Dear John,
You forgot one factor. The Current US Dollar is worth only about $0.15 to
$0.20 of the 1968 US Dollar, which was still on the Gold Standard. Then
President Nixon removed our Dollar from the Gold Standard, but still held
the price fixed at $35 per ounce until about 1974, when price fixing was
removed. Now Gold fluctuates between $250 and $400 per ounce, traded as a
mere COMMODITY. And our dollar isn't worth the paper on which it's printed.
Sounds like pre-Nazi Germany, eh, old friend?
What would happen if you factored that TINY matter into the actual value of
the Dollar and the shack it's supposed to buy, or the rattling tin can you
have to drive, or the house you're supposed to rent whilst its nouveau riche
cavort in Cadillacs and consume Caviar? Truly, it means our paychecks
aren't worth toilet paper.
heheheheh, I laugh at the feminazis here... You screwed yourselves out of
your mansions and into your poor farms...
"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free..." Lady Liberty (and Emma Lazarus) really need to qualify that
statement, don't they?
Sincerely,
Richard C. August
"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:a3T09.34142$Fq6.3318011 at news2.west.cox.net...
>> "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
>>>
