kgambit

No. From 1984 onward that is decidedly not true. The CPI has risen which does mean that the purchasing power of an individual dollar has indeed fallen. But incomes have risen faster than the dollar has declined during that time period. Since total consumer buying power (or total purchasing power) is simply the number of dollars times their individual purchasing power, total consumer purchasing power has increased. Let me repeat that: Overall real buying power has increased from 1984 to present day. If you want to change the time frame, fine but you originally stated 1984 as your start date and on that basis you are wrong. Just look at the numbers. Here's a chart of the median income for the US from 1967 by year to 2012, both nominal (unadjusted for inflation) and real (inflation adjusted). http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm Since your original claim was based on 1984 as a starting point, let's pick it up from there. From the Dave Manuel link: In 1984, nominal income was 20,948$. In 2012, it was $50,099 Let's adjust for Inflation which means adjusting for the relative difference in the prices of items. Using the CPI-U we get this: In 1984, real income was 47,181$. In 2012, it was $51,017 (Note the CPI numbers in 1984 and 2012 are 101.9 and 226.665 if you want to renormalize yourself) Admittedly that's only 8% real income growth but it is real growth and it is inflation adjusted (relative to the CPI-U) which means it's real growth relative to prices! You can check the inflation adjustment for yourself. Historical inflation runs at~3% per annum over that period. (Edit: Annual inflation over this period was actually 2.86%) That's 2.356 x when you account for cumulative growth. (2.26 if you use the actual 2.86%) And that's actually less the growth in salaries over that same period from the table, and the CPI change over that period is almost exactly what we would expect with the 2.86% The CPI-U numbers for those same dates are as follows: In 1984, CPI-U was 101.9; in 2012 it was 226.665 Those numbers are from the BLS link that you provided before. So 20,948$ in 1984 was the equivalent of 46,596$ in 2012 (if adjusted for price index). Since the 2012 Nominal income is higher than that, incomes outgrew the CPI-U and therefore outgrew prices Again REAL buying power is up. If you want to change the time frame, fine but let's at least be clear what period you are talking about. If you want to argue that incomes have decreased even after adjustment for inflation since 2008 I won't give you any argument. If you want to argue that inflation adjusted median incomes sagged starting in 2000 and recovered to 2000 levels in 2008, I won't disagree with that either. There have been three income sags since 1980 and we might be in a fourth. If you want to argue that the disparities between income growth of the upper and lower income quintiles have resulted in a widening wealth edge, that's fine too. But don't argue that inflation adjusted income hasn't increased since 1984 because the numbers do not support it. http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf @Wals - like I said the UK is a bit out of my knowledge base. Does this look right for the UK? I think the overall % are a bit higher than the US at the lower income levels but the upper levels don't look to be that much large I'm also not sure about the indirect taxes since I don't have direct first hand knowledge.

It looks like the Vikes have decided that Ponder and Cassel aren't the answer. As you said, throwing Freeman in after less than two weeks was - interesting. lol Looks like Jacksonville, Tampa, NY Giants and the Vikes are all playing for the #1 draft choice.

If you use the middle ages as a model you're right that it would be unlikely but certainly not impossible for a character to be a "master" smith. Apprentices could begin as early as ten years of age, with a term varying from 5 to 9 years (usually 7). At the end of their apprenticeship they would serve as journeyman. To be considered a master craftsman required a sum of money and the fabrication of a single "masterwork"" which was judged by other masters. So a very exceptionally gifted individual could achieve master smith status in his late teens, and possibly in his mid teens. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? Not at all. Since adventurers can be considered as somewhat exceptional to begin with, I don't see that it's too much of a stretch to allow characters to craft weapons or armor. I've always preferred rune based enchantment systems for weapons and armor. It's fairly simple to create a wide variety of possible runes and make them interchangeable (perhaps as in Dragon Age Origins) to create an almost endless number of possible combinations. And the power of the enchantments can be moderated in a number of ways. I've also liked some of the crafting styles I've seen in certain games where you can combine items like iron spikes with a normal club to produce a spiked club,

Finished watching Vikings Season 1.

OMG, the Giants actually won a game? How bad does that make the Vikings?

