A True Story

The heated debate in comments to this post reminded me of this:

How rich are you?

(I'm doing quite well myself, thanks. I'm in the Top 6.57 percent worldwide in terms of personal income -- provided I get that next paycheck.)

It also reminded me of a story:

My first job out of college was as an intern with ... let's just call them The Company.

As an intern, I wasn't a part of the complex salary structure of grade levels and pay scales that governed all actual jobs with The Company, from filing clerk to CEO. As a result, I didn't have any particular stake in the massive, yearlong salary restructuring that took place while I was there.

The Company hired the Hay Group to come in and evaluate its various job levels and pay scales, which involved months of interviews and endless discussion of things like "core responsibilities." Finally, the Hay people came up with a grand plan and everybody in The Company gathered in the cafeteria -- the only room large enough to hold us all -- to learn about the details and the transition from how things were to how things would come to be.

This was pre-PowerPoint, but there were lots of transparencies on an overhead projector. The gist of the presentation had to do with "midpoints." At every salary level, it was explained, some workers were earning less than the midpoint salary for that level, while other workers were earning more. This was, it was explained, unfair.

Over the next few years, it was further explained, the salary structure would be made more fair by freezing the salaries of those currently earning more than 100 percent of their grade-level midpoint and giving incremental raises to those earning less than the midpoint.

I've simplified this a great deal. The actual presentation took nearly an hour and made all of this sound much more confusing and complicated than it really was, but this was the basic gist.

Finally, stumbling to a conclusion, the CEO reassured us all that thanks to this transition process and the fine contribution of the fine folks from the Hay Group, The Company would have a fairer, more just salary structure in a few short years. Those currently earning more than their midpoints might not enjoy any raises in the next few years, he suggested, but they were hardly in a position to complain, seeing as they had been ding so much better than everyone else up until now.

Then, suddenly, he was done. "Any questions?" he asked.

Awkward pause. Fear and confusion and much shuffling of feet. Then the intern had a question.

I was a bit nervous, in part because I was only 22 and in part because I had just heard what sounded to me like an elaborate scam and thus the only question I could think of was "Did I just hear correctly, that you're proposing a salary freeze on your secretary so you can give yourself a raise?" and that's not an easy question to ask your boss's boss.

So I was a bit nervous, and thus couldn't muster the courage or the clarity to put the question quite so baldly. Instead, nervously, I chose an unfortunately elaborate analogy.

"You've explained that some people's buckets are overflowing," I said. "While other's buckets are only 80 percent full. But that doesn't tell us anything unless we know how big the various buckets are."

A blank stare from the CEO and an awkward silence, after which I'm afraid I repeated the analogy, only this time with cups instead of buckets. More awkward silence.

I panicked and switched gears, disastrously: "Since the new salary structure will be, you've said, perfectly fair and just, is there any reason not to demonstrate this by disclosing everyone's salary publicly?"

Audible gasps throughout the cafeteria and looks of horror as though I had just farted in church. I'd lost the room. The CEO harrumphed about confidentiality of personnel matters and, there being no further questions, the meeting was adjourned.

Over the following year, working from job postings that advertised both "grade levels" and starting salaries, I was able to graph the rapidly accelerating curve of the various "midpoints" and to confirm that, yes, in fact, this process was the elaborate scam I had feared. Top-level executives had largely been judged to be earning less than their "midpoints," and so received generous raises. Their secretaries and support staff had largely been judged to be earning more than their "midpoints," and so faced salary freezes for several years. All in the name of fairness and justice.

From this experience, I learned several lessons:

1. If you ever encounter a consultant from the Hay Group, keep one hand on your wallet and never turn your back.

2. Americans find any public discussion or comparison of income distasteful and grounds for extreme defensiveness. They might be willing to talk publicly about the intimate details of their sex lives or their gastrointestinal functions, but not about their salary.

3. This reluctance to speak transparently about income does not serve most people well, but serves some people very well indeed.

Comments

[katre]

See, my first thought was "Wow, why is anyone facing a multi-year salary freeze not going to immediately start working on their resume?"

Maybe I'm a product of the mobile workforce, though.

[Duane]

Fred, I am also in the top 6.5%. My wife, on the other hand, is in the top 1%. I know everyone would like me to take it to the bitch but honestly, she hardly ever exploits the working class around the house.

[Darryl Pearce]

...thems with the gold, makes the rules.

We've all got stories along this line. Wow..., just wow.

My family's been incrementally living pretty good. But those super-hyper-mega-rich folks...?

Just ...wow.

[Spherical Time]

Once again,

Duane, no one is suggesting that you or your wife is somehow unethical for making too much money. Nor are they in anyway suggesting that you exploit working class people.

The worst that anyone has done is suggest that you don't have a sense of perspective when you talk about money.

I'm sorry that you feel attacked by that. I feel pretty lucky to be just above 12%, but I'm not saying that your wife should be forced to give up the money she makes until we're at an equal level.

Nor is anyone else suggesting that.

However, I do agree with Fred that "This reluctance to speak transparently about income does not serve most people well, but serves some people very well indeed."

Especially when some people do exploit complicated pay-scale restructuring to stiff the lower end workers for the benefit of a bunch of managers.

[Duane]

Dude, it was just a joke.

[Spherical Time]

One that suggested that we're attacking you for being wealthy.

Which we aren't.

[Duane]

1) I'm not wealthy.
2) I don't feel like I'm being attacked.

I simply thought it would be funny in light of the earlier thread.

[Spherical Time]

I suppose that's your prerogative.

[LL]

Hell, I'll say it: I make $35,000 a year, not sure where that puts me in the income distribution. I will point out that I haven't had a raise in several years (few people at my company have, that I'm aware of), but the cost of everything else has gone up, so because of inflation, I'm a little behind. Still, I'm not doing bad. Have some savings, not too worried about losing my job. I'm doing OK.

Duane rules, no matter what anyone says.

And Fred rules, too, and his point - that we don't talk about money in America and how much everyone makes* because a lot of people like it that we don't know where we all stand - is well taken. I don't know what we'd do if we did know exactly what everyone makes, though. Would Congress raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour? Doubtful. Rich people have always run this country to benefit themselves, often at the expense of non-rich people. Apparently not enough of us care enough to really do anything about it. For ex, if we were upset enough about companies moving jobs overseas because it's cheaper to pay Chinese to make clothes and furniture and whatnot, we'd buy only American-made goods, but we don't, or enough of us don't that the ones who do don't register. What to do? Eh, I dunno...

*Except for that yearly Parade Magazine thing about what people earn.

[LL]

K, I checked, I'm in the top 4.62%. I'm rich, beeyotch!

[Duane]

I appreciate the vote of confidence, LL. I'm not surprised it comes from you, tho. At 35K/year you are making much more than my household per person. And I bet you aren't even growing out of your clothes every six months. (At least I hope not!)

I'll confess to still not understanding the logic that says a single person making 30K or 40K/year is doing poorly as judged against the median but a family of five making 80K/year is cleaning up. This is the kind of confusion that results from trying to apply a one-size-fits-all rule to such a complicated subject.

[Jesurgislac]

Duane: I don't feel like I'm being attacked.

Then why are you so defensive?

LL: For ex, if we were upset enough about companies moving jobs overseas because it's cheaper to pay Chinese to make clothes and furniture and whatnot, we'd buy only American-made goods, but we don't

People on a low income shop at Walmarts, even though the presence of a Walmarts store in their community may be the very reason why they are so badly off.

In part this is because many people - regardless of income - don't reason the necessary two steps ahead. In part, though, it's because of a brutal Prisoner's Dilemma game. If everyone in that area refused to shop at Walmarts, Walmart's would go out of business, and serve them right for a bunch of scum-sucking scumbags. But individuals need, individually, to buy clothing and food for themselves and their families.

That they would be better off as a community if they acted together to drive Walmarts out of business and support companies that pay their employees a living wage with proper benefits is obvious to anyone with access to the proper economic data - anyone with access to the Internet and time/energy to think about it.

Regulating Walmart is what the community should be doing collectively - the proper business of government, in other words.

Likewise, it is the proper business of government to ensure that American companies do not find it profitable to exploit sweatshop workers - overseas or illegal immigrants - rather than paying all their employees a decent wage, offering proper benefits, and still selling their goods at a reasonable profit.

Government is how the individuals in the community are able to act collectively for the benefit of the community. (Of course, in the US, where votes are pretty openly bought and sold, this is not necessarily the case: the proper response is to upgrade your government, not to despair of government entirely. You need a better version than the beta version currently in use, that's all.)

[cjmr's husband]

Shorter Prisoner's Dilemma: Adam Smith is a yutz.

[David]

Geez, people. Duane was not defensive about the original post. He probably is defensive now about the way he was attacked for an obvious joke, but that's not what he was talking about when he said he didn't feel attacked. What was the big deal here? Sometimes he trolls, but this is not one of those times.

[Scott]

All in the name of fairness and justice.

But those are the magic words that force the rest of us to submit to your wishes, aren't they?

People on a low income shop at Walmarts, even though the presence of a Walmarts store in their community may be the very reason why they are so badly off.

Chicago Hates Poor People
When Wal-Mart opened a store in Evergreen Park, Illinois, just one block outside the Chicago city limits, 20,000 Chicagoans put in applications for just 500 available positions.

Clearly, there are a significant number of residents of Chicago who would like very much to work for Wal-Mart, despite all the talk about the store's allegedly paltry wages and benefits.

So what does the city council do? It passes a "living wage" bill aimed squarely at Wal-Mart, effectively guaranteeing that Wal-Mart will never open another store in Chicago (neither, apparently will Target, or many other big box stores). The poor folks who make up that 40-1 ratio of Chicagoans who want jobs at Wal-Mart to available jobs at Wal-Mart will now need to find a way to get to the suburbs to find employment. Or, for that matter, to good stuff at low prices.

Of course, the people least likely to be able to get out to the suburbs are the people most in need of good jobs and low-cost goods.

Is the Chicago city council really this stupid? Or are they so consumed with hate for Wal-Mart that they don't care about the repercussions of legislation like this?

[Scott]

Government is how the individuals in the community are able to act collectively for the benefit of the community.

Government is how 51% of the community are encouraged to steal from the other 49%, for their own good. Listen to yourself - "it's for your own good that you don't shop there and you wouldn't if you were as 'enlightened' as me, so I'm going to make that decision for you, and it's really voluntary on your part because I'm just doing what you would do if you were as 'enlightened' as me. I have to make your decisions on your behalf until you realize I'm right because I'm so compassionate."

[Richard Hershberger]

"1. If you ever encounter a consultant from the Hay Group, keep one hand on your wallet and never turn your back."

This is an undergeneralization. The appearance of consultants from any firm is a sure sign it is time to update that resume. Even apart from the obvious implication that senior management hasn't a clue what to do, the first (and often the only) rule of consulting is to justify that consulting fee. This means that a consultant has to find something to recommend changing. It also means the consultant can only recommend changing only certain classes of things. The report will not conclude the problem is that the CEO is incomepetant, nor will it conclude that those close relatives of the CEO that he hired are the problem. So unless you are in a protected class, chances are good that this schlub will recommend changing your life, and probably not for the better.

[cjmr's husband]

There are only two rules to remember about "The New Compensation Plan", no matter where you work:

1. You will not get a raise. As Scott Adams put it, "If they wanted to give you more money, they wouldn't have to come up with a new name for the plan."

2. If anyone below the level of SVP does get a raise, it will be an accident, and be an "unexpected expense". To make up for it, the stock value will plummet, and no one will get a promotion for at least three years.

[Merlin Missy]

Once again, Scott's comments leave me confused and needing clarification.

Are you arguing that there are 20,000 people in Chicago who need a job bad enough to work at Wal-Mart, but that they shouldn't be paid enough to pay their bills, especially after the presence of the new store drives the other local small businessed into the ground thus eliminating many other potential employers? Or are you arguing that people who work at Wal-Mart tend to be the favorite posterchildren of those who hate minimum-wage increases (teenagers and women who "don't really need to make a lot anyway") so paying them more disposable income wouldn't stimulate the local economy? (After all, if a tax cut means we have more money to stimulate the economy surely paying someone more would have the same effect.)

Meanwhile, as someone who lives here, I assure you Chicago has fantastic public transportation to and from the suburbs, so if someone does want to work a low-paying job or buy shoddily-made goods imported from China, it's a quick trip on the El to one of the Walmarts or Targets already in the city or in the near 'burbs.

[inge]

Holy smurf, I'm in the top percentile. Well, the Euro is currently strong, but even with the lowest Euro/Dollar ratio since the Euro was introduced I'd be top 5%. And that with reasonable rents and universal health care. My poorest friends who live on noodles, cheese and canned tuna six days out of seven and can't afford a bicycle are still in the top 15.

