Mommy, why are poor people poor?Follow

Bars (ad some specialty stores) usually have much better connections when it comes to getting beer that isn't distributed here than I do, unless I go through the trouble of sourcing limited release Cantillon bottles or something like that.

Are you sure it's 12.5% of profits and not 12.5% of revenues? Profits really doesn't sound right from a franchiser.

Since we're hashing out the details, I'll just put this from their site.



and from here

Long story short, it's a percentage of sales, not profits.

You need to learn the difference between average and median. The median individual income in the US is right about $30k. The median household income in the US is right about $50k. What part of this is complicated for you?



Um... which means that 65% of Americans are earning more relatively speaking today than they did in the 1950s. How is this a disaster?



Incorrect.



That doesn't even make sense.




I'm not questioning the data. I'm questioning your interpretation of it.



We just sat and read how little you know about capitalism, so why not?


You seem very angry for some reason. I'm not sure why.

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 4:07pm by gbaji

That's true. But I think the bigger flaw with this entire line of reasoning is the idea that someone should be paid based on how much someone else can afford to pay them. If we assume that's true, then the assumption that the only reason someone isn't paid more is because their boss can't afford to, makes sense. But I disagree with the starting premise. Wages should be based on the market price of the labor being performed. It is subject to the same cost forces that any good or service is subject to.

Brings me back to the question I asked earlier: Why doesn't a loaf of bread cost $1000? Because people wont pay that much. Someone will offer to sell it for less if you try to charge that much. A host of market forces are in play. This is the same reason why McDonalds isn't going to eliminate 90% of its profits in order to double the wages of their employees. They don't need to. Why pay $18/hour for someone to work the grill if you can hire someone to do the same job for $9/hour? Why pay $1000 for a loaf of bread if you can by the same loaf for $3? It's the same question.

You don't walk into a store and look at something and think "I could afford to pay twice as much for this as the price tag says" and then pay twice as much, right? So why on earth think that a business should pay more for labor than the labor can demand in the market? Again, it's the same concept. I just think a lot of people are looking at this issue completely backwards. It's not about how much someone could afford to pay, but how much the market can require that person to pay. And that's going to be the result of a bunch of different factors like competition, supply, demand, etc.

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 4:37pm by gbaji

I want to touch on this first. I'll respond to the other later.


My respect for you has risen 0.331 points. See it's not that hard to admit being wrong. I understand your confusion on the chart, but the reality is, if you actually knew anything about military pay, you would know that your conclusion was wrong. There are some instances, like specialty doctors who can come off the street into the Military, who have less years in service than the average Officer at the same pay grade. The military can translate their civilian years into military rank experience. So, it technically can happen (not sure for Generals), but very unlikely. Your lack of understanding led you to believe your statement. It wasn't the chart's fault.

Er? Ok. But it wasn't about confusion over the chart. I literally wanted to find professions in which the "starting pay" was "slightly higher" than the median public school teachers pay. In this particular case, I looked at a chart of military pay grades, and found the first column, then went up the list until I found a grade that paid about $5k/year higher than the median pay I was looking at.

At the time, that resulted in an O7 rate. Which is a Brigadier General. So I listed it as one of the titles with a starting pay rate that a public school teachers is "slightly less than". I did this for several professions (like engineer and manager) as well. Whether the chart was misleading, or confusing, or whatever really isn't the point. The point I was making was that it was incorrect to label teachers pay as "slightly less than a waitresses" pay, when in fact, it's "slightly less than" a number of professions/titles we normally associate with as professional and well compensated.

The whole "OMG! That's totally not what a Brigadier General makes" bit, while I'm sure it was an amusing distraction for some, was just that: a distraction. It was yet another case of ignoring the core point and zeroing in on an irrelevant fact, finding something "wrong" about it, and dismissing my entire post based on that.

Which, ironically, is more or less what this entire tangent is about. Instead of addressing what I wrote, we're now talking about something completely unrelated because someone decided that "gbaji was wrong back then, so we can ignore what he's saying now" would be the best way to counter what I wrote.

You purposely read it wrong? Kind of like how you're trying to distract everyone from a little earlier on how this sequence of events never even happened?

If you don't want people to get distracted by the errors of your posts, then might I suggest you not try to pass off those same errors as facts?

Yes, you said you weren't confused and went on to describe, "in great detail" about how you did it wrong. You can either do that by being confused or you did it purposely. Why would I have an issue? I'm the one that corrected you. I can read charts, and it really didn't take me long even in boot camp to figure out that two years or less wasn't really accurate for many of the numbers. No, this topic is about pay rates, and that was an example of you being woefully inept at discerning those. I'd say this is your attempt at distracting everyone else from that. Ahh, your classic "it's irrelevant!" argument. Just because it weakens your point doesn't mean it's unrelated. It just means you're incapable of linking topics together.

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 9:16pm by lolgaxe

Soooo...you attack others for mislabeling the rate of public school teachers, but get upset because people attack you for mislabeling the rate of O7s?



Which is why his point is valid. If the paychart for Engineers capped out at 10k a year, you would think something was wrong. You wouldn't argue that Engineers make less than McD employees because of what chart x said. You were obviously clueless on the pay scale, else there would be no way you would make that comparison with or without the chart.

Edited, Oct 26th 2013 5:19am by Almalieque

Kind of my point.

That is correct, mislabeling on my part, point still stands however.

Do you know why Median is not relevant, and why the average must be done step by step through various income levels? ~55% of your population does not even reach that median according to US Census Records. Ergo its not really a median is it. I mean it is close, but it is inaccurate. The Median personal income is more so along the lines of about 28K. Which is about a 49/51 Split, the average is a little on the under side at about 27500, which happens to coincide with the value of income required to live a life without government assistance. I mean sure if you feel like misrepresenting 5% of your population Median is a great number, in actuality it is highly incorrect, especially when discussing why 52% of your population needs some for of Government assistance, and over half of them being below the poverty line.



100% of Americans are paying more that they have gained. Personal Income has not kept up with Cost of Living at all, and has barely maintained pace with inflation. So while 65% might make a higher dollar value, they are spending much more. For example in the 50's 21% of income went to housing, in 2012 that value was 45%. Fantastic you are making twice as much as someone in 1950, you are also paying over twice as much just to put a roof over your head, and that is a similar trait across pretty much anything one purchases in todays society.




You are right, its more accurately around 54% Today if you want to really dig into the numbers. Considering just in the last decade Wage increase has trailed Cost of living increase by a bit under 15% I am sure that since 2008 (the last "fair" indicator due to unexpected recession) more people have fallen behind, and some likely have even dropped off the radar completely. Of course that is just an estimation based on the trends over the past decade or so, but it is highly likely that number could be closer to 60% when all is said and done. I mean 10K is a fine line to walk when it could mean your entire lively hood being at stake. Thats just an estimate though, the data supports 54%, I was fair and said 50% because I personally don't think the 2008 recession should be included in a discussion about over time degeneration of income equality. (same reason I have ignored the spikes caused by the S&L in the 80's). Although it has certainly helped to accelerate it in recent times.

Of course don't take my word for it, go ask the middle class who are the fringe people, go ask them how they have enjoyed shrinking bank accounts and rising personal debt over the past decade. Ask the vast majority of them who for the first time in their lives are dependent on government assistance of some form. The robust middle class of the American Dream era is crumbling, and the majority are losing the fight between cost increases and stagnant wages.



I don't understand how you can question the fact 52% of Americans are at or under the income value to live a life without government assistance, nor the fact that every year more and more enter poverty because they can not keep up with increased costs. But hey everyone sees things a bit different, and everyone has their own opinions, mine are just based in facts and logic, and supported by economists in nations around the world, but hey I am sure some support your opinion to.


Yes others mentioned that also so I clarified I was comparing growths not final dollar values, in continuation of the link I provided last page.

Edited, Oct 26th 2013 2:28pm by rdmcandie

Edited, Oct 26th 2013 2:38pm by rdmcandie