Median income for Millennials across the U.S. - this may surprise you

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by kazenatsu, May 21, 2018.

  1. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oddly, we have entrusted all the same cretins that created the problem solve it.
    The financial system, led by the reckless FED created it. Further, they have designed the "recovery", including resurrecting and wildly enriching the highly leveraged, wildly reckless, failed investment banks that imploded on a several hundred trillion dollar pile of garbage derivatives. They deserved to be liquidated and bought up on the cheep in the open market. Instead we rewarded them and allowed them to regain control of the system they rightfully squandered and should have been stripped of.

    Here's how QE worked. The FED created $1.3T in currency per year, for four years and swapped that currency for failed assets on the books of the banks. Further, they suspended mark to market rules and allowed the banks to claim face value on those garbage assets that had become valueless in the market.
    No loan, no payback arrangements, a free gift. Those private banks were able to trade garbage for trillions in cash, at face value, no strings attached. Further they were gifted with massive amounts of FED cash at zero percent interest rate for nearly a decade, and allowed to redeposit it at the FED for a 50 basis pt gift.

    How many people got to trade their collapsed stocks in for cash at purchase value ?
    How many people got to have their underwater homes traded for FED cash at purchase value ?
    How many insolvent individuals were gifted with massive loans at zero percent interest, then given 50 basis points for parking it at the same bank that loaned it to them?

    This is not a democrat/republican thing. This is a few banks running the world and nobody in government stopping them.
     
  2. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it is impossible for everyone to get rich together repurchasing the same assets over and over with larger and larger amounts of debt.
     
  3. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Check your math. 43/19 = 2.3%.

    On a compounding basis, it is less than 2.0%.

    Which borders on the low side, if anything.
     
  4. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    CPI historical data from here (origin Bureau of Labor Statistics):
    Value January 2000 = 168.8
    Value December 2017 = 245.1
    Time span = 18 years
    [245.1 - 168.8] / 17 = 0.085, or 4.2% average per year.

    Yes, I stand corrected. But not by you. Thank you nonetheless for noticing the error.

    Tua culpa, tua culpa, tua maxima culpa ...
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2018
  5. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, no, I used *your* data numbers from your previous post. You're changing your data numbers now. Not sure how you figure that is *my* fault?

    Furthermore, your calculations and methodology are still wrong, even if we accept your changed data numbers.

    First, it appears you're taking the difference between two data points, raw numbers, and dividing it by the number of years, and claiming that is an average annual percentage. It is not, that is erroneous methodology. That calculation gives you a mean annual increase in the data numbers. It does *not* yield a percentage change.

    I say "appears" because it's not completely clear what you are doing. You write:
    "[245.1 - 168.8] / 17 = 0.085, or 4.2% average per year." But [245.1 - 168.8] / 17 =/= 0.085, or anything close to it.

    [245.1 - 168.8] / 17 = 4.49.

    Irregardless of your errors of methodology and calculation, to get a percentage change average, you'd need to determine the percentage change in your data points.

    The percentage change between 245.1 and 168.8 is 45.2%. If you want to get an arithmetic average over 18 years, you'd divide that percentage change by the number of years. 45.2% / 18 = 2.51%.

    But even that doesn't give you an accurate figure of the average annual percent change for inflation, because it does not take into account annual compounding.

    When you include the effects of compounding, you get an annual rate of inflation of 2.0%.

    You're welcome for me noticing, and correcting, your error a second time.

    Tua culpa indeed.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2018
    Reiver likes this.
  6. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, one data number was incorrect. I changed it and came up with a very different result.

    I admit it, I made a mistake.

    What more do you want? The end of the world?

    Or that I put you too on ignore? I have a very short fuse for those who must be absolutely correct absolutely all the time ...
     
  7. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There was a lot more incorrect than one data number, as demonstrated in my post.

    How about simply conceding the errors without the snarkiness?
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2018
    Reiver likes this.
  8. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    running the world? just goofing or do you have evidence of that?
     
  9. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I corrected the error. You still don't like the result.

