By you inaccurately paraphrasing them and falsely attributing claims to them, and using the paraphrases and false claims rather than the quotes as a basis for your responses, as if your garbage were my posting.
Oh hogwash. You weren’t paraphrased. You were quoted verbatim.
I was the first to point that out, specifically. And as I noted, that initial mistake has led you into error and confusion.
Well more accurately you were the only one to “point out” and in doing so revealed your inability to understand simple mathematical concepts (e.g. the difference between means and medians and the importance of not mixing our confusing them).
And you have so far refused to correct that initial mistake, and put the discussion on a sensible and informative footing.
Except, there was no mistake, the mistake would have been mixing medians and means as you advocated. Are you really that dense Ice – apparently so. You don’t seem to be able to understand the difference between medians and means. The discussion was about a specious average statistic introduced by BillyT. It wasn’t about medians. Your fascination with the median statistic doesn’t change the fact the discussion was about an average statistic. Apparently you have recently become familiar with the median statistic but apparently don’t have the cognitive ability to understand when it is appropriate and when it isn’t. As has been repeatedly explained to you, if BillyT had introduced a median as a point for discussion, then the appropriate statistic would be median. But he didn’t.
You have been all over the place on this, basically you have repeatedly lied. You go back and forth. You have said BillyT didn’t cite an average statistic when clearly he did. I have quoted BillyT in which he specifically uses the word “average” in direct reference to item in question.
The only one, who has made a mistake Ice, is you and you have tried to cover your blatant mistakes with lies.
And Some are, some aren't. It doesn't affect their earnings, because they aren't paid by the hour. That's theoretically possible for each individual salaried worker, and if done for each and every such worker various statistics could be generated. Nobody is doing that here - certainly not you, you are using total yearly means. And of course that number would be useless for calculating whether or not they had received a raise in their hourly wages, because it would vary by total hours worked from week to week and month to month and year to year regardless of whether their salary had been raised or lowered or kept the same.
Say what? As usual you aren’t making sense Ice. This gets back to your ignorance Ice and your habit of sticking your head in the sand in order to ignore evidence and simple mathematics. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, wages are known and hours are known. Wages are known through tax filings. Hours worked are known through the Census Bureau Survey where individual workers and employers are surveyed. Further, wither and individual did or didn’t receive a pay wage isn’t relevant. What matters is the total wages received by the worker. Bonuses are wages. Even though bonuses are not based on an hourly wage, they are still wages. You don’t seem to understand accounting either. At the companies I worked for and owned, hourly workers received bonuses and those bonuses are counted as wages.
Now your inability and unwillingness to understand doesn’t change reality.
And Why yes, by you. Alternating with being told by you that the money business owners keep for themselves from the generated surplus, the money paid in profit sharing and bonuses, shares of income from partnerships paid to doctors and lawyers and such on quarterly or other intervals, salaries paid by the seek or month or year regardless of basis, and so forth, are all "hourly wages".
Not surprisingly, you are not making any sense yet again. You are very confused. Business profits are not wages. All one need do to understand various incomes is to look at a Form 1040. Your inability to understand the difference makes me think you have never seen Form 1040. You have probably only used the IRS Form 1040EZ. Business income isn’t the same thing as wage income.
And The way a business owner pays themself an hourly wage is by hiring themself as an employee and punching a time clock. All those hourly wages show up in the BLS stats I used - as with any other employee. The extra business owner compensation - the stuff you are insisting on corrupting your calculation with - is taken weekly or quarterly or at tax year end as a salary or bonus or other compensation from what would otherwise be profits. That compensation does not reflect hours worked, and cannot be used to calculate an hourly wage in the first place, let alone a change in hourly wages - hours worked can vary from 0 to thousands, without affecting it.
As a business owner, I can tell you without equivocation, you don’t have a fucking clue! J Business owners if they pay themselves at all and are active in the business, they are salaried employees – not hourly workers. Where is your evidence to back up your assertion? It’s probably with all the other material you have been unable to produce.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you the BLS hourly wage data you cited is a subset of total wages. Perhaps you should go back and carefully read that discussion again. I explained the holes in your BLS data. Do I really need to repeat them once again for your edification? The topic was all wages. Your BLS number cited a subset of all wages. It really isn’t that complicated but it appears very difficult for you to understand.
Apparently among the many other things, you are unable to discern between a wages and business profits or between exempt (i.e. salaried employees) versus nonexempt employees (hourly workers) and that is very evident in your paragraph.
You are getting lost in the detail. You cannot see the forest for the trees. It really isn’t that complicated. In order to calculate the metric I referenced you need to things, total wages (provided by the IRS) and the hours worked (provided by the Census Bureau). What Joe Schmo earned in Podunk, Iowa isn’t relevant. Wither Joe got a raise or not isn’t relevant. We are talking about macroeconomics here – another one of those concepts that appears to be lost on you.
Per my previous posts, there are problems associated with using quarterly number because of seasonality factors (e.g. timing of bonuses). That’s why BillyT’s use of quarterly unadjusted data was wrong. I used annual data – no seasonal adjustment needed.
Once you have expanded your notion of hourly wages to include essentially every source of employee or ownership income, it's not easy to relate them to hours worked- which is why you can't make sense on the topic. Taking a yearly total mean completes the mushmaking. The result is that your calculated changes in the "average hourly wage" are meaningless - no one can tell from your numbers whether people paid by the hour in the US are getting paid more, less, or the same as last year, on average.
Yes it is easy. But you are getting off track again. This discussion was about a specific metric BillyT referenced from a secret unnamed source which claimed to be an average for all wages. The discussion wasn’t about the BLS number. It wasn’t about medians. It wasn’t about your ignorance and cognitive deficits. You introduced all those things into the conversation.
Just because you cannot relate wages to hours worked, others can. If you had some understanding of business, of economics, of accounting, you wouldn’t be making these stupid comments. You began this discussion by arguing I was wrong in disputing BillyT's average hourly wage metric by using an average wage metric based on real and very public data. You claimed I should have used a median. I endlessly told you that was inappropriate given the discussion was about averages. It is apparently one of the many simple concepts that stretches your cognitive abilities to the breaking point. Then you introduced the BLS hourly data, which is a subset of wage earners, when BillyT and I were discussing all wage earners. Face it Ice, you have just dug a deeper hole for yourself.
