Knicks · Where the heck is Hillary Clinton? (page 173)
Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.
That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.
Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.
Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).
meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.
Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.
Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).
One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton's entire term - then his computed annual growth rate (inflation adjusted) for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%
meloshouldgo wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.
Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.
Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).
One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%
But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.
earthmansurfer wrote:Conflict of interest?
Oops, doesn't blow up enough, short email, just look here. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ema...
Someone giving someone else a heads up.
And from Judicial Watch (below tweet)
Related Stories:
DOJ Official Who Is Friends With John Podesta Offered A ‘Heads Up’ On Clinton Email Developments
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/02/doj-of...
Justice Department official gave Clinton camp 'heads up' about testimony
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/...
Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/stranahan/status/793861068434976769
Click here to view the Tweet
earthmansurfer wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:Conflict of interest?
Oops, doesn't blow up enough, short email, just look here. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ema...
Someone giving someone else a heads up.And from Judicial Watch (below tweet)
Related Stories:DOJ Official Who Is Friends With John Podesta Offered A ‘Heads Up’ On Clinton Email Developments
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/02/doj-of...Justice Department official gave Clinton camp 'heads up' about testimony
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/...Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/stranahan/status/793861068434976769
Click here to view the Tweet
So Clinton's team might have been warned there would be questions about her e-mail. This means that we should vote for the self-described sexual predator who's about to stand trial for child rape instead?!
holfresh wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:holfresh wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:holfresh wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?The average median household income increased 14.2% between 1992 and 2000...From 2000 to 2015 it decreased -2.4%
Link?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/2008...This data isn't inflation adusted as far as I can tell. Can't spend too much time on it at work. My data was in 1982 dollars yours is much later. I will try to find inflation adjusted data using later dollars but I have much more faith in federal reserve data that I used on that graph of median wages.
Doesn't make a difference if it's inflation adjusted because the change is expressed in percentages...CPI adjusted would yield the same data...
OMG 
Bonn1997 wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:Conflict of interest?
Oops, doesn't blow up enough, short email, just look here. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ema...
Someone giving someone else a heads up.And from Judicial Watch (below tweet)
Related Stories:DOJ Official Who Is Friends With John Podesta Offered A ‘Heads Up’ On Clinton Email Developments
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/02/doj-of...Justice Department official gave Clinton camp 'heads up' about testimony
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/...Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/stranahan/status/793861068434976769
Click here to view the Tweet
So Clinton's team might have been warned there would be questions about her e-mail. This means that we should vote for the self-described sexual predator who's about to stand trial for child rape instead?!
If the child rape case was strong, MSM would be reporting on it non stop. It is a weak case.
To compare that extreme accusation to a factual email exchange regarding conflicts of interest within government, regarding an investigation in Hillary, is just side tracking.
I guess I could throw in how she pushed the military to go into Libya (30,000 deaths), voted on the mess in Irag (1,000,000+ deaths) and Afghanastan and is pushing hard for Syria.
She is a war hawk, and all of our lives are endangered. A vote for Hillary for ward.
earthmansurfer wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:Conflict of interest?
Oops, doesn't blow up enough, short email, just look here. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ema...
Someone giving someone else a heads up.And from Judicial Watch (below tweet)
Related Stories:DOJ Official Who Is Friends With John Podesta Offered A ‘Heads Up’ On Clinton Email Developments
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/02/doj-of...Justice Department official gave Clinton camp 'heads up' about testimony
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/...Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/stranahan/status/793861068434976769
Click here to view the Tweet
the question for me is why are you siting and referencing material from Fox News and Daily Caller? Those are not reputable media.
They are so slanted such that they should not be read. For real
martin wrote:
the question for me is why are you siting and referencing material from Fox News and Daily Caller? Those are not reputable media.They are so slanted such that they should not be read. For real
Is that what you come back with? just look at the emails. You don't have to interpret it. Does it matter who reports on the email? It is Wiki-linked :-)
Here is another one.
earthmansurfer wrote:martin wrote:
the question for me is why are you siting and referencing material from Fox News and Daily Caller? Those are not reputable media.They are so slanted such that they should not be read. For real
Is that what you come back with? just look at the emails. You don't have to interpret it. Does it matter who reports on the email? It is Wiki-linked :-)
Here is another one.
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me
Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.
Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.
Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).
One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%
But you still seem to be attributing this to one person or at least not acknowledging that there are other contributing factors. Why not rephrase it as, "If you assume a flat growth rate during Republican control of Congress in the 1990s, then..." Either way, having slightly slow wage growth sounds better than possibly going backwards under Trump.
Nope. I started saying Clinton helped kill the middle class by intensifying Trickle down and gave the evidence of accelerated separation of the one percenters from the rest of the population. Then we go into a discussion about what he had done for the middle class and I provided the wage growth data to show he had done little or nothing. I am not holding him accountable for coming up with the laws but like I have said before he had the ability to veto multiple laws and he chose not to (repeal of Glass - Stegall, NAFTA, etc.) For that part, I do hold him and only him accountable. Democrats in office have no moral fiber (JFK and Obama being notable exceptions).
Also, accepting slow growth over structural reform (good or bad reform) is the definition of accepting status quo. I am not asking you to consider structural reform in the form of Trump but I am just pointing out that people voting for her do accept establishment politics and status quo, everything else is just noise.