    Now your problem, not mine.

    Moving right along ...
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2018
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    squid is getting left wing on us; here agreeing with the premise of a destructive financial elite. Please offer encouragement!
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  11. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ??? squid wants to pair giant banks down into genuine capitalist enterprises that live and die on their own which is not left wing at all while you want them regulated according to socialist fascist communist monarchial statist precepts. Do you understand?
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2018
  12. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    only a liberal has the IQ to believe that you have a free market when libcommie govt has 132 programs to get people into homes that the free markets says they cant afford.!
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn't try to respond to the quote did you? Squid's reference to a financiap elite is straight from left wing political economy. That's a jolly thing. He's making useful comment for a change.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  14. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you mean straight from libertarian economics. He wants financial industry out of socialist fascists statist hands
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You make errors all over the shop here. Let's start with the one relevant to my post: libertarian economics. There is no such beast as you are unable to pinpoint political economic approach. For example, to most of the world libertarianism is linked to anarchism. It therefore refers to libertarian socialist outcomes. It's only among the less educated Americans that it is automatically deemed to be consistent with the hard right.

    And how does the hard right rhetoric operate? It's actually shallow stuff. They simply take a standard issue in microeconomics, i.e. influence costs, and exaggerate it's meaning. This derives ludicrous claims, typically from groups funded by big business, such as monopoly power can only occur because of government.

    Let's now apply influence costs to squid's Marxism. It is alien to his comment as it is based on individualism. The idea of a financial elite, automatically focused on class conflict, is a more in-depth dimension. Why do you want to suggest squid is somehow less knowledgeable?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  16. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I heard an interesting statistic today that may help explain this and the lousy economy (which is being referred to as a "good economy" but isn't).

    First, there is a new term for a new kind of working style. It's called "freelancing". It isn't part time working, and it isn't sub-contracting. It's actually short-term, usually single-job work. You help develop a system or logo, or maybe photograph an event, and then move on. And there are websites for support, and for job offers: https://www.upwork.com/o/jobs/browse/

    Obviously this kind of work is not going to provide a nice, reliable income for an upscale lifestyle, or provide any benefits. And the statistics I mentioned are that while currently 35% of the workforce "freelances", a full 47% of the millennial workforce "freelances". And the freelancing work category is growing 3 times faster than the rest of the workforce.

    Come to think of it, this may be a better opportunity and promise a better future for today's workforce: https://upriseri.com/oped/local-worker-ownership-an-opportunity-for-rhode-island/
     
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since the image in the opening post stopped working, I will have to list some of the statistics from the picture.
    (This is part of the reason why I try to always have a description of the picture or video now, because those links often stop working in the future)

    Median Income for Millennials
    California - $21,900
    Oregon - $20,000
    Nevada - $24,000
    Colorado - $24,000
    Kansas - $21,000
    New Mexico - $19,200
    Texas - $22,000
    Louisiana - $22,000
    Florida - $20,000
    Georgia - $20,000
    Wisconsin - $20,000
    Minnesota - $24,000
    Ohio - $20,000
    New York - $25,000
    Pennsylvania - $23,400

    source: Business Insider 2014 Survey, from the article "Here's how much millennials are earning annually across the US", Andy Kiersz, November 25, 2016

    Nevada is probably higher because so many tourism service jobs available for lower skilled Millennials around Las Vegas, the median salary for all age groups is not that high. New York is probably higher because a large percent of the jobs are concentrated around the higher cost of living New York City area.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2022
  18. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's insane! Even an entry level job in Govt pays more than $50k. At least it does here.

    Either something in America is broken, or your millenials aren't even trying.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2022
  19. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's a sad story, Kaz, and the sadder thing is that because our public education system had already started to head straight into the toilet of 'political correctness' by the time Millennials got to high school, they were unprepared to do anything but stay at home with Mommy and Daddy and view the changing world with utter bewilderment and the frightening inability to really do anything of any use or worth to anyone.

    Now so many of them work in shitjobs, making shitwages, with nothing to look forward to for approximately the next 25 years (until they can get on Social Security) but a shitfuture. THIS is what hyperliberal indoctrination and inculcation does to an entire generation in a country... and now the hyperlib 'wokesters' are doing it to Gen Z, too!
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2022
  20. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's fair to say the majority of Millennials were not working in government jobs. In the U.S., it's not easy or realistic for a young person to be able to get a job that pays $50k unless that person has a college degree or some training, and oftentimes even then it would require them to relocate. With a college degree, their first job might pay $32k or $40k, and it will not be until they have several years of experience that they will be able to get $50k. Those government jobs paying $50k are obviously not hiring people who do not have a college degree. And many people do not live in areas where a $50k job is easy to get right out of college, or even after several years of experience.

    In places like Ohio and Michigan in the wake of the Recession, there were a lot of 45-year-old workers who formerly earned good money in factories but now could not even find a job that paid $34k, unless they were willing to move far away.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2022
  21. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't find anything in this to disagree with. It's tragic but true.

    They've been destroyed by the sinister b@stards, with absolute intent.
     
    Pollycy likes this.
  22. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's a sad story, Kaz, and the sadder thing is that because our public education system had already started to head straight down the ******* of 'political correctness' by the time Millennials got to high school, they were unprepared to do anything but stay at home with Mommy and Daddy and view the changing world with utter bewilderment and the frightening inability to really do anything of any use or worth to anyone.

    Now so many of them work in shitjobs, making shitwages, with nothing to look forward to for approximately the next 25 years (until they can get on Social Security) but a shitfuture. THIS is what hyperliberal indoctrination and inculcation does to an entire generation in a country... and now the 'wokesters' are doing it to Gen Z, too!
    [​IMG]. The 1971 classic -- just in time to corrupt nearly the entire Millennial generation.
     
  23. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow. This is news to me. Here, a $50k Govt job is entry level - no degree needed. It's the very bottom rung, and while difficult to secure .. any idiot can do them. And they're only difficult to secure BECAUSE any idiot can do them, if that makes sense. For each job advertised, there could be hundreds of applicants. The lower the grade of the job, the more applicants. Also, grads here generally earn close to six figures (assuming the didn't do some useless Arts degree). My eldest went directly to six figures, before even finishing his studies. The difference is that they've qualified in high demand fields, so they can virtually name their price. That's the point of taking such degrees in the first place.

    I guess I don't know how America works, but it seems something is very very wrong when young people are not getting further ahead than their parents. That should be every ordinary (as in not wealthy) parents' goal. Even if your kid doesn't want to earn the big bucks, and is happy being a school teacher or nurse or whatever, at least leave them property which will increase in value. We have to do something to ensure they don't add to the State's burden and to the collapse of society, if not just for their own peace and security.
     
  24. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It does seem strange. Well, does the difference in the value of the American Dollar versus the Australian Dollar have anything to do with it? I'm guessing not, but, today at least one American Dollar is quoted as equivalent to 1.46 Australian Dollars. Still I imagine that the cost of living in one part of Australia is much different than in another part... kinda like here in the States. Damn, it looks like the AUD took a hell of a hit today. Link: https://www.google.com/finance/quote/USD-AUD?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcjdrX3vf7AhUsFFkFHfXDDjkQmY0JegQIBhAc
     
  25. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Our cost of living is higher, for sure, but not THAT much higher. I would say the single biggest difference is housing. Ours is orders of magnitude more expensive than yours. For example ....
    [​IMG]

    This sold for around $1m .. eight years ago. Would be worth double that today, probably more. And it's about 20 minutes out from the city, on a small block of land. This should tell you how different our nations are. I'm guessing that in America, this shack would be considered "poor people housing".

    It's almost the inverse here. This is what we think of poor people housing:

    [​IMG]

    Basically anything new and cheaply built, is poor people housing. Even though many of the residents of these types of 'estates' will be working and middle class (but also plenty of welfare renters). It's more about the lowbrow aesthetic which is traditionally associated with poverty.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2022

Share This Page