And Wal-mart just got out of business in Germany. Which has me cackeling evilly, though it only means that we already have two or five exploitive, union-busting discounter chains who have played the "cheaper than thou"-game for decades, resulting in absurdly low prices for groceries. So Wal-mart would have to sell on a loss for a long time (years, probably), to gain ground (and their very American image isn't an asset currently, either), and they are forbidden to do that by law. They lost another bunch of lawsuits on their employee behaviour code (you are not allowed to force your employees to bare their teeth at every passing customer -- as if anyone needed telling, you'd think customers backing away carefully should give management a clue), and they had to pay benefits just like everyone else. Seems that it was too much to take for them. The world's tiniest violin must be around here somewhere.

On disclosing income: The contracts in the company I work for explicitly forbid employees to compare their wages. Yepp, it's spelled out. Now we get a new system of payment (no Hay Group mentioned, though) and my boss, when talking to us about the new system says that everyone who feels they are treated unfairly should tell him, he'll see what he can do. Only three or four of the group (me included) were hypocritical enough to give him a stunned, wide-eyed look of "how on earth should we know?" But it's still never discussed openly, because no one wants to know that they got the short straw.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

Apparently, my household is in the top percentile, if in fact that scale can be used for households rather than individuals. (My husband makes the bulk of the money at his programming job; I make a not-liveable-solo-but-more-than-ever-I-did-before amount with freelance writing.) Seems doubtful though, because it doesn't ask you to put in a number of people who live on that annual income.

Is there a similar on-line scale to measure where your community falls in the global percentile of Cost Of Living? Because it seems like knowing the one without the other isn't as useful as all that.

[Duane]

Yoyo dawg, don't hate the playa - hate the game.

[Steve]

Fred,

Don't you wish you would have had the guts to ask the real question: "Did I just hear correctly, that you're proposing a salary freeze on your secretary so you can give yourself a raise?"

Its funny how that situation probably seemed so big back then, but now, an intern at age 22...what have you got to lose. I know I wouldn't have said it either, but I would have wished I'd said it years later.

BTW, why are you protecting the name of the company? CEO owe you a gambling debt?

Peace,
Steve

[Scott]

Are you arguing that there are 20,000 people in Chicago who need a job bad enough to work at Wal-Mart, but that they shouldn't be paid enough to pay their bills, especially after the presence of the new store drives the other local small businessed into the ground thus eliminating many other potential employers? Or are you arguing that people who work at Wal-Mart tend to be the favorite posterchildren of those who hate minimum-wage increases (teenagers and women who "don't really need to make a lot anyway") so paying them more disposable income wouldn't stimulate the local economy? (After all, if a tax cut means we have more money to stimulate the economy surely paying someone more would have the same effect.)

I'm saying that appeals to 'solidarity' are crap. Why? Because (as the 20K people applying for WalMart shows), not everyone holds the exact same set of beliefs as Fred, and we aren't 'One' with only one set of legit economic interests. This is where the evangelical left is identical to the evangelical right. The rapture crowd thinks eternal punishment for not believing as they do is justified because we all 'know' right-wing evangelicalism is correct and we are all explicitly rejecting the Truth of God if we don't adopt it. 'Solidarity' is based on everyone sharing the exact same left wing economic beliefs and opening themselves to moral judgement as backstabbers if they 'knowingly' go against the One True Class Interest. An evangelical is an evangelical, whether left or right.

Once you open your mind to the possibility that the people you want to 'help' have a range of beliefs that aren't all 100% in sync with yours, and legitimate interests that differ from the ones your economic beliefs assign to them, 'Solidarity' turns into nothing more than a pretty way of saying "I know best, peasant, because I have a communications degree from State U and you're just the cattle God put me here to feed and water."

Fred, what happens when someone you want to 'help' acts according to economic beliefs that differ from yours? Will you stop them, for their own good, in the name of 'solidarity'?

[Scott]

And why is it that the left, who talk a good game about 'diversity' when it helps them argue against some abomination from the right, immediately assume we are 'One' with no legitimate differences of belief when they want an economic abomination of their own?

