Replies

Yes. Your logical flaw was in making an assumption without asking for clarification. You assumed that simply because I was humoring some posters by using *their* preferred metric that it was *my* preferred metric.

(sigh) I didn't assume. You volunteered the data to me!

To: Starwind

BLS Shows Average Real Wages Higher in 2004 Than in 1964
Your BLS source shows a net *rise* in wages if you go back beyond the stagflation spike of the early 1970's (when unemployment was high and far fewer women and minorities were available to the skilled labor pool). Click on the link above to illustrate.

159 posted on 03/20/2004 10:44:05 PM PST by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

and

To: Starwind

Likewise, *this* official U.S. government source also shows U.S. wages rising since 1959 even after being adjusted for inflation.

161 posted on 03/20/2004 10:47:17 PM PST by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Had you simply asked, I would have set you straight from moment one.

LOL! I did ask! You never replied!

To: Southack

And your source shows an inflation-adjusted *gain* in U.S. wages.
Please be specific. I do not see an "inflation adjusted" gain in the CES0500000051 '70-'04 data I posted. That data series shows a loss in real wages. ...[snip]...

168 posted on 03/20/2004 11:33:31 PM PST by Starwind (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

And I just repeated that you never answered the very question you now claim all I had to do was ask!!!

Well...I asked once and have now pointed out the unaddressed open question twice:

To: Southack

...[snip]...
Then you affirmed your selection of hourly real wage data in:
Southack post #164 Yes, the point of contention was whether hourly *wages* had risen or fallen, after all. And your source shows an inflation-adjusted *gain* in U.S. wages.
And I asked you in my post #168 to be specific about "inflation adjusted wages" - to which you never replied.
...[snip]...

246 posted on 03/21/2004 5:52:26 PM PST by Starwind (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

You volunteered your data which is the same BLS data as mine. I asked you to be more specific about your claim that my data was "inflation adjusted", you never answered.

Most of us here are big boys and girls. Few of us, certainly not me, read minds. If you have a preferred data series but use something different and never respond to questions, don't be pretend to be surprised at how you represent your preferences.

It is abundantly clear you not only don't know your own position, you don't even know your own posts.