Re: interesting little tidbit about our cheap food

[Guest guest]

in australia food is getting WAY more expensive imho.

i spend copious amounts per week ( 30% of my income ) maybe even more

for good quality food. Mind you i am not earning much atm either.

_____

From: Lynn Razaitis [mailto:lyn122@...]

Sent: Friday, 28 November 2003 10:34 AM

Subject: interesting little tidbit about our " cheap " food

My husband showed me this little tidbit from Money magazine in an

article about American and spending. In 1960 food took 20% of

American's disposable income. Now it takes 14%.....hmmmm do we just

have more money or is food just getting cheaper?

Interesting little factoid!

Lynn

[Guest guest]

Does anybody out here have the costs of health care in the 60's and what we

spend on it today, related to our disposable income?

Tim

interesting little tidbit about our " cheap " food

My husband showed me this little tidbit from Money magazine in an

article about American and spending. In 1960 food took 20% of

American's disposable income. Now it takes 14%.....hmmmm do we just

have more money or is food just getting cheaper?

Interesting little factoid!

Lynn

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/03 9:55:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

lyn122@... writes:

> Our food budget is not even close 14% of our disposable because

> we're not buying crap.

Until I recently acquired a second job, my food bill was about 180% of my

disposable income :-/

Chris

[Guest guest]

Food prices drop = health care prices rise!

Actually here in America food is expensive IF you're buying quality!

Our food budget is not even close 14% of our disposable because

we're not buying crap. Grassfed, organic, highly nutritious food

costs as it should! I want the farmers working hard to make my food

the highest quality possible to be fairly compensated...not to

mention UPS when we can't get it local)

Lynn

> Does anybody out here have the costs of health care in the 60's

and what we spend on it today, related to our disposable income?

> Tim

> interesting little tidbit about

our " cheap " food

>

>

> My husband showed me this little tidbit from Money magazine in

an

> article about American and spending. In 1960 food took 20% of

> American's disposable income. Now it takes 14%.....hmmmm do we

just

> have more money or is food just getting cheaper?

> Interesting little factoid!

>

> Lynn

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Yikes. Good food that's dense in both nutrients and calories is

frighteningly expensive.

>Until I recently acquired a second job, my food bill was about 180% of my

>disposable income :-/

-

[Guest guest]

>Does anybody out here have the costs of health care in the 60's and what we

spend on it today, related to our disposable income?

>Tim

No, but someone wrote a book recently about how people

are spending their money (with the idea that people just

were not spending it wisely) and found out that the

two big areas of increase were medical and housing,

esp. because couples tried to get housing by the " good "

public schools, which are more expensive than

other housing.

I tend to think clothing is MUCH cheaper than when

I was a kid, and maybe food too. But the food depends

how you shop. I shop mainly wholesale now, and in

larger quantities, and less prepared stuff, and it is a

lot cheaper. If you buy a steer and have it processed,

you get really good beef for, say, $2/lb (plus a day or

two of your time). Buying little steaks at Trader Joes'

is rather pricy though.

--- Heidi

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/28/03 5:18:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I tend to think clothing is MUCH cheaper than when

> I was a kid,

Are you referring to good clothing, or cheap clothing? It seems clothing is

very stratified. You've got Old Navy and JC Penney, then you've got American

Eagle, then you've got Banana Republic and the question " what does a sweater

cost " suddenly has many answers.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Are you referring to good clothing, or cheap clothing? It seems clothing is

>very stratified. You've got Old Navy and JC Penney, then you've got American

>Eagle, then you've got Banana Republic and the question " what does a sweater

>cost " suddenly has many answers.

>

>Chris

That is a good point. When I was a kid though, I got

maybe 3 dresses for the school year, and it was

a big deal. Now I can pick up a really decent

rugged dress for my kid for $15. But at the s

the gowns cost $4,000 or so.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>My husband showed me this little tidbit from Money magazine in an

>article about American and spending. In 1960 food took 20% of

>American's disposable income. Now it takes 14%.....hmmmm do we just

>have more money or is food just getting cheaper?

>Interesting little factoid!

