You really can't tell "worker" is implied here? Seriously? Babies?

Without a source for the number and a methodology of collecting it, no!

You guys don't have keyboards?

Yes, but with the massive amount of dis-information published finding what you thought was a good source .....

As to that wiki source I see it includes all over 15, so it includes retired as workers and in school as workers as well as homemaker as worker, a considerable number of zero's being included in the average.

I was just reading that link on personal income. My opinion is that the only figures with a real reference point is those in the last table.

Overall Median, Total population, Full-time workers, age 25-64, $39,509

Below 25 includes school and university students, for part time workers there is no set number of hours it could be 2 or 32

---

Overall Median, Total population, Full-time workers, age 25-64, $39,509

Now you're talking. Finally someone put in a little effort.

- - - - - - -

Now 2 questions:
1) Are full-time workers on the rise or in decline?
2) (And remember this is what started this little tangent of ours) Does it matter that "the economy" is doing well when Trump is the price you have to pay?
Obviously something is going wrong... "Post-Truth" didn't give us Trump, the "Gilded Age" did.

1) Are full-time workers on the rise or in decline?

Define "full-time"

40 hours of work a week? OH WAIT, I bet you have to put a condition on that 40 hours. I bet that condition would make someone who works 60 hours a week not be counted as "full-time." Am I right?

---

1) Are full-time workers on the rise or in decline?

Define "full-time"

40 hours of work a week?

In my state, 32 hours or more is considered full time.

(I'm essentially answering a PM)

What's yours for the "half of America ended [up] making less than 30k a year" claim?

I'm sorry Bobby, I don't have one. I'm obviously going from memory. If I got it grossly wrong you are free to rub it in my face.

WK is quoting full-time BTW. That's not what I said. I didn't feel the need to point it out because it's obvious we're not talking about the same thing.
However, right above his stat is one that is a lot closer to what I was saying and it's:

All, age 25+  32,140

Or take your "household" stat. Just factor in "married" and you'll arrive a lot closer 30k than you think.

All of which has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make which is:
Even if the average full-time worker made 50k it wouldn't matter one iota as long as the graph below looked like this

OH WAIT, I bet you have to put a condition on that 40 hours. I bet that condition would make someone who works 60 hours a week not be counted as "full-time." Am I right?

You sure sound like you're right. But I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Please help.

But I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Please help.

I Know Where Charpster is 'Coming From'. dA Charp is In FULL CRYBABY Mode.

Full Blown Style Incorporation of DEM/Lib/Progressive/Socialist/COMMIE Bias; Agendized; Identity; Micro-Agression; SafeSpaced; Trigger Warned; FlagTorchin'; etc etc etc, NEO CRYBABYISM.

aka BaseMent Dwelling; Cubicle Contained; Suckin'OnDaBlankie; MommieDaCOMMIE dearest BitchMeisterMode.

World of Tiers Baby. World of Tears.

Go Go Go DealMeisterin'ChangeAgentOrange. Baby.

DiaperChangin' Yapster

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Hush hush
Baby dont believe a word
Hush hush
Baby dont believe a word
Word dont know nothin but believe everything you heard
Hush hush
Just yackety yack all the time
Hush hush
Yackety yack all the time
If you dont stop yackin youre gonna make me outta my mind

Just laugh with him.

LOL.
There are many Cry Babies around.
Both Russia and Sweden has changed to plan B now because of the US election results.

(I'm essentially answering a PM)

What's yours for the "half of America ended [up] making less than 30k a year" claim?

I'm sorry Bobby, I don't have one. I'm obviously going from memory. If I got it grossly wrong you are free to rub it in my face.

Fair enough, though in your original post there was nothing to indicate your number was one you plucked from memory, not even an IIRC, so why should it be obvious that the number came from a recollection? Should I assume that, unless you provide sources, your comments are similarly fallible recollections from a mind that cannot retain more precise details? Are readers of your posts expected to research all the details and be similarly vilified when noting inconsistencies with other sources? Or congratulated on finding something that approximates in your mind to your original comment?

WK is quoting full-time BTW. That's not what I said. I didn't feel the need to point it out because it's obvious we're not talking about the same thing.

Obvious to you maybe. Taking the extreme, why should a person working 2 hours a week be expected to earn more than 30K a year? (That would be an hourly rate of over $280, is that a reasonable expectation?). Not that I believe this is what you meant, though until you clarify, how am I to know? Are you making a case for a guaranteed minimum income? If so, what amount would you consider reasonable?

However, right above his stat is one that is a lot closer to what I was saying and it's:

All, age 25+  32,140

Or take your "household" stat. Just factor in "married" and you'll arrive a lot closer 30k than you think.

Indeed, about half of all adults are married, which means about 1/3rd of households are comprised of married couples (broadly speaking, households are 1/3 married couples, 1/3 single males, 1/3 single females), I'll let you do the math to figure out what that does to median income.

All of which has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make which is:
Even if the average full-time worker made 50k it wouldn't matter one iota as long as the graph below looked like this
[snip]

You didn't mention GDP in your original post, and the article I linked was on job growth, so how are readers to know that your point was about the disconnection between GDP growth and income growth since 2000? Telepathy? You may have alluded to GDP in a later post (here) when you referred to "US economic growth", though as the start of this chain was a post on job growth in the US, it was not clear to me that you meant GDP.

What, if any, effect on median income would you expect from an increase in working population, as described in the article I linked (and a correlated decrease in unemployment)? Why do you believe it no longer matters if there is zero unemployment?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Nope, sorry. I'm still going to call you & Gary lazy. You've both gone into a "grammar police" mode but have yet to go into "fact checking" mode.

It should (hopefully) be obvious after my responses to all the nitpicking that:

"half of America ended [up] making less than 30k a year"

now stands as

"half of all working Americans ended up making less than 30k a year IIRC"

And I'm still waiting for someone to come along and rub my "fallible recollections" in my face.

(The rest of your post will have to wait. I can only handle one thing at a time)

Nope, sorry. I'm still going to call you & Gary lazy. You've both gone into a "grammar police" mode but have yet to go into "fact checking" mode.

You can call me lazy all you want, though I see no reason to do your research for you. The first thing I did on seeing your 30K a year claim was look for data, which I posted. Are you suggesting others must continue researching until they find data that supports your claim in order to avoid being called lazy? This is a ludicrous proposition, what if no such data exists?

If you have data to support your view provide it and we can discuss the merits, if not, why should anybody care what you have to say?

As for "grammar police" you were the one that injected the missing "in" from your statement, I saw no reason to do this or comment on it prior to your latest ad hom.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Well according to Social Security it is $28,031

according to IRS it is $34,823

So I'd say Alex was in the right ballpark.

Source - 2015 figures

I personally envision a world where there are fewer crybabies and more doers.
I have, and am, doing my bit by building fire trucks that save lives.

Perhaps the protesters of Trump's victory should start to think about doing something constructive with their pitiful little lives.

I have no pity for them, only the same sorrow that they are wallowing in by themselves.

Folks..............time has come to face the music. And dance to it.
I danced all the way to the voting booth. And danced out.
In reality, some of the workers at the polls wondered about my festive mood.

I told them...............'Just making America great again.'

And he is gonna keep that promise.

I am sure I shall not agree with everything he does. Impossible to assume so.
But, I have his back. He shall be my president.

And may God bless America.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Well according to Social Security it is $28,031

according to IRS it is $34,823

So I'd say Alex was in the right ballpark.

Source - 2015 figures

Sirius, you might need to adjust those specs, the number for Social Security is for 2013, and the source for the IRS value is given as "Tax Foundation, IRS 2011 data", which is the most recent year for which the IRS has anything other than "preliminary data" (https://www.irs.gov/uac/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-returns). Looking at the original source for Social Security (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html) and you'll find their number for "Median net compensation ^a" is $29,930.13, but what's that ^a there for, oh "^a Median net compensation is estimated" :), so even though it's pretty much right on Alex's number, it's not definitive.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Nope, sorry. I'm still going to call you & Gary lazy. You've both gone into a "grammar police" mode but have yet to go into "fact checking" mode.

You can't check the facts until you know precisely what fact it is that is being waved out there, hence grammar is important.

As to full time, think about how a person can work 60+ hours a week and not be "full time" If you do you might have a light bulb switch on.

---

You can't check the facts until you know precisely what fact it is that is being waved out there, hence grammar is important.

Yup, that's the same argument Bubba tried to make with his famous "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is........."

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Maybe not definite but close enough to Alex' statement is it not?

The problem on these boards as that too many want to argue over specifics when facts are mentioned. That's okay in a classroom or courtroom but this is real life where spending too much time arguing over those specifics ends up defeating the conversation.

Alex was in the ballpark end of story, why can't you admit that?

Do these numbers, when applied across the whole country, actually mean anything.
Surely the US median income, in one place means you have a comfortable life, and in another means you cannot afford a roof over your head. Even in the same place, the same income for households of the same size, will be viewed differently if one of the households owns their own house outright and the other has to pay a mortgage or rent.

But that eventually leads to another conundrum, should Federal employees or people working for statewide companies, with the same qualifications and experience, be paid the same rate no matter where they live and work?

---

Maybe not definite but close enough to Alex' statement is it not?

The problem on these boards as that too many want to argue over specifics when facts are mentioned. That's okay in a classroom or courtroom but this is real life where spending too much time arguing over those specifics ends up defeating the conversation.

Alex was in the ballpark end of story, why can't you admit that?

WK's number was over 30% greater than Alex's, and that was for full-time work for those 25-64. What's wrong with using that number? Why should students working part-time be included in the half of americans at below median income, when they've chosen to study when they could be in full time employment?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...