Post your political rants here

[BradMillner46]

1 hour ago, tnycman said:

Anyone have read any of Karl Marx, communism aside, i think he has some points in regards, of course for people with an open mind..

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 

I have read some of Marx and I DO think he had some VERY valid truths. Many of which are being proven today. Unfortunately what came about through The Soviet Union was nothing of what Marx idealized anymore than what our Founding Fathers idealized about Democracy.

[BradMillner46]

To The Mage..........I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on certain things. I could also pull out statistics that says something completely opposite from what you are saying about poverty, but the more I learn in this classroom called "life" the more I learn that (everything) is measured from the eye of the beholder.

I think maybe you and I would both agree that it wouldn't matter if we had your most idealized Utopian version of the Free Market System or my most idealized Utopian version of a Resource Based Economy. If the people living in it aren't evolved (grown up) enough then the whole thing will turn out to be sh*t.

I think how evolved a person is is based on their values and concerns: The more a person is focused on selfish, "me only" interests the less evolved they are. The more focused they are on concern for others and wanting to create a better world for everyone, the more evolved they are.

[CajunCandy]

 

[The Mage]

On 1/16/2017 at 8:01 PM, BradMillner46 said:

To The Mage..........I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on certain things. I could also pull out statistics also that says something completely opposite from what you are saying and the more I learn in this classroom called "life" the more I learn that (everything) is measured from the eye of the beholder.

If the data I presented is wrong, show me where it is wrong. If it is manipulative in some way, tell me how. But again you start a debate, then refuse to actually debate. You change the subject, use the line "agree to disagree" and really don't ever really defend your side, and act dismissive of anything presented without ever really saying why, other than implying that there's the possibility I'm lying, without every saying how or where.

These games get weary, and you are demonstrating you don't have a position, you have a religion. 

 

[BradMillner46]

7 hours ago, The Mage said:

If the data I presented is wrong, show me where it is wrong. If it is manipulative in some way, tell me how. But again you are start a debate, then refuse to actually debate. You change the subject, use the line "agree to disagree" and really don't ever really defend your side, and act dismissive of anything presented without ever really saying why, other than implying that there's the possibility I'm lying, without every saying how or where.

These games get weary, and you are demonstrating you don't have a position, you have a religion. 

 

The XY graph that you showed me just says poverty. It does not quantify poverty, it does not explain what poverty is. It just says "Poverty" on a graph with indicators showing a downward slope and it doesn't give any information for how they came to those results. Poverty just like virtually anything else can be a very loose term and you can pick and choose statistics to say anything you want. If I were to provide my own statistic, I would say what Unicef says in that 1 person dies every 4 seconds in this world due to starvation. That is grossly unacceptable to me.

Further explaining what I mean by everything is measured from the eye of the beholder is that you're gonna see whatever it is you want to see and if you don't want to see something, you're not going to see it. I used to be the same way about people in poverty. I didn't want to believe that people are actually suffering until I made the choice to see it for myself. I started doing volunteer work such as working at a local soup kitchen, taking meals to the elderly, making friends with the homeless people downtown and I can tell you, yes there are most definitely A LOT of people who are suffering (and dying.)

Even though I'm not religious, my own personal guide that I use for something like this is "The Parable Of The Good Samaritan." One person will pass by and say "Oh he's just resting there. He'll be fine" (even though they know deep inside that he's not.) Another will pass and say "Lousy bum! He got what he deserves!" Another will pass by and say "Better him than me!" But I personally know for myself that if I'm going to walk a Higher path, there is no way I can turn my back to that person and to the situation. 

I'll say 1 last thing in closing and then I'm going to end this conversation with you because I can sense that you're getting upset (and I know there's a whole lot of anger in you.) The reason you are getting upset is because down inside there is conflict within yourself about this. That conflict is there because part of you, the good part, knows that there is a much bigger and deeper picture to all of this yet you're struggling to keep that part of you suppressed. The only way that you end that conflict is by moving the suppressive part of you out of the way so that the good part of you can see the situation for what it truly is.  

 

 

 

[tnycman]

12 hours ago, The Mage said:

I'm beginning to think we need a politics section.

 It is a fact that the average person on Earth is better off than they were a quarter century ago. In fact it has been improving for well over a century.

This chart is from Forbes. As you can see, it is very relative to the population.

This is from BBC. They use the UN definition of middle class as earning or spending $10 to $100 a day. This estimate is from 2013, and I believe we may have already surpassed 3B people in the middle class, ahead of the 2020 projection. I think they are using a linear progression, when I believe it will be a little more exponential. Regardless, this is growing faster than the population.

 

They had some interesting thoughts in that video, but it seemed to me they took a position, and then tried to prove it. Attempting to compare humans to horses is a horrible analogy. Horses are closer to a product than an employee.

Honestly i can see there being growing pains from the adoption of new technologies. But I found it lacking. You want an open mind, I didn't see that in this video. I saw people thinking the same way they did at the beginning of the industrial revolution, and again at the beginning of the computer revolution. Jobs were expected to be lost, and many were, but whole groups of new jobs nobody ever expected were created. And the second problem is something I already understand, and that the whole concept of work and income is evolving. I don't have a job, and haven't for about 5 years. I haven't worked full time since 2008.

Once I understood money, and how it works, I quit asking for raises. It's a whole different paradigm that completely altered my way of thinking. It's been a while since I saw that video, but I don't remember even a hint at that type of thinking. 

Pretty much what i saw was them stuck in a single mindset with no ability to see outside their box. 

I have said before that as long as the system was voluntary, that I didn't have a problem with it. I still believe it will fail without help from Capitalism. The same way all socialist countries, and communes needed some form of Capitalism to survive. Capitalism struggles when people get in the way, and try to add in communism, or bad ideas that are not capitalism. (And after screwing things up, they sit there and blame Capitalism.)

Another problem is when people look at a system that functions, or seems to function with some socialism, and that must mean it works. Not once thinking that it's possible that it might work better if they didn't have the socialist aspects.

Just image you took a chubby person, put him on a healthy diet, had him exercise daily, and slapped him across the face once a day. He lost weight, got healthier, so obviously it must be the slapping that is helping, so we expand slapping programs all over.

Most scientists know that coloration is not causation. (Except the ones that do epidemiology studies.) But it is well accepted in politics. (And the numbers will be altered if they don't support the politician.)

 

While I haven't researched the data I'm sure they're somehow valid, however even the correct data can easily misinterpreted as it been done over and over again.

While there is no denying that there is an increase in wealth world wide and world population living standards have increased, however so has the suffering.

Many countries  such as China, India, Russia, Africa (continent) have a significant increase of standard of living, now majority of their populations are now living in the major metropolitan areas where they can find more jobs. In these countries salaries have gone up, but does that means their life's are better ? Maybe for some, but the majority are still struggling, and are pretty much enslaved by the greedy corporations that produce consumer or services for US in the western world.

Just because you get more money doesn't necessary means a better life, when you factor the cost of living have increased and continue to increase, and for those less fortunate the pressure of making it day to day is way too much, therefore a tremendous increase in suicide, theft, murder rates in these countries.

Yes, number might show people in china make much more, than they used to make 30 years ago, however they don't show how much it cost to buy a house, pay rent, fill the car, or even put food on the table cost and I'm sure you'd see that there is not much overall improvement .

yes, they might make more, however they lost basic service that they have for free such as health care, education and most important safety, their safety and their children's.

We have an increase in wealthy corporations/persons all over the world, however the general populations still continue to suffer not even more. Globalization maybe a good thing for business, however is ruing farmers and working people everywhere be it in USA, Mexico, Brasil or anywhere else. Farmers are being forced to grow crops that they never  grew before, land has been talked from indigenous people sometime forcefully, forest are destroyed so they can make more land to grow more crops that will bring more profits to the very few without any regards to environment impact. World wide Government corruptions are as high as it can get, even in the Western countries that took pride of anti-corruption measurements there is a high increase of corruptions, the bigger the corporations the easy to bribe government officials.

 

Now let's drill down to this country the good USA, its a fact that the middle class is shrinking every year, the cost of living are skyrocketing, while the salaries aren't keeping pace.

The average Joe can barely make it now days, gone are the days where the husband were able to provide for an entire family, these days are gone, unless you work in Wall street or a CEO somewhere. Where majority of good paying jobs are gone overseas, most of the jobs in US are in the service sector, which offer low cost jobs.

In order to keep up with increase of sales, property, income, gas, road tolls, medicine, food prices, majority of people are forced to work longer and retire late and many don't even make it to retirement. If i had more time I'm sure I can compile a more comprehensive list.

Overall i see more wealth being produced between the wealthy, while majority of people still continue to suffer.

The way corporations are growing and how powerful they're becoming i won't be surprised that Governments will be run by them in the near  future, some might argue that it already happened.

In my honest opinion, even the numbers  show an increase in world "living standards", there is an increase suffering and modern enslavement as well.

This is just my quick 2c.

 

 

[musser]

T man, so perhaps you see what I see. Twenty some pages of argument that stems from what I agree to be Religious views of the world.

Simply put: libertarianism ( a world view I gravitate to) taken to its ultimate end gives you a hobo, Capitalism taken to its end gives you a brutal economic slave state, Commune (ism) taken to its end gives you a brutal economic slave state. Capitalism and Communism are psychologically very similar; they both promise personal economic freedom but have always (taken to their ends) delivered slavery.

Oh but contraire many will say, look how good we have it here in the US with our Capitalist system. And pushshaw I say. We have it good because we don't have a pure Capitalist state.

I say we need to keep it that way. Never let the desire to "help" the "poor" drain the public wealth. Never let the " rich" drain the public wealth. Because given the opportunity they, the "rich" and "poor" will do exactly that. They are the two sides of the same coin, positions  taken to subject the populous to tyranny.

Liberty: the enemy of all political and economic schemes. In this day and place Liberty is best protected by allowing neither "side" Capitalism or Socalism victory.

[lacanteen]

[tnycman]

14 minutes ago, musser said:

T man, so perhaps you see what I see. Twenty some pages of argument that stems from what I agree to be Religious views of the world.

Simply put: libertarianism ( a world view I gravitate to) taken to its ultimate end gives you a hobo, Capitalism taken to its end gives you a brutal economic slave state, Commune (ism) taken to its end gives you a brutal economic slave state. Capitalism and Communism are psychologically very similar; they both promise personal economic freedom but have always (taken to their ends) delivered slavery.

Oh but contraire many will say, look how good we have it here in the US with our Capitalist system. And pushshaw I say. We have it good because we don't have a pure Capitalist state.

I say we need to keep it that way. Never let the desire to "help" the "poor" drain the public wealth. Never let the " rich" drain the public wealth. Because given the opportunity they, the "rich" and "poor" will do exactly that. They are the two sides of the same coin, positions  taken to subject the populous to tyranny.

Liberty: the enemy of all political and economic schemes. In this day and place Liberty is best protected by allowing neither "side" Capitalism or Socalism victory.

I agree with what you just stated, however this is my take on the following:

"Never let the desire to "help" the "poor" drain the public wealth. Never let the " rich" drain the public wealth."

 

It hard for  the poor to have their voice heard, they don't have lobbyist, and millions in $$ for false advertising, as do the corporations. Trump is  the living proof of what money can buy..  That being said its not even a fair contest..

 

 

[tnycman]

29 minutes ago, lacanteen said:

I wonder how much taxes our president elect owes, for the record can't stand Sharpton.

[tnycman]

Some more food for thoughts..

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news/economy/us-inequality-worse/

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[The Mage]

7 hours ago, BradMillner46 said:

The XY graph that you showed me just says poverty. It does not quantify poverty, it does not explain what poverty is. It just says "Poverty" on a graph with indicators showing a downward slope and it doesn't give any information for how they came to those results. Poverty just like virtually anything else can be a very loose term and you can pick and choose statistics to say anything you want. If I were to provide my own statistic, I would say what Unicef says in that 1 person dies every 4 seconds in this world due to starvation. That is grossly unacceptable to me.

No it does not just say Poverty. Did you actually look at it? It has 3 historical lines, showing how many people make less than $1 and less than $2 a day, adjusted for inflation. The more recent one shows how many people make less than $1.90 a day, again adjusted for inflation. It even lists the source next to each line.

Yes, it's unacceptable how many people die, due to starvation, but it's still less than it was. I mean the chart still lists 9% of the population is still below that rate. (~660 million.) But that is still better than 1980, and 44%. (1.9 billion.)

7 hours ago, BradMillner46 said:

I'll say 1 last thing in closing and then I'm going to end this conversation with you because I can sense that you're getting upset (and I know there's a whole lot of anger in you.) The reason you are getting upset is because down inside there is conflict within yourself about this. That conflict is there because part of you, the good part, knows that there is a much bigger and deeper picture to all of this yet you're struggling to keep that part of you suppressed. The only way that you end that conflict is by moving the suppressive part of you out of the way so that the good part of you can see the situation for what it truly is.

Actually I kind of enjoy debating. This is just me having fun. (I attempt to limit it because it takes up too much time, especially since I tend to research before I post.) Honestly, debating isn't that important to get emotional about.

As far as being emotional about what goes on in the world, getting emotional does not help. If you were to truly empathize with everyone who is suffering on Earth, the emotions would keep you from ever getting out of bed again. But like the Doctor who loses patients all the time, he or she (or other) obviously cares about those patients, but must maintain an emotional distance in order to function, and to be able to help as many as possible. I believe it is best to do the same in society.

[lacanteen]

[The Mage]

7 hours ago, tnycman said:

While I haven't researched the data I'm sure they're somehow valid, however even the correct data can easily misinterpreted as it been done over and over again.

While there is no denying that there is an increase in wealth world wide and world population living standards have increased, however so has the suffering.

Many countries  such as China, India, Russia, Africa (continent) have a significant increase of standard of living, now majority of their populations are now living in the major metropolitan areas where they can find more jobs. In these countries salaries have gone up, but does that means their life's are better ? Maybe for some, but the majority are still struggling, and are pretty much enslaved by the greedy corporations that produce consumer or services for US in the western world.

Just because you get more money doesn't necessary means a better life, when you factor the cost of living have increased and continue to increase, and for those less fortunate the pressure of making it day to day is way too much, therefore a tremendous increase in suicide, theft, murder rates in these countries.

If money doesn't make things better, why give money to anyone? The reason for Welfare, and all charities just went out the window.

I disagree with you about this not benefiting people. No, it doesn't deal with all problems, but it does help quite many.

People too often just hear how much people are being paid, and get upset without looking further into it. They don't realize that big companies come in, and pay about double what the locals are making. We get upset about kids working at factories without realizing for many of them the other option is child prostitution.

When I see theft, I see thieves. When I see suicide, I think mental issues. I don't sit around blaming Capitalism for it. Doesn't mean there are not issues that need to be addressed. 

I do see growing pains, just like what the US went through to get to where we are today.

7 hours ago, tnycman said:

Yes, number might show people in china make much more, than they used to make 30 years ago, however they don't show how much it cost to buy a house, pay rent, fill the car, or even put food on the table cost and I'm sure you'd see that there is not much overall improvement

The numbers are inflation adjusted, so yes there are improvements in their spending ability. And it is the world, not just China. Also if you look, it shows improvement over 30, 20, 10, now, and into the future. A trend that has been going on for over 100 years, and is only speeding up.

 

7 hours ago, tnycman said:

yes, they might make more, however they lost basic service that they have for free such as health care, education and most important safety, their safety and their children's.

When did they have free healthcare and education? How have they lost their safety? All this sounds made up, do you have a source?

7 hours ago, tnycman said:

We have an increase in wealthy corporations/persons all over the world, however the general populations still continue to suffer not even more. Globalization maybe a good thing for business, however is ruing farmers and working people everywhere be it in USA, Mexico, Brasil or anywhere else. Farmers are being forced to grow crops that they never  grew before, land has been talked from indigenous people sometime forcefully, forest are destroyed so they can make more land to grow more crops that will bring more profits to the very few without any regards to environment impact. World wide Government corruptions are as high as it can get, even in the Western countries that took pride of anti-corruption measurements there is a high increase of corruptions, the bigger the corporations the easy to bribe government officials.

Brazil is fighting with the rural farmers because they keep burning down rain forest land to expand their crops, and grazing land.

We can find bad all over the world, regardless of financial situations. But the facts show not only increases in income, but reductions in murder rates, in deaths by war, in starvation. 

It is easy to point to all the bad in the world, but we are not at the finish line yet. The improvement from 1.9B making less than $1.90 a day to 660M is a great achievement, but there are still 660M making less than that. It is easy to find those people, and point to their problems. All the statistics show is that we are headed in the right direction. 

I also must point out the growing pains associated with the developing that countries go through. Countries don't just magically become first world countries. Money only represents wealth. So for these countries to move to first world status, that wealth must first be created.

7 hours ago, tnycman said:

Now let's drill down to this country the good USA, its a fact that the middle class is shrinking every year, the cost of living are skyrocketing, while the salaries aren't keeping pace.

The average Joe can barely make it now days, gone are the days where the husband were able to provide for an entire family, these days are gone, unless you work in Wall street or a CEO somewhere. Where majority of good paying jobs are gone overseas, most of the jobs in US are in the service sector, which offer low cost jobs.

In order to keep up with increase of sales, property, income, gas, road tolls, medicine, food prices, majority of people are forced to work longer and retire late and many don't even make it to retirement. If i had more time I'm sure I can compile a more comprehensive list.

Overall i see more wealth being produced between the wealthy, while majority of people still continue to suffer.

The way corporations are growing and how powerful they're becoming i won't be surprised that Governments will be run by them in the near  future, some might argue that it already happened.

In my honest opinion, even the numbers  show an increase in world "living standards", there is an increase suffering and modern enslavement as well.

Median income in America dropped from 2008 to 2012. increased in 2013, dropped again in 2014, and increased again in  2015, and are higher than 2008. 2016 looks like it is also on track to jump to above 2007. 

So it is increasing, but should be better than it is, and I blame politicians. 

(Out of time, cutting it short because I have to go)

[tnycman]

Median income in America dropped from 2008 to 2012. increased in 2013, dropped again in 2014, and increased again in  2015, and are higher than 2008. 2016 looks like it is also on track to jump to above 2007. 

So it is increasing, but should be better than it is, and I blame politicians. 

(Out of time, cutting it short because I have to go)

You either don't know the entire truth or simply are in denial, either way your argument is completely a fantasy.

Read this up which explains in detail the supposed media income "increase".

I posted this earlier, but here you have it again incase you missed it:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news/economy/us-inequality-worse/

Once i have more time I'd be more than happy to discredit all of your arguments you've mentioned above.



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[musser]

The most jarring thing I noticed was the "definition" of middle class as those who earn or spend $10 to $100 a day. I would say that $10 might be middle class in Haiti but nowhere in the US. $100 a day would not put you in (what I would call) the middle class in say Seattle or San Francisco. In bfe Montana but not any major east or west coast city.

I did quite well once on $2.50 an hour ( have made less on my lifetime) but back then gas was 25 cents a gallon  etc etc.

[The Mage]

2 hours ago, tnycman said:

You either don't know the entire truth or simply are in denial, either way your argument is completely a fantasy.

Read this up which explains in detail the supposed media income "increase".

I posted this earlier, but here you have it again incase you missed it:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news/economy/us-inequality-worse/

Once i have more time I'd be more than happy to discredit all of your arguments you've mentioned above.

Income inequality is nothing but political envy. A reason to hate others. "Jimmy has better shoes then we do, lets hate him." 

But what did I say that was wrong? Not even sure what you are arguing with. We are below 2007, but still above 2008.  That's a fact. Unfortunately we are also below 1999. The Bush years, and the Obama years were not good to the US, but we are still not that far off of where we were in 2000. I am looking at the official numbers right now. 2012 was ~8% below 2007. But 2016, (not official I believe) is above 2007, and only half a percent below 1999. This is the highest median income of the century.

BTW there is a reason to use median average instead of mean average. High incomes will skew the numbers, while median is simply where half the households fall above that number, and half fall below. I would assume you understood this, but I began to wonder based on what you wrote. 

[The Mage]

2 hours ago, musser said:

The most jarring thing I noticed was the "definition" of middle class as those who earn or spend $10 to $100 a day. I would say that $10 might be middle class in Haiti but nowhere in the US. $100 a day would not put you in (what I would call) the middle class in say Seattle or San Francisco. In bfe Montana but not any major east or west coast city.

I did quite well once on $2.50 an hour ( have made less on my lifetime) but back then gas was 25 cents a gallon  etc etc.

This is the UN definition, not mine. And it is supposed to be for the world. Obviously each country would have their own. But I was just looking at world statistics. I don't know if they mean 5 days a week, or 7 with these numbers. 

My first job was $3.35 an hour. The earliest  gas price I remember is when it dropped in the 90's to 49¢ a gallon. I know I pumped gas into my mothers car in the late 70's, but really didn't pay attention to the price. Sure changes when you start paying for it.

[tnycman]

Income inequality is nothing but political envy. A reason to hate others. "Jimmy has better shoes then we do, lets hate him." 

But what did I say that was wrong? Not even sure what you are arguing with. We are below 2007, but still above 2008.  That's a fact. Unfortunately we are also below 1999. The Bush years, and the Obama years were not good to the US, but we are still not that far off of where we were in 2000. I am looking at the official numbers right now. 2012 was ~8% below 2007. But 2016, (not official I believe) is above 2007, and only half a percent below 1999. This is the highest median income of the century.

BTW there is a reason to use median average instead of mean average. High incomes will skew the numbers, while median is simply where half the households fall above that number, and half fall below. I would assume you understood this, but I began to wonder based on what you wrote. 

I'm not arguing with, simply trying to say that you're are telling half of the story..

Simply put, if media income raises 5% and cost of living and inflation increase 10,15, even 200% in some countries, therefore they're just a miserable as they were back when they when were getting $1 a day.

Back to US, its a fact that middle class is vanishing in US, and its a fact that income increase has not kept pace with the cost of living, eventhoug the numbers might paint a beautiful picture, me and you both know, it's a fantasy, average Joe is not doing better as it did 30 years ago, and it doesn't matter how manipulate the numbers.

So no argument my friend, simply trying to paint the entire picture.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[BradMillner46]

8 hours ago, musser said:

The most jarring thing I noticed was the "definition" of middle class as those who earn or spend $10 to $100 a day. I would say that $10 might be middle class in Haiti but nowhere in the US. $100 a day would not put you in (what I would call) the middle class in say Seattle or San Francisco. In bfe Montana but not any major east or west coast city.

I did quite well once on $2.50 an hour ( have made less on my lifetime) but back then gas was 25 cents a gallon  etc etc.

EXTREMELY GOOD POINT. Very well put Musser. 

[BradMillner46]

27 minutes ago, tnycman said:

I'm not arguing with, simply trying to say that you're are telling half of the story..

Simply put, if media income raises 5% and cost of living and inflation increase 10,15, even 200% in some countries, therefore they're just a miserable as they were back when they when were getting $1 a day.

Back to US, its a fact that middle class is vanishing in US, and its a fact that income increase has not kept pace with the cost of living, eventhoug the numbers might paint a beautiful picture, me and you both know, it's a fantasy, average Joe is not doing better as it did 30 years ago, and it doesn't matter how manipulate the numbers.

So no argument my friend, simply trying to paint the entire picture.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 

You've had a lot of good things to say tnycman but this guy is not going to see the entire picture simply because he lacks empathy for other people. You and I are able to see all of this because we have empathy for others, 

[lacanteen]

[tnycman]

I'm sure even Lacanteen will agree with this one!

[The Mage]

6 hours ago, BradMillner46 said:

You've had a lot of good things to say tnycman but this guy is not going to see the entire picture simply because he lacks empathy for other people. You and I are able to see all of this because we have empathy for others, 

Back to ad hominem?

[The Mage]

7 hours ago, tnycman said:

I'm not arguing with, simply trying to say that you're are telling half of the story..

Simply put, if media income raises 5% and cost of living and inflation increase 10,15, even 200% in some countries, therefore they're just a miserable as they were back when they when were getting $1 a day.

Back to US, its a fact that middle class is vanishing in US, and its a fact that income increase has not kept pace with the cost of living, eventhoug the numbers might paint a beautiful picture, me and you both know, it's a fantasy, average Joe is not doing better as it did 30 years ago, and it doesn't matter how manipulate the numbers.

So no argument my friend, simply trying to paint the entire picture.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 

This is why all figures are adjusted for inflation, otherwise the data is useless. Median household income was $40,201 in 1999, and $56,516 in 2015. Those are the raw numbers. Adjusted for inflation, (2015 numbers) 1999 was $57,909. Adjusted for inflation we were slightly less than 2.5% below 1999. (BTW it's median, not media.) 

It is more complex to figure the world numbers, since they need to look at the local currency, and inflation of every country, and then adjust to the US dollar. 

The above is from CNN,Money.com, and uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau.