Who are you voting/rooting for in this years election
- Thread starter Brino
- Start date
- Status
I like the band Bush and I love nuzzling against a woman's bush (tho I love the shaved look more), but as for presidents, I say....."No More Bush"
The Satyr Icon
The Satyr Icon
I feel like Batman responding to the Bat-Signal. Okay, here we go.
Here's a graph of the average private-sector hourly earnings since 1964. This is all adjusted to 1982 dollars to eliminate inflation.
This comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website, right here:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce
You can get all kinds of statistics there. You have to check the box for whatever report you want. Then you'll have the option to set the years you want and get a plot. It's pretty cool.
So, looking the plot we can see:
So, there you have it. One thing to remember is that this plot covers a period when a large number of married women entered the workforce. So even though wages remained steady, most families have seen their standard of living go up over the last thirty years because they now have two earners instead of just one.
Here's a graph of the average private-sector hourly earnings since 1964. This is all adjusted to 1982 dollars to eliminate inflation.
This comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website, right here:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce
You can get all kinds of statistics there. You have to check the box for whatever report you want. Then you'll have the option to set the years you want and get a plot. It's pretty cool.
So, looking the plot we can see:
- Steady wage growth during the Johnson and early Nixon administrations (1964-72; unfortunately the data only goes back to 1964).
- A major spike during Nixon's second term and the Ford administration (1973-76). Consumer prices were shooting up at this time as well; this was called a "wage-price spiral".
- A second wage-price spiral during the Carter administration, followed by a major drop in wages. (1977-80)
- More or less stagnant wages during the Reagan administration, with a slight overall decline. (1981-88)
- Sinking wages during the Bush Sr. administration (1989-92).
- Flat wages during Clinton's first term (1993-96).
- A sharp increase during Clinton's second term, flattening out towards the end (1997-2000)
- Modest growth during Bush Jr'.s administration.
So, there you have it. One thing to remember is that this plot covers a period when a large number of married women entered the workforce. So even though wages remained steady, most families have seen their standard of living go up over the last thirty years because they now have two earners instead of just one.
georges said:
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: AMEN!
member2686
Banned
I've been watching the Democratic National Convention every night. John Edwards will speak in about 10 minutes....tune in!!!
Think you know John Kerry? Take the Comedy Central Quiz!
http://comedycentral.com/games/game...om/tv_shows/indecision2004/game/kerryquiz.swf
http://comedycentral.com/games/game...om/tv_shows/indecision2004/game/kerryquiz.swf
Inspector: As always, great info!
You made me think about buying power. If I'm making 3 times as much per hour today as I made 10 years ago, my immediate response is "yippee". But if the cost of what I buy is 5 times as much as it was 10 years ago, I'm losing.
So let's look at Consumer Price Index plus a few other sources for our expenditures.
First problem with Consumer Price Index is that it only covers urban areas. (According to US census, 20% or 1/5 of all Americans live in established "rural" areas. Bureau of Labor info does not address them in any way. I would argue this is statistically significant.)
Same problem with the wage stats.
But let's take the wage stats as gospel, just for argument's sake. Since they're adjusted to 1982 dollars, we'll do the same with the Consumer Price Index. (See ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt for Consumer Price Index figures since 1913; see http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet for income figures)
Average wage in Jan., 1982/all workers: $7.88
Average wage in Jan., 2004/all workers: $8.27
Percentage Increase: Approx 5%
Consumer Price Index, 1982: 94.3 (As a percentage of 1982-1984 figs.)
Consumer Price Index, 2004: 185.2 (As a percentage of 1982-1984 figs.)
Percentage Increase: 197%
In short, according to these stats coming directly from the US government, hourly income for the average American has increased 5% in the last 20 years or so, while the cost of the primary items they buy has almost doubled.
So, either our economy is fucked, or our government reports are. And the sad thing is, I'm not confident in saying which is the case.
All I know is that nobody I talk to is saving more than they were, as a percentage of their income, as they were during the Clinton years. How about you?
Re: Who am I voting for? Kerry by default. I'm a Howard Dean man, myself. But bottom line, it's anybody but Bush. And I'm an ex-republican who never thought he'd vote democrat, but the neocon faction has turned the party into a facist front. What we need is a real 3rd party... and a 4th, and 5th. But until that can be translated into real power -- ala the Canadian system -- it's only a win or lose proposition, and the stakes are too high this time around to play with my sentimental vote: Ralph Nader.
Speaking of Nader, did anyone see Bill Mahr's show on HBO with Michael Moore, Bush's campaign director, and Ralph?
That show and the John Stewart's Daily Show are reason enough to pay for cable.
You made me think about buying power. If I'm making 3 times as much per hour today as I made 10 years ago, my immediate response is "yippee". But if the cost of what I buy is 5 times as much as it was 10 years ago, I'm losing.
So let's look at Consumer Price Index plus a few other sources for our expenditures.
First problem with Consumer Price Index is that it only covers urban areas. (According to US census, 20% or 1/5 of all Americans live in established "rural" areas. Bureau of Labor info does not address them in any way. I would argue this is statistically significant.)
Same problem with the wage stats.
But let's take the wage stats as gospel, just for argument's sake. Since they're adjusted to 1982 dollars, we'll do the same with the Consumer Price Index. (See ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt for Consumer Price Index figures since 1913; see http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet for income figures)
Average wage in Jan., 1982/all workers: $7.88
Average wage in Jan., 2004/all workers: $8.27
Percentage Increase: Approx 5%
Consumer Price Index, 1982: 94.3 (As a percentage of 1982-1984 figs.)
Consumer Price Index, 2004: 185.2 (As a percentage of 1982-1984 figs.)
Percentage Increase: 197%
In short, according to these stats coming directly from the US government, hourly income for the average American has increased 5% in the last 20 years or so, while the cost of the primary items they buy has almost doubled.
So, either our economy is fucked, or our government reports are. And the sad thing is, I'm not confident in saying which is the case.
All I know is that nobody I talk to is saving more than they were, as a percentage of their income, as they were during the Clinton years. How about you?
Re: Who am I voting for? Kerry by default. I'm a Howard Dean man, myself. But bottom line, it's anybody but Bush. And I'm an ex-republican who never thought he'd vote democrat, but the neocon faction has turned the party into a facist front. What we need is a real 3rd party... and a 4th, and 5th. But until that can be translated into real power -- ala the Canadian system -- it's only a win or lose proposition, and the stakes are too high this time around to play with my sentimental vote: Ralph Nader.
Speaking of Nader, did anyone see Bill Mahr's show on HBO with Michael Moore, Bush's campaign director, and Ralph?
That show and the John Stewart's Daily Show are reason enough to pay for cable.
fox, you've got a couple of problems there. A minor techincal problem is that the link you give for income figures is actually just a generic link to the output of the data-retrieval servelet; anyone who wants to see the data is going to have to go through the interface themselves.
The big problem with your analysis, though, is that the hourly income figures already account for changes in the CPI. That's what it means to be "adjusted to 1982 dollars"; the CPI is the exact statistic used to measure inflation. The hourly-income number for 2004, for example, is the current average hourly income (in current dollars) divided by the current value of the CPI (to convert it to 1982 dollars). In other words, they've already divided by the CPI; by doing it again, you're doing it one too many times.
As for your thoughts on third parties, etc, I agree that the two-party system is killing us. But the winner-take all nature of the electoral college means the system is stacked against a third party. We won't have a successful third party until the system gets changed to allow one.
The big problem with your analysis, though, is that the hourly income figures already account for changes in the CPI. That's what it means to be "adjusted to 1982 dollars"; the CPI is the exact statistic used to measure inflation. The hourly-income number for 2004, for example, is the current average hourly income (in current dollars) divided by the current value of the CPI (to convert it to 1982 dollars). In other words, they've already divided by the CPI; by doing it again, you're doing it one too many times.
As for your thoughts on third parties, etc, I agree that the two-party system is killing us. But the winner-take all nature of the electoral college means the system is stacked against a third party. We won't have a successful third party until the system gets changed to allow one.
foxfilm said:
Yea I watch that show Real Time with Bill Mahr! It's a great show they dont have the same restrictions as basic cable and it's great to see politicians screaming at each other.
BTW I agree that we need a better system instead of the winner takes all system we have now but I dont think we'll see it in our lifetime unfortunately.
Nader is a Independant liberal and people (mainly democrats) are turning on him because they believe he helped Bush win in 2000 by taking away votes from Gore. They dont want him to run again because they think it will be a repeat of 2000 and he'll steal votes from Kerry thus causing Bush to win again.
i have heard what kerry said about the situation "we apologize for all the trouble us caused.and before starting war it is better having some concrete facts".He is typically a weakminded president.A strong president won't apologize for having destroyed saddam's regime.Kerry will but once again he is a failure.Shame on kerry.Brino said:
here are some proofs that kerry is a failure
http://www.georgewbush.com/blog/archives/week_2004_07_25.html#001361
regards
georges
http://www.georgewbush.com/blog/archives/week_2004_07_25.html#001361
regards
georges
here is another link to show you how kerry is controversial
http://www.georgewbush.com/KerryonIraq/
http://www.georgewbush.com/KerryonIraq/
georges said:
I'm sure that when he said that he wasnt talking about invading Iraq but was talking about the ensuing terrorist attacks that have plagued that country since we went in. Weakminded? I'll tell you what weakminded is, weakminded is sittng in a classroom for seven minutes after being told the country was under attack and then staying in the school for another twenty minutes after that.
BTW Ofcourse a site named georgewbush.com would attack Kerry. That's what Bush's platform for re-election is attack. Attack Kerry, attack Iraq, hey we'll just attack everyone! Since they have nothing better or positive to run on they'll just focus on the negative since that's what their so good at.
Brino said:
has jfkerry a concrete program against terrorism? i doubt of it.
he has no concrete program so he fails.But gwb is just right to attack kerry because kerry can't back up a single of his positions, he is weak at argumentation.negative side???defeating saddam was more than necessary and fighting against terrorism is more than necessary too.Peaceful talks don't help with terrorism.kerry and nader are not enough good candidates they fail.
georges said:
Yes Kerry does! Defeating Saddam was more than neccessary? No! Defeating Al Qieda and Capturing bin Laden is whats more than neccessary. Stoping terrorism all over the world is what's more than neccessary not attacking somebody because you have a grudge with him left over from your father's administration. And peaceful talks do stop some terrorism. If defeating Saddam was more than neccessary then what about all those people that are worse than him and pose a bigger threat. What about Iran, North Korea, Libia, etc. Bush is a dumbass who resorts to fear tactics to get people to think his way.
He's a coward who wouldnt even fight in Vietnam. He attacks people because he has a bad record with the econemy and domestic issues and the only thing he can fall back on is Iraq which is an awful failure in judgement and he knows it. He's such a bad president that he still has yet to implement the 9/11 commissions suggestions to make this country safer and if we get attacked it's going to be his fault for not implementing those suggestions.
- Status
