http://www.planet101.com/richcountry.htm
The United States has the highest GDP per capita in the world.
"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:ZHn19.42217$Fq6.3845211 at news2.west.cox.net...
> Well said, Mr. August!
>> The loss to women employees really is incalculable.
>> The dollars that had to be lost in order to go, in only 3 decades, from
the
> world's undisputed highest per capita income to a shaky 17th place and
> falling fast, are truly incalulable.
>> Unfortunately, not only are we dealing with a "bell curve" that's so flat
> that it makes pancakes look like mountains, but we're way down the left
side
> of that "bell curve" where liquid nitrogen freezes. Trying to get an
> electron to wriggle at this sub-zero IQ is like trying to get a "liberal"
to
> quote something besides a TV commercial in his "critique".
>> But we still must attempt to make that electron wriggle, in the slim hope
> that their brain washing can be mitigated.
>> Sincerely,
>> John
>>>>>>>> "Richard C. August" <raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
> news:XSa19.1395$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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>>
