Chinese Ability to Enter the Pacific

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5530
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post16 Oct 2016, 01:53

madrat wrote:There shouldn't ever be a right and left political competition in the same country. Their ideology is incompatible.


The far left 10% and the far right 10% should be shot into the sun. I think the rest would get along just fine. But what the hell does any of this have to do with the Chinese Ability to Enter the Pacific? Can we all get back on topic?
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post16 Oct 2016, 02:29

sferrin wrote:Wow. So all this, "whaaaa I don't have no money, can't find a job, and need everything free" the left continues to squeal about has no basis in reality then? And those charts, what dollars are they in? A dollar in 1967 was worth a hell of a lot more than one today. And while you're at it, maybe you could explain why it almost demands a working couple to "have it all" when back in the 50s - 80s it was totally doable on a single income. Maybe you could explain why there are fewer people working full time than there has been in decades. Maybe you can explain why there are more people on government assistance than ever before. I could go on but what would be the point? You've got your shot of Kool-Aid and that's all you need to know.


I'll give it a shot (I don't know why). I'm not a Leftist so I don't know why you chose to paint anyone who disagrees with the same brush. Leftists are just as obnoxious and ignorant as those on the Right. Right now, those on the Right seem to be far more unhinged.

First, those charts are obviously inflation adjusted. That doesn't need to be explained. (I don't know why people make that comment everytime a chart like this posted. They think they're the first people to have thought of the notion of real income?)

Second, no it didn't take 1 person in the 1950s to have the same lifestyle as two people working household today. Today's lifestyle is far better than in the 1950s. Just as a case in point, house sizes today are more than twice the size they were in the 1950s. These are not the same lifestyles. The sort of house most people lived in the 1950s, today would go for around $50k or less. People's expectations are different today so nobody wants to live in the same way as they did in the 1950s. 1 person working today could enjoy a much higher lifestyle than 1 person working in the 1950s. But it's all relative, since in the 1950s a 600 sq.foot home was considered good enough and today it is not.

Third, why are fewer people working today? Almost the entire decrease happens in the 16-19 age category and some in the 20-24 category. Image

It's a statistical artifact. I.e. the BLS defines "working age" as anyone over 16, but obviously over the last few decades, more and more people are going to college and thus not in the labor force. More and more people are going to grad school as well, because returns on grad school have exploded over time, and hence are also not in the labor force. Neither of these things is a bad thing. But labor participation rate is just a statistical artifact. In 1960, 16 years of age may have been a good time to consider someone as working age. Today, it is no longer the case because of increasing returns to education. People will trade immediate returns of working now, for future higher returns of education. You'll note these trends started back in the 1980s.

Fourth, why are there more people on government assistance? Because there's more available. That's a deterministic relationship.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5530
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post16 Oct 2016, 03:31

Jesus, you're a one-man spam machine. Can we get back on topic? :roll:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post16 Oct 2016, 03:36

sferrin wrote:Can we get back on topic? :roll:


LOL. Ok buddy.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5530
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post16 Oct 2016, 04:11

arian wrote:
sferrin wrote:Can we get back on topic? :roll:


LOL. Ok buddy.


Glad you find humor in wasting everybody's time. Maybe you'll manage to get yourself banned.
"There I was. . ."
Previous

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests