"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:lZk19.41024$Fq6.3791761 at news2.west.cox.net...
>> "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.
Actually, gold is the worst thing that could be used. The inflation rates
used by the Federal Reserve are the best.
> 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".
No you're not. Housing prices are an unreliable measure.
If you use the 2000 dollars, in the very census table you were using then
you already take purchasing parity into account, and thus your comparison to
housing costs is completely useless.
> > > 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.
Nope. The gold standard hasn't been a standard for quite some time. Money
is a numerical value, and it has been that way for a reasonable length of
time.
Note: Those figures were already adjusted for inflation. What do you think
current dollars mean?
> > > 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
Gold is irrelevant. You might as well base it on Microsoft stock.
> Purchasing Power 1970 = P(1970) = 224/602 = 0.372
> Purchasing Power 2000 = P(2000) = 151/606 = 0.25
This is meaningless. The current dollar figure gives the purchasing power.
Thus $30,000 is less than $40,000. It's really quite simple.
<Snipped equations that used the wrong figures, again>
> Error? Where? http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm
You used the wrong figures again.
Use $42,151 for 2000
and $31,397 for 1967.
Those are the correct figures, from the census you provided yourself.
