On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:19:23 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> biological food
> 
> I love how nonsensically redundant new-age terminology is.

Heh, I often think that when I see "Organic produce" in the supermarket.  
Because the alternative is, what, *inorganic* produce? ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:30:45 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Urs Holzer"  wrote in message news:51fb8001@news.povray.org...
>> Stallman does not require the "beer" part. In fact, I am slightly
>> opposed to it.
> 
> I think we completely agree on this point.
> 
> One thing that bugs me about Linux is that an American is stuck choosing
> between using illegal software and giving up access to (most) media.
> Would be nice if I could just pay for those codecs.

You can.  They're available from Fluendo.  Some paid distributions (SUSE 
Linux Enterprise Desktop, IIRC) include them as part of the cost.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Nice.

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:51fbf404$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:30:45 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> "Urs Holzer"  wrote in message news:51fb8001@news.povray.org...
>>> Stallman does not require the "beer" part. In fact, I am slightly
>>> opposed to it.
>>
>> I think we completely agree on this point.
>>
>> One thing that bugs me about Linux is that an American is stuck choosing
>> between using illegal software and giving up access to (most) media.
>> Would be nice if I could just pay for those codecs.
>
> You can.  They're available from Fluendo.  Some paid distributions (SUSE
> Linux Enterprise Desktop, IIRC) include them as part of the cost.
>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:27:41 -0500, Shay wrote:

> Nice.
> 
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:51fbf404$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:30:45 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>>> "Urs Holzer"  wrote in message news:51fb8001@news.povray.org...
>>>> Stallman does not require the "beer" part. In fact, I am slightly
>>>> opposed to it.
>>>
>>> I think we completely agree on this point.
>>>
>>> One thing that bugs me about Linux is that an American is stuck
>>> choosing between using illegal software and giving up access to (most)
>>> media. Would be nice if I could just pay for those codecs.
>>
>> You can.  They're available from Fluendo.  Some paid distributions
>> (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop, IIRC) include them as part of the cost.
>>
>> Jim

One might also argue "illegal in what locality"?  While some codecs are 
patented, the patents aren't universally recognized, so in some locales, 
using the OSS codecs isn't using anything illegal.

You do say "American", but in terms of global usage, using the codecs 
distributed with (for example) mplayer is perfectly legal.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2013 13:19, Warp wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> biological food
>
> I love how nonsensically redundant new-age terminology is.
>

LOL

THomas

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> One thing that bugs me about Linux is that an American is stuck
> choosing between using illegal software and giving up access to (most)
> media. Would be nice if I could just pay for those codecs.

Maybe you should also avoid buying media from megacorporations? If you 
get your media directly from the authors, you won't get any problems 
with codecs.

Finally, you should avoid countries with broken law. In the USA, you are 
a criminal no matter what, you just don't know it yet.

Greetings from Switerland!

ps: Oh the irony: My computer broke down, now I need to buy hardware.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:51fbf404$1@news.povray.org...

> You can.  They're available from Fluendo.  Some paid distributions (SUSE
> Linux Enterprise Desktop, IIRC) include them as part of the cost.

Just tried to search the Suse forums for usb install. I can't see the 
verification image in IE10.

If I could even see /where/ to enter the verification text, I might guess 
"Interoperable".

And from a "leader in providing Windows-compatible Linux solutions that work 
with Microsoft and other environments."

Am I the only one who thinks the Internet has peaked? Maybe my patience has 
just peaked.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:18:47 -0500, Shay wrote:

> Just tried to search the Suse forums for usb install. I can't see the
> verification image in IE10.

Where did you specifically go?  I can get someone to look into it and see 
what's wrong.

But if you want to install from a USB drive (or install to a USB drive), 
you might try the wiki at http://en.opensuse.org - I know there are a 
couple pages that cover those topics.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:18:47 -0500, Shay wrote:

> If I could even see /where/ to enter the verification text, I might
> guess "Interoperable".

BTW, search doesn't have a captcha if you log in.  There's one there to 
prevent automated search abuse for those not logged in.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/2/2013 12:43 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 2-8-2013 9:37, scott wrote:
>
>> I said I didn't know for sure whether it would be better or worse, but
>> suspected it would be better overall. The point I made that seemed to
>> cause so much resistance was that giving out free clothes (to people who
>> could afford them anyway) is not as bad as you think, because the people
>> will still spend the money, just not on clothes.
>>
>
> I know that I am grossly generalizing as there is more to the problem
> than this, but sadly enough, if what you say were true, Africa would
> have been out of the problems half a century ago...
>
> Thomas
The way it has generally worked in Africa is - someone comes in to 
provide "basic" help, with the idea that, actually fed, and clothed, the 
people would be able to actually produce some sort of industry. Only, 
various local warlords then steal what ever those people now have, and 
resell it, someplace else, to make themselves rich, and the people 
everyone was trying to help are, if anything, worse off than they where 
before, because now the asses in control have more resources, to help 
them oppress/steal from those people.

Frankly, the problem is that there are always warlords, even if they 
call themselves something else. The US economy was, at one time, about 
food, and other simpler things, like gold, being shipped out to other 
places, only, the people on the receiving end had all the control over 
who, and by how much, the producers where payed. This led to certain.. 
hard feelings. lol

Then we had industry. And, everything got better, unless you where part 
of the child labor, or someone working for the warlord, while living in 
his castle, eating his food, and buying his clothes. I.e., the whole, 
"sold soul to the company store", thing. Someone was still being 
screwed, and treated as replaceable furniture.

Now, industry, and its exploitations, have mostly moved to "cheaper" 
places. Which is a bloody irony, given that the replacement is a 
"service industry", where half the people working in the services can't 
afford to buy them, and, again.. the warlords have ways to make sure 
they scrape in as much as they can, and give the workers as little as 
they can get by with, all while, presumably, waiting for the next big 
shift in the market, so they can somehow shift all the services to 
someplace cheaper, and replace the resulting lost jobs with... something 
else.

Yet, at each stage, we have, never the less, still ended up with a net 
gain, even as we have seen massive losses in certain classes of jobs. I 
doubt this can continue, but.. at the moment, the instability is 
predicated on the fact that other nations are willing to let us exploit 
their workers, to produce goods and services, which they can no more 
afford than we can. At some point.. this isn't going to keep working, 
and either they run out of places to sell the stuff, because no one can 
buy it, or the costs of making it here, as apposed to there, shift 
enough that the current excuse for doing all the manufacturing some 
place else disappears.

But, then.. there is always the interesting "DIY/3d Printing/Small scale 
manufacturing" trend starting.. And, in that fun case, if everyone is a 
warlord (i.e. they can all make and sell things, easily), then... the 
warlords may finally find themselves in deep trouble.

But, overall, the next result has been a gain. Its just.. there is 
always the subset of people, gaming the system, at everyone else's 
expense, and.. they always have the money to buy the law, on some level.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/1/2013 11:38 AM, Shay wrote:
> "Patrick Elliott"  wrote in message news:51faa419$1@news.povray.org...
>> Uh, no.. Rising unemployment and income equality is the direct
>> result of the wolves deciding the the rabbits where not enough,
>> and they should be allowed to eat "everything".
>
> We agree more than you think. Low-cost/no-cost goods (or labor) lead to
> a loss of economic equilibrium. This is common to both our stories.
>
> Some people in very unfortunate situations must undersell their goods or
> labor. Remedies for this situation are not the subject of this thread.
>
Actually, my point is, when the wolves are the ones making the 
decisions, they are the ones that end up "over pricing" the goods, and 
"under pricing" the labor. This is always one thing that irritates the 
hell out of my about the people in the US that insisting on using the 
term "libertarian". They always seem to think you "Fix things" by either 
intentionally buying the more expensive goods, and thus taking money 
away from the bad employers, and "choosing the higher paid jobs", 
instead of just what ever job you can actually get. What they flat out 
refuse to acknowledge is that, more often than not, the current economic 
model functions on four principles:

1. Charge for everything, even if you could give it away as part of the 
deal.
2. Pay as little as possible to the people making it all work.
3. Pay the top people, at minimum, 50x what the guy on the bottom makes.
4. Stare in incomprehension, when people tell you they can't afford your 
"cheap" goods.

Almost nothing is ever priced what it actually costs to make it, without 
adding on a "huge" margin, which gets funneled, almost entirely, to the 
people who do the least bloody actual work. The few places that either 
don't, or are not as blatant about it, either a) get called fools, or 
b), yes, temporarily, for as long as needed to kill their business, 
maybe undercut by enough that they can't afford to compete. Only.. half 
of their costs come from someone they are not in competition to, 
overcharging for goods, which only the people undercutting everyone else 
can afford to pay for.

As I said.. the wolves get to each everything. And then sit around 
howling, when, all of the sudden, their fat asses find themselves 
missing a meal or two, because part of the ecosystem collapses.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:51fd637c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Where did you specifically go?  I can get someone to look into it and see
> what's wrong.

https://forums.suse.com/search.php?do=process

>
> But if you want to install from a USB drive (or install to a USB drive),
> you might try the wiki at http://en.opensuse.org - I know there are a
> couple pages that cover those topics.

Thank you.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Internet Explorer 10
Version: 10.0.9200.16635
Update Versions: 10.0.7 (KB2846071)
Product ID: 00150-20000-00003-AA459

Typed, not pasted, so there may be mistakes.

 -Shay


"Shay" <non### [at] nonecom> wrote in message news:51fdc87a$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
> news:51fd637c$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Where did you specifically go?  I can get someone to look into it and see
>> what's wrong.
>
> https://forums.suse.com/search.php?do=process
>
>>
>> But if you want to install from a USB drive (or install to a USB drive),
>> you might try the wiki at http://en.opensuse.org - I know there are a
>> couple pages that cover those topics.
>
> Thank you.
>
> -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 22:20:22 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:51fd637c$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Where did you specifically go?  I can get someone to look into it and
>> see what's wrong.
> 
> https://forums.suse.com/search.php?do=process

Thanks - since you indicated your browser (and I'm guessing a recent 
Windows platform - 7 or 8?), I'll see if I can get someone to check it 
out.

>> But if you want to install from a USB drive (or install to a USB
>> drive), you might try the wiki at http://en.opensuse.org - I know there
>> are a couple pages that cover those topics.
> 
> Thank you.

Glad to help out. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 22:23:48 -0500, Shay wrote:

> Internet Explorer 10 Version: 10.0.9200.16635 Update Versions: 10.0.7
> (KB2846071)
> Product ID: 00150-20000-00003-AA459
> 
> Typed, not pasted, so there may be mistakes.

Great, thanks.  :)

I've asked if anyone's able to dupe it, hopefully that'll identify the 
problem.  I did a check from Linux with Chrome, and I was able to see it 
OK.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The way it has generally worked in Africa is - someone comes in to 
> provide "basic" help, with the idea that, actually fed, and clothed, the 
> people would be able to actually produce some sort of industry. Only, 
> various local warlords then steal what ever those people now have, and 
> resell it, someplace else, to make themselves rich, and the people 
> everyone was trying to help are, if anything, worse off than they where 
> before, because now the asses in control have more resources, to help 
> them oppress/steal from those people.

I once heard a speech made by a charity worker who said that all donations
go to help the poor in African countries, and they make sure that the
money doesn't go to the wrong hands by only bringing things like school
supplies and such to those countries. If a thieving gang tries to raid
the supplies, all they will find is pens, books and such things that are
basically worthless for them.

These charities have good intentions, but they are a bit naive. The
criminals have their ways around that problem. What they do is to basically
hijack the supplies and demand ransom money from the recipients or they
will destroy them. The charity workers are helpless to do anything about
that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:51fdd55b$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 22:20:22 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
> Thanks - since you indicated your browser (and I'm guessing a recent
> Windows platform - 7 or 8?), I'll see if I can get someone to check it
> out.

Windows 7.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:54:03 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:51fdd55b$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 22:20:22 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>> Thanks - since you indicated your browser (and I'm guessing a recent
>> Windows platform - 7 or 8?), I'll see if I can get someone to check it
>> out.
> 
> Windows 7.

K, thanks.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> But, then.. there is always the interesting "DIY/3d Printing/Small scale
> manufacturing" trend starting.. And, in that fun case, if everyone is a
> warlord (i.e. they can all make and sell things, easily), then... the
> warlords may finally find themselves in deep trouble.

Apart from the warlords can finance an expensive machine that can run 
off 1000000 of your 3D printed part and sell it for 50x cheaper. That 
isn't about to change, the economies of scale are always there. There 
is, and always has been, the option for small entrepreneurs to become 
warlords and compete with the others.

> But, overall, the next result has been a gain. Its just.. there is
> always the subset of people, gaming the system, at everyone else's
> expense, and.. they always have the money to buy the law, on some level.

The thing is it's us, the consumers, that drive such behaviour. Given 
the choice between a product made in your own country, and a cheaper one 
made abroad somewhere, people choose the cheaper one. If you want to 
force people to buy stuff made in your own country you need to tax 
imports out of the market, but will that really lead to a net gain?

Post a reply to this message

On 8/5/2013 1:01 AM, scott wrote:
> The thing is it's us, the consumers, that drive such behaviour. Given
> the choice between a product made in your own country, and a cheaper one
> made abroad somewhere, people choose the cheaper one. If you want to
> force people to buy stuff made in your own country you need to tax
> imports out of the market, but will that really lead to a net gain?
>
Well, like I said, if they won't pay you enough to buy the one that 
costs more... But, also, the average person doesn't have a damn clue 
where something is made, and having a "made here" label on it can simply 
even mean, 'We paid someone so little they can't buy one, to screw the 
parts made in some other country together.'

But, hell, even I can't afford to buy "best", and I have fewer bills, 
and slightly better pay that like 90% of the people in the country. That 
is a **major** problem. Its not, frankly, unlike what happens with birth 
control, or medical practices some people don't like, or anything else 
similar. Just because, in theory, you can buy something else, doesn't 
mean, in reality, that you can afford the time, cost, travel distances, 
percentage of your income you can afford to spend, or what ever else has 
been put in the way, to get it. And, that is my core point. If the 
playing field is so badly imbalanced, that almost no one can pick the 
better option, or there just isn't a better option, then the "theory" 
that you can fix things by buying local, is a complete non-starter.

Maybe, if people started doing that 20 years ago, but then we could have 
avoided the current problem. But, at this point. People need better pay, 
so they can even have the choice, and even then, every place has been 
"walmart"-ized, to the point where, often, even if you could afford 
another option, there isn't one available. Its all well and good to tell 
the person that is already drowning, that they should have had a life 
vest, or a row boat, when the real problem is that the ship they boarded 
was called "Titanic".

Post a reply to this message

> But, hell, even I can't afford to buy "best", and I have fewer bills,
> and slightly better pay that like 90% of the people in the country. That
> is a **major** problem.

Isn't that you just being too greedy? I don't expect to be able to 
afford the best of everything unless I'm a football star or win the 
lottery or something.

> similar. Just because, in theory, you can buy something else, doesn't
> mean, in reality, that you can afford the time, cost, travel distances,
> percentage of your income you can afford to spend, or what ever else has
> been put in the way, to get it.

A long time ago you could only buy local, between then and now (when 
there was plenty of choice) everyone has voted with their wallets that 
they would rather buy the cheaper non-local mass-produced items. Large 
corporations are simply providing us with what we want. If they thought 
everyone wanted local items (and were happy to pay a premium), they'd 
sell local items.

>But, at this point. People need better pay,

Just wait, the gradient of average GDP increase (in real terms) has been 
a steady doubling every 15 years since about 1850, and has shown no 
signs of slowing.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:41:21 +0100, scott wrote:

> Just wait, the gradient of average GDP increase (in real terms) has been
> a steady doubling every 15 years since about 1850, and has shown no
> signs of slowing.

Meanwhile, the income gap has increased by more than that, and also shows 
no signs of changing.  So the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and 
upward mobility is stifled.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/5/2013 2:41 AM, scott wrote:
>> But, hell, even I can't afford to buy "best", and I have fewer bills,
>> and slightly better pay that like 90% of the people in the country. That
>> is a **major** problem.
>
> Isn't that you just being too greedy? I don't expect to be able to
> afford the best of everything unless I'm a football star or win the
> lottery or something.
>
Ok.. How about, "Better than the cheapest crap no the market"? Forget 
best, just not the same stuff that the guy two doors down has a better 
chance of buying, on food stamps, than I do when, supposedly, having a 
"decent paycheck".

Seriously, I don't think you are getting my point. If most of the 
population can't afford to buy "better", then there is no incentive to 
anyone to sell "better", which leads to no incentive to pay enough, so 
people can buy the "better" product, which... and around and around we 
go. There is a reason that, in the US, you have to pay for every single 
"service" on a cell phone, to the order of $50 a month, when most of 
that stuff is free in the places they *actually* manufacture, test, and 
perfect the latest model of the phones, and its not because it somehow 
"costs more" to run a US cell network, than on in Taiwan, or someplace 
like that. Its because they know that they can squeeze every dime they 
can out of you, and either you pay for the phone, or a get a cheap assed 
one, which isn't as good, and pay for it upfront besides, and even if 
people know they getting screwed, there isn't any "alternative" source 
to go to, to get anything better.

So, they stack the deck, no matter the product. Either they make it 
cheaper than hell, then don't pay you anything, so you can't buy 
anything else, or, if its someone you need, like a car, or a cell phone, 
or anything else that is a "necessity", they charge you every time you 
so much as look at it, for *everything*, then make the lame excuse that, 
somehow, its "too expensive" to do otherwise. When someone else controls 
all of the roads, you don't have any choice but to pay **someone's** 
toll. And, if all of them are charging higher than needed prices, to 
line their own pockets, then, a few miles down the road, buying your 
goods, for less than they are worth (i.e., paying you sub-par wages), 
who exactly are you going to complain to about the tolls, or what they 
pay you, the people they paid millions in campaign contributions, to elect?

There is a reason why the Rethuglicans in the US are trying to undermine 
worker rights, and unions. Its because less than 10% of the money anyone 
else runs on comes from corporations. The other 90%, for Democrats, 
comes from unions. For other groups, it comes from their own pockets, or 
private donations, at a trickle. With a 10:1 ratio of money coming in, 
in favor of those people that support low wages, or no minimum, 
exporting jobs, secret Caiman Island accounts, and so on, who is going 
to either lower prices to a sane level, raise low income wages, or 
actually call for the people on top to make "sane" amounts of money, 
instead of shoveling everything they can legally get their hands on into 
their pockets, and then hiding the pockets?

And, you think we fix this by taking a budget of roughly $1300 a month, 
where like all but a few bucks of that goes to insurance, rent, food, 
heating, etc., to buy a $20 item, from a slightly less insane company, 
instead of a $10 one, from Walmart... Yeah, that has worked "so well", 
so far, given the huge amount of extra, left over, income everyone has, 
at the end of every month...

Post a reply to this message

On 8/5/2013 2:41 AM, scott wrote:

> A long time ago you could only buy local, between then and now (when
> there was plenty of choice) everyone has voted with their wallets that
> they would rather buy the cheaper non-local mass-produced items. Large
> corporations are simply providing us with what we want. If they thought
> everyone wanted local items (and were happy to pay a premium), they'd
> sell local items.
>
No, they won't. Those corporations didn't just edge out small businesses 
by selling non-local goods. Most local businesses, with the exception of 
food providers, or other "immediate sale" types, ordered parts, or 
goods, had them shipped to them, in smaller, more expensive, volumes, or 
special ordered them, and then you waited. The big corporations could do 
"volume" purchases, hire their own, lower paid shippers, then undercut 
the prices of the local sellers, even selling the **exact identical 
items**. There was no where that low sales, non-bulk, often 'special 
order' businesses could cut their own costs enough, to compete with 
someone that could ship in 50 of something, sit them on a shelf for six 
months, and sell them at 20% lower cost (because they bought more of 
them at a time, from the manufacturer). **While** they did this, they 
also then, to cut into everyone else's business even more, started 
offering, "lower cost, adequate, but not the same, quality", products, 
made in places where it cost far less to make them. By the time nearly 
everything places like Walmart where selling was total crap, there where 
no more "locals" to buy from, either in terms of stores, who could 
compete, or the manufacturing, to get better products from.

Its the #1 way to kill competition - drive them out of business. The #2 
way is, buy them up, then sell the parts. And, they did a lot of that 
too. Crushing whole companies, firing their workers, then shipping 
production to other countries, in order to both "acquire", and "destroy" 
competition, in the same move.

>> But, at this point. People need better pay,
>
> Just wait, the gradient of average GDP increase (in real terms) has been
> a steady doubling every 15 years since about 1850, and has shown no
> signs of slowing.
>
And, in the last 15 years, the minimum wage has gone up $0, inflation 
has grown by almost the same rate and GDP, and the amount paid, on 
average, to CEOs, and other top people, has increased anywhere from 5, 
to 50 times, in the same time frame. Oh, right, and the number of middle 
wage jobs and halved, while the "minimum wage", and other low end jobs, 
have more than doubled.

About the only thing they haven't done, so far, is go before congress, 
and say, "Well, if they can't afford bread, then let them eat cake!"

Post a reply to this message

>> Just wait, the gradient of average GDP increase (in real terms) has been
>> a steady doubling every 15 years since about 1850, and has shown no
>> signs of slowing.
>
> Meanwhile, the income gap has increased by more than that, and also shows
> no signs of changing.  So the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and
> upward mobility is stifled.

Any evidence for that comment? Even in the last 40 years the poor have 
not been getting poorer:

http://rs.resalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/worldincome1970_2006.jpg

Another chart here, global poverty has reduced from about 90% of the 
population in 1800 to just above 20% by 2000.

http://blog.compassion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Global-Poverty-1820-1992_graph-1.jpg

That's quite some progress, especially given the world population also 
increased by a factor of about 6 in the same time period.

Post a reply to this message

> Seriously, I don't think you are getting my point. If most of the
> population can't afford to buy "better", then there is no incentive to
> anyone to sell "better",

Maybe it's different where you are from, but in the UK at least there is 
certainly a huge market for "better" things, which a large majority can 
actually afford. If that weren't the case then Apple wouldn't sell 
anything, nor would the German car makers, nor would satellite TV 
companies be able to sell premium channels, petrol stations wouldn't be 
able to sell the "premium" fuel, "premium" food shops wouldn't exist, 
toll roads wouldn't get any customers, people would all go to cheap pubs 
instead of restaurants, designer clothes and shoes wouldn't sell, etc 
etc. These are all things that normal people on average salaries can 
afford if they want to.

> go. There is a reason that, in the US, you have to pay for every single
> "service" on a cell phone, to the order of $50 a month, when most of
> that stuff is free in the places they *actually* manufacture, test, and
> perfect the latest model of the phones, and its not because it somehow
> "costs more" to run a US cell network, than on in Taiwan, or someplace
> like that. Its because they know that they can squeeze every dime they
> can out of you, and either you pay for the phone, or a get a cheap assed
> one, which isn't as good, and pay for it upfront besides, and even if
> people know they getting screwed, there isn't any "alternative" source
> to go to, to get anything better.

I don't get your point here, it sounds pretty similar to the UK, you 
have options from as little of £5/month up to £50+ depending on what 
type of phone you want, how much data, how many minutes etc. Judging 
from the number of people I see with iPhones and Samsung Galaxies it's 
not like nobody can afford the expensive "best" options, if they want 
to. Plenty of people don't want/need the best, so take a cheaper option.

The industry is highly competitive (at least in UK), customers are free 
to keep their numbers and switch providers whenever their contract 
expires. Most contracts don't distinguish between calls/texts to one 
provider or another, and coverage is pretty much equal across all 
networks. There is no way one company would be able to charge 
significantly more than the others, they would simply lose customers. 
Net profit at Vodafone UK was 1.5% last year, not exactly excessive.

> And, you think we fix this by taking a budget of roughly $1300 a month,
> where like all but a few bucks of that goes to insurance, rent, food,
> heating, etc., to buy a $20 item, from a slightly less insane company,
> instead of a $10 one, from Walmart... Yeah, that has worked "so well",
> so far, given the huge amount of extra, left over, income everyone has,
> at the end of every month...

I think you're making exactly the same point as me, the fact is people 
would rather have a bit bigger house, a bit nicer food, a bit bigger TV, 
a bit better phone etc rather than paying a bit extra to get something 
that they can say is made locally. Most people would rather take the £10 
Walmart option, if it means they've got another $10 to allow them to get 
the latest iPhone or more TV channels or whatever.

Post a reply to this message

>> A long time ago you could only buy local, between then and now (when
>> there was plenty of choice) everyone has voted with their wallets that
>> they would rather buy the cheaper non-local mass-produced items. Large
>> corporations are simply providing us with what we want. If they thought
>> everyone wanted local items (and were happy to pay a premium), they'd
>> sell local items.
>>
> No, they won't.

They would if there was more profit in it for them. There isn't because 
people aren't willing to pay the extra.

> And, in the last 15 years, the minimum wage has gone up $0, inflation
> has grown by almost the same rate and GDP, and the amount paid, on
> average, to CEOs, and other top people, has increased anywhere from 5,
> to 50 times, in the same time frame. Oh, right, and the number of middle
> wage jobs and halved, while the "minimum wage", and other low end jobs,
> have more than doubled.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

The numbers are a bit hard to read from the graph, but to me it looks 
like both the upper 20% and lower 20% have seen about a factor of 3 
increase between 1950 and today. Not exactly the huge disparity you 
describe.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:32:55 +0100, scott wrote:

>>> Just wait, the gradient of average GDP increase (in real terms) has
>>> been a steady doubling every 15 years since about 1850, and has shown
>>> no signs of slowing.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the income gap has increased by more than that, and also
>> shows no signs of changing.  So the rich get richer, the poor get
>> poorer, and upward mobility is stifled.
> 
> Any evidence for that comment? 

Absolutely.

Between 1967 and 2003 here in the US, according to the US Census Bureau, 
people in the bottom 20% of incomes have seen their incomes raise an 
average of 28.4%. ($14,002 at the start and $17,984 in 2003)

At the same time, people in the 95th percentile have seen their average 
incomes go up by about 78%. ($88,678 in '67, $154,120 in '03).

$1 in 2003 has the same buying power, though, as $0.18 in 1967. (or in 
the inverse, a dollar back then is worth a little over $6 now).

Right now, if I buy a gallon of milk, I pay about $4.50 for the brand we 
prefer.

According to the CPI inflation calculator (at bls.gov), in 2003, that 
gallon of milk would have cost $3.55.  In '67, it would've been $0.64.

So inflation over the '67-'03 time period was 600%, but incomes for the 
bottom 20% only went up 28%.  Relative to purchasing power, those 
families lost a lot of money (arguably those in the top 5% also lost a 
lot of buying power, but when you have enough money for the essentials, 
that becomes less of an issue - when you're only bringing in $17,000/
year, 600% inflation hurts a lot more than when you're bringing in 
$150,000 - because you can afford the essentials).

> Even in the last 40 years the poor have
> not been getting poorer:
> 
> http://rs.resalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/
worldincome1970_2006.jpg
> 
> Another chart here, global poverty has reduced from about 90% of the
> population in 1800 to just above 20% by 2000.
> 
> http://blog.compassion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Global-
Poverty-1820-1992_graph-1.jpg
> 
> That's quite some progress, especially given the world population also
> increased by a factor of about 6 in the same time period.

I'm talking in the US, and those values don't appear to take inflation 
into account, it seems.  But those graphs also don't provide sources for 
their data, so they don't seem to be particularly useful.  I can create a 
graph that tells whatever story I want if I don't tell you the source of 
the data.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 20:45:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> No, they won't. Those corporations didn't just edge out small businesses
> by selling non-local goods. Most local businesses, with the exception of
> food providers, or other "immediate sale" types, ordered parts, or
> goods,
> had them shipped to them, in smaller, more expensive, volumes, or
> special ordered them, and then you waited. The big corporations could do
> "volume"
> purchases, hire their own, lower paid shippers, then undercut the prices
> of the local sellers, even selling the **exact identical items**.

I spent about a decade working in the food & drug industry as an IT 
professional, and towards the end of the time, when my "Fortune 50" 
company was acquired by another Fortune 50 company, we had to take a 
course on "retail business basics".

In that course, one of the things we talked about was the death of the 
"mom & pop" style grocery store.  Companies like ours were responsible 
for those smaller local shops going away for precisely the reasons you 
state, Patrick:  Volume purchases, the ability to sell some items at a 
loss (which is actually a sound strategy, because you lay the store out 
so you have more impulse purchases and drive the average sale up).

But here was the interesting thing (and part of the reason that the 
combined larger company itself became an acquisition target - that and 
incompetent senior management, IMHO):  Walmart was (and is) doing the 
exact same thing to stores that focused on just food & drug.  Walmart 
leverages the welfare system in (IMHO) an unconscionable way to drive 
prices even lower than what food & drug retailers (who deal with unions 
in most states) can afford.  A not insignificant number of Walmart part 
time employees have to supplement their income with food stamps or other 
forms of welfare because they don't make a living wage (the ironic 
statement that "Walmart employees can't even afford to shop at Walmart" 
is sadly true in a lot of cases).

So now the food & drug giants like Safeway, Albertson's, Supervalu, and 
so on are faced with being on the receiving end of what they did to the 
mom & pop grocery stores.  To say they're not liking it is an 
understatement.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 10:52:59 +0100, scott wrote:

> Not exactly the huge disparity you describe.

3*15 = 45

3*60 = 180

The gap is the important thing, not the factor.  The initial gap is what 
makes the disparity that much larger, and as I said, when you compare the 
numbers to the rate of inflation, the story gets much worse for those in 
the lower 20th percentile of income.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Not exactly the huge disparity you describe.
>
> 3*15 = 45
>
> 3*60 = 180
>
> The gap is the important thing, not the factor.

That doesn't make any sense, to keep the gap the same the poorest 20% 
would need a far higher rate of income growth than the richest 20%. 
Eventually, in a few decades, if the gap is kept at say $45k, the 
richest will need to be earning $1m or whatever and the poorest $0.95m.

> The initial gap is what
> makes the disparity that much larger,

Go back far enough the presumably the gap gets almost to zero dollars?

> and as I said, when you compare the
> numbers to the rate of inflation, the story gets much worse for those in
> the lower 20th percentile of income.

Those figures already take into account inflation, as they are all based 
on the value of USD in 2007.

Post a reply to this message

> Between 1967 and 2003 here in the US, according to the US Census Bureau,
> people in the bottom 20% of incomes have seen their incomes raise an
> average of 28.4%. ($14,002 at the start and $17,984 in 2003)
>
> At the same time, people in the 95th percentile have seen their average
> incomes go up by about 78%. ($88,678 in '67, $154,120 in '03).

I was looking at figures globally, not just for one country. There must 
be reasons why the USA increases for the bottom 20% have not kept up 
with the global trend.

> I'm talking in the US, and those values don't appear to take inflation
> into account, it seems.

They all take inflation into account.

 > But those graphs also don't provide sources for
> their data, so they don't seem to be particularly useful.  I can create a
> graph that tells whatever story I want if I don't tell you the source of
> the data.

You can try googling "global income distribution", the answers are all 
the same.

Try pages 34 and 35 (pages 35 and 36 in the PDF) of this report.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/globalincometrends.pdf

The table "Income growth by decile" holds the key data. Essentially the 
low-mid earners have seen the largest growth, with the very lowest and 
high earners seeing lower growth (but still significantly positive). The 
only real negative growth (in real terms) was for those in the 75-85 
percentile from 1990-2000. In the same period the bottom 10% saw 12% growth.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 16:50:37 +0100, scott wrote:

>>> Not exactly the huge disparity you describe.
>>
>> 3*15 = 45
>>
>> 3*60 = 180
>>
>> The gap is the important thing, not the factor.
> 
> That doesn't make any sense, to keep the gap the same the poorest 20%
> would need a far higher rate of income growth than the richest 20%.
> Eventually, in a few decades, if the gap is kept at say $45k, the
> richest will need to be earning $1m or whatever and the poorest $0.95m.

Sure it does:

45 - 15 = 30

180 - 60 = 120

120 > 30

The factor isn't the important thing, the disparity is the important 
thing.

Both groups are subject to the same 600% inflation.  Those who now make 
$120K more than they did at the start of the period are far better off 
than those who only make $30K more, especially when both groups have 
similar fixed costs (the cost of a gallon of milk is not dependent on the 
purchaser's income - if I make $6K/year, I pay $4.50 for that gallon of 
milk, the same as someone who makes $100,000/year).

The base fixed costs are the same.

>> The initial gap is what makes the disparity that much larger,
> 
> Go back far enough the presumably the gap gets almost to zero dollars?

I never claimed that.

>> and as I said, when you compare the numbers to the rate of inflation,
>> the story gets much worse for those in the lower 20th percentile of
>> income.
> 
> Those figures already take into account inflation, as they are all based
> on the value of USD in 2007.

Citation?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:16:45 +0100, scott wrote:

>> Between 1967 and 2003 here in the US, according to the US Census
>> Bureau, people in the bottom 20% of incomes have seen their incomes
>> raise an average of 28.4%. ($14,002 at the start and $17,984 in 2003)
>>
>> At the same time, people in the 95th percentile have seen their average
>> incomes go up by about 78%. ($88,678 in '67, $154,120 in '03).
> 
> I was looking at figures globally, not just for one country. There must
> be reasons why the USA increases for the bottom 20% have not kept up
> with the global trend.

If I'm not mistaken, Patrick was talking about US numbers, so the 
comparison started out with an apples/oranges basis to start with.

>> I'm talking in the US, and those values don't appear to take inflation
>> into account, it seems.
> 
> They all take inflation into account.

All I saw were graphs in your citations, no notes on the data behind 
those, so I'll have to ask for links to those data sources.

>  > But those graphs also don't provide sources for
>> their data, so they don't seem to be particularly useful.  I can create
>> a graph that tells whatever story I want if I don't tell you the source
>> of the data.
> 
> You can try googling "global income distribution", the answers are all
> the same.

I want to know specifically what you're citing. :)

> Try pages 34 and 35 (pages 35 and 36 in the PDF) of this report.
> 
> http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/globalincometrends.pdf

Thank you.  I'll look at it when I have a few minutes.

> The table "Income growth by decile" holds the key data. Essentially the
> low-mid earners have seen the largest growth, with the very lowest and
> high earners seeing lower growth (but still significantly positive). The
> only real negative growth (in real terms) was for those in the 75-85
> percentile from 1990-2000. In the same period the bottom 10% saw 12%
> growth.

Again, though, growth factors are not the same as widening gaps in income 
disparity.  Someone who made $250K back in 1990 who makes $500K now has 
not had to deal with being part of the lower income class.  They've not 
had to make decisions between health care, food, housing, and clothes.

