Wealth inequality-how it affects the economy

[Zaburo]

That report completely misses the points I was making.


The primary point I was trying to get across was that large retailers like Wal mart have become too powerful. The sheer size of wal mart makes it a monopoly and allows it to participate in immoral and unethical businesses practices and as a result lowers wages for a wide variety of people many of whom are not wal mart workers.


search "facts wal mart, the high cost of low prices". I would give you a URL but this site doesn't allow me to because I have less than 15 posts. A few facts from the website, I would appreciate if someone else posted a link.

 

[The Rabbi]

That report completely misses the points I was making.


The primary point I was trying to get across was that large retailers like Wal mart have become too powerful. The sheer size of wal mart makes it a monopoly and allows it to participate in immoral and unethical businesses practices and as a result lowers wages for a wide variety of people many of whom are not wal mart workers.


search "facts wal mart, the high cost of low prices". I would give you a URL but this site doesn't allow me to because I have less than 15 posts. A few facts from the website, I would appreciate if someone else posted a link.

wal mart is clearly NOT a monopoly. Whatever their business practices, they have lowered costs on average several thousand dollars a year, even fr people who dont shop at wal mart.

 

[Mr Natural]

That report completely misses the points I was making.


The primary point I was trying to get across was that large retailers like Wal mart have become too powerful. The sheer size of wal mart makes it a monopoly and allows it to participate in immoral and unethical businesses practices and as a result lowers wages for a wide variety of people many of whom are not wal mart workers.


search "facts wal mart, the high cost of low prices". I would give you a URL but this site doesn't allow me to because I have less than 15 posts. A few facts from the website, I would appreciate if someone else posted a link.

wal mart is clearly NOT a monopoly. Whatever their business practices, they have lowered costs on average several thousand dollars a year, even fr people who dont shop at wal mart.

Get the **** outta here.

Do you have any idea how much shit you'd have to buy at Wal-Mart (or the equivalent) to save "several thousand dollars a year"?

 

[The Rabbi]

That report completely misses the points I was making.


The primary point I was trying to get across was that large retailers like Wal mart have become too powerful. The sheer size of wal mart makes it a monopoly and allows it to participate in immoral and unethical businesses practices and as a result lowers wages for a wide variety of people many of whom are not wal mart workers.


search "facts wal mart, the high cost of low prices". I would give you a URL but this site doesn't allow me to because I have less than 15 posts. A few facts from the website, I would appreciate if someone else posted a link.

wal mart is clearly NOT a monopoly. Whatever their business practices, they have lowered costs on average several thousand dollars a year, even fr people who dont shop at wal mart.

Get the **** outta here.

Do you have any idea how much shit you'd have to buy at Wal-Mart (or the equivalent) to save "several thousand dollars a year"?

We've already established you're a dumbshit class warrior.
How much stuff do people buy in a year? Quite a bit. The point is that even stores that arent wal mart are forced to be more efficient because of competition from WM. Thus WM lowers prices even for people who don't shop there.
Doubtless you cannot stretch your mind around the concept.

 

[Mr Natural]

wal mart is clearly NOT a monopoly. Whatever their business practices, they have lowered costs on average several thousand dollars a year, even fr people who dont shop at wal mart.

Get the **** outta here.

Do you have any idea how much shit you'd have to buy at Wal-Mart (or the equivalent) to save "several thousand dollars a year"?

We've already established you're a dumbshit class warrior.
How much stuff do people buy in a year? Quite a bit. The point is that even stores that arent wal mart are forced to be more efficient because of competition from WM. Thus WM lowers prices even for people who don't shop there.
Doubtless you cannot stretch your mind around the concept.

You're the one who said "several thousand dollars a year" in savings. So let's do some math. I'll keep it simple just for you.

First, let's define "several". One is one, a couple is two, so let's call several three or more.

Let's, for example, take Listerine. At the supermarket it's about $7.00 a bottle. The same bottle at Wal-Mart (or other big box store) is about $6.00. A one dollar savings.

So, it order to save $3,000 a year, a person would have to buy 3,000 bottles of Listerine.

So unles you've got an army living in your house, there's no way you're going to use that much Listerine.

Again, this is merely an example to show what kind of simple-minded fool you are.

 

[topspin]

democrats would shoot off thier nose to spite thier face, at least the turbo-libs elite class.
Poor and lower middle class and a lot of middle class love wall mart for low prices. They produce a lot of jobs, in fact people line up blocks long to get them. The uneducated tools hankering for the days of Mr Bill's corner grocery are akin to the longing of the buggy whip manufacturers after auto made thier splass. It's called progress.

 

[The Rabbi]

Get the **** outta here.

Do you have any idea how much shit you'd have to buy at Wal-Mart (or the equivalent) to save "several thousand dollars a year"?

We've already established you're a dumbshit class warrior.
How much stuff do people buy in a year? Quite a bit. The point is that even stores that arent wal mart are forced to be more efficient because of competition from WM. Thus WM lowers prices even for people who don't shop there.
Doubtless you cannot stretch your mind around the concept.

You're the one who said "several thousand dollars a year" in savings. So let's do some math. I'll keep it simple just for you.

First, let's define "several". One is one, a couple is two, so let's call several three or more.

Let's, for example, take Listerine. At the supermarket it's about $7.00 a bottle. The same bottle at Wal-Mart (or other big box store) is about $6.00. A one dollar savings.

So, it order to save $3,000 a year, a person would have to buy 3,000 bottles of Listerine.

So unles you've got an army living in your house, there's no way you're goign to use that much Listerine.

Wow.
Did I call that one or what??

Doubtless you cannot stretch your mind around the concept.

 

[Mr Natural]

We've already established you're a dumbshit class warrior.
How much stuff do people buy in a year? Quite a bit. The point is that even stores that arent wal mart are forced to be more efficient because of competition from WM. Thus WM lowers prices even for people who don't shop there.
Doubtless you cannot stretch your mind around the concept.

You're the one who said "several thousand dollars a year" in savings. So let's do some math. I'll keep it simple just for you.

First, let's define "several". One is one, a couple is two, so let's call several three or more.

Let's, for example, take Listerine. At the supermarket it's about $7.00 a bottle. The same bottle at Wal-Mart (or other big box store) is about $6.00. A one dollar savings.

So, it order to save $3,000 a year, a person would have to buy 3,000 bottles of Listerine.

So unles you've got an army living in your house, there's no way you're goign to use that much Listerine.

Wow.
Did I call that one or what??

Doubtless you cannot stretch your mind around the concept.

Not at all.

I know what you're saying, or at least trying to say. Wal-Mart forces prices down. But you're still not saving "several thousand dollars a year". A few hundred maybe but not "several thousand dollars a year".

Like I've said before, a Rabbi is a learned, deep thinking man. You're just a dumb ****.

 

[The Rabbi]

Get the **** outta here.

Do you have any idea how much shit you'd have to buy at Wal-Mart (or the equivalent) to save "several thousand dollars a year"?

We've already established you're a dumbshit class warrior.
How much stuff do people buy in a year? Quite a bit. The point is that even stores that arent wal mart are forced to be more efficient because of competition from WM. Thus WM lowers prices even for people who don't shop there.
Doubtless you cannot stretch your mind around the concept.

You're the one who said "several thousand dollars a year" in savings. So let's do some math. I'll keep it simple just for you.

First, let's define "several". One is one, a couple is two, so let's call several three or more.

Let's, for example, take Listerine. At the supermarket it's about $7.00 a bottle. The same bottle at Wal-Mart (or other big box store) is about $6.00. A one dollar savings.

So, it order to save $3,000 a year, a person would have to buy 3,000 bottles of Listerine.

So unles you've got an army living in your house, there's no way you're going to use that much Listerine.

Again, this is merely an example to show what kind of simple-minded fool you are.

Listerine. Wow are you clueless.
OK, the average, according to the IRS (National Standards: Food, Clothing and Other Items) is $1371 a month for food, clothing and other items, all of which WM sells. Over 12months that's $16,452. Three thousand dollars would be 18% of that. Has Wal Mart driven down prices 18% on average? Probably yes.
QED.

 

[maineman]

again... to bring this all back to where it started, the OP merely lays out the FACT that the richest 10% of our population has gone from owning 49% of everything in 1973 to owning 73% of everything 37 years later. Do the math folks. extrapolate that trend line. Do you really want to live in a country where the top 10% of the population owns..say...85% of everything? What about 95% of everything? What about 99% of everything? What about EVERYTHING? At what point does that sort of disparity begin to bother you?

We'll point out first that it isnt the same people in the top group from period to period. The actual membership shifts considerably.
Second, why should we extrapolate to the future, assuming that present trends will always continue? That makes no sense at all.
Finally, why should anyone be bothered by the idea that some people will always do better than others?

who gives a shit about WHO is in the top 10%? Are you happy to live in a country where the top 10% owns damned near everything? yes or no

 

[Freedomfan1776]

who gives a shit about WHO is in the top 10%? Are you happy to live in a country where the top 10% owns damned near everything? yes or no

The question should not be 'how many are in the top bracket?', the question should be 'how did those in the top income bracket get there?' Other than those in government, who have a legal monopoly on the use of force and regulation to benefit one person or company over another, the only way a person such as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett makes a penny is by providing a good or service that a consumer finds valuable and worth the amount of money he is paying for the good or service.

I would agree with you, there are some in the upper income bracket who got there by lobbying for legislation which gave them an unfair advantage over others who were not doing anything wrong. Whether that legislation is in the form of tariffs, more regulation, or anything else for that matter, when government gets involved and people do not have choices, prices will go up as a result of the decreased competition. This is particularly interesting to think about in the context of taxpayer funded grant money which is often used for 'innovative purposes.' The example often used to illustrate this point is by pointing out that in 1980, would the government choose to give a grant for innovation in the personal computer field, to what was then one of the largest companies in the world, IBM, or would they choose to give the money to a couple of college drop outs who ran a business from their garage? The people in the garage went on to become the founders of Microsoft. The point is, that government should decrease regulation so that those people, much like Gates in his garage back in 1980 can pursue their ideas and create wealth. That is the only way to prosperity and it has worked every time it has been tried.

 

[The Rabbi]

again... to bring this all back to where it started, the OP merely lays out the FACT that the richest 10% of our population has gone from owning 49% of everything in 1973 to owning 73% of everything 37 years later. Do the math folks. extrapolate that trend line. Do you really want to live in a country where the top 10% of the population owns..say...85% of everything? What about 95% of everything? What about 99% of everything? What about EVERYTHING? At what point does that sort of disparity begin to bother you?

We'll point out first that it isnt the same people in the top group from period to period. The actual membership shifts considerably.
Second, why should we extrapolate to the future, assuming that present trends will always continue? That makes no sense at all.
Finally, why should anyone be bothered by the idea that some people will always do better than others?

who gives a shit about WHO is in the top 10%? Are you happy to live in a country where the top 10% owns damned near everything? yes or no

Yup. If you aren't Delta is ready when you are.

 

[sparky]

quintile mobility is a common canard here, and that those top echelon members might own more than property should be a valid concern

it is anywhere else in the history of $$$ and power

our susceptibility is no less than any that came before us

 

[topspin]

quintile mobility is a frequent occurence. Everybody I work with practically has gone from the bottom or second quintile to the top.

 

[MaggieMae]

I would second that request. I actually feel that Wal-Mart IS NOT harmful to a local community but there are other reasons that I feel that way. I have lived in small towns and watched some of those supposed mom and pops go out of business and I have noticed a trend with those that fail - they suck. Small business can succeed near a Wal-Mart, they just need to offer something Wal-Mart does not. It is not that hard - customer service is a good place to start as Wal-Mart has none at all. If you have not noticed, ACE hardware exists as a small retail chain next to Home Depot not because they offer better prices but because they offer better service. There will be those that go out of business but there will be others that are strengthened and in the end it is the CUSTOMER that wins out the best. That is the ENTIRE purpose for free enterprise and competition.

Home Depot (and Walmart) will always have the advantage because they can buy in bulk, and therefore at a lower cost. If you're talking about Mom & Pop food stores, I agree that most of those do suck, but ironically, they usually survive because they are actually more convenient for quick stops on the run.

But when a local building/lumber supply company gets put out of business because a Home Depot moves to town, a LOT of people lose their jobs and Home Depot can't absorb them all. That particular example happened right in my town. The building company had only one warehouse/storage facility for lumber and other inventory and it couldn't compete with Home Depot which had acres of inventory right on site. We also had a small bookstore that accommodated best sellers, reference books, and all the usual categorized variety of fiction and non-fiction, but didn't have a huge back room where they could cull from stock once a book sold out at the front. It had to be ordered. Along came Barnes & Noble, and that was that (along with the comaraderie found poking around small bookstores). And yet another example was when Staples came to town and within 2 years, the local office supply company relocated. It didn't go under because a lot of its business was business machine and computer repair.

