[defaultprimate]

lol at thinking Daniel Mitchell is just a "guy"

>How is this relevant to median income/wealth measured over time?

Because the age and dominant generation of the population massively affects the median household wealth. It's why the median wealth of Japanese Americans is significantly higher than Hispanic Americans. The median age of the Japanese American population is almost double that of Hispanic Americans.

[croon]

> lol at thinking Daniel Mitchell is just a "guy"

He's a global warming denialist often citing Daily Mail as a source. I know who he is. "just a guy" would've honestly been a better resume. What he is not is a primary source or a good source of unbiased anything.

> Because the age and dominant generation of the population massively affects the median household wealth. It's why the median wealth of Japanese Americans is significantly higher than Hispanic Americans. The median age of the Japanese American population is almost double that of Hispanic Americans.

Ok, median age in the 1990s was 32.9, and 37.9 in 2016 [0], so the wealth being the same means it actually shrunk even more since older people should have more. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/241494/median-age-of-the...

[defaultprimate]

>What he is not is a primary source or a good source of unbiased anything.

Oops I guess the Senate finance committee fucked up then

https://medium.com/beyond-pen-and-paper/the-poor-arent-getti...

[croon]

So from blog to medium post, this isn't getting stronger. Make a statement and link a source, or disprove the ones I made.

[defaultprimate]

I have repeatedly, your inability to observe data from the CBO and BLS is not my problem

[croon]

> I have repeatedly, your inability to observe data from the CBO and BLS is not my problem

So we have this scenario where either

1) you can't explain how my points are wrong, and direct me to read some blogs you like.

2) you don't want to

In either case, why are you even responding? If everything on the internet is self-explanatory, everyone should agree. So why aren't we? This is why we explain how something is wrong, and support it using data from mutually reliable sources. You repeatedly sidestep this, for whatever reason I don't know.

[defaultprimate]

Mate there's CBO, BLS, Journal of Economic Research, IMF, and several academic study citations in the video, post, blog, and all over the internet.

It's a myth that the poor get poorer. Market economies are not zero sum. Whether or not you want to explore that seriously or just participate in an exercise of confirmation bias is, again, not my problem.

All you've provided are ad hominems against sources that directly counter your initial contentions without sincerely examining the information or data contained within. I'm not interested in hearing your regurgitated, scripted nonsense on this topic that every ignorant believer in this myth spews out. I've participated in this conversation too many times to be surprised by how it goes or the points made. Nothing you've stated is new, unaccounted for, or unexplainable if you'd spend 5 minutes challenging your world view. It's not my job to provide sources only you approve of.