jasonxctf Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/bs_nm/irs_income_dc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Duh? The rich get richer and pay a higher percentage of taxes pretty much every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 10:21 AM) Duh? The rich get richer and pay a higher percentage of taxes pretty much every year. Yeah, these socialist, class-warfare guys just love to point this stuff out. Didn't you know that it's evil to succeed in this country and enjoy the fruits of your labor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted October 12, 2007 Author Share Posted October 12, 2007 so the question arises, if this trend is inherently true, then why are we at % levels not equaled since the 20's? even during the go-go 90's and stock market boom of the late 90's/early 00's, we weren't at these levels. Why now? Also, if this trend continues, is this good or bad for the country/economy??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 10:26 AM) so the question arises, if this trend is inherently true, then why are we at % levels not equaled since the 20's? even during the go-go 90's and stock market boom of the late 90's/early 00's, we weren't at these levels. Why now? Also, if this trend continues, is this good or bad for the country/economy??? IMO, the answer is neither. I think the trend that will REALLY be bad for the country/economy in the long run will actually be the complete unwillingness people have to live within their means. The subprime mess which we're going through right now is part of that ( people taking out exotic loans to buy homes they can't possibly afford ). People of all economic stripes are ringing up massive amounts of credit card debt just because they want the latest flat panel TV or IPOD the the guy across the street has. There's going to come a time when the consumer rings up so much debt that he has no choice but to start paying for it and that's when the economy will REALLY be in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted October 12, 2007 Author Share Posted October 12, 2007 i certainly agree with this point 100%. I think the two are tied closely together though. On one hand, if "the rich get richer", manufacturers and designers of high end goods, say Coach purses or Mercedes cars for example, will start charging more and more for their products since their "targeted" consumer base can afford to pay this higher cost since their income levels are skyrocketing. On the other hand, people who are living outside their means, trying to keep up with the Joneses, and buying this purse or car, will be digging themselves further and further into debt. it's funny, i was talking about this concept with my wife the other day (even though I think it went over her head) why does McDonalds charge $5.50 for a Big Mac Meal in d-twn Chicago, but the same meal was $3.89 in rural Wisconsin. Certainly production costs are higher in Chicago, however I'd argue that McDonalds has determined that disposible income in Chicago is higher than rural Wisconsin and can thus charge an extra .25 per meal to account for this. why does a bottle of Coca Cola cost the equivilent of $0.35 in S. America but runs $1.29 in the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 08:55 AM) why does a bottle of Coca Cola cost the equivilent of $0.35 in S. America but runs $1.29 in the US? That annoying Cuban Embargo that keeps me away from real sugar in my beverages... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 11:00 AM) That annoying Cuban Embargo that keeps me away from real sugar in my beverages... ^^^^^^^^^ Coke with sugar, like you get in Europe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Coke with corn syrup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 11:01 AM) ^^^^^^^^^ Coke with sugar, like I get in Mexico >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Coke with corn syrup Fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(NUKE @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 10:34 AM) IMO, the answer is neither. I think the trend that will REALLY be bad for the country/economy in the long run will actually be the complete unwillingness people have to live within their means. The subprime mess which we're going through right now is part of that ( people taking out exotic loans to buy homes they can't possibly afford ). People of all economic stripes are ringing up massive amounts of credit card debt just because they want the latest flat panel TV or IPOD the the guy across the street has. There's going to come a time when the consumer rings up so much debt that he has no choice but to start paying for it and that's when the economy will REALLY be in trouble. aGREED Now take the next step, the country also owes trillions to foreign banks because we demand they cut our taxes and borrow money. Then what happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 09:16 AM) aGREED Now take the next step, the country also owes trillions to foreign banks because we demand they cut our taxes and borrow money. Then what happens? We invade them, duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 11:19 AM) We invade them, duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted October 12, 2007 Author Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 04:19 PM) We invade them, duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 10:55 AM) i certainly agree with this point 100%. I think the two are tied closely together though. On one hand, if "the rich get richer", manufacturers and designers of high end goods, say Coach purses or Mercedes cars for example, will start charging more and more for their products since their "targeted" consumer base can afford to pay this higher cost since their income levels are skyrocketing. On the other hand, people who are living outside their means, trying to keep up with the Joneses, and buying this purse or car, will be digging themselves further and further into debt. it's funny, i was talking about this concept with my wife the other day (even though I think it went over her head) why does McDonalds charge $5.50 for a Big Mac Meal in d-twn Chicago, but the same meal was $3.89 