tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post6271090297169346969..comments2024-03-14T11:50:14.761-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: Inequality, Mobility and Family SizeDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-57879411214218770522008-03-11T21:41:00.000-04:002008-03-11T21:41:00.000-04:00Jim,From what I can tell, this was a case of the U...Jim,<BR/><BR/>From what I can tell, this was a case of the UK media massively mis-understanding what was a fairly ordinary discussion of the social nature of sin. <A HREF="http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=9A0A606B-5056-8960-327C219014498879" REL="nofollow">America, the Jesuit magazine, seems to have the clearest explanation I can find. </A><BR/><BR/>This pretty much makes sense to me, in that the listed offenses (while clearly sins) can I think be pretty clearly understood as fitting within the original seven deadlies. Nothing there that would surprise Dante, I think.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-18390465175761272982008-03-11T17:41:00.000-04:002008-03-11T17:41:00.000-04:00I see. I read the parenthetical without properly ...I see. I read the parenthetical without properly reading the preceding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-7440536303290767862008-03-11T16:51:00.000-04:002008-03-11T16:51:00.000-04:00I am sure you have read of the updated list of sin...I am sure you have read of the updated list of sins fresh from the Vatican?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09834162367511000515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-11620879123316971312008-03-11T16:32:00.000-04:002008-03-11T16:32:00.000-04:00I used the second table down, which is in inflatio...I used the second table down, which is in inflation adjusted 2005 dollars. In non-adjusted dollars, the first quintile change from 1970 to 2005 is 5k to 25k.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-15159253416989220652008-03-11T16:12:00.000-04:002008-03-11T16:12:00.000-04:00The first example doesn't account for inflation. ...The first example doesn't account for inflation. I would have rather had $22K in 1970. Given 36 years of inflation at say 3% compounded to put it on the low side - that is being extremely generous given the inflation during the 70s - we can roughly guess that $22,000 would have to be near $63,000 today to be at parity.<BR/><BR/>Of course if we are going to talk about wage disparity, we should use GINI or some other number that controls for external factors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com