You must log in or register to comment.
Doesn’t the quotes just ruin his whole thing? You either say “so much for progress” or something like “thanks for the ‘progress’”. 'So much for “progress” ’ feels like a double negative
But somehow people are mad at queer folks and foreigners instead of the C-suite and their boards.
Libertarian trash. It literally quotes their god Hayek at the end.
Pointing out that something bad happened in 1971 with matching data sets is not inherently libertarian, the information is in itself not libertarian slanted. Even if the presenters interpretation is wrong, it doesn’t mean the data is invalid.
You could say the same thing about a lot of Fox News articles. The data in the article is valid, but the way they interpret it is absolutely not. So maybe don’t use them as a source.
I really shouldn’t have to explain to you why a data set without context beyond “wtf happened in 1971” and a Hayak quote is different than a fox news opinion piece, I want to believe that you’re smart enough to figure that out on your own champ.
Also was the 1971 household income number a single income or dual income like today? If not dual then we are working twice as muchh to make the 5.5x increase
I hate the “household income” statistic for this exact reason. It obfuscates the number of people working. Not just both parents but also adult children living with their parents and working.
If you look at Canada’s single income household data from 2000 to 2020, the average income for males went from $30k to $34k CAD and females were roughly $17k to $25k. I would bet the US wages went up by a similar amount.
