John, This is a fine example of how a tired ol' mind works. I didn't
notice you had converted the dollar value to 1996 dollars. Thanks for
tolerating me and my feeble mind. Richard
"Richard C. August" <raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
news:6UY09.1294$Fl.148354 at nnrp1.ptd.net...
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>>
