Rising costs of yesterday and today

[Kahdir]

I'm definitely doing better than I would have in 1967.

[Russo]

Originally Posted by right to travel

For someone who always tries to inject politics into a thread you would think that you would know the the federal reserve act was only signed by wilson because the faux supporting 16th amendment wasnt yet ratified until wilson took office. that legislation was sitting in congress since just after reconstruction.

how else do you explain "the rising costs of yesterday and today" without legislation signed and supported by Progressive presidents? i bet you believe Oswald acted alone in the JFK assassination too, huh

Originally Posted by Terryble

My question:

If you yourself were a CEO of a multibillion dollar company, and you received a $1,000,000 bonus at the end of the year for your hard work, would you take that $1,000,000 and divide it evenly amongst your employees? You would? excuse me while I don't belive you...

while i am no CEO of a major corporation, i do have incentives set up for my executive assistant if the business reaches a certain number each month...

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by jd10013

today money actually buys you more than it did in the past

Are you living in some kind of bizarre parallel universe? Are you actually arguing that $1 is worth more than it was decades ago?

Originally Posted by jd10013

as a result of massive productivity gains, globalization and cheap foreign labor.

Yes, productivity gains and new technologies are always leading toward "cheaper" products. And in a situation where the value of the currency is stable, it would take fewer units of currency to buy stuff as productivity and technology get better. But the currency is being devalued faster than those gains are taking place, which is why the number of dollars it takes to buy anything is always going up.

By the way, this is why the argument of "the car costs more dollars because it is nicer is such a weak argument...technology and productivity gains mean the price does not have to go up as more or better features are added to cars. The argument of productivity and technology gains completely contradict the "costs more because nicer" argument.

Here's a good example of why you're wrong, and you are in fact getting less for your money, not more than you used to. The Chevy Impala. In 2006, they stickered for about $20K. In 2011, they stickered for about $25K. The only thing that changed about them was the amount of outsourcing (US part content fall dramatically between 2006 and 2011). So according to your argument, the cost of the car should have fallen. But instead, it went up 25% in 5 years. Same car, and technology, same equipment levels....what changed was the value of the dollar.

Originally Posted by camarozzzz

I have...you cannot be telling me that it is okay that certain companies make 8 billion a year in net profits, give themselves as CEOs millions in yearly bonuses and then claim awww sorry man we cannot afford to give the lower level grunts more...

Originally Posted by camarozzzz

Go take a look at quarterly gross profits for some major stores, companies, and what not that you can think of. You will be surprised at how LARGE their profits actually are.

Most of those barely above minimum wage jobs are worked by high school kids with no skills, and nothing to offer whatsoever other than basic light labor. If someone in their 30s or 40s is working such a job as a career, and has thus gone through their entire adult life and not gained a single new skill since they were 15, then I'd say that is on that person, not the company that is paying that person what they are worth.

Just because someone does the same exact job for 20 years does not entitle that someone to a raise. People get raises when they get better at what they do, gain more skills, and thus become more productive as a result. If the job, skill set, and productivity of the worker is exactly the same as it originally was, why does it shock you that the pay would be as well?

Just out of curiosity, how many man-hours are worked every year by employees at this company that makes $8B a year? (which I suspect is Wal-Mart, as that always seems to be the most fashionable company to bash anytime this argument surfaces anywhere).

Originally Posted by Roadhause

Do people have no concept of time and progression?

Welcome to the future: Things are better, and as a result, more expensive. You're welcome to go pay $1 for a doctor after you wreck your $3k camaro but instead of antibiotics and sterile tools, they'll just amputate your leg with no antithesis and a rusty hacksaw...

Maybe it is you who doesn't quite have the concept of progression. As has already been stated by others, and me, technology and productivity are always making advances, making your above argument the reverse of reality.

Like I said in my first post, if we had been on the gold standard since 1970 instead of adandoning it, today's Camaro, even with all its new technology compared to the old one, would cost $825. The original Camaro as the OP described it would have taken 86.6 ounces of gold to buy in 1970. Today, 86.6 ounces of gold will buy a new 2SS Camaro with about enough left over to buy a new Corvette ZR1. The cars aren't getting more expensive, the value of the money is being reduced.

