U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-27-2018, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,310 posts, read 13,432,534 times
Reputation: 14217

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tencent View Post
Great Economy!

We are doing great!!!
We are doing great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tencent View Post
I will not reply and encourage others not to reply to those who DID NOT WATCH the video or read OFFICIAL DATA FROM SSA.GOV

If they don't believe the government itself admitting these numbers and refuse to acknowledge stagnant wages for FIFTY PERCENT of U.S. Citizens since 1980 I'm not sure these individuals can be rescued from their fantasy land.

The rest of us are living in R-E-A-L-I-T-Y.
Then let's talk about Reality:

In 2014, 51.4% of Americans made $30,000 or less.

In 2004, 59.9% of Americans made $30,000 or less.

In 1994, 74.4% of Americans made $30,000 or less.

In 1989, 79.0% of Americans made $30,000 or less.

I just trashed your thread. Your welcome.

Since 1989, the percentage of Americans whose income was less than $30,000 has constantly declined, because Americans are earning higher wages.

Percentage of Americans earning $50,000 to $99,999:

1989: 3.45%

1994: 5.3%

2004: 12.1%

2014: 16.5%

And, no, I didn't watch the stupid video, but, yes, the source of the data I posted is the Social Security Administration, which you can find here:

https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=1989


In 1980, the average American wage was $12,513.46 and in 2017 the average is $50,321.89.

That's from the Social Security Administration, too.

Wages are anything but stagnant, in spite of your rantings and ravings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-27-2018, 04:04 PM
 
17,783 posts, read 12,462,980 times
Reputation: 13103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
We are doing great.



Then let's talk about Reality:

In 2014, 51.4% of Americans made $30,000 or less.

In 2004, 59.9% of Americans made $30,000 or less.

In 1994, 74.4% of Americans made $30,000 or less.

In 1989, 79.0% of Americans made $30,000 or less.

I just trashed your thread. Your welcome.

Since 1989, the percentage of Americans whose income was less than $30,000 has constantly declined, because Americans are earning higher wages.

Percentage of Americans earning $50,000 to $99,999:

1989: 3.45%

1994: 5.3%

2004: 12.1%

2014: 16.5%

And, no, I didn't watch the stupid video, but, yes, the source of the data I posted is the Social Security Administration, which you can find here:

https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=1989


In 1980, the average American wage was $12,513.46 and in 2017 the average is $50,321.89.

That's from the Social Security Administration, too.

Wages are anything but stagnant, in spite of your rantings and ravings.

Are those figures inflation adjusted?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 04:26 PM
 
1,141 posts, read 271,035 times
Reputation: 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
Are those figures inflation adjusted?
Nope

I'm not responding anymore. These guys just pull any half baked arguments out without thinking it through.

My point STILL hasn't been refuted.

Comparing 30K in 1989 with today
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 04:31 PM
 
Location: The analog world
16,383 posts, read 9,036,504 times
Reputation: 21816
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro View Post
This is the equivalent of 50% of Americans don't own stocks or don't pay income taxes. Once you weed out people who are working part-time, the figure rises substantially.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/av...orkers-2060808
Thank you for bringing this up. I work part-time, so I am officially in a two-income household, but I am not the primary income earner, who earns more than 20x what I do in a year. Should I be paid more? No, I believe I am paid fairly for what I do and the hours I work. If I wanted or needed to earn more, I would pursue a different path; regardless, I am included in those statistics, which do not accurately reflect the reality of my financial situation.

The person behind the video mentions that while some of the wage earners may live in multi-earner households, it doesn't matter. Of course it matters! In my household right now, there are four working people, three of whom make far less than $30k/yr. One of them is a (mostly) SAHM and two are students. At graduation from university, the two students will be positioned for well-paying careers with no outstanding college debt, and I will still be married to a person who makes a generous upper-middle class income with sufficient retirement funds to sustain both of us in our elder years.

The "shocking" statistic the video producer uses to make his point simply does not tell the entire story. He needs to dig deeper to make his case.

Last edited by randomparent; 10-27-2018 at 05:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Washington state
4,798 posts, read 2,381,618 times
Reputation: 14069
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
what do you think health insurance would cost you if you had no medicaid and had an income over the subsidy amount . about 8-10k plus all the deductibles and out of pockets . for a couple multiply it by 2x .

i did not say everyone on low incomes is going to see 40k. but when all is said and done those "working " with lower incomes don't really live at those levels more often than not . those incomes are bolstered quite a bit depending what they are eligible for . here in nyc you pay rent in the new york city housing projects based on income so for those who live there that is a considerable savings in rent . i lived in one growing up .

so arguing what you personally get does not change the fact that many don't live solely on lower working incomes .
Really? I thought I was just an average person on disability. Silly me.

You want to know what health insurance would have cost me if I had had no Medicaid? ZERO. That's what it would have cost.

People who can't afford health care don't have it and I was one of those 40 million people going without until Obamacare came along. I had a doctor at a walk-in clinic tell me without a blood test she wouldn't renew my prescription for high blood pressure and depression. The blood test was $60. I didn't have $60 and couldn't get $60 and went without high blood pressure meds for months and months and months. Two years later I had an aneurysm.

Call it a hunch, but I think the cost to the taxpayers for treating an aneurysm was much higher than the cost of getting needed medications. But that's for a thread about healthcare in this country.

Most places that have subsidized housing will only ask 30% of your income for rent. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that if you can find a place to live that will subsidize your rent, it's not going to be a lovely apartment in a safe area. Many cities have backlogs for their Section 8 programs of 10 years or more. Other cities close it down every other year or so. In my city, approximately 40% of those with Section 8 housing vouchers will have to give them up because in 6 months, they won't be able to find a landlord to take it.

Today there might not be projects for you and your family to live in. If you were growing up today, more than likely you'd be out on the street. I'm wondering what that would have done to fuel your desire to get out of your situation and whether or not you actually could have, given a different living situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 05:44 PM
 
2,731 posts, read 3,788,930 times
Reputation: 2923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
SSDI isn’t paying for a new 70k truck every year so I’m not even sure what the point of this post is
So how does he afford payments on a new $70k truck every year? Those things depreciate at least 30% in driving off the lot. Do you think SSDI and Walmart $7.50 per hour covers the monthly payments along with the mortgage? This is an example of the spending problem the country has.

No, the economy is not tanking. We don't have an income problem; we have a spending problem. US wages are some of the highest in the world in all fields. Soon the leftists will demand that burger flippers get $20/hour.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Metro Detroit, Michigan
11,931 posts, read 13,375,718 times
Reputation: 12692
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
Uh...$20/hr is only $40k. Not much difference.

Expanding government and welfare incentive? Do you mean like farmer welfare that's needed to offset the effects of the tariffs?
Shows what you know. Makes you sound like one of those traitorous limousine liberals. It makes a big difference to someone stuck at 30K and seeing no opportunity for escape.


I know it hurts you inside to know that America is being MGA, but too bad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tencent View Post
Will it come quickly enough? I don't know...

I'm not hopeful.
It's happening as we speak, and the job creation data shows this to be the case. I am usually not an optimist, but this time, I think it might really be different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 07:04 PM
 
65,830 posts, read 67,139,137 times
Reputation: 44094
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
Really? I thought I was just an average person on disability. Silly me.

You want to know what health insurance would have cost me if I had had no Medicaid? ZERO. That's what it would have cost.

People who can't afford health care don't have it and I was one of those 40 million people going without until Obamacare came along.
not relevant to what i said . if you want to do an apple to apple comparison you have to take the cost of health insurance off of those with higher incomes along with all the things they don't get that they pay for or pay full fare for.

it is not pick and choose what you want to count or not in the equation . there are people who qualify for a lot on that chart i posted and they don't do to badly in comparison to what is left from those higher incomes . you may not but that still does not change the facts in general
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 07:45 PM
 
Location: midvalley Oregon and Eastside seattle area
3,181 posts, read 1,447,197 times
Reputation: 2554
sigh, Every American has the ability to make more if, they are willing to put in the sacrifice and hard work.
But the fact is, society is still faced with Pareto's Principle and Distribution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Northern Michigan
956 posts, read 451,652 times
Reputation: 3830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
Are those figures inflation adjusted?
Well, since nobody answered your query, I'll have a shot.

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation in 2017 is 79% higher than it was in 1991. That is, it takes $179 now to purchase what $100 bought in 1991.

REFER:
https://www.in2013dollars.com/1991-dollars-in-2017

According to SS data, median salary in 1991 was $15075, vs $31561 in 2017. That is, median earnings now are slightly over 2 times higher now what they were in 1991. It shows a pretty linear curve from 1991 to now, with a couple of noted excursions, but according to the data, there is more discretionary funds for median earners now than there were then. There are outliers, of course, such as cost of housing which is skewing the stats a lot in favor of median salaries in the past compared to now, but beyond that, the total cost of living is not that much different overall. Perhaps that was what the complaint was about, that our salaries haven't quadrupled instead of doubling to match inflation? Unfortunately, my query about the point of the post wasn't answered either.

If that wasn't the point, and the complaint was about cost of housing, or any other verifiable metric instead, it should have been stated that way, and there could have been a much higher amount of agreement. Worst case, an informed discussion might have ensued that could have divulged some hidden facts about the real state of the economy- which wasn't actually discussed at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top