Men Earn Eighty Five Percent of Family Incomes

Women earn only 15% of family incomes

Even with this rapid increase in women employees and the corresponding plunge in American family purchasing power, The US Census Bureau tells us exactly who earned the majority of the incomes in the US.  In half of American households, only the man works: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/mednhhld/t3.html  

In the half where women work, their additional contribution to household incomes is an average of only $17,069 each, which is only 29% of total income for those households. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/mednhhld/ta3.html  

The average contribution of working wives to family incomes is thus $8,345, or 15% of the incomes of all of those households. If American families had to rely solely on the contribution of women to family incomes, WITHOUT all of the social transfer payments from men to women (which enable feminists to claim that women are "independent" of men), they would be living like Africans, sitting on mud floors, eating frogs and insects, and being eaten by any number of animals they're incapable of defending themselves against.

As it is, US median monthly household income in 1996 of $2,931 was ONE THIRD of median monthly household income of $9,819 in Japan on December 1999.

TABLE 3. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDERS
AND HUSBANDS AND WIVES: 1969 AND 1996

TABLE A3. MEDIAN INCOME OF MARRIED-COUPLE HOUSEHOLDS INCLUDING AND
EXCLUDING THE EARNINGS OR INCOME OF WIVES: 1969 TO 1996
(In 1996 dollars) http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/mednhhld/ta2.html

Home Prices Increase Four Times More Than Incomes

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).  If living in a house wasn't important to you, as it must not 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 real fun is when you point out that the problem was caused by the unprecedented entry into the labor force of the American girls who scored lower on ONE THIRD of TIMSS questions than if they'd just guessed, which is a complete and total explanation for why it takes the positive productivity of 14 men workers to make up for the negative productivity of just one woman worker.  The mostly single-worker families of 4 decades ago had four times the purchasing power, and the almost exclusively single-worker families in Japan have two to three times the incomes, of the mostly two-working parent American families of today, making feminaziism appear as a huge festering boil all over everything.

This four fold plunge in family purchasing power occurred as the percent of men in the labor force decreased 7% and the percent of women increased 19%.  Put simply, purchasing 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 working.

The negative productivity of the woman worker in the 2000 labor force of 130 million workers was so great that the 1970 labor force of only 80 million workers in 1970 produced three quarters more purchasing power relative to home prices.

For the 140 years prior to the entry of women into the labor force in such record numbers, the cumulative cost of living changes in the US had remained close to zero, but in the 60 years since then, the cost of living began to steadily increase, never to decrease again.

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

If only men worked, 2000 Purchasing Power would have been 100% x 2.61 + 0% x (-2.87) = 2.61 times higher than it was.  If the percentage of men in the labor force were to continue to decrease, but the percent of women were to remain fixed at the 2000 level, then there won't be enough men in the labor force to counteract the negative productivity of women by the year 2028:

A = % of men at ground zero

2.61 x A + 0.587 x (-2.87) = 0

A = 64.5%, which at current rates would occur in 26 years.

If the percentage of men in the labor force were to remain fixed, but the percentage of women were to continue to increase at the previous 30 year rate, there won't be enough men in the labor force to counteract the negative productivity of women by the year 2012:

B = % of women at ground zero

0.741 x 2.61 -2.87 x B = 0

B = 67.4%, which will occur in 10 years

CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF COUNTER-PRODUCTIVITY OF WOMEN WORKERS

A more conservative but probably misleading estimate is achieved by defining Purchasing Power as median incomes divided by median home prices.  Median incomes decreased from 37.3% of median home prices in 1970 to 24.9% by 2000, as the ratio of men in the labor force decreased 7% and the ratio of women increased 42%.  This 33% loss of purchasing power of the American worker could only have occurred if women workers are counter-productive.  It cannot be explained by them being merely unproductive:

X = productivity of men

Y = productivity of women

0.797X + 0.412Y = 0.373

0.741X + 0.587Y = 0.249

X = (0.373 - 0.412Y)/0.797

0.741((0.373 - 0.412Y)/0.797)+ 0.587Y = 0.249

0.347 - 0.383Y + 0.587Y = 0.249

Y = -0.479

X = (0.373 - 0.412(-0.479))/0.797 = 0.716

X/Y = -1.5

Purchasing Power if only men worked in 2000 = 100% X + 0%Y = 0.716 = three times higher than it was in 2000 = twice as high as it was in 1970

Purchasing Power if percent of men working were to remain fixed and 100% of women worked = 0.741 x 0.716 + 1.0 x (-0.479) = 0.05 = 1/5th of what it was in 2000 = 1/8th of what it was in 1970

Purchasing Power if percent of men working were to remain fixed and percent of women working were to be cut 50% = 0.741 x 0.716 + 0.294 x (-0.479) = 0.39 = 57% higher than it was in 2000 = 5% higher than it was in 1970

CALCULATION BASED ON THE "CONSUMER PRICE INDEX"

"Parse Tree" <parsetree@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6x219.346$sI2.279017@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "John Knight" <johnknight@usa.com> wrote in message
> news:a3T09.34142$Fq6.3318011@news2.west.cox.net...

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.

The main purpose of the "Consumer Price Index" is to confuse people like parsetree about the value of the dollar, our falling incomes, out of control housing and consumer prices, and many other economics matters, who accept at face value that US incomes are up since 1967 even though the purchasing power of American families have dropped by as much as three quarters. 

Copyright @ 2010 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party