Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I'm not very good with numbers, so help me to understand this. JSO keeps claiming that income levels have not been stagnant over the past few decades.

How does that jive with the following information from the census bureau that shows median household income (across all races) only rising from $44k in 1967 to $51K in 2013?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... igure1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.census.gov/library/publicati ... 0-249.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Especially compared to inflation:

Inflation Calculator

$1.00 in 1967 had the same buying power as $7.08 in 2014.
Annual inflation over this period was 4.25%.

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:I'm not very good with numbers, so help me to understand this. JSO keeps claiming that income levels have not been stagnant over the past few decades.

How does that jive with the following information from the census bureau that shows median household income (across all races) only rising from $44k in 1967 to $51K in 2013?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... igure1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.census.gov/library/publicati ... 0-249.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Especially compared to inflation:

Inflation Calculator

$1.00 in 1967 had the same buying power as $7.08 in 2014.
Annual inflation over this period was 4.25%.

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JSO is going to have to handle this one himself. We used different maths in engineering school...... JSO's maths are more like Baldy's where the chick making $300/week brings home $435....

Another question, why do we always blame businesses for declining buying power off lower-earners and not the s**** monetary system that creates the inflation?

kalm wrote:I'm not very good with numbers, so help me to understand this. JSO keeps claiming that income levels have not been stagnant over the past few decades.

How does that jive with the following information from the census bureau that shows median household income (across all races) only rising from $44k in 1967 to $51K in 2013?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... igure1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.census.gov/library/publicati ... 0-249.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Especially compared to inflation:

Inflation Calculator

$1.00 in 1967 had the same buying power as $7.08 in 2014.
Annual inflation over this period was 4.25%.

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The report includes the following statement:

"Real” refers to income after adjusting for inflation. All income values are adjusted to reflect 2013 dollars.

So saying that real median income was 51K in 2013 vs. 44K in 1967 means that, in inflation adjusted terms, median income was about 16% higher in 2013 than it was in 1967.

That's not "stagnant." Now, median income has declined in recent years in association with the big economic disturbance of 2008. But it is still substantially higher in inflation adjusted terms than it was in 1967.

BTW, speaking of jive, how does the figure at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... igure1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; jive with the "White Privilege" concept? Note the Asian median income line.

BTW, what you're seeing there pretty much corresponds to the "don't go there" situation with IQ and race.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:I'm not very good with numbers, so help me to understand this. JSO keeps claiming that income levels have not been stagnant over the past few decades.

How does that jive with the following information from the census bureau that shows median household income (across all races) only rising from $44k in 1967 to $51K in 2013?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... igure1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.census.gov/library/publicati ... 0-249.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Especially compared to inflation:

The report includes the following statement:

"Real” refers to income after adjusting for inflation. All income values are adjusted to reflect 2013 dollars.

So saying that real median income was 51K in 2013 vs. 44K in 1967 means that, in inflation adjusted terms, median income was about 16% higher in 2013 than it was in 1967.

That's not "stagnant." Now, median income has declined in recent years in association with the big economic disturbance of 2008. But it is still substantially higher in inflation adjusted terms than it was in 1967.

Missed that. But (like I've mentioned before) the hyperinflation of items like education and housing alone negate the increase easily.

JohnStOnge wrote:Now, median income has declined in recent years in association with the big economic disturbance of 2008.

It has declined more than just since 2008.

Median income is 8.7% lower since 1999.

It has declined more than just since 2008.

Median income is 8.7% lower since 1999.

It looks like the highest point is 1999 or 2000; though 2007 (I think) looks to be close. It has ups and downs all the way through the period. It peaked in 1999 or 2000, went down some and then went up some through what looks like 2007. Then it went down around and looks like it flattened out. May be about to turn up again. The overall trend since 1967 is upward.

The main thing I've been getting at in posts about income is that the idea that the Middle Class has declined since the glory days of the 50s, 60s, and 70s is a myth. In my opinion, in order to rebut what I've been posting, you'd have to show that the incomes of those in the middle are sharply lower in inflation adjusted terms than they were during those days. And the report does not show that. It shows they are higher markedly higher now.

Missed that. But (like I've mentioned before) the hyperinflation of items like education and housing alone negate the increase easily.

I don't know if that's true or not.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Missed that. But (like I've mentioned before) the hyperinflation of items like education and housing alone negate the increase easily.

I don't know if that's true or not.

Really, you think today's tuition and mortgages alone don't equal $6-$7K compared to 1967?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Now, median income has declined in recent years in association with the big economic disturbance of 2008.

It has declined more than just since 2008.

Median income is 8.7% lower since 1999.

It's a head and shoulders pattern.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
The report includes the following statement:



So saying that real median income was 51K in 2013 vs. 44K in 1967 means that, in inflation adjusted terms, median income was about 16% higher in 2013 than it was in 1967.

That's not "stagnant." Now, median income has declined in recent years in association with the big economic disturbance of 2008. But it is still substantially higher in inflation adjusted terms than it was in 1967.

Missed that. But (like I've mentioned before) the hyperinflation of items like education and housing alone negate the increase easily.

Jesus, kalm...you just got hosed on your own thread, simply because you didn't take the time to actually read your own source, and now you want to change the subject?

Was everyone going to college back in 1967, or were people making a living from skilled labor? Was everyone living in their own house, or did more people live with extended families?

What was the demand for housing and education...and was any change in demand artificially created?

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I don't know if that's true or not.

Really, you think today's tuition and mortgages alone don't equal $6-$7K compared to 1967?

That's a shallow comment, technically tuition and mortgage cost increases are accounted for with inflation. You need to dig a little deeper and see if tuition and mortgage increases have had a greater impact on the middle class and those striving to reach middle class. There might be an argument there but you need to do a little more research.

Here's what I KNOW in the Seattle Market about buying a house...
If you make $100K a year, you can't afford a house today
If you and your wife both make $100K you can just eek your way into a total piece of sh!t house



Its f**cked up beyond belief

My girlfriend and I each make a great living (we're very fortunate) and we're looking for a home in Seattle
(Not out in the damn county) and $500k gets you a fixer-upper that needs another $100K to move in

Its absolutely astounding how little you get for a half a million dollars

Chizzang wrote:Here's what I KNOW in the Seattle Market about buying a house...
If you make $100K a year, you can't afford a house today
If you and your wife both make $100K you can just eek your way into a total piece of sh!t house



Its f**cked up beyond belief

My girlfriend and I each make a great living (we're very fortunate) and we're looking for a home in Seattle
(Not out in the damn county) and $500k gets you a fixer-upper that needs another $100K to move in

Its absolutely astounding how little you get for a half a million dollars

Cool story, bro.

So, when was it ever inexpensive to purchase a decent house in a major coastal city?

Cluck U wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Here's what I KNOW in the Seattle Market about buying a house...
If you make $100K a year, you can't afford a house today
If you and your wife both make $100K you can just eek your way into a total piece of sh!t house



Its f**cked up beyond belief

My girlfriend and I each make a great living (we're very fortunate) and we're looking for a home in Seattle
(Not out in the damn county) and $500k gets you a fixer-upper that needs another $100K to move in

Its absolutely astounding how little you get for a half a million dollars

Cool story, bro.

So, when was it ever inexpensive to purchase a decent house in a major coastal city?

Apparently 1994

Uh oh. You've done it now.

A JSO 12 paragraph rant on "wages" vs. "income" is on its way.

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Really, you think today's tuition and mortgages alone don't equal $6-$7K compared to 1967?

That's a shallow comment, technically tuition and mortgage cost increases are accounted for with inflation. You need to dig a little deeper and see if tuition and mortgage increases have had a greater impact on the middle class and those striving to reach middle class. There might be an argument there but you need to do a little more research.

I'll get to work on it.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
Missed that. But (like I've mentioned before) the hyperinflation of items like education and housing alone negate the increase easily.

Jesus, kalm...you just got hosed on your own thread, simply because you didn't take the time to actually read your own source, and now you want to change the subject?

Was everyone going to college back in 1967, or were people making a living from skilled labor? Was everyone living in their own house, or did more people live with extended families?

What was the demand for housing and education...and was any change in demand artificially created?

Hey dingleberry, read the first line in my opening post. I'm just searching for understanding here...

kalm wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Jesus, kalm...you just got hosed on your own thread, simply because you didn't take the time to actually read your own source, and now you want to change the subject?

Was everyone going to college back in 1967, or were people making a living from skilled labor? Was everyone living in their own house, or did more people live with extended families?

What was the demand for housing and education...and was any change in demand artificially created?

Hey dingleberry, read the first line in my opening post. I'm just searching for understanding here...

Funny, as I popped back into this thread, I was just about to quote your, "I'm not very good with numbers..." and say that you should have just left the thread at that.

Chizzang wrote: Cool story, bro.

So, when was it ever inexpensive to purchase a decent house in a major coastal city?

Apparently 1994

[/quote]

So, you will be following this up with an actual reply to my question, right?

Chizzang wrote:Here's what I KNOW in the Seattle Market about buying a house...
If you make $100K a year, you can't afford a house today
If you and your wife both make $100K you can just eek your way into a total piece of sh!t house



Its f**cked up beyond belief

My girlfriend and I each make a great living (we're very fortunate) and we're looking for a home in Seattle
(Not out in the damn county) and $500k gets you a fixer-upper that needs another $100K to move in

Its absolutely astounding how little you get for a half a million dollars

You have seen our place and Jenny and I both know we are not moving anytime soon. Can't give up the big yard for the kids and actually have some house. Of course we are 25 miles outside of Seattle too.

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Really, you think today's tuition and mortgages alone don't equal $6-$7K compared to 1967?

That's a shallow comment, technically tuition and mortgage cost increases are accounted for with inflation. You need to dig a little deeper and see if tuition and mortgage increases have had a greater impact on the middle class and those striving to reach middle class. There might be an argument there but you need to do a little more research.

Inflation is an average across the board, no? So certain products/services can exceed the average rate of inflation, yes?

According to this article from the CS Monitor, tuition alone has increased 27% beyond normal inflation over the past 5 years. That doesn't account for increases in room and board and books.

And what about rising health insurance and healthcare costs?

Cluck U wrote:

Chizzang wrote: Cool story, bro.

So, when was it ever inexpensive to purchase a decent house in a major coastal city?

Apparently 1994

So, you will be following this up with an actual reply to my question, right?

He did, dingleberry..

Chizzang wrote:Here's what I KNOW in the Seattle Market about buying a house...
If you make $100K a year, you can't afford a house today
If you and your wife both make $100K you can just eek your way into a total piece of sh!t house



Its f**cked up beyond belief

My girlfriend and I each make a great living (we're very fortunate) and we're looking for a home in Seattle
(Not out in the damn county) and $500k gets you a fixer-upper that needs another $100K to move in

Its absolutely astounding how little you get for a half a million dollars

Why do you want to live in a place where half a million isn't worth much?

25 acres, house, barn, pool...... 87K in '87, probably 250K now.

Move out in the country now and sell it in ten years when the country becomes a suburb. Not to mention the benefits for your soul...