Re: Overriding the S-Chip Veto
- From: Rumpelstiltskin <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:25:06 -0700
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:11:06 -0700, Rita <Rita@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:35:29 -0700, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
I do find it surprising that only a fifth of retired families,
mostly couples I suppose, have an income over $44,129,
though maybe that's not as unreasonable other places as it
seems in San Francisco. It doesn't jibe well with the idea
that families with kids making $63,000 need government
subsidies though. I'm not complaining or even commenting
on the necessity or lack of necessity: it's just that the
figures don't make sense to me when viewed in light of
each other.
<snip>
The LA Times has an article that addresses this. Much seems
to depend on the cost of living in an area. Perhaps you fail
to take into consideration the cost of raising children.
Doubtless I do. It seems fantastically expensive.
<snip>
The differential between what one person or a childless couple can
get by on and that of a family is considerable.
So I don't see that there is any reason to view the figures in
light of each other.
The study said the San Francisco Bay Area was the most expensive
region in the state to raise a family, requiring a basic budget of
about $77,069 for a family of four with two working parents. The San
Joaquin Valley was the least expensive, with an estimated budget of
$62,624 for the same family.
I had typed "$75,000" for the Bay area when I posted, but the
report came on TV again since then and I had misremembered:
your figure is the figure they gave.
I've been out of the workforce for eight years now, but not
many people make that much money, do they? At least not many
without college. I still remember when I was a kid that the new
house that was built on the next lot to us sold for $15,000, and
I thought that was an outrageous amount of money for a fairly
small house. The dollar sure has depreciated incredibly since
then! Deficit spending, which is essentially "printing money"
with no backing when the debt is allowed to run up, is what
causes depreciation. If money could still be made of gold, there
couldn't be any depreciation beyond the vagaries in the
price of gold. A gold sovereign (21 shillings) was always a
gold sovereign. The modern pound (20 shillings), if it were
made of gold, would be worth $380 given today's spot price of
gold ($757) and today's value of the pound, which I'm
surprised to see is now over $2, or more accurately the dollar
has dropped below half-a-pound. Instead, of course, the
pound, like the dollar, is no longer based on anything, so the
pound is only worth $2 instead of $380, Money today is based
on trust, but that means we're trusting politicians with the
money! You can't trust anybody the way you trust gold, but
politicians are the least trustworthy of all the anybodies!
Here have I purs'd paltry silverlings.
Fie, what a trouble it is to count this trash!
Well fare the Arabians, who so richly pay
The things they traffic for with wedge of gold,
-- Marlowe, from "The Jew of Malta"
<snip>
.
- References:
- Overriding the S-Chip Veto
- From: George Z. Bush
- Re: Overriding the S-Chip Veto
- From: Jerry Okamura
- Re: Overriding the S-Chip Veto
- From: Alvin E. Toda
- Re: Overriding the S-Chip Veto
- From: George Z. Bush
- Re: Overriding the S-Chip Veto
- From: John Galt
- Re: Overriding the S-Chip Veto
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: Overriding the S-Chip Veto
- From: Rita
- Overriding the S-Chip Veto
- Prev by Date: Nuremberg Prosecutor Says Bush Could be Prosecuted for War Crimes
- Next by Date: Re: Overriding the S-Chip Veto
- Previous by thread: Re: Overriding the S-Chip Veto
- Next by thread: Re: Overriding the S-Chip Veto
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|