Unemployment-discuss
Comments
-
Both made it to 77.
-
Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line. -
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line. -
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.2001400ex said:
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line. -
Only thing to discuss is how big of a dumbass you are.
The unemployment calculation has changed several times between Reagan and now, so comparing the rates if FS unless you are a moron with an IQ less than 55. Its why one is labeled U-3 and the other isn't.
And the fact this was painfully beat into your skull a couple months back and yet you are still to stupid to either remember or match that information to whatever Liberal hack site you pulled that graph off (Maddow blog???) is further proof of the failed state of your genetics and abilities. -
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.PurpleThrobber said:
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.2001400ex said:
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number. -
Here is the entire discussion HondoFS that points out how big of a moron you are. Not sure why you want to rehash it...but then again, I never did understand stupid.
hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/18299/hellava-oconomy-we-got-going-on-here/p3
-
this is a flat out blatant lie that was proved to you previously2001400ex said:
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.PurpleThrobber said:
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.2001400ex said:
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number. -
All the typing you did in that thread and you still never substantiated that the unemployment calculation changed enough to justify saying the numbers aren't comparable.HoustonHusky said:Here is the entire discussion HondoFS that points out how big of a moron you are. Not sure why you want to rehash it...but then again, I never did understand stupid.
hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/18299/hellava-oconomy-we-got-going-on-here/p3
Just shake my head. -
I seem to remember the methodology changing as recently as the October before Obama's re-election.2001400ex said:
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.PurpleThrobber said:
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.2001400ex said:
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number.
-
To hear the pebble bounce around?2001400ex said:
Just shake my head.HoustonHusky said:Here is the entire discussion HondoFS that points out how big of a moron you are. Not sure why you want to rehash it...but then again, I never did understand stupid.
hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/18299/hellava-oconomy-we-got-going-on-here/p3
-
Then post a link and document the change.pawz said:
I seem to remember the methodology changing as recently as the October before Obama's re-election.2001400ex said:
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.PurpleThrobber said:
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.2001400ex said:
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number. -
And that has what to do with you being a liar?pawz said:
I seem to remember the methodology changing as recently as the October before Obama's re-election.2001400ex said:
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.PurpleThrobber said:
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.2001400ex said:
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number. -
Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
-
I'm sure inflation has no part in this equation.UWhuskytskeet said:
Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line. -
I'm guessing you weren't an econ major.CuntWaffle said:
I'm sure inflation has no part in this equation.UWhuskytskeet said:
Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line. -
CHRIST.CuntWaffle said:
I'm sure inflation has no part in this equation.UWhuskytskeet said:
Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Not your best effort on that one. -
constant 2012 dollarsCuntWaffle said:
I'm sure inflation has no part in this equation.UWhuskytskeet said:
Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
No. It. Doesn't. -
That's some spectacular Cuog mathUWhuskytskeet said:
Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
To find the Median, place the numbers you are given in value order and find the middle number.
Example: find the Median of {13, 23, 11, 16, 15, 10, 26}.
Put them in order: {10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 23, 26}
The middle number is 15, so the median is 15.
Let's keep it simple to show what a deceptive pile of shit you are spewing forth:
1980 median: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
2012 median 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
-
Jesus Christ, is everyone here fucking retarded?PurpleThrobber said:
That's some spectacular Cuog mathUWhuskytskeet said:
Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
To find the Median, place the numbers you are given in value order and find the middle number.
Example: find the Median of {13, 23, 11, 16, 15, 10, 26}.
Put them in order: {10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 23, 26}
The middle number is 15, so the median is 15.
Let's keep it simple to show what a deceptive pile of shit you are spewing forth:
1980 median: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
2012 median 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 -
Are you arguing he should use average? Given that income of the top 1% has increased much faster than everyone else. I'm not sure that will work out in your favor.PurpleThrobber said:
That's some spectacular Cuog mathUWhuskytskeet said:
Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
To find the Median, place the numbers you are given in value order and find the middle number.
Example: find the Median of {13, 23, 11, 16, 15, 10, 26}.
Put them in order: {10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 23, 26}
The middle number is 15, so the median is 15.
Let's keep it simple to show what a deceptive pile of shit you are spewing forth:
1980 median: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
2012 median 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 -
What part of math do you hate?UWhuskytskeet said:
Jesus Christ, is everyone here fucking retarded?PurpleThrobber said:
That's some spectacular Cuog mathUWhuskytskeet said:
Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
To find the Median, place the numbers you are given in value order and find the middle number.
Example: find the Median of {13, 23, 11, 16, 15, 10, 26}.
Put them in order: {10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 23, 26}
The middle number is 15, so the median is 15.
Let's keep it simple to show what a deceptive pile of shit you are spewing forth:
1980 median: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
2012 median 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
I illustrated very clearly how your 2012 median is higher. Kudos.
-
Please refrain from using the R word. Thanks.UWhuskytskeet said:
Jesus Christ, is everyone here fucking retarded?PurpleThrobber said:
That's some spectacular Cuog mathUWhuskytskeet said:
Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
To find the Median, place the numbers you are given in value order and find the middle number.
Example: find the Median of {13, 23, 11, 16, 15, 10, 26}.
Put them in order: {10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 23, 26}
The middle number is 15, so the median is 15.
Let's keep it simple to show what a deceptive pile of shit you are spewing forth:
1980 median: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
2012 median 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 -
It's retarded because this shit is readily available. Everyone here would rather argue about imaginary figures instead of just looking it up.PurpleThrobber said:
What part of math do you hate?
I illustrated very clearly how your 2012 median is higher. Kudos.
Here are mean household income figures in 2013 dollars:
Source: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/
You guys are lucky I don't feel like doing shit at work today. -
Here is a closer look at the bottom two quintiles since that is what was questioned in the median income chart:
-
Ignore the CPI index discussion (that's an entire discussion that makes comparing data across large time gaps hard)...the plot shows median incomes were going up in the 80s and have been going down (now flat) under Obama. They go up because the jobs being created are those above the previous median, they go down because the jobs being created are below the median.UWhuskytskeet said:
Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Not sure what your point is but its a good graph.
-
Are you new here?UWhuskytskeet said:
Jesus Christ, is everyone here fucking retarded?PurpleThrobber said:
That's some spectacular Cuog mathUWhuskytskeet said:
Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
To find the Median, place the numbers you are given in value order and find the middle number.
Example: find the Median of {13, 23, 11, 16, 15, 10, 26}.
Put them in order: {10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 23, 26}
The middle number is 15, so the median is 15.
Let's keep it simple to show what a deceptive pile of shit you are spewing forth:
1980 median: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
2012 median 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 -
Wait. What?RaceBannon said:
And that has what to do with you being a liar?pawz said:
I seem to remember the methodology changing as recently as the October before Obama's re-election.2001400ex said:
Same methodology as when Reagan was president.PurpleThrobber said:
You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.2001400ex said:
Don't forget labor participation rates while you gurgle on Reagan's ballzak.PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
Except @HoustonHusky thinks the formula changed drastically, when really it didn't. There's been minor changes, but nothing that significantly impacts the number. -
I wasn't aware that the sample size of American households was 13.PurpleThrobber said:
That's some spectacular Cuog mathUWhuskytskeet said:
Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).PurpleThrobber said:Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.
Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.
To find the Median, place the numbers you are given in value order and find the middle number.
Example: find the Median of {13, 23, 11, 16, 15, 10, 26}.
Put them in order: {10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 23, 26}
The middle number is 15, so the median is 15.
Let's keep it simple to show what a deceptive pile of shit you are spewing forth:
1980 median: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
2012 median 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
-
Liars figure and figures lie
Can we get back to side and under boobs please?
