"Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7mJ09.26204
> > Sorry, all requests for free research (which we now understand to be so
> > neccessary when ONE THIRD ...) must be funneled through The Christian
> Party.
> >
> > But you're in luck--the urls at
>http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm> > are direct references to the original FEDERAL data (which because of CYA
> may
> > not be the most accurate, but it
> > will put you in the ballpark).
>> That doesn't demonstrate, in any way, that women workers are negatively
> productive.
>> Try again.
>>
Well, parsetree, we do know the problem now, which is that you're literally
incapable of doing the math yourself, so you'd just as soon insist that it
was done incorrectly.
Find someone who can do it for you and tell me HONESTLY if they get a
different NEGATIVE figure for the "productivity" of American women workers
than the one below!
John Knight
http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm
Home Prices Increase 4X More Than Incomes
Median household incomes
http://www.census.gov/income/cdrom/cdrom00/Historical%20Tables/Income/cpi-u-
rs/household/h11.lst
Median home prices
http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/ushmc/winter2001/histdat08.htm
Labor force participation rates
http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
While feminazis, jews, niggers, muds, sodomites, and other "liberals" are
jumping for joy over our recent putative "economic boom", most Americans who
can read and add and subtract are wondering why median home prices increased
by four times more than median incomes increased. And why the percent of
men who are working decreased 7% while the percent of women who are working
increased 19%. Median prices of homes increased from $22,700 in 1967 to
$169,000 in 2000, a $146,300 increase, while median incomes lagged WAY
behind, increasing by only $35,008 (from $7,143 to 42,151).
If living in a house wasn't important to you, as it must be for "liberals",
this might be neutral or even good news, but if you're a normal person, it's
not a good sign.
The real fun is when you point out that the problem was caused the
unprecedented entry into the labor force of the American girls who scored
lower on TIMSS than if they'd just guessed. When the mostly single-worker
families of 4 decades ago had four times the purchasing power, and when the
almost exclusively single-worker families in Japan have two to three times
the incomes, of the mostly two-working parent families of today, feminaziism
appears as a huge festering boil all over everything.
This four fold plunge in family purchasing power occurred as the percent of
men in the labor force decreased 7% aand the percent of women increased 19%.
Put simply, purchsing power of American families in 1967 [P(1967)] when our
labor force consisted of 81.5% of men working and 39.3% of women working was
four times higher than in 2000 [P(2000)] when only 74.1% of men and 58.7% of
women were in the labor force.
X = productivity of men
Y = productivity of women
P(1967) = 1967 Purchasing Power = X x 81.5% + Y x 39.3% = 1
P(2000) = 2000 Purchasing Power = X x 74.1% + Y x 58.7% = 0.25
X = (1 - 39.3%Y)/.815
74.1% x (1 - 39.3%Y)/81.5% + 58.7%Y = 0.25
0.9092 - 0.3573Y +.587Y = 0.25
.2297Y = -0.6592
Y = -2.87
X = (1 - 39.3%Y)/0.815 = (1 + 1.1279)/0.815 = 2.61
If only men worked, 2000 Purchasing Power would have been 100% x 2.61 + 0% x
(-2.87) = 2.61 times higher than it was. If the percentage of men in the
labor force were to continue to decrease, but the percent of women were to
remain fixed at the 2000 level, then there won't be enough men in the labor
force to counteract the negative productivity of women by the year 2028:
A = % of men at ground zero
2.61 x A + 0.587 x (-2.87) = 0
A = 64.5%, which at current rates would occur in 26 years.
If the percentage of men in the labor force were to remain fixed, but the
percentage of women were to continue to increase at the previous 30 year
rate, there won't be enough men in the labor force to counteract the
negative productivity of women by the year 2012:
B = % of women at ground zero
0.741 x 2.61 -2.87 x B = 0
B = 67.4%, which will occur in 10 years
Men Earn Majority of Family Incomes
Women earn only 10% of family incomes and men 90%, or 9 times as much
The US Census Bureau tells us EXACTLY who earned the majority of the incomes
in the US. In half of American households, ONLY the man works:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/mednhhld/t3.html
In the half where women work, their additional contribution to household
incomes is an average of only $17,069 each, which is only 29% of the total
income for those households.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/mednhhld/ta3.html
You could argue that men contribute an average of 85.5% to household incomes
and women contributed only 14.5%, or 5.9 TIMES as much as women, except that
the earnings of married households where only the men work are $5,006 less
than in single men's households. With 53,604,000 married households, this is
a total loss of $286 billion per year, which means that the total
contribution to family earnings of $457.5 billion of the 26,802,000 working
wives is a net contribution of only $189.5 billion, or $3,535 each.
This represents an average increase of only 9.6%--which means that husbands
contribute an average of 9.4 times as much to family earnings as wives do.
If American families had to rely solely on the contribution of women to
family incomes, WITHOUT all of the social transfer payments from men to
women (which enable feminists to claim that women are "independent" of men),
they would be living like Africans, sitting on mud floors, eating frogs and
insects and anything else that crawls by.
As it is, the US median household income in 1996 of $35,172 is ONE THIRD of
that of Japan, which was $9,819 in December 1999.
TABLE 3. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDERS
AND HUSBANDS AND WIVES: 1969 AND 1996
Percent distribution
of householders Percent of householders
(or husbands or wives)
working year-round full-time Percent of householders
(or husbands or wives)
with a college degree
1969 1996 1969 1996 1969 1996
All householders 100.0 100.0 59.4 52.2 13.1 24.5
Married-couple with children
Husbands
Wives 41.2 25.9
80.1
16.6
81.1
39.2
16.0
8.2
28.9
25.5
Male householder with children,
no spouse
0.7
2.0
62.3
65.4
10.0
11.8
Female householder with children,
no spouse
5.2
8.9
30.3
44.0
4.2
10.4
Married-couple, no children,
householder less than 40 yrs old
Husbands
Wives
5.0
4.3
59.0
42.3
80.3
59.5
22.4
16.2
37.0
39.1
Married-couple, no children,
householder 40 to 64 years old
Husbands
Wives
15.7
14.2
75.8
30.5
67.4
45.6
10.5
7.2
28.4
21.6
Married-couple, no children,
householder 65 years old or over
Husbands
Wives
8.5
8.7
15.9
7.7
7.8
7.1
8.9
5.1
22.8
13.4
One-person household, male less
than 65 years old
3.7
8.1
61.8
64.4
20.7
30.8
One-person household, female
less than 65 years old
5.4
7.3
52.3
57.5
13.4
33.3
One-person household, male 65
years old or over
1.9
2.3
9.9
6.5
6.1
14.7
One-person household, female 65
years old or over
6.1
7.5
5.6
2.9
6.1
11.5
2-or-more-person household,
male householder,
no spouse or children
2.1
5.0
46.6
56.7
14.4
24.8
2-or-more-person household,
female householder,
no spouse or children
4.4
5.9
33.9
43.9
9.0
20.3
TABLE A3. MEDIAN INCOME OF MARRIED-COUPLE HOUSEHOLDS INCLUDING AND
EXCLUDING THE EARNINGS OR INCOME OF WIVES: 1969 TO 1996
(In 1996 dollars)
Year
All
house-
holds Married-Couple Households
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/mednhhld/ta2.html
With related children
under 18 years old
No related children under 18 years old, by age of householder
Less than 40 years old 40 to 64 years old 65 years old or over
Including
earnings
of wives Excluding
earnings
of wives Including
earnings
of wives Excluding
earnings
of wives Including
earnings
of wives Excluding
earnings
of wives Including
income
of wives Excluding
income
of wives
1969 $33,072 $41,453 $36,226 $37,955 $25,885 $43,645 $35,840 $18,553
$14,340
1970 $33,025 $41,789 $36,471 $37,990 $26,213 $43,765 $35,768 $18,615 $14,436
1971 $32,763 $41,646 $36,404 $37,350 $25,555 $44,595 $36,502 $19,451 $15,078
1972 $34,094 $44,172 $38,518 $39,451 $26,503 $46,858 $38,872 $20,461 $15,648
1973 $34,674 $45,873 $39,890 $41,336 $28,255 $48,400 $39,890 $20,690 $15,557
1974 $33,557 $44,778 $38,333 $40,812 $27,214 $47,463 $39,301 $22,075 $16,555
1975 $32,779 $43,725 $37,410 $40,333 $27,081 $47,182 $38,862 $22,011 $16,472
1976 $33,440 $45,076 $38,565 $41,063 $27,312 $48,335 $39,864 $23,001 $16,776
1977 $33,671 $45,928 $38,887 $43,277 $28,798 $49,739 $40,382 $22,587 $16,385
1978 $34,867 $47,056 $39,611 $44,885 $29,762 $51,603 $42,305 $23,319 $16,085
1979 $34,666 $47,793 $39,662 $45,480 $30,420 $52,699 $42,704 $23,724 $15,675
1980 $33,756 $46,123 $38,129 $45,564 $29,127 $51,426 $41,942 $24,456 $16,249
1981 $33,087 $45,346 $36,778 $44,057 $28,385 $50,704 $41,109 $25,170 $16,566
1982 $32,847 $44,336 $35,769 $43,691 $28,967 $49,428 $40,213 $26,665 $17,494
1983 $32,941 $44,264 $35,186 $44,739 $28,434 $51,183 $41,210 $27,642 $18,116
1984 $33,781 $46,081 $37,049 $46,572 $30,202 $51,797 $42,081 $27,973 $18,636
1985 $34,413 $47,099 $36,965 $46,224 $29,455 $53,536 $42,504 $28,187 $18,446
1986 $35,574 $48,817 $37,602 $48,888 $30,750 $55,115 $43,462 $29,072 $19,511
1987 $35,910 $50,140 $38,673 $49,888 $30,539 $56,443 $44,266 $29,073 $19,164
1988 $35,982 $50,266 $38,599 $51,453 $31,409 $56,102 $43,635 $28,997 $19,084
1989 $36,598 $50,613 $38,124 $50,747 $31,701 $58,393 $44,841 $29,230 $18,982
1990 $35,894 $49,378 $37,214 $49,605 $30,252 $56,665 $42,976 $30,252 $19,860
1991 $34,559 $48,982 $36,230 $49,008 $29,376 $56,678 $42,566 $29,172 $19,367
1992 $33,897 $49,368 $35,838 $48,170 $28,517 $56,251 $41,651 $28,531 $18,865
1993 $33,660 $49,274 $35,875 $47,830 $27,690 $55,930 $40,524 $28,263 $18,710
1994 $34,027 $50,053 $36,790 $48,547 $29,326 $57,181 $41,574 $28,168 $18,546
1995 $35,004 $51,476 $36,754 $49,160 $29,743 $57,113 $41,337 $29,414 $19,374
1996 $35,172 $51,950 $36,786 $50,830 $30,400 $58,656 $41,587 $29,210 $19,174
