Posted on 03/11/2005 9:27:36 PM PST by The Loan Arranger
Now you force me to simply repeat the questions, which you refused to answer. Which subset? and which subsets? Spell it out. Tell me. Show me you even know what you're talking about.
Putting aside, once again, the fact that their origin is dubious.
Present me with the full data set then we can argue about it. Or actually we won't because it will be clearly laid out in numbers.
Restating your complaint is not the same thing as answering questions based on that complaint. Just answer the questions. And if you dispute the examples, you need to explain that as well - rather than just saying, in effect, that you find them inconvenient to your opinion.
I dispute the examples because you provide nothing to back them up.
If you ever studied statistic or economics then you know exactly what I am talking about. Heck, if you have taken Consumers Math you know why I say you can not determine anything from those two data points you have provided.
I am not your professor. I am not going to walk you through basic statistics or basic economics.
You didn't even understand when I broke it down for you in post 73 and again in post 157.
You stated that The 1950s were a more prosperous period for the nation.
I have provided you with a number of facts that refute that and yet you can not understand them.
LOL
You're the one who keeps talking about "having the last word",dear. LOL
You should really 1) answer ALL of my previously asked questions 2) respond to the facts in my posts 3) at least make a stab at refuting/talking about the historical factual figures in my post 4) or just stop replying to me.
Forget it...he just wants to waste our time with drivel. He doesn't even know what he's arguing about anymore;if he ever did.
I'd say the same for you, except that it seems that you want the last word. Have at it. But you can also stop with the personal attacks at anytime. I think everyone would appreciate that.
On what basis? For all the numbers I gave you, which do you think are wrong, and why?
you can not determine anything from those two data points
It was a lot more than two. Some major purchases. Some that just seem like it because of the present cost. You're trying to argue something so at odds with reality that you painted yourself into a corner. Clearly, inflation has outraced any increase in wages over the same period. Where there was the exception, which I've pointed out repeatedly, had other industries or another gone the same way, they'd be giving away cars for free.
But I've said this all, many, many times now. And all you seem content to do is have me repeat myself, rather than reply to what I wrote.
So.
But,unlike you,I do actually remember what the topic of this thread was and what was stated.
You're really very lonely and crave attention,any kind pf attention. That's really it...isn't it? ;^)
Clearly not.
1950 Average US Annual Salary: $2,992
2004 Average US Annual Salary; $36,764
Increase by factor of twelve.
$10.00 buying power in 1950 equals $78.38 buying power 2004.
Increase by a factor of eight.
Go to the DOL web site and look it up. I'm done with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.