Do Not Watch This Video...

Series Id: LEU0252881600Not Seasonally AdjustedSeries title: (unadj)- Constant (1982) dollar adjusted to CPI-U- Median usual weekly earnings, Employed full time, Wage and salary workersPercent/rates: N/AEarnings: Median usual weekly earnings - in constant (1982) dollarsIndustry: All IndustriesOccupation: All OccupationsSex: Both SexesRace: All RacesEthnic origin: All OriginsAge: 16 years and overEducation: TotalClass of worker: Wage and salary workers, excluding incorporated self employedLabor force status: Employed full time

This information was provided by the U.S. Department of Labor (BLS).


This chart shows no significant increase in wage earnings.

This is the first of several charts I will be posting in the next few minutes to show the trends of why Americans are having more economic difficulty.

This chart shows similar information, but over a larger timeframe. You will notice a sharp drop in the percentage change of earnings begins with the Reagan Era, and continues along with it, never to recover.

12 Months Percent Change
Series Id: CES0500000008Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total privateIndustry: Total privateNAICS Code: N/AData Type: AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF PRODUCTION WORKERS

-USDOL (BLS)



[edit on 12/13/0707 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 12/13/0707 by jackinthebox]

This is a chart reflecting the statistics of the Consumer Price Index. The CPI represents the relative cost of goods to American consumers. Coincidentally enough, the data begins in 1913, the same year the Fed was established.

Series Id: CUUR0000SA0Not Seasonally AdjustedArea: U.S. city averageItem: All itemsBase Period: 1982-84=100

-USDOL (BLS)

[edit on 12/13/0707 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 12/13/0707 by jackinthebox]

I think the opposing trends of the factual statistical data speak for themselves. The American working class is caught in crossfire of these trends.

CPI chart is one I have not seen before , great addition. Do you think the great depression was a fed.res. test of their system? To ensure total collapse results at a determined future date.

reply to post by the b rain


The Great Depression was not a test to see if they could intentionally destroy the global economy. It was simply a re-arrangement of resources. Think of the thousands upon thousands of properties and businesses that the banks seized control of. The Depression was a calculated move to steal private property.

The NWO is not trying to intentionally destroy the economy necessarily, they simply want to be the ones who own everything when it finally happens. The rest of us who are lucky enough to survive the population crash that follows the economic collapse, will be slaves of the most wretched sort.

Keep in mind that thy do not need to ensure the destruction of the economy. It is inevitable under their system. It may be inevitable under any system, that I cannot say for sure. They just want to be the ones holding all the cards when it all comes crashing down.

Brilliant video....

If this is indeed the way the system works then we do indeed have a massive problem on our hands.

Global warming, and other physical problems, well never be solved if this is indeed an accurate model, the wheels are going to come off... and soon.

Wars will never end, these are great ways to create debt/money.
But the real flaw with this system is that is is going to require more & more debt, so bigger wars and reconstruction anyone?

I can't help feel that in this current climate this explains alot of little things...
Americas stance on the environment, Gordon Browns attitude to signing a little piece of paper today...iraq, iran..

The question is how can such a monster be tackled without causing much death and violence.

Looking at it from a schematic point of view.... it just doesn't work, how can the needs of a few outweigh the survival of the entire species?

And we serriously wonder why ET doesn't want to land on the white-house lawn?
What a primitive species we are... makes you wonder how we survived this long.

Im not a dumb person by any stretch of the imagination, but i think thats the first time ive actually thought about how the whole banking system works, and where it places things in my narrow vision.

Thanks for that OP

So then if you carry debt against assets at crunch time you lose it all. I really dont know anyone who is not in debt. I actually have an idea that 2013 and not 2012 is a better estimate on the big day. We know how they love numbers. Especially ones that add up to their Happy numbers.
2013......20+13=33 Add March 3 Just a thought.

reply to post by the b rain


Well, everyone was worried about the year 2000, but 2001 was where the big poo-poo from the sky hit the proverbial fan.

It wouldn't be the first time that the conspiracy theorists were almost right either.

The problem with cherry picking statistics is that they don't show the whole picture. Showing nominal trends over time, or picking subsections of the economy doesn't show anything.

The inflation-adjusted income of Americans has been going up since World War I. Period. It's inflation adjusted, so this takes into account the cost of living. Every year, Americans make more - yet, they find themselves in debt. COULD this be due to personal responsibility? Nah...

As for all of the posts accusing me of..well, just about everything: did anyone stop to read what I posted? According to the U.S. census, I live in poverty. I drive around a beater car. I am far from rich, and I am in a field where I'll never be rich although I'll certainly be above poverty by the time I am done with schooling. Yes, you can be poor and not be up to your ears in debt. These things shouldn't matter though, but people just love to use personal attacks.

You shouldn't make so many assumptions about people who you don't agree with.

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
The problem with cherry picking statistics is that they don't show the whole picture.

...

You shouldn't make so many assumptions about people who you don't agree with.

Cherry picking statistics? Hardly. Wages have not gone up as fast as inflation. That's a fact. If stating a fact is now 'cherry picking' I'm going to have to call desperation on your part. All of those charts presented perfectly valid statistics.

As far as making assumptions... 'people buy things they can't afford, that's why they're poor.' Sound familiar?

What irks me is that you would state that you are poor yourself after declaring that poverty is a result of bad-spending. It's not a personal attack to hold you accountable for the things you say.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]

reply to post by LightinDarkness



I have no idea who your source is, how they made their calculations, or what data they solicited. Furthermore, inflation is not the only adjustment factor that has to be considered. My source is more credible.

Cherry picking? This only goes to show the whole reason I was hesitant to provide mathematical figures instead of applying logic to my own observations of society. This is raw data. Refute it if you can.

According to the U.S. census, I live in poverty.

There are also many people who are not "officially" in poverty, that can not afford food, shelter and clothing. Perhaps you are living on aid grants that are not counted as taxable income?

Yes, you can be poor and not be up to your ears in debt.

Yes indeed. There are plenty of people that end up living on the streets who have never had a credit card or taken out a loan. People who were making more than the $10k annual povrty level.

Originally posted by NewWorldOverCherry picking statistics? Hardly. Wages have not gone up as fast as inflation. That's a fact. If stating a fact is now 'cherry picking' I'm going to have to call desperation on your part. All of those charts presented perfectly valid statistics.

Wages have not gone up as fast as inflation? Are you in denial - did you even look at the chart? That is average income in 2004 _INFLATION ADJUSTED_ dollars. Amazing how the truth can be blocked from those who desperately don't want to see it.

Originally posted by NewWorldOverAs far as making assumptions... 'people buy things they can't afford, that's why they're poor.' Sound familiar?

See, you should stop cherry picking quotes and stop selectively reading. I never said that at all. What I have said consistently is the following: with rare exceptions (medical emergencies, acts of god) people who are poor and are massive debt got that way because they buy things they cannot afford. Nice try though.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver irks me is that you would state that you are poor yourself after declaring that poverty is a result of bad-spending. It's not a personal attack to hold you accountable for the things you say.

It is a personal attack when you are so blinded by your ideology you assume everyone who disagrees with you MUST be: insert any of your insults here. Also, yet again I implore you to stop making stuff up - I have never said poverty is the result of bad spending. I HAVE said that poverty CAN be the result of bad spending. And it is, for many people. Not for everyone, and not for me.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I had to turn off ignore to see why people were referring to charts I was not seeing. I'll turn it back on again if (when?) jackinthebox starts with the insult throwing - again.

Chart #1 Using seasonally adjusted numbers is fallacious and deceptive unless the trend you are predicting is seasonal (tourism dollars, farm worker income, etc.). The first chart contains data that is not seasonal, so using seasonally adjusted dollars distorts the picture. You are additionally using deception to display PRODUCTION WORKERS, which are a specific section of the economy WHICH WE KNOW has been declining as we transition to a information economy. Additionally, your playing with percents. All this chart does is show that the annual percentage change in average hourly wages for production workers has INCREASED every year, just not as much as it used to before 1980. This is unsurprising, as again 1980 marked the transition to the knowledge economy and off shoring of production industry. However, even your chart shows that INFLATION ADJUSTED INCOME for these workers is INCREASING every year, without fail.

Chart #2 A fundamental deception of the CPI. The CPI number is innately meaningless because it's product is supposed to be a deflated or inflated nominal value depending on the base year you use. For any year you choose to base CPI, it becomes 100. The years below that are less than 100, the years above that are more than 100 - AGAIN, because the CPI as a number is meaningless, and it is supposed to be used as a deflation/inflation number to convert nominal dollars. If you used that same number to examine average wages from 1913 to 2003, you'd see they'd gone up =O but that wouldn't fit your agenda.

You reach the conclusion that they are opposing trends and yet they aren't because they do not actually respectively measure income or inflation as stand alone measures. The first chart could never be a comprehensive measure of income and the chart of the CPI is flawed because the CPI only has meaning when used to actually adjust a nominal value.

The source of MY chart is quite clear: its from Berkley, and uses US Census Data. If you'd like to claim that there is some sort of conspiracy at either Berkley or the US Census, then this really has devolved into being pointless. What, exactly, by the way IS more important when determining whether people make more money than they have previously if not average income and inflation? Simply declaring your cherry picked and fundamentally deceptive data as "more credible" does not lend any credibility to your argument.

This is very common knowledge, in fact its almost economics 101. If you want to be truthful with your economic data, you should only use seasonally adjusted numbers for data which actually has seasons, and you should not pick a unrepresentative sample of the economy and make a sweeping generalization.

reply to post by LightinDarkness



Why are you poor? I don't mean to be snarky, but by your own logic, you are poor because you've made poor choices.

I will post in reply to your detailed post regarding my charts soon.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Quite right, I am poor because of my own choices. I am choosing to get a graduate degree and to take along the poverty that comes with such measures while I get the degree. You don't see me complaining about it do you? I only mention it because everyone HAD to presume that someone who didn't blame a government conspiracy for their finances MUST be wealthy.



[edit on 13-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]

reply to post by LightinDarkness

I would strongly encourage you to use data straight from the source, as otherwise your overtly liberal sources shine light on your agenda. Just trying to help out.

Are you accusing me of falsifying data? I stated my source clearly. A Federal agency. You can't get any more straight from the source.

Furthermore, I am not trying to win some debate for the sake of winning. It is very important to me that everyone accept the possibility that something is very, very wrong, and things are getting worse than ever. Yes I am even concerned for your well being as a citizen of this country. I have seen many people adhere to your beliefs zealously, and are far worse for it today. Furthermore, your statements perpetuate the damaging myths surrounding poverty

I will return.

Originally posted by LightinDarkness

It is a personal attack when you are so blinded by your ideology you assume everyone who disagrees with you MUST be: insert any of your insults here. Also, yet again I implore you to stop making stuff up - I have never said poverty is the result of bad spending. I HAVE said that poverty CAN be the result of bad spending. And it is, for many people. Not for everyone, and not for me.

Yes, you said that poor people buy things they can't afford. I'm not going to argue about this because it's childish: you said multiple times that people are poor because of reckless spending.

And no, I have not personally attacked you in any way. My 'ideology' has nothing to do with the economy... You can disagree all you like. I was only ever opposed to the idea that people are poor on their own right - we all (working class) deserve to be in good financial standing, that is the definition of a good economy. Besides the obvious drug-addict or maniacal shopper, no person should REALLY be struggling to make ends meet in the U.S. We are in that position on account of the system being designed to decay this way and compound our personal and collective debt.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]

reply to post by LightinDarkness


Seasonal adjustments are irreleveant when looking at the overall pattern of many years.

It is true that production workers are not all workers, but remain the bulk of the American work force and an accurate depiction of the American middle class. I am also not adjusting for the elite who's incomes are increasing exponentially, while the workers' increase can't even hold a candle to the CPI. Furthermore, "information" is a field which is included in the data which I provided.

The CPI chart is indeed static, with 100 represented by the the U.S. Department of Labor as ocurring in the early 80's. All this chart shows is that the cost of goods has increased over 100% in 25 years or so, where it took over 70 years to increase as much previously. The nominal value being adjusted is workforce income.

The source of your data is Emmanuel Saez's website posted on a blog.

reply to post by LightinDarkness



If you are as poor as you are claiming to be, you should be complaining. There is no way anyone can survive on less that $10 grand a year without assistance. Trust me, I've eaten at plenty of soup kitchens. (And I have no debt.)