1981 Gas Price..........

[indianablue]

I hate it when right wingers say that adjusted for inflation gas was higher in 1981 than it is now. What they fail to point out is salaries and wages for the vast majority has not kept pace with the inflation they site.

Of course if that talking point fails they always point out Europe but they also fail to mention that Europe and many other countries tax gas heavily to subsidize public transportation etc, In Europe care as more of a luxury in some areas than a necessity or 'right'.

I am kind of like Mike Malloy i want gas to go up to 5.00 yes i know it will hurt me and many others but that is the only way America will even begin to wake up.

[girl gone mad]

1. They also fail to mention that that was a temporary...

spike caused by OPEC games, not a sustained steady increase caused by bad economic policy and demand out pacing supply for the foreseeable future.

[Egalitariat]

7. I understand the demand effects on gas prices

with India and China buying every drum they can get their hands on.

How does Bush's bad economic policy effect gas prices?

[girl gone mad]

16. Bush's "weak dollar" policy...

is partly responsible for driving up the cost of oil.

[beyurslf]

2. Excellent point. Does anyone have the actual figures of wages if adjusted

for inflation?

[lagged_variable]

5. The raw facts

Real (adjusted for inflation) median wages have gone up 17%.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h09ar.html

Over the last 25 years, unadjusted average prices (for ALL goods) have gone up 233% while median wages have gone up 227% and mean wages have gone up 259% (evidence of the rich getting richer)

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

In the same period, unadjusted gas prices have risen 41%

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?ap

[lostinacause]

10. "(evidence of the rich getting richer)"

That statistic does not ensure that the rich are getting richer. It could also be explained by the poor are getting richer or a combination of them both. Regardless; the average person is 17% richer then they were 25 years ago so most people are sharing the benefits of growth.

[lagged_variable]

11. No

Given that the median has gone up 227% and mean has gone up 259%, it means that the amount of income to the "right" of the "middle" person in the distribution has increased. The only way that you can get this kind of skew in the income distribution is if the weight in the "high income" tail has increased.

Or, of course, it could also be the poor getting poorer relative to the rich. That is, either the rich are increasing their income (getting richer) faster than the poor, or else the poor are increasing their income more slowly that the rich (getting "poorer"). Of course you're right, everybody's income is (on average) increasing. But the income distribution is spreading, and that's what I meant, since it's all you can infer from that mean/median difference. And that is correct.

[lostinacause]

12. First of all inflation is consumer price index

so if the real wage has gone up then people are richer relative to the time that the comparison was taken. It is entirely possible (but not likely) that the wage of the lower end of the spectrum could make up that all of the difference given a certain distribution of the wages. Regardless; the most important thing is how much you generate not how much you generate compared to someone else.

[newportdadde]

13. The CPI is a freakin joke.

Go by some Milk at your local grocery store, hell go by a weeks worth of groceries. In the past 5 years the price of everday goods that we all need to survive has skyrocketed and yet we get 'no real inflation.' Real estate costs and the BS rents... its a JOKE.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P72746.asp

[lostinacause]

22. Did you read the pdf in the link at the end of the article?

Perhaps that would have been a more appropriate to link to as it provides a less biased (and more technical) analysis of hedonics.

Regarding the rest of what you posted there is nothing that I can say. Things such as your location, the inability for people to accurately analyze the prices they see over time and the limitation for people to see past their own circumstances makes what you say just as irrelevant as if I were to tell you my experiences with wages and prices.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. It's Entirely Possible????

If you actually examined the data and did a sound analysis, you would know one way or the other. You're statement makes it clear that you're just guessing.
The Professor

[lostinacause]

18. If you had read the post that I first responded to you would understand

that even in being uncertain it was sufficient to prove him wrong. He says "evidence of the rich getting richer" when given a certain wage distribution and a specific change in wages at the bottom end of the spectrum the same result could be achieved by the poor getting richer. I said what I did understanding the implications of what I said. I said it because coming to the right conclusion for the wrong reason is perhaps more costly then coming to the wrong conclusion.

[ConsAreLiars]

19. Your comments on the difference between mean and median

are ideological, not scientific. The ONLY way the median drops relative to the mean is when the share of upper end increases and the lower end declines. If you can't understand this or don't want to face the facts, you may find another message board more comfortable. If you actually want to learn, here's a toy to play with to test your silly assertion: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/stat_sim/descriptive/

[lostinacause]

23. The median is increasing in the example.

The average is just going up at a faster rate. Given the right situation it can happen and be brought on by increases in the lower values.

consider 1,9,11
mean = 7
median = 9

assume this increases to 9,10,11
mean = 10
median = 10

percent increase in
mean ~ 43%
median ~ 11%

If I wanted to I could even give the percent increases that were first introduced given the condition that the maximum value could not increase more then the median.

If you do go to the educational institute that you listed in your link(Rice) there is a course, Theory of Knowledge (Phil 303), that may be of value to you. When I disagreed with the one individual all I had to do was show one example is contradictory. When you disagreed with me you have to show that all possible examples are contradictory. With no developed proof you try to insult my intelligence. Perhaps that is not wise seeing how it only takes one example to prove myself correct and by extension prove you to be wrong.

[ConsAreLiars]

26. Whether by design or ignorance

you picked a case opposite to that being discussed. If you want to play games go somewhere else.

In case you were simply unable to comprehend the earlier discussion, the facts being noted were that at time A, the average (mean) income was above the median (midpoint). Not BELOW as in your example. The point made was that at a later time B, the discrepancy between the two was even greater, which can only happen with a relative increase in income at the upper end (a relative decrease at the lower end). Your "example" is worse than totally irrelevant; it assumed a contrary set of facts to those observed and being discussed.

Why you are so adamant in your unwillingness to acknowledge the increasing inequality on income (and wealth) in US society (and the world), I can only guess at, but silly shell games like you played don't change the facts.

[lostinacause]

29. This is what the person to who I was initially responding to said:

"Over the last 25 years, unadjusted average prices (for ALL goods) have gone up 233% while median wages have gone up 227% and mean wages have gone up 259% (evidence of the rich getting richer)"

There is absolutely nothing in this relating to the distribution of the income; therefore my comprehension is more then adequate.

I have not said anything about regarding the inequality of income. I have only said that his statement is not sufficient to act as evidence of the rich getting richer. Given the current situation of welfare and development programs in America I do not doubt that most, if not all, of those gains in wealth are going to the wealthy. Your focus on inequality is, at least in my mind, is ill-founded. Inequality is a relative measure of wealth and there are certain instances where the pursuit of equality, especially when taking into account temporal effects of income and wealth generation leads to everyone being worse off. Individuals living conditions are not worsened if another has more or less money therefore the biggest condition considered should be the real wealth of individuals rather then the relative wealth. If we consider relative wealth we are not any better then children saying, “Mommy, Sam got more then me.”

[lostinacause]

24. If you do go to Rice your quite lucky.

It seems like a good school. (I don't know how it ranks as American institutions were never an option.)

[Lindacooks]

20. Um, no.

How many more million people fell into poverty under the chimp's reign??

The poor are NOT getting richer - the exact opposite is happening.

[lostinacause]

25. I posted a proof against the logic used in a previous post.

Due to the way I structured the argument what I said doesn't have to actually be happening to for my statement to be true the possibility only has to exist.

[lagged_variable]

28. To chime in again

My argument was not one of logic (it contained no if-then propositions). It spoke of evidence supporting a popular and correct hypothesis. Logically, you are correct. The change in median and mean given is not a sufficient condition for me to say that the rich getting richer at a faster rate than the poor.

But in that your argument is based on a false antecedent (the mean income has NEVER been below median in this country), the conclusions you reach are wrong, if logically sound. As ConsAreLiars pointed out, once you add in this fact (which I did not mention, yet obviously knew, else I wouldn't have made that aside you so object to), my argument is both evidence towards a hypothesis, equally as logical as yours, and infinitely more true.

I was hardly talking about any possible America in my post. You insist on talking about some purely theoretical construct. Thanks for the reminder than logic exists, please look at the relevant facts.

[lostinacause]

30. 4.1, 5, 7 --> satisfies all criteria

[lagged_variable]

31. the end

There's my distributional argument.

Saying that we should ignore income inequality is silly; you can't really believe that. As you accurately point out, there are many other things to look at at the same time. But if inequalities are systematic and irrational, we can hardly say that they are pardonable.

[lostinacause]

32. Why can't I believe that?

I have no problem seeing someone drive a car that is worth more then five times the income I make in a year. I do not gain anything from them being reduced to my level of income. I still believe that to some extent equality should be pursued. The purpose of this is not to bring the people with higher incomes down. It is to bring people with lower incomes up. Anyone who desires to bring them down is just spiteful and in my opinion no worse then someone who does not care about the wellbeing of the poor.

[cornermouse]

3. Hurt doesn't begin to cover it.

Suppression of wages, loss of rural property value for starters. And then there's the effect that the resultant crash of our economy, possihly finishing off the value of the dollar...

[baldguy]

4. Tell me, who was President in 1981?

Just asking.

[Deja Q]

9. Reagan looks sincere and proud. Poppy looks sinister.

[Lindacooks]

21. Reagan was a mean old fart.

Who cut cancer research funding monies when my dh was undergoing cancer treatment.

I hate Reagan's guts and I always will.

[Art_from_Ark]

27. Reagan "looks sincere and proud" because he was an actor

He knew how to "look the part". But behind the veneer there was a stupid, manipulable fool.

[RoyGBiv]

6. They also fail to mention ...

That the right crucified Carter for it, saying it all had been his fault.

[Deja Q]

8. Some DUers say all that too.

Of course, nothing some DUers do surprises me anymore. :-)

[SOS]

15. Notice that they pick 1981

Carter's CAFE standards enacted in 1979 had not yet reduced demand to the point that oil prices plummeted. That bottom came in 1984. Reagan got rid of the fuel efficiency standards in 1985 to placate his bosses at Exxon.
If Reagan had not done that, the US would have stopped importing oil by 1991.

[BiggJawn]

17. My salary, "adjusted for inlfation" would have been $8.00 in '81.

At that time, the minimum wage was $2.20. I know, because I was making Minimum Wage in 1982 after my factory job went away. But that factory job paid about $14 an hour in 1981 dollars...
No wonder I could afford a Harley then, but not now...

[BamaGirl]

33. I really hate to read this kind of thing here

"I am kind of like Mike Malloy i want gas to go up to 5.00 yes i know it will hurt me and many others but that is the only way America will even begin to wake up."

$5/gal gas would financially kill most of us on the lower end of the economic spectrum. At $5/gal I'm gonna have to decide who not to feed. :eyes: "Hurt" does not even begin to cover it. Things are difficult enough as it is now, and have been getting progressively worse for the last 4 years. Wishing this kind of calamity on the country will hurt a lot of people who are already awake.