> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
[snip]
> Except all that you have done here is related two numbers that have no
> relation and then argued that they anger you.
Now I'm irritated that you already forgot what I said irritated me. It was
the headline, which said "not rising." Remember my Enron "not making a
profit" analogy?
> Guess what - some
> places get
> more expensive to live in over time. It's usually considered a
> good thing.
It's a wonderful thing for those whose incomes rise as fast or faster than
the cost of living. Not so much for those who are left behind. And very
sad when people pretend that "all ships rise with the tide" is always true.
We just will ignore the fact that the people who teach our children, prepare
our food and work in our stores can't afford to live here. They can commute
from the Central Valley. It only takes them four to six hours a day. Their
families didn't need to see them, anyway.
Do you have no clue that this is a problem? And that the "logic" you've
used here is an excuse to ignore it? A very important Silicon Valley
coalition thinks it is. I was only irritated that they downplayed it. But
at least they acknowledge the problem, instead of taking the elitist
attitude that pretends it doesn't exist.
I don't like talking to anyone this way, but somebody has to. And I'm doing
something about the problem, so maybe I have the right.
> Next year I will be living in New York. I will work in
> Manhattan. I won't,
> however, live there. Because it's too expensive. These things
> happen. If
> where you live gets too expensive, then you move. If you own land there,
> then you make a nice profit on the deal. That's how these things work.
Take a look at the percentage of people who live around here that can afford
to buy a house -- median income v. median home price -- and you'll see that
you're talking about an elite group again. And it's wonderful for them. I
know lots of people who have lived here for 30 or 40 years and made a small
fortune on their property value. On the other hand, most of them have to
spend a lot of travel, to go visit their children and grandchildren, who
can't afford to live here.
Is it just wonderful for *everybody* that the cost of living has gone up so
much? Hell, no. And wake up.
> Your argument - that inflation adjusted incomes had risen by 1% while the
> cost of living had risen by 20% - demonstrated precisely nothing. If
> inflation had gone up by 40% in the same period of time, then
> this would be
> a _good_ thing, not a bad one.
Whaaaaat? Tell Alan Greenspan. I'm sure he could use a laugh these days.
> Furthermore, because this is a mobile
> society, it's possible (probable, in fact) that this involved different
> people. It's even more probable that the people in the bottom 20% at the
> beginning of your time period are a different set than the people in the
> bottom 20% at the end of your time period. All of which means that your
> argument that the two numbers show that something bad happened in your
> county literally makes no sense.
Yeah, maybe a lot more of them are illegal immigrants. So that makes it
okay, because they're different people?
And it's a good thing that Enron made so many people so much money, because
now they can go spend it and stimulate the economy. If they do a good job,
maybe we get inflation up to 100 percent a year. That worked so well for
Mexico, right? Obviously they're doing much better now.
I'm sorry, was that sarcasm AGAIN? I'm very weak.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Nick