It's tougher to break this one down because in the US you have sales taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, and local, state and federal income taxes plus social security and medicare taxes. (And a ton of small excise taxes on things like alcohol, gasoline, and cigarettes that vary widely from state to state.) I know that inflation adjusted US federal tax rates are down across all income groups. They have declined since the 1940s, and depending on income bracket have either declined or remained flat since 1980. The others are tougher to track down. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NbAzw1SjuCk/TpO1gyZIJ9I/AAAAAAAAACU/q9Qhy04L1H8/s1600/Federal+Tax+Rates.jpg https://www.savantcapital.com/uploadedImages/Savant_CMS_Website/Blogs/Sample_Blog/US-Income-Tax-Marginal-Rates.png This article would argue that it's not taxation but general weakness of the economy but I can't find confirmation of his numbers. http://wallstreetpit.com/22914-average-u-s-tax-burden-at-40-year-low/ This article only looks at 1997 thru 2009 but it argues against increasing taxes as the cause, since total tax burden across income groups that were studied declined during that period. http://www.cwrichardson.com/a-view-into-us-taxes/ (There is only one outlier data point in that entire group of data: the tax burden for an income of 75,000$ during 2005 and I have no clue what caused that one.) So I don't know Wals but I'm thinking it is not about the taxes (at least not in the US).

Here's a partial answer to your question from the other thread. Incomes seem to show the same sort of slow real income growth that we see in the US. Real growth from 2001 to 2013 is about 18% which is slightly lower than the US but the income regression post 2008 doesn't seem to be present or at least not as pronounced, Growth is low and steady but flattening slightly. slightly longer time frame (not clear if those are inflation adjusted or not). I have no clue what inflation metrics are used in the UK. and here's the GFP: Both the UK and Sweden showed the same "bubble" in GDP as the US did, but for some reason it doesn't show in personal income. https://timetric.com/index/household-income-post-tax-nominal-ons/ That's all folks.

Jim Leyland stepping down as manager of Detroit. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24116629/report-jim-leyland-stepping-down-as-manager-of-the-tigers

World Series match-ups Games 1 thru 3 St Louis vs Boston Wainwright vs Lester Macha vs Buchholz Kelly vs Lackey

Fair enough. We'll continue there. Sorry for the digression.

What do you mean reverse inflation is included? Are you saying that the CPI-U numbers are deflated for inflation? I understand the concept of reverse inflation. That's asking "if I get 10,000$ in 20 years, what is the present day buying power?".

Fantastic pics Woldan. My wife said thanks for the imaginary Linzertorte but thinking about it made her hungry for real.

The aftershock was a 6.2 on the richter scale.

After two bottles of wine I couldn't spell critique ..... I don't think it's a global issue Wals. I recall seeing a plot of US vs UK income. I don't recall the exact time frame except it did include the period from 2000 to 2010 or 2012. What it showed was that UK incomes continued their upward climb while US incomes tended to flatten out. I would think that would seem to indicate that the phenomenon is localized to the US and not global, but it would be interesting to see if other countries showed the same flattening. Sorry for the double post. Wals posted while I was typing the previous post. Edit: If all this wasn't bad enough, the discussion is complicated by the fact that there are multiple deflators that can be used that are tied to the CPI. ARRRGH.

This is from the GM chief economists presentation to dealers to basically "prepare to not have many new car sales" And here's a bit from the New York Times about income stagnation http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/24/us/politics/income-stagnation-and-inequality.html?_r=0 Where your median family income has barely moved since 1980, while according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics since 1984 inflation has reduced the purchasing power of the dollar. What you could buy for 100 bucks in 84, now costs upwards of 200 (according to the consumer price index). Your initial claim was based on prices versus income from 1984 and then you show a plot that only goes back to 1999. I can't see the entire NYTimes graph (I'm not a subscriber and I've hit my monthly limit of articles) but I can tell that is it adjusted for inflation. My graphs go all the way to 1984. They show continual income growth to 1999, then a lower rate of increase after that until around 2008, and then the fit hits the shan. I'll agree with you that recent inflation adjusted incomes are "stagnant" or in the crapper. Your choice; either works for me. If you want to argue that the disparity in income is also responsible for a widening wealth wedge between the 1% and the middle class, I'm on board. Edit: I'll even concede that simply maintaining the status quo versus inflation isn't good enough. After all, if I start out at an entry level position and work my way up the corporate ladder (god how cliché) then I should realistically expect to see some actual improvement in my situation. I should be able to eat out a bit more, entertain more, buy nicer stuff, travel, whatever lifestyle perks float your boat. If all my hardwork does is simply leave me no better off in terms of my real buying power than that is bullocks. So if THAT was your point, fine, I get it and I agree. The real income stagnation occurs more recently. It really starts in 2008/2009. The nominal income numbers from 2000 to 2008 match yours.

Funny because I don't think that is entirely true or at least not the inference that purchasing power is down. Ok the cost of living part is true; the dollar is worth about half of what it was in 1984. But I don't think it's true about income at all, and definitely not true about purchasing power. Calax, you must have been looking at inflation adjusted data. In terms of actual dollars, the trends are decidedly up. (If you have links that suggest the following data are in error please share) Household income (nominal - unadjusted for inflation) http://econintersect.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Income-Growth-4.png individual income.- (nominal - unadjusted for inflation) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dHK3tHSCFoE/TuP-C5l1x9I/AAAAAAAADlE/5dSk3OPWdRk/s1600/Screen+shot+2011-12-10+at+7.47.55+PM.png income by income quintile (nominal - unadjusted for inflation) is up across all income groups. The real disparity in the curves is apparent after adjusting for inflation, although the lowest income groups at least stayed level with inflation, it was the upper income levels that actually showed gains. The bottom line is that no income group has lost ground to inflation (except perhaps very recently due to the recession) Hourly compensation rates (or their salaried equivalents) have stagnant (or relatively so) in the lower income groups. Cost of living adjustments have been sufficient to maintain purchasing power for lower income groups. The effects of increased worker productivity have been realized only at the corporate and upper income tiers and not at the median income levels or lower. That has resulted in an increasing wedge between the wealth held the two tiers. Edit: I removed a couple of images simply to reduce the size of the wall of text. You can click on the links to open the images in another window.

26 pounds? Sheesh...I had a tabby once who was about 18 pounds (not fat at all either, slim waisted). And I thought that was a hefty weight for a cat. The vet said he was about 2 or 3 pounds overweight but that otherwise he was just a big cat. A really big cat. The oddest thing about him is that his mother is the Siamese in the middle of that pic. He got her voice.

Fair enough Ros, and good point about the projections. I was looking for something that showed a longer historical perspective. Try these instead and you can ignore everything past 2013 if you so choose. If I am reading the latest CBO August report right, the current deficit projection for 2013 is 750$ billion dollars which is slightly higher than some of the charts show. It's not a sticky point, either way the deficit trend has been down. The future projections are a different matter. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44552-%20MBR_2013_08.pdf 1) deficits by year with 2013 (and beyond) projected 2) yearly change in debt as a % of GDP (2013 projected) 3) close up version showing 2010 to 2013 4) total cumulative debt

I remember listening to a distant gun battle when I was a kid and thinking it sounded exactly like that, actually! You must have lived in a really tough neighborhood.

Kershaw got ripped and was pulled after 4 innings. Wacha working on a 1 hitter. St Louis is now up 9-0 after 5.

You're correct. I guess I'm too tired to think straight. If nearly 70% of energy is lost regular powder is almost as inefficient as gasoline. Wow. Think of what the muzzle loaders had to deal with 50% loss of energy from incomplete powder combustion.

Energy loss factors: Heat transmission thru the barrel Heat lost thru expanding gases Incomplete combustion of the powder Barrel friction Recoil (sorry but conservation of momentum mandates this one - you might not notice the recoil with a weapon fixed to a test bench but it's there) The last three account for less than 5% of the initial energy, but the first two are each comparable to the muzzle velocity energy. You could probably lose up to 70% of the total energy thru all of those. That fits with your total combustion energy of 7.5 kj and a muzzle velocity energy of 2.2 kj. That's actually a bit under 30% so you're in the ballpark. @Wals .... suddenly I am seeing Snap Crackle Pop Rice Krispies in an entirely new light ....

Thats quite an...unusual question; I can calculate the muzzle energy of those rounds in joules, but would that be the same joules as in food joules? Thats the question.... Any physicists here? Lets pretend they're the same unit (I just hope I don't embarrass myself here) 7.62 x39 = 125 grains @ 2400 fps = 1598 ft/lbs = 2166 Joules = 2.16 Kj .50 AE = 300 grains @ 1550 fps = 1600 ft/lbs = 2200 Joules = 2.20 Kj Thats WAY less than 300 KJ, even with a 20x110mm anti aircraft machinecannon round you only get about 57 KJ, 300 would probably be the energy of a main battle tank round. If its about the energy the powder charge itself contains, well, I have no freaking idea. The problem is powder varies a lot, you'd have to specify what powder is being used in that round. Its impossible to say. In a nutshell: Wals, stop making ridiculous bets while being high on absinthe. Yes, same joules. 1 nutritional Calorie = 4186.8 joules = 4.1868 kj Amp Energy Overdrive energy drink has 220 Calories = 921.1 kj so 300kj is probably reasonable for a smaller energy drink. For the bullet, the total energy is slightly higher than Woldan calculated. There is some energy loss due to recoil, but the relative mass difference of the bullet versus the gun should make that fairly small. Maybe 1% +/- of the muzzle velocity energy but that's just ballpark. There is also probably some energy loss due to imperfect combustion and a bunch of other things I am forgetting. I don't think you're going to find enough energy loss to make up a gap that big though. You can calculate recoil velocity here: http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmrecoil-5.1.cgi

Where was this one taken? Austrian national park ''Kalkalpen'', why? Because my wife is Austrian, born in Linz and she thought it looked familiar.

Update 37: Revealing the Map http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2/posts/633697