Change My Mind: A Society Cannot "Work" Itself to Equality

[nostradumbass]

If home ownership is ones primary goal and one is willing to make the sacrifices to achieve it then yes they can. Most people want a home but aren't willing to make the sacrifices.

This is so full of s*** man. I can't even begin to tell you. The median income in the city where I live is 40,000. This is not a rich area by any stretch of your wildest imagination. There are rich neighborhoods and there's upper middle class neighborhoods where I live and then there's middle class neighborhoods and then there's poor neighborhoods. The cheapest homes are going for over 400,000 in the poor areas......

You are just full of s***. You have been listening to liars.

Reality is probably somewhere in between you guys.

Obviously the cheapest homes in poor areas aren't $400k. That's the median for the entire country, so there are lots of homes much cheaper, and a friend making $80k and having to live in a van suggests truly horrific spending choices.

The problem is that what living frugally entails and the payoff for doing it is unreasonable imo. It would be one thing if living frugally meant stop buying luxury cars and taking expensive vacations and eating in restaurants every night, or stop wasting money on expensive entertainment, but if you have to not have a family, fast for days at a time, live in a crappy studio in a high scrime neighborhood and wear a coat at home so you don't freeze, and maybe you can buy a crappy place in the same high crime neighborhood a few years later, that's more than just being frugal.

The economy is pretty unstable if the house price to income ratio isn't even close to the recommended amount. Recommended amount is a house valued at 2.6x your income, and we're now almost at 6 for median house to median, so "affordability" now means median income matches you with a shit tier house for the next 30 years.

Not to mention that even if you got in when it was more reasonable just a few years ago and already bought a house, your property taxes keep climbing for something you allegedly alredy own.

 

[moreorless87]

Sounds like a shitty life for something that's shouldn't force you to live a shitty life

Again really I think we have fundamental dishonesty when it comes to looking back at US history.

Everyone likes to look back to the post war era fondly in terms of the economy but the idea has been pushed in recent decades that this was some short of free market paradise which is total bollocks as it was an era were the US had very strong socialist elements to its economy compared to today.

Right wingers should be honest really,. Reaganism was seeking to return the US more to the Robber Baron era and I think has done a pretty good job of it. Difference is this time I think its been sold ideologically to the population far more effectively, decades of demonising socialism and glamorising the ultra wealthy selling the fantasy that it could be your turn next.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Again really I think we have fundamental dishonesty when it comes to looking back at US history.

Everyone likes to look back to the post war era fondly in terms of the economy but the idea has been pushed in recent decades that this was some short of free market paradise which is total bollocks as it was an era were the US had very strong socialist elements to its economy compared to today.

Right wingers should be honest really,. Reaganism was seeking to return the US more to the Robber Baron era and I think has done a pretty good job of it. Difference is this time I think its been sold ideologically to the population far more effectively, decades of demonising socialism and glamorising the ultra wealthy,

come on. people used to be able to buy a house in america in the 50s with significantly less trouble than now, when it's basically impossible for a large section of the population.

 

[helltoupee]

As the non entrepreneurial type, I've wondered if restaurant and bar owners that go out of business, say 3 years after they opened, can still be profitable overall?

It always seems like they are incredibly popular when they first open before their popularity wanes and they are forced to close doors.

Makes me wonder if the owner makes enough profit up front to offset the expenses of opening the business and as the restaurant trucks along a couple years later with the popularity waning, they pull the plug before they wind up under water? It's either that or they go into the business venture knowing they have extremely high odds of losing their ass and promptly lose their ass anyway.

Restaurants are difficult not just because of finding customers.

The management of food inventory is insanely difficult to balance having too much and the food not being fresh, or not having enough and disappointing customers. That's why a general rule of thumb should be, if you sit down at a restaurant and it has a huge variety of items to order, more than likely whatever you order is not going to be fresh. The restaurant has to keep so many different types of food items available just in case someone orders, and it's usually just sitting in a walk-in fridge for weeks or even months. This is why high end fancy places usually only have a couple choices, as there is more turnover for each item so it's going to be fresh.

They used to say 2 out of 3 startup restaurants fail. Not sure how true that is anymore...

 

[moreorless87]

come on. people used to be able to buy a house in america in the 50s with significantly less trouble than now, when it's basically impossible for a large section of the population.

Exactly my point, much higher social mobility in that era than today due in large part to a more socialist economy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't know where you found the WalMart profit figures you are using in this post, but the FY2023 number reported by the company, globally, is $12 billion.

Sources:
https://corporate.walmart.com/news/2023/02/21/walmart-releases-q4-and-fy23-earnings

https://www.forrester.com/blogs/walmart-sales-and-profits-analysis-for-fy-2023-top-10-insights/#:~:text=The operating profit margin declined,net profit margin of 2%.

That results in $5,217.39 per employee (using your 2.3 million count), worldwide, and that number includes executive staff.

That is $2.51/hr from full-time staff.

The average WalMart salary, in the US, is scheduled at ~$17.50/hr.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bu...aise-hourly-wage-how-much-and-where-rcna67213

So that means they earn about 14% on what they pay, on average.

It also means if they raised average pay to $20/hr, they would earn effectively no profit at all.

He said revenue, not earnings. I don't really think this type of analysis has value, but scaling by revenue would make more sense.

The better point here is just that inevitably prices are set by markets. If a company diverges from market rates in either direction, they will be punished for it to the point that it won't be sustainable (of course, markets don't work ideally for low-wage labor because of various asymmetries, but that's why we have minimum wages). But of course the balance between labor and capital is heavily influenced by laws (and both workers and owners get more than they put in, because we have natural resources and technological advances that no one living is responsible for, etc.--note that both owners and workers get paid for more for the same skills in developed countries than they do or would in developing countries).

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Exactly my point, much higher social mobility in that era than today due in large part to a more socialist economy.

i don't know if socialist is good word, but i agree with the general idea, if you mean to say corporations and big money were not directly at the top of the societal ladder, as they are now, and have been for quite a while.

 

[moreorless87]

i don't know if socialist is good word, but i agree with the general idea, if you mean to say corporations and big money were not directly at the top of the societal ladder, as they are now, and have been for quite a while.

Someone like Eisenhower would be demonised as a communist today by the right.

"I have no use for those — regardless of their political party — who hold some foolish dream of spinning the clock back to days when unorganized labor was a huddled, almost helpless mass."

 

[panamaican]

Like what?

Well, let's start with the basic information that you're leaving out while comparing people to yourself. How much is the person trying to save?

Because they might not be able to afford that car. You didn't mention what you pay for housing and what percentage of your income that was. You didn't describe what you spend on food.

So, if you're going to use your personal circumstances as the standard for hardship and frugality, we need some numbers.

Or you can acknowledge a simple truth that your definition of hardship and frugality might not be universal.

 

[Loiosh]

I think everyone can own a home in this current economy. You just can't live in a desirable home in a highly desirable area. And you can't do it right away.


Work any job and do it well long enough and you can save a down payment. You might have to work from 18 to 38 to achieve it but if you are frugal than it's possible. You might even have to relocate to a cheaper area but it's possible.

I mean fast food is paying 20 bucks now. Go rent a room for 400 a month and work 50 hours a week and you'll save 10k a year. After 5 years, take your 50k and put it down on a 200k house somewhere. It's not that hard really

I agree with almost everything you're saying, but I don't think it applies to "everyone" or even most people. Especially now.

I've put away quite a bit of money by living intelligently and not wasting. Paying for a coffee at Starbucks seems insane to me when you consider how much cheaper it is at home for coffee that is at least as good. Restaurants are a rare treat for me, I took a friend to a steakhouse last week and it cost $250.00, which felt like a pointless waste of money.

My car is ten years old and I take care of it so it will probably last another ten. Maintenance is so much cheaper than repair.

 

[kahiljabroni]

It's narcissistic because you set some criteria that work for you and your thesis is "it should work for everyone"

I think anyone can live frugally and save. Obviously if you've dug yourself into a big hole already it's going to be more difficult.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

I think anyone can live frugally and save. Obviously if you've dug yourself into a big hole already it's going to be more difficult.

being able to save does not equate being able to afford a house.

