Unemployment-discuss

2001400ex

PurpleThrobber said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

PurpleThrobber said:

Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.

Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.

Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).

That's some spectacular Cuog math

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

UWhuskytskeet said:

PurpleThrobber said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

PurpleThrobber said:

Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.

Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.

Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).

That's some spectacular Cuog math

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?

What part of math do you hate?

I illustrated very clearly how your 2012 median is higher. Kudos.

CuntWaffle

UWhuskytskeet said:

PurpleThrobber said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

PurpleThrobber said:

Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.

Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.

Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).

That's some spectacular Cuog math

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?

Please refrain from using the R word. Thanks.

UWhuskytskeet

PurpleThrobber said:

What part of math do you hate?

I illustrated very clearly how your 2012 median is higher. Kudos.

It's retarded because this shit is readily available. Everyone here would rather argue about imaginary figures instead of just looking it up.

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.

UWhuskytskeet

Here is a closer look at the bottom two quintiles since that is what was questioned in the median income chart:

HoustonHusky

UWhuskytskeet said:

PurpleThrobber said:

Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.

Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.

Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).

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.

Not sure what your point is but its a good graph.

Fire_Marshall_Bill

UWhuskytskeet said:

PurpleThrobber said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

PurpleThrobber said:

Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.

Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.

Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).

That's some spectacular Cuog math

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?

Are you new here?

pawz

RaceBannon said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleThrobber said:

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.

You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.

Same methodology as when Reagan was president.

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 seem to remember the methodology changing as recently as the October before Obama's re-election.

And that has what to do with you being a liar?

Wait. What?

TierbsHsotBoobs

PurpleThrobber said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

PurpleThrobber said:

Reagan's employed were making middle class living wage incomes.

Obama's employed are slightly above the poverty line.

Median household income in constant 2012 dollars is higher now than it was in the 80's (though it has decreased since the recession).

That's some spectacular Cuog math

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 wasn't aware that the sample size of American households was 13.

RaceBannon

Liars figure and figures lie

Can we get back to side and under boobs please?

pawz

Swaye

pawz said:

I didn't read anything until here.

RaceBannon

pawz said:

RaceBannon said:

pawz said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleThrobber said:

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.

You mean all the people who quit trying to find work and are no longer counted? So there's that.

Same methodology as when Reagan was president.

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 seem to remember the methodology changing as recently as the October before Obama's re-election.

And that has what to do with you being a liar?

Wait. What?

Ooops. My bad

PurpleThrobber

pawz said:

The median of that is my face motorboating. (*)(*)