"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.
> >
This particular statement needs to be addressed directly, because it seems
you have a serious misperception about what "properly adjustted for
inflation" means.
You will note that 1967 incomes on the above referenced table are "adjusted"
by multiplying actual 1967 incomes by a factor of 3.6, which is the consumer
price index inflator. Unfortunately, home prices during this time increased
by 7.5 times, and gold prices increased by 7.9 times, so 3.6 is hardly an
adequate inflator for the most important purchases Americans ever make.
Even so, if you multiply actual 1967 incomes by 3.6 so they can be "properly
adjustted for inflation", you must also multiply median home prices by 3.6,
in which case a median home that cost $22,700 in 1967 is estimated by the
consumer price index to have been actually worth $81,720.
Finish the math, parsetree. Can you do that?
No, of course not. Or maybe you did and noticed that you got the same
result--the negative productivity of two women workers is equivalent to the
positive productivity of one man worker?
P(1967) = $81,720/$31,397 = 0.384
P(2000) = $169,000/$42,151 = 0.249
x = productivity of men workers
y = productivity of women workers
79.7% of men worked in 1967
74.1% of men worked in 2000
41.2% of women worked in 1967
58.7% of women worked in 2000
P(1967) = .797x + .412y = 0.384
P(2000) = .741x + .587y = 0.249
x = (0.384 - .412y)/.797
.741((0.384 - .412y)/.797) + .587y = 0.249
.357 - .383y + .587 y = 0.249
.204y = -.108
y = -0.529
x = (0.384 - .412(-.529))/.797 = .755
So even using the cpi, P(2000) would have been 3 times higher if only men
had worked in 2000 (relative to both housing purchases and gold prices).
QUIZ: what would P(2000) = 2000 Purchasing Power have been if only women
worked, parsetree?
John Knight
