Official LRC President Joseph R Biden Thread

hunter wheres the blow wrote:

SouthernmostIllini wrote:

Also the wage ratio in the 95th/10th percentile column dropping from 7.44 to 7.19. Far right of the same table.

That's the statistic for men only. If you scroll up to Table 1 which represents "Hourly wages of all workers, by wage percentile, selected years, 2000–2019," you will find that the 95/10 percentile ratio increased in 2019.

Also, the only reason there was even a difference in the men appears to be widespread minimum wage increases in 2019. Here's quote from the article:
"When we compare 10th-percentile wage growth among states that are grouped by whether they had any minimum wage increase or not, the comparison yields highly suggestive results. As shown in Figure J, when looking at 10th-percentile wages, growth in states without minimum wage increases was much slower (0.9%) than in states with any kind of minimum wage increase (4.1%)."

So not only are you just incorrect, the progress that was made wasn't from trickle down milton friedman psuedo-economics that rich people invented so they can keep benefitting from you. It was just minimum wage increases, the thing the left has been pushing for since forever.

Also, the article has lots of other interesting graphs we could go into.

"Figure F illustrates the trends in wages for selected deciles (and the 95th percentile), showing the cumulative percent change in real hourly wages from 2000 to 2019. The overall story of inequality is clear. The lines demonstrate that those with the highest wages have had the fastest wage growth in recent years. From 2000 to 2019, the 95th-percentile wage grew nearly four times as fast as wages at the median (30.7% vs. 8.0%). By 2019, the 95/10 ratio had grown to 6.7 from 6.0 in 2007 and 5.6 in 2000 (see Table 1). This means that on an hourly basis the 95th-percentile wage earner was paid 6.7 times what the 10th-percentile wage earner was paid ($67.14 per hour vs. $10.07 per hour). Similar trends are found in the 95/50 wage ratio, with those at the top pulling away from those in the middle. In 2019, the 95th-percentile wage earner was paid 3.5 times as much as the median worker ($67.14 vs. $19.33), compared with 3.0 times as much in 2007 and 2.9 times as much in 2000."

I don't think the solution is tax cuts for rich people. If you do, that's fine, you can keep voting red. I don't think blue team is helping that much either but at least they aren't giving tax cuts to the top 1% and pretending it's helping everyone.

SouthernmostIllini wrote:

hunter wheres the blow wrote:

I didn’t cite data from 2000-2019 to refute your point. I refuted your point about inequality decreasing from 2018-2019 using the specific charts you cited, and then provided extra information to support my initial counter-point. I’m not sure I can back track it for you posting from my phone.

You refuted the point that the wage ratio dropped for every demographic. You didn’t refute the point that wage increases were biggest for the lowest earners. The only reason the first one wasn’t true for everyone is because there are now lots of women in the workforce who are getting larger raises..regardless of their wage percentile. Probably due to them being in the workforce longer though I imagine you think that’s some government intervention.

You’re out of your league here. I’m always curious why liberals try to turn this stuff into rocket science when it’s not. There’s some basic math here and if you understand how the calculations are done you understand what it means. And it pretty much always leads to the simple conclusion you can’t legislate wealth. That’s kind of intuitive.

SouthernmostIllini wrote:

agip wrote:

You 'conservatives' should have listened. But nah more important to make the libs cry and !Benghazi!

Now the Dems have the House, Senate and WH and the leader of your political party will likely be indicted and tried for multiple serious crimes.

Lindsey Graham
@LindseyGrahamSC
If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.
11:03 PM · May 3, 2016

I thought the same thing Graham did. Which is why I didn’t vote for Trump in the primary or general elections. And amazingly pre pandemic the world hadn’t ended. Actually when you look at meaningful results lots of good things had happened. Things that matter to me like a good economy with opportunities for ALL Americans. That’s when I realized how bad the Bush and Cheney Republicans were. Not to mention how bad Dim policies were.

I’d prefer DeSantis over Trump in 2024…some of the same policies without all the noise. Not to mention he’s way smarter and more strategic than Trump. Biden is an old school Dim using public money to get himself re-elected because he has no policies that work. It’s sad that you can’t see the correlation between all the actions he’s taken and the resulting negative trends. They started almost immediately and it’s really as clear as night and day.

SouthernmostIllini wrote:

hunter wheres the blow wrote:

I didn’t cite data from 2000-2019 to refute your point. I refuted your point about inequality decreasing from 2018-2019 using the specific charts you cited, and then provided extra information to support my initial counter-point. I’m not sure I can back track it for you posting from my phone.

You refuted the point that the wage ratio dropped for every demographic. You didn’t refute the point that wage increases were biggest for the lowest earners. The only reason the first one wasn’t true for everyone is because there are now lots of women in the workforce who are getting larger raises..regardless of their wage percentile. Probably due to them being in the workforce longer though I imagine you think that’s some government intervention.

You’re out of your league here. I’m always curious why liberals try to turn this stuff into rocket science when it’s not. There’s some basic math here and if you understand how the calculations are done you understand what it means. And it pretty much always leads to the simple conclusion you can’t legislate wealth. That’s kind of intuitive.