> 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 

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 

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