[Merlin Missy]

And while that was a lovely tirade on individuality vs. solidarity, it didn't answer my question. Again, are you opposed to Wal-Mart being forced to pay a living wage based on not wanting people to be able to pay their bills, or because you don't think the local economy could use the larger spending power of the locals? You're using the phrase "economic abomination" to describe a pay raise, and claiming that the 20,000 people who applied are doing so not wanting that pay raise. You are claiming that 20,000 people (or at least the 500 lucky enough to get the openings) would like to make less money rather than more money, and more so, that this is a good idea overall. You're using the word "solidarity" and the only application I can see is that it means the city is saying, "If you're going to employ people, you have to pay them a reasonable amount of money." And I repeat, I have trouble believing that the 20,000 (or 500) people to whom this applies are going to stand up and say, "No! You must not pay us more!" Strangely enough, I tend to think Fred, and most of the people here, also believe these people would like to make more money rather than less money. So it's not so much a cry for solidarity, as everyone here (except perhaps you) thinks these people should in fact make more money.

So once more, why do you think they and we are all wrong and that these people should make less money and should want to make less money? You complain about having to pay your taxes, presumably because you would like to have more money rather than less money. Why are you arguing against the "more money" principle in this case?

[Nick Kiddle]

My income is made up entirely of state benefits in one form or another. I'm considered too poor to rent privately in my neighbourhood. And yet I'm in the top 11.4% worldwide.

That's a hell of a lot of (I presume) Third World poor. Thank you, Fred, for a sobering link.

[Ray]

Wow, 35k euro puts me in the top 2.01%.
(1 income for a family of will-be-four-in-a-few-weeks, but still. There are an awful lot of basic costs that don't go up by much per person, and child benefit here is 1800 a year, with an extra k a year for the first 6 years, and that goes a long way)

[Isabeau]

I assure you Chicago has fantastic public transportation to and from the suburbs . . .

When I started to read this sentence I prepared to laugh. This is so far from true I will forever wonder if I should believe anything you say.

[Chuchundra]

Apparently, I'm in the top .98%. How will I spend my fabulous wealth?

Of course, it's a nonsense page. Wealth is relative, not absolute. I may in the top 1% of earners world-wide, but I still can't afford to buy a house in my neighborhood.

[Duane]

Of course, it's a nonsense page. Wealth is relative, not absolute. I may in the top 1% of earners world-wide, but I still can't afford to buy a house in my neighborhood.

You think that's bad? In my neighborhood, shortly after buying, we found out the guy that does all the lawn maintenance around the neighborhood actually lives in the neighborhood. Obviously we were horrified because we couldn't understand how working class people could afford to live in our neighborhood. But we decided to be good liberals and give it a chance.

It has worked out beautifully. His kids come over and do our kids' chores.

[cjmr's husband]

Ray, what is this "child benefit" of which you speak?

All you get in the U.S. is an additional Tax Deduction, which just means you don't pay taxes on about $3K -- at the 30% tax rate, this means our "child benefit" is about a thousand dollars. Which, of course, only applies if you earn more than $X a year.

[Mnemosyne]

When I started to read this sentence I prepared to laugh. This is so far from true I will forever wonder if I should believe anything you say.

Compared to Los Angeles, Chicago has amazing public transportation. You can actually get from place to place. In LA, I would have to take two buses for an hour to travel the 5 miles to work -- not joking.

[Ray]

In Ireland, you get 150 euro a month cash in hand, for each of the first two kids. Kids 3 and 4 are worth a little less (or a little more? not the same anyway) That's at least 120 euro a month clear profit :) Plus they've just introduced a thing where you get 1000 euro 'childcare payment' for each kid under 6, each year. In theory it's to help working parents py for care while they work, but it's also cash in hand, not childcare vouchers or anything, and you don't have to even pretend it's to pay for childcare.

Which reminds me of a joke a friend's brother tells (he's a comedian - Ed Byrne)...if you're in the mood for fucking with the minds of checkout staff in a supermarket, you go in and fill a trolley full of drink, and throw a bumper pack of nappies on the top. When everything's counted up, look at the total, your wallet, and your trolley, and sigh. Then give the nappies back...

[cjmr's husband]

Thanks, Ray. We keep trying for a childcare tax-credit (you'll never get a handout here) but Scott's buddies keep calling it communistic.

[Dave Lartigue]

The problem is, being able to choose where you shop and where you work is a luxury many people cannot afford. Wal-Mart and its ilk succeed because they have one thing: lower prices. Period. And at the end of the day, after solidarity and greater costs and pay inequities and so forth, people gotta eat and wear clothes, and they will get them from where they are cheaper, not because they are greedy or stupid, but because they HAVE to. It's very fine for me and my $30,000/yr job to not buy cheap coffee from Wal-Mart and instead pay much more for fair trade stuff, but I realize that before I recognize that as something I SHOULD do, it has to be something I CAN do.

