Sheep_Mafia Wrong As Usual

[DEATH ROW JOE]

This relates to a thread this dunce started in the lounge.

Interesting Article on Food Stamps
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=288224&hilit=inflation

If you think the common families wages have actually exceeded inflation you are as out of touch with reality as you typically are on every other issue. I don't give a damn about 1970 or 1982. We're talking about a very real and significant issue that exists today in April, 2013.

LMFAO @ claiming I'm the one out of touch with reality.

Here is your quote from page 1:

"Was reading the labor report this morning and it was mentioned that the average wage has gone up just 1.8% in the last year, which obviously hasn't kept up with inflation."


The inflation numbers for March came out today. They were not out when you claimed inflation was higher than 1.8% for March.

March 2012: 229.392
March 2013: 232.773

Since you suck at math, I'll help you out.

232.773/229.392 = 1.0147389621

subtract 1 and multiply by 100% and you get the rate of inflation.

The annual rate of inflation in March 2013 was 1.47%

You said it is "obviously" above 1.8%"

I told you that you were wrong and and as usual, when the numbers are released, they prove you are wrong and I am right.

If the "common" family's wages were not keeping pace with the prices of goods they purchase, then there would be deflation. Learn some high school level economics.

Regarding real earnings in March, the labor department today released "real earnings" for production and nonsupervisory employees. These are the "common" people you speak of.

Real hourly earnings from March 2012 to March 2013 rose .3%. Since the work week increased .3% as well, real average weekly earnings rose .7% from March 2012 to March 2013.

REAL EARNINGS * MARCH 2013
8:30 a.m. (EDT), Tuesday, April 16, 2013
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm

Real average hourly earnings rose 0.3 percent, seasonally adjusted, from March 2012 to March 2013. The
increase in real average hourly earnings, combined with a 0.3 percent increase in the average workweek,
resulted in a 0.7 percent increase in real average weekly earnings over this period.

Also, if a small fraction in a group saw a large increase in their wages, it would not "heavily skew" an average.

You also said:
That average is of course heavily skewed as wages at the top of the labor pool have risen a good bit more.

You fail to realize that the increase gets multiplied by the percentage seeing that increase.

So if the bottom 95% received only a .8% increase in their wages, then the top 5% would have to see their wages increase 20.8% in order for the average to increase by 1.8%.

.95 (1.008) + .05 (x) = 1.018
.05x = 0.0604
x = 1.208

Learn math asshole.

Yeah Joe, we've got no problems and it's all under control, nothing to see here. What part of 15% of the population on food stamps do you not understand?

What part of no jobs added to the private sector from Jan 1999 to Jan 2010 do you not understand? You are complaining about a problem created 4-5 years ago. It will take a full decade to recover from the Bush presidency, at least a full decade.

15% of the population is on food stamps for two reasons.
1) There were no jobs added to the private sector for 11 years while the population grew for 11 years
2) The federal govt made it easier to qualify for food stamps.

The problem is "under control." The food stamp rolls shrank Jan 2013, the last month reported. 6+ million jobs added to the private sector the past 3 years.

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm

[Sheep_Mafia]

Gotta say that I love that you posted this on multiple threads. Illustrates nicely how sad and small minded you are. Here you were so excited to finally somehow twist data into my being incorrect. Yeah, not going to work out for you....

DRJ, you are one petty bitch. Multiple threads with this? First of all, you are incorrect (shocker) and I will get to that in a moment but as a general comment, this thread was not intended to be about politics nor a precise breakdown of the labor statistics. This thread is about the real human suffering going on out there in the real world. You continue to trivialize that with your looking at it as a situation where you feel compelled to defend Obama.

The inflation numbers for March came out today.

March 2012: 229.392
March 2013: 232.773

Yeah DRJ, that's nice and all but per usual, irrelevant. As you said, those numbers came out today. The numbers were a bit different when I posted that. But to that point, it's a volitale number that changes and the difference month to month is not all that statistically relevant. You are desperate to hang your hat on something so whatever.

You said it is "obviously" above 1.8%"

At the time it was. Yeah the data that came out today was slightly better, but that wasn't then so its not relevant. That's a good strategy for you though--just wait until the data changes and then say you were right. What else do you have, right?
Data that was available and relevant when this post was made (try to follow along)
Feb. 2013 232.770
Feb. 2012 228.253
Inflation was basically 2% in the year prior to the data released today. 2% is higher than 1.8%.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archive ... 152013.pdf

So if the bottom 95% received only a .8% increase in their wages, then the top 5% would have to see their wages increase 20.8% in order for the average to increase by 1.8%.

.95 (1.008) + .05 (x) = 1.018
.05x = 0.0604
x = 1.208

Where did you pull that 95% out of? How about you go back to your talking points sites and dig up some supporting documentation that says the incomes aren't skewed with a tad more reliable data than that.

Regarding real (inflation adjusted) earnings in March, the labor department today released "real earnings" for production and nonsupervisory employees. These are the "common" people you speak of.

No, those aren't the people I speak of in total. Those folk make under $700 per week. They are obviously under water in most cases. As are many people not in that group. A lot of people are struggling in this low wage recovery.

It will take a full decade to recover from the Bush presidency, at least a full decade.

Yes, with Obama as President I'm certain it will take at least that long. That's the point dummy.

The problem is "under control." The food stamp rolls shrank Jan 2013, the last month reported.

Again, insensitive to those in that situation but also incorrect (shocker, again). The very source you cite clearly shows that not only are there more people on snap in January 13 than there were in Jan 12, but the most households in the history of the program were receiving SNAP benefits. In the history of the program.

But again, there are no problems, it's all "under control".