>

>Lynn

Is disposable income considered what is left of income after the bills are

paid? In ''74 minimum wage wage was $1.45 hr. Chicken was 10 cents a pound

on sale. Minimum now is around $8 Maybe chickens been down to around 89

cents a pound. That would give more food in '74. Farming practices and soil

quality was better 40 years ago too.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>Is disposable income considered what is left of income after the bills are

>paid? In ''74 minimum wage wage was $1.45 hr. Chicken was 10 cents a pound

>on sale. Minimum now is around $8 Maybe chickens been down to around 89

>cents a pound. That would give more food in '74. Farming practices and soil

>quality was better 40 years ago too.

>

>Wanita

It gets more complicated when you factor in processed

food too ... people eat more of it and less " basic " food.

Also, the folks making minimum wage can now barely

afford housing and health care, so ALL food is more expensive.

I don't think " basic " food has increased in proportion

to income though to nearly the degree other things

have, and a lot of the manufactured goods have gotten

cheaper.

However, there is a huge gap between the minimum wage

workers and the upper class folks. In general life has

been getting worse and worse for the folks at the bottom

and better and better for the folks at the top, and a lot

of the folks in the middle are getting pulled to the bottom.

But if you are richer you can also afford to buy food cheaper ...

like, buy a whole steer and buy in bulk.

I was talking to someone the other day who was saying

the US is going to look a lot more like a " 3rd world country "

with a rich oligarchy running things ... in a way that could

be good, maybe we'll go back to backyard chickens and

gardens.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/29/03 5:01:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> >Is disposable income considered what is left of income after the bills are

> >paid?

No, disposable income is income that isn't taxed, iirc.

Heidi wrote:

> It gets more complicated when you factor in processed

> food too ... people eat more of it and less " basic " food.

> Also, the folks making minimum wage can now barely

> afford housing and health care, so ALL food is more expensive.

Can you shed some light on why these people don't just get a job that doesn't

pay minimum wage? I've made everywhere from $3.50/hr to nearly 7 times that,

and I've gone back and forth. I currently have two jobs, one pays minimum

wage. But without any training whatsoever, I got a job bussing tables at a fine

dining restaurant. On Thanksgiving I made $20.63/hr. Tonight was a slow

night and I made about $11.50/hr. When I was 15 I also bussed tables and made

similar money, and when I was 16 I waited tables at Friendly's and made roughly

$10/hr. All of these jobs were entry-level and required no skills or

education whatsoever. The only difference between the waitress and the

dishwasher at

Friendly's was the dishwasher didn't want to be a waiter, so he chose to make

minimum wage instead of double the pay.

I don't see why anyone can't just shave, get a hair cut, adopt a positive

attitude, learn to look people in the eye, smile, and be friendly, and get a job

that pays twice the minimum wage.

Then there are all those people working minimum wage in high school who

really don't need to pay rent, or food for that matter often.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Can you shed some light on why these people don't just get a job that doesn't

>pay minimum wage? I've made everywhere from $3.50/hr to nearly 7 times that,

>and I've gone back and forth. I currently have two jobs, one pays minimum

>wage. But without any training whatsoever, I got a job bussing tables at a

fine

>dining restaurant. On Thanksgiving I made $20.63/hr. Tonight was a slow

>night and I made about $11.50/hr.

Well, partly it has to do with the person. I'm guessing you are

an intelligent, educated, rational, no mental problems, no drug

problems person with no kids to take care of and strong

muscles. I have personally known people who really, really

couldn't find good work like that. I've also known some

with real " issues " they could not overcome.

And why do you have one job that pays minimum wage,

if higher paying jobs are so easy to get?

But in general in our culture, if you are intelligent, you

can make money easily enough.

A lot of people who get stuck at lower paying

jobs also have kids, and they need flexibility. If

you have kids and have to work, it is the pits.

You are constantly having to take time off.

That makes employers unhappy.

Also I'd have to say that $11.50 just isn't very much

money, at least not in this neck of the woods. If you

actually want to buy a house anyway. That gives you

say $1,800 gross, then you have taxes and do you

want insurance? How could you support a kid on that?

I don't know WHO actually works minimum wage

jobs, presumably folks who either are in school

or living with relatives and don't care as much, or

folks with fewer choices. Minimum wage in my

experience is what tends to push up the other

wages ... i.e. if minimum wage dropped to 3.50,

your job would drop to 7.50.

Personally if I was Queen I'd work on lowering

the cost of housing and medical insurance

and food rather than forcing wages. If the " basics "

of life are affordable, that helps a lot of folks

who perhaps aren't college students with

a 150 IQ and lots of math skills. After all,

hour hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't have

to apply for a mortgage OR hold down

a job at a plant where the jobs are destined

to be outsourced to Korea.