[Duane]

Which reminds me of a joke a friend's brother tells (he's a comedian - Ed Byrne)...if you're in the mood for fucking with the minds of checkout staff in a supermarket, you go in and fill a trolley full of drink, and throw a bumper pack of nappies on the top. When everything's counted up, look at the total, your wallet, and your trolley, and sigh. Then give the nappies back...

And that really causes eyebrows to raise in Ireland?

[hapax]

"Wal-Mart and its ilk succeed because they have one thing: lower prices. Period."

I'm always amazed to hear Wal-Mart bashers say things like this; but y'all probably live on the coasts or in big cities. In many rural areas and Southern (US) small towns, Wal-Mart isn't the CHEAPEST choice -- it's the ONLY choice. I know plenty of folks who were ecstatic to see a Wal-Mart come to their area, because that meant they would no longer have to drive over an hour to the nearest "city" to stock up on socks and toilet paper once a month. Wal-Mart didn't drive the local businesses out of town -- the towns were already dead or dying, and Wal-mart brought them back to life. Folks line up for those jobs because there are no other jobs -- the alternative is welfare, or abandoning the place your family has lived for generations. And where there are jobs -- well, being a Wal-Mart sales clerk might be a lousy job with worse benefits, but it still looks pretty sweet compared to, say, plucking chickens or picking tomatoes.

I'm not saying that Wal-Mart is an altruistic corporation, or they should offer anything less than prevailing wages for each locality. But there are more reasons for the company's success than Sam Walton selling his soul to the devil.

[Ray]

Duane, I've never seen it happening in real life, if that's what you mean?
(Sure, people buy drink -or drugs - instead of nappies, or in other ways spend money on themselves while neglecting their children. But they're unlikely to buy a whole trolley full of drink at one time, and to buy nothing except drink and possibly nappies. And a joke about shooting up in the express checkout line would probably work a little differently)

[Merlin Missy]

Isabeau: I can get anywhere in the city and most places in the near 'burbs for the same or less than I'd pay for a gallon of gas. Not sure what your definition of "fantastic" is, but considering I've lived in places without even a bus service, this is pretty amazing.

[Scott]

Again, are you opposed to Wal-Mart being forced to pay a living wage based on not wanting people to be able to pay their bills, or because you don't think the local economy could use the larger spending power of the locals?

I oppose Wal-Mart being forced to pay the wage you decide for yourself they should pay. Let me ask you something: if I went to one of the 20K people in line who disagree w/ you about working at WalMart and offered him $1/hr to mow my yard, and he's free to say 'no', have I violated his rights because the wage I offered is too low?

You are claiming that 20,000 people (or at least the 500 lucky enough to get the openings) would like to make less money rather than more money, and more so, that this is a good idea overall.

I'm saying they'd like the job at what it pays, not that they'd turn down more if it were offered. That's just a straw man load of leftist bullshit. On the assumption they'd all like to make $100K a year, would you insist WalMart offer that? That's your bullshit argument in a bullshit nutshell.

[Scott]

Government is how the individuals in the community are able to act collectively for the benefit of the community.

Do you believe that bullshit even when Republicans get elected by "the community" to uphold "traditional morality" for the community's "own good", or does that only apply when people you like have power?

[Seth]

Walmart is an interesting study in perceived costs vs. actual costs. I don'twant to turn this into a rant but there's some real damage caused by Walmart's "cheap" prices since they're driven by the chain's insistence that suppliers reduce costs by 10% every year.

You can do that for a year or two, but then you start cutting into real meat and your "cheap" product has just become much more expensive. E.g., several other people and I have noticed that Hanes products today are markedly inferior to identical products of 3-4 year ago. The fabric is much thinner, etc. We KNOW that we would be better off paying 20% more for the superior product since it would last so much longer than the current product, but it's not a choice on the table. Well, not unless you go to the specialty brands that cost at least an order of magnitude more.

The perceived cost is lower (although, in fact, prices have increased slightly), but the actual cost is much higher since the products must be replaced much more frequently. (Hmmm...)

I do understand that many people have a hard time with that first step and the cheapest possible item is important to them. But what about the person doing well enough to be able to get ahead by investing in slightly better goods that last longer? They're SOL.

[cjmr]

You can do that for a year or two, but then you start cutting into real meat and your "cheap" product has just become much more expensive. E.g., several other people and I have noticed that Hanes products today are markedly inferior to identical products of 3-4 year ago. The fabric is much thinner, etc.

Oy, yes! Two years ago I replaced some 'Hanes products' that were wearing out because they were 6-7 years old. Now I'm replacing the two-year-old ones because they're wearing out already. How long will this set last? A year? Six months? And what used to be 6-packs are now 4-packs at the same price.

[cjmr's husband]

Sam Walton selling his soul to the devil.

I may be wrong, but isn't it Sam's Daughter that sold her soul? When Sam was in charge, Wal-Mart's big deal was that everything in the store was American-made.

[J]

Isabeau:

I assure you Chicago has fantastic public transportation to and from the suburbs . . .

When I started to read this sentence I prepared to laugh. This is so far from true I will forever wonder if I should believe anything you say.

Um, Isabeau, I LIVE in Chicago and I love the public transportation. The L is great (except for the Brown Line, which is currently being worked on but which will be done soon). The Metra is also great. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Of course, it's a nonsense page. Wealth is relative, not absolute. I may in the top 1% of earners world-wide, but I still can't afford to buy a house in my neighborhood.

Verily. Let's think about this for a second: All the folks who bought at 200K and whose houses are now worth 500K are convinced they'll be laughing all the way to the bank. They're so sure they've made a good "investment." Trouble is, they really haven't. They are not actually 300K wealthier until they find someone to buy their house from them. And then they're ALSO banking on the next guy they buy a place from to be a good sport and not want to bank a similar profit and thus charge them 800K. This is why it's called a "bubble"--everyone is assuming that everyone else will continue to play the chump forever while THEY continue to make out like bandits.

Thus, do NOT complain when:
1.) Those of us who rent but would like to buy secretly cheer when we hear about the slowly growing number of you with "valuable" houses you're unable to sell.

2.) Your kids rent or live at home until they're 38.

Duane:

You think that's bad? In my neighborhood, shortly after buying, we found out the guy that does all the lawn maintenance around the neighborhood actually lives in the neighborhood. Obviously we were horrified because we couldn't understand how working class people could afford to live in our neighborhood. But we decided to be good liberals and give it a chance.
It has worked out beautifully. His kids come over and do our kids' chores.

Yeah, I'm sure you think this is some sort of joke Duane, but it seems to be missing the "humor" and "cleverness" parts necessary to actually be, y'know, funny.

[hapax]

I know a bunch of people who knew Sam Walton very well. He was in fact a fairly decent guy, very low-key and unpretentious, who used his wealth to make enormous investments in education, basic infrastructure, and many grassroots charities in his home base (a very very poor section of Arkansas)(and, full disclosure MPOB is in fact still benefitting from his generosity). You could argue that this was simply smart policy, since the roads, sewer systems, better educated and healthier workforce in their headquarters locale has been very good for WalMart; but I don't see why good business and good policy has to necessarily conflict.

His children, these same folks say, are Something Else altogether; and as for the grandchildren -- "well, bless their hearts, but..."

[J]

HEAR YE, HEAR YE: I am calling for a Wall of Silence on Scott. Nobody reply to him. Nobody address his posts. Ignore him completely. Don't even obliquely reference him. Treat him like a potted plant, except for the part where you'd give him water.

We have all of us spent too many wo/man-hours pointlessly arguing with this uber-libertarian. Let him drown in his own Ayn Rand-induced masturbatory semen.

Thank you.

[Corbie]

cjmr, exactly. I'm making an effort to buy better-quality clothes now because I recognized that I was replacing cheap items twice as often (or more) than better ones, and so actually spending more money than if I'd bought better-quality goods in the first place. But when you can barely afford the cheap products in the first place, it's hard to think beyond that. I'm lucky I can now afford the better products.

[Corbie]

So, speaking of Walmart, wages, the economy, etc., I was reading this article about how our dependence on foreign investment (i.e., the trade deficit, etc.) keeps our wages down. I need to re-read it to see if I can understand and absorb more, but my immediate reaction is to want to get off the grid NOW. (Which I can't quite afford to do -- it would take an investment of more than $15K, and I'm not sure we'll be in this house long enough to recoup that investment.) What else can one do, though?

That's really what I want to know -- what can we do to make a difference? Volunteer for Habitat for Humanity? Drive a Prius? (Just joking on that latter -- I don't think I'd save enough to justify the higher car payments.)