Grokmaster
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2017
- Messages
- 9,613
- Reaction score
- 2,735
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
What government shutdown? :lamo
Glad to see the employment trends under Obama are still continuing.
You are right. Under Obama, real wage growth wasn't negative. Under Trump, the rate of real wage growth has actually been declining compared to Obama. Talk about a "new normal."And, another 13,000 of those manufacturing jobs that the previous POTUS assured us "weren't coming back"; looks like Trump's "MAGIC WAND" is still working its magic, huh, Obama ? :lamo
Wages NEVER ROSE like this under the Obamidiot, DESPITE his starting from a MUCH LOWER STANDARD ...nor did he EVER achieve 3%+ annual growth. EVER, also despite starting from a MUCH LOWER BAR, which allows for far more growth...unless Obama is in charge, obviously. 1-2% was the "NEW NROMAL"...remember?
Please enjoy your desperate fantasy.
More GREAT NEWS, !
You are right. Under Obama, real wage growth wasn't negative. Under Trump, the rate of real wage growth has actually been declining compared to Obama. Talk about a "new normal."
View attachment 67249419
Please explain what data in the chart I posted is incorrect. The BLS wage chart in the OP does not adjust for inflation, so doesn't paint a full picture.Total BULL****. Can't read the BLS wage chart provided in the OP?
Wages are up 3.2% FAR exceeding inflation.
Please explain what data in the chart I posted is incorrect. The BLS wage chart in the OP does not adjust for inflation, so doesn't paint a full picture.
Yes, math. The graph I posted is from FRED (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/). And the data in the chart is from BLS, same data as the OP. The only difference is it is inflation adjusted (which requires simple math, as you point out).They are the BLS STATS, Please link to the source for yours.
IN addition...3.2% (the WAGE INCREASE) > 1.9-2.1 % (INFLATION RATE).
It's called "MATH"....
The graph I posted is from FRED (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/). And the data in the chart is from BLS, same data as the OP. The only difference is it is inflation adjusted.
To be fair, the chart I posted is missing the data that recently came out in January. So here is a chart with a more complete picture of real wages (again, from FRED, with data from the BLS, same as the OP). The best that can be said is real wage growth is returning to the levels seen near the end of Obama's second term.
View attachment 67249427
Again, the wage growth is good news. But to pretend like this is some major shift for the better compared to Obama is silly.
The data is from the BLS. I literally just told you that. It's even written on the actual graph. Do you not understand the difference between nominal and real wages? The rate of real wage growth is roughly where it was for most of 2016 during Obama's term, after being even weaker than the end of Obama's term for most of 2017. Those are facts.Yeah... NOT THE BLS, is it? Your CHART is a PROJECTION...nothing more...and wage increases have outstripped inflation.
Try again.
The data is from the BLS. I literally just told you that. It's even written on the actual graph. Do you not understand the difference between nominal and real wages? The rate of real wage growth is roughly where it was at the end of Obama's term, after being even weaker than the end of Obama's term for most of 2017. Those are facts.
Yes, math. The graph I posted is from FRED (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/). And the data in the chart is from BLS, same data as the OP. The only difference is it is inflation adjusted (which requires simple math, as you point out).
To be fair, the chart I posted is missing the data that recently came out in January. So here is a chart with a more complete picture of real wages (again, from FRED, with data from the BLS, same as the OP). The best that can be said is real wage growth is returning to the levels seen near the end of Obama's second term.
View attachment 67249427
Again, the wage growth is good news. But to pretend like this is some major shift for the better compared to Obama is silly.
The chart I posted isn't speculation. It is nominal yearly wage growth minus inflation. That's it. Here it is one more time:And it shows 1.9% INFLATION, Which is LESS THAN 3.2% WAGE GROWTH. That is the EMPIRICAL DATA...of WAGE GROWTH and INFLATION.
Everything else is SPECULATIVE ALTERATION of the EMPIRICAL DATA.
I'll go with the HARD NUMBERS, thank you.
Feel free to keep pretending this is "Obama's doing".
It's very entertaining.
The chart I posted isn't speculation. It is nominal yearly wage growth minus inflation. That's it. Here it is one more time:
View attachment 67249432
What you claim to be amazing real wage growth is slightly less than real wage growth under Obama for much of 2016.
The chart I posted is current. The last entry in the chart is from December 2018, the latest data available (which came out this January). Perhaps you are having trouble reading it.DUDE..STOP THE BULL****.
You got busted with your BOGUS, DATED "charts", and now you keep trying to pretend that 3.2% wages is NOT HIGHER than 1.9% inflation...while IGNORING the fact that 3%+ ANNUAL GDP GROWTH NEVER HAPPEND UNDER OBAMA...IN TWO TERMS.
Now...post a chart from the 1950's...geez.
I'm not a leftist; I can DO MATH.
The chart I posted is current. The last entry in the chart is from December 2018, the latest data available (which came out this January). Perhaps you are having trouble reading it.
Yes, 3.2% is greater than 1.9%. Nobody is disputing that. The difference between those two numbers = real wage growth. For most of 2015, the difference between nominal wage growth and inflation was slightly higher (real wage growth was slightly higher). I'm not sure what it is about the chart you do not understand. Maybe this link will make it easier for you. Just hover over the graph.Perhaps you are having trouble doing simple math.
3.2% > than 1.9%..no matter what a few dorks at a SINGLE FED RESERVE BANK SAY.
Sorry that seems to keep escaping you. Sue your elementary school.
3%+ ANNUAL GDP NEVER ACHIEVED by OBAMA , in TWO FULL TERMS. 1-2% was his ANNUAL GDP. His self-declared "NEW NORMAL".
UNDER HIM...that is.
Best social welfare program is to give someone an opportunity to work at a paying job.
Yes, 3.2% is greater than 1.9%. Nobody is disputing that. The difference between those two numbers = real wage growth. For most of 2015, the difference between nominal wage growth and inflation was slightly higher (real wage growth was slightly higher). I'm not sure what it is about the chart you do not understand. Maybe this link will make it easier for you. Just hover over the graph.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=mQqB
Yeah... NOT THE BLS, is it? Your CHART is a PROJECTION...nothing more...and wage increases have outstripped inflation.
Try again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?