If a man works 50 hour weeks he is working 1850 hours a year, not 2600.
I would not ASSUME that people in 1913 worked 365 days a year. They still had days off I would think. Wouldn't you?
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
I would not ASSUME that people in 1913 worked 365 days a year. They still had days off I would think. Wouldn't you?
You mean Debt?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Forty per week, fifty a year = 2000 hours per annum. cn
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
they actually do poll the unemployment number, and it mirrors the official.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/gallup-daily-workforce.aspx
So thats all it takes to support a household?
You don't have health insurance?
Internet?
Cable TV?
Water and sewer?
Home insurance?
Vehicle payments/maintenance/fuel
Home maintenance fund
The Average American spend $151 a week on food. http://www.gallup.com/poll/156416/americans-spend-151-week-food-high-income-180.aspx
Im just going by the 260 business days in a year divided by 7 = 37 weeks.
37*50=1850
But I think we can both agree that 2600 hours is a bit of a stretch.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I am doing so, way to pick and choose I wouldn't have wanted to address my other post either.
Edit: The sources for both those quotes is about as sketchy as your math.......as in I can find no credible source other than hearsay, anecdotal.
So you paid no income tax, have two kids, a significant other and paid 2500 to fica......you received no tax return or other benefits to add to your household from anyone in your household....is this correct? Not trying to get too personal but you did bring it up.
I don't think your issue reflects manipulation of CPI; I think it reflects the choice to use CPI for cost of living adjustments.
Obviously they don't ask every person. The data is based on a survey.
I didn't assume that. 5 days times 10 hours times 52 weeks = 2,600 hours. I have no idea how you get 1,850.
No one in 1913 had any of that, so why you would consider it? You cannot pretend that we're worse off by adding costs that didn't exist in 1913.
You're positing that a modern full time worker works less than a full time worker in 1913. We can see where the stretch is, since we know for a fact that a worker in 1913 worked 50+ hours a week, and there was no such thing as paid vacation.
...what other post?
Thanks, hopefully no one will ever repeat that bullshit.
That calculation has nothing to do with me.
We've been constantly assuming 50 hours a week in 1913 based on other discussion where we had data that said 50 hours a week. The only reason we stopped assuming 50 hours a week is because it was inconvenient to someone's point.
Evidently you don't understand that the multiplier is achieved by deposits, on which interest is paid.
Again, you don't actually understand what the multiplier is. Before you offer your criticism, you really do need to understand that.
Don't take payments in checks if you expect to pay a transaction fee, then. Simple enough.
"They" is the US taxpayer. So you're complaining that the US taxpayer profits before any of the banks?
Most banks didn't need to be bailed out. TARP was engineered in an effort to cast public confidence on the entire banking sector, not out of necessity. Indeed, this should be apparent from the fact that most banks paid their TARP loans back very quickly--they never needed or wanted the money but were forced to take it by Hank Paulson.
According to your understanding of banking, the banks should have trillions of dollars in additional revenue. I present the same challenges to you that I presented to Kynes in the past (which he could not meet): point out the extra trillions your understanding requires to exist
If population isn't fixed and the supply of gold and silver is fixed, how can you claim that the prices of those commodities are stable? You cannot.
Gold is worth more with 7 billion people than it is with 1 billion people. Everyone else in this forum, arguing for and against me right now, will agree with that, and yet your statement does not.
You never did answer my question about the practicability of the gold standard, did you? Tell me, with 7 billion people and $80 trillion of economic activity, how can the same amount of gold be used versus having 2 billion people and $5 trillion of economic activity?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Clearly you don't read. We're talking about the typical work week in 1913, not the typical work week today.
Oh that's right, in 1913 100% of everyone worked 50 hour weeks, never had days off, never got sick, never had vacation, never had entertainment or any of the things modern life has given us. WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK. Its all anyone ever did in 1913.
Perhaps the numbers are biased because 35% of the entire work force were farmers????
When I was doing all the work on the farm, 120 hour weeks were not uncommon, you work 7 days a week on a farm and truly never have a day off.
Today less than 3% are farming.
How stupid of me to think that towards the end of the industrial revolution humans would have been out of their caves by then.
FWIW 25% of male workers had vacations in 1910. http://books.google.com/books?id=xiYUA--KABgC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=paid+vacation+in+1913&source=bl&ots=0AbnF1TZpV&sig=z2PyabTsEr3KJUGlUmU2_cfDjXs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HqKbUZruEqSxygGWtIDIBw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=paid vacation in 1913&f=false
Tokeprep doesn't understand that the workweek in 1910 was Monday thru Saturday. The sabbath was the day of rest.