I'm not "against" big box retail stores. I just wish they would not park themselves right in the middle of downtown shopping districts which DOES put small non-franchised retailers out of business, plus destroys the joy of just walking around from store to store and window shopping along the way. (If anyone remembers that.) And of course the big box stores all need gigantic parking lots too, so even more potential retail space gets sucked up.

All that said, indeed I do shop at WalMart for the prices on sundries, etc., and I would miss it if it weren't there. And they do hire many people who aren't qualified to do much else other than work at a place like WalMart, so I suppose that is itself a service to the community.

'Tis a conundrum.

 

[MaggieMae]

Actually a study showed that there were MORE small retailers after WM opened than before.
But stick with the party line. Never mind the evidence.

You have evidence? Then post it, asshole. City by city; town by town.

It must really suck to be ignorant and stupid, like you.
walmartstores.com/download/3078.pdf
Study by the Cato Institute.
Cue squalling about "right wing think tank" and "corporate shills."

OH! A "study" prepared by WalMart regarding WalMart's value vs. small retailers. Wow, I wonder how that's gonna read! I saw nothing there prepared by Cato. Do you honestly think WalMart wouldn't ONLY include in its analysis numbers that would make it look good? And you call me stupid. Imagine that.

 

[MaggieMae]

democrats would shoot off thier nose to spite thier face, at least the turbo-libs elite class.
Poor and lower middle class and a lot of middle class love wall mart for low prices. They produce a lot of jobs, in fact people line up blocks long to get them. The uneducated tools hankering for the days of Mr Bill's corner grocery are akin to the longing of the buggy whip manufacturers after auto made thier splass. It's called progress.

Hell even the rich love WalMart. But I can also say with first-hand knowledge that "rich" folks also miss the beautiques and specialty shops that have to close when WalMart comes to town.

I do find it amusing, though, that some people are singing the praise of "progress" (big box vs. mom & pop), yet in other threads, these same people will be found whining that the country needs to be taken back to kinder times when people lived off the land, bartered for goods and services, took care if their own elderly, etc.

 

[MaggieMae]

who gives a shit about WHO is in the top 10%? Are you happy to live in a country where the top 10% owns damned near everything? yes or no

The question should not be 'how many are in the top bracket?', the question should be 'how did those in the top income bracket get there?' Other than those in government, who have a legal monopoly on the use of force and regulation to benefit one person or company over another, the only way a person such as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett makes a penny is by providing a good or service that a consumer finds valuable and worth the amount of money he is paying for the good or service.

I would agree with you, there are some in the upper income bracket who got there by lobbying for legislation which gave them an unfair advantage over others who were not doing anything wrong. Whether that legislation is in the form of tariffs, more regulation, or anything else for that matter, when government gets involved and people do not have choices, prices will go up as a result of the decreased competition. This is particularly interesting to think about in the context of taxpayer funded grant money which is often used for 'innovative purposes.' The example often used to illustrate this point is by pointing out that in 1980, would the government choose to give a grant for innovation in the personal computer field, to what was then one of the largest companies in the world, IBM, or would they choose to give the money to a couple of college drop outs who ran a business from their garage? The people in the garage went on to become the founders of Microsoft. The point is, that government should decrease regulation so that those people, much like Gates in his garage back in 1980 can pursue their ideas and create wealth. That is the only way to prosperity and it has worked every time it has been tried.

So why is there such opposition to providing grant money for innovators/entrepreneurs who have excellent solutions for alternative energy? Instead, we give billions in subsidies for oil companies to use in their own R&D labs, which ironically they could fund by virtue of their own huge profits.

 

[MaggieMae]

quintile mobility is a frequent occurence. Everybody I work with practically has gone from the bottom or second quintile to the top.

Well yeah, but there will always be a need for the lower and middle employee. And quintile mobility doesn't always mean mobility within the same company.

 

[The Rabbi]

You have evidence? Then post it, asshole. City by city; town by town.

It must really suck to be ignorant and stupid, like you.
walmartstores.com/download/3078.pdf
Study by the Cato Institute.
Cue squalling about "right wing think tank" and "corporate shills."

OH! A "study" prepared by WalMart regarding WalMart's value vs. small retailers. Wow, I wonder how that's gonna read! I saw nothing there prepared by Cato. Do you honestly think WalMart wouldn't ONLY include in its analysis numbers that would make it look good? And you call me stupid. Imagine that.

Yup. Knew it. Didn't read the paper did you?