Food prices jump.
By on Jun 4th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Food prices jump.
Food prices have increased 3.7 percent in the past year. They are on track to rise “by as much as 7 percent by year’s end. … The current increase is more than double the 1.8 percent jump seen the year before, according to the consumer price index. Meanwhile, gas prices rose 2.9 percent. Only the cost of health care rose more, and then just slightly.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
And all the hard-working middle class people didn’t see an increase in salaries…
Cruel conservativism is at it again.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:36 amEthanol and petroleum are the reason food prices are going up.
People need to rise up to stop Corn from being used as fuel.
If you don’t great depression will look like a tea party.
To further muddle the issue wait until specific element are scarce.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:37 amhttp://ergobalance.blogspot.com/2007/06/selling-off-family-silver-platinum-etc.html
And so, it begins…..
June 4th, 2007 at 10:38 amTwo weeks ago a gallon of milk at Costco was $2.39. Last week it was $2.69. This week it’s $2.99. That was fast.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:41 amBush Regime wants poor Americans to starve to death and Middle Class Americans to become poor eventually.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:42 amFood is still far cheaper than it used to be in the 1950s.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:43 amComment by Alejandro
Golly, I wish milk was $2.99 in my area. I can get 1/2 a gallon at that price.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:45 amPLEASE stop using corn to make fuel. Please, just stop.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:47 amNow you liberals want food too?
June 4th, 2007 at 10:47 amCheaper than the 50’s…compared to what?
June 4th, 2007 at 10:47 am“Food is still far cheaper than it used to be in the 1950s.”
I am sure you have a point. I just don’t think anyone knows what it is.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:48 amm12 > lol you were not even alive in the 1950s, so how the hell do you know what is was like then? People got paid less, but money went further than now. My parents bought their first house in 1953 for $12,500 and it was brand new house.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:50 amAccording to the emiment Brookings Institution, the lowest 20% of the US population’s income jumped 35% in the period from 1996 – 2005. More so than any other time period in history.
1. Tax cuts work
2. The “jump” (3.7%) is related to the overall measure of inflation and is vastly surpassed in terms of real wealth gains by all Americans.
Keep the tax cuts!
June 4th, 2007 at 10:50 amunbelievable from post #1:
Once again, rhetoric without facts from the liberals. In fact, take a look at my post just above and note that incomes JUMPED for all Americans in the past 6 years and in fact is the largest increase of all time. Your little post, while pithy, is false.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:52 amJT, you post utter fabricated fiction.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:54 amHere’s the latest economic study from the Brookings Inst. Read it.
http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/sawhill/200705.htm
for those of you who can’t read, here’s the gist.
For more than two centuries, economic opportunity and the prospect of upward mobility have formed the bedrock upon which the American story has been anchored — inspiring people in distant lands to seek our shores and sustaining the unwavering optimism of Americans at home. From the hopes of the earliest settlers to the aspirations of today’s diverse population, the American Dream unites us in a common quest for individual and national success. But new data suggest that this once solid ground may well be shifting. This raises provocative questions about the continuing ability of all Americans to move up the economic ladder and calls into question whether the American economic meritocracy is still alive and well.
Show your citation JT…
June 4th, 2007 at 10:56 amJT,
Oh I see, so in this case the residual effect of the longest period of economic expansion in American history during the Clinton administration is attributable to Dubya?
Sell crazy somewhere else.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:57 am#12
There is plenty of data regarding food price inflation and family budgeting. Look it up.
Funny thing, though. Back in the 1950s, people used to live in simple, small houses. Now, the average poor person has 3 bedrooms and cable tv.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:59 amthe Congressional Budget Office
June 4th, 2007 at 10:59 amfinds that between 1979 and 2004, the real after-tax
income of the poorest one-fifth of Americans rose by 9
percent, that of the richest one-fifth by 69 percent, and
that of the top 1 percent by 176 percent.
#8
Or we could import ethanol at cheap prices. But Dick Turbin and Barack Osama won’t allow it.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:00 amHey Y’all, think of the bright side. We haven’t been attacked.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:01 amTheLiberalMedia in post #15:
Not true. For your convenience, I have posted the URL of the article I referenced in my earlier posts below:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/jun/03/rise-of-the-bottom-fifth/
Read it very carefully. There is no need for you to recant your wrong post [#15] since everbody knows, from your posting history, that you, with the moniker TheLiberalMedia, has no credibility. Cheers.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:01 amToo funny JT you have this whole thing, but just like M12 or the other right wingers no actual links or facts.
please you are a light weight. The average person has seen the price of everything increase dramatically. Yes use of corn for ethonal contributes, but so does the tripling of gas prices since 2000. Get a grip man, did you see the chinese stock market dropped 8.3%, it hasn’t caused that much of a problem, but given how much of the US debt China owes, continued losses could spell trouble. Give up you false God, leave the Bush cult, and try thinking for yourself instead of being a lemming rushing to the cliff.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:01 amFood is still far cheaper than it used to be in the 1950s.
Comment by m12 — June 4, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Do you not know how to use “The Google” yet?
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/50sfood.html
American Cheese 45 cents per pound New Hampshire 1950
Apples 39 cents for 2 pounds Florida 1952
Bananas 27 cents for 2 pounds Ohio 1957
Box of Chocolates $1.86 for 1lb Florida 1955
Cabbage 6 cents per pound New Hampshire 1950
Campbells Tomato Soup 10 cents Ohio 1957
Carnation Milk Can 14 cents Ohio 1957
Chickens 43 cents per pound New Hampshire 1950
June 4th, 2007 at 11:02 amBush’s tax cuts have only worked to give us record deficits, move more Americans into poverty, and funnel money to the richest 1% of Americans (aka “Bush’s Base”).
Here’s what Republicans think of as “tax cuts working”:
Feb. 22, 2007: The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation’s “haves” and “have-nots” continues to widen. The number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That’s 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16760690.htm
June 4th, 2007 at 11:03 am#18,
Er, is any of that BS actually supposed to be true? On that note, instead of, like, comparing the present with what life used to be like, could we, like, compare the present with what life SHOULD be like?
Boink.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:04 amOnce again, rhetoric without facts from the liberals.
I, my friends and my family have jobs. It’s spoken from experience, not manipulated Nazi propaganda “statistics” that you right-wingers rely upon to replace your lack of critical thinking skills.
In fact, take a look at my post just above and note that incomes JUMPED for all Americans in the past 6 years and in fact is the largest increase of all time.
Your study includes more time under the Clinton Administration than the Bush Regime. Those numbers were Clinton’s doing – not Bush’s.
And where are the numbers from 2001 to 2007?
Stop taking credit for what Clinton did.
Your little post, while pithy, is false.
Comment by JT — June 4, 2007 @ 10:52 am
It’s true. It’s why you have to steal Clintron’s data to get positive numbers…
June 4th, 2007 at 11:06 amLook like you link is dead before it could begin there JT, funny you quote some rightard site, but not the brookings institute directly.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:06 amNow, the average poor person has 3 bedrooms and cable tv.
Comment by m12 — June 4, 2007 @ 10:59 am
I call you on that nonsense.
Prove it.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:07 am#24
Uh huh. Now why don’t you compare those prices to total household income at the time?
June 4th, 2007 at 11:07 amHey Y’all, think of the bright side. We haven’t been attacked.
Comment by Redneck, Redstate — June 4, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Are you blind?
We get attacked daily in Iraq. Or don’t you care about those Americans? You know, the ones fighting for you?
June 4th, 2007 at 11:08 amShow your citation JT…
Comment by RUCerious — June 4, 2007 @ 10:56 am
NO!! I don’t want to see his ass.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:09 am#22.
The daily camera? That is your source. Why not an episode fo “The Flintstones”, or maybe FOX News even.
Come on man. That is laughable garbage you are citing. You are guilty to searching for anything that will support your already concluded views – which are horribly wrong.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:10 amNumbers can be deceiving.
Most of the increase was not in income, but earnings, which included the tax advantages built in by congress.
Low-income households headed by single
women had lower income, on average, than did other
low-income households (see Figure 6).12 In 2005, for
female-headed low-income households, the average
income was $13,700, nearly 30 percent higher than in
1991. The average income for other low-income households
with children was $20,400 in 2005, 35 percent
higher than in 1991.
Ain’t it great that low income households headed by single
June 4th, 2007 at 11:12 amwomen averaged $13,700 a year?
You couldn’t live on that, could you JT?
the Congressional Budget Office
finds that between 1979 and 2004, the real after-tax income of the poorest one-fifth of Americans rose by 9
Considering inflation, at about 1% per year on average (which equals 25% for that time periods), it is actually a DECREASE in income by almost 15%.
percent, that of the richest one-fifth by 69 percent, and that of the top 1 percent by 176 percent.
Comment by RUCerious — June 4, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Considering a limited amount of resources, it’s Reverse Robin Hood Syndrome… Appallling
June 4th, 2007 at 11:12 amDespite attempts to obfuscate the issue there M12, in the 50’s a family could have a single income, buy a home, a car, and maintain a decent lifestyle. Now it takes to incomes, or a very high single income to live the same life. It really doesn’t match up.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:12 amBTW, the citation is from the Congressional Budget office, not the Brookings institute.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:13 amCome on, JT, pull another piece of out of context data out of your ass.
#29
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:13 amSeventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
#30,
Why don’t you worry about the present?
“Oh, I would, you know, worry about things that pertain to what’s going on now, but….OH MY GOD, THE POLAR ICE CAPS ON MARS ARE MELTING! THAT MEANS THE SOLAR SYSTEM’S GETTING WARMER, AND WE CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE! OH NOES!”
we could aspire to make peace in the world, but,
“Oh, there wasn’t peace during the Crusades, so f*** peace.”
Ah, the conservative way. Things could be better, but because because the circumstances are worse somewhere else, or because things were worse in the past, eh, who cares about trying to improve things! I think that was their philosophy in the Dark Ages, too…
June 4th, 2007 at 11:14 amJT: Did you read the link I posted in #25. No need to recant your “the tax cuts are working” statement because that’s clear to anyone who has read a newspaper in the past year.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:15 amHey Y’all, think of the bright side. We haven’t been attacked.
Comment by Redneck, Redstate — June 4, 2007
As long as you don’t count wheat gluten contaminated with melamine, and toothpaste with anti-freeze in it as the artificial sweetener…..
June 4th, 2007 at 11:15 am#26
Should be like according to who?
June 4th, 2007 at 11:16 amTwo weeks ago a gallon of milk at Costco was $2.39. Last week it was $2.69. This week it’s $2.99. That was fast.
Comment by Alejandro
At Safeway milk was buy one get on free at $2.45.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:17 amConsidering inflation, at about 1% per year on average (which equals 25% for that time periods), it is actually a DECREASE in income by almost 15%.
Uh, you do realize that real after tax values already adjust for inflation?
June 4th, 2007 at 11:17 amDespite attempts to obfuscate the issue there M12, in the 50’s a family could have a single income, buy a home, a car, and maintain a decent lifestyle. Now it takes to incomes, or a very high single income to live the same life. It really doesn’t match up.
Not the same lifestyle. A lifestyle with a home that’s twice the size, multiple cars, air conditioning, television, and expensive healthcare paid for by others.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:19 amLast time I looked, food wasn’t the ONLY expense each household has.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:21 am“At Safeway milk was buy one get on free at $2.45.”
Comment by timmy
I’m sure Alejandro wasn’t buying the past due date milk, timmy.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:22 am(There’s a plate of cookies waiting for you a couple threads back…)
Uh huh. Now why don’t you compare those prices to total household income at the time?
Comment by m12 — June 4, 2007 @ 11:07 am
You said that food cost more back then. It didn’t. I proved you WRONG, so now you want to try to move the goal posts?
But okay… You’re still wrong.
Annual family income was $5000
It is now $18850
So, roughly, it was 25% of what it is now.
American Cheese 45 cents per pound New Hampshire 1950 (45X4= 1.80)
Apples 39 cents for 2 pounds Florida 1952 (39X4=1.56)
Bananas 27 cents for 2 pounds Ohio 1957 (27X4=1.12)
etc.
You’re still wrong.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:23 amNO!! I don’t want to see his ass.
Comment by Zooey — June 4, 2007 @ 11:09 am
LOL!
June 4th, 2007 at 11:24 amI guess you’re right, m12.
In addition to importing more ethanol, we should buy off some big oil from Mexico. But no, the anti-trade weenies won’t allow it.
Everything could be so cheap, but things are so unnecessarily tangled here. And you’re right: Obama wouldn’t make a good economic president.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:25 am#48
I figured it would be obvious that you have to compare prices in the 1950s to income in the 1950s, and nobody would be foolish enough to do otherwise.
But your figures are wrong. Average household income is about $43k.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:27 am“At Safeway milk was buy one get on free at $2.45.â€
Comment by timmy
I’m sure Alejandro wasn’t buying the past due date milk, timmy.
(There’s a plate of cookies waiting for you a couple threads back…)
Comment by heyzeus
Expiration date is June 12th. I don’t think Safeway would sell expired milk…probably not good for business.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:27 amUh, you do realize that real after tax values already adjust for inflation?
Comment by m12 — June 4, 2007 @ 11:17 am
No they don’t. And I think it’s interesting you IGNORED the other half of RUCerious’s post about how much rich people’s income increased.
You’re going to tell me that one person can owrk 176 times harder than another person who is working a full-time job? No way.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:30 amZooey > the Bush trolls like m12 want us all to believe that life in America under the Bush Regime is wonderfull, but it stinks badly. I would prefer to live in circa 1950’s again. I had a very happy childhood in the 1950s and I knew all my neighbors too. Milk was left fresh on your doorstep and the Helms bakery truck would drive down our street with fresh bread and cookies. My hometown in California had orange groves galore. All of it is gone now and only a memory.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:30 amThe demand for food is destroyed by hyper inflation (rising prices) that arrives as a consequence of demand out stepping supply. This is a substitute for rationing since the wealthy get to eat and the poor starve. Inflation, war, shortages, crashing dollar all spell “depression”
June 4th, 2007 at 11:31 amI can remember when a loaf of bread cost 35 cents and the average price of a house was around $27,000, if not less, during the 1950s. Even factoring in inflation and the rise of wages in the early twenty first century [though not that great, if at all, among the working class and the poor] the price of everyday goods today compared to fifty years ago can still be considered to be fairly expensive.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:31 amShow your citation JT
Comment by RUCerious — June 4, 2007 @ 10:56 am
JT must have meant some OTHER “emiment” Brookings Institution.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:32 amtimmy and heyzeus,
Do you think its possible that food prices would be aggravated or improved should this amnesty bill pass Congress, in terms of extra population/agricultural labor?
June 4th, 2007 at 11:32 am#53
Real values adjust for inflation. If you do not understand something so simple I suggest you do some reading.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:35 amYou’re going to tell me that one person can owrk 176 times harder than another person who is working a full-time job? No way.
Comment by unbelievable
No, but a person can be 176 times more valuable to a company than somebody else. It is a little harder to find a CEO that makes mult-million dollar decisions than it is to find a night janitor.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:35 amZooey > the Bush trolls like m12 want us all to believe that life in America under the Bush Regime is wonderfull, but it stinks badly. I would prefer to live in circa 1950’s again. I had a very happy childhood in the 1950s and I knew all my neighbors too. Milk was left fresh on your doorstep and the Helms bakery truck would drive down our street with fresh bread and cookies. My hometown in California had orange groves galore. All of it is gone now and only a memory.
I would, too. Easily avoidable income taxes and no Medicare entitlement program.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:36 amZooey > the Bush trolls like m12 want us all to believe that life in America under the Bush Regime is wonderfull, but it stinks badly. I would prefer to live in circa 1950’s again. I had a very happy childhood in the 1950s and I knew all my neighbors too. Milk was left fresh on your doorstep and the Helms bakery truck would drive down our street with fresh bread and cookies. My hometown in California had orange groves galore. All of it is gone now and only a memory.
Comment by Jay Randal
I think they stopped delivering milk on the doorstep a little bit before 2001, when Bush became president.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:38 amAin’t it great that low income households headed by single
women averaged $13,700 a year?
You couldn’t live on that, could you JT?
Comment by RUCerious
JT probably could. His mom doesn’t charge him much to stay in the sub-basement.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:39 am“Do you think its possible that food prices would be aggravated or improved should this amnesty bill pass Congress, in terms of extra population/agricultural labor?”
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
It’s primarily the cost of fuels (gasoline and diesel) for production and distribution which is causing the price of food to rise.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:39 amDo you think its possible that food prices would be aggravated or improved should this amnesty bill pass Congress, in terms of extra population/agricultural labor?
Comment by CompTROLLER V-
They will probably go up as the guest workers will have to be paid at least minimum wage.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:40 am43% of all stastics are made up on the spot. 73% of all made up statistics are presented as facts. 4 out of 3 people don’t understand math.
The trolls are making up stats quicker than they can pull their pants down at a boy scout jamboree.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:40 amListen trolls, I don’t care what figures you pull out of any orifice you possess — we don’t live in the 50s, and our dollars don’t go as far as they used to.
Americans need to learn to live more simply, and stop spending so much money on non-essentials. There are more non-essentials than essentials — believe me.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:41 am“No, but a person can be 176 times more valuable to a company than somebody else. It is a little harder to find a CEO that makes mult-million dollar decisions than it is to find a night janitor.”
Comment by timmy
Are you sure? I mean, look at the calibre of employee we have as pResident for the moment…
June 4th, 2007 at 11:41 amNearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Comment by m12
You forget the poor without households, that have to flop with family or friends or are homeless. But really “The Heritage Foundation”, you’re joking right.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:44 amhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
Comment by m12 — June 4, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Your “source” didn’t provide citations for this.
It’s also a biased source. If you instead google the subject and take a look at the university research done on the matter, the fact is that most poor people live in poor housing conditions, which are leading to poor health and poor conditions for their children.
Poor people are not living well off. They are living in envirnoments that are hazardous to their health.
Shame on you for trying to lie about this serious matter.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:44 amBut your figures are wrong. Average household income is about $43k.
Comment by m12 — June 4, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Source?
June 4th, 2007 at 11:46 amAt Safeway milk was buy one get on free at $2.45.
Comment by timmy
No, it wasn’t.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:46 amAre you sure? I mean, look at the calibre of employee we have as pResident for the moment…
Comment by heyzeus
Just shows how hard it is to find a quality person to run a company if it is so hard to find a quality person to run the country.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:46 amAt Safeway milk was buy one get on free at $2.45.
Comment by timmy
No, it wasn’t.
Comment by shane
Would you like me to fax you my receipt?
June 4th, 2007 at 11:47 amReal values adjust for inflation. If you do not understand something so simple I suggest you do some reading.
Comment by m12 — June 4, 2007 @ 11:35 am
I made an A in my Economics class in college. I’m not reading your right-wing propaganda and pretending it’s of any value to anyone buy those of you who want to get our of paying your fair share.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:48 amthe best quality money can buy, timmy…..
June 4th, 2007 at 11:51 amNo, but a person can be 176 times more valuable to a company than somebody else.
Not 176 times more valuable.
It is a little harder to find a CEO that makes mult-million dollar decisions than it is to find a night janitor.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Not 176 times harder.
I’ve seen companies run just fine when the CEO goes on vacation for a month, but not nearly as well when the janitor is out sick for one day.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:51 amJT
“Tax cuts work”
Only if you couple it with decreased spending. If you don’t do that, then you must borrow to make up the difference. If you borrow to pay for you tax ‘cut’, then it only becomes a tax deferral. We will have to raise taxes at somepoint to pay for these fiscal conservatives inability to reign in spending.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:51 amI think they stopped delivering milk on the doorstep a little bit before 2001, when Bush became president.
Comment by timmy
They still deliver milk in wealthy neighborhoods. But you wouldn’t know.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:51 amAt Safeway milk was buy one get on free at $2.45.
Comment by timmy
No, it wasn’t.
Comment by shane
Would you like me to fax you my receipt?
Comment by timmy
http://shop.safeway.com/superstore/sixframeset.asp?mainurl=http://safeway1.inserts2online.com/storeReview.jsp?drpStoreID=234
June 4th, 2007 at 11:52 am#71
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income04/statemhi.html
June 4th, 2007 at 11:53 am43% of all stastics are made up on the spot. 73% of all made up statistics are presented as facts. 4 out of 3 people don’t understand math.
The trolls are making up stats quicker than they can pull their pants down at a boy scout jamboree.
Comment by paland
ROFLMAO, thanks.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:53 amNot 176 times more valuable.
It is a little harder to find a CEO that makes mult-million dollar decisions than it is to find a night janitor.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Not 176 times harder.
I’ve seen companies run just fine when the CEO goes on vacation for a month, but not nearly as well when the janitor is out sick for one day.
Comment by unbelievable
Yes 176 times harder, even more actually. A company could put out an ad for a janitor and get hundreds of quality applicants the next day. If a company puts out an ad for new CEO, how many quality applicants would they get at the same salary they are paying the jantior? It is simple supply and demand.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:55 amJust shows how hard it is to find a quality person to run a company if it is so hard to find a quality person to run the country.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Nonsense.
Bush stole the elections. He wasn’t hired for teh job.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:55 amThey still deliver milk in wealthy neighborhoods. But you wouldn’t know.
Comment by shane
Nope, I am just a middle class guy.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:56 amNonsense.
Bush stole the elections. He wasn’t hired for teh job.
Comment by unbelievable
He was elected twice, there was nothing stolