----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 12:30 AM
Subject: RE: Gummint programs and stats (was RE: Presidents RE: Corruption
...)
Nick, I fail to understand the angry tone of your post. Why assume the
worst interpretation of Gautam's posts?
> > 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?
By that analogy, the folks in the bottom 20% should be losing ground. But,
in the nation as a whole, they have gained a very good amount of ground in
the last 6 years. It won't happen, but if things kept on improving the way
they had over the span 93-00 until, say, 2014, then we would virtually
eliminate poverty in the US. From the numbers you gave, the local inflation
rate in your area was much higher, so the inflation adjusted increase for
the
bottom 20% was only 1%, not 15%. That's not good, but its not going
backwards.
>
> 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.
But, why can't they make a decision to get out of such a stupid location?
In Texas, teachers can afford to live in the neighborhoods they teach in.
We have friends who are teachers who live in our neighborhood, which has a
premium on housing prices because of private zoning. There are 2200 sq. ft.
houses available with mortgage payments of around $600/month.
The stores are filled with kids, for the most part. But, from what I can
tell, folks who need to live someplace cheaper than here can drive 15
minutes
or so to work.
I guess the point is that people don't have to live in the Bay area. Its
certainly pretty, a _lot_ prettier than Houston. Indeed, I think this area
is ugly. But, as fate had it, when I first looked for work, it was during
the recession of 81-82, and it was an oil service firm that offered me a
job.
> 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.
But, isn't the problem solved by companies moving their operations to west
of Madison Wisconsin, Austin Texas, Houston Texas, Minneapolis MN, etc.?
where the cost of living is a whole lot more reasonable.
>
> Take a look at the percentage of people who live around here that can
afford
> to buy a house -- median income vs.. 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.
Ah, isn't that a housing market that is primed for a fall. I've owned
houses through two falls. The first was in Houston, after the oil bust.
Back in '86, a 1 year old house with 2500 sq. ft. could be had for $50,000.
People found that their dream house would have lower payments than their
present house, so they let the bank foreclose on their present house, after
buying their dream house.
The second time, I was in New England, where we had mortgage payments that
was 1 take home paycheck. After we moved in, reality hit the area, and we
lost 60k on the house. We _had_ to move to Houston, even though we loved
living in New England because the company who bought the company I worked
for and moved us down helped a good deal with the loss.
In short, from personal experience, I am living someplace other than where I
would want to because of economics. I can still recall all the tears the
family shed when we moved back to Houston, and how I still walk out in the
summer and wish I wasn't here? Why can't other people? If enough do, then
prices become reasonable in the Bay area again.
>
> Is it just wonderful for *everybody* that the cost of living has gone up
so
> much? Hell, no. And wake up.
Actually, as long as the CPI adjusted income goes up more, it tends to help
the poorer people more than the rich people. Tight money and deflation
favors those who already have money. That was the foundation of William
Jennings Bryant's "cross of gold" speech."
Yes, inflation can vary from region to region. But, as JDG says, that
doesn't mean it is different from the CPI index. Indeed, IIRC, the CPI
deflator is a measure/reflection of the inflation rate. (BTW, its John's
job to understand this sort of thing.)
>>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.
This is for Gautam...I've seen one long term study of social mobility in the
US that I've quoted here. The mobility was lower than I expected. The was
it was determined was the comparison of 5 year and 1 year Gini ratios. The
5 year was lower,of course...I don't think it could be higher...but not by
very much.
>
> Yeah, maybe a lot more of them are illegal immigrants. So that makes it
> okay, because they're different people?
Actually, it kinda would. If illegal immigrants came to the country, worked
at bottom level jobs, and then be became legal...and moved up the ladder to
higher paying jobs, to be replaced by new dirt poor immigrants...then that
would be a success story. The problem is that the measures of mobility that
I've seen indicate that its not that high.
Dan M.
