"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.
<snip>
You don't seem to understand that you need your brains knocked around a bit,
because you're still living in your own reality.
*readies bullwhip* ready?
