Guest guest Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 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 :-/ - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 >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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 ----- 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 --- 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 ----- 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 --- 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 Working At 04:53 PM 11/30/03, you wrote: >Where are all >the grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.