>the middle class is shrinki-

>the middle class is shrinki-

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    >rich
    >150k

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bulbasaur a cute

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [log in to view media]

      [log in to view media]

      >rich
      >150k

      >rich households (> $150k)
      lmao

      not an argument

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Implying 150k is not rich is not an argument

        >Why?

        >Just because it isnt ok?

        Excuse me n-word, are you stupid?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          150k is lower middle class, not rich, where have these fuckers been for the last 3 years? You can't even buy a house on that income.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Please stop using whatever overpriced hellhole you live in as a reference point for the rest of the world. I make $50k in the US and had no issue getting a house

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >t.gary, indiana

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Honestly not sure what point you feel you've made here. Yeah, I live in a 400k metropolitan area in the Midwest. Please stop using the overpriced hellhole you live in as a reference for the rest of the world

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      150k househole income a year is rich compared to the entire world

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >compared to the entire world
        ah great. i get to compare myself to ugandan n-word warlord countries and south american faevlas where they hack at eachothers with machetes

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [log in to view media]

      bro. I had 230k at the peak and I still couldn't afford a home. Fuck off, retard. I wasn't rich

      This

      [log in to view media]

      >rich
      >150k

      also this

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You n-word I bought a home making $80k/year and saving. What did you waste your money on

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    >rich
    >150k

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >rich households (> $150k)
    lmao

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    >richest country in the world
    >20% of it its very por
    >majority earns less than 75.000

    shithole, third world country with a gucci belt and nukes

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [log in to view media]

      Have you considered that your mental model of what it means to be poor might be skewed?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        [log in to view media]

        >Median

        kek

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          [log in to view media]

          Median seemed more applicable to me, but if you'd prefer to use average, I don't feel like it diminishes my point

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [log in to view media]

            >Average

            top kek

            try Mode

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Can't easily find that chart, feel free to drop it yourself

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >very poor
      they have cars and rental homes.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    Great, now show this chart in relation to current housing costs, rent prices, college tuition, food costs, et cetera.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    Misleading data, largely explained by women entering the workforce which masks the real decline in wages and standard of living - that used to be possible on a single wage. The 150K is the combined wage with women in the workforce.

    In addition, he is using "official" inflation figures/CPI. Need I say any more.

    tl;dr bullshit misleading graph

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OP btfo

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Actually, it's likely to be misleading in the opposite direction. The chart used household income. Households have fewer members than they did. Per capita income has increased even more.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Generally only the father/mother in the household are working, not the dependents in the house.

        In 1967, there would have been significantly more single-earner households. Women entering the workforce would have doubled the amount of income significantly which tipped many more into the 150K category, masking the standard of living decreases.

        The fact that there are fewer people living in homes is irrelevant because most children are not working. The only reliable metric as wage earners is the father and mother.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          [log in to view media]

          Hm, I dunno, the other dude seems to be right about per capita rising

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [log in to view media]

            Not really.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I feel like this one actually doesn't serve your point fully, since it only measures the wage of full time workers. Only 57% of women are actually in the workforce, and of those a third are part time. I think the per capita graph is also capturing the fact that Americans have fewer children than they used to, so the amount of money that goes to each individual in a household is likely increased

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                [log in to view media]

                If anything it's the opposite. OP's original image is that "more households are in the 150K bracket". I responded by saying women entering the workforce explains why more households are in that higher bracket yet standard of living is lower. A guy responded to me saying that houses have less people in them which means that per capita is higher.

                Firstly, per capita income as a measure of real wages/standard of living is flawed because it is a mean value and does not reflect income distribution. See the graph. Secondly, the fact that only 57% of women are in the workforce is irrelevant, what matters is the ratio between the number in 1967, and the number today, and that number is far higher today.

                Finally, I would argue there are actually *more* children living in houses today with their parents who are working in employment, than in 1967 when it was far more common for young men to move out early. So if anything, that is a THIRD potential income that pushes households today into the 150K bracket pool that didn't exist to anywhere near the same extent as in 1967 (similar to women in the work force).

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There are about half as many kids per capita as in '67, I don't think men moving out earlier is gonna outweigh that.
                I'd agree that the ratio matters more. Looks like 15% of women worked full-time in 1967, 25% if you include part time. So from then to now, women entering has increased total workforce by like 25-30%, which doesn't look like it accounts for everything in OP's graph.
                I'm not totally sure how to read your chart. It says it's measuring growth, but is it actually supposed to just be average income relative to 1917?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Half as many kids but twice as many old pensioners today. These people aren't working. Per capita is a flawed metric of measuring real wages and standard of living.

                All that matters for this discussion is working aged people per household who are employed - whether it is women, men, or children. And that number is much higher today and shows the flaw in OP's graph. Dependents are irrelevant to the discussion because they don't contribute to the 150K threshold.

                In addition, it is using flawed CPI data. The real level of inflation in OP's "inflation adjusted" graph is much higher.

                If you're struggling with the graph, here's another one.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Pensioners at least bring in some income, kids are just a financial loss

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                [log in to view media]

                Irrelevant to the discussion. The assertion in OP's graph is to do with 150K household threshold. More people per household are working today (women, older children). This, along with the flawed CPI statistics, explains why OP's graph is misleading.

                Finally, the per capita incoming is a flawed metric. I don't know how many times I have to say it. I've explained above why. The wealth of the top 1% has exploded and the rest has stagnated, and this is not captured in the per capita income statistics.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              [log in to view media]

              Leftyshill crap graph that was debunked 1 trillion times but still circulates as if it weren't. Not surprising seeing as how most lefties dont even know what an inflation deflator is. If you try to debunk this on leftypol they will ban you, but before they do, they will claim that using different inflation indicies between real productivity and wages is justified because adjusting one or the other so that you use the same inflation deflator is
              >MULTIPLYING BY A RANDOM NUMBER!!!!
              I shit you not. I've spent probably 12 hours of my life trying to explain this exact graph

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This was also debunked

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Feel free to show or explain how it was debunked...? Or you could just say "that was debunked" and leave the thread

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Total compensation increased via insurance plans which makes up most of the difference.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You don’t think rising medical care costs because of medical administration cost increases has offset the increase in wages?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          more people can afford to live alone than previously

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cope

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              More people living alone makes households smaller on average. This means that even if every person working makes the same or more money than they did the previous decade, the household income will still be lower. It's a statistic used almost exclusively to mislead. Read a book sometime. Try it out.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You just completely contradicted your previous statement btw.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ?
                How in the world are you this stupid.

                Household income is a joke stat used to mislead. Households have become smaller over time. Income has increased over time. However, because there are fewer earners per household, then household income stays about the same.

                From Economic Facts and Fallacies
                "...average real income of American households rose by only 6 percent over the entire period from 1969 to 1996... But it is an equally undisputed fact that the average real income per person in the United States rose by 51 percent over that same period."
                "Half the households in the United States contained 6 or more people in 1900, as did 21 percent in 1950. But, by 1998, only ten percent of American households had that many people."

                Anything unclear?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            More people living alone makes households smaller on average. This means that even if every person working makes the same or more money than they did the previous decade, the household income will still be lower. It's a statistic used almost exclusively to mislead. Read a book sometime. Try it out.

            >real estate destroying people
            >inflation destroying people
            >more people can afford to live alone!
            You're fucking retarded

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              So you disagree with

              ?
              How in the world are you this stupid.

              Household income is a joke stat used to mislead. Households have become smaller over time. Income has increased over time. However, because there are fewer earners per household, then household income stays about the same.

              From Economic Facts and Fallacies
              "...average real income of American households rose by only 6 percent over the entire period from 1969 to 1996... But it is an equally undisputed fact that the average real income per person in the United States rose by 51 percent over that same period."
              "Half the households in the United States contained 6 or more people in 1900, as did 21 percent in 1950. But, by 1998, only ten percent of American households had that many people."

              Anything unclear?

              Where there are real stats cited, rather than just your general impression of the situation?

              Households have fewer people than they used to.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                [log in to view media]

                And you are acting like there is more buying power when there literally isn't

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Please see the above post

                ?
                How in the world are you this stupid.

                Household income is a joke stat used to mislead. Households have become smaller over time. Income has increased over time. However, because there are fewer earners per household, then household income stays about the same.

                From Economic Facts and Fallacies
                "...average real income of American households rose by only 6 percent over the entire period from 1969 to 1996... But it is an equally undisputed fact that the average real income per person in the United States rose by 51 percent over that same period."
                "Half the households in the United States contained 6 or more people in 1900, as did 21 percent in 1950. But, by 1998, only ten percent of American households had that many people."

                Anything unclear?

                >the average real income per person in the United States rose by 51 percent over that same period.
                Real income (because you are obviously clueless) is income adjusted for inflation.

                The image you posted does illustrate issues, however not issues in real buying power. College tuition gets you more (more non-education related nonsense, unfortunately) than it used to. Bullshit like climbing walls, fancy cafeterias, etc etc etc. Fortunately, community colleges don't usually try to attract big spenders from out of town/state with fancy perks like that.

                Medical care cost increase is nearly entirely down to government regulation. Same shit with housing costs, mostly being due to land-use restrictions and rent control.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Here, to make it even more clear.

              From https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/coh-livealone.html
              In 2000, 1-in-4 households consisted of one person living alone, a significant increase over the 7.7 percent in 1940.

              Just because you feeeel that something is true, doesn't make it so. You think like a woman.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Again. Buying power has not been increasing, retard.
                Most people are leveraged up the ass and will get absolutely bodied when the recession comes i.e. massive layoffs which will cause people to default on mortgage payments which will cause massive foreclosures

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And yet 3 times the number of people in 2000 could afford to live alone. You're wrong. What you feeeeel is right, is not right. You have no produced counter evidence.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                When baby boomers had a median age of 35, they owned 21% of all the nation's wealth. Millennials of the same median age? 3%. They literally had 7x of the wealth compared to millennials (with less effort too i.e. not needing a degree for middle class jobs). Population of both generations are about the same so even though it's not a per capita stat, it's the next best thing.

                But yes. People now are 3x better off, LMFAO fucking retard.

                Also median wages in 2000 were 20,957.18. In 2020 (last time this was updated)? 34,612.04.

                Wage Increase of 65%. Did inflation all around only go up by 65%? No, you fucking retard. LOL! Yet not only are you saying that times are better now, but that they are 3x better? LMFAOOOOO

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html

                Also to clarify inflation went up by multipliers. Not "just" 65%

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He's fucking retarded. He's arguing against his own points and can't even see it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Please. Illuminate me.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > People now are 3x better off
                Never claimed that. I said (well, the data said) that there are 3 times more people living alone in 2000 than in 1940.

                While the source you provided does show median wages being lower than inflation between 2000 and 2020, per capita income during the same period was around a 100% gain (beating the 69%~ inflation during the same period)
                >https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A792RC0A052NBEA

                That's really beside the point. I initially was making the argument that:
                Per capita real income increased by 51% over the same period that per household income increased by 6% because households were smaller, due in part to more people living alone. I provided data and sources for those claims, and that has not been refuted. Thanks for the tangential information, that was fun.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I provided data and sources for those claims, and that has not been refuted

                They have been refuted over and over again in my posts to the other guy. Per capita income as a measure of real wages/standard of living is flawed because it is a mean value and does not reflect income distribution. The wage growth has been almost entirely in the top 1% whilst the bottom 90% has stagnated which is not represented in the per capita income statistic.

                See the image in this post

                [log in to view media]

                If anything it's the opposite. OP's original image is that "more households are in the 150K bracket". I responded by saying women entering the workforce explains why more households are in that higher bracket yet standard of living is lower. A guy responded to me saying that houses have less people in them which means that per capita is higher.

                Firstly, per capita income as a measure of real wages/standard of living is flawed because it is a mean value and does not reflect income distribution. See the graph. Secondly, the fact that only 57% of women are in the workforce is irrelevant, what matters is the ratio between the number in 1967, and the number today, and that number is far higher today.

                Finally, I would argue there are actually *more* children living in houses today with their parents who are working in employment, than in 1967 when it was far more common for young men to move out early. So if anything, that is a THIRD potential income that pushes households today into the 150K bracket pool that didn't exist to anywhere near the same extent as in 1967 (similar to women in the work force).

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >While the source you provided does show median wages being lower than inflation between 2000 and 2020, per capita income during the same period was around a 100% gain (beating the 69%~ inflation during the same period)
                No. Difference between 20-34k is 69%. Inflation also went up by various multipliers. Not just a 2x.

                [log in to view media]

                And you are acting like there is more buying power when there literally isn't

                That per capita stat is retarded and misleading. It makes no logical sense how people would have higher per capita given lower buying power.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Unless you look at things from raw money rather than by a buying power perspective

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            More people live alone because back then everybody got married.

            To move own a home now you cannot do it on one average income. Back then, with the man as the sole breadwinner, you could.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >To own a home now you cannot do it on one average income.
              Yep, this. I'm almost 30, and the friends that I grew up with that have houses managed to do so because they're DINK.
              I have only 2 friends who solo-financed a house. One was earning 60-70k, and had to buy a fixer-upper back in 2018. He's almost done fixing it lol The other friend makes north of 200k doing data science for a big retailer; he just closed on a house in Washington by himself.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Generally only the father/mother in the household are working, not the dependents in the house.
          What about households with working age children? About half of zoomers live with their parents.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, and i'd argue there are more working age children today than in the past when young men moved out early to get married. More and more people are living home into their 30's today.

            This further amplifies the dynamic I explained. Back then you often had a sole breadwinner, the man, now you have women in the workforce, and older children, adding to the 150K threshold which makes OP's graph misleading.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Rich Piana
      🙁

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        GOOD FUCKING MORNING, GOD DAMN IT

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    I thought everyone was a poor loser, right /bizpol/? Everyone is a virgin poor loser like us.

    Oh wait, inflation adjusted data shows a shit ton of households EASILY clearing 200k yearly. And /bizLULZ still thinks they’re going to get a 150k 4 bedroom house lmfao. The train has left the stations you fucking losers, if you’re not pulling 400k you’re not going to be an elite. It’s that simple, Stacy and Chad both have 6 figure WFH jobs in 2022.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Go back to your containment board incel

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >CPI adjusted

      Lol

      LMAO

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    we need to start burning poor people

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >150k
    Wtf is that, Peru?

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The middle class, as it's so colloquially referred, is a holding pattern status, where participants decide if wealth is right for them. A try before you buy, if you will.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    now adjust for population

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >adjusted for inflation
    >doesn't know they changed the definition of inflation many times

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >inflation adjusted
    Ahahahahahahahah nice try cia n-words

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If it weren't inflation adjusted it would look like we are 10x richer than the people living in the 70s...?

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    why cant i afford a house then

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >rich
    >150k
    lol I made it

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >2020
    It's Juneteenth 2022 tho?

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >people don't need to buy a house for shelter
    >people don't need a college degree for a job
    >people can just settle for cheaper low quality shit like chink shit if something become expensive
    >new item(smartphone) and expenses that people can't live without anymore? Just put them on low priority, they are just luxury
    This is how boomer decide "inflation"

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sort of like how they count unemployment.
      >been out of a job longer than 6 months? Doesn't count.
      >can't find anything and quit futilely looking?
      Doesn't count.
      Probably plenty of others but there's far more not working than are counted.
      A LOT of leeches who have never worked in their entire life as well who end up not counted because of fake disabilities or some shit or another.

Your email address will not be published.