"Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message news:omg19.584> > >
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?
>> I did prove it. You assumed that the cost of a house reflected the total
> inflation when it does not. You were wrong. Correct arithmetic using
> incorrect figures is still wrong.
>
You don't seem to understand that these are not inflation-adjusted figures.
The problem with adjusting them for inflation is determining which to use:
housing prices, the numerous "consumer price indexes", the gold standard,
etc? In reality, the gold standard would be the best, since it took 602
ounces of gold to buy the median house in 1970, and just slightly more, 606
ounces, to buy it in 2000. Conversely, the median income was 224 ounces of
gold in 1970, but it was only 151 ounces in 2000, a 33% decrease in incomes.
But by comparing median incomes and median home prices in *current* dollars,
we're eliminating the need to rely on unreliable statistics like "consumer
price indexes".
> > 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:
>> No, you did it wrong again. Use the income adjusted for inflation. That
is
> how you do these things.
>
The only reliable way to adjust for inflation is to use the gold standard.
There are too many jews involved in fabricating these "consumer price"
indexes.
>> > 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>> The cost of a house is not equal to the cost of living. I'm afraid you're
> still wrong, and will continue to be wrong until you use the figures for
> median income adjusted for inflation.
ok, let's adjust for inflation.
median income 1970 = 224 ounces of gold
median income 2000 = 151 ounces of gold
median home price 1970 = 602 ounces of gold
median home price 2000 = 606 ounces of gold
Purchasing Power 1970 = P(1970) = 224/602 = 0.372
Purchasing Power 2000 = P(2000) = 151/606 = 0.25
x = productivity of men
y = productivity of women
% of men in labor force in 1970 = 79.7%
% of men in labor force in 2000 = 74.1%'
% of women in labor force in 1970 = 41.2%
% of women in labor force in 2000 = 58.7%
0.797x + 0.412y = 0.372
0.741x + 0.587y = 0.25
x = (0.372 - 0.412y)/0.797
0.741[(0.372 - 0.412y)/0.797] + 0.587y = 0.25
0.346 - 0.383y + 0.587y = 0.25
0.204y = -0.096
y = -0.471
x = (0.372 - 0.412y)/0.797 = (0.372 - 0.412(-0.096))/0.797 = 0.516
if only men worked = 100%x + 0%y = 1 x 0.516 = 0.516, which is 39% more
Purchasing Power than in 1970 and twice the Purchasing Power of 2000.
If the percent of men in the labor force were to remain fixed, but the
percentage of women were allowed to continue to increase, to 87.3%, there
wouldn't be enough men in the labor force to make up for the negative
productivity of women by the year 2030, at which point we would have a
negative economy.
A = percent of women in the labor force
0.797x + Ay = 0
(0.797)(0.516) + A(-0.471) = 0
A = 87.3%
Error? Where? http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm
John Knight
