Slashdot Mirror
The Almighty Buck
The NYT Magazine this week focuses on a topic near and dear to its heart: money. Stories about the dotcom boom, priorities, the cult of Wall Street. Some of the stories are interesting, as with this comparison of how far a dollar goes depending on where you live. Some are disturbing, like this one on CEO salaries. And several are (unintentionally) humorous, like this one about bankrupt Etoys and this one, by a rich writer who believes everyone else is rich too.
...that this is done by the New York Times, who requires you to register so they can sell your personal info (or at least demographic information) for more "almighty bucks."
The 'almighty buck' is a concept I think most people (even us geeks) battles. Even Linus in his book Just for Fun talks about how he wouldn't mind some more of it. Everyone wants it. Everyone would like it in huge quantities. Just some people are willing to do a lot more to get it.
Guess that's the story of our lives. Some people have it. Most people want it. Few people get it. Oh well.
Posting as directed.
An unemployed person gets a WEEKLY manicure and pedicure? Excuse me... weekly!?
And that gives her an hour a week when she can feel normal? NORMAL?
You are far from normal lady!
You can look at a historical graph of their stock price and pinpoint almost the exact moment when people realized that Etoys.com was nothing more than some money-grubbing lawsuit-happy suits who would rather use the courts as a business case than the traditional way (e.g., have a plan on how to make a profit yourself without relying on government handouts).
RIP Etoys; say Hi to Beelzebub for me.
Yeah, right.
It's true.
Fact is, we spend more than most people in the world make. We're a consumptionist society. We invented disposable plates and cups and diapers and everything else. Sake of convienience, isn't it?
I agree with his article where it describes the 'poor' of the US as wanting things they can't afford. Poor here is defined as "earning between $17,000 and $34,000 a year."
I don't make much more than that, and I've got all of these computers, and an XBox, and a Dreamcast, and...well, not to get too far into it, but I've bought a lot of crap I don't need, but I want. I have nobody but myself to blame.
But don't hide under a rock and take this article as a joke. I've started to think about what the hell I'm spending all of this money on long before I read the article.
Next time you buy 3 DVD's at Best Buy, take a step back. Do yourself a favor.
username: slashdoted
password: slashdot
Rinse, lather, repeat if needed.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
There's the same happy : unhappy ratio of rich and poor people. Yet I swear, no matter how many times it hasn't happened, if I had a little more cash, life would be a lot better.
All the major religions, all those philosophers mentioned in the last article seem to say "the key to true happiness is inside you," but I feel like the Greatest American Hero: where's the manual?
c-hack.com |
It sounds to me like he thinks every American is rich. He has a point.
How many color televisions and refrigerators are owned by the typical poor person in America? How many color televisions and refrigerators are owned by the typical Bangledeshi?
How many times per week does the typical poor American get to eat clean food, versus his Third World counterpart?
Health care may not be free, but *no* injured person is turned away from an emergency room.
Poor people today don't have to worry about many problems that would have killed even rich people 75 years ago, so I think the author is justified in regarding virtually all Americans as rich.
Hrm, the article doesn't mention two interesting part of the story. His "Stay Incentive" was stolen from money which was promised to the employees.
I used to work for eToys.
eToys layed off a bunch of nonesential staff in January 2001. The survivors of us were promised, if we worked until March 2001, our regular pay plus a retention bonus equal to 2 months of pay (some were offered more). This money was "supposedly" in a specially marked fund that was protected from the creditors.
But when March 2001 rolled around, eToys dropped the bombshell: The bonus money is gone. It wasn't protected after all.
But Toby still got his retention bonus. Guess who payed for it? That's right, we employees.
I've bought a lot of crap I don't need, but I want
Worse than that is when you buy stuff you don't need but really want, then two days later you realise you don't have much of a use for it, and don't really want it anymore. Anyone else just go out and buy something just cause it feels good to? What's going on? You know, I've been unemployed for a while, so I don't buy much of anything other than groceries (well, and beer) these days, and to tell you the truth, I don't really miss it. Maybe this is what the **AAs are really afraid of? Not that piracy will deprive them of their revenues, but that it'll get people used to not buying stuff, and then they'll really be up shit creek.
c-hack.com |
Another interesting part of the story.
eToys had one subsidiary, Babycenter [babycenter.com], which they bought in 1999 for like $90 million in eToys stock. I still know many Babycenter employees.
Here are some stats:
- Number of employees in December, 2000:
eToys: over 1000, not including babycenter
babycenter: 90
- Number of layoffs by Feb 2001:
eToys: 700
Babycenter: 20
- Revenue in 2000 (not profit):
eToys: $70 million
Babycenter: $20 million (consider that they had
10% of the staffing)
- Expenses in 2000:
eToys: $100 million
Babycenter: $20 million
- Typical expenses in the FALL of 2000 (Which
is when they were considering bankruptcy):
eToys: Brand new shiney Pentium III with a flat
screen monitor for most employees
- Brand new shiny headquarters in West Los Angeles, with a $100 million 10 year lease
Babycenter: The poor schmucks are still using
PII/366 & Sun Ultra5 machines
- converted warehouse in SOMA, San Francisco
- Amount that the entity sold for in spring 2001
eToys: $7 million to KBToys
Babycenter: $12 million to Johnson & Johnson
- Number of employees who still work for the company:
eToys: 10 or so
Babycenter: 70 (almost everyone)
- Number of days that the website has been down
due to the bankruptcy
eToys: 90 - March - May
Babycenter: Zero
- Number of managers who came in from the parent company to replace existing managers:
eToys: almost all of them
Babycenter: 1 , the finance controler
Hmmm. We might still be richer if families have more "stuff" than they did in the 50's -- technologically more advanced automobiles that aren't kept for 18 years, very powerful computers, big-screen televisions, private collegiate educations, more luxury goods, and so forth. Our standard of living could be much more expensive partly because it encompasses far more today than generations ago.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Not to deny that these people are poor, but don't fall into the common trap of believing that a dollar number represents some objective thing.
A dollar isn't a dollar. A dollar is what you can *buy* with it.
When I lived in a Mexican fishing village I rented a house for $4/mo.
A lobster was less than a dime, as was a bushel basket of tomatoes or a 10 lb. watermelon.
Industrially manufactured goods are beyond the reach of many people, ( so they still have active communities instead of watching television), but the necessities of life are always inline with local incomes.
It's called the free market. Prices of locally produced items are local *variables,* and baring disaster and famine, food and shelter is often *cheaper,* ( in the real buying power), than it is in more "developed" countries.
I have never lived among more sociable and *happier* people than those with a self-sustaining local economy. True poverty is a lack of food, clothing, shelter and community, *not* lack of money.
KFG
There is a big difference between lining your own pockets at the expense of the shareholders whose company you are running into the ground, and trying to figure out what the average age of your newspaper's readership is.
This is not pleasant for many people to hear, but there are signs that the USA may be in decline. The 20th Century was the American century, and what do we see in the first year of the 21st Century? September 11. The Roman Empire did not fall to a single enemy, but to successful waves of attacks from "barbarians" from east of its border (the strongest being the Huns). Strong nations decline due to being worn out by external factors.
Bin Laden will be remebered in history as a terrorist and no more, but he at least shows the existence of the "barbarians" to America. These enemies will not be able to conquer America, but they, like the barbarians, can wear America out. The USA's policy toward the Islamic world does not address the "production" of these bin Ladens, so there will be more bin Ladens to drain America's energy for a long time to come.
We already see the changes inside the USA due to September 11. This new Dept. of Homeland Security will be a massive government organ and take over many agencies who previously focus on more "peace time" tasks but now turns to security matters above everything else. The internal orientation is changing. USA will be more like a police state. There will be more overhead on productivity and creativity. The previous "free" environment is in decline.
History may not always repeat itself, and the USA does not have to follow the cycles of nations. But it needs the right policy to resolve the root causes of the productions of the external threats, and so far there are no signs the USA is addressing these anti-American feelings in the Middle East. America is trying to build the dam higher to block the water rather than to open channels to let the water flow through without harm. This does not look good.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
Therefore, good CEOs are worth a lot of money.
Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend? Why do they continually whine about how much CEOs are paid. They are paid that because they are scarce. In general, they're the best business men in the world. Why is it shocking they're paid so much?
I completely agree, yet we're now at the point where it's exactly the opposite: In Canada we've had to continually increase immigration to keep the population from contracting, as the "native" birth rate is far below the necessary 2.2 or so. Many advanced European countries, such as Italy, are much further along this curve and have a serious population implosion in the near future. It's a bizarre irony that the world has taken a "reverse Darwinism" : Those least capable of supporting offspring are having them by the dozen, and those theoretically most capable aren't. I fear for the genetic future of the planet.
Sidenote: Personally I think the premise of population contraction is a fantastic one -> Contrary to any "Straight from China/India/Some other obscenely overpopulated area of Earth" BS about North America or Europe being "underpopulated", it seems to me that already we're grossly overpopulated, and we continue it based on outdated, unsustainable notions of drawing graphs of GDP growth, home value growth, etc, all of which is supported only by a perpetually increasing population, yet at the same time the net wealth of all of us is decreasing (soon we'll all have no National parks, no rural areas, and we'll all be just so grateful that the GDP rate increased 4.7%, watching the screen at the end of our tiny habitat-cube
Answering the question: What the heck is a GDP anyway?
The CIA world factbook, which beats the reference materials I used to have as a kid.
To all those reading this, wondering where their Porsche is, there's a simple fact you should know now before it's too late. A six figure income will not make up for ever living above your means. You're better off putting off those luxuries until you can get them without a credit card or a loan. If today's pleasure is purchased at the cost of your future, you can forget all about pleasure tomorrow.
No Zen is good zen
Those least capable of supporting offspring are having them by the dozen, and those theoretically most capable aren't. I fear for the genetic future of the planet.
To add insult to injury - we're the ones making it easy for idiots to pop out dozens of bastard children through our taxes!
I say, norplant welfare recipients!
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Poor here is defined as "earning between $17,000 and $34,000 a year."
Poor is relative, right? I used to think that being a student was a tough living. I worked two jobs as an undergraduate to make ends meet and after I graduated, went on to the medical school here and am now making about $15,000 a year as a Ph.D. candidate. Because I worked as an undergraduate, I don't have many of the student loans that other M.D. and Ph.D. students have, but I still thought that getting by was fairly difficult.
Recently however, there was a group of ophthalmic surgeons, nurses, technicians, students and scientists here that travelled to Ghana with the idea of helping out some of the local folks who would not otherwise have access to medical care. You will never see poverty in your life like exists in third world countries. People live in unbelievable conditions and the one patient that stuck out in my mind was a 50 something gentleman who had SEVERE cataracts so bad he was completely blind. Replacing his lenses restored his vision completely. Now, cataracts of this severity are never seen in the western world. In the U.S., even if you are completely without any job skills and make absolutely no money, your cataracts will never get that bad without someone paying for them to be fixed. And whats more, this man was brought in by his grandson who guided him walking for over twenty miles for the chance to have something done for him.
That was poverty.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I totally see where you're coming from. I was reading this interview with Moby in NY Times magazine, and they showed photos of his manhattan apartment. The things that struck me most: lots of sunlight, and a garden on the roof. It's kinda funny how in the city you have to be rich to get what in the country you get for free. Of course, if you're in the country, there's not as many places to buy cool stuff! Actually, a city like NY has plenty really great stuff over the country, like free museums and great shows (music and otherwise). I'm thinking it's not a bad trade-off, especially when you can leave your closet-apartment and look at those gorgeous Vermeers just about anytime you want. Man, it's like you own them.
c-hack.com |
Why the high proportion of stories linking to the New York Times website?
We'd never get enforced contraception as part of the welfare system. Too much loss of civil liberties, although the welfare system as a whole is of course a loss of our liberty, but it's entitlement so it can't be done away with...
But if I ever get Bill Gates-rich, I will start a charity that gives no-cost vasectomies or fallopian tube operations to all comers, and then gives you a $5,000 - $10,000 check...
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
Does David Brooks' claim that the USA is different from other empires and will never go through a decadent phase remind anyone else of the end of the business cycle supposedly heralded by the dotcom boom? I think one of the greatest problem any society has to face is complacency: once you get too many people at the top saying "yeah, we're great, we've created the perfect never-ending utopia" they stop responding to outside pressures, stagnate, and start to decline. I don't know if that's happened in the US yet, but I'd definitely rather that our national leaders were all a bunch of pessimists. First, they're probably more likely to be right; and second, if they're wrong, the consequences aren't as bad as they would be if they were incorrectly optimistic.
I think you mean average annual salary, not gross domestic product (GDP)...
Reminder: find a new sig
Just to put a response on this from someone you're talking about... :)
:) Nobody in the house drinks, smokes, or does drugs other than caffeine and chocolate. I've always said I never did those other things because I couldn't afford them :) Yes, we have two cars; one is my economy car for shuttling to and from work, and the other is the grocery getter / kid hauler. Both cars are fully paid for, and over 10 years old.
:) (She's the one with the business degree, after all; I'm just a geek.) She says things are kind of tight, but they've always been that way; we still manage to get by somehow. We don't have the latest and greatest toys (despite my geeky wants and urges), but we're still a happy, "average" American family. I don't see that we're particularly well off, but we're holding our own. The trick to the financials of all this is -
:) Sifting through to edit out some of the more personal information...
:)
I live in Taco's neck of the woods - cost of living is a bit on the high end here, IMHO - and I'm working one job, while my wife stays home to take care of our two kids. We're paying the bank for the privelage of living under a single roof, and that privelage takes up about 50% of my monthly takehome pay. The only reason we could afford the house was thanks to an inheritance, which barely covered the down payment.
Yes, we have two color tvs and two vcrs, but that's only because we spent good money on the first ones, and they still work well enough to be used in the basement on occasion. There's also an original Nintendo connected to that tv in the basement that we bought used years ago - no Playstations, no XBoxen. No Game Boys in the house, either. I splurged last month and ordered one of those 76-games-in-one game systems that were mentioned in an article here recently, and it's the best thing in the world as far as the kids are concerned. The dvd player that we just got last Christmas is a no-name Best Buy special, and we don't own any dvds (yet). The newest computer that was purchased was a used Bondi blue iMac, and that was two years ago. There's also the G3 that I bought five years ago (wow, that thing's getting old...) with a G4 upgrade that I put in it last year.
We don't go out to the movies, and if we're lucky, we go out to eat once a month. It's too expensive for these things, and the kids are too much hassle to take out in public sometimes
According to that article, we're a "below average" household, based strictly on the income numbers and education levels. Strangely enough, our household basically is the 50s/60s standard model - I come home from a day at work, the kids run up to greet me at the door, and the wife is getting dinner ready after her long day of cleaning / laundry / kid corraling. She does the bookkeeping too - I just bring home the money
wait for it -
live WITHIN your means.
Just like they did back in the "good old days" before all the PDAs and TiVos and cell phones (oh yeah, one Tracfone in the household - $20 every two months for a phone I barely use for thirty minutes a month), you only spend what's in the bank, or what you KNOW is going to be in the bank come the next paycheck. There's only been a few times that our total credit card debt has been over $1500 at the end of a month, which from what I understand is WAY below average. This is something that people seem to have forgotten - the people that give you those pieces of plastic want their money back someday, and someday SOON.
Like that NYTimes article says, everyone acts like their financial salvation is coming just over the next hill... but the odds are REALLY good that what's over the next hill is just the next paycheck. If you live life expecting that next check, you won't be surprised - or at least, you won't be disappointed when the monthly bills show up. If you learn to take care of what you have, and make do with what you have, you don't have to be throwing tons of money out the window every month for the next "newest and bestest". Regular oil changes are a lot cheaper than a new car every few years because the engine blew up after you kept treating it like crap.
We may not be financially compared to other households in this country, but we're financially stable, and we're overflowing with intangibles that a happy family provides.
/me checks the preview... wow, I was in a mood to write tonight, wasn't I?
And after this lengthy monologue about money and happiness and making do, I leave you with a link to a site where you could win new geek toys, and put some affiliate money in my pocket in the process so I can buy more toys
-----
Apple hardware still too expensive for you? How about a raffle ticket?
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
I don't know about Australia, but as a college counselor I've had plenty of students relate the same story: their relatives from other countries rarely recognize any name but Harvard. Literally: "What the hell is {Princeton,MIT,Stanford}? Why aren't you applying to Harvard?"
...her universities are the queens of learning...
This is actually correct in a way that the author of the article probably didn't realize. The key is the word university, which is an institution that awards graduate degrees, as opposed to a college, which grants undergraduate degrees. The U.S. university system -- the graduate system -- is second to none, period. Oxford can certainly compete on equal footing with the best of these universities, but how many Oxfords are there?
In contrast, the U.S. undergraduate experience is only a bit better than mediocre (although there are plenty of excellent exceptions, none of which belong to the overrated Ivy League). The quantity of those attending college greatly compensates for any lack of quality, and is probably crucial to continued abundance -- it seems to me that providing a great education to only a few is less effective than providing a good education to many. But I'd love to see hard numbers if anyone has any...
---
Dum de dum.
Freedom is not the license to do what we like, it is the power to do what we ought.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Shit, dude, it doesn't matter how much you have, you'll always be wanting a little more. Psychological studies have shown that people's happiness levels is relatively set, and while major events may elevate or depress their overall happiness (such as winning the lottery for happiness or death of a loved one for misery), before too long people are back to their previous happiness levels. So, even if you think you'd be damned happy and things would be great if you won the lottery and became a millionaire, that happiness would be relatively short-lived, I'm afraid. Essentially, you'd find other shit to bitch about.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Having grown up in a rich suburb of Chicago and then in rural Missouri, I have seen that the cost of living is all relative. In Chicago my dad was a VP for a big company, my mom taught preschoolers. In Missouri my dad ran a small company (two employees) and my mom teaches 5th grade. While they make about half of what they made in Chicago, our standard of living is about the same, maybe even a bit higher in Missouri.
I also moved from Missouri to SoCal, and live in a beach community. I bought a condo about a year ago, which is about 1/3 of the size of my parent's home in Missouri and cost about 3 times as much.
I guess I am trying to say if you want a low cost of living, move to a different place. You may think that there aren't as many tech-savvy jobs there. However, there are plenty of such jobs in the cities in the Midwest (don't go to Texas or Chicago, too expensive). But places like Memphis, Kansas City, St. Louis, Springfield IL, etc. all have tech jobs and low costs of living. Not nearly as exciting as NYC, but definitely more affordable.
I think it is affordable to have kids. I have not started a family yet, but I can't see why it would be cost prohibitive if you grow them up modestly (i.e., if Jimmy wants a new car, he's gotta buy it himself; if Susy wants the designer outfit, she's gotta pay for it herself; etc.).
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
From the article:
Americans in 2000 spent less than they did 10 years earlier on steaks, martinis, cigars, jewelry, watches, furniture, toys and sound equipment. They spent less on entertainment and more on education, housing, transportation and computers.
Okay, steaks corresponds with the mentioned trend about people eating more fresh vegetables. That would seem to correlate with trying to eat healthier. Martinis? Okay, perhaps people are drinking more malt beverages?
As for the education, housing, transportation, if you look, housing prices, education prices and transporation prices have all been going up. That has nothing to do with any earnest desire by Americans to do something wholesome with their money. It's indicative of the fact that we are running our of spaces to expand to.
Computers? 10 years ago was 1992. Computers were hardly ubiquitous then and the top of the line was a 486. Now computers have become a much more essential part of every home and the internet has driven a lot of buying. To suggest that somehow we are doing something good because we buy an Athlon to surf pr0n is a crock.
Americans spent 10 percent less on food in general (though baby boomers spent 15 percent more on fresh vegetables). Americans spent 14 percent less on clothing, the largest decline in any category, though they did spend 12 percent more on shoes.
Food in general? Okay, lets get back to that steak. How much does it cost you for the ingredients for that steak vs a salad? Furthermore, the price of food, realtive to the value of a dollar has been decreasing. The reason clothing prices are going down is because of globalization and cheap international production of textiles. That has nothing to do with buying less clothes.
So, whatever, if you believe America has escaped some trend of history. If you think that this will go on forever, I just have three words for you:
THE NEW ECONOMY
Yup, remember that crock. Oh, record employment, growing wealth, with no looking back. The old rules are done. YEAH RIGHT. This country has done well over the years, granted but we've got a lot of bumps in the road to deal with ahead. A massive generation of retirees. The increasing gap between rich and poor. We haven't solved some magical formula folks, we've been blessed by history and it may continue that way for a while, but as any dot com CEO will tell you, all good things must come to an end.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Yes, but the poor in Kuwait (and other mideast countries) are extremely poor while the rich and powerful are extremely rich. People will try to say the same about the U.S., but that was the point of the article -- even the poor in the U.S. are not doing too bad, and most of us are somewhere in the middle.
Know someone who is stealing cable? Report them!
We as Americans are vaguely aware that we are better off that most people in the world. I thought I 'got it' before I travelled a bit. I know I could have been the one who posted how hard it is to raise a family in New York.
No.
I tell you truly: a homeless person anywhere in the US is far better off than the average African. We are so steeped in wealth, what one person I met called "an embarrassment of riches", we have no perspective.
We truly do not understand what poor means. Not a clue. The average american roughing it in the great outdoors brings more stuff in his backpack than the average african ever owns.
No running water. No electricity (ha!). No roof. No car. No bus. No sidewalks or pavement. No shoes. Nothing.
Disease is rampant; 80% of the population is HIV positive in Malawi. The average age is 15.
If the world is getting you down, take a trip to Malawi. It will change your perspective.
2. Plenty of U.S. schools have IB programs -- I attended one.
3. #2 is irrelevant, however, because high school (or equivalent) is irrelevant.
Know someone who is stealing cable? Report them!
But there was a silly remark in one of the articles: "American workers are still the most productive on earth, two-thirds more productive than our counterparts in Great Britain, for example."
Why would the writer want to compare the US to the UK?
This is where your first remark comes in again, the Brits have a relatively high per capita income but their Purschasing Power is almost the lowest in Europe, only the Greek and Portugeese are worse off!
But it must be said, at least Britain overtook them in the last 15 years.
And indeed, true poverty is when your family goes hungry after a days work.
Something not uncommon in Great Britain but virtually unheard of in Greece and Portugal.
Just do a search on the net about the number of British children going to school hungry. That's why it's silly to compare the US and the UK.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
...by consumption figures alone, one has to take in account production. And this is where US has nothing at all for a long time already. US may be "rich" because it uses internally the currency that everyone else uses as a precious resource for international trade. So while in US a dollar is something you pay for everything without thinking, abroad it's something you save for trade with other countries fot their goods (not with US -- US doesn't export much) and can obtain only by international trade (including US -- US imports a lot).
This situation formed after WWII when US economy was in a good condition while everyone else was in deep crisis and had very weak and unstable local currency. By starting a stream of worthless in itself green paper from US to others US managed to create a mechanism that supplies it with goods and power for merely providing international currency.
When inflation of dollar in US reach the extent that will make dollar undesirable for international trade, or another currency will start competing with it, or when countries will develop more advanced trading system that will instantly adjust prices based on the expected behavior of the currency offered, US will lose that advantage. If at that point US won't develop a non-parasitic economy it can just as well start randomly nuking foreign countries in an attempt to discredit their currencies just like WWII did.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I'm single and I still live with my parents. Granted, I'm only 20, but back in my parent's day, it was common to leave home at 18. Nowadays, none of my friends have left home. Why? Our society is not designed for single people.
;-)
In the UK, the average rent on a small 1 bedroom place is about £600 ($860) in most places, even in the quiet and jobless South West.
The average wage in the UK is reported as £20,000 (almost $30,000) a year. After tax, this equates to £15,000 a year, or £1250 ($1800) a month. So, bam, half of your wage has gone on your rent.
In the US, you have it a bit better. Your society is not geared towards single people either, but those who want somewhere cheap and safe to live can find it. I know that you can rent nice places in the South for $400/$500 a month, and I know that groceries are cheap, and gas is ridiculously cheap. Nice weather too. Sure, it's not a wealthy area, but if you telecommute (as I do) who cares?
Now, take a poor place in the UK. Crime (primarily street assault) is a major problem in the UK nowadays, so finding somewhere reasonably safe is key. You're looking at £500 ($750) minimum to rent a tiny shithole, and add to that that gas is US$4.50 a gallon. Plus, the weather's lousy.
The difference, however, is that there are housing associations for those who can't afford $750+ a month in rent. This is a rather socialist idea, and one of the reasons we pay so much tax. My pride kinda stops me from looking at this option. I'm a capitalist, and if I want something I have to damn well work for it. This view somewhat conflicts with the UK's 'welfare state' ideals.
To be honest, if I could haul my ass to Louisiana tomorrow, I would.. but unfortunately your visa system wouldn't let me in. This, despite the fact that I wouldn't be scraping off of welfare, and could keep working for exactly the same clients as I do now! Of course, Greece or the south of France are other options, but hello.. don't we want to live in a place that speaks English?
mogorific carpentry experiments
If we could come up with a civilization were nobody would end up on the street then money wouldn't be so important.
Europe is like this.
Okay, okay, there are people on the street, but rest assured, you can get a home from the government if you're really in the shit. Believe it or not, a lot of homeless people have ideals and don't want to live on government handouts, but the option is there.
Now, you're right, money isn't as important in Europe as it used to be. This is a bad thing. People are lazy. I know people who just can't be bothered to work, and claim benefits perpetually.
That's the problem with the socialist system. The lazy don't work, and the people who want to work end up paying shitloads of demoralizing taxes.
mogorific carpentry experiments
..even the poor ones.
A month ago, Reuters reported that Swedes were less well off than poorest Americans.
Quoth the article:
"Black people, who have the lowest income in the United States, now have a higher standard of living than an ordinary Swedish household," the HUI economists said.
And I still would choose to live in Sweden any day over living in USA.
I've lived in Cambridge, south east England (one bedroom flat was £415 a month), Lancaster, north west England (Two bedroom house was £380) and I'm currently living in Cellardyke, west Scotland (3 bedroom house for £390). You have to go somewhere pretty expensive to have to pay £600 a month for a one bedroom flat.
;-)
£415 a month in Cambridge? Were you sharing or going through a housing association? That's pretty cheap for round that way.
The cheapest place I've found in the entire country is Lincolnshire. You can get a 2/3 bedroom house 15 miles outside of Lincoln for about £250/£300 a month. Ridiculously cheap, and low crime. Of course, no jobs (or broadband), but hey!
I'm interested in moving to North Devon or North Cornwall, but as you can expect, sky high prices.
What's your area of Scotland like? I've never really considered Scotland before for the stupid fact that I don't like the accent
I guess I'm looking for the impossible. A cheap, low-crime area in the UK that has DSL.
mogorific carpentry experiments
Poor here is defined as "earning between $17,000 and $34,000 a year."
I don't make much more than that, and I've got all of these computers, and an XBox, and a Dreamcast, and...
No doubt, but I'll bet your single, young and in good health. That's a 2-child household income in a lot of places. Bringing up baby cuts into the gaming money real fast. But you've got a point. The article does sort of hit home.
I actually found it a little sickening, but also very difficult to refute. I've been thinking about this topic long and hard already after a recent trip to the Netherlands. Their country makes so much more sense than America in terms of infrastructure, land use, and even on some levels culture (e.g. live events are more popular than TV), and yet there's a certain spark over here in the US that just doesn't seem as present. For all the great stuff they've done with their nation, the Dutch struck me as generally bored, laconic, maybe even a little down in the dumps. And I know it's not just because their Football team didn't qualify for the world cup.
So this article does a good job of capturing That Thing (opportunity, real or perceved) that makes America glimmer, hum and sing, but it convienently glosses over the rough spots. I'm talking about things like the amount of trash we produce, the violent crime, or the soaring numbers of citizens who subscribe to anti-depressant prescriptions. You know, all the fscked up stuff that's wrong with this place.
The trouble with the cult of money is that as good as it is for getting people off their ass, it's an empty temple. There's no there there, no nirvana, no peace, only endless and relentless pursuit. I'm fine with this kind of thing in theory. It is, after all, all about the journey. We're still evolving as a nation, thank the constitution, gutted as it may be, but we're not there yet. That's why it's so important to keep the playing fields open (copyright law) and the spooks off our backs (civil liberties) and keep a careful eye out for the nasty leviathans that tend to rise up (anti-trust). If we declare this or any other time to be, as they used to say, 'the end of history', then we will surely go the way of the Romans.
In the end, I encourage the impulses that drive the consumer machine. How can I not? It's energy, and energy is the potential to make some of the wrong things right. We've all got a bit of that progressive energy in us. I just wish we were a little more progressive about how we applied it.
Howard Dean for president
Maybe we should lie to homebuyers and say, "Yeah, with interest rates at 20% your mortgage payments will be yada yada" then we'll have a solid recovery instead of a credit card-induced recovery.
MESSAGE TO ALL AMERICANS - you are poor only if you have sold your only car, and have to buy discounted groceries from WalMart because the fresh stuff is too expensive. Just a reality check for you, this is how we live in the rest of the world.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
A few weekends ago, a friend recommended Rich Dad, Poor Dad to me. No, it's not an investment book. Rather, it's an interesting look into the ways that those of different economic levels teach their kids what money is, and how to earn money.
It's pretty good so far. Nothing mind-blowing, but there's certainly some logical thought in there that had never occurred to me.
I mention the book, though, because he freely admits that your typical "employment" lifestyle that most Americans have isn't enough to make you "rich", and is hardly enough to help you retire comfortably. However, he also realises people have to start out somewhere. You can't invest if you have zero. Thus, fiscal responsibility is entirely necessary, especially in the beginning, and something that most of us (yes, you, Slashdot reader) don't have.
I know and/or have known way too many people who make way too much more money than me to be living paycheck-to-paycheck like they do. Granted, I make an okay salary, but I've known tonnes of people who've made six-figures USD and can't control their finances. It's asanine, but it's not an anomaly -- US News and World Report recently that some enormous percentage of Americans had saved less than $50,000 for retirement.
The author of that NYT article was right, to some degree. Americans are fairly rich. We also, however, spend a lot of money on absurd things. The author of Rich Dad, Poor Dad is right, too: Americans don't know where to put their money, spending it on liabilities, not assets, and have a pitifully wrong understanding of it.
I think what the **AAs would really be afraid of is people discovering that their public library has tons of good books that are free for you to read.
No you won't be satisfied with more money because you'll buy a bigger house with a bigger mortgage, and your new friends would expect you to maintain this inflated wealth indefinitely, your lifestyle will also change to adapt, expensive foods, etc. Then when you again reach equilibrium, you'll look down and see that there is further that you can fall and much more that you can lose. This makes you more anxious and unhappy when earning more.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Americans have all been programmed, by Christmas especially, to associate getting stuff with feeling good (getting an endorphin rush). Doesn't matter what kind of plastic crap it is, the point is that getting stuff feels good. It's an addiction, and the first step in kicking it is realizing that. The next time you find yourself hot to buy some new thing that you just gotta have, take a step back and start doing some serious thinking.
Did anybody check out the slide show the detailed where people where putting their money in different areas of the country?
The car payments are crazy. It seems like people across all the economic stratas are spending way to much on cars. People with no money are paying $800 or more every month on their cars (sometimes more than one car). It's a far better idea to keep your cars until they are worn out and to put as much down as you can (unless you have a great loan rate).
Anyway, don't blow all your money on cars when your family is struggling to make ends meet. You have more important things to buy.
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
But you weren't talking about owning luxury items - you were talking about how kids are so damned expensive to rear. Last time I checked a child did not require a plasma screen. The cost of raising children is tied directly to the local cost of living (cost for food, shelter, medical, clothes, etc.). In any case, once you have kids you'll then realize what true wealth is all about (at least that's what I've been told...).
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
In the US you *have* a house, a car, etc. And if somebody burned down your house and stole your car, and the insurance company found a technicality e.g. Act of God to weasel out of paying, how would you pay $1million for the lawyers to contest it? If no win no fee then to get paid back for your house you have to pay a fee of >$50,000. Having stuff creates anxiety, if you look at the poor Cambodians, they sleep in the open and when they lose their jobs they go into the forest and eat leeches with noodles. If they're lucky they can catch soldier ants and eat them.
In our lives we *assume* our car will still be there, we *assume* our house wouldn't have burnt down, we *assume* our water tank hasn't burst soaking our hard drives, even linux cannot withstand an hard disk underwater. All these assumptions to maintain our normal lives is OK by our higher consciousness, but on a subconscious level we know these events can occur, causing a subconscious anxiety that our higher consciousness cannot understand, causing more unhappiness if you rely on more stuff.
I put it to you that when driving was for fun, you enjoyed it, but when you had to get to work by 9am, and so became dependent on your car, you suddenly stopped enjoying it making yourself less happy because it's out of your control.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Actually there is a charity that does this already for crack mothers:
here
The astonsihing thing? $200 is what they give, and they have people lined up!
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
What I'm saying is that even the stupidly rich will find some way to waste their money, here I saw a documentary I lost a million, I think you should watch it, it's very enlightening.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
If you aren't happy in your life's station then you aren't happy. It is of little difference if someone out there has it worse than you. Perspective is an integral part of your environment.
Why do people continually feel the need to put down other's emotions and desires by bringing up people who may live in a different world? If that is the only way you can drive yourself to do better than so be it, but don't attack others for not feeling the desire to use pity as a driving force.
--- I do not moderate.
Well, I've been through periods where I've been fairly well off (earning aroun $100k) and times when I've been pretty darn poor ($17k and living in low income housing). I can say without any doubt that I'm happier now because of my money.
My neighbors aren't dangerous and my life is a little smoother. I can enjoy small treats when I want them without feeling guilt. (I like being about to afford orange juice.) The fact is eating well, having fun toys, and not struggling to get by does make me happy.
Now, I'm not totally immune to consumerism. I have a tivo (which I enjoy) and I just payed $200 for a ticket to the Stanley cup. I sat right behind 9 hall of famers. That made me happy too. (I'm a big hockey fan and player)
So, money isn't the only key to happiness but it sure does help.
Vanguard
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
Could we see one for the VA/Andover one?
AFAK, Andover was profitable, then VA ("The #1 losing money Linux PC maker") stepped in. A year later the joint company shed as much of the VA heritage as possible. How many VA employees were sent away in the end?
VA as a company was only able to buy a GOOD, profitable company and leech its revenue stream because of the ludicrous valuation of its stock by idiots on the futures market. That websites that were owned and operated by Andover in 1999 are still around today is a miracle of their financial controllers, thanks to Larry Augustin and his money-losing grew.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
You talking to me? Who are people like me? Do you mean the whiny socialists or the greedy capitalist? Where do you think I'm coming from?
That's the problem- the shareholders are being robbed by shysters with good PR agents. I have no problem with CEOs making huge amounts of money when they do good work. But running a company into the ground and still making millions is repugnant.
If a CEO does a lousy job, he ought to get- NOTHING! That's right, no compensation at all. One of the problems is that once a person is financially secure, the rest of it is just a game. A guy with 10 million in assets can still lose 9 and retire better than 99% of the population. So let these primadonnas work uncompensated 'til they get results. That's what the rest of us have to do in our ventures, and sometimes we lose- everything. Most of these guys can well afford to work for free anyway.
One can eat only so many carrots. It's time to bring out the stick.
One of these articles says the average family income is $54,400, while another says $42,000. Which is it?
In general, they're the best business men in the world.
If only that were true. Did you even read the article?
Gates, William H.
Chairman of the Board and Chief Software Architect $666,754
Ballmer, Steven A.
Chief Executive Officer, Director $665,520
Allchin, James E.
Group Vice President, Platforms $694
Raikes, Jeffrey S.
Group Vice President, Productivity and Business Services $695
now look at a company with a simular market cap, GE.
Jeffrey Immelt, 46
Chairman, CEO $6.6M
Dennis Dammerman, 56
Vice Chairman and Chairman, Gen. Electric Capital Services, Inc. 6.5M
Gary Rogers, 57
Vice Chairman and Exec. Officer 3.5M
Robert Wright, 58
Vice Chairman and Exec. Officer 6.1M
the "scam" here is that all those folks at MS have a lot of stock options, for example Gates sells his stock at regular intervals, making (i think) around 1B a year.
Reading all that whining about how this CEO at SBS is rakeing it in with average performance made me think, why the f*ck is the board paying him so much, then i read this:
(from the artical, page 2.)
The directors, who earn $60,000 a year, no doubt believe this; they have been close to Whitacre and have been endorsing his pay for a long time. He has also been endorsing theirs. Two of SBC's nominally independent directors -- August A. Busch III, chairman of Anheuser-Busch, and Charles Knight of Emerson Electric -- run companies for which Whitacre is a director. Most of the other 18 directors have either served with Whitacre for at least 10 years or were directors of companies that Whitacre acquired.
Bassicly this CEO is a director for some of the membors on the board, bassicly, you give me a raise, i'll give you a raise deal, very "good old boys" style. Either way, if you don't like it just don't buy any of thier stock, the obviously don't care that much about it, i don't see why you would.
-Jon
this is my sig.
Save your own money and let those stupid people get screwed. When all the people in the country save money you get deflation which kills the economy by slowing spending, the velocity of money slows as it gets tied up with the people that hog it. Look at Japan, all the baby boomers hogging the money for their retirements tanking the economy. Old guys get a good retirement but screw up their kids jobs and lives, I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Here's a thought: Maybe the fittest don't participate in the fiscal system. Who the hell equated intelligence with higher probability of survival, I put it to you that a clever Einstein-fish thinking of formulae all the time will get eaten by a predator and thus is very "unfit".
I put it to you that the fittest subconsciously see through the capitalist methodology and procreate more, manipulating the feelings of the gullible capitalism-participators (pity, sympathy) into changing laws to support them and provide medicare etc. Same as the cuckoo lays its eggs in other birds' nests. These procreators are fitter because they manipulate the people that are stupid enough to be drawn into the "artificial free market game created by the Government". Maybe we are less fit. Perhaps the criminals are the higher life form because they see banks as "prey" and rob them.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sure, I agree it's a fact that we spend more than most of the world makes, here in the USA.
Where I think you're missing something, though, is with your accusations of items such as "paper plates and disposable diapers" being evidence of our wastefulness.
The old adage "time is money" holds a lot of truth, and most of these disposable items are used because they free up our valuable time for better things. Even with something as simple as an office that holds a "food day" of some sort in the cafeteria -- which makes more economic sense; let several employees clean all the dishes and cups afterwards, or toss out the paper ones and get back to work?
Furthermore, I can speak personally on the disposable diaper issue, now that we have our first kid. We looked hard at avoiding disposables - but you know what? It's just not worthwhile. Most babies have skin irritations if you use the cheap laundry soap. If you want to avoid that, you have to buy something like Ivory or Dreft detergent, at double the price of Tide or All. Then you figure in the cost of all the extra dryer sheets, electricity used for the washer and dryer, and all of your time spent cleaning the extra loads of cloth diapers in the wash. If you don't get them cleaned right away, you've got this mess of used diapers stinking up the house - so consider that another possible negative. Buying the "store brand" disposable diapers started making a *lot* more sense for us - and "convenience" was merely a secondary bonus to it.
I'd add to that that it's probably very likely that - just as when OPEC constrains supply to oil, revenues actually go down because people drive less when gas prices go up - the market will respond the same way with eveyrthing else, if there develops an underclass of people who aren't able to afford goods and services, because monopolies have priced them out of the common man's reach, or licensing agreements become too onerous.
Face it, the whole reason Brittney sold so many zillions of CD's is because there were a whole buttload of 14 year olds whose mummies and daddies gave them too big of an allowance.
And the same thing's going to happen in broadband as the competition dissolves, and they jack up the prices and restrictions. The whole reason why people started getting on the internet back in the early 90's was because it was trivially cheap for every quirky individual to put up his or her own web page, and you could just surf for hours and hours looking at cool stuff. That Internet is long gone, and there's really not a whole lot that's compelling anymore. So why do people feel the need to get broadband? A pissing contest? Sure, the geeks need the bandwidth to download ISOs, and low latency to frag losers - but the rest of them - the ones that got onto the Internet 5 or so years ago because there was so much cool content - now it's pretty much gone - or consolidated into commercial interests which intend to wring every penny out of it - which makes it instantly unappealing to the average websurfer.
There was a resurgence during the era when it was safe and free to download MP3's - the new "killer app" of the Internet - but now - MP3's aren't free anymore. You pay for them by being subject to spyware - or dealing with a low signal-to-noise ratio (vs. spam, poorly ripped, mislabeled, or incomplete tracks).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Actually, he didn't claim that WWII was caused by American isolationism. He claimed that isolationism doesn't prevent our involvement in world affairs. Even though we were isolationist, we still were attacked, as the isolationism was seen as a sign of weakness. I agree that WWII was caused by WWI, but I also note that America did everything it could to pretend it didn't have any involvement in the rest of the world, and it didn't help.
The author of the article about the U.S. being rich, David Brooks, was on the Marketplace radio program last week introducing the article.
The page for the show is here, and has a link to the Real Audio archive of it.
It's followed by an interesting story on the horrendous interest rates charged by banks in Brazil.
This happened to my friend, he had a $200,000 mortgage with BCCI, he had paid $150,000 of this mortgage off, so he only had $50,000 to go. He had $100,000 cash available but because of mortgage tax relief he didn't want to pay up his mortgage fully.
When BCCI tanked, they auctioned his house, they didn't give him a chance to pay $50,000 cash to buy the house.
Banks point of view:
If they buy the house from us, we get $50,000
If we seize the house and auction it, we get $300,000.
If you're thinking 8:1 is a bottomless pit, remind yourself that MANY top Bank employees get paid > $1.5million per year, and not just CEOs. You think the dot com boom was driven by the Nasdaq, well here's something for you - where do the VCs get their money from? $100 million doesn't grow on trees you know.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Well, I've been trying so articulate a new way to understand an economy. Particulary, taking into account WHAT people buy in different countries. The problem is mainstream is not concerned about anything that is either: 1) relevant 2) insightfull. They just want to add layers of crap and theory over whatever obvious thing some nobel said in the past. They have no clue! But as long as "everyone" in the field buys the "crap", it hold as true ... it's the lens through which they understand economics.
The real important thing to have a RICH country like the US depends on basicaly three pillars:
1 - having enough food and jobs
2 - having a large share of the world purchasing power
3 - use the money to buy stupid* stuff inside the country (DVDs), export stupid stuff. Buy hard goods.
I will not go on exmplaing why, but it can be proved. Every time you buy a DVD, you are making yourselves richer. Trust me! It's not the point if you need the DVD or not, it's the fact you can afterwards buy hard stuff cheap from abroad by printing paper.
* "stupid stuff" is here defined as "near zero marginal" cost of production.
I can only describe a little example: suppose Bush wanted to increase the USA wealth and that he controled everyones minds in the US. He could then force all employers to pay $2000 to employees. The suppose alll those employees are forced to buy 200 DVD a year. Would ex-ante PRICES rise?!?! NO! Not a cent.
The ex-post situation depends on what Holywood does with the "extra earnings". Well, they just pay a lot of money to stars, pay for high end equipment, distribute some earnings to investors.
The stars mostly save the money or spend it in "stupid stuff" (if they could eat $5 millions bucks of local bread, you'd toasted as this would lead to inflation and thus all this "richist illusion would fall over"). The investors save it , or buy hard goods abroad, etc.
Well, the bottom line is: trust me, buy DVDs. It's the only way you can earn such high salaries! The day the US citicens (if ever) discover that their extra wealth is based in the assumption of them buying DVD, you'll see a great chaos (either bank collapse, or severe depression or high inflation).
unfinished: (adj.)
The scenario you describe doesn't make any sense.
BCCI "tanking" doesn't give them the right to seize his house---only his default does. If BCCI tanked, some other bank would pay to assume the mortgage.
when the Fed raises interest rates their mortgage payments are going to be so high that half of them are going to be in negative equity.
Changes in interest rates alone do not change the equity of the homeowner.
Equity = value of house - principal owed.
When interest rates change, your payments can change, but your equity doesn't magically disappear. The problem of negative equity comes when house prices drop. There is only a mild, indirect connection between mortgage rates and house prices.
So sudden increase in interest rates induces a drop in value of house and an increase in mortgage burden
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?