Oh, that's good.

Post #13,570 by mmoffitt 10/16/01 11:05:30 AM Reply	Oh, that's good. >>But again...I think your >issue< with "bizness" is misplaced. I think your >>real issue is with the general, run of the mill >Merkin<. Aren't they the >>ones who stopped shopping at the local store in favor of WalMart. Corporate Globalization (read: finding even more oppressed people who are willing to work for even less money, in countries typically ruled by ruthless dictators) so depresses Murican wages that two incomes are necessary and both combine for less than one used to, forcing Murican wage-slaves to spend as frugally as they possibly can and then blame >THEM< for shopping at WalMart where the prices are lower. Geez, Mikem 1970: Top 1% hold 7% of all private wealth. 1990: Top 1% hold 12% of all private wealth. That's progress.
Post #13,575 by drewk 10/16/01 11:18:04 AM Reply	OoaT (Off on a Tangent) Corporate Globalization (read: finding even more oppressed people who are willing to work for even less money, in countries typically ruled by ruthless dictators) so depresses Murican wages that two incomes are necessary and both combine for less than one used to ... Don't forget to add: what percentage of women worked 40 years ago? What percentage work now? Would you accept a rough guess that the workforce -- or at least those trying to enter the workforce -- has increased by 30%? So there were X job seekers. Now there are 1.3 * X job seekers, in an era of increased efficiency, and thus depressed need for employees. What happens to wages? No, I'm not saying women shouldn't work. Just pointing out the obvious (to me) fact that if you increase the number of people seeking employment, without some corresponding increase in the need for employees, the wages are going to go down. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #13,581 by mmoffitt 10/16/01 11:52:01 AM Reply	Don't assume static output. Maybe BP has some numbers on that? Your supposition would hold if output increased less than the percentage of "new workers" entering the workplace.
Post #13,587 by Silverlock 10/16/01 12:36:47 PM Reply	I don't see it that way Something seems not right in your analysis. True, we have been experiencing extremely high productivity (highest ever?). But, as more of the population is in the work force, demand for goods and services naturally rises. Very low unemployment figures seems to contradict your assertion of "depressed need for employees". It would seem to follow that wages should be correspondingly higher. This, of course, is not addressing the deleterious economic effects resulting from the attacks of the 11th. I remember a number of articles in various publications asserting a worker shortage. If this is in fact the case, then you are mistaken. -quote Just pointing out the obvious (to me) fact that if you increase the number of people seeking employment, without some corresponding increase in the need for employees, the wages are going to go down. -endquote But the need for employees has risen. Just because it's "obvious" doesn't make it true. Don Richards, Proud recipient of the ABBA. (the Ashton Brown Brevity Award)
Post #13,591 by drewk 10/16/01 12:56:32 PM Reply	It's the shift to a service industry, too Unraveling the individual effects could probably fill someone's PhD thesis, but combine the massive numbers of women entering the workforce, the export of manufacturing jobs to the Third World, and the automation of what jobs remain, and you end up with a lot of people waiting on each other. For an economy to survive, given current models, some has to actually make something. But let's extrapolate a bit ... Farming keeps getting more efficient. Where once 50% of the population worked in agriculture -- 50% of the male population, anyway -- now it's down to what, 2%? So 48% had to find something else to do. Then we automated our industry. More jobs no longer done by people. Then we exported the jobs that couldn't be automated. Well, that just shifts the jobs around. Someone still has to do them, and that brings those people into our economic model. But what happens when all the "needs" of a society can be met by 15% of its citizens? What do the rest of them do for a living? Sure, we'd like to think they can turn to the arts, and exploration. But who's going to give them a paycheck? I think we've reached a point of industrial efficiency where we don't need so many people to work. We just haven't figured out how to divide the resources other than giving them to the people who do work. And of course anyone who wants more of the resources will try to work for them. In a capitalist society anyway. So what's the next model? That's one of the questions Star Trek has always sort of glossed over. They refer to a time when replicators became commonplace, and the social and economic upheaval that followed. But they never really got into what model followed. I can't believe mankind is ready for "true" communism yet -- from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs -- but that's the only thing I can see working when labor isn't needed. That or Brave New World, with mandated inefficiency. