Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That still proves my point. Things are priced out of reach in a system where working is supposed to put them in reach.
It's not that things are priced "out of reach." They may be "out of reach" for you, because you don't earn enough. But a manufacturer, or builder, must set prices that cover the costs, and return a profit.
A home builder might build both entry level homes, and luxury homes. You cannot expect the builder to price any home you choose "within your reach." And, if you cannot afford the entry level home, then you need to increase your income.
Also, I think you have a misunderstanding about work in general. Working is not supposed to "put things within your reach." Working may or may not, put things within your reach. An entry level job (requiring minimum skills, or no skills) isn't going to put very many things "within your reach," and you cannot expect an employer to pay more than a job is worth just to "put things within your reach." That isn't his concern, nor should it be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus
But no, we need help in the form of loans to get these things. And some of these things aren't as luxury based as yachts. Some of them are necessities like shelter, medical care and schooling.
You can rent, or live with your parents. Home ownership is not a "right." You do have the right to home ownership if you can afford to buy it. That's it. Period. You do not have the right to home ownership just because shelter is a basic need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus
And if we don't get the loans for these things or only get sub standard versions of these things, like maybe a trailer house instead of a colonial house, we get labelled as "poor" which indeed we may be compared to the other general population who were able to obtain better loans.
I'm really having trouble dealing with the basic stupidity of such reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus
So what does that say about a system where people are working but still need large loans to either obtain shelter or even not be relegated to sub standard shelter?
Think about what that says about the economic system. Once you see it, it's a stunning revelation.
What is stunning is the ignorance of your premise, and your total lack of reasoning ability.
He didn't do without, he just didn't impress the neighbors because he had a new car. I can buy a new car but own one that cost $2800. Wealth is accumulated, it's not given to you unless it's inherited. Not only is he wealthy but he is going to be able to pass that wealth on (hopefully to me). I'll combine that with what I have and pass it onto to my nieces and nephews.
Are you driving a new(er) car when a used one is going to get you from point a to b?
Do you buy a coffee at the store for $3 or $4 every morning when you can make a whole pot for 50 cents?
Do you eat out a lot when you can eat the same thing at home for 1/3 the cost?
Do you take an expensive vacation every year when there are cheaper alternatives?
Do you own the largest TV they make?
Does your computer have the latest and greatest graphics card that cost $500 that you can purchase for $100 if you wait 2 years?
If you're young and answer yes to those questions you are not making wise decisions. You need to live within your means. Granted a job at Mcdonalds isn't going to get you anywhere but if you have a decent job and don't have anything to show for it after 10 years you've made poor choices.
It's understandable that you would be blind it this because, like everyone else, you've been conditioned to expect less for your work. But when you consider there were other people at the time your bank bought your house for you who could have purchased the same house off a weeks or months pay without obtaining a loan and while working the same or less hours, it begins to put things in perspective. Why is capitalism working for them better than it is for you?
What I expect for my work is a fair exchange, according to my effort, my skills, and my knowledge; value for value. And, I have always received a fair salary or wage accordingly. As my skills and knowledge have increased, my pay has always increased accordingly, and I have received promotions accordingly as well.
As a self employed person (I have not always been self employed) I do not expect less for my work either, but I charge according to the value of the work I perform (currently, a self employed Web designer).
Your thinking is totally screwed up. It is not valid to compare your 40 hours work to the 40 hours of someone who makes enough to purchase [my house] "off a week or a months pay." Obviously, you are ignoring education, experience, intelligence, job knowledge, industry knowledge, and a long list of other factors that determine a persons value (or worth) to his employer. A top level executive who knows how to grow a company, make it profitable, and produce a product that creates a demand, is worth more than the guy on the production line doing a repetitive operation that requires no special skill, and does not require him to have any other special knowledge other than how to put part "A" and part "B" together.
Lee Iacoca was of great value to Chrysler (though he took no salary at first) because he understood the auto industry, knew how to build cars, understood finances (Chrysler's finances were a mess when he took over), and knew how to run the company efficiently. His 40 hours (he actually worked much more) simply do not equate to your 40 hours (for whatever it is you do). Iacoca made Chrysler profitable again, and he was so successful that Chrysler paid off the government guaranteed loans early.
Unfortunately, yours is the kind of thinking of too many liberal nut cases today, who are clueless about economics, finances, skills vs. salary, etc. Your thinking is totally flawed.
They are used as a way to drive up the costs of everything for everyone.
What's the point of a job if we have to go to someone else to buy a car, to buy a house, to replace our car in an accident, to repair our house, to pay for college, to open a business or to pay our medical bills? Why doesn't capitalism allow the majority of those under its system to manage and take care of these expenses themselves? Why is it only the "successful"?
If this is not true capitalism, why is it still working for the rich and well off (not the average) and their success attributed to capitalism?
It seems to me a truly successful economic system would bring self-sufficiency to the majority, the rich and non rich alike, not dependence on lending.
Loans mean dependence. Loans mean something is failing. Loans mean work is failing.
What's.the.point.of.a.job?
The point of a job is for you to keep paying your debts to somebody else for decades and decades. Indentured servitude.
There was no way to raise prices on people that weren't being paid enough so instead of paying people more, lending was invented. Now prices could be raised and the serfs could be corralled into debt to the banks.
Technology hasn't driven high prices. Banks have by telling everyone in business or with a practice to raise their prices. "Don't worry. Just send your clients to us and we'll pay your higher prices for them just as long as it gets them in our door and leaves them in debt to us for a while." And once banks got that, insurance companies needed to be created to pay for all these higher prices.
How stupid can we be?
And how very clever of them. Unfortunately, the wrong response is to keep buying and working. When you do that, they know you're stupid and they got you.
The proper response is to live with what you got.
No one forces anyone to borrow or loan money, so if you believe it is evil then do not take part in it. I was once like many others out there and up to my neck in debt, after having gone through some financial down turns I learned to budegt my money better and today I am totally debt free and own my property, my home and all my cars, boats, and bikes. That said I do understand that there are reasons a person may have to borrow money, my only suggestion is to keep it to a minimum and to pay off any loans as quickly as possible.
They are used as a way to drive up the costs of everything for everyone.
What's the point of a job if we have to go to someone else to buy a car, to buy a house, to replace our car in an accident, to repair our house, to pay for college, to open a business or to pay our medical bills? Why doesn't capitalism allow the majority of those under its system to manage and take care of these expenses themselves? Why is it only the "successful"?
If this is not true capitalism, why is it still working for the rich and well off (not the average) and their success attributed to capitalism?
It seems to me a truly successful economic system would bring self-sufficiency to the majority, the rich and non rich alike, not dependence on lending.
Loans mean dependence. Loans mean something is failing. Loans mean work is failing.
What's.the.point.of.a.job?
The point of a job is for you to keep paying your debts to somebody else for decades and decades. Indentured servitude.
There was no way to raise prices on people that weren't being paid enough so instead of paying people more, lending was invented. Now prices could be raised and the serfs could be corralled into debt to the banks.
Technology hasn't driven high prices. Banks have by telling everyone in business or with a practice to raise their prices. "Don't worry. Just send your clients to us and we'll pay your higher prices for them just as long as it gets them in our door and leaves them in debt to us for a while." And once banks got that, insurance companies needed to be created to pay for all these higher prices.
How stupid can we be?
And how very clever of them. Unfortunately, the wrong response is to keep buying and working. When you do that, they know you're stupid and they got you.
The proper response is to live with what you got.
Then DON'T take out a loan or buy insurance. No one cares what you think.
Without loans, lending and insurance what would the Money Changers do for a living? Do you really want to unemploy Wall Street? Who would keep us impoverished with credit card and education debt? How would we sustain this economy? How would the rich stay rich?
It's understandable that you would be blind it this because, like everyone else, you've been conditioned to expect less for your work. But when you consider there were other people at the time your bank bought your house for you who could have purchased the same house off a weeks or months pay without obtaining a loan and while working the same or less hours, it begins to put things in perspective. Why is capitalism working for them better than it is for you?
Very, very few people can buy a house outright on a week or month's pay. The vast majority of them are actors or professional athletes. Do you have the same skillset they do? Have you found anyone willing to pay you $10,000 an hour??
Without loans, lending and insurance what would the Money Changers do for a living?
If I own a home that I want to sell it right now for full payment and Shankapotomus doesn't have the cash to buy it how do you propose he be able to obtain the funding?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). I'll combine that with what I have and pass it onto to my nieces and nephews.