Someone who made $6,000 back then and makes even $20,000 now does have to 
evaluate those kinds of decisions, because they're below the poverty line.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/08/2013 8:32 AM, scott wrote:
>
> Any evidence for that comment? Even in the last 40 years the poor have
> not been getting poorer:

You have to remember that poverty is relative. Coming up for 200 years 
ago during the Irish famine. If you were one of the poor, having a metal 
spoon was a luxury. Now if you have not got Sky or cable you are 
deprived. I did not have a colour TV until the 1980's and no one thought 
that was poverty. Although we have had colour transmission since the 
late 70's.
As someone who has live through 40 years in the UK and then some. I 
think that you are misguided, if not just plain wrong. No matter what 
figures people come up with.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8/6/2013 11:01 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:16:45 +0100, scott wrote:
>
>>> Between 1967 and 2003 here in the US, according to the US Census
>>> Bureau, people in the bottom 20% of incomes have seen their incomes
>>> raise an average of 28.4%. ($14,002 at the start and $17,984 in 2003)
>>>
>>> At the same time, people in the 95th percentile have seen their average
>>> incomes go up by about 78%. ($88,678 in '67, $154,120 in '03).
>>
>> I was looking at figures globally, not just for one country. There must
>> be reasons why the USA increases for the bottom 20% have not kept up
>> with the global trend.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, Patrick was talking about US numbers, so the
> comparison started out with an apples/oranges basis to start with.
>
Yes, in fact, I was, given the rather simple fact that, for me, its kind 
of irrelevant if someone in African can buy two sandwiches, when people 
in the US might not, by the same token, be able, without government 
help, to buy just the bread itself, never mind anything else in the 
sandwich, while working 50+ hours a week, and at two jobs.

And, there are several reasons, but one "big" one is the current 
"economic theory" supported buy US lunitarian movement.

US "libertarians" are not like those every place else. The best 
descriptions for their philosophy I have seen are -

On government help: The government is too big, and doesn't help

On worker wages: They can always find a job with more pay, even though 
90% of all jobs are not "service" in the US, and they all pay minimum 
wage (this isn't even necessary, since they ran the numbers, and fast 
food places could pass on 100% of the difference to the customer, at a 
mere 50 cent increase in the cost of the food, while **doubling** the 
salaries of everyone that worked for them, including the CEOs).

On price gouging: You can always buy something else, somewhere else, 
which is cheaper.

On crappy products: Well.. you can always buy the more costly item, 
which won't be a piece of total crap.

On regulation: Regulations are bad, if they stifle my business, but 
good, if they stifle worker's rights.

On personal responsibility: Everyone should be responsible for their own 
mistakes, but.. uh, I didn't actually mean "me" when I said that!

and so on...

On their general logic: "I have mine, so fuck you!"

You can add to this decades, since Reagan, and his voodoo economics 
(people with more money than god will open thousands of new businesses, 
and pay people more money, without someone making them, instead of 
sitting on it, or funneling it to offshore accounts, so it will all 
"trickle back down"), as well as undermining education, especially 
cheap, accessible education, as a result in major changes in regulations 
he imposed on colleges, attacks on social programs, an unwillingness to 
spend money of say.. roads, instead of military campaigns, and the fact 
that, for the same number of decades supposed "experts" teaching MBAs 
have been "teaching" that "free markets" are better than well regulated 
ones, socialism is always bad, no matter what the social program is, and 
that Reagan's model of economics is "sane", instead of totally 
delusional, and.. pretty much the vast majority of CEOs think that the 
whole entire problem is everyone else's fault, and these things will fix it:

1. More, less precise patents, to "protect" their nebulous ideas.

2. Less environmental, worker related, safety, or any other kind of 
"stifling" regulations.

3. Eliminating social programs, so all those damn whiners will go out of 
find jobs (because, already working, in some cases, at 5 jobs, 70 hours 
a week, all of them minimum wage, just to feed you family and then 
"also" having to have government aid, to fill in the gaps, mean you are 
"lazy, and not trying hard enough."

No, seriously, this is **exactly** what these idiots and their political 
lap dogs, keep claiming.

4. Getting rid of minimum wages (which they insist are actually "too 
high". o.O

5. Getting rid of all unions, because maybe 2% of them are actually bad, 
but **all of them**, even in states that make them almost illegal (or at 
least ineffective), like the "right to work" ones, where any concessions 
they do manage to force apply to "everyone", not just the union workers, 
thereby removing the incentive to join on in the first place. Well, 
other than the fact that, even in those states, if you didn't have some 
of them, you are screwed anyway), all because they "force unreasonable 
demands on the company."

You want to know what "unreasonable" is? A grocery chain called Krogers 
thought it would be unfair to reduce some of its staff to a minimum 
wage, when it wasn't before, and several other things which I don't know 
all the details of. The union disintegrated, and now Krogers pays 
**everyone** no matter what job they have, which department they work 
in, or how long they have been there, "minimum wage".

It went from an objection about them taking money, and thus food, out of 
the pockets of people with kids, who worked for them, because they 
claimed they "had to" to save money, during a year when they made 
billions in profits, despite the "slow economy", to screwing **all** of 
their workers, including the ones that where already working there, for 
decades.

This is the stuff happening in the US, and what all those people, who 
the media lambasted, the president ignored, and all the politicians, and 
anyone else with an agenda to make it seem like there was no legitimate 
cause being promoted by them, sometimes called the "Occupy Movement", 
but mostly just called, "dirty, lazy, unwilling to find work, etc., 
etc." Because.. its not like there where, and still are, millions of 
people out of work here, and no one willing to hire them, or tens of 
millions more, being paid crap wages who, for the most part, didn't show 
up at the rallies **purely** because, literally, couldn't afford to lose 
one single days pay, never mind their, possibly conservative, boss, 
firing them for attending one, then claiming it was, for legal reasons, 
for something else. Though.. most of them could, probably, have gotten 
by with firing them using the catch all for "things we don't want our 
workers to do, even in their free time, off the job, or in the privacy 
of their own homes, should we somehow find out they are doing them", 
which is called, "Negatively impacting the image of the business."


>> The table "Income growth by decile" holds the key data. Essentially the
>> low-mid earners have seen the largest growth, with the very lowest and
>> high earners seeing lower growth (but still significantly positive). The
>> only real negative growth (in real terms) was for those in the 75-85
>> percentile from 1990-2000. In the same period the bottom 10% saw 12%
>> growth.
>
> Again, though, growth factors are not the same as widening gaps in income
> disparity.  Someone who made $250K back in 1990 who makes $500K now has
> not had to deal with being part of the lower income class.  They've not
> had to make decisions between health care, food, housing, and clothes.
>

And, in fact, in the US, this isn't even accurate either. The low-mid 
are "falling" into the lowest category, while the rich are gaining (at, 
as has been pointed out, a much slower rate than, stupidly, they did 
when they a) actually had to pay taxes, and higher taxes, and b) 
actually paid their workers better wages). The middle class, in the US, 
are vanishing.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/6/2013 2:41 AM, scott wrote:

> The industry is highly competitive (at least in UK), customers are free
> to keep their numbers and switch providers whenever their contract
> expires. Most contracts don't distinguish between calls/texts to one
> provider or another, and coverage is pretty much equal across all
> networks. There is no way one company would be able to charge
> significantly more than the others, they would simply lose customers.
> Net profit at Vodafone UK was 1.5% last year, not exactly excessive.
>
Well, I don't doubt this is true, and this is maybe a poor example of 
the effect. But, the real point is, the reason there is a market for 
"throw away" phones at all, outside of say.. drug dealers, is that some 
people can't afford $50 a month for to use *all* of the phones features. 
But, if you go to certain other countries, many of them ironically "less 
developed", you pay one flat fee, and a much smaller one, instead of 
tacking on everything separately. Its symptomatic of the, "Even though 
it costs *us* the same to send you voice between two places as it does 
to download an app, we are going to charge you extra, for the second 
one, even if you use it less than one time a month." And, you see this 
logic with just about everything, except, maybe, the internet.

>> And, you think we fix this by taking a budget of roughly $1300 a month,
>> where like all but a few bucks of that goes to insurance, rent, food,
>> heating, etc., to buy a $20 item, from a slightly less insane company,
>> instead of a $10 one, from Walmart... Yeah, that has worked "so well",
>> so far, given the huge amount of extra, left over, income everyone has,
>> at the end of every month...
>
> I think you're making exactly the same point as me, the fact is people
> would rather have a bit bigger house, a bit nicer food, a bit bigger TV,
> a bit better phone etc rather than paying a bit extra to get something
> that they can say is made locally. Most people would rather take the £10
> Walmart option, if it means they've got another $10 to allow them to get
> the latest iPhone or more TV channels or whatever.
>

Let me try to put the US situation in starker contrast, since we are 
talking about "levels of poverty". From a purely practical stand point, 
without government assistance, and working a normal 40 hour week, within 
a year, if this condition where somehow "imposed" on the poor in the US 
(and there are people that want to cut back, or even eliminate the 
programs that help them), we would probably have stacks of bodies in the 
streets, no one would have a TV in those neighborhoods, never mind 
anything else, since all of their money would be going to rent, and 
*maybe* food, when they could afford it, and I wouldn't be surprised if 
we saw a sudden industry of "clothes made from the rich people's news 
papers" pop up, to replace the clothes they couldn't buy with the money 
they didn't make.

Its only not that bad **yet** because a) they do get government help, b) 
they are working anything from 2, to in some insane cases, 5 jobs, at 
anything from 50-90 hours a week, and c) everyone shops at walmart, 
k-mart, and.. all the other "big corp" companies, whose workers are all 
the same, "minimum wage, but we can only give you 15 hours this week", 
jobs, which result in people having 2, 3, 4, or more of them.

So.. I suppose, if you want to define "not poverty" as, "working like 
slave labor", and, "At least the government doesn't make you stand in 
bread lines.", then.. sure.. we can claim its not that "bad" in the US. 
But, if you think that is an insane way to live, and it sounds like most 
of the country is one idiot legislative bill from becoming a Somalian 
refugee, we might be finally be on the same page.

The people in charge, right now, are the inmates of the asylum over here.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:06:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On regulation: Regulations are bad, if they stifle my business, but
> good,
> if they stifle worker's rights.

Yep, just look at the recent problems with lack of regulation in Texas - 
and then that Rick Perry is advertising in other states about how *easy* 
it is to set up business in Texas because they don't have a lot of 
regulation.

Yeah, they don't have a lot of regulation, just the highest capital 
punishment rate and a bunch of dead people from an explosion that 
would've probably been prevented by some sensible oversight and 
regulation.

But who cares, it's just a few dead people, right?  Bring your CA/IL/NY 
based business to Texas, because we care so little about regulation, 
we're prepared to let people die so we don't have to have any.

m-/

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/6/2013 2:52 AM, scott wrote:
>>> A long time ago you could only buy local, between then and now (when
>>> there was plenty of choice) everyone has voted with their wallets that
>>> they would rather buy the cheaper non-local mass-produced items. Large
>>> corporations are simply providing us with what we want. If they thought
>>> everyone wanted local items (and were happy to pay a premium), they'd
>>> sell local items.
>>>
>> No, they won't.
>
> They would if there was more profit in it for them. There isn't because
> people aren't willing to pay the extra.
>
No, as I said, in the US, its not "unwilling", its "unable", most of the 
time.

I mean, we literally have morons who work in my store, complaining that 
"poor people on food stamps are 'allowed' to buy luxury goods, like TVs, 
but keeping a few bucks a month", for an entire damn year, just to be 
able to afford one. They actually think, "They need to get a better job 
like mine, somewhere, and stop using food stamps." And, they are saying 
this to someone who a) thought they management had changes his job title 
3 years ago, and just got screwed over by the company, is still making 
minimum wage, is averaging 32 hours a week, doesn't pay for his own 
food, electricity, etc., due to living with other people, who can 
actually afford them, and **knows** that, if I ever had to rent my own 
place, before I even paid the first months rent, I would ***have to*** 
got to the nearest agency, and sign up for assistance, to make ends 
meet. Oh, and these same people **know** that the jobs in town divide up 
like this, more or less:

5% walmart - minimum wage
5% k-mart - minimum wage
5% sterilite (a cheap plastics company) - slightly over minimum, but 
they require 10 hour days, staggered, so as not to pay overtime (5 days 
one week, then 3 the next, so they don't actually pay you more than if 
it was 10 '8 hour' days.
10% small businesses - almost all minimum wage, and less than 30 hours a 
week.
70% restaurants - require to pay minimum wage **only** if wages (at 
$3.50 an hour) + tips is "lower" than the minimum would be, and then.. 
nearly all of them "pool" the tips, and divide them among all of the 
staff, including management.
10% general "other" jobs - some of which "may" pay more than minimum.
5% The assholes that own all of it.

This is in a state where "minimum" is *now*, as of a few months ago, 
$7.80/hr, and the average cost, per month, to live here is, in fact 
(this is two parents, with one kid):

Monthly Housing 		$723
Monthly Food 			$514
Monthly Taxes			$251
Monthly Healthcare		$280
Monthly Childcare		$499
Monthly Transportation		$468
Monthly Other Necessities	$297
==============================
Total: $3,032, or 388.7 hours a month, or 97 hours a week.
In one of the "higher cost" places in the state, it is: $3,521, or 451.5 
hours a month, or 113 work hours a week.

They state legislature thought that raising it from $7.65 would be a 
"huge" improvement... But, no matter how you look at it, it means 
someone has two jobs, if they can find even one 40 hour job in the first 
place, but.. the average job is 15-20 hours, 30, if you are lucky, so.. 
even then, in some place like the city I live in, which those numbers 
come from, one of them is working a single, 30 hour job, and the other 
is working "two" 30 hours jobs, or both of them are working, on the 
worst case, two 15 hour jobs, and "still" coming up 7 hours short, in 
either case, of paying the bills, never mind saving any money after.

None of this would be "quite" so bad, if you could find a 40 hour job 
any place, like at all, but giving someone 40 hours means actually 
providing them with "legally mandated" things, which "includes" 
insurance, better pay, actual raises, etc. All that stuff that "might" 
result in someone saving money, instead of blowing it all on silly 
things like utility bills.

The level of completely delusional thinking among people that should 
know better here, and outright denial of how bad it is, not to mention 
why, is.. beyond belief, in a lot of cases. Some parts of the country, 
the "cost of living" isn't any lower, the minimum is, and its all the 
same, "I am sorry, we can't give you more hours this week, but.. we an 
hire two new people, and give each of them 15 hours.", BS.

And, as I said before.. there are people that are, progressively, 
arguing that there shouldn't be a minimum at all, and, might have, if 
there was a Republican in office, actually eliminated the federal 
minimum, or, at least lowered it, followed by some of the more insane, 
and delusional, state legislatures.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/6/2013 8:05 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 20:45:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> No, they won't. Those corporations didn't just edge out small businesses
>> by selling non-local goods. Most local businesses, with the exception of
>> food providers, or other "immediate sale" types, ordered parts, or
>> goods,
>> had them shipped to them, in smaller, more expensive, volumes, or
>> special ordered them, and then you waited. The big corporations could do
>> "volume"
>> purchases, hire their own, lower paid shippers, then undercut the prices
>> of the local sellers, even selling the **exact identical items**.
>
> I spent about a decade working in the food & drug industry as an IT
> professional, and towards the end of the time, when my "Fortune 50"
> company was acquired by another Fortune 50 company, we had to take a
> course on "retail business basics".
>
> In that course, one of the things we talked about was the death of the
> "mom & pop" style grocery store.  Companies like ours were responsible
> for those smaller local shops going away for precisely the reasons you
> state, Patrick:  Volume purchases, the ability to sell some items at a
> loss (which is actually a sound strategy, because you lay the store out
> so you have more impulse purchases and drive the average sale up).
>
> But here was the interesting thing (and part of the reason that the
> combined larger company itself became an acquisition target - that and
> incompetent senior management, IMHO):  Walmart was (and is) doing the
> exact same thing to stores that focused on just food & drug.  Walmart
> leverages the welfare system in (IMHO) an unconscionable way to drive
> prices even lower than what food & drug retailers (who deal with unions
> in most states) can afford.  A not insignificant number of Walmart part
> time employees have to supplement their income with food stamps or other
> forms of welfare because they don't make a living wage (the ironic
> statement that "Walmart employees can't even afford to shop at Walmart"
> is sadly true in a lot of cases).
>
> So now the food & drug giants like Safeway, Albertson's, Supervalu, and
> so on are faced with being on the receiving end of what they did to the
> mom & pop grocery stores.  To say they're not liking it is an
> understatement.
>
> Jim
>
True, but, as I implied in another post farther up, there are two 
solutions to this:

1. Fix the problem from the only end that can - hint, its not the 
consumer, or the businesses who can do that, since one doesn't have the 
purchasing power to force a real change, and the other is the one 
getting its ass kicked.

2. Cave in, and do the same thing Walmart is doing, and either don't ask 
the government to do anything, or help elect the very people that 
*won't*, since.. after all, having picked this solution, if someone goes 
and fixes the damn thing... guess who else loses, besides Walmart.

Guess which one "some" of the other grocery stores have picked, along 
with other "Walmart competitors"...

Post a reply to this message

>> Any evidence for that comment? Even in the last 40 years the poor have
>> not been getting poorer:
>
> You have to remember that poverty is relative. Coming up for 200 years
> ago during the Irish famine. If you were one of the poor, having a metal
> spoon was a luxury. Now if you have not got Sky or cable you are
> deprived. I did not have a colour TV until the 1980's and no one thought
> that was poverty. Although we have had colour transmission since the
> late 70's.

Indeed, that's my point, since 1850 there has been a continuous slope of 
upwards improvement in the wealth of people in real terms. What was 
considered a luxury in 1900 was common-place in 1950, and what was 
considered a luxury in 1950 is common-place today. That trend is not 
changing, and IMO is a large part due to industrialisation, 
mass-production and education. If you look at the income rates before 
1850 it's pretty flat compared to what we've seen in the last 150 years.

This is why I really don't agree with people's reasoning about buying or 
producing locally. That's what we used to do and it's not very 
efficient, the people who would have been doing manual labour in 
factories or fields from the age of 10 are now generating far more 
wealth by being a shop assistant in Tesco or maintaining a machine in a 
food factory. This in turn allows them to have a warm, heated house with 
a hot meal every day, new clothes (and Sky TV, an iPhone and a holiday 
abroad each year etc). Their equivalents from 1900 could only dream of 
such luxuries.

> As someone who has live through 40 years in the UK and then some. I
> think that you are misguided, if not just plain wrong. No matter what
> figures people come up with.

Well I guess there is no more I can say then :-(

Post a reply to this message

> Well, I don't doubt this is true, and this is maybe a poor example of
> the effect. But, the real point is, the reason there is a market for
> "throw away" phones at all, outside of say.. drug dealers, is that some
> people can't afford $50 a month for to use *all* of the phones features.
> But, if you go to certain other countries, many of them ironically "less
> developed", you pay one flat fee, and a much smaller one, instead of
> tacking on everything separately.

You don't think maybe, because your population density is what, 10x 
lower than places like Japan or Korea that it actually costs more, per 
subscriber, to run the system in the US? And you haven't factored in how 
much governments subsidise the industry (either directly or indirectly 
in terms of tax rates), nor what the typical pay rates are in those 
countries.

Post a reply to this message

> Sure it does:
>
> 45 - 15 = 30
>
> 180 - 60 = 120
>
> 120 > 30
>
> The factor isn't the important thing, the disparity is the important
> thing.

The problem is if you try and keep the arithmetic difference constant, 
whilst still allowing economic growth, the "bell curve" of income will 
get narrower and narrower until everyone is earning essentially the 
same. I don't know whether that's a good idea or not, but that's the 
only option to allow what you are arguing for.

Post a reply to this message

> 5% walmart - minimum wage
> 5% k-mart - minimum wage
> 5% sterilite (a cheap plastics company) - slightly over minimum, but
> they require 10 hour days, staggered, so as not to pay overtime (5 days
> one week, then 3 the next, so they don't actually pay you more than if
> it was 10 '8 hour' days.
> 10% small businesses - almost all minimum wage, and less than 30 hours a
> week.
> 70% restaurants - require to pay minimum wage **only** if wages (at
> $3.50 an hour) + tips is "lower" than the minimum would be, and then..
> nearly all of them "pool" the tips, and divide them among all of the
> staff, including management.
> 10% general "other" jobs - some of which "may" pay more than minimum.
> 5% The assholes that own all of it.

Seems a very bad place to live if 85% of the jobs are (almost) minimum 
wage - I'd move to a different city where the distribution better 
reflects your typical national distribution.

Post a reply to this message

I was only a few days away from off-topic and then this happened and 
then I need a couple of hours to catch up. :(

Anyway, I get your point even if it is not the best example (AFAIK there 
was no real existing mosquito net market). Clothes is indeed a better one.

As for my own field. I had the pleasure the last year to go a couple of 
times to hospitals in less developed countries (tanzania, rwanda and the 
amazon region). There often is equipment but it is second hand and often 
broken (even when it arrived). This broken equipment draws valuable 
resources to get fixed. There are plenty of examples where donated 
equipment (dubbed "Junk for Jesus" by a friend of mine, after the most 
common source) made the situation worse.
At one place they were offered a new CT machine, including service for 
two years (uncommon, generally things are donated as is). The staff with 
experience was seriously considering turning the offer down. After that 
period they would have to fix it themselves, they knew they would lack 
money and expertise to do so.
(Aside, my field is cardiology as some of you may remember. There was 
one functioning ECG machine in one of the biggest hospitals in the 
country, but they did have two state of the art echo-machines, and by 
now perhaps also a CT. Well, if they also can use that to get a CT from 
the heart, they will have another ECG amplifier when the CT itself 
collapses in 3 years)
So this is another way charity is harmful. (Shay, see how I also try to 
neglect your point, by focussing on the metaphor?)

There are hardly any biomedical technicians in these regions and they 
never were there so there is in that sense no market disruption.
Some years ago GE wanted to donate equipment to a hospital in Rwanda, 
the director of that hospital (no points for guessing her gender) said: 
"that is OK, provided you train my technicians also". Which resulted in 
a training program that was set up with founding money from GE. The 
course was set up in such a way that the technicians during their 
training still had to work in their own hospitals. I hope most of them 
will keep their jobs after they have finished their training.
An interesting point will also be if they will get more pay because they 
are now qualified to do the job they already did. Especially because 
there is no money to begin with.
BTW I though it was quite funny to see someone mentioning that not 
having to buy clothes would free up that money to be spend on other 
things. Understandable for someone from a society where everything is 
convertible into money, but funny anyway.

On 31-7-2013 19:42, Shay wrote:
> We've all heard stories of misguided charity organizations destroying
> micro-economies with no-cost goods. The stories go something like this:
>
> * Wealthy people give poor people mosquito nets
> * The poor people sell the nets for food
> * The now-flooded mosquito-net market collapses
> * The indigenous mosquito-net craftsmen disappear
> * The no-cost mosquito nets get sold-off / used up
> * No more mosquito nets. No more craftsmen.
>
> Google, Apple, and Microsoft are now monetizing no/low-cost software and
> *intentionally*(?) creating the above situation. The creators of that
> software are making nothing or (MUCH worse) very little. The 'very
> little' is much worse, imo, because I suspect the half-starved parasites
> will fight to defend the host.
>
> Not saying (or not saying) the large companies are evil, just wondering
> if we should all be more careful where we put our "spare" money, time,
> talent, and personal information.
>
> Just a hunch. Definitely open to changing my mind on this one. I'm very
> far away from the issue.
>
> -Shay


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 09:34:18 +0100, scott wrote:

>> Sure it does:
>>
>> 45 - 15 = 30
>>
>> 180 - 60 = 120
>>
>> 120 > 30
>>
>> The factor isn't the important thing, the disparity is the important
>> thing.
> 
> The problem is if you try and keep the arithmetic difference constant,
> whilst still allowing economic growth, the "bell curve" of income will
> get narrower and narrower until everyone is earning essentially the
> same. I don't know whether that's a good idea or not, but that's the
> only option to allow what you are arguing for.

The problem is that those at the top of the scale now make 6-7 times (or 
more) what those at the bottom of the scale make.  That makes for a 
massive amount of income inequality.

Since in the US, money = speech (thank you, supreme court & citizen's 
united), that means that those in the upper income brackets have far more 
political power and control - and what those in that upper bracket have 
tended to do is get people elected (through the use of their massive 
ability to "speak" (or "spend") to get policies passed that allow the 
income inequality to continue and to hamper upward mobility.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 09:55:50 +0100, scott wrote:

>> 5% walmart - minimum wage 5% k-mart - minimum wage 5% sterilite (a
>> cheap plastics company) - slightly over minimum, but they require 10
>> hour days, staggered, so as not to pay overtime (5 days one week, then
>> 3 the next, so they don't actually pay you more than if it was 10 '8
>> hour' days.
>> 10% small businesses - almost all minimum wage, and less than 30 hours
>> a week.
>> 70% restaurants - require to pay minimum wage **only** if wages (at
>> $3.50 an hour) + tips is "lower" than the minimum would be, and then..
>> nearly all of them "pool" the tips, and divide them among all of the
>> staff, including management.
>> 10% general "other" jobs - some of which "may" pay more than minimum.
>> 5% The assholes that own all of it.
> 
> Seems a very bad place to live if 85% of the jobs are (almost) minimum
> wage - I'd move to a different city where the distribution better
> reflects your typical national distribution.

Not everybody has the option to move.  Moving costs money, and if you 
don't make enough money to relocate, you're kinda screwed.

Your privilege is showing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7-8-2013 2:29, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Its only not that bad **yet** because a) they do get government help, b)
> they are working anything from 2, to in some insane cases, 5 jobs, at
> anything from 50-90 hours a week, and c) everyone shops at walmart,
> k-mart, and.. all the other "big corp" companies, whose workers are all
> the same, "minimum wage, but we can only give you 15 hours this week",
> jobs, which result in people having 2, 3, 4, or more of them.

One of the things I like in the western economy is that CEO's need to 
earn a huge salary because they 1) work a lot, sometimes even during 
their dinners and 2) because they don't have the job security as normal 
people. And probably 3) because they need a lot of time to keep up with 
developments in the real world.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:52018f9a$1@news.povray.org...
> On 8/6/2013 11:01 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>
> US "libertarians" are not like those every place else. The best 
> descriptions for their philosophy I have seen are -

Is this really what you think the 25y/o Ron Paul supporters have in mind. 
Disagree if you will, but know your "enemy."

>
> On government help: The government is too big, and doesn't help

On government help: The beast has many faces. More money to the government 
means more guns, more bombs, more drones. You can't fill only the left half 
of the bucket.

>
> On worker wages: They can always find a job with more pay, even though 90% 
> of all jobs are not "service" in the US, and they all pay minimum wage 
> (this isn't even necessary, since they ran the numbers, and fast food 
> places could pass on 100% of the difference to the customer, at a mere 50 
> cent increase in the cost of the food, while **doubling** the salaries of 
> everyone that worked for them, including the CEOs).

On worker wages: "Minimum wage" isn't the minimum wage: ZERO is the minimum 
wage. Many of us worked for less that minimum wage (I did) to get into 
certain trades. Salesmen are some of the highest-paid professionals; Many of 
the best started off door-to-door, making less than minimum wage. We’re 
kicking the ladder out from under would-be salesmen, mechanics, musicians, 
and carpenters. MUCH more importantly ... (see below)

>
> On price gouging: You can always buy something else, somewhere else, which 
> is cheaper.

On price gouging: Mercantilism is WRONG. The same people who would set 
prices ...
Would exclude Walmart from local taxation in the name of economic growth ...
Would literally go to war to grow the economy.

>
> On crappy products: Well.. you can always buy the more costly item, which 
> won't be a piece of total crap.

On crappy products: We agree that our government is selected by billionaires 
for the benefit of billionaires. The difference is one of us would give that 
government the power of selective taxation (tarriffs).

>
> On regulation: Regulations are bad, if they stifle my business, but good, 
> if they stifle worker's rights.

On regulation: Regulation is how we cut up the big fish (and feed them to 
the giant fish).

>
> On personal responsibility: Everyone should be responsible for their own 
> mistakes, but.. uh, I didn't actually mean "me" when I said that!

On personal responsibility: If you wish to share the consequences of your 
choices, you'll also have to share the authority over those choices.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2013 5:22 PM, Shay wrote:
> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:52018f9a$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 8/6/2013 11:01 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>
>> US "libertarians" are not like those every place else. The best
>> descriptions for their philosophy I have seen are -
>
> Is this really what you think the 25y/o Ron Paul supporters have in
> mind. Disagree if you will, but know your "enemy."
>
Maybe not, but they are not the actually people who make the policy. 
Just look at what Obama ended up "supporting", after he got in, never 
mind what he actually did try to do, which liberals actually support. 
But, no.. I am not talking about what the 25 year olds "think" they 
would do, I am talking about what they actually have done, every time 
they get elected some place. Well, that and what they have said when 
they imagine that there isn't a camera around.

>>
>> On government help: The government is too big, and doesn't help
>
> On government help: The beast has many faces. More money to the
> government means more guns, more bombs, more drones. You can't fill only
> the left half of the bucket.
>
Actually.. Sort of true, and sort of not. A lot of that depends on who 
is in charge, and what they are actually trying to do. So, in the US, 
the right has gone farther right, and the left (or rather the party that 
claims to be them) has gone center. And, well... the center isn't 
exactly against guns, bombs, and more drones...

>>
>> On worker wages: They can always find a job with more pay, even though
>> 90% of all jobs are not "service" in the US, and they all pay minimum
>> wage (this isn't even necessary, since they ran the numbers, and fast
>> food places could pass on 100% of the difference to the customer, at a
>> mere 50 cent increase in the cost of the food, while **doubling** the
>> salaries of everyone that worked for them, including the CEOs).
>
> On worker wages: "Minimum wage" isn't the minimum wage: ZERO is the
> minimum wage. Many of us worked for less that minimum wage (I did) to
> get into certain trades. Salesmen are some of the highest-paid
> professionals; Many of the best started off door-to-door, making less
> than minimum wage. We’re kicking the ladder out from under would-be
> salesmen, mechanics, musicians, and carpenters. MUCH more importantly
> ... (see below)
>
Ah, yes, once more the hypothesis that libertarians push, that, despite 
all disparities, the limitations of the job market, or minor things like 
starving to death, because you don't actually have the education, or any 
number of other things, that the much smaller number of people who 
actually succeed that way do, "You to can succeed!". Hell, 90% of 
businesses opened by people that have money, do, more or less, know what 
they are doing, and shouldn't fail, fail anyway. Some of us, if we had 
to take that "sub-minimum wage" would never survive the experience. 
Some... would thrive in it. Still others, would, on finding they 
couldn't succeed by legitimate means, add to the drug, prostitution, 
gang violence, and so on, crimes (at least one of which is only a crime 
because of the far right, that think its "sin", and refuse to accept 
"legitimate" versions of it, never mind extend legal protections to the 
people involved, and.. kind of like the drug business, only the sellers, 
and the buyers, end up in jail, the suppliers.. usually, just find more 
sellers, and more buyers.)

>>
>> On price gouging: You can always buy something else, somewhere else,
>> which is cheaper.
>
> On price gouging: Mercantilism is WRONG. The same people who would set
> prices ...
> Would exclude Walmart from local taxation in the name of economic growth
> ...
> Would literally go to war to grow the economy.
>
Hmm.. See, the problem there is, more and more people buy, "off the net" 
now, rather than from the mercantile businesses. How long before its not 
"Walmart" that is killing things, but "The internet"? Hint: I have 
bought about 2 things, out of like 30, in the last few months, because 
no local company sells any of them, nor can they "special order them". 
Hell, I couldn't even buy faux fur, for making ears, to go on a costume 
I plan to make for Halloween, because no material store in town sells 
it, K-Mart no longer has a fabric department, Walmart is fazing their 
own out, and didn't have anything other than basic stuff in the first 
place, and the "craft store", in this case, Hobbie Lobby, had jack all 
of anything either (even though they had much more selection).

There are too many products for "any" store to provide access any more, 
unless its like jewelry, or some other, "make as needed, or buy 
something we happen to have in stock", type thing, at this point. In the 
end, they are probably all dead, even the mercantile ones. But, in the 
mean time, insisting that, without them, somehow it would never have 
gotten this screwed up, is.. just not reality. At best, it might have 
taken longer, but.. US libertarianism, since it fundamentally denies 
parts of the problem, and insists that the market can somehow "fix 
itself", isn't an answer. The only times in history that the "market" 
was ever allowed to do that, real people suffered the consequences, 
until it **eventually** did fix itself, decades later, or someone 
stepped in and changed the system.

>>
>> On crappy products: Well.. you can always buy the more costly item,
>> which won't be a piece of total crap.
>
> On crappy products: We agree that our government is selected by
> billionaires for the benefit of billionaires. The difference is one of
> us would give that government the power of selective taxation (tarriffs).
>
Uh.. I am not sure why you imagine I would. Mind.. There is a difference 
between doing that to "support" the growth of new industry, and doing it 
to just screw them. For example, the energy companies pretty much lie, 
and lie, and lie, about wanting to get away from doing things the same 
way, for as long as they can manage, while only pretending that they 
actually give a damn about finding "other" sources.

>>
>> On regulation: Regulations are bad, if they stifle my business, but
>> good, if they stifle worker's rights.
>
> On regulation: Regulation is how we cut up the big fish (and feed them
> to the giant fish).
>
Bullshit. When its done right, it keeps the big fish from eating up the 
small fish, and towns, and people, and so on. The problem, of course, if 
that when you let the damn corporations buy the regulations, *then* they 
start eating everyone else, and getting bigger, exactly as you describe. 
Its interesting how that actually works. Its sort of like patents, or IP 
rights. When they "worked" patents only applied to demonstrable things, 
not vague ideas, or trivial ways of doing things. IP right, used to 
reach the public domain. What has happened in the last 20-30 years, and 
which I haven't heard one damn libertarian attack, instead of defending 
- Patents are now so vague that, if you worded it right, you could 
probably patent breathing, and IP, as of just this year, can be taken 
from the public, and sold to some big company, at the governments 
discretion, on the theory that "corporations have rights to own things", 
but, apparently, the "public" doesn't.

>>
>> On personal responsibility: Everyone should be responsible for their
>> own mistakes, but.. uh, I didn't actually mean "me" when I said that!
>
> On personal responsibility: If you wish to share the consequences of
> your choices, you'll also have to share the authority over those choices.
>
Cute.. But, in reality, its always the rich business owner, even among 
libertarians, who gets the "authority".

It was bad Sci-Fi, seriously, and Ayn Rand was a nutcase.

> -Shay

Post a reply to this message