How in the hell can people afford food and cable television let alone
a mortgage? This is the median income?

The median income fell in 2010 for the second year in a row to
$26,364, a 1.2 percent drop from 2009, and the lowest level since
1999, according to David Cay Johnston at Reuters.

On 10/20/2011 8:01 PM, jps wrote:

How in the hell can people afford food and cable television let alone
a mortgage? This is the median income?

The median income fell in 2010 for the second year in a row to
$26,364, a 1.2 percent drop from 2009, and the lowest level since
1999, according to David Cay Johnston at Reuters.
Where's that from? Last I heard it was in the neighborhood of 54,000.00
a year. That figure was driven up by Wall Street and the Northeast incomes.

On 10/20/2011 8:08 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 10/20/2011 8:01 PM, jps wrote:

How in the hell can people afford food and cable television let alone
a mortgage? This is the median income?

The median income fell in 2010 for the second year in a row to
$26,364, a 1.2 percent drop from 2009, and the lowest level since
1999, according to David Cay Johnston at Reuters.
Where's that from? Last I heard it was in the neighborhood of 54,000.00
a year. That figure was driven up by Wall Street and the Northeast incomes.

It's a bull**** number, a German/Japanese/labor screwdriver as it were...

On 10/20/11 8:17 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/20/2011 8:08 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 10/20/2011 8:01 PM, jps wrote:

How in the hell can people afford food and cable television let alone
a mortgage? This is the median income?

The median income fell in 2010 for the second year in a row to
$26,364, a 1.2 percent drop from 2009, and the lowest level since
1999, according to David Cay Johnston at Reuters.
Where's that from? Last I heard it was in the neighborhood of 54,000.00
a year. That figure was driven up by Wall Street and the Northeast
incomes.

It's a bull**** number, a German/Japanese/labor screwdriver as it were...

As usual, Scotty doesn't know...

The U.S. median *household* income is about $50,000...a number in that
general range. What JPS is reporting is the median income for an
*individual*. Johnston, the source at Reuters, is one of the country's
leading reporters on economic news.

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:08:47 -0400, Lil Abner wrote:

On 10/20/2011 8:01 PM, jps wrote:

How in the hell can people afford food and cable television let alone
a mortgage? This is the median income?

The median income fell in 2010 for the second year in a row to
$26,364, a 1.2 percent drop from 2009, and the lowest level since
1999, according to David Cay Johnston at Reuters.
Where's that from? Last I heard it was in the neighborhood of 54,000.00
a year. That figure was driven up by Wall Street and the Northeast incomes.

Pretty sure yours was household and this is personal...

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-j...ata-its-awful/

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:09:06 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:01:43 -0700, jps wrote:


How in the hell can people afford food and cable television let alone
a mortgage? This is the median income?

The median income fell in 2010 for the second year in a row to
$26,364, a 1.2 percent drop from 2009, and the lowest level since
1999, according to David Cay Johnston at Reuters.

The "median income" is the median of everyone, working or not working
in the US over the age of 14. (google it)
Household income is more relevant and that is the median of all
households, working or not working. That comes in at the $54k or
whatever.
I am not sure how they score retirees liquidating their investments,
collecting pensions and collecting Social Security.

I understand but it offers perspective on why it so often requires two
incomes to run a house.

On 20/10/2011 6:01 PM, jps wrote:

How in the hell can people afford food and cable television let alone
a mortgage? This is the median income?

The median income fell in 2010 for the second year in a row to
$26,364, a 1.2 percent drop from 2009, and the lowest level since
1999, according to David Cay Johnston at Reuters.

Median income, add part timers, retirees, disabled, unemployed, welfare
it goes down big time fast.

Question is do they also include people not seeking work? They might,
especially from a fleabagger rag that liberally discards such relevant
details.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On 20/10/2011 7:09 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:01:43 -0700, wrote:


How in the hell can people afford food and cable television let alone
a mortgage? This is the median income?

The median income fell in 2010 for the second year in a row to
$26,364, a 1.2 percent drop from 2009, and the lowest level since
1999, according to David Cay Johnston at Reuters.

The "median income" is the median of everyone, working or not working
in the US over the age of 14. (google it)

Well that explains it, so 14 18 year olds in school making nothing
offset the higher incomes.

Including retirees and the like too. Zero rate interest in zero rate
economies don't generate much income on retirement savings people might
have. Or the unemployable crack junkies.

A fleabagger number.

Household income is more relevant and that is the median of all
households, working or not working. That comes in at the $54k or
whatever.

That sounds better.

I am not sure how they score retirees liquidating their investments,
collecting pensions and collecting Social Security.

Bet they consider it income.
--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On 20/10/2011 10:44 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:09:06 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:01:43 -0700, wrote:


How in the hell can people afford food and cable television let alone
a mortgage? This is the median income?

The median income fell in 2010 for the second year in a row to
$26,364, a 1.2 percent drop from 2009, and the lowest level since
1999, according to David Cay Johnston at Reuters.

The "median income" is the median of everyone, working or not working
in the US over the age of 14. (google it)
Household income is more relevant and that is the median of all
households, working or not working. That comes in at the $54k or
whatever.
I am not sure how they score retirees liquidating their investments,
collecting pensions and collecting Social Security.

I understand but it offers perspective on why it so often requires two
incomes to run a house.

Note households, single people bring the number down big time.

Which is in part why I hate these numbers.

The ones I like are raw and uncooked but government does not provide these.

Say monthly gross total incomes, and how many people and finally hours.
--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On 20/10/2011 6:17 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/20/2011 8:08 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 10/20/2011 8:01 PM, jps wrote:

How in the hell can people afford food and cable television let alone
a mortgage? This is the median income?

The median income fell in 2010 for the second year in a row to
$26,364, a 1.2 percent drop from 2009, and the lowest level since
1999, according to David Cay Johnston at Reuters.
Where's that from? Last I heard it was in the neighborhood of 54,000.00
a year. That figure was driven up by Wall Street and the Northeast
incomes.

It's a bull**** number, a German/Japanese/labor screwdriver as it were...

Agreed, as it is too politicked with government bull****.

Gross income, how many worked and hours worked -- all uncut without the BS.

--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But
we have big huge government we can't afford...
-- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude