Well said, Mr. August!
The loss to women employees really is incalculable.
The dollars that had to be lost in order to go, in only 3 decades, from the
world's undisputed highest per capita income to a shaky 17th place and
falling fast, are truly incalulable.
Unfortunately, not only are we dealing with a "bell curve" that's so flat
that it makes pancakes look like mountains, but we're way down the left side
of that "bell curve" where liquid nitrogen freezes. Trying to get an
electron to wriggle at this sub-zero IQ is like trying to get a "liberal" to
quote something besides a TV commercial in his "critique".
But we still must attempt to make that electron wriggle, in the slim hope
that their brain washing can be mitigated.
Sincerely,
John
"Richard C. August" <raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
news:XSa19.1395$Fl.162231 at nnrp1.ptd.net...
> Dear Parse Tree,
>> The actual percentages of the rise of the cost of homes vs. the rise in
> median incomes doesn't matter a stitch. The fact is that an increasing
> number of working class poor are rendered UNABLE to own a home, new or
not,
> because of their INCOMES, DEBT-TO-INCOME RATIO, and CREDIT SCORES.
>> Point blank, many people can barely afford an old trailer. Usually, an
old
> trailer is what they end up buying, especially when they live in my area.
> My area is known for depleted savings, paltry incomes, no retirement
> pensions, and a tax base supported by elderly, handicapped, and retarded
who
> have no place else to go or stay.
>> I am working for a living, and living with my 64-year old mother, whose
> income can barely feed a canary let alone pay a mortgage. She cannot
afford
> to pay her homeowners' insurance or her taxes this year. She could not
> refinance her mortgage despite the fact that she put a new roof, siding,
and
> windows on the house, because property values plummetted. Median incomes
in
> my area range between $7 and $8 an hour for semi-skilled labour. Doctors,
> lawyers, plumbers and electricians and contractors earn more, but their
> incomes are swallowed up in insurance bills and lawsuits. What's left are
> retirees from local businesses and also NY and NJ, who have built their
> homes and are waiting to die.
>> If you honestly think that you can buy a new home in an area where jobs
are
> scarce, the commute to work is at least one hour and at most 4 hours, and
> incomes are pitiful, do the math again. That, by the bye, is happening
more
> and more often in more and more places nationwide, as jobs dry up due to
the
> "giant sucking sound" from Mexico, about which H. Ross Perot warned us in
> 1992 if NAFTA/GATT were signed. NAFTA/GATT were signed, and the vacuum
> cleaner just got running.
>> In order to remain competitive, and keep jobs in the USA, Union Labour
will
> now be FORCED to take pay and benefits cuts or else lose their jobs
> entirely. Pay and benefits cuts to keep jobs already happened in the Auto
> Industry. Where will it happen next? Will it be your job, and will it
> happen to you?
>> Parse Tree, remember this FACT. The American News Media are CONTROLLED BY
> JEWS!!! They have taken their lesson well from their Doctor of Style
Josef
> Goebbels, former Nazi Minister of Propaganda. Soothe the Public. Lull
them
> to sleep. Tell them the good news first. Make it all glossy and shiny
and
> pretty looking. Lie to them, because Jew Hitler said that the people will
> never swallow the Big Lie unless you break it down in little pieces and
feed
> it to them in spoonfuls. Can't you figure out that that is EXACTLY what
the
> American News Media have done to you? Or will it take a hit in YOUR
wallet,
> a loss of YOUR house, or YOUR JOB, before it cracks your skull? I think
> you'll lose your job first.
>> Concerning the negative productivity of women, the loss due to them is
> really incalculable. Everything from lack of female physical strength to
> lengthened employee break times to equalization of gender in the work
force
> to sexual harrassment complaints/suits attest to this.
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Richard C. August
> "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.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Actually, Japan is one third of the US, if you take your figures above.
> > Isn't that impressive?
> >
> >
> > <Snipped unreadable stats, since most of it seems to be available on the
> > links above.
> >
> >
>>
