Average Quarterly Worker Income Up Lowest Since Records Began (1980)
Quarterly Increase in U.S. Worker Pay Smallest on Record
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-31/worker-pay-in-u-s-rises-0-2-smallest-gain-in-records-to-1982
Sad thing is, in our up-is-down and down-is-up world that seems to be bumping up the stock market, because it puts pressure on the Fed not to raise rates.
Bizarro-world in action...
Comments
-
The unemployment rate is fast approaching the 5-to-5.2 percent range that Fed policy makers have defined as full employment. The rate dropped to 5.3 percent in June, the lowest since April 2008.
And unemployment claims are the lowest since 1973. I'm so confused. -
Sounds like Obama's plan is working.
-
-
As always, it's a great employment environment if you're not an unproductive imbicile.
-
Yeah, but I miss the days when retards like Honda and draft2dodge could actually get jobs and didn't spend all day arguing their partisan talking points on the internet.Blackie said:As always, it's a great employment environment if you're not an unproductive imbicile.
-
From the dude with 9,000 posts?PurpleJ said:
Yeah, but I miss the days when retards like Honda and draft2dodge could actually get jobs and didn't spend all day arguing their partisan talking points on the internet.Blackie said:As always, it's a great employment environment if you're not an unproductive imbicile.
-
8918*2001400ex said:
From the dude with 9,000 posts?PurpleJ said:
Yeah, but I miss the days when retards like Honda and draft2dodge could actually get jobs and didn't spend all day arguing their partisan talking points on the internet.Blackie said:As always, it's a great employment environment if you're not an unproductive imbicile.
-
This thread delivers. I could give my economic opinion, but fuck it.
-
8919*PurpleJ said:
8918*2001400ex said:
From the dude with 9,000 posts?PurpleJ said:
Yeah, but I miss the days when retards like Honda and draft2dodge could actually get jobs and didn't spend all day arguing their partisan talking points on the internet.Blackie said:As always, it's a great employment environment if you're not an unproductive imbicile.
-
That is because of are fucking stupid.2001400ex said:The unemployment rate is fast approaching the 5-to-5.2 percent range that Fed policy makers have defined as full employment. The rate dropped to 5.3 percent in June, the lowest since April 2008.
And unemployment claims are the lowest since 1973. I'm so confused.
HTH but it won't.
-
8922*2001400ex said:
8919*PurpleJ said:
8918*2001400ex said:
From the dude with 9,000 posts?PurpleJ said:
Yeah, but I miss the days when retards like Honda and draft2dodge could actually get jobs and didn't spend all day arguing their partisan talking points on the internet.Blackie said:As always, it's a great employment environment if you're not an unproductive imbicile.
-
Since you are the master of insight. Why don't you explain it to me then.CuntWaffle said:
That is because of are fucking stupid.2001400ex said:The unemployment rate is fast approaching the 5-to-5.2 percent range that Fed policy makers have defined as full employment. The rate dropped to 5.3 percent in June, the lowest since April 2008.
And unemployment claims are the lowest since 1973. I'm so confused.
HTH but it won't. -
You are arguing unemployment rates. The thread is about the overall pay for these "jobs" have been stagnant.2001400ex said:
Since you are the master of insight. Why don't you explain it to me then.CuntWaffle said:
That is because of are fucking stupid.2001400ex said:The unemployment rate is fast approaching the 5-to-5.2 percent range that Fed policy makers have defined as full employment. The rate dropped to 5.3 percent in June, the lowest since April 2008.
And unemployment claims are the lowest since 1973. I'm so confused.
HTH but it won't.
Fucking moron. -
So you don't think unemployment has anything to do with pay rates? Or realize the article says much more than "pay rates suck". Get past the headline.CuntWaffle said:
You are arguing unemployment rates. The thread is about the overall pay for these "jobs" have been stagnant.2001400ex said:
Since you are the master of insight. Why don't you explain it to me then.CuntWaffle said:
That is because of are fucking stupid.2001400ex said:The unemployment rate is fast approaching the 5-to-5.2 percent range that Fed policy makers have defined as full employment. The rate dropped to 5.3 percent in June, the lowest since April 2008.
And unemployment claims are the lowest since 1973. I'm so confused.
HTH but it won't.
Fucking moron. -
Basically, Hondo is arguing that lower pay is fine because a higher percentage of people are working?2001400ex said:
So you don't think unemployment has anything to do with pay rates? Or realize the article says much more than "pay rates suck". Get past the headline.CuntWaffle said:
You are arguing unemployment rates. The thread is about the overall pay for these "jobs" have been stagnant.2001400ex said:
Since you are the master of insight. Why don't you explain it to me then.CuntWaffle said:
That is because of are fucking stupid.2001400ex said:The unemployment rate is fast approaching the 5-to-5.2 percent range that Fed policy makers have defined as full employment. The rate dropped to 5.3 percent in June, the lowest since April 2008.
And unemployment claims are the lowest since 1973. I'm so confused.
HTH but it won't.
Fucking moron. -
How did you read that? And I'm the one with the 8th grade education. I'm clearly saying that the supply and demand of jobs isn't propping up pay. If you buy into their methodology of polling 600 small businesses. In my industry, pay is doing well and I know several industries, such as medical and IT where wages are very high. Go apply as Microsoft with a 4 year college degree and get your 100k a year salary right out of school.greenblood said:
Basically, Hondo is arguing that lower pay is fine because a higher percentage of people are working?2001400ex said:
So you don't think unemployment has anything to do with pay rates? Or realize the article says much more than "pay rates suck". Get past the headline.CuntWaffle said:
You are arguing unemployment rates. The thread is about the overall pay for these "jobs" have been stagnant.2001400ex said:
Since you are the master of insight. Why don't you explain it to me then.CuntWaffle said:
That is because of are fucking stupid.2001400ex said:The unemployment rate is fast approaching the 5-to-5.2 percent range that Fed policy makers have defined as full employment. The rate dropped to 5.3 percent in June, the lowest since April 2008.
And unemployment claims are the lowest since 1973. I'm so confused.
HTH but it won't.
Fucking moron.
In other words, they called 600 convenience stores and said that's a representative sample. -
This seems like the kind of thing you complain about when you dont have anything important to complain about.
-
Govt handouts are up, so Hondo is content.
Meanwhile the percentage of the population working is at the bottom end of historical standards, which makes the "unemployment" rate he quotes a joke. The U-6 and other measures show its still really high. Low unemployment rates drive up incomes instead of stagnating them, but why bring reality into the discussion.
But hey, maybe Obama can mandate a pay increase for all the bartender and waiter jobs he generates and Hondo gargles over. That would fix everything...
-
You sound just like Rush. Nice work.HoustonHusky said:Govt handouts are up, so Hondo is content.
Meanwhile the percentage of the population working is at the bottom end of historical standards, which makes the "unemployment" rate he quotes a joke. The U-6 and other measures show its still really high. Low unemployment rates drive up incomes instead of stagnating them, but why bring reality into the discussion.
But hey, maybe Obama can mandate a pay increase for all the bartender and waiter jobs he generates and Hondo gargles over. That would fix everything...
BTW, handouts are down.
SNAP participation was 45,438,832 persons in April 2015, a decrease of 202,930 persons compared with March 2015, and a decrease of 808,516 persons compared with April 2014.
http://frac.org/reports-and-resources/snapfood-stamp-monthly-participation-data/#apr -
-
Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
-
Gotta love Honda reporting 45 million on food stamps as if it's an improvement.
-
Nice work, you bitch about me cherry picking data, which I didn't do. Then you do what? Cherry pick data. Why don't you show a graph out a trend of SNAP? You'll see it increasing from 2007 through last year then decreasing. So your point of increasing handouts is false.HuskyInAZ said:Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
For the OPs point, I addressed his point directly if you read my posts. Look at the information used to accumulate the data. Then I pointed out positive news from the exact same article which you dismiss.
You see the point yet? You are trying to argue the economy is dumpster fire when it's not. It's not the economy of the 90s, but it's much better than it was 7 years ago. And that's a fact. -
It makes so much sense now why you were such a stout Sark defender on dawgbored.2001400ex said:
Nice work, you bitch about me cherry picking data, which I didn't do. Then you do what? Cherry pick data. Why don't you show a graph out a trend of SNAP? You'll see it increasing from 2007 through last year then decreasing. So your point of increasing handouts is false.HuskyInAZ said:Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
For the OPs point, I addressed his point directly if you read my posts. Look at the information used to accumulate the data. Then I pointed out positive news from the exact same article which you dismiss.
You see the point yet? You are trying to argue the economy is dumpster fire when it's not. It's not the economy of the 90s, but it's much better than it was 7 years ago. And that's a fact. -
So let me get this straight. Under obama, foodstamp participation grew from 28 million to 47 million, then shrunk to 46 million. And that's a good thing?
-
Except I wasn't.CuntWaffle said:
It makes so much sense now why you were such a stout Sark defender on dawgbored.2001400ex said:
Nice work, you bitch about me cherry picking data, which I didn't do. Then you do what? Cherry pick data. Why don't you show a graph out a trend of SNAP? You'll see it increasing from 2007 through last year then decreasing. So your point of increasing handouts is false.HuskyInAZ said:Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
For the OPs point, I addressed his point directly if you read my posts. Look at the information used to accumulate the data. Then I pointed out positive news from the exact same article which you dismiss.
You see the point yet? You are trying to argue the economy is dumpster fire when it's not. It's not the economy of the 90s, but it's much better than it was 7 years ago. And that's a fact. -
He got kicked off by KimCuntWaffle said:
It makes so much sense now why you were such a stout Sark defender on dawgbored.2001400ex said:
Nice work, you bitch about me cherry picking data, which I didn't do. Then you do what? Cherry pick data. Why don't you show a graph out a trend of SNAP? You'll see it increasing from 2007 through last year then decreasing. So your point of increasing handouts is false.HuskyInAZ said:Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
For the OPs point, I addressed his point directly if you read my posts. Look at the information used to accumulate the data. Then I pointed out positive news from the exact same article which you dismiss.
You see the point yet? You are trying to argue the economy is dumpster fire when it's not. It's not the economy of the 90s, but it's much better than it was 7 years ago. And that's a fact. -
Read for comprehension.HuskyInAZ said:So let me get this straight. Under obama, foodstamp participation grew from 28 million to 47 million, then shrunk to 46 million. And that's a good thing?
-
Fuck off. 8th grade education, remember?RaceBannon said:
He got kicked off by KimCuntWaffle said:
It makes so much sense now why you were such a stout Sark defender on dawgbored.2001400ex said:
Nice work, you bitch about me cherry picking data, which I didn't do. Then you do what? Cherry pick data. Why don't you show a graph out a trend of SNAP? You'll see it increasing from 2007 through last year then decreasing. So your point of increasing handouts is false.HuskyInAZ said:Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
For the OPs point, I addressed his point directly if you read my posts. Look at the information used to accumulate the data. Then I pointed out positive news from the exact same article which you dismiss.
You see the point yet? You are trying to argue the economy is dumpster fire when it's not. It's not the economy of the 90s, but it's much better than it was 7 years ago. And that's a fact. -
Someone pinched a nerve.2001400ex said:
Fuck off. 8th grade education, remember?RaceBannon said:
He got kicked off by KimCuntWaffle said:
It makes so much sense now why you were such a stout Sark defender on dawgbored.2001400ex said:
Nice work, you bitch about me cherry picking data, which I didn't do. Then you do what? Cherry pick data. Why don't you show a graph out a trend of SNAP? You'll see it increasing from 2007 through last year then decreasing. So your point of increasing handouts is false.HuskyInAZ said:Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
For the OPs point, I addressed his point directly if you read my posts. Look at the information used to accumulate the data. Then I pointed out positive news from the exact same article which you dismiss.
You see the point yet? You are trying to argue the economy is dumpster fire when it's not. It's not the economy of the 90s, but it's much better than it was 7 years ago. And that's a fact.
