Buy American?

Ok, I do my best to avoid politics(which is really what this comes down to), but here's the bottom line: The reason there is a 4000-40,000 times difference in pay in the US is because the people at the top CAN make that much.

At what point is there a distinction between capitalism and pure greed?

Why are corporations, individuals, or anyone with deep enough pockets allowed to buy-out our government for their own benefit?

I certainly don't consider myself a socialist, but at what point is "enough money"? Does any individual really need a billion dollars? At some point shouldn't you say "Ok, I've earned enough. It's time to let someone else have an opportunity."???

I think those are some of the root issues plaguing this country. But until people learn to look past the "left vs. right" train-wreck and see its all part of the big problem, we're all screwed - unless you're already on top.

To avoid a flame/flounder/whateveryouwanttocallit, I would say the edge was lost when GOVERNMENT got involved and SUBSIDIZED, either with cash or less regulation, weak or lackluster industries that OUR government clearly doesn't want US to take part in. Case in point: I want someone to open a chrome plating shop that can chrome and make it last here in the US of A. Before you can start, the EPA will close your doors before they are open....

Oh, I forgot to say, go back to living under your hatist, elitest, socialist rock and leave us alone.

IMHO politics have very little to do with failures of the US to dominate the world market. The failure came when we started to let bean counters, sales guys and lawyers design the products rather then engineers.

In reply to mguar:

You are right in that I don't have the right to "do undue harm" to others, but for a government to cause undue harm to my business to the point of shutting the doors with stiffling regulations, it's OK to you. Bullpucky.

As to that peat bog digger, I remember that machine. IIRC, it is CHEAPER to run the substandard coal, plus it's right next door to the powerplant that uses it, then make the pollution controls work for a better grade of coal that has to be shipped in. So, who is fooling who?

All I did was call a spade a spade who doesn't have a heart in America.

Oh and there was ONE liberal utopia US-based company that used the whatever the lowest employee paid formula you so spout as the fix to end all. Guess who and guess what they HAD to do? It truly is rhetorical to the answer.

93EXCivic wrote: IMHO politics have very little to do with failures of the US to dominate the world market. The failure came when we started to let bean counters, sales guys and lawyers design the products rather then engineers.

But why did that happen? Because owners/investors/managers decided profits weren't "high enough" - not that they weren't profitable, they just wanted/needed to be more profitable. Could that have been due to long-term planning? Absolutely. Could it have been due to greed by the stakeholders of the company? Absolutely as well. This also plays a big part in worker compensation. Pay the absolute least required to get someone just competent enough to do their job, and work people toward their absolute limit, has become the norm for most in America. Of course "Fat lazy American" certainly has a lot of truth to it as well...

Unfortunately, any of us who participate in the stock market at all only serve to drive this demand for increased profits further. At least, for publicly traded corporations. After all, why invest if we didn't hope(expect?) great returns?

What drives the government to make many of these regulations involving business and industry? Often it's the lobbyists who drive the politicians into pushing for changes - with the pure and simple goal of boosting the bottom-line of whatever business/industry they happen to be involved with.

It's a vicious cycle, and I certainly couldn't begin to offer a solution. But I do feel I've finally reached a point where I can see the problem without relying on the bias of mainstream media.

It's not the owners. It's the consumers.

People would rather buy from WalMart than from their locally owned retailer.

I see nothing wrong with a company understanding their consumers and delivering the product they want, then reaping the reward of profit.

Consumers drive the market either by their active participation (how they spend their money), or by their apathetic indifference (like failing to put the energy into lobbying their governmental representatives and allowing corporations to do it instead).

The customer is ALWAYS right, even when they say nothing.

93EXCivic wrote: IMHO politics have very little to do with failures of the US to dominate the world market. The failure came when we started to let bean counters, sales guys and lawyers design the products rather then engineers.

Extremely valid point.

The only other thing I'd add is that the capitalism I was taught in high school always mentioned two things--first, pay the employees enough of a wage that they could actually consume the products being produced and second, spend some profit on pure research and development to improve products (and discover new ones). These days, R&D seems to mean "how can we produce it cheaper?"

And I think the decline in wages speaks for itself. The reason a lot of people shop Walmart, etc. is because they can't afford anything anywhere else.

WalMart isn't really cheaper. It's just cheaper in the ways you notice, and that's how they market it.

Not being able to afford to shop elsewhere is a false assumption.

not sure how you come up with that .... I'm shopping for blue jeans .. If I can find them at a thrift store I'll buy them in a heart beat ... odds are there won't be any in my size ... so I price at the regular department stores ( I could go on line, but if possible I'd like to shop locally ) the prices run in $30 - $60 range.... Wally World has Wranglers for $15 ... the pricy ones and the cheep ones are both made in China ... with what little money I have to spend where would you recommend I shop ...

I realize that "locally" is a bit of a misnomer ... but in both places the workers are local ... that's the best I can do

The "low wage, can't afford anything" is slightly misaligned. I'll go out on a limb and say that if consumer debt was lower, and people weren't paymenting their lives, that the middle class would return.

Multiple credit cards, one or two car payments, iPhones, etc etc. if people would spend more on their needs, and not finance their wants, this country would be much better off.

Dave Ramsey FTW.

Oh, and check out the documentary Maxed Out.

In reply to BoostedBrandon:

Define low wage. I lived on what I consider a low wage and no it wasn't minimum wage either. Oh I am about as debt free as a person can be too.

BoostedBrandon wrote: The "low wage, can't afford anything" is slightly misaligned. I'll go out on a limb and say that if consumer debt was lower, and people weren't paymenting their lives, that the middle class would return. Multiple credit cards, one or two car payments, iPhones, etc etc. if people would spend more on their needs, and not finance their wants, this country would be much better off. Dave Ramsey FTW.

Yes! I live by the Dave Ramsey way when I can. Never have credit cards and buy stuff with cash on hand only. Unfortunately right now my emergency fund is gone.

I agree with what FGC and wbjones stated. I buy where I can afford to buy from.

In reply to wbjones:

I can't make recommendations, because I don't know your local economy or stores.

However, the answer to your question is two-fold.

First, jeans are loss leaders. WalMart sells them for that price to get you in the store. They use loss leaders attract customers, then make larger margins on other products.

Second, there is a very significant difference in discount policies. When WalMart says, "Always low prices", it is actually true. Please note that they don't say always the lowest prices, or always low prices on everything. They are also saying, "These are the low prices we will give you, we will not waiver from them". Anyone who utilizes coupons, discounts, sales, etc. can tell you that WalMart doesn't do any of that. A smart shopper can utilize these things to very effectively lower prices (overall).

The issue is not what WalMart's price on jeans is. It is how much you actually spend at the checkout for all things combined over the course of a year.

The only reason you think WalMart is cheaper is because they told you so. It's their marketing strategy. The truth is that WalMArt has created by far the wealthiest family in the world- the children of Bud and Sam Walton are worth over $93 billion. They didn't get that way by giving away stuff.

But if you break it down to only the price of jeans then, yes their price is lower. (assuming you don't count the cost to you in tax dollars to support the health needs of their employees with no benefits).

SVreX wrote: In reply to wbjones: I can't make recommendations, because I don't know your local economy or stores. However, the answer to your question is two-fold. First, jeans are loss leaders. WalMart sells them for that price to get you in the store. They use loss leaders attract customers, then make larger margins on other products. Second, there is a very significant difference in discount policies. When WalMart says, "Always low prices", it is actually true. Please note that they don't say always the lowest prices, or always low prices on everything. They are also saying, "These are the low prices we will give you, we will not waiver from them". Anyone who utilizes coupons, discounts, sales, etc. can tell you that WalMart doesn't do any of that. A smart shopper can utilize these things to very effectively lower prices (overall). The issue is not what WalMart's price on jeans is. It is how much you actually spend at the checkout for all things combined over the course of a year. The only reason you think WalMart is cheaper is because they told you so. It's their marketing strategy. The truth is that WalMArt has created by far the wealthiest family in the world- the children of Bud and Sam Walton are worth over $93 billion. They didn't get that way by giving away stuff. But if you break it down to only the price of jeans then, yes their price is lower. (assuming you don't count the cost to you in tax dollars to support the health needs of their employees with no benefits).

Albany, Ga isn't that far (geographically ) so I'm pretty sure the purchasing choices aren't all that different ...

I don't know that jeans are a loss leader ... I was using them as typical example of my personal buying habits ... the occasional time that I go to WW I do buy other things .. but that's 'cause I'm there .. and things I need/want are there also .. and at a price I can pay ... I do every thing in my power to make as many of my purchases at one time as I can ...

if nothing causes me to go to WW (specifically ) then my shopping gets done where it's most convenient / and smart price wise ... there is a hardware store ~ 2 miles from home ( WW is 15 ) they get way more of my business than WW , there are grocery stores within 3 - 5 miles from my home ... they get much more of my money than WW .... but WW does get my money when it makes sense to go there

as for paying for their employes health benefits ... I'll still have to whether I shop there or not ...

The only reason you think WalMart is cheaper is because they told you so. It's their marketing strategy

and no that is not the only reason I think WW is cheaper ... the reason I think that is I can buy the same thinks there that I would buy somewhere else and spend less money .... fact ... not theory

wbjones wrote: The only reason you think WalMart is cheaper is because they told you so. It's their marketing strategy and no that is not the only reason I think WW is cheaper ... the reason I think that is I can buy the same thinks there that I would buy somewhere else and spend less money .... fact ... not theory

If you have done the analysis to come to that determination, then kudos for you. Most people have not.

I have.

All those smaller purchases "because you are there" are exactly the way I am inclined to purchase, but they cost more money over time. My wife (who does most of the shopping) has done in-depth annual studies for several years on the issue for our family, and she has proven that it is cheaper for us to buy elsewhere.

For example- we now buy all of our groceries at Publix. We used to buy them at WalMart. We spend (on average) 40% less then we used to, and get significantly better products and service. My wife CONSISTANTLY gets savings of $120 per week on $180 worth of purchases. The reason is that Publix has a very generous discount and coupon policy, while WalMart offers absolutely nothing. Milk and bread- sure. Cheaper at WalMart. Try finding triple coupon deals, manager's specials, or honoring the competitor's coupons. They don't exist. Ever. It is against their corporate policy.

Yeah, it's more work. Nothing comes for nothing. But the effort in smart shopping is rewarded at Publix, and not at WalMart. They just take your money, at their "low" price.

Fact. Not theory.

SVreX wrote:

wbjones wrote: The only reason you think WalMart is cheaper is because they told you so. It's their marketing strategy and no that is not the only reason I think WW is cheaper ... the reason I think that is I can buy the same thinks there that I would buy somewhere else and spend less money .... fact ... not theory

If you have done the analysis to come to that determination, then kudos for you. Most people have not. I have. All those smaller purchases "because you are there" are exactly the way I am inclined to purchase, but they cost more money over time.

when you factor in the cost of going somewhere else ( gas / time ... etc ) then it IS cheeper to go ahead and get what I need while I'm there as opposed to driving to half-a-dozen different places to get one thing at a time ....

that's the cost analysis that I've done and makes sense to me .... maybe you have all the stores you need within walking distance of one parking spot ... but that's not how it is here

and using your grocery shopping as an example ... no I don't buy much if anything at WW .... BiLo here has a "rewards" program with Shell ... I shopped at BiLo long before that started ( the argument locally is that Ingles is cheeper... I don't find that to be so + the ¢ off at the gas station) and now I get 5¢ per gal per every $50 I spend at the grocery store ... money I would have spent anyway... + 93 octane is the same price as 91 on Fridays ( + the BiLo savings .. )

so in response ... I shop at WW only for specific things ( + as you pointed out the "while I'm here" things ) and I try to make that trip in conjunction with other trips to town ( ~ 15 mi) versus the 5 mi trips to the grocery store and hardware store .... etc ....

wbjones wrote:

SVreX wrote:

wbjones wrote: The only reason you think WalMart is cheaper is because they told you so. It's their marketing strategy and no that is not the only reason I think WW is cheaper ... the reason I think that is I can buy the same thinks there that I would buy somewhere else and spend less money .... fact ... not theory

If you have done the analysis to come to that determination, then kudos for you. Most people have not. I have. All those smaller purchases "because you are there" are exactly the way I am inclined to purchase, but they cost more money over time.

when you factor in the cost of going somewhere else ( gas / time ... etc ) then it IS cheeper to go ahead and get what I need while I'm there as opposed to driving to half-a-dozen different places to get one thing at a time .... that's the cost analysis that I've done and makes sense to me .... maybe you have all the stores you need within walking distance of one parking spot ... but that's not how it is here and using your grocery shopping as an example ... no I don't buy much if anything at WW .... BiLo here has a "rewards" program with Shell ... I shopped at BiLo long before that started ( the argument locally is that Ingles is cheeper... I don't find that to be so + the ¢ off at the gas station) and now I get 5¢ per gal per every $50 I spend at the grocery store ... money I would have spent anyway... + 93 octane is the same price as 91 on Fridays ( + the BiLo savings .. ) so in response ... I shop at WW only for specific things ( + as you pointed out the "while I'm here" things ) and I try to make that trip in conjunction with other trips to town ( ~ 15 mi) versus the 5 mi trips to the grocery store and hardware store .... etc .... oh and there are no Publix within 60 - 70 mi .. and while I like a lot of their products odds are I'd still shop at BiLo

SVreX wrote: For example- we now buy all of our groceries at Publix. We used to buy them at WalMart. We spend (on average) 40% less then we used to, and get significantly better products and service. My wife CONSISTANTLY gets savings of $120 per week on $180 worth of purchases.

Consistently getting $180 worth of groceries for $60? I'm calling shenanigans.

No, I said consistently getting $120 worth of savings on $180 worth of purchases. Perhaps worded weird- that's the way she reports it (because it kind of reads that way on her receipt). It's actually $300 worth of groceries for $180 (40% off). Almost every time she shops. She knows dozens of people who do that well or better.

Call it what you want. I'll be the one paying less for my groceries, regardless of what you call me. You might want to do a little research on Publix's coupon policy before calling me a liar.

In reply to wbjones:

The point was not to brag on Publix. There are plenty of other stores like them (it was only an example of a store perceived as "expensive").

The point was that WalMart has a crappy coupon and discount policy. Others are much better.

BTW:

Nothing wrong with BiLo (price wise) if you do it right.

Here's a website my wife uses frequently comparing Publix, WalMart, and BiLo:

Southern Savers

We shop Publix, too. We don't coupon much, but we shop their sales and stock up when things are at our "buy" price. A nice side effect of this is that we can be brand specific and still get a killer price.

WalMart does price match ads now. Sometimes this works out well for BOGOF items, as it's often keyed in BOGO at WM's price, which for some items is already lower price than a single at the competitor's price. An example of this is Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Publix often has it BOGO at $4.79, while the normal price at WM is $3.29.

BoostedBrandon wrote: The "low wage, can't afford anything" is slightly misaligned. I'll go out on a limb and say that if consumer debt was lower, and people weren't paymenting their lives, that the middle class would return.

I think that's a lot of the reason for the collapse. I suppose what I'm trying to imply here is that there was so much of a belt-tightening by companies who employ professionals that the lower economic class is bigger, and likely to stay that way for awhile. One thing that makes me really angry is when I hear media report on how many jobs are lost or created by numbers alone. They are missing part of the story.

That story being, there are a lot of people out there who will not (and who may never) find another job that paid what their professional job did ever again. I made $55,000 a year in television, but what I do was pretty much automated down that what I did for a living doesn't even really exist anymore (well, it does, but everyone is automating, and there is less need across the industry). If I am lucky, my next job will pay $18-20K. I'm OK with that, the house is paid for and I like older cars better anyway...but this effects the economy in other ways. If I was stuffing half of it away for retirement, that's still a loss of $15K to commerce in my community. And that's just one person. Multiply it by the 81 people who got laid off with me. Multiply that by all the companies laying off professionals (for one reason or another) nationwide.

I actually consider myself lucky, I learned harsh lessons about why to live debt-free & within my means in the first couple of years after my divorce. A lot of the people I was laid off with are exactly in the mess you describe below.

BoostedBrandon wrote: Multiple credit cards, one or two car payments, iPhones, etc etc. if people would spend more on their needs, and not finance their wants, this country would be much better off. Dave Ramsey FTW.

I'll drink to that..with my cheap mass-market swill!

EDIT: Half of the "extra" $30K I had with the old salary vs. my projected new one. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough about that.