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #13,658 by Ashton 10/16/01 6:47:58 PM Reply	Yes, that's the scale I'd prefer to think about - at least some of the time. Preferably divorced from the fixing of blame for the present and obvious inequities which clearly imply: Some homo-sap is 'worth' a million times what some other homo-sap is worth. (I don't know how to make it simpler than that, without being simplistic too) Again, my recently discovered book "Anthology of Dystopias" called, Science Fiction and the New Dark Age (Harold Berger '76) categorizes in relevant ways: (Gross categories) I. The threat of science II. The new tyrannies III. Catastrophe Under II. appears, Commerce and Exploitation I'd say we are well within that last category, and (science need not be prepended) fiction writers have tried to see some way of acknowledging the diminishing need for 'workers' - whether building their own machine-replacements, servicing same or .. related: we 'need' fewer of such (in Murica say, such as it is: today). This even before we see that we don't actually 'need' a fraction of all the crap we sell each other -- thinking we have to have Something too do.. When the entire planet is tallied however, from stone-age lifestyle through the solopsistic antics of Scott McNealy and his brethren - it's clear that 'our' position is irrelevant.. so long as most of the world is much nearer the cave than the UAV. Still, most such what-ifs postulate 'techno' as the immutable and inexorable path >>> er forward. And the entire speculation is rendered much wider when one contemplates another sub-category from above: population. This facet is not even discussable in many Popular religious corporations (and at least one book reviewed: deals with massive crowding forced by the Theological mindsets which demand brain-deadness on the topic). Etc. We haven't the foggiest how to distribute wealth with some minimal concept of mere adequacy nor do any but the outliers even worry pretty little heads about the above questions / er Questions. If the religious bugaboos do not trump application of reason: the now political connotations [cf. communism/socialism/sharing = horrors!] will deter any but the brave -- from serious considerations. Our shibboleths about forbidden topics + a decaying regard for keeping language safe from the cupidity of bizness lying as a way of life: may be all it takes to guarantee that Science Fiction and the New Dark Age shall become our epitaph, while later readers from proxima-Betelgeuse muse over the fact: Hey.. some of this asshole species saw this coming and.. still! they fucked up their planet terminally, along with our buddies the Porpoises with a Purpose... {sigh} Worrying won't help. What me worry? Alfred E. Neumann Gets It / We Don't. Ashton just watching. doing is out of the questiion.
Post #13,757 by Brandioch 10/17/01 12:28:59 PM Reply	Star Trek Think about it. Everyone who isn't in Star Fleet is: entertainer food service pirate/thief/bootlegger/whatever It is an enlightened military dictatorship. Star Fleet controls: The education system (Star Fleet Acadamy) The medical system etc.
Post #13,795 by Ashton 10/17/01 2:43:14 PM Reply	..Yeah .. but___ it's a dry heat____________________:-\ufffd
Post #13,590 by bepatient 10/16/01 12:51:58 PM Reply	Hmm... [link\|http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p01.html\|Per capita income] Seems the aggregate data doesn't agree with you. Wages are up...even in adjusted dollar terms. It couldn't be that people want to provide more for themselves and their children than was provided by their parents. You know....that bigger house, that bigger car, that... And its funny that you reference static versus dynamic series data and then assume that your footer in this post holds any merit. Besides, concentration of wealth in this country is still far better than most...and since Bill Gates wants to give all his back (after all, his father and R. Murdoch both want to give all their's back when they die anyway)..the wealth will spread. Besides...with the baseball and other sports salaries going the way they are...we'll all stop worrying about CEO pay soon enough. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #13,634 by mmoffitt 10/16/01 4:36:42 PM Reply	Nice Try. Per Capita income going up across the board doesn't say anything about the uneven distribution of all "personal wealth". But, you knew that, didn't you? For simplicity, suppose the entire national personal wealth amounted to 100,000 in 1970 and was distributed as follows: Top 1% 7,000 (100 people) Everybody Else: 93,000 (100,000 people) Per Capita Wealth (rounded): 1.00 In 1990 the total rises to 200,000 and is dispersed as follows: Top 1% 20,000 (100 people) Everybody else: 180,000 (100,000 people) Yippee! Everybody's doing great, right? Per Capita Wealth for everyone has doubled and for the poorest gone from 0.93 all the way up to 1.80! Almost double! No inequity here, right? Only, in 1970, the Top 1% had 7% of the private wealth and in 1990, they have 10%. Just like today with the real numbers. But that's okay, "some people are more equal than others."
Post #13,651 by bepatient 10/16/01 5:57:17 PM Reply	So you don't like averages [link\|http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p60-204.pdf\|Let's try specifics (.pdf)] Specifically page 4. You got me...by a little. Net from 67 to 92...the bottom 20 are 4% worse while the top 20 are 8% better off. (You have to add the 2 sets 67-80 and 80-92. Since 92...no material change has occurred) The conclusions of the report are a very good read...and should offer you some insight into reasons why the shift is occurring..and a big chunk of that reason is NOT a problem with "the system" A good read...and a MINOR capitulation to you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #13,700 by mmoffitt 10/16/01 10:48:41 PM Reply	You are nothing, if not a gentleman. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it." or words to that effect ;-) bcnu, Mikem p.s. thanks for the info.
Post #13,701 by mmoffitt 10/16/01 10:56:16 PM Reply	Addendum. I posted my compliment before I read your link. The compliment stands. However, by your own page 4, do you not see a trend of inequity? Look at the top fifth from 70 forward, then look at everyone else. Is there nothing there that you can point to that says, "perhaps there has been some inequity in the distribution of wealth"? I promise to read this document in its entirety, but a cursory review indicates an inequity that I find disturbing. Cheers and thanks once again for the "modest capitulation" ;-) Mikem
Post #13,781 by bepatient 10/17/01 1:39:38 PM Reply	I read the link... ...and, in fact, gave you the net growth in the inequity since 1967. Hence, my minor capitulation. There has been a "net" inequity since 1967. Almost all of it occurred in the 1980's. You got me...by a little. Net from 67 to 92...the bottom 20 are 4% worse while the top 20 are 8% better off. (You have to add the 2 sets 67-80 and 80-92. Since 92...no material change has occurred) My read, the rewrite of the tax code under Ronnie removed some of the balancing factors in earnings equity which had the net effect of making the top 20 better off. After all...when you half the high end rates...these folks got to keep a little more of their money...and on the percentage basis...5 percent of alot is more than 5% of a little. So yes...the rich got a bit richer under Ronnie. The interesting part is more in the conclusions. At the same time,changes in living arrangements have occurred that tend to exacerbate differences in household incomes.For example, increases in divorces and separations,increases in births out of wedlock,and the increasing age at first marriage may have all led to shift away from traditionally higher-income married-couple households and toward typically lower-income single-parent and nonfamily households.Also,the increasing tendency for men with higher-than-average earnings to marry women with higher-than-average earnings may have contributed to widening the gap between high-income and low-income households. Hard to blame that on "the system". Actually I'm glad we're having this argument. Its making me do my homework. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #13,801 by Ashton 10/17/01 3:05:04 PM Reply	That last does tend to indicate, however That just possibly, economic theory is hardly er Turing complete, as the Boolean horde loves to chortle. (I'm not sure where to apportion the blame however, where a slavish adherence to numbers generated from the economic model du jour: so regularly produces all those Other unintended consequences - are you (sure)?) Whatever the division of spoils er.. labor .. cum blame: I trust that at least one meta-principle is self evident (?) Any society which believes that its operation may be derived from Any mere 'economic model' -- is composed of either an unimaginitive and banal populace or merely -- one with so little apperception of the range of human possibilities (?) its ignorance may be irremediable (while still operating under such an impoverished model) ummm Catch $22 ? Ashton The Dismal Science ain't .. (science)- it's arithmetic. And is to philosophy as ~the Taleban is to Gandhi. But it is Dismal. But EZ. Thus Popular.
Post #13,865 by bepatient 10/17/01 8:13:32 PM Reply	Dismal Science. Definitions Microeconomics=psychology of money Macroeconomics=Sociology of money Is it arithmetic? Partly. Is there science involved...depends on your definition. There is definitely research conducted, theories tested, statistics compiled, analyzed, trended, tested again...I would say that there is at least some science involved...or at least principles of scientific research. Is is dismal...definitely. Mostly, for me, because it allows me to better understand how much bullshit spouted out of the mouths of world leaders (and IMF/WTO protesters, and etc...) is really bullshit. At least in here there are several fairly well educated induhvijuals ;)...we can differ on points. Is >free enterprise< the final answer. Maybe not...but its the closest we've come to getting an A so far. BUT...the society as a whole plays a factor as well. And that...especially in urban areas...is disintegrating. The one example I can give of societal failure impacting bizness...in Cleveland a study was conducted by the HR departments of the utilites. They were attempting to hire base labor (pole climbers, meter readers) at a time when unemployment was still very high. What they found was that the vast majority of people in this area were not just unemployed...they were unemployable. They couldn't read, didn't have rudimentary math skills (ie couldn't subtract an old meter reading from a new one)...so...while bizness had a >need< for blue collar unskilled, society had failed to provide even the most basic skills to the people and both bizness and the people were left with a need. These types of issues will destroy us long before >bizness< does. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #13,928 by Ashton 10/18/01 4:16:23 AM Reply	Are you describing, endorsing or wishing? And is what you describe above - what you deem is operative today? Or believe will / ought to be operative by and by? Again your examples subordinate society / all of life! (animals as chattels, all else as 'material' - including manpower) - to economic theory, macro, mini or micro. The societal failure! [your phrase!] is that 'it' didn't meet the contract requirements for the larger authority: bizness!! Bizness had no obligation to inhabitants' skill-sets beyond: cherry picking those appropriate to its initial product; certainly no incentive to build a different one. (Corollary: can we 'afford' a surfeit of toys we cannot build except at the cost of - destruction of everything from the (now) unmaintained infrastructure and - of any job stability except for the smaller and smaller minority?) I repeat, the above is tantamount to saying more than approximately: The 'purpose' of life* IS to meet a bizness agenda. !!* What else do you mean by, 'societal failure'? Such an idea would, however - explain the utter disconnect from social reality, of the behavior of increasingly concentrated mega-Corporations, and the widening gap between the obscenely rich and the huge number of persons with 0 net worth. (I'm sure you can find the numbers for those with [-] net 'worth', factor in the absence of savings - a recent Murican habit, and note the direction of the 1st derivative of that wealth distribution curve) I can think of few dystopias from my sourcebook -- much more robotic than the above: 'efficiency' / time-motion obsession / unlimited consumption for its own sake / subordination of the vast majority to the whim of an elite. That's not what anyone came here to try to build, nor what was operative here as recently as 30 years ago. It is a grotesque parody of the various principles of the Founding Mothers, however often mouthed still. I'm not sure how long the cannon-fodder would fight new wars to maintain such a structure.. as and when the realization dawned - despite the manic noise level of distractions intended to keep the flock docile. Are you sure you read your macro- text right, as to priorities? Please verify: First: the desires of the Corporations must be met. Second: the needs of the living non-robotic inhabitants, as and only if - they fulfill the demands of the Corporations. Third: inhabitants may not modify the Corporation rules, to alter this priority, or decide how national wealth shall be distributed ie theoretically yes; in long practice: no. That it? Is that Murica 2K according to your hymnal? Ashton Dismal may be too kind a word; how about Diabolical?
Post #13,938 by CRConrad 10/18/01 8:08:18 AM Reply	Aren't you putting de SCART before the hobby-horse? OK, so Ashton's said most of this already... But, I feel it is important that it be said in different-style prose, too. (And, hopefully, I might add something besides a pure translation. If nothing else, some may find it nice to know that someone who, just like you, has Studied Economics at a Fancy Universitah can disagree...) So, it sure looks like you've got it all pretty much bass-ackwards here, BeeP: Is >free enterprise< the final answer. Maybe not...but its the closest we've come to getting an A so far. Uh... The "final answer" to what? "Life, the Universe, and Everything"?!? It might not have been what you meant (but judging from the rest of your text, it is -- see below), but it sure seems as if you're seeing the economy as the end result, the good we're striving for. It's not, it's just a means. The whole economy enchilada, be it a "free enterprise" market or a "socialist/communist" command economy or stone-age barter -- it's all just about providing the resources for us (people individually, and society as a whole) to really _do_ something with. That's all it is; a means to an end. Not an end in itself. BUT...the society as a whole plays a factor as well. This is precisely, exactly, 100-percent, 180 degrees, WRONG. You're subordinating society as a whole to the Holy Free Market (or, in wider terms, to the economy), and that's upside-down, ass-backwards, running in reverse, the tail wagging the dog. It should be, "Society blah blah ... but the economy [plays a role / is a factor] as well". The one example I can give of societal failure impacting bizness... Yup, this clinches it. Not that it isn't true, of course -- let me hasten to add -- but how this shows the style of your argument: From the whole tone of your epistle, it transpires that "society" has no higher function than to serve "The Market" (or, again, the economy (whatever form it may be)). That's wrong. It is the economy that is a part of, and subordinate to, society. NOT[] the other way around. ...while bizness had a >need<* [...] society had failed to provide... Heh -- never mind the Cremlologist examination of your "tone"; you're bloody well spelling it out. It's not the science of economy that's dismal, it's the perspective all too many people seem to have on it that is. : Note to Mike H: At least it's not bold-face... Christian R. Conrad* The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #13,955 by bepatient 10/18/01 10:19:23 AM 10/18/01 5:14:09 PM Reply	Boy did you guys miss my point. Probably because I didn't make it very well, huh? In NO WAY do I subordinate society to free-enterprise. Free-enterprise (bizness) is the choice that >this< society chose to use to conduct its material trade. And not even in its purest form...because this society has at least recognized some of its areas of failure. So with that choice...society has created a need upon itself...to prepare its members to live with that choice. So... Society has not failed bizness...which is how my point came across...society has failed >itself< by not preparing the members of society to survive within its own framework. This society (Merka) has adopted a slightly bastardized version of capitalism to conduct its affairs. It has worked better than any other currently available choice. Perhaps it has a shorter half-life..and free-enterprise is the actual culprit causing societal decay... I don't think thats the case...and precisely for the reasons you guys are whacking me over the head with...there is more to society than its business model. Don't have a cow man... You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Oct. 18, 2001, 05:14:09 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #13,970 by mmoffitt 10/18/01 12:12:41 PM Reply	I didn't study Econ, but I'm not following this. In response to the criticism that you have things backwards, that you have society subordinate to free enterprise, you post: "Free-enterprise (bizness) is the choice that >this< society chose to use to conduct its material trade...Society has not failed bizness...which is how my point came across...society has failed >itself< by not preparing the members of society to survive within its own framework." So, the point remains the same. That is, "Society failed to prepare its people for survival in a free market" or "Society failed to prepare its people to be productive in a free market". Seems a minor nit, but then, I didn't study economics. bcnu, Mikem who doesn't worry about little elements of R, except for point-set topology, where they're all r ... (okay, some have subscripts) ;0)
Post #14,006 by bepatient 10/18/01 3:31:04 PM Reply	It may be a minor nit.... ...but I think it changes the meaning quite a bit. This country...as a subset of the global society...(hereinafter known for this discussion as "society") chose an economic model to use for the conduct of its interactions between its members and other subset societies. In making that choice..."society" committed itself to the support of that model. It is NOT the only thing involved in the support of society...even if it is a pretty big part. Another aspect of "society" is the goal of education of its members. In the US...the goal of education is not only the simple goal of raising self-awareness...but the goal of preparation and indoctrination of the membership in the ways of society. Part of that goal MUST be the preparation of its members for survival in "society's" choice of an economic model. So the change of meaning is in that statement. Society failed itself by failing to educate its members to survive within itself. This does NOT place society subservient to its economic model. It simply makes society responsible for its choice of conduct. Obviously, Soviet society's model was completely different. Thus, the goals of the other societal aspects were different...because they were designed to support a different view of how its members should interact. And...since soviet society fell...obviously that society failed itself...in many ways...and so drastically as to collapse itself. Hell, France has a completely different system of education based upon their economic system. Apprenticeship's and other craft oriented development is much more important to them than to us. Our focus is more on college and higher education. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #14,017 by CRConrad 10/18/01 4:00:52 PM Reply	Much better! BTW, Germany is also still pretty big on apprenticeships and stuff... Sweden, OTOH, has gone all-out on vocational schools -- only, in the name of Holy Equality At Least In Names, they're known as the practical programs of Senior High... But those countries, including France, don't have all that much of a different "economic system"; it's just the degree of "bastardisation" that is a little higher than in yours... And it's debatable (Well, I'll gladly debate you on it, anyway! :-) which degree is the "best"; whether your claim that yours is the "best" compromise holds up. But those are just differences in degree, at least for the most part. Oh, BTW, there was an LRPD that called for you: "At the tone, please leave a message. *beep" :-) Christian R. Conrad* The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #14,036 by bepatient 10/18/01 5:12:36 PM Reply	Wow...my very own LRPD...blush You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #14,116 by Ashton 10/19/01 2:23:59 AM Reply	Seemed more a dripping thorn.. howsomeever - I hereby retract any inference that you might once have been locked in a room with three dark-complected guys (one named Osama bin-A-Smith) given a few shots, had brain removed, laundered and replaced with.. a Marchant calculator replacing the hypothalamus and a bearer bond replacing the pineal gland. As to the chicken-egg question re chosen?? mercantile calculus VS [that usually called life], I will continue to assert that there is growing evidence that the calculus does not (what's the phrase.. promote the general welfare). A flawed system has instead permitted a recursive mechanism by which the already fat may, and do, with consummate ease: extract increasing portions of [all there is] both in material and in power/control .. in all nuances. was that like: the Social Contract, say? Since it is axiomatic that the two concepts must mesh, by your definition; it appears we must next and soon: 1) Alter the the crass mercantile number processing, especially with a focus towards curtailing the growing concentration into mega-corps / mini-governments - consequent homogenization of all 'biz-inefficient' differences across many meanings (both things and ideas). OR 2) Reprogram the inhabitants / redefine life so as to better fit this wondrous Free Market chimera-thingie, so beloved of the folk who like generating systems out of math concepts: because they can - and because it's fun to pretend that the map is 'real'ly the territory. (Numbers are so much neater than messy humans.) Of the two main choices, well ... obviously some might want to do a bit of both. But the trend is toward pure-2) in any suited meetings, when their notes sometimes seep out into the \ufffdther. Who gets to exercise power? - that is the question. And who among the most-powerful are willing to cede back: that which they have arrogated to selves via the above recursive mechanism, seen so clearly at play re Messrs. Billy n' Bally? War - as in actual revolution? Anything less.. for the less macho billionaires? Would we have to kill all the market researchers, economists - not just the lawyers? CIEIOs with a bounty? Swiss bank accounts? Hmmm - declare them Terrorists because -- [similar ends]. How do they address such issues in post-grad mercantile courses these days? At all? (My bet: it isn't even on the class list. It's someone Else's problem) Ahh - under Terraforming, perhaps? Ashton still not sure about that pineal, Bill.. You seem to Like 'conserving' this status, pretty quo (?)
Post #14,016 by CRConrad 10/18/01 4:00:13 PM Reply	OK, sorry -- I was going to ask, but must have forgotten: So you were speaking in a narrower context, focusing on the "How do we run the economy?" bit of society only? If so, then no quarrel -- then I'm with you all the way. But yes, it could have benefited from being spelled out. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #14,382 by ben_tilly 10/21/01 2:54:39 AM Reply	Per capita income is not the same as wages Per capita is literally per man, woman, child, and grandparent out there. Wages are per one of those engaged in work. As already noted, today we have more workers per capita than we used to. That counterbalances those figures somewhat. Furthermore note that wages are a poor proxy for personal wealth. Compare two households. One has the father working while the mother cooks, cleans, and takes care of the children. The other has both parents working and also absorbs considerable costs for fast food, daycare, and various other extra costs that the first household does not. Which is better off? Which looks better in the statistics? The second one has to make a lot more money than the first just to achieve the same standard of living. It can make a lot less money but still be better off in real terms. But the numbers look nicer when you have families like the second around. The point being that domestic chores don't enter the GNP and don't show up as money and products changing hands. The work is still being done. Food is served, kids are taken care of. But it doesn't exist on the radar of the economic statistics. Now when comparing the 60's to the present, this factor is not to be ignored lightly. And when looking at income disparity, note that a move from one to 2 income families is going to rob a much larger fraction of personal wealth at the low side of the income barrier than it will for the best off. Therefore the increase in average income is not nearly what the statistics show, and the increase in disparity in real wealth is worse than they say. Remember, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... Cheers, Ben
Post #14,399 by bepatient 10/21/01 3:55:13 AM Reply	I believe... ...that was covered in the .pdf doc I linked to regarding the gini coefficient. Dink housedholds and a growing population of single parents is making the disparity greater. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #14,404 by ben_tilly 10/21/01 4:37:24 AM Reply	I don't see it there Can you produce a specific quote from the section which you think covers it? As far as I can tell, it isn't there. And methodologically the question is unaddressable. Their tool is measurement of family income. Without a way to address the value of housework, to them a family which has both parents working has more income and therefore is better off. There is simply no way to account for the value lost to the family because there isn't someone taking care of the home any more. That value is very literally outside the accounting system. Now we all know from real life that having both parents work means that you have obvious large financial costs you would otherwise avoid. But putting a dollar value on that is far easier said than done. Now they do talk about single parents skewing the disparity statistics. But they are just pointing out that single parent households tend to have lower income. In other words they are saying that by their measurement system, single parent families are worse. They aren't talking there about the extent of how what they are measureing does not match subjective reality for those households. Cheers, Ben

Welcome to IWETHEY!