----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 9:38 PM Subject: RE: Gummint programs and stats (was RE: Presidents RE: Corruption ...)
> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > Behalf Of Dan Minette > > [snip] > > > Where is this coming from? It is a fact that people in the lowest income > ranges in SAnta Clara County are significantly worse off now than they were > in 1995. And I don't understand why anyone would try to prove that wrong > with the kind of arguments you are making. > OK, lets first say what you wrote: The most depressing stats, by the way, were on the same page. One showed that at the 20th income percentile, inflation-adjusted income has risen 1 percent since 1993, while the cost of living rose 20 percent. The way I read it is that the cost of living rose 20% in your area, while income rose 21.2%. And now lets look what happened nationally. Nationally prices went up 22% from 1993 to 2001. They went up 19.3 from 1993 to 2000. These numbers come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, where JDG works. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt > The numbers I cited indicate the income available to a representative > four-person household over time. Over the same time period, the cost of > living rose 20 percent. The math is simple -- when income stays the same > and the cost of living goes up, the standard of living falls. But, you didn't say that income stated the same. You said "inflation-adjusted income has risen 1 percent 1993, while the cost of living rose 20 percent. " What that meant to me was (2001 Income)/(1.2) = 1.01*1993 income. Maybe if I give the adjusted and unadjusted incomes, my argument would make sense. This comes from the census bureau, which I quoted before: it is the inflation unadjusted and inflation adjusted mean income for the bottom 20%. inflation inflation unadjusted adjusted 2000 $10,188 $10,188 1999 9,940 10,274 1998 9,223 9,732 1997 8,872 9,493 1996 8,596 9,397 1995 8,350 9,376 1994 7,762 8,934 1993 7,412 8,718 The average person in the bottom 20% made 38% more money in 2000 than they made in 1993. Unfortunately, the cost of living rose about 19% (fwiw, I'm getting a 1% inconsistency in numbers from various sources, but I'm sure that has to do with when the time periods that are used in measurement), so the inflation adjusted increase was only about 17%. But, that inflation adjusted increase _by definition_ takes into account the cost of living. > > In Silicon Valley, this means, for example, that many, many school teachers > who used to be able to afford to live on their salaries no longer can. I > know this from both the statistics and what we've seen happen at my wife's > school. Then, for the teachers, their inflation adjusted salaries are going down, by definition. > > For reasons that are not the least bit clear to me, you seem to believe that > the numbers I cited prove that the poor here are no worse off, which > demonstrates, in my mind, an insensitivity to the poor, at the least. Let me get this straight. Because I use numbers as they are defined, I am insensitive to poor people? Why, if I am happy that the poor people have finally gotten ahead a little in the '90s, I'm insensitive? >And some kind of refusal to believe that in the midst of a technology boom here, > a lot of people became worse off. If what you just said is true, then the numbers you gave earlier were false. What you are now saying is that the inflation adjusted income is decreasing for many people. > > > 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. > > They cannot afford housing here or anywhere near here. They used to be able > to. But the cost of living rose faster than their incomes. You and Gautam > can explain to them that the cost of living *is* inflation, but that won't > change the fact that they can't afford what they used to be able to afford. So, why don't they get a job where the prices are reasonable? Look, I would have gone bankrupt if I kept my house in New England. I loved living there, but when my job was moved, and the value of my house fell through the floor, I couldn't have afforded to be unemployed for very long paying those house notes. So, I moved to a place where I really didn't want to live. Why am I being insensitive if I suggest others can do it too? > > 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. > > If I'm hearing you right, you're saying that it is okay for the top 20 > percent income-makers to gain all the benefit of the wealth created in this > area, even as much of the rest of the community is seeing their standard of > living decrease? No, I'm saying the feeding frenzy for houses clearly has raised prices to levels that remind me of the price of Enron stock. So, a sane person, who cannot afford to still live there, will apply for work elsewhere, and will move to someplace where they can live reasonably and have a reasonable commute. Now, everyone can't do that. But, everyone doesn't have to. All it takes is enough teachers to leave, and parents will figure out that salaries will have to rise. > Yes, people don't have to live here. But for many, their families are here, > their roots are here and anyone who is at the 20th percentile here has a job > here, too. How cruel and elitist it seems to suggest that they should just > leave. Nick, I've tried to be as polite as possible, and you are repeatedly personally insulting me. So, forgive me when I shout I LEFT WHERE I WANTED TO LIVE AND CRIED ABOUT IT FOR MONTHS So, why am I cruel and elitist to suggest that others can make the same decision I did? I left my roots in the upper Midwest because it was the best way I knew to take care of my family. I was thrilled to be able to move from Houston to Madison CT. I still don't like living in Texas after all these years. So, when I say others can make the same tradeoff I did, how in the world can you consider it elitist? > > > 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. > > Shall we move the schools? The dry cleaners? The fast-food restaurants? > The police and fire departments? The hospitals? The libraries? Most of > the employees in each of those have seen their standard of living decline. But, isn't California growing? Why build more stuff in your area where there is plenty of room elsewhere? As companies move, those employees can move to an area where the school teachers, restaurant workers, police officers, nurses, librarians have seen their standard of living improve. The teachers can move and teach in those schools. What in the world is wrong with that? If you want to do some good in the world, start a company in an area that has improving conditions for poorer people. Otherwise, you are just perpetuating the problem, IMHO. Why not start a company in Madison Wisconsin. They have top notch people there, and there is affordable housing in the area. I know, my brother-in-law owns a house in a small town just west of there has a house for his family of four that cost him about 25k to buy and fix up about 10 years ago. It isn't a mansion, but he can afford to own it on his job working for a building supply company. If you start a company in that neck of the woods, instead of insisting on the overcrowded Silicon Valley, > Silicon Valley isn't all technology companies, but somehow we have managed > to create an economy where the increase in wealth has been channeled almost > entirely to people who make more than $250,000 a year. What kind of place > would this be if the low-paying businesses and institutions left? A place that had to pay those institutions more. I'm not saying that what's going on there makes sense, but that the solution is for Silicon Valley to come to earth. Until it does, the sensible thing is to leave. If you really can start a company, start it someplace that still has decent prices, so you know your kids teachers are paid enough to live on. > > > 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. > > Trickle-down economics lives... No, what I described is not trickle down economics. My folks were very poor. My dad lived in an orphanage. My mom had to sell back yard vegetables from a wagon to get enough money for flour. Yet, they were able to raise us in comfortable surroundings. That works. If we can take in the poor of the world, and have their children be economically successful, then progress is being made. >How do these people move *up* the economic ladder when their income is failing to keep up with a >rising cost of living? The numbers you gave stated that their income rose faster than the cost of living. > The standard of living for low-income households in Silicon Valley has been > dropping since 1993. Nothing I've read here begins to convince me that > isn't true. And I'll be very hard to convince, since I've seen it happen, > first-hand. OK, let me ask you some questions, because I cannot reconcile your numbers with your numbers. You said the cost of living has gone up 20% since 1993. Is that number low? Did you accidentally misquote it? If you did, no hard feelings, but it would help explain things. The average income for the bottom 20% has gone up 38% nationally. That's a lot more than 20%. Has it gone up less where you live? If so, why aren't your teachers, firefighters, etc. getting the same raises obtained by there peers elsewhere in the nation. Also, if you look at the 2nd 20%, and the 3rd 20%, incomes have gone up 35% nationally. Why not in Silicon Valley? What's wrong there? I look around, and I see people who were struggling 8 years ago now have their heads above water. They are a little more financially secure. Most fast food places here, and in the upper Midwest, are short staffed and advertise benefits and improvements in starting pay. Its not where it should be, but it is sure better than 1993. Why haven't things improved where you live? Dan M. Dan M.
