Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.

The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?

That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.

That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.

Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.

Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:It even duped Nalod, because the press on the web is not like the dead tree press. Not as easy as putting the morning edition next to the evening edition and seeing the changes right before your eyes. This ForexLive ******* just hit the "edit" button on his post to not look like a total dirtbag. I don't even think its a totally cynical "let me make money off these Trump rubes" because it looks like he gets high on his own supply. The real rubes are NASDAQ for associating with this clown.

The content of the article didn't dupe Nalod, just the updates created a new slant on the post.

The content of the article duped BRIGGS. 6th graders with a Twitter account can dupe BRIGGS and half the people voting for Trump.

This look isn't good for you Martin.

Briggs is posting absurd statements that he's not fact checking and that shouldn't sound plausible to someone with basic critical thinking skills. I'm glad Martin is calling him out.

BRIGGS has a bunch of issues, but that article wasn't from "MiltiaPrepperNewsDaily.net" or anything. It was friggin' NASDAQ.com. Sure he didn't read it clearly because he was drunk on Trump kook-aid or Allanfan'd... so my issue is more with the fact this clickbait has the implicit backing of the second largest stock market. What the hell does Michelle Obama's Twitter have to do with the foreign currency market? Sure BRIGGS should have seen that, but I'm pointing the finger at the hosers who put this clickbait up.

Generally, the source for all of that was Hannity and some fringe websites. BRIGGS surely saw more than just the NASDAQ article but that was what he posted cause it would have seemed the most legitimate. Not so.

We all have Google and some other very easy tools at our own hands. Many were already telling BRIGGS that this particular story was debunked. A middle schooler could have told you that something was smelly.

It's starts at the source.

Wow, I had no idea this was "reported" on Hannity live. I'm listening to the Majority Report and they are playing back audio from his radio show and clowning him, laughing out loud at these clowns. God, this is so cathartic after letting this nonsense work me up like this.

So BRIGGSY, you bumping Fox News Radio over there sipping on that brown?

DrAlphaeus wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:It even duped Nalod, because the press on the web is not like the dead tree press. Not as easy as putting the morning edition next to the evening edition and seeing the changes right before your eyes. This ForexLive ******* just hit the "edit" button on his post to not look like a total dirtbag. I don't even think its a totally cynical "let me make money off these Trump rubes" because it looks like he gets high on his own supply. The real rubes are NASDAQ for associating with this clown.

The content of the article didn't dupe Nalod, just the updates created a new slant on the post.

The content of the article duped BRIGGS. 6th graders with a Twitter account can dupe BRIGGS and half the people voting for Trump.

This look isn't good for you Martin.

Briggs is posting absurd statements that he's not fact checking and that shouldn't sound plausible to someone with basic critical thinking skills. I'm glad Martin is calling him out.

BRIGGS has a bunch of issues, but that article wasn't from "MiltiaPrepperNewsDaily.net" or anything. It was friggin' NASDAQ.com. Sure he didn't read it clearly because he was drunk on Trump kook-aid or Allanfan'd... so my issue is more with the fact this clickbait has the implicit backing of the second largest stock market. What the hell does Michelle Obama's Twitter have to do with the foreign currency market? Sure BRIGGS should have seen that, but I'm pointing the finger at the hosers who put this clickbait up.

Generally, the source for all of that was Hannity and some fringe websites. BRIGGS surely saw more than just the NASDAQ article but that was what he posted cause it would have seemed the most legitimate. Not so.

We all have Google and some other very easy tools at our own hands. Many were already telling BRIGGS that this particular story was debunked. A middle schooler could have told you that something was smelly.

It's starts at the source.

Wow, I had no idea this was "reported" on Hannity live. I'm listening to the Majority Report and they are playing back audio from his radio show and clowning him, laughing out loud at these clowns. God, this is so cathartic after letting this nonsense work me up like this.

So BRIGGSY, you bumping Fox News Radio over there sipping on that brown?

Exactly. This line of "reporting" is beneath pathetic.

meloshouldgo wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.

The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?

That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.

That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.

Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.

Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).

One other thing. If you assume a flat rate for growth during Clinton'said entire term - then his computef annual growth rate for mean wage was an astounding 0.834%

earthmansurfer wrote:Conflict of interest?

Oops, doesn't blow up enough, short email, just look here. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150
Someone giving someone else a heads up.

And from Judicial Watch (below tweet)
Related Stories:

DOJ Official Who Is Friends With John Podesta Offered A ‘Heads Up’ On Clinton Email Developments
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/02/doj-official-who-is-friends-with-john-podesta-offered-a-heads-up-on-clinton-email-developments/

Justice Department official gave Clinton camp 'heads up' about testimony
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/02/justice-department-official-gave-clinton-camp-heads-up-about-testimony.html

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/stranahan/status/793861068434976769

holfresh wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.

The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?

The average median household income increased 14.2% between 1992 and 2000...From 2000 to 2015 it decreased -2.4%

Link?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/200838/median-household-income-in-the-united-states/

This data isn't inflation adusted as far as I can tell. Can't spend too much time on it at work. My data was in 1982 dollars yours is much later. I will try to find inflation adjusted data using later dollars but I have much more faith in federal reserve data that I used on that graph of median wages.

Doesn't make a difference if it's inflation adjusted because the change is expressed in percentages...CPI adjusted would yield the same data...

OMG

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5193878632001

martin wrote:
the question for me is why are you siting and referencing material from Fox News and Daily Caller? Those are not reputable media.

They are so slanted such that they should not be read. For real

Is that what you come back with? just look at the emails. You don't have to interpret it. Does it matter who reports on the email? It is Wiki-linked :-)

Here is another one.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36336

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:
the question for me is why are you siting and referencing material from Fox News and Daily Caller? Those are not reputable media.

They are so slanted such that they should not be read. For real

Is that what you come back with? just look at the emails. You don't have to interpret it. Does it matter who reports on the email? It is Wiki-linked :-)

Here is another one.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36336

if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me

martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me

Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me

Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.

you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?

WTF is that supposed to show?