-- eidi

[Guest guest]

Hi Heidi,

In a message dated 11/30/03 2:23:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

>

> And why do you have one job that pays minimum wage,

> if higher paying jobs are so easy to get?

One gives me 8 hours a week, and it's at school (on days I'm there anyway).

It's tutoring chemistry. I initially did it because I figured if I wanted to

do well on the MCAT, using chemistry regularly would help me retain it better,

but I now realize that studying for it every day would do that, and I really

need to do the latter. My job is very boring. Some times no one comes in for

hours, so I read, or occasionally study. But mainly I just like the job,

because its satisfying to help people, especially in a way that involves my

general interests.

This was my only job for a while, because I'm an idiot. I was getting about

$50 a week, even though I spend about $70-$80 a week on food, $20 on gas, and

have to pay for car insurance. Now that my credit cards are maxed out and I

owe my mom $500 it's about time I got a decent job. I'm glad I did because I

like the people and I have less free time that I don't know what to do with,

and we socialize outside of work etc.

Anyway, the jobs can't be *that* hard to get, because I got a job bussing at

a different fine dining restaurant when I was like 15, and I had no

connections, or muscles!

> A lot of people who get stuck at lower paying

> jobs also have kids, and they need flexibility. If

> you have kids and have to work, it is the pits.

> You are constantly having to take time off.

> That makes employers unhappy.

I essentially agree with this, but I wonder where people's families are? My

mother's a single mom, and she worked, and I stayed with my grandmother.

> Also I'd have to say that $11.50 just isn't very much

> money, at least not in this neck of the woods. If you

> actually want to buy a house anyway. That gives you

> say $1,800 gross, then you have taxes and do you

> want insurance? How could you support a kid on that?

I agree, but a)it was a slow night, and on a busy night we make >$15/hr, and

It's still vastly higher than minimum wage, which in MA is $6.75/hr but I

think is lower just about everywhere else, and I think the Federal is still

$5.15 or $5.25 (I never know because MA is always higher than Federal).

> I don't know WHO actually works minimum wage

> jobs, presumably folks who either are in school

> or living with relatives and don't care as much, or

> folks with fewer choices. Minimum wage in my

> experience is what tends to push up the other

> wages ... i.e. if minimum wage dropped to 3.50,

> your job would drop to 7.50.

But median wages skyrocketed in the 80s and minimum wage didn't. I'd read

over and over again, that wages have been stagnant in the 70s, and assumed the

data to be accurate, but when I took a deeper look at some charts and graphs,

etc, wages actually went up a lot in the 80s, and then plummeted in the 90s to

below the 1970 level, and then in the last couple years of Clinton started

going up again. That doesn't correspond to minimum wage at all.

But when I washed dishes in a restaurant (because I wanted to and I liked the

people I worked with, not because I could get a job making twice as much

somewhere else), and we made minimum wage, and the line cooks made like a buck

over us, if minimum wage went up, the cooks' pay went up proportionally. But if

you make much more than min wage I doubt it matters much.

> Personally if I was Queen I'd work on lowering

> the cost of housing and medical insurance

> and food rather than forcing wages. If the " basics "

> of life are affordable, that helps a lot of folks

> who perhaps aren't college students with

> a 150 IQ and lots of math skills. After all,

> hour hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't have

> to apply for a mortgage OR hold down

> a job at a plant where the jobs are destined

> to be outsourced to Korea.

Yeah, I think it's interesting that housing and insurance is so bad, yet no

one has a problem getting tvs vcrs, or heck, internet now. The fundamentals

are tough, but all the things that distinguish us from most of humanity are

cheap.

I don't pay a whole lot of attention to politics or economics anymore, but

the last thing we need is rent caps. I don't know how to solve the above

problems.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/30/03 2:30:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> It is true that service jobs seem pretty easy to get, and

> they are great for students. They don't work for " real life "

> though unless you are willing to live poor.

Well poor is relative. Serving at a fine dining restaurant isn't bad money

though. You can make $20-$30/hr. Bartending is fantastic money too. The only

real problem with it is instability. I just ran up with an old friend the

other day, and she said she used to bartend, and the most she ever made in a

night was $1400 and the least she ever made was like $20. During the slow

seasons you might make crap for money, but it all averages out to $20/hr or

more--

you just have to be smart and put money in savings.

The > definitive book on this is " Nickle and Dimed " by a

> smart, motivated lady who tried to support herself

> on those sorts of jobs.

I like Barbarah Erenreich and I haven't read the book but have wanted to for

a long time, but I don't think it's accurate to describe her that way. What

she is is a hardcore radical leftist who went into the jobs as a hardcore

radical leftist intending to write a book, and then wrote the book. She writes

for

The Nation, (and the WAPF journal!) and she also writes for ZNet, which is

home to the likes of Chomsky, Zinn, etc.

> That's where you get into the " class " system of jobs.

> SOME jobs are paying quite nicely, and some create

> a class of the " working poor " . It isn't the case though

> that a " working poor " person can necessarily bootstrap

> themself into a better job. YOU could, and I could (and

> did!). But a lot of my classmates could not, unless

> society changes drastically.

Why not?

Chris

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> A lot of people who get stuck at lower paying

> jobs also have kids, and they need flexibility. If

> you have kids and have to work, it is the pits.

> You are constantly having to take time off.

> That makes employers unhappy.

Both of my parents managed to keep full-time jobs throughout most of my

life. Before I started kindergarten, my mother worked part-time, but I

got the impression that that was more out of choice than out of absolute

necessity.

> Also I'd have to say that $11.50 just isn't very much

> money, at least not in this neck of the woods.

Two people, each making $11.50/hour, adds up to a reasonable sum of

money, especially when you consider that you're going to be paying very

little in taxes at that income level if you have children. Also,

remember that we're talking about entry-level jobs. It goes up from

there.

> If you actually want to buy a house anyway.

Who says you have to buy a house? If you want to buy a house, don't have

children until you can afford them.

> That gives you say $1,800 gross

$3600, if you have two income earners. More if at least one has a

better-than-entry-level job.

> then you have taxes and do you want insurance?

How much can it cost to get insurance to cover just the really expensive

things and pay the rest out of pocket? Assuming, of course, that that

sort of insurance policy is even legal.

> How could you support a kid on that?

It may not be easy, and there are sacrifices to be made, but it can be

done. If you want an easy life, don't have children. You make your

choices, and you live by them. That's the way life is.

[Guest guest]

>Anyway, the jobs can't be *that* hard to get, because I got a job bussing at

>a different fine dining restaurant when I was like 15, and I had no

>connections, or muscles!

It is true that service jobs seem pretty easy to get, and

they are great for students. They don't work for " real life "

though unless you are willing to live poor. The

definitive book on this is " Nickle and Dimed " by a

smart, motivated lady who tried to support herself

on those sorts of jobs.

When I was younger I decided the best job to get would

be live-in maid, because then you get to live in a nice

big house and get fed daily!

> I essentially agree with this, but I wonder where people's families are? My

>mother's a single mom, and she worked, and I stayed with my grandmother.

The families that are intact and healthy do MUCH

better. I had Asian friends who did great, they

didn't know English much or get paid much, but

they had these huge houses with a zillion

relatives living in them, child care, etc.

However, I also had friends whose parents were

rather dysfunctional, left no food in the house,

beat the kids etc. Those kids tended to move out

ASAP and I didn't blame them. The ones that did

best joined the Army -- which, other than the fighting

part, provides nice structure, food, shelter, etc.

while you get your head together.

>But median wages skyrocketed in the 80s and minimum wage didn't. I'd read

>over and over again, that wages have been stagnant in the 70s, and assumed the

>data to be accurate, but when I took a deeper look at some charts and graphs,

>etc, wages actually went up a lot in the 80s, and then plummeted in the 90s to

>below the 1970 level, and then in the last couple years of Clinton started

>going up again. That doesn't correspond to minimum wage at all.

That's a point.

> But when I washed dishes in a restaurant (because I wanted to and I liked the

>people I worked with, not because I could get a job making twice as much

>somewhere else), and we made minimum wage, and the line cooks made like a buck

>over us, if minimum wage went up, the cooks' pay went up proportionally. But

if

>you make much more than min wage I doubt it matters much.

That's where you get into the " class " system of jobs.

SOME jobs are paying quite nicely, and some create

a class of the " working poor " . It isn't the case though

that a " working poor " person can necessarily bootstrap

themself into a better job. YOU could, and I could (and

did!). But a lot of my classmates could not, unless

society changes drastically.

Plus, most jobs now are facing competition from

cheap overseas labor (even programmers!) and

that will drive down wages. Even in service

jobs, if the middle class folks make less money,

they will eat out less (or at cheaper places).

>Yeah, I think it's interesting that housing and insurance is so bad, yet no

>one has a problem getting tvs vcrs, or heck, internet now. The fundamentals

>are tough, but all the things that distinguish us from most of humanity are

>cheap.

That is interesting. In some countries they've tried to make it

so the " basics " are easy. One of the nastier things that is

happening in some countries is privitization of, say, water.

In the past, water was free. In the past, it was considered

that water should be held as a public trust, so no one price

gouger could control it and it would stay clean for everyone

to drink.

One of the simple things they could do to make housing

cheaper is to simplify the building standards. Right now

one of the big costs is getting a building past zoning

and figuring out what the rules are ... the builders say they

don't care if there are rules, but they want the rules to

be static and not change much so they can plan better. The

rules are really, really outdated and generally a mess. Also

research could be done on things like straw bale housing,

which works great but there are no good designs for them

yet. That and make houses more energy efficient ... mine

happens to be one, and it is cheap to heat (i.e. we don't

generally use a heater at all).

>I don't pay a whole lot of attention to politics or economics anymore, but

>the last thing we need is rent caps. I don't know how to solve the above

>problems.

No, I'd agree with you there. Caps don't work very well.

We need to look at the whole picture and find out

what isn't working. The problem is, much policy

currently is made by special interest groups looking

for short term gain, who is going to look to the

long-term effects on society?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/30/03 6:44:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Why can't they just say net income? Guess payroll and economics

> lingos aren't the same yet boil down to the same.

Because if you're getting paid, the net income is the pay you take home, but

when you are looking at the larger economic picture, tax money is no less

" net " then non-taxed income, because it all goes somewhere in the economy, so

they

use " disposable " as the income that can be disposed of in some way by people.

*shrug*

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...>

wrote:

>

> It may not be easy, and there are sacrifices to be made, but it can be

> done. If you want an easy life, don't have children. You make your

> choices, and you live by them. That's the way life is.

-----, I agree wholeheartedly that people need to make sacrifices and

choices. Not everyone can have the well paying jobs, not everyone can

afford a house and kids as well. That is the harsh reality of life, and trying

to

make everything equal and fair for everyone has terriblly drastic

consequences. However, both parents working in order to double their

income is not a satisfactory answer to the dilemma of low wages. I strongly

believe that young children need to be raised by a parent, not by babysitters

or day care. I just posted about my relatives and how I felt about the way

they fed their children. These same parents have also done some great

things for their kids. They both worked and had a pretty comfortable life.

They decided that the mom should stay home with the twins, and my brother

in law is working all hours in order to make this possible. This is hard on

him,

and he isn't around much, but he's investing and planning so he won't have to

be away from his family so much in the future. Maybe there are spending

cuts they could make instead so he could be around more, I don't know, but I

admire their dedication to raising their own kids.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/30/03 7:45:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> And if the kids are young you have to pay for daycare

> where the kids get sick all the time, and then you end up

> with a kid that isn't bonded to any one adult because they've

> been mainly raised by strangers.

But this is a problem with deficient family structure, not the economic

system (not that there aren't problems with the economic system). By what

standard

is the father-mother-child unit the fundamental family unit? Where are all

the grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins?

Chris

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> When I was younger I decided the best job to get would

> be live-in maid, because then you get to live in a nice

> big house and get fed daily!

I agree. If you don't have the education necessary to start a skilled

trade or profession, live-in maid is an excellent job, because you have

essentially zero expenses. If you don't blow it all on something

frivolous, you can save up a lot of money very quickly. I have a friend

from China who says that one can save up $20-30,000 in a year by working

at a Chinese restaurant, because they give you room and board and pay

you under the table.

> However, I also had friends whose parents were

> rather dysfunctional, left no food in the house,

> beat the kids etc. Those kids tended to move out

> ASAP and I didn't blame them. The ones that did

> best joined the Army -- which, other than the fighting

> part, provides nice structure, food, shelter, etc.

> while you get your head together.

It also makes it difficult to get stuck with a child when you're 20 or

get in trouble some other way. The important thing to keep in mind is

that this is primarily a cultural problem, not an economic problem. As

you said, people from Asian cultures, which emphasize family and

education, tend to do much better, even if they start out dirt-poor.

> That's where you get into the " class " system of jobs.

> SOME jobs are paying quite nicely, and some create

> a class of the " working poor " .

Just to clarify, you're not saying that the jobs make them poor, are

you?

> It isn't the case though

> that a " working poor " person can necessarily bootstrap

> themself into a better job. YOU could, and I could (and

> did!). But a lot of my classmates could not, unless

> society changes drastically.

Why not?

> Plus, most jobs now are facing competition from

> cheap overseas labor (even programmers!) and

> that will drive down wages.

It may drive down nominal wages, assuming no inflation. However, it will

also drive down prices if the government has the good sense not to slap

on huge tarifs in a fit of protectionism, so real wages for everyone

except programmers will rise as a result (as a programmer myself, I

assure you that you need shed no tears for me). Consider the following

thought experiment:

Suppose that a programmer, working for $50,000/year in Macrosoft's US

branch, can produce $75,000 worth of software. Now, suppose that an

Indian programmer can do the same job for $20,000/year. Keeping its eye

on the bottom line, Macrosoft fires the American and hires the Indian.

Where does that leave us?

The $75,000 worth of software is still being produced. No loss there.

Let's forget the money--that just obscures the issue. Essentially what

happens is that the Indian will be able to buy $20,000 worth of goods

and services from Americans. That means that we spend $20,000 to get

$75,000 worth of software, for a net gain of $55,000. If Macrosoft had

kept the American, he would have been able to buy $50,000 worth of

goods, giving us a surplus of only $25,000. In effect, the US as a whole

is made $30,000 richer by outsourcing the job to India. Macrosoft can

use that $30,000 to return profits to its shareholders, make more

software, or lower prices (most likely some combination of the three).

If you don't see why the money doesn't matter, you don't have to worry

about it, anyway. Eventually, all money that gets sent overseas will

come back in the form of purchases of American goods or services. What

else are foreigners going to do with it? Stuff teddy bears with it?

> Even in service

> jobs, if the middle class folks make less money,

> they will eat out less (or at cheaper places).

On the other hand, if prices fall, they will eat out more.

(Chris):

> >Yeah, I think it's interesting that housing and insurance is so bad,

yet no

> >one has a problem getting tvs vcrs, or heck, internet now. The

fundamentals

> >are tough, but all the things that distinguish us from most of

humanity are

> >cheap.

The explanation is simple: TVs, computers, Internet connections, and the

like are not considered necessities, and therefore there has been little

attempt to regulate them or make them more " accessible " to the poor. As

a result, quality has improved while prices have fallen.

> That is interesting. In some countries they've tried to make it

> so the " basics " are easy. One of the nastier things that is

> happening in some countries is privitization of, say, water.

> In the past, water was free. In the past, it was considered

> that water should be held as a public trust, so no one price

> gouger could control it and it would stay clean for everyone

> to drink.

I would be very interested to hear an example of a country in which

water was cheap and clean under public ownership and the situation

deteriorated as the result of establishing a free market in water.

> One of the simple things they could do to make housing

> cheaper is to simplify the building standards. Right now

> one of the big costs is getting a building past zoning

> and figuring out what the rules are ... the builders say they

> don't care if there are rules, but they want the rules to

> be static and not change much so they can plan better. The

> rules are really, really outdated and generally a mess.

You mentioned earlier that the two expenses which have increased the

most in recent decades are health care and housing. It's worth noting

that both of these have seen tremendous increases in regulations over

the same time period.

> No, I'd agree with you there. Caps don't work very well.

> We need to look at the whole picture and find out

> what isn't working. The problem is, much policy

> currently is made by special interest groups looking

> for short term gain, who is going to look to the

> long-term effects on society?

The biggest problem, I think, is that so much policy is made, period.

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...>

wrote:

>

> It may not be easy, and there are sacrifices to be made, but it

> can be done. If you want an easy life, don't have children. You

> make your choices, and you live by them. That's the way life is.

Yes, I'm constantly amazed at how so many people believe

reproduction to be a right pursuable at any, or anybody

else's, cost. Even the continuation of the human race is

not a moral imperative, though that's not even a concern

in a world as grossly overpopulated as our own, just the

opposite. I think that the _majority_ of people really

have no business having children for a variety of reasons

including economics, psychological inadequacy for the job,

etc., but certainly the system shouldn't be changed if for

no other reason than to make it easier to do so.

[Guest guest]

>No, disposable income is income that isn't taxed, iirc.

Its take home (net) pay/salary then, gross (total) wages/salary - taxes. +

interest, dividend, capital gain nets after taxes mostly for the 3% of the

population making over $100,000 per year in the latter end. Only variable

up or down for two people doing same job at same pay is exemptions,

married, single, plus each family member or exclusions for full time

students. Why can't they just say net income? Guess payroll and economics

lingos aren't the same yet boil down to the same.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> Both of my parents managed to keep full-time jobs throughout most of my

>life. Before I started kindergarten, my mother worked part-time, but I

>got the impression that that was more out of choice than out of absolute

>necessity.

So who watched the kids?

>> Also I'd have to say that $11.50 just isn't very much

>> money, at least not in this neck of the woods.

>

>Two people, each making $11.50/hour, adds up to a reasonable sum of

>money, especially when you consider that you're going to be paying very

>little in taxes at that income level if you have children. Also,

>remember that we're talking about entry-level jobs. It goes up from

>there.

Right. If you are lucky enough, as unskilled labor, to make more,

and lucky enough that your husband is alive and stays

with you and the company doesn't downsize and the kids don't

get sick and you work hard and make sacrifices, you can survive.

Of course after working all day you still have to cook and clean

and the kids don't get much attention and you probably eat

out a lot. And if the kids are young you have to pay for daycare

where the kids get sick all the time, and then you end up

with a kid that isn't bonded to any one adult because they've

been mainly raised by strangers.

Yep, it can work alright! We've been here before ... sure

it can work, and sure it isn't a society I would want

to support happening. We've pretty much lost our

communities, our culture, everything that makes

humans HUMAN for the sake of " going to work "

and " buying stuff " . Esp. bothersome to me is

the part about our kids being raised by strangers

and our food being mainly corporate.

And yeah, a person CAN get off that grind,

if they are smart and resourceful enough. We

are, you are. But a society should be able to

support people who are just average, or

below average, and it should be able to

support them without them being at a maximum

stress level and on the edge all the time.

>

>Who says you have to buy a house? If you want to buy a house, don't have

>children until you can afford them.

Well, a house is the main equity most people have,

in our culture. If you don't have a house,

life gets a lot harder. As for kids, I know very few

people who have NOT had unplanned pregnancies.

(and these are smart informed older people, forget

about uninformed teenagers).

>> That gives you say $1,800 gross

>

>$3600, if you have two income earners. More if at least one has a

>better-than-entry-level job.

You call these " entry level " jobs, but for a lot of people, that's

as good as it gets. Something tells me you haven't

worked at that level for awhile.

>> then you have taxes and do you want insurance?

>

>How much can it cost to get insurance to cover just the really expensive

>things and pay the rest out of pocket? Assuming, of course, that that

>sort of insurance policy is even legal.

Sheesh. It can cost a LOT. IF you can get it. We spent months

trying to get insurance for our company, and THAT was

hard. As an individual it's worse, tho it depends on your

state.

>> How could you support a kid on that?

>

>It may not be easy, and there are sacrifices to be made, but it can be

>done. If you want an easy life, don't have children. You make your

>choices, and you live by them. That's the way life is.

Given the society we live in, those are the choices.

But we have the power to change our society ...

the current system has only been in place oh, say 50

years or so and I say it is a mutant monster, something

like that wonderful society depicted in Soylent Green.

We actually have the technological power now to

create any society we want .. the question is, given

how humans are programmed, what will actually

WORK and give the highest GNH? (Gross National

Happiness).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

At 07:13 PM 11/30/2003 -0500, you wrote:

>In a message dated 11/30/03 6:44:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>wanitawa@... writes:

>

>> Why can't they just say net income? Guess payroll and economics

>> lingos aren't the same yet boil down to the same.

>

>Because if you're getting paid, the net income is the pay you take home, but

>when you are looking at the larger economic picture, tax money is no less

> " net " then non-taxed income, because it all goes somewhere in the economy,

so they

>use " disposable " as the income that can be disposed of in some way by

people.

> *shrug*

>

>Chris

So economics sees tax money and disposable income as both going somewhere

in the economy?....okie dokie

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Working

At 04:53 PM 11/30/03, you wrote:

>Where are all

>the grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins?