On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:46:59 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:02:53 -0400, Larry
wrote:

PEOPLE get raises, not CLASSES of people, dip****.

He keeps forgetting people move through the work force. They start in
low level jobs and move up.

BUZZZZ!!!!

WRONG!!!

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu.../b1579981.html

¦Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of
reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children
of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.
¦Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income
($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower
quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a
higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top
five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.


If you just look at the statistics, a
$40,000 a year job will still be there but one person will move on and
another person will be there.
You showed that a significant number of people move up into the "rich"
category and there are plenty of people joining the work force at the
bottom every year.

BUZZ!!! WRONG!!!

¦By international standards, the United States has an unusually low
level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly
predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the
United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada,
Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which
comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a
lower rate of mobility than the United States.

It turns out now that Bob changed companies a couple years ago,
presumably for better money and that he does have a pension, in spite
of all of that "rich people will only give me a 401k" story.

All we really know for sure is he read an article from Andrew Sullivan
a while ago and he believes it.

and from the bureau of labor statistics

and the brookings institutions

and princeton university

and paul krugman, nobel prize winner

joe stiglitz, nobel prize winner

and you?

oh. you listened to rush

no wonder you're full of right wing bull****

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry
wrote:

Jack wrote:
On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, wrote:


What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have
two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!!

Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded.

cya

While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it.

ah. so fairy tales are true?

no wonder the right has run the US into the ground

On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry
wrote:

Jack wrote:
On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote:

What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have
two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!!

Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded.

cya

While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it..

ah. so fairy tales are true?

no wonder the right has run the US into the ground

It was your own link, bob. Are you in the habit of posting fairy
tales?

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry
wrote:

Jack wrote:
On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote:

What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have
two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!!

Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded.

cya

While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it.

ah. so fairy tales are true?

no wonder the right has run the US into the ground

It was your own link, bob. Are you in the habit of posting fairy
tales?

you never learned to read in school, did you?

because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think.
it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family
income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income
households), and changes in income by income group.

that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think.

On Aug 18, 6:45*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:





On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry
wrote:

Jack wrote:
On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote:

What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have
two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!!

Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded.

cya

While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it.

ah. so fairy tales are true?

no wonder the right has run the US into the ground

It was your own link, bob. *Are you in the habit of posting fairy
tales?

you never learned to read in school, did you?

because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think.
it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family
income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income
households), and changes in income by income group.

that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think.

You are hilarious. You're the one that screams "where's the data!
here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong.

Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow
motion. Please don't stop!

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:04:37 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Aug 18, 6:45*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:





On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry
wrote:

Jack wrote:
On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote:

What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have
two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!!

Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded.

cya

While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it.

ah. so fairy tales are true?

no wonder the right has run the US into the ground

It was your own link, bob. *Are you in the habit of posting fairy
tales?

you never learned to read in school, did you?

because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think.
it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family
income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income
households), and changes in income by income group.

that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think.

You are hilarious. You're the one that screams "where's the data!
here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong.

Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow
motion. Please don't stop!

i love it. he can't read so complains when others can.

oh well, that's what happens when rush does your thinking...or lack of
it...for you

On Aug 18, 7:12*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:04:37 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:





On Aug 18, 6:45*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry
wrote:

Jack wrote:
On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote:

What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have
two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!!

Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded.

cya

While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it.

ah. so fairy tales are true?

no wonder the right has run the US into the ground

It was your own link, bob. *Are you in the habit of posting fairy
tales?

you never learned to read in school, did you?

because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think.
it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family
income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income
households), and changes in income by income group.

that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think.

You are hilarious. *You're the one that screams "where's the data!
here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong.

Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow
motion. *Please don't stop!

i love it. he can't read so complains when others can.

*your own data proves your statements wrong*

Priceless!!!

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400,
wrote:


Jack wrote:

On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, wrote:


What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have
two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!!

Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded.

cya


While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it.

ah. so fairy tales are true?

no wonder the right has run the US into the ground

Obama is doing just fine without any help. That will CHANGE soon enough!

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:20:54 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Aug 18, 7:12*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:04:37 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:





On Aug 18, 6:45*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry
wrote:

Jack wrote:
On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote:

What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have
two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!!

Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded.

cya

While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it.

ah. so fairy tales are true?

no wonder the right has run the US into the ground

It was your own link, bob. *Are you in the habit of posting fairy
tales?

you never learned to read in school, did you?

because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think.
it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family
income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income
households), and changes in income by income group.

that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think.

You are hilarious. *You're the one that screams "where's the data!
here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong.

Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow
motion. *Please don't stop!

i love it. he can't read so complains when others can.

*your own data proves your statements wrong*

Priceless!!!

OK let's do this the hard way.

how do you calculate an average?

the population is men and women.

the output is average wages.

go ahead. show us how to calculate this

On Aug 18, 7:46*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:20:54 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:





On Aug 18, 7:12*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:04:37 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Aug 18, 6:45*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry
wrote:

Jack wrote:
On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote:

What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have
two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!!

Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded.

cya

While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it.

ah. so fairy tales are true?

no wonder the right has run the US into the ground

It was your own link, bob. *Are you in the habit of posting fairy
tales?

you never learned to read in school, did you?

because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think..
it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family
income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income
households), and changes in income by income group.

that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think.

You are hilarious. *You're the one that screams "where's the data!
here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong.

Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow
motion. *Please don't stop!

i love it. he can't read so complains when others can.

*your own data proves your statements wrong*

Priceless!!!

OK let's do this the hard way.

how do you calculate an average?

the population is men and women.

the output is average wages.

go ahead. show us how to calculate this

There you go, trying to move the goalpost again.

Here's the issue being discussed...

You wrote:
??WTF? can you read? no one said...and no reference says...there has
been a DECREASE in dual income families. in addition to being stupid
are you illiterate?

and I wrote and quoted"
Except your own link:
"While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed
by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two
earners and, therefore, higher incomes.

What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to
have
two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!!


See, bob? You are WRONG again!!