/biz/ - Business & Finance

>rich
>150k

>>49854744
>rich
>150k

>>49854744
>rich households (> $150k)
lmao

>>49854814
Bulbasaur a cute

>>49854814
>>49854844
>>49854847
not an argument

>richest country in the world
>20% of it its very por
>majority earns less than 75.000

shithole, third world country with a gucci belt and nukes

Great, now show this chart in relation to current housing costs, rent prices, college tuition, food costs, et cetera.

>>49854744
Misleading data, largely explained by women entering the workforce which masks the real decline in wages and standard of living - that used to be possible on a single wage. The 150K is the combined wage with women in the workforce.

In addition, he is using "official" inflation figures/CPI. Need I say any more.

tl;dr bullshit misleading graph

I thought everyone was a poor loser, right /bizpol/? Everyone is a virgin poor loser like us.

Oh wait, inflation adjusted data shows a shit ton of households EASILY clearing 200k yearly. And /bizpol/ still thinks they’re going to get a 150k 4 bedroom house lmfao. The train has left the stations you fucking losers, if you’re not pulling 400k you’re not going to be an elite. It’s that simple, Stacy and Chad both have 6 figure WFH jobs in 2022.

>>49854871
>Implying 150k is not rich is not an argument

>Why?

>Just because it isnt ok?

Excuse me nigger, are you stupid?

>>49854885
Have you considered that your mental model of what it means to be poor might be skewed?

>>49854885
>very poor
they have cars and rental homes.

>>49855018
150k is lower middle class, not rich, where have these fuckers been for the last 3 years? You can't even buy a house on that income.

>>49854916
OP btfo

>>49855024

>Median

kek

>>49855049
Please stop using whatever overpriced hellhole you live in as a reference point for the rest of the world. I make $50k in the US and had no issue getting a house

>>49854871

>>49855085
Median seemed more applicable to me, but if you'd prefer to use average, I don't feel like it diminishes my point

>>49855125

>Average

top kek

try Mode

>>49854916
Actually, it's likely to be misleading in the opposite direction. The chart used household income. Households have fewer members than they did. Per capita income has increased even more.

>>49855183
Can't easily find that chart, feel free to drop it yourself

>>49855283
Generally only the father/mother in the household are working, not the dependents in the house.

In 1967, there would have been significantly more single-earner households. Women entering the workforce would have doubled the amount of income significantly which tipped many more into the 150K category, masking the standard of living decreases.

The fact that there are fewer people living in homes is irrelevant because most children are not working. The only reliable metric as wage earners is the father and mother.

>>49855379
Hm, I dunno, the other dude seems to be right about per capita rising

>>49855460
Not really.

>>49855562
I feel like this one actually doesn't serve your point fully, since it only measures the wage of full time workers. Only 57% of women are actually in the workforce, and of those a third are part time. I think the per capita graph is also capturing the fact that Americans have fewer children than they used to, so the amount of money that goes to each individual in a household is likely increased

>>49855092
>t.gary, indiana

>>49854744
we need to start burning poor people

>>49854814
150k househole income a year is rich compared to the entire world

>>49854744
>150k
Wtf is that, Peru?

>>49855733
If anything it's the opposite. OP's original image is that "more households are in the 150K bracket". I responded by saying women entering the workforce explains why more households are in that higher bracket yet standard of living is lower. A guy responded to me saying that houses have less people in them which means that per capita is higher.

Firstly, per capita income as a measure of real wages/standard of living is flawed because it is a mean value and does not reflect income distribution. See the graph. Secondly, the fact that only 57% of women are in the workforce is irrelevant, what matters is the ratio between the number in 1967, and the number today, and that number is far higher today.

Finally, I would argue there are actually *more* children living in houses today with their parents who are working in employment, than in 1967 when it was far more common for young men to move out early. So if anything, that is a THIRD potential income that pushes households today into the 150K bracket pool that didn't exist to anywhere near the same extent as in 1967 (similar to women in the work force).

>>49855799
Honestly not sure what point you feel you've made here. Yeah, I live in a 400k metropolitan area in the Midwest. Please stop using the overpriced hellhole you live in as a reference for the rest of the world

>>49854744
Nigga. I had 230k at the peak and I still couldn't afford a home. Fuck off, retard. I wasn't rich
>>49854814
This
>>49854844
also this

>>49854992
Go back to your containment board incel

>>49855562
Leftyshill crap graph that was debunked 1 trillion times but still circulates as if it weren't. Not surprising seeing as how most lefties dont even know what an inflation deflator is. If you try to debunk this on leftypol they will ban you, but before they do, they will claim that using different inflation indicies between real productivity and wages is justified because adjusting one or the other so that you use the same inflation deflator is
>MULTIPLYING BY A RANDOM NUMBER!!!!
I shit you not. I've spent probably 12 hours of my life trying to explain this exact graph

>>49855916
There are about half as many kids per capita as in '67, I don't think men moving out earlier is gonna outweigh that.
I'd agree that the ratio matters more. Looks like 15% of women worked full-time in 1967, 25% if you include part time. So from then to now, women entering has increased total workforce by like 25-30%, which doesn't look like it accounts for everything in OP's graph.
I'm not totally sure how to read your chart. It says it's measuring growth, but is it actually supposed to just be average income relative to 1917?

The middle class, as it's so colloquially referred, is a holding pattern status, where participants decide if wealth is right for them. A try before you buy, if you will.

>>49854916
>Rich Piana
:(

>>49855824
>compared to the entire world
ah great. i get to compare myself to ugandan nigger warlord countries and south american faevlas where they hack at eachothers with machetes

>>49855379
more people can afford to live alone than previously

>>49856396
Cope

>>49856567
More people living alone makes households smaller on average. This means that even if every person working makes the same or more money than they did the previous decade, the household income will still be lower. It's a statistic used almost exclusively to mislead. Read a book sometime. Try it out.

>>49856602
You just completely contradicted your previous statement btw.

>>49856396
>>49856602
>real estate destroying people
>inflation destroying people
>more people can afford to live alone!
You're fucking retarded

>>49856722
?
How in the world are you this stupid.

Household income is a joke stat used to mislead. Households have become smaller over time. Income has increased over time. However, because there are fewer earners per household, then household income stays about the same.

From Economic Facts and Fallacies
"...average real income of American households rose by only 6 percent over the entire period from 1969 to 1996... But it is an equally undisputed fact that the average real income per person in the United States rose by 51 percent over that same period."
"Half the households in the United States contained 6 or more people in 1900, as did 21 percent in 1950. But, by 1998, only ten percent of American households had that many people."

Anything unclear?

>>49856899
So you disagree with
>>49856913
Where there are real stats cited, rather than just your general impression of the situation?

Households have fewer people than they used to.

>>49856963
And you are acting like there is more buying power when there literally isn't

>>49856899
Here, to make it even more clear.

From https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/coh-livealone.html
In 2000, 1-in-4 households consisted of one person living alone, a significant increase over the 7.7 percent in 1940.

Just because you feeeel that something is true, doesn't make it so. You think like a woman.

>>49856996
Again. Buying power has not been increasing, retard.
Most people are leveraged up the ass and will get absolutely bodied when the recession comes i.e. massive layoffs which will cause people to default on mortgage payments which will cause massive foreclosures

>>49854814
>>49854844
>2020
Let's see those numbers now

>>49856982
Please see the above post
>>49856913
>the average real income per person in the United States rose by 51 percent over that same period.
Real income (because you are obviously clueless) is income adjusted for inflation.

The image you posted does illustrate issues, however not issues in real buying power. College tuition gets you more (more non-education related nonsense, unfortunately) than it used to. Bullshit like climbing walls, fancy cafeterias, etc etc etc. Fortunately, community colleges don't usually try to attract big spenders from out of town/state with fancy perks like that.

Medical care cost increase is nearly entirely down to government regulation. Same shit with housing costs, mostly being due to land-use restrictions and rent control.

>>49857038
And yet 3 times the number of people in 2000 could afford to live alone. You're wrong. What you feeeeel is right, is not right. You have no produced counter evidence.

>>49856286
Half as many kids but twice as many old pensioners today. These people aren't working. Per capita is a flawed metric of measuring real wages and standard of living.

All that matters for this discussion is working aged people per household who are employed - whether it is women, men, or children. And that number is much higher today and shows the flaw in OP's graph. Dependents are irrelevant to the discussion because they don't contribute to the 150K threshold.

In addition, it is using flawed CPI data. The real level of inflation in OP's "inflation adjusted" graph is much higher.

If you're struggling with the graph, here's another one.

>>49857198
Graph.

>>49857130
When baby boomers had a median age of 35, they owned 21% of all the nation's wealth. Millennials of the same median age? 3%. They literally had 7x of the wealth compared to millennials (with less effort too i.e. not needing a degree for middle class jobs). Population of both generations are about the same so even though it's not a per capita stat, it's the next best thing.

But yes. People now are 3x better off, LMFAO fucking retard.

Also median wages in 2000 were 20,957.18. In 2020 (last time this was updated)? 34,612.04.

Wage Increase of 65%. Did inflation all around only go up by 65%? No, you fucking retard. LOL! Yet not only are you saying that times are better now, but that they are 3x better? LMFAOOOOO

>>49857198
Pensioners at least bring in some income, kids are just a financial loss

>>49854744
now adjust for population

>>49857258
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html
>>49857258
Also to clarify inflation went up by multipliers. Not "just" 65%

>>49857269
Irrelevant to the discussion. The assertion in OP's graph is to do with 150K household threshold. More people per household are working today (women, older children). This, along with the flawed CPI statistics, explains why OP's graph is misleading.

Finally, the per capita incoming is a flawed metric. I don't know how many times I have to say it. I've explained above why. The wealth of the top 1% has exploded and the rest has stagnated, and this is not captured in the per capita income statistics.

>>49856396
More people live alone because back then everybody got married.

To move own a home now you cannot do it on one average income. Back then, with the man as the sole breadwinner, you could.

>>49856160
This was also debunked

>>49857414
>To own a home now you cannot do it on one average income.
Yep, this. I'm almost 30, and the friends that I grew up with that have houses managed to do so because they're DINK.
I have only 2 friends who solo-financed a house. One was earning 60-70k, and had to buy a fixer-upper back in 2018. He's almost done fixing it lol The other friend makes north of 200k doing data science for a big retailer; he just closed on a house in Washington by himself.

>>49855379
>Generally only the father/mother in the household are working, not the dependents in the house.
What about households with working age children? About half of zoomers live with their parents.

>>49857258
He's fucking retarded. He's arguing against his own points and can't even see it.

>>49857258
> People now are 3x better off
Never claimed that. I said (well, the data said) that there are 3 times more people living alone in 2000 than in 1940.

While the source you provided does show median wages being lower than inflation between 2000 and 2020, per capita income during the same period was around a 100% gain (beating the 69%~ inflation during the same period)
>https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A792RC0A052NBEA

That's really beside the point. I initially was making the argument that:
Per capita real income increased by 51% over the same period that per household income increased by 6% because households were smaller, due in part to more people living alone. I provided data and sources for those claims, and that has not been refuted. Thanks for the tangential information, that was fun.

>>49857661
Please. Illuminate me.

>>49854744
>adjusted for inflation
>doesn't know they changed the definition of inflation many times

>>49857628
Sure, and i'd argue there are more working age children today than in the past when young men moved out early to get married. More and more people are living home into their 30's today.

This further amplifies the dynamic I explained. Back then you often had a sole breadwinner, the man, now you have women in the workforce, and older children, adding to the 150K threshold which makes OP's graph misleading.

>>49854744
>inflation adjusted
Ahahahahahahahah nice try cia niggers

>>49857678
>I provided data and sources for those claims, and that has not been refuted

They have been refuted over and over again in my posts to the other guy. Per capita income as a measure of real wages/standard of living is flawed because it is a mean value and does not reflect income distribution. The wage growth has been almost entirely in the top 1% whilst the bottom 90% has stagnated which is not represented in the per capita income statistic.

See the image in this post >>49855916

>>49857678
>While the source you provided does show median wages being lower than inflation between 2000 and 2020, per capita income during the same period was around a 100% gain (beating the 69%~ inflation during the same period)
No. Difference between 20-34k is 69%. Inflation also went up by various multipliers. Not just a 2x. >>49856982
That per capita stat is retarded and misleading. It makes no logical sense how people would have higher per capita given lower buying power.

>>49857781
Unless you look at things from raw money rather than by a buying power perspective

>>49854744
why cant i afford a house then

>>49854744
>rich
>150k
lol I made it

>>49854744
>2020
It's Juneteenth 2022 tho?

>>49857417
Feel free to show or explain how it was debunked...? Or you could just say "that was debunked" and leave the thread

>>49857733
If it weren't inflation adjusted it would look like we are 10x richer than the people living in the 70s...?

>people don't need to buy a house for shelter
>people don't need a college degree for a job
>people can just settle for cheaper low quality shit like chink shit if something become expensive
>new item(smartphone) and expenses that people can't live without anymore? Just put them on low priority, they are just luxury
This is how boomer decide "inflation"

>>49857984
Sort of like how they count unemployment.
>been out of a job longer than 6 months? Doesn't count.
>can't find anything and quit futilely looking?
Doesn't count.
Probably plenty of others but there's far more not working than are counted.
A LOT of leeches who have never worked in their entire life as well who end up not counted because of fake disabilities or some shit or another.

>>49856360
GOOD FUCKING MORNING, GOD DAMN IT

>>49857926
Total compensation increased via insurance plans which makes up most of the difference.

>>49855964
You nigger I bought a home making $80k/year and saving. What did you waste your money on

>>49854992
>CPI adjusted

Lol

LMAO

>>49858576
You don’t think rising medical care costs because of medical administration cost increases has offset the increase in wages?