Originally Posted by 95birdible

The difference in today's economy vs back in the 80's is companies now value shareholders more than the grunts doing the work. That is what pisses of the general American worker. Ask any old Detroit Auto worker how they feel about their plant being closed and sent to another country such as Canada.

Corporate greed didn't kill the auto jobs, the UAW did. When companies are forced by unions to pay medium to high wages for low to medium skill work (i.e. pay the worker more than his or her skills are worth), then the company cannot afford the worker. The only choices at that point are to employ elsewhere where the company can afford the cost of the labor, or pay that which they can't afford and go bankrupt. And GM did both.

There is a reason why the American auto companies are feverishly outsourcing, while the foreign ones are even more feverishly building their plants here. And it's not because the men in the board rooms in Tokyo care more about the American worker than the ones in Detroit.

Originally Posted by 95birdible

Yes, corporations are ruining this country. We are turning into a service industry not production. My Camaro was built in Canada and my Dodge in Mexico. 2 American car companies who imported their cars to the US.

Well, my car was built in Michigan (in fact, both of them were).

You are being rather hypocritical. After all, you bought the "outsourced" car. You use some strong words, but if you really believed in what you are saying, you would have put your own money where you say GM should have put theirs.

[DRKS1D3]

I personally enjoy how the cool thing to do now is be pissed off at someone because they busted it harder than you and have more money, property, etc. than you (class warfare at its finest). Remember, don't strive to work harder and be like these people, blame them for your failures thanks to repeated moronic decisions that have put your life in the toilet!

[RADREVX]

Originally Posted by jd10013

I'm not saying there aren't classes. just that the middle class is disappearing as they get poorer and the rich get richer is a myth.

all minimum wage laws do is increase unemployment amongst the lowest skilled (and usually youngest) workers. every time minimum wage has been increased unemployment among low skilled workers has increased. in European countries where MW is much higher than in the US, it's not uncommon to see 20%+ unemployment in those groups.

it's an arbitrary number with no bearing on skill level or demand.

well said

[Terryble]

Originally Posted by Russo

while i am no CEO of a major corporation, i do have incentives set up for my executive assistant if the business reaches a certain number each month...

Are these incentives equal to what you receive for these numbers each month?

[Russo]

Originally Posted by Terryble

Are these incentives equal to what you receive for these numbers each month?

no, the incentive isn't a %, it's a round figure, if the sales double, the incentive doubles..

my incentive is being in charge of a company that prospers and isn't in debt.. there are perks (company vehicle, cell phone, gas, food) but i don't recieve a bonus the way my assistant does...

[Terryble]

Originally Posted by Russo

no, the incentive isn't a %, it's a round figure, if the sales double, the incentive doubles..

my incentive is being in charge of a company that prospers and isn't in debt.. there are perks (company vehicle, cell phone, gas, food) but i don't recieve a bonus the way my assistant does...

Ok, so your situation doesn't apply to what I was getting at necessarily then. I'm not saying people don't deserve their own bonus or that some people won't give up some of theirs if needed. But, it doesn't get divided evenly. And, the ones that usually complain about it not being even are the ones getting the left overs at the bottom. Also, more often then not, those that are complaining have no drive to move up to get that added bonus.

[Russo]

Originally Posted by Terryble

Ok, so your situation doesn't apply to what I was getting at necessarily then. I'm not saying people don't deserve their own bonus or that some people won't give up some of theirs if needed. But, it doesn't get divided evenly. And, the ones that usually complain about it not being even are the ones getting the left overs at the bottom. Also, more often then not, those that are complaining have no drive to move up to get that added bonus.

and the ones who complain about the rich not giving more money to government have never given money to charity or offer to donate more money to government.. last year i gave half my gross income to God through my local church.. not bragging (seriously)

[Terryble]

Originally Posted by Russo

and the ones who complain about the rich not giving more money to government have never given money to charity or offer to donate more money to government.. last year i gave half my gross income to God through my local church.. not bragging (seriously)

I agree with this. Myself, I would never give more money to the government. Being single with no kids, and most of my money coming from overtime (84+ hours a week are extremely common), coupled with my tax bracket, I gave just under 40% of my income to Uncle Sam last year, with a whopping tax return of $192.

Charities on the other hand I approve of, and have given money and time to. Although I imagine it dwarfs in comparison with yours, I am rather active in a Juvenile Diabetes and a Cystic Fibrosis organization.