in rural Wisconsin. Certainly production costs are higher in Chicago, however I'd argue that McDonalds has determined that disposible income in Chicago is higher than rural Wisconsin and can thus charge an extra .25 per meal to account for this. why does a bottle of Coca Cola cost the equivilent of $0.35 in S. America but runs $1.29 in the US? Higher wages, higher rents, higher delivery costs are also involved in the differences between costs in different settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 11:19 AM) We invade them, duh. You've got it backwards... they invade us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted October 12, 2007 Author Share Posted October 12, 2007 absolutely, thus my production cost comment is accurate. but you've got to believe that in cost-analysis of product distribution, companies certainly take disposable income or income levels in general, into equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 11:43 AM) absolutely, thus my production cost comment is accurate. but you've got to believe that in cost-analysis of product distribution, companies certainly take disposable income or income levels in general, into equation. I think you might have your cause and effect backwards. It is those factors that cause disposable income, and not the other way around. If you aren't make a high wage, you aren't going to have disposable income. If a company is in a high income area, they are going to have to pay higher wages to get people work for them etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 What you may also see is the have and the have nots. I remember back in a state and local government class being asked to guess the community in Lake County with the highest percentage of citizens below the poverty level. After the Roundouts and Zions of the county were listed, we gave up. Turns out is was Lake Forest. All those household staff were making little, I assume their rooms where not included in their income numbers. I really think though that rent and taxes account for more of that price. Labor could swing either way. I don't see a $30,000 entry level McDonals's employee, but I've been wrong before. Another issue. Didn't Staples get in trouble a few years ago for selling at higher prices in towns where they were the only game in town? Yep, found it. Nope wrong one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 11:42 AM) You've got it backwards... they invade us. burn Edited October 12, 2007 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 (edited) Outsourcing will continue to spread the gap. I know a lot of companies are now starting to outsource HR, and Accounting. Increased profits, less good paying jobs in the US. I know some major corporations that want outsource around 20% of all HR and Accounting jobs. Also, Engineering, Chemisty and Computer Science are getting heavily outsourced. I know for a fact that one of the major US drug manufacturers in the US already outsources 20% of scientific research to China. Engineering outsourcing has really picked up, and IT outsourcing has been going on for a while. Due to outsourcing fears, I know that the number of Computer Science grads has dropped around 17% - 20%, and companies don't want to outsource they're critical IT systems, but there is such a lack of new people coming in they might have to in the not too distant future. A circular problem I guess. Edited October 12, 2007 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 04:01 PM) Outsourcing will continue to spread the gap. I know a lot of companies are now starting to outsource HR, and Accounting. Increased profits, less good paying jobs in the US. I know some major corporations that want outsource around 20% of all HR and Accounting jobs. And eventually, it's going to be this movement that drives something to finally change. Because when 20% of Americans feel their jobs are threatened, it's a bad thing, but not always enough to overcome the people with a lot of money. But when doctors, lawyers, accountants, and so forth start feeling threatened because it's fairly easy to train a person in China or India to do their exact job for 1/4 of the price, and 50-75% of Americans suddenly feel like their job could be outsourced...that's the kind of motivation that gets the government actually involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 06:26 PM) And eventually, it's going to be this movement that drives something to finally change. Because when 20% of Americans feel their jobs are threatened, it's a bad thing, but not always enough to overcome the people with a lot of money. But when doctors, lawyers, accountants, and so forth start feeling threatened because it's fairly easy to train a person in China or India to do their exact job for 1/4 of the price, and 50-75% of Americans suddenly feel like their job could be outsourced...that's the kind of motivation that gets the government actually involved. A lot of people have had the notion of "well, I can't be outsources. Only factory workers and low class, uneducated people can" or "no one can do my job as good as me". That's definitely not the case. Many mid/high range salaries are considered to be a liability in today's corporate profit system. Edited October 13, 2007 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 11:38 PM) A lot of people have had the notion of "well, I can't be outsources. Only factory workers and low class, uneducated people can" or "no one can do my job as good as me". That's definitely not the case. Almost all mid/high range salaries are considered to be a liability in today's corporate profit system. That's a very flawed argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 07:55 PM) That's a very flawed argument. which one? the assessment that mid/high range salaries are often considered a profit liability by corporations ? Edited October 13, 2007 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 13, 2007 -> 01:01 AM) which one? the assessment that mid/high range salaries are often considered a profit liability by corporations ? IMO, yes. But it really depends on how an organization is structured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts