you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

[–]x0x7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You realize that one of those is not zeroed. I could make any two downward trending subject line up exactly like that. Not only is corelation not causation, but that doesn't even show good corelation.

Second, I don't care about unions. Third the federal reserve has more to do with that. Fourth real household incomes have gone up slightly. I don't care about proportionate share. That's for petty and retarded children.

You still have not shown that they have intentionally dismantled the middle class, which was your claim. Which also has not happened.

To the extent the middle class has shrunk it is because more people have left the middle class for the upper class. Poverty is down too which means many people joined it from lower brackets.

If we have 5 people all earning $5,000 a month and a decade goes by and now two of them earn $10,000 a month adjusted for inflation, the respective share of those with $5,000 goes down, not only in respect to their peers but that general bracket also has fewer people. In that case it went from 100% to 43%. Meanwhile none of them are poorer.

The sad thing is it is impossible for people to get richer without that retarded metric going down.

By your logic we should get everyone below the poverty line. Then the poor will have 100% of the income share. That will be good for the poor.

I will respect you when you show some capacity for mathematical reason. And that won't happen.