salary needed for the family unit, man or woman) should they choose. Even though we're supposedly so rich with IPhones, sugary foods a plenty, etc, these gains in income sure don't buy what they used to.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      That's because the definition of "adequately" has grown faster than income. If you can reduce your standard of living to that of someone in 1973 you still can live on a single income (as demonstrated by data on real hourly comp). Of course, the law makes it very hard to reduce your standard of living that low. For example, Obamacare and similar laws make it illegal to sell cheap 1973 insurance (the kind of insurance where you die if the cure hit the market in 1974). Cheap "unsafe" 1973 cars are also illegal. Etc.
      - SamReidHughes 11y ago
        For what it's worth you can buy used cars that are, I'll presume for the sake of argument, cheaper than and better than new 1973 cars.
- DrScump 11y ago

by ap22213 11y ago

refurb 11y ago

He's linking to data from the Federal Reserve. What makes you think it's cherry picked? The fact that total compensation has increased over the past 20-30 years is not a secret. It's well known.

ap22213 11y ago
Cherry picking means presenting one set of data that supports an argument while ignoring others that don't. The data isn't from the fed but from BLS. And, a reading of the descriptions of what that data contains shows that it includes all non-farm works, including managers and executives, and even private business owners. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/art1full.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/art1full.pdf

lkrubner 11y ago

yummyfajitas prefers to offer an alternate history of the USA, full of "what might have been"s. There was an era from the 1930s to the 1950s when the top income tax bracket was taxed at 91%. In the early 1960s, the top tax was lowered to 70%, and it remained at that level till the big tax cuts of President Regan, who lowered the top tax to 28%, back in 1982. When the top tax rates were extremely high, most workers sought un-taxed benefits, rather than money. For instance, in the 1950s, any income in excess of $100,000 was taxed at a rate of 91%, but benefits such as health care and life insurance and company sponsored travel were not taxed. Therefore, during that era, it became common for top workers to demand non-monetary, un-taxed perks. The same forces also drove the middle class, who were also facing high taxes -- they sought those benefits that were un-taxed, since asking for more money ran into the penalty of very high taxes. Everything changed once President Reagan lowered taxes in 1982. Then it became much more common for workers to seek income. Seeking un-taxed benefits became less crucial, once taxes were lowered. For reasons that I don't understand, yummyfajitas prefers to flip this narrative, and suggests that workers sought non-monetary compensation after President Reagan had lowered taxes. That is both ahistorical and it doesn't even make rational sense. The median male wage has been in decline since 1973: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/the-wages-of-men/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/the-wages-of-men... Some people like to disguise this fact with rhetoric about the increasing quality of products. The debate over the standard of living can get very complex. There are thousands of variables that can be considered. To my mind, the strongest fact that effects this debate is that Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles the Consumer Price Index to keep track of the cost of an average basket of goods for an average American family, but rent is left out of the CPI. The ratio of the average wage to the average rent actually hit its happiest peak in 1958. For obvious reasons, this was also the peak year of the Baby Boom (if people have a more difficult time affording a place to live, then they will have fewer babies). Therefore, it is likely that men have seen a decline in wages since before 1973. That is, a full accounting of the median male wage, reduced by the full effects of inflation, including the impact on rent, suggests that men have seen an erosion of their standard of living since some point between 1958 and 1973.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I'm confused - your post implies something I said does not reflect reality. Do you believe the BLS data I linked to is wrong? If you subtract increasing total comp from flat wages, do you not get an increase in non-wage comp? What, exactly, do you think I'm wrong about? And why do you care only about male wages? I'll remind you that it's not 1973 anymore - women get to have careers if they want and compete economically with men.
- hiram112 11y ago
  The point is that one income could provide for a family. Now two incomes cannot adequately do that. We're all under agreement that women having the chance to work is great. But I think many people, including most women I know, would be thrilled if they could afford to raise their kids instead of work (i.e. only one salary needed for the family unit, man or woman) should they choose. Even though we're supposedly so rich with IPhones, sugary foods a plenty, etc, these gains in income sure don't buy what they used to.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    That's because the definition of "adequately" has grown faster than income. If you can reduce your standard of living to that of someone in 1973 you still can live on a single income (as demonstrated by data on real hourly comp). Of course, the law makes it very hard to reduce your standard of living that low. For example, Obamacare and similar laws make it illegal to sell cheap 1973 insurance (the kind of insurance where you die if the cure hit the market in 1974). Cheap "unsafe" 1973 cars are also illegal. Etc.
    - SamReidHughes 11y ago
      For what it's worth you can buy used cars that are, I'll presume for the sake of argument, cheaper than and better than new 1973 cars.
DrScump 11y ago