 

[Sinister]

Yes I understand that rich people don't swim around in their money Scrooge McDuck style lol. I was referring to the distribution; like in the case of large corporations it can be something like employee stock options. There is no incentive for them to do anything more than pay the bare minimum they can get away with, typically. I understand that to a certain degree when you're trying to build or you're first starting out, but at a certain point the disparity grows so much it becomes ludicrous. Also I wouldn't equate a "cashless" society to a rich person willingly hiding their money in assets, tax free. No one is forcing that, rather they are incentivized to do so by tax breaks that they themselves likely lobbied for.

Profit sharing, health care, and pensions made GE an undeniable powerhouse of American Indistry, a place everyone WANTED to work. One guy with the idea to essentially squeeze the work force brought it down. I'm not sure about stock options as opposed to those other things.



I was just stating that its interesting that wealthy people already essentially live cashless. And yet their worshippers are deathly afraid of it.

 

[kahiljabroni]

Reality is probably somewhere in between you guys.

Obviously the cheapest homes in poor areas aren't $400k. That's the median for the entire country, so there are lots of homes much cheaper, and a friend making $80k and having to live in a van suggests truly horrific spending choices.

The problem is that what living frugally entails and the payoff for doing it is unreasonable imo. It would be one thing if living frugally meant stop buying luxury cars and taking expensive vacations and eating in restaurants every night, or stop wasting money on expensive entertainment, but if you have to not have a family, fast for days at a time, live in a crappy studio in a high scrime neighborhood and wear a coat at home so you don't freeze, and maybe you can buy a crappy place in the same high crime neighborhood a few years later, that's more than just being frugal.

The economy is pretty unstable if the house price to income ratio isn't even close to the recommended amount. Recommended amount is a house valued at 2.6x your income, and we're now almost at 6 for median house to median, so "affordability" now means median income matches you with a shit tier house for the next 30 years.

Not to mention that even if you got in when it was more reasonable just a few years ago and already bought a house, your property taxes keep climbing for something you allegedly alredy own.

My advice is intended for those that are relatively young because they seem to be the most discouraged age group. Saving a down payment is usually a very long process so you need to start young. If you're in your early 20s you can forgo a family until your early 30s no problem.

I'm not talking about starving and freezing. I'm talking about living well below your means so you can squeeze 500 to 1000 a month into Savings. Do that for 5 years and you'll have 30 to 60k.

For a ton of people 500 a month is just the difference between a nice newer car or a paid off used one. Consider the average car payment is close to 800 a month.

Again it's a long process. The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The 2nd best is today. Same thing with saving for a house.

I live in a middle of the road cost of living area and there are plenty of ok houses for 300k. There are countless other parts of the country where u can get a decent home for less.

 

[Sinister]

I think anyone can live frugally and save. Obviously if you've dug yourself into a big hole already it's going to be more difficult.

Saving is only a piece of the puzzle. People who hear "save more, spend less" are only likely to be marginally successful compared to those brought up in environments conducive to making their money make more money. I didnt learn this until I was in my 30's despite being pretty book smart as a young man. Even if I had made the kind of cash I fantasized about I wouldn't have been sure what to do with it, how to grow it. I didnt even know that was possible. People thinking the way out of poverty is merely saving and spending less are going to be overall as successful as people trying to lose weight who think eating less and exercising more is the answer. On a basic level, that's true, but it doesn't tell you much about the most efficient ways to accomplish it, and how to not be complacent and maintain it properly.

 

[RoastBeast]

Restaurants are difficult not just because of finding customers.

The management of food inventory is insanely difficult to balance having too much and the food not being fresh, or not having enough and disappointing customers. That's why a general rule of thumb should be, if you sit down at a restaurant and it has a huge variety of items to order, more than likely whatever you order is not going to be fresh. The restaurant has to keep so many different types of food items available just in case someone orders, and it's usually just sitting in a walk-in fridge for weeks or even months. This is why high end fancy places usually only have a couple choices, as there is more turnover for each item so it's going to be fresh.

They used to say 2 out of 3 startup restaurants fail. Not sure how true that is anymore...

Never thought about that but it does make a lot of sense. Probably why the food at BJs or Applebees isn't as fresh as some other places with much smaller menus.

Not that it's a high end restaurant but the Boston Market near me went out of business this year. It wasn't surprising because 3 out of the last 4 times I went there, they were out of chicken. It's like Popeyes or KFC being out of chicken. That's damn near the only meat that Boston Market served and they were consistently out of it. I'm sure others ran into the same issue and stopped wasting their time going.

 

[kahiljabroni]

Well, let's start with the basic information that you're leaving out while comparing people to yourself. How much is the person trying to save?

Because they might not be able to afford that car. You didn't mention what you pay for housing and what percentage of your income that was. You didn't describe what you spend on food.

So, if you're going to use your personal circumstances as the standard for hardship and frugality, we need some numbers.

Or you can acknowledge a simple truth that your definition of hardship and frugality might not be universal.

I defined what I personally consider being frugal. It'll obviously look different for everyone but essentially if you could afford a 1800 a month apartment... you instead choose the 1400 a month apartment.
If you can afford a 500 a month payment.... you buy a 8k car instead.

It's about looking for ways to eliminate expenses and live below your means so the extra money can be built into wealth. First in the form of cash and eventually into a house.


I think my original point was that people don't want to "own a home". They want to own the home they want, in the neighborhood they want, and they want it now. If they just want to "own a home" then it's achievable.

 

[kahiljabroni]

I agree with almost everything you're saying, but I don't think it applies to "everyone" or even most people. Especially now.

I've put away quite a bit of money by living intelligently and not wasting. Paying for a coffee at Starbucks seems insane to me when you consider how much cheaper it is at home for coffee that is at least as good. Restaurants are a rare treat for me, I took a friend to a steakhouse last week and it cost $250.00, which felt like a pointless waste of money.

My car is ten years old and I take care of it so it will probably last another ten. Maintenance is so much cheaper than repair.

It doesn't apply to most because it's not part of American mainstream culture. Not because it doesn't work.

 

[lowlife]

You're being a little disingenuous here.

To save for a house requires giving up some things. That's not automatically a hardship but it's a question of how many aspects of a healthy and happy life you have to give up to reasonably get that down payment that dictates if there's a hardship.

Yes this speaks to quality of life and what we as a society deem acceptable, generally speaking. Are we ok with an ever declining quality of life, so long as a certain number of us can still achieve a level of "success?" The "fuck you I got mine" or "I did it so there's absolutely no reason you can't" mentality is counterproductive to a healthy, happy society imo. It's a very narrow, selfish, unempathetic way to go through life; refusing to accept or acknowledge that your experience and/or situation doesn't necessarily reflect everyone else's. And it shouldn't! We are all different and we all face our own set of circumstances and challenges, what works for me might not necessarily work for the next man, and that's ok. I would expect things for the average hard working American to get better, easier with each passing generation, unfortunately it doesn't seem we're headed in that direction.

 

[panamaican]

I defined what I personally consider being frugal. It'll obviously look different for everyone but essentially if you could afford a 1800 a month apartment... you instead choose the 1400 a month apartment.
If you can afford a 500 a month payment.... you buy a 8k car instead.

It's about looking for ways to eliminate expenses and live below your means so the extra money can be built into wealth. First in the form of cash and eventually into a house.


I think my original point was that people don't want to "own a home". They want to own the home they want, in the neighborhood they want, and they want it now. If they just want to "own a home" then it's achievable.

I understood your point. What I'm disagreeing with, and maybe others are too, is that it's just a matter of frugality and that frugality is never a hardship.

For example, when I asked you for what you were paying in housing, I also asked what percentage of your income it represented. See frugality works when someone is spending 60% of their income on living expenses and they're asked to cut back to 40% but can still meet their needs. It doesn't work when someone is spending 75+% on living expenses and there's nowhere to reasonably cut without sacrificing basic needs.

Sometimes it is a hardship.

I mean you're talking about $1800 apartments when I'm thinking about people in $800/month apartments taking the bus to work. Could they cut out things to accelerate their savings? Sure. But it would basically rob them of having any kind of a life. And at that point, it's not "frugality" anymore.