Forty Plus Years of Inflation

 So I'm looking at some inflation data between 1980 and 2023.

Let's start with houses. The average house price in 1980 $74,400. That sounds about right as I bought my first house for $45,000 in 1974 and the average was $38,600. I bought my second house in 1984 for $212,00 and the average was $99,200.

In 2023, the average price was $503,000.

If we calculate inflation from 1980 we get $275,119. If we calculate from 1984 we get $290,918. So there is clearly something wrong here.

If we roll back to 2011 the average house price was $267,600 while, based upon inflation, we would expect it to be $203,100 from 1980 and $214,763 from 1984.

So clearly something is wrong with house prices. I'm sure anyone trying to buy a house has figured this out but here are the numbers to back it up.

Now let's look at college costs. We'll consider yearly costs for four year colleges.

In 1980 the cost was $5,465. In 2021 it was $17,251. Based upon inflation we would expect it to be $17,971. So clearly, despite what a lot of people claim, college costs have not risen out of whack with inflation. They're about what we would expect.

Now let's look at real median income. Real is adjusted for inflation.

In 1980, the real median income in the US was $25,380. Given inflation, I would expect the real median income in 2022 to be around $64,795. It's actually only $40,480.

If my calculations are correct, and my degrees in mathematics and economics imply that they are, then Houston we have a problem.

Since 1980, the total inflation has been 255.3%. So, just to break even, the median salary would have to be $64,795. But it's not.

When we also consider that productivity of the American worker has risen 159.7% since 1980 but wages have only risen 113.7%, again I have to say that something is seriously wrong.

Damnit - I Caught My Daughters Cold

OK, this is more than a little annoying. I have a low grade fever and I'm still choking up some congealed blood.

Lung Issues - April 23, 2024

Well, the biopsy is done.

Things didn't start out well. We pressed the 1R button in the elevator and we got an angry noise. OK, on to the steps. Two nice young guys held open the gate and the door for me. I never felt so old in my life.

I signed in at the desk and they sent up down one floor and along this looong hallway with the history of Valley Hospital along the wall to Diagnostic Imaging.

I made my presence known and, luckily, since I had already logged in online I had nothing to do but sit down. They had nice chairs, sturdy and wide. I could have gotten two of me in each of those chairs.

The took me inside about 15 minutes late, after I had dragged my sorry read end out of bed at 6:30 too, and put me in what looked like an Emergency Room room. 

I had to strip to the waist and lie down on the stretcher while they hooked me up to the monitors. Then the nurse says she's going to hook up an IV. I asked what was in the IV and she said nothing. It was just in case I passed out and had to medicate me.

THAT didn't do much for me but I decided to just let it go. My wife got a little chair in the corner which she swore wasn't nearly as comfortable, or sturdy, as the ones in the waiting area.

A few minutes later a doctor came in and gave me a summary of what he was going to do.

A few minutes after that they rolled me to the CT Scanner.

So the way things worked was they were taking pictures with the CT Scanner; I had my arms up over my head and the doctor was lining up his needle jab in the corner of my chest but not quite under my arm. They gave me a little local anesthetic and then the doctor did his thing. He asked me if I wanted something to relax me but I said no. He said that he didn't think I would but he had to ask. I suppose that's why they didn't want me to drive just in case I had taken the stuff.

It took about 20 minutes all told and I heard four clicks which, if I remember, means he took four samples.

After it was done he asked me if I felt like I needed to clear my throat and warned me there might be some blood when I did.

Holy shit was there blood. I never saw so much red. They gave me paper towels and a spit bag to deposit them it. Shit, there was a lot of blood. The doctor laughed and said, eh, I've seen worse."

That actually made me feel better. I am glad my wife didn't see this. It started to let up after a couple of minutes and they wheeled me back to the room. I spit up a bit more but very little once back in the room.

I got to lay there for about an hour and then they wheeled me down the hallway for a chest X-Ray.  A half hour after that they let me go.

They said six to seven days until the results are in which could be a minor problem since my office visit with Dr. Shapiro is in exactly a week.

If the results turn out to be not good, things will get ugly. But, there's nothing I can do about that now,

Lung Issues - April 22, 2024

The biopsy is tomorrow. The idea of dragging my rear end out of bed at 6:45 in order to get to the hospital by 7:45 or so really doesn't thrill me but you do but you have to do.

We went last Thursday to check out where the entrance to the new hospital building was and I never saw so many confused people. There's a parking garage attached and you go to 1R o get to the entrance,

Not the most obvious way to go but now we know. I assume people will get used to it as time goes by. Any new thing can be confusing I suppose but on the way out there were two poor woman that couldn't find their cars.

They could also really use some speed bumps in the garage. People were speeding through the place.

Anyway, I'm going to hit the sack early tonight and we shall see what we shall see.

Some Notes on Slavery

It's hard for us looking back to understand how complicated people found the issue of slavery. Even many that conceded the evil of the institution didn't think that an immediate across the board emancipation was going to work. 

Many were convinced that the freed slaves would have to be "expatriated" somewhere. 

Abraham Lincoln proposed shipping the ex-slaves to Central America, the Caribbean or Africa. On August 14, 1862, Lincoln met at the White House delegation of black leaders and proposed voluntary emigration of African Americans to countries outside the U.S. “Your race suffer from living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” 

Stephen Douglas essentially told him he was nuts but Lincoln tried to establish a colony on the island of Île à Vache in Haiti anyway. 

It was an unmitigated disaster and Lincoln accepted that the freed slaves would have to be assimilated into white society.

When Was America Great?

I'm no fan of Trump and his followers. People have taken to asking his MAGA supporters, since they want to make America great AGAIN, when they think America was great?

I'd like to answer that question.

America was great when we looked to the future rather than living in the past. Slavery is over and 600,000 men paid in blood before it ended. 

 Jim Crow is over. Enough people put their heads together and did something about it. 

The past is the past. How about we recognize the problems of the present and try to address them? How about we worry about the drugs and the crime and the unwed mothers and the lack of affordable healthcare and the absent fathers and that children can't read and that people can't live on their salaries?

How are those for facts? 

I heard a black woman on the radio recently refer to the five little girls killed in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in 1963. Yes, that was a tragedy but what about the 1,300 teens and 276 children killed last year? 

We can't do anything about the past but we can do something about the current problems and the future. 

I'm 75 years old and I'm going to tell you that I've never seen a bigger group of fools than exists today. Every day I watch the rich and the media drive wedges between people to insure that we can't get together and make things better.

Iran Launches Strikes Against Israel

In retaliation for an Israeli air strike on Iran's consular offices in Syria Iran has launched 100-200 missile and drones at Israel.

Iran telegraphed the attack and launched mostly slow moving assets. Virtually all of the missiles and drones appear to have been shot down by Israeli, US and Jordanian forces.

The question is what happens next?

There are reports that an Iranian spokesman has said the the "matter can be considered concluded" unless there is more violence.

So far Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and militias in the West Bank don't appear to have participated in the attack. Hamas, in Gaza, is pretty much in tatters already.

The ball may be in Israel's court. Hopefully they'll let the matter drop but I somehow doubt it.

What is a Woman?

The question "what is a woman" is tossed around by mostly right wing pundits as a sort of gotcha question.

The question "what is a woman" looks for a simple answer to what can be a complex situation. 

Let's start by asking if someone is talking about sex or gender when they ask the question? Sex and gender, despite many people using the terms interchangeably, are actually two different things. Sex is based upon physical characteristics such as chromosomes and genitalia. Gender defines the behavior and attitudes that society associates with a given sex.

The thing with gender is that it can vary from society to society and over time in any given society. Neither my mother nor my mother-in-law ever learned how to drive because that wasn't something that women did in their generation.

When people deviate from gender expectations we call that "gender non-conformity." Gender is something of a spectrum with man on one end, woman on the other end, and varying degrees of gender non-conformity in between. I suppose a "woman" on the gender spectrum would be someone who mostly exhibits behaviors and attitudes that society associates with the female sex.

A good example would be the fictional character Albert Goldman played by Nathan Hale in the movie "The Birdcage." Albert is a physical male but acts like the caricature of a female.

If the question refers to sex and not gender then I would say that it perhaps should be phrased as "what is a female" instead but let's go with "what is a woman" in reference to sex.

I can give an example. My wife is a woman but not every woman is my wife. I could say that a woman is someone with no Y chromosome but then where do people with Swyer Syndrome fit in?

Someone with Swyer syndrome has XY chromosomes but underdeveloped female sex organs. They don't produce ova but, if the uterus is reasonably developed, some can become pregnant with a donated egg or embryo and give birth.

I could say that a woman is someone with female genitalia but there are females with ambiguous or abnormal genitalia but they're still women. Some can even possibly become pregnant and give birth with donated eggs or embryos like those with Swyer Syndrome can.

You can't say that a woman is someone who can get pregnant and give birth because many women, due to age or physical issues, can't do that.

The problem really becomes that for any definition exceptions can be found. So the question doesn't have a simple answer.

Lung Issues - April 10, 2024

I had a collapsed lung in November of 2021 which stubbornly wouldn't reinflate. So they called in a thoracic surgeon to repair the lung. He saw a spot on the lung which he didn't like and took it out while he was in there.

The spot turned out to be cancerous and I've been going for regular CT Scans to monitor the situation. Yesterday I went to hear the surgeon's latest interpretation of the scan.

He's not happy with how one nodule, right near the one he removed two years ago, is acting and is sending me for a biopsy.

I have to get blood drawn tomorrow and then go for the biopsy on the 23rd. I see the surgeon again on the 30th to get the results.

It sounds like this biopsy is a bit of a big deal. I need to be at the brand new Valley Hospital at 8 AM. The instructions say they will give me a local anesthetic and then use a CT Scanner to stick a needle into the area of my lung in question. That should be fun.

The thing that really concerns me is they say there is a reasonable chance that the lung could collapse slightly, or not so slightly, and I really don't need to go through that again. Then I get monitored for a couple of hours I suppose just in case the lung collapses.

I'm not allowed to drive afterwards and I wonder why that's the case? So my wife has to go with me. I suppose we shall see what we shall see.

The War in Gaza

The war in Gaza continues and casualties are mounting especially among the Palestinian civilian population.

The Gaza Health Ministry claims 30,000 Palestinians have been killed but doesn't differentiate between combatants and civilians. Hamas admits to 6,000 fighters killed while the IDF claims 12,000. Either way, assuming the Health Ministry numbers are correct, which is a big if, then something like 18,000-24,000 civilians have died. The media always adds "mostly women and children." Given normal demographics I would it's mostly children. Funny how feminism isn't a thing when it comes to war.

War sucks and urban warfare really sucks when one side is embedded in buildings without any regard for possible civilian casualties. The strategy here is clear. Hamas crosses the border, commits a bunch of atrocities and then cries when the Israelis respond. Hamas are terrorists, murderers and rapists and the Palestinians in Gaza have been supporting them for 20 years.

Which is not to say they deserve what's going on. No one deserves this kind of stuff. Unfortunately it happens in a war. That's why war is to be avoided.

A lot of people are calling for a ceasefire including the UN Security Council. But they're not asking for the return of the remaining hostages at the same time. I suspect that's a non-starter. How many hostages are still alive? I've seen an estimate of about 100 but who knows? About 100 were returned during a previous ceasefire and I believe 30 or so have been declared as killed.

It's unclear to me what the Israeli end game is here beyond the return of the remaining hostages. I'm not sure they have one and that could be a real problem.

Bill Mahar on Slavery

Bill Mahar went on a bit of a rant about slavery that some "progressive" sites have labeled as horrendous. I watched the clip and I didn't see anything horrendous about it beyond some truths that some folks don't want to acknowledge.

The whole point Maher is making is that slavery was a common horror all over the word and that's true. Modern "progressives" seem to think that slavery was unique to North America. OK, when he started talking about "you have to cancel Jesus" because he never spoke out against it, that was a little weird I'll give you that. 

He then went on to complain about people wanting to cancel historical figures because they owned slaves. Yes, people have demanded that statues of Washington, Jefferson and even Ulysses S. Grant, because he had a slave that he freed, be torn down because they owned slaves in an era where lots of people, including black people in the US, owned slaves. Can you spell "presentism?" 

The authors of the Constitution mistakenly thought that slavery was on the way out and would disappear within the next ten or twenty years. Even the slaveholding states thought that this was the case which is why they didn't get too upset over Article 1, Section 9 which allowed Congress to make the importation of slaves illegal in 20 years. That's exactly what happened on January 1, 1808 based upon an 1807 bill signed into law by Thomas Jefferson. 

In the meantime slavery was either abolished or being phased out in all of the northern states by 1808.

Unfortunately, the gods laugh at the foolishness of mortals and the invention of the Cotton Gin in 1793 suddenly made an institution of questionable economic value into one that appeared to be enormously profitable. Cotton production exploded from 700 hectares in 1790 to 17,000 hectares in 1800 and then to over a million hectares in 1861. 

The ironic thing was that slavery was still a millstone around the southern economy. It made a handful of people rich but generally kept the entire area as something of an economic backwater. Free labor would have been much more productive and improved things for everyone including the plantation owners.

Was Social Security Racist?

I ran into a claim today that the original Social Security bill was racist because it excluded agricultural and domestic workers most of whom were black.

A little background investigation led me to understand that this claim was accurate but misleading. It was accurate that agricultural and domestic workers were originally not eligible but NOT because they were specifically excluded but because they were outside of the groups that were included.

The Social Security Act of 1935 was a complicated bill that contained 11 Titles and authorized 7 distinct programs. Only Title II was what we now know as Social Security. It was the only one of the 7 programs that was solely a federal program. The rest were federal and state supported (think today's Medicaid). 

All of the racism claims, even those by well known historians, confuse the racial motives associated with programs other than Title II with Title II. Title II did not exclude blacks, nor did it exclude agricultural and domestic workers, rather it only included those workers regularly employed in commerce and industry. 

This left out a whole slew of occupations in addition to agricultural and domestic workers (which usually drives the racism claim) including the self employed, merchant seamen and members of congress. Of the 20 million workers excluded 15 million were white.

So this is a highly dubious claim based upon manipulating the truth to make it say what you want it to say even though it's bullshit.

So...I'm a lot Poorer

I got my taxes done today and had to fork over $9,642 for the federal government and $1,273 for the state bringing my total tax bills to $35,251 for the feds and $5,326 for the state.

Well, I suppose it could be worse.

The War in Gaza

Why is it only the Jews that aren't allowed to strike back when they're attacked? 

I'd like to ask those protesting against Israel whether they agree that Hamas needs to be destroyed. If yes then how do they propose that can be done? If no then I'd like to know why not?

It's not a genocide. That's just name-calling which is a well known propaganda technique. It's war and war sucks. That's why you don't start one. Clearly these youngsters have never had the misfortune of engaging in urban warfare. Every death should be laid at the feet of Hamas. They were the ones that crossed the border and murdered 1400 people, raped helpless women and kidnapped 250 others or have they forgotten that? Hamas is the problem that needs to be eradicated. I don't understand why these young people are supporting terrorists, rapists and murderers. 

Were the Allies committing genocide during World War II against the Germans and Japanese? On February 13-15, 1945 over a thousand British and US bombers destroyed the city of Dresden killing an estimated 25,000 civilians. On March 9, 1945 280 US B-29s dropped incendiary bombs on Tokyo killing an estimated 100,000 civilians. Then there was Hiroshima, 70,000 dead and Nagasaki, 40,000 dead. An estimated 125,000 civilians died during the battle of Berlin. Like I said, war sucks. That's why you don't start one.

Great and Small Minds

 A quote originally attributed to Socrates and then paraphrased by Eleanor Roosevelt goes like this:

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Trump Stays on the Ballot

Unsurprisingly the Supreme Court has decided, in a 9-0 decision, that Trump can't be kept off the ballot based upon the 14th Amendments clause about insurrection barring someone from holding office.

Three states, Colorado, Maine and Illinois, had wanted to keep him off the primary ballot.

I say "unsurprisingly" because Trump hasn't actually been convicted of anything.

What is Non-Binary?

Non-Binary is a term that literally means "not two choices." There can be one choice or three or more choices but there can't be exactly two.

But I'm confused as to what it means when applied to gender.

I say gender and not sex because sex and gender are different things. From the American Psychological Association: 

"Sex is assigned at birth, refers to one’s biological status as either male or female, and is associated primarily with physical attributes such as chromosomes, hormone prevalence, and external and internal anatomy. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for boys and men or girls and women." 

If you don't understand this you're going to always be confused. Also, a lot of people appear to be equating non binary and gender fluid. The latter is as least feasible because gender nonconformity has been a thing for a long time. But I have no idea what Non-Binary means.

Ignoring Intersex, there are only two sexes and therefore by definition only two genders. So what the hell is Non-Binary?

Presidential Rankings

The results of the 2024 Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey are in. The top five presidents are:

#1 - Abraham Lincoln at 93.87

#2 - Franklyn Roosevelt at 90.83

#3 - George Washington at 90.32

#4 - Theodore Roosevelt at 78.58

#5 - Thomas Jefferson at 77.53

I'm always surprised that Thomas Jefferson doesn't come in higher. The man got us a great deal on the Louisiana Purchase didn't he?

As for the most recent presidents.

#7 - Barack Obama at 73.8

#12 - Bill Clinton at 66.42

#14 - Joe Biden at 62.66

#32 - George W. Bush at 40.43

#45 - Donald Trump at 10.92

Yup, the Donald came in dead last even falling behind James Buchannan at 16.71 which is quite an accomplishment considering Buchannan sat around playing with his dick while the country deteriorated into civil war.

I'm not sure why Obama is ahead of Eisenhower at #8  and I don't get Biden at #14 either. Is he really better then Woodrow Wilson at #15 and Ronald Reagan at #16?  Jimmy Carter at #22 surprises me as well. Did I miss something during Carter's presidency? 

Anyway, this is this years list from the "experts."

Hidden Forms of Discrimination?

Both the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and the feminist movement of the 1970s were enormous successes. Less face it, these movements were necessary because if they hadn't occurred then nothing would have changed.

But what both movements discovered was that equal opportunity does not necessarily translate into equal success. This realization led to the development of Critical Race Theory and a lot of feminist whining about "the patriarchy."

Once each movement had addressed the visible forms of discrimination, yet still didn't achieve what they consider parity, they concluded that there must be subtle, invisible forms of discrimination at work. Blacks developed the concept of "Systemic Racism" and feminists came up with "the patriarchy." Republicans, not to be undone, come up with the "deep state." 

Notice that no one thought to look for natural differences to explain the discrepancies. Everyone immediately assumed it was some outside force working against them.

Blacks score about 10-15 points lower on IQ tests than whites. Hispanics are somewhere in between and East Asians and Ashkenazi score about five points higher than whites. No one knows why this is the case and I'm not sure that anyone really understands what IQ measures but we do know that it is a good predictor of life and academic success.

This discrepancy has persisted for decades and probably isn't going away anytime soon. Even if this discrepancy didn't exists, whites have such a huge historical advantage that it's not surprising that blacks aren't achieving parity. There is no need for any hidden discrimination in the form of "Systemic Racism."

So what about women? Women have two problems when competing with men. One is fairly well accepted and the other more controversial. The first is that men are more aggressive. If one chooses a male and a female at random there is about a 60% chance that the male is more aggressive. But at the extremes, the overwhelming majority of the most aggressive individuals are male.

Trust me, no one becomes CEO of a Fortune 500 Company without being very, very aggressive. This also accounts for the so-called "gender pay gap." Men work longer hours and take on more dangerous and higher paying jobs and that's why there's a pay difference.

The second and far more controversial problem is the claim that men and women have slightly differently shaped IQ curves. The curve for women is slightly taller and narrower while the curve for men is slightly wider and flatter. 

In the average the differences are meaningless but at the extremes they become significant. As one psychologist described it the shape of the men's curve, assuming it really is that way, would mean more dumbbells but also more Nobels.

I don't hear feminists whining about men winning most of the Darwin Awards but they do complain about men dominating the CEO positions and Nobel prizes.

So, I lean toward rejecting the existence of hidden forces and suspect it's just the ways things are. This is why I reject the whole concept of DEI. Equity is not a reasonable objective if there are natural differences and variations.

Trump Wins New Hampshire

Trump won New Hampshire but not by that big a margin. Nikki Haley came in second and Ron DeSantis has now dropped out.

Unless he is kidnapped by space aliens Trump will be the GOP nominee. Can you still run for president if you're in jail?

Trump's strategy has always been to delay the various criminal trials that he's facing until after the 2024 election and that strategy appears to be working.

Trump Wins Iowa

 Well, Trump had an overwhelming victory in the Iowa caucuses. No real surprise there.

His opposition for the GOP nomination is down to Nikki Halley and Ron DeSantis. Anyone want to take bets on their chances of heading him off?

Trump's Chances in 2024

Too many people seem to think that Trump's chances are uphill in the 2024 election but I disagree.

Writing Trump off is being too rational and logical. In a sane world I would agree 100%. Unfortunately I’m not sure that we live in a sane world at the moment. 

I have three concerns that lead me to doubt the battle is that uphill. 

The first is that perceptions mean more than reality and far too many people seem to believe that the economy is in worse shape than it is. The media isn’t helping here by constantly pounding the drum of doom for no reason. 

The second is that the southern border is a disaster and refugees being shipped all over the country is a failure in leadership. The federal government should be stepping up to help alleviate the crises in New York and Chicago. How it should do that is beyond my pay grade but that’s why they get the big bucks. 

The third is that Democrats are so talented at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It seems every day there is a news story about a Democrat or Democratic led city doing something that is almost guaranteed to piss people off. Examples include: 

* The mayor of Boston giving a persons of color only Christmas gathering. 

* The mayor of Chicago saying that reparations are the way to fight crime. 

* AOC excusing flash mobs looting stores by saying they’re trying to feed their families. 

* Pittsburgh paying a California firm $50k to show teachers why math is racist and how to take “white supremacy” out of the math classroom. 

This type of stuff appeals to emptions and emotions are often what determines elections. Luckily the memory of the electorate is short so these things should be soon forgotten but they keep doing stuff like this.

Modern Cost of Home Alone Groceries

 During the Christmas season a number of places were comparing the cost of Kevin's shopping spree in "Home Alone" to current prices and coming up with some really big numbers. The Daily Mail came up with $68.99 for Kevin's $20 worth of items in 1990 which sounded a bit high to me.

I checked with Stop & Shop online in New Jersey and the total came out to $46.41. Of course one of the variables is size which isn't specified for all items. I included 8 rolls of toilet paper, 45.5 ounces of laundry detergent, 60 dryer sheets and a pack of 50 army men. If we go to 105 oz of detergent and 120 dryer sheets it goes up to $54.86 but I don't think the detergent was that big or he had 8 rolls of toilet paper. 

The other side of the coin is that median household income in 1990 was $30,636. In 2022 it was $74,580 which represented a drop due to Covid because in 2020 it was $76,330. 

 I will also say that Stop & Shop online is typically more expensive for non perishable items such as laundry detergent and toilet paper than say Walmart. The 8 rolls of toilet paper was $8.59 but I can get 9 rolls of the same brand at Walmart for $6.36. The 105 oz laundry detergent was $9.48 at Walmart rather than $10.24. The 120 dryer sheets were $4.92 rather than $5.99. So buying the paper goods and detergent at Walmart in even the larger sizes would only be $50.88 or an increase of 2.56 times. 

And the really good news is if you spend $35 Walmart delivers, for free, right to your door. So the prices increased between 2.34 times and 2.77 times according to the numbers I found and median household income increased by about 2.43 times. So this seems pretty close to right especially since I don't think Kevin bought the larger sizes. 

 An increase to $68.99 would be a big issue because that would be an increase of 3.48 times compared to a household median income increase of 2.43 times. My advice to the Daily Mail is find a new place to shop.