Economy Study: Middle Class Is Over

Your chart supports my hunch...late 90’s saw a surge..small correction early 2000’s and the a surge...wonder how the NSADAQ did?

Due you mean that rich get richer during stock booms? For sure, capital and leverage is a built in advantage and execs pay sky rockets as well.
 
Due you mean that rich get richer during stock booms? For sure, capital and leverage is a built in advantage and execs pay sky rockets as well.

No, that’s the obvious...my point was more along the lines that plenty of software engineers became rich (millionaires) and some lower roles got richer (100’s of thousandaires)
 
No, that’s the obvious...my point was more along the lines that plenty of software engineers became rich (millionaires) and some lower roles got richer (100’s of thousandaires)

i can see the first fitting with the data somewhat but not the second, as nobody outside of the top quintile had any big movements.
 
Again, this is not what he is arguing. You're way too smart to not know that.

I know what he is arguing. I'm explaining why it is completely incorrect. First, the data completely contradicts his assumptions. Second, he is wrong on what the terms represent and how they are used.

It's like someone saying "Dogs make the best clouds". Then I explain that dogs are not clouds so it's impossible to qualify them as the "best" or the "worst" clouds. That doesn't mean I don't understand what he's saying, it means what he's saying is wrong. Debating if dogs are the best clouds requires me to accept a completely erroneous premise as true.

Similarly, debating the theory he put forward requires me to accept several completely erroneous premises as true. I can't do that when I know that the data contradicts his premises at every stage.
 
and this is why Bernie Sanders is gonna kill Donald Trump.


The 2016 match up we deserved!

..... nearly a decade of Democrats in the White House.... and you blame.... Trump.....
 
I know what he is arguing. I'm explaining why it is completely incorrect. First, the data completely contradicts his assumptions. Second, he is wrong on what the terms represent and how they are used.

It's like someone saying "Dogs make the best clouds". Then I explain that dogs are not clouds so it's impossible to qualify them as the "best" or the "worst" clouds. That doesn't mean I don't understand what he's saying, it means what he's saying is wrong. Debating if dogs are the best clouds requires me to accept a completely erroneous premise as true.

Similarly, debating the theory he put forward requires me to accept several completely erroneous premises as true. I can't do that when I know that the data contradicts his premises at every stage.

That and 1% = 1% = 1% no matter how many exponents or generations you throw into a calculation. That’s why the number of kids someone has ... no wait I am not going to explain it again, those like u that can, already get it.
 
The hell with Christ
One day, it will be too late to change your mind about Jesus Christ. And I'm not happy to say this, but if you wait too long, the irony of your statement will reveal itself to you.
 
One day, it will be too late to change your mind about Jesus Christ. And I'm not happy to say this, but if you wait too long, the irony of your statement will reveal itself to you.

So I need to believe in something, because If I don't believe in it, I'm going to the lake of fire? You don't see the scam here?
 
My family and I are in the middle class, but not in USA. We are still alive!
 
As an accelerationist, I cannot wait for civil war! We could use a good purge of weak, NEO-liberal dipshits. ;)


NEVER QUESTION ANYTHING. SHUT UP AND BUY. Zapp AND Roger.
tv-media-octopus.gif

(some tv is fucking awesome, ya dingus!)
 
Back
Top