"Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6x219.346$sI2.279017 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> news:a3T09.34142$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.
>> Do you have a degree in mathematics?
>> Your complete ignorance of statistics, linear algebra and calculus
> demonstrates that you do not.
>> > 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!
>> Your assumptions are wrong, yet again. See below.
>>> > 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
>> This link refutes most of what you say below.
>>> You can quite clearly see that the median rose from $31,397 in 1967, to
> $42,151 in 2000. This is properly adjustted for inflation, unlike your
> stats below.
>>> > Median home prices
> > http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/ushmc/winter2001/histdat08.htm> >
> > Labor force participation rates
> > http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet>> This link is broken.
>> > 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).
>> It is the percentage increase that is relevant.
> You should have said that house prices increasd by almost 7.5 times, and
> that income only increased by just under 6 times. When you're trying to
> illustrate a point, at least use pertinent infomation. Increases in
> absolute terms are essentially meaningless in this situation.
>>> Incidentally, Japan, the country you're complimenting excessively, had a
> Comparative Cost Index of 145.62 as compared to 97.22 for the United
States,
> according to the World Competitiveness Yearbook, June 2000. It's cheaper
to
> live in the US.
>> > 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 number of houses sold is increasing. So evidently more people are
> beginning to live in them.
>> > 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.
>> Firstly, you can demonstrate no causal connection between female entry
into
> the workplace and this supposed 'decrease'.
>> Secondly, I have already demonstrated that you really mean that they
> PROBABLY scored lower than if they had guessed. One is certain, one is
not.
>> > 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.
>> Actually, the purchasing power seems to be properly adjusted in the stats
> above, and it seems to be increasing.
>>> > 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.
>> Many other things happened during this time that could be equally to
blame.
> The fact that you are blaming it on women seems to illustrate that you
don't
> truly believe prayer increases productivity, or that the education system
is
> getting worse at all. Nice backpedalling.
They're all related. Banning school prayer caused the nation to fall away
from Christianity, which caused women to enter the labor force in record
numbers AND caused them to become 60% of college admissions and 70% of GRE
test takers,
This didn't decrease the negative productivity of our economy due to women
workers--it vastly increased it. The only question really is "by how much?"
>>> > 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
>> Nice try, but you're wrong again. Purchasing power was lower in 1967.
>> Actually, your math applied to the correct figures would demonstrate that
> women are MORE productive. Something to think about, isn't it? Perhaps
> your math is wrong.
>
Why didn't you check it if you think it's wrong? Why didn't you PROVE your
assertion above by doing the SIMPLE math? Do you perhaps sense that if
you'd have done the math, you would have proven to yourself that your
statement is FALSE?
Well, it is FALSE. Here is the math using *your* approach. This is a valid
approach, but it's misleading because it views ratios rather than absolute
dollars (and absolute dollars are far more important in this instance than
ratios). Let's define Purchasing Power as median incomes as a percentage of
median home prices. Median incomes decreased from 37.3% of median home
prices in 1970 to 24.9% by 2000, as the ratio of men in the labor force
decreased 7% and the ratio of women increased 42%. This 33% loss of
purchasing power of the American worker could only have occurred if women
workers are counter-productive.. It cannot be explained by them being
merely unproductive:
X = productivity of men
Y = productivity of women
0.797X + 0.412Y = 0.373
0.741X + 0.587Y = 0.249
X = (0.373 - 0.412Y)/0.797
0.741((0.373 - 0.412Y)/0.797)+ 0.587Y = 0.249
0.347 - 0.383Y + 0.587Y = 0.249
Y = -0.479
X = (0.373 - 0.412(-0.479))/0.797 = .716
X/Y = -1.5
This suggests that the negative productivity of one woman worker is equal to
one half of the positive productivity of one man worker, which is baloney.
It takes more men employees than that just to move file cabinets for women
employees, not to mention the three firemen that have to be sent in to carry
out a firewoman and the fire victim she dropped down the stairs.
http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm
John Knight
