Your weekly liberal assesment of the economy - Page 3

WickedLou9 · 09-08-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

because i see people making more money as well? starting salaries are higher. to me, that seems as though it's a response to the market. for me, i'm making almost twice as much in boston as i would be in nashville, because of what? cost of living. the economy takes care of itself that way. people are aware, the economy is aware, businesses are aware. i really have no idea what you're talking about.

You are confusing actual wages with 'real' wages.

If inflation is 3% a year.. and you get a 3% annual raise... what does that mean?

ballz2wallz · 09-08-2006, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You do realize that not everyone gets wage increases every year that cover the cost of living increase, right?

yes, i realize that not everyone in this world gets what they want.

ballz2wallz · 09-08-2006, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You are confusing actual wages with 'real' wages.

If inflation is 3% a year.. and you get a 3% annual raise... what does that mean?

it means their wages are covering the cost of living.

WickedLou9 · 09-08-2006, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

it means their wages are covering the cost of living.

so 'really' they aren't any better off than they were last year... even though the actual dollar amount that they earn has increased.

Now extrapolate that concept out starting around 1970..and going up to today. .if inflation has been 3% a year on average.. but on average wage growth has been less than 3%... what would you say that means?

ballz2wallz · 09-08-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

so 'really' they aren't any better off than they were last year... even though the actual dollar amount that they earn has increased.

Now extrapolate that concept out starting around 1970..and going up to today. .if inflation has been 3% a year on average.. but on average wage growth has been less than 3%... what would you say that means?

i'd say people better stop buying things they don't need and practice some financial discipline. because while the 'numbers just don't add up' there are many many people_poor people_who continue to get by, save money, and live a happy life. there is more to being financially secure than just wages matching inflation.

Scrum · 09-08-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

so 'really' they aren't any better off than they were last year... even though the actual dollar amount that they earn has increased.

Now extrapolate that concept out starting around 1970..and going up to today. .if inflation has been 3% a year on average.. but on average wage growth has been less than 3%... what would you say that means?

He's going to say that him and all of his friends have no problem getting high paying jobs, so there is no issue.

ballz2wallz · 09-08-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

He's going to say that him and all of his friends have no problem getting high paying jobs, so there is no issue.

quoted for posterity

Scrum · 09-08-2006, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

quoted for posterity

http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/30697-post8.html

ballz2wallz · 09-08-2006, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/30697-post8.html

but that's not how i responded, is it?

Your weekly liberal assesment of the economy

ok this debate is getting

Scrum · 09-08-2006, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

but that's not how i responded, is it?

Your weekly liberal assesment of the economy

ok this debate is getting

Nope you didn't. Your response was just as bad though.

You argue that wages aren't going down by saying people need to be more responsible with their money. While that's true, it has no bearing on actual wages going down.

And this debate has been

the whole time. You have avoided the facts pointing you in the face and I think you just don't have enough real world experience to discuss things like this.

ballz2wallz · 09-08-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You have avoided the facts pointing you in the face and I think you just don't have enough real world experience to discuss things like this.

according to the graph, they have been going down since the early 70s? so what does it mean? is our economy suffering because of it? are people unhappy? usually the market/economy is a reflection of that...sooo...i'd say no.

so what's it all mean? i'm not ignoring the facts that the numbers are going down in small percentages. i want to know the end results, and so far there aren't any. except a bunch of people complaining they don't have enough money, and that will alway be the case.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-08-2006, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Do i haVe to post this chart again that you all saw already but have forgotten?

And that fails to account for the huge drop in the price of goods.

WickedLou9 · 09-08-2006, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

And that fails to account for the huge drop in the price of goods.

what? where?

Thorgrim · 09-08-2006, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

what? where?

apparently in 1990 everything was super expensive, now in 2006 everything is super cheap, so the stagnant/falling real wages doesn't mean anything

WickedLou9 · 09-08-2006, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

apparently in 1990 everything was super expensive, now in 2006 everything is super cheap, so the stagnant/falling real wages doesn't mean anything

but the wages I posted were adjusted for inflation.. inflation is essentially calculated using the consumer price index.. which is the price of goods.. so if goods did become alot cheaper that would have been reflected in the chart..

6SpeedTA95 · 09-08-2006, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

what? where?

You can't see how standards of living have risen since the early 70s?

Look at cars, houses, tv's, cable tv, sat radio, hell even dog food has undergone significant changes for the better...

Thorgrim · 09-08-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You can't see how standards of living have risen since the early 70s?

Look at cars, houses, tv's, cable tv, sat radio, hell even dog food has undergone significant changes for the better...

It's cheaper to get a house now than it was in 1990?

Cable TV is cheaper?

Even the price of Corvettes have been pretty much the same...

404 significant changes for the better not found

6SpeedTA95 · 09-08-2006, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

but the wages I posted were adjusted for inflation.. inflation is essentially calculated using the consumer price index.. which is the price of goods.. so if goods did become alot cheaper that would have been reflected in the chart..

Yeah and the average TV in 1972 cost what 400 bucks and was 18 inches? The average tv today cost about 600 bucks and its 32 inches in size and is HD....

The average car in 1972 cost about 4g's had a fantastic safety device called "the seatbelt" and only about half the households in the US had more than one. Now cars have a host of safety devices and aren't built like shit. There's also more than 2 cars per household. Homes are about 30% bigger and built with better insulation, heating/cooling equipment.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-08-2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's cheaper to get a house now than it was in 1990?

Cable TV is cheaper?

Even the price of Corvettes have been pretty much the same...

404 significant changes for the better not found

cable tv didn't really exist

Publius · 09-08-2006, 12:09 PM

I have to agree with 6Speed here... And you can look at the computer industry to understand his example.

In 1990 DOS was all the rage still and you were paying out the ass, upwards of $1,000 for a 286 with less than a gig of storage space and we were still measuring RAM in KB. Today you can get a Windows XP machine with a 3 GHz processor with a 100 GB hard drive and a gig of RAM for about the same, maybe a little less. The price of "cutting edge" remains about the same, but the quality of "cutting edge" has increased exponentially. It's hard to capture that in a static graph of prices.