This Walmart Commercial made me sick!

[Spexvet]

Well, then, is the full question “How much money is enough to not live in squalor?”, “How much money is enough to not live in mediocrity?”, “How much money is enough to live comfortably?”, “How much money is enough to live super comfortably?”, or something else? Your prior questions (i.e. “How much money does one need?” and “How much money is enough?”) presuppose a purpose that you haven’t yet stated.

Then how do these questions fit into the equation for the arbitrary maximum income limit: Why should anyone get to live super comfortably while others live only comfortably? Why should anyone get to live comfortably while other live in mediocrity? Why should anyone get to live in mediocrity while others live in squalor? ("From each according to his ability to each according to his needs" is pure Marxism.)

Spexvet, you do realize that most of the people who post to Optiboard are “filthy rich” when compared with people in third world countries. To them, we might as well be making the same amount as Sam Walton. I can imagine that if your question (i.e. “How much money does one need?”) were asked in the third world, we might get answers like this: “All I need is $10,000 per year to make ends meet. If I had that amount I can honestly say I would donate the rest.” Why should you wait until you are making $3,000,000 per year before you lend them a hand?

These are all legitimate and difficult questions. As to "how much is enough", you need to look inward. Of course it will vary by individual, and, as was stated, some third worlders would be elated with an additional $500 /year while some Westerners wouldn't be satisfied with $100 million /year. Only you can determine how much is enough, and sleep at night knowing how your fellow countrymen and humans live.

I don't see this as Marxist, per se, because it should be a voluntary issue. It's not about "you have more than I, so give me some" - it's about "I have plenty, let me help you". I know it is unlikely that we will ever reach that place, at least as a species.

My point that "sharing the wealth" would benefit the rich is valid, I think. History repeats itself, and if the same circumstances arise as before the French and Russian revolutions, and there is a caste war in the US, the wealthy may loose their wealth. They would be smart to avoid nuturing the same situation that made the poor Russians and French so desperate that they revolted.

My $3 million was just a number that I tossed out. I have all that I need now - a house, food, clothing, autos, education for my children, etc. But it would be nice to have a couple of things that I want. I do not have a big screen TV, a boat, a vacation home, or a snow blower, because I choose to spend my money on things that I feel are more impportant. But I could have everything I want for a couple hundered grand. And while I don't have everything I want, I still contribute to charities.

Understanding the difference between want and need goes a long way toward being happy. You can be unhappy because you don't have a Tivo, or you can understand that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, needs a Tivo, and be comfortable with that knowledge.

[chm2023]

Where do people making minimum wage shop currently?

Damn myopes!

I suspect a lot of them shop at Walmart. Because they have to. If you have ever been to a WalMart--and if you haven't, don't--you must know what a depressing, soul-damaging place it is. It's a vicious circle--good paying jobs with benefits are lost, in some degree due to WalMart and its ilk; therefore people can only afford to shop at WalMart. The point is, at some stage, this starts a downwards spiral--basic economics really.

Hey I'm not complaining, I made a lot of money off of Walmart, but see it for what it is.

The point is that real wages are in decline. How can there not be consequences to this? Use your head.

[chm2023]

Its all relitive. Thats the problem with fooling around with the federal min wage. Every time the min wage goes up, so does the price of every thing from bread to housing! It is a no win.

Can you give me the reference data that supports this?

[1968]

These are all legitimate and difficult questions. As to "how much is enough", you need to look inward. Of course it will vary by individual, and, as was stated, some third worlders would be elated with an additional $500 /year while some Westerners wouldn't be satisfied with $100 million /year. Only you can determine how much is enough, and sleep at night knowing how your fellow countrymen and humans live.

I don't see this as Marxist, per se, because it should be a voluntary issue. It's not about "you have more than I, so give me some" - it's about "I have plenty, let me help you". I know it is unlikely that we will ever reach that place, at least as a species.

My point that "sharing the wealth" would benefit the rich is valid, I think. History repeats itself, and if the same circumstances arise as before the French and Russian revolutions, and there is a caste war in the US, the wealthy may loose their wealth. They would be smart to avoid nuturing the same situation that made the poor Russians and French so desperate that they revolted.

My $3 million was just a number that I tossed out. I have all that I need now - a house, food, clothing, autos, education for my children, etc. But it would be nice to have a couple of things that I want. I do not have a big screen TV, a boat, a vacation home, or a snow blower, because I choose to spend my money on things that I feel are more impportant. But I could have everything I want for a couple hundered grand. And while I don't have everything I want, I still contribute to charities.

Understanding the difference between want and need goes a long way toward being happy. You can be unhappy because you don't have a Tivo, or you can understand that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, needs a Tivo, and be comfortable with that knowledge.

I don’t think you posted anything with which I can disagree! The point that is most important to me is that each person should decide what is done with his or her money and make voluntary “donations” to causes as he or she sees fit.

The observation that there is a difference between needs and wants is also very good, and one about which I would like to make a brief comment that may be a little off topic. In California, Medi-Cal is essentially the same as Medicaid in other parts of the US. Patients with Medi-Cal are generally eligible to receive an eye examination and eyeglasses every two years. On more than one occasion I have seen Medi-Cal patients drive to my office in Mercedez Benzs, BMWs, or Saabs. Others routinely ask about upgrading to progressive lenses or much more expensive frames. One patient frequently updates us on her annual month-long vacations in France. I realize that our practice is in a particularly wealthy part of California and that these patients are not typical of ALL who are on welfare, but the fact that they are able to fulfill their wants and We the People subsidize their needs burns my butt!

[1968]

I suspect a lot of them shop at Walmart. Because they have to. If you have ever been to a WalMart--and if you haven't, don't--you must know what a depressing, soul-damaging place it is. It's a vicious circle--good paying jobs with benefits are lost, in some degree due to WalMart and its ilk; therefore people can only afford to shop at WalMart. The point is, at some stage, this starts a downwards spiral--basic economics really.

Hey I'm not complaining, I made a lot of money off of Walmart, but see it for what it is.

The point is that real wages are in decline. How can there not be consequences to this? Use your head.

I do “see it for what it is”. “Basic economics” is one of supply and demand. The demand for cheap goods was not started by Walmart employees. The demand for cheap goods (and consequently the demand for low paying jobs!) was started by We the People. Walmart merely supplies the demand. If any of us chose to demand higher price goods from stores that supply them, we are free to do so at any time. The trouble with most people is that they want their cake and they want to eat it, too.

Regarding “real wages are in decline”, the rise and fall of the economy, median household income, and wages is multifactoral. Regarding “Use your head.” – Pot, meet Kettle. Leave off the inflammatory remarks and I’ll do the same.

[Spexvet]

Patients with Medi-Cal are generally eligible to receive an eye examination and eyeglasses every two years. On more than one occasion I have seen Medi-Cal patients drive to my office in Mercedez Benzs, BMWs, or Saabs. Others routinely ask about upgrading to progressive lenses or much more expensive frames. One patient frequently updates us on her annual month-long vacations in France. I realize that our practice is in a particularly wealthy part of California and that these patients are not typical of ALL who are on welfare, but the fact that they are able to fulfill their wants and We the People subsidize their needs burns my butt!

:angry: Something is wrong with the system. Very wrong.

[chm2023]

I do “see it for what it is”. “Basic economics” is one of supply and demand. The demand for cheap goods was not started by Walmart employees. The demand for cheap goods (and consequently the demand for low paying jobs!) was started by We the People. Walmart merely supplies the demand. If any of us chose to demand higher price goods from stores that supply them, we are free to do so at any time. The trouble with most people is that they want their cake and they want to eat it, too.

Regarding “real wages are in decline”, the rise and fall of the economy, median household income, and wages is multifactoral. Regarding “Use your head.” – Pot, meet Kettle. Leave off the inflammatory remarks and I’ll do the same.

Not if we are making minimum wage!

I was not aware that the demand for lower prices is a recent phenomenon? The demand has always been there, the difference is a major shift in the profit model--profits going more to the giant discount retail purveyor, less to the wholesale/manufacturer--with a drastic cut to the latter and a significant but not offsetting increase to the former allowing for lower prices. The really frightening thing is that the increase in productivity here at home has about peaked. You can draw the obvious conclusions from that.

And real wages are a "multifactoral" measure, taking actual wages, employment, inflation and prices into account.

[ziggy]

Chm I dont have stats from th US DOL,, but I understand basic business. If your payroll goes up prices will as well. no business will stand for lower profits for long.

[Spexvet]

Chm I dont have stats from th US DOL,, but I understand basic business. If your payroll goes up prices will as well. no business will stand for lower profits for long.

IMHO, that's a big part of the problem. Let the consumer pay more, the suppliers make less, the employees earn less, but the owner/corporation can't earn less. In fact, big business feels that they must constantly GROW - staying level is unacceptable. Why is it that the burden has to fall on veryone else?:hammer:

[ziggy]

Spex,IMHO? what does that mean? Anyway, for those on this thread who are either owing a business or in charge of making a profit, how many will go for a year loseing money if they dont have to?

[1968]

Not if we are making minimum wage!

Well, good thing Walmart is there is to accommodate the needs of those making minimum wage!

I was not aware that the demand for lower prices is a recent phenomenon? The demand has always been there, the difference is a major shift in the profit model--profits going more to the giant discount retail purveyor, less to the wholesale/manufacturer--with a drastic cut to the latter and a significant but not offsetting increase to the former allowing for lower prices. The really frightening thing is that the increase in productivity here at home has about peaked. You can draw the obvious conclusions from that.

No, the difference is that the demand for lower prices keeps getting pushed lower and lower and some companies are able to meet that demand (i.e. supply) while others are not. The obvious conclusion that I’ve drawn is that Walmart is being blamed for being good at what they do (i.e. meeting customers ever increasing expectations for lower and lower prices).

And real wages are a "multifactoral" measure, taking actual wages, employment, inflation and prices into account.

…all of which rise and fall due to other factors.

[1968]

IMHO, that's a big part of the problem. Let the consumer pay more,

Are the consumers paying more at Walmart?!

the suppliers make less, the employees earn less, but the owner/corporation can't earn less. In fact, big business feels that they must constantly GROW - staying level is unacceptable. Why is it that the burden has to fall on veryone else?

The principles of supply and demand apply to big business and small business. In my practice, the burden is on me to generate enough income 1) to stay in business and 2) to take home for the things I want and need. Consequently, the burden is on me to keep my patients happy and my employees content because I can't stay in business or take home the things I want and need without either of them.

Big business often have the additional "burden" to generate profits for their shareholders, not all of whom are rich fuddy-duddies. Anyone here have any investments that they are counting on for retirement?

[Shutterbug]

Can you give me the reference data that supports this?

Might be hard to find anyone willing to fess up :0) but it is simply a numbers game. Lets say you own McDonalds. When the minimum wage forces you to raise your labor costs, are you going to take the hit? Not likely. That means you have to raise your prices to offset the increase, or offer smaller servings, lower quality or some other scheme to accomplish the same thing less obviously. Now when I have to spend more to eat at your establishment I have less for rent. Unfortunately, my landlord also is paying more to eat, so my rent increases to ofset his losses. Now I'm in the same situation I was in before I got a raise, so I need another adjustment. It goes on and on. There is no benefit to raising the minimum wage because nothing is accomplished in the long run.

shutterbug

[For-Life]

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

[jediron1]

1968 said:

Spexvet, you do realize that most of the people who post to Optiboard are “filthy rich” when compared with people in third world countries. To them, we might as well be making the same amount as Sam Walton. I can imagine that if your question (i.e. “How much money does one need?”) were asked in the third world, we might get answers like this: “All I need is $10,000 per year to make ends meet. If I had that amount I can honestly say I would donate the rest.” Why should you wait until you are making $3,000,000 per year before you lend them a hand?

When I was over in Zambia for a month i was told the yearly wage for every day Zambians was $200.00. And by the way the Aids problem in Zambia at that time in 1994 was at pandemic proportions. It is still the same now from what I have been told.

[Spexvet]

the Aids problem in Zambia at that time in 1994 was at pandemic proportions.

I think you mean epidemic, since you refer to a specific country (see below).
:cheers:
Main Entry: 1ep·i·dem·ic
Pronunciation: "e-p&-'de-mik
Function: adjective
Etymology: French épidémique, from Middle French, from epidemie, n., epidemic, from Late Latin epidemia, from Greek epidEmia visit, epidemic, from epidEmos visiting, epidemic, from epi- + dEmos people -- more at DEMAGOGUE
1 : affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time <typhoid was epidemic>

Main Entry: 1pan·dem·ic
Pronunciation: pan-'de-mik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin pandemus, from Greek pandEmos of all the people, from pan- + dEmos people -- more at DEMAGOGUE
: occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population <pandemic malaria>

[Spexvet]

Are the consumers paying more at Walmart?!

The principles of supply and demand apply to big business and small business. In my practice, the burden is on me to generate enough income 1) to stay in business and 2) to take home for the things I want and need. Consequently, the burden is on me to keep my patients happy and my employees content because I can't stay in business or take home the things I want and need without either of them.

Big business often have the additional "burden" to generate profits for their shareholders, not all of whom are rich fuddy-duddies. Anyone here have any investments that they are counting on for retirement?

Let me make sure I understand: if your income from your practice was, let's say, $200,000 per year for the previous ten year period, and then you had one year with a decline of $10,000, you would raise your fees, insist on lower prices from your suppliers or reduce the wages of your employees. You would absolutely not "take the hit" and absorb the shortfall. Do I understand you correctly?

[chm2023]

Chm I dont have stats from th US DOL,, but I understand basic business. If your payroll goes up prices will as well. no business will stand for lower profits for long.

See attached. A quick glance at the wage chart will show that the rate of change in CPI is not impacted by increases in minimum wage--CPI increases are remarkably steady. That's the problem with complex economic theory--"basic" understanding is of little use.

http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/minwage.html

[jediron1]

No I meant what I said. At that time and since the Aids problem in Zambia has grown to over 70% of there population from what I was told. Now maybe there figures were wrong, but when I was there in 1994 the public figures in control were calling it empidemic. Now it is pandemic.

Spexvet by your own definition you said:
occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population <pandemic malaria>

That is exactly what is happening.

[1968]

...

[jediron1]

chm2023 said:
That's the problem with complex economic theory--"basic" understanding is of little use.

Maybe that's the problem? Maybe there should be "basic" instead of the complex! That is the problem with trading today with any commodity you have to put up with so called complex issues.:hammer:

[coda]

chm2023 said:
That's the problem with complex economic theory--"basic" understanding is of little use.

Maybe that's the problem? Maybe there should be "basic" instead of the complex! That is the problem with trading today with any commodity you have to put up with so called complex issues.:hammer:

Unfortunately wanting a complex thing to be simple doesn't make it so. There's a perception that economic theory has become complex in an of itself over the past 50 to 100 years, in truth it has become more complex because of a number of actual factors. A non-exhaustive list would include floating currency (not pegged to gold); expansion of equity markets and increased participation therein; globalization of not just the commodity market but also the currency market; governmental participation in 'charity'; social security type programs here and abroad; generally the increase in governmental spending world wide (as a % of GDP); the interventions of super-national organizations in trade (WTO) to name only a very few. It may seem far fetched but all of these things complicate something as apparently simple as an increase in minimum wage. I'm glad I'm not an economist, just a lowly engineer.

This has been a very interesting thread to read, some people have view points I would not have expected from them suggesting, I suppose, that we are at least as complicated as economic theory. It's a nice reminder. Thanks.

[Spexvet]

...

Where did it go?

[jediron1]

Spexvet quoted :
Originally Posted by 1968
...



Where did it go?
__________________

The line from Indiana Jones And The Last Crusades comes to mind:

But choose wisely, for while the true Grail will bring you life, the false Grail will take it from you

He chose poorly!

[Steve Machol]

1968 edited his response.