- #71
enorbet
- 481
- 85
russ_watters said:You are quite mistaken. We are only dealing in cost of living adjusted income. That question has been asked and answered many times in this thread, which makes it curious that you could be wrong about it.
It is my understanding that a much higher percentage of Americans first entering the marketplace these days will never afford to own their own home in contrast to early 20th century. Perhaps these adjustments don't include such concerns.
russ_watters said:No one has claimed it has, so I don't know why we would be discussing that.
I brought it up because it speaks to the issue of government control of business and the resulting special interests that end up controlling government by that mechanism, or as Robert Zimmerman put it, "The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles".
russ_watters said:Regardless of how true or not that statement is, it isn't relevant: the increases in bottem-end incomes that we are discussing are happening despite that supposed influence.
...and I contend this is likely skewed statistics since there is evidence that people on "the bottom-end" had considerably more buying power/discretionary dollars in the first half of the 20th century and it has been diminishing ever since due largely to the Lobby system and Supreme Court decisions on political donations.
russ_watters said:Having no idea what her expenses were, I have no idea if that should blow my mind. At age 18, I was still living with my parents and all my bills were "paid" on the first day of the month, leaving the rest of the money I earned as "discretionary" income!
Unless they told you exactly how she was living, all you are doing here is guessing. That's completely meaningless.
Perhaps you assumed her parents moved from Upstate New York with her to New York City? It was stated by the documentary that she and her girlfriend from school shared a 2 bedroom apartment and she confirmed this and described their lives. I did say she was interviewed in person and I find it dismissive and disingenuous that you would bring up living with your parents and having your bills paid for you by others. It is further an affront to refer to your argument as "we" in order to somehow minimize any dissent so that yours appears to have the preponderance of authority. The entire point was that her job provided that level of wealth. Why would I have even recounted it if someone else paid any of her bills? I will do my best to see if the documentary is available so you can see it for yourself.
In the meantime, do you suppose you could try to refrain from scurrilous remarks just because you disagree with this concept? If your argument and evidence "hold water" there is just no need for under-handed psychological trickery or twisted assumptions. If it turns out I am mistaken in any way, I will gladly report it, and apologize for my error. Until that time, let's try mutual respect.