Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzzard" data-source="post: 2596771" data-attributes="member: 3003">The numbers you posted showed median for males as ~$40k and median for females as ~$31K. For a 4 person family you sum them and get $71K. The 2003 data shows that 4 person family median was $65K. This seems perfectly reasonable. I still wonder why you would ask about my numbers. So in the interest of criticizing my analysis you decided to question my sources and compare apples to organges. I am not offended. I am annoyed that you would presume to correct something which isn't wrong, and actually doesn't even dissagree with your correction. Truthfully I'm probably more dumbfounded that you would waste your time questioning my numbers when a simple analysis would reveal that they agree with what you dug up. OK, you read it. You certainly didn't comprehend it then. Let me explain carefully then. Drothgary cited $70K as a normal salary. Since I recalled that being around the median value for family income (generally assumed to be 2 wage earners) I decided to check on the facts and demonstrate this. I googled median family income. The census page I have cited came up. I then posted using those figures to demonstrate that he what he cited as being a 'normal' salary is about the same as that for a family of two wage earners. Hence you could say his assumed salary is double normal. Then, for no apparent reason you look up numbers, which agree with mine. From this you decide to question my sources, and claim that my analysis was not germaine. In the interest of civility I will not respond further. buzzard</blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzzard, post: 2596771, member: 3003"] The numbers you posted showed median for males as ~$40k and median for females as ~$31K. For a 4 person family you sum them and get $71K. The 2003 data shows that 4 person family median was $65K. This seems perfectly reasonable. I still wonder why you would ask about my numbers. So in the interest of criticizing my analysis you decided to question my sources and compare apples to organges. I am not offended. I am annoyed that you would presume to correct something which isn't wrong, and actually doesn't even dissagree with your correction. Truthfully I'm probably more dumbfounded that you would waste your time questioning my numbers when a simple analysis would reveal that they agree with what you dug up. OK, you read it. You certainly didn't comprehend it then. Let me explain carefully then. Drothgary cited $70K as a normal salary. Since I recalled that being around the median value for family income (generally assumed to be 2 wage earners) I decided to check on the facts and demonstrate this. I googled median family income. The census page I have cited came up. I then posted using those figures to demonstrate that he what he cited as being a 'normal' salary is about the same as that for a family of two wage earners. Hence you could say his assumed salary is double normal. Then, for no apparent reason you look up numbers, which agree with mine. From this you decide to question my sources, and claim that my analysis was not germaine. In the interest of civility I will not respond further. buzzard [/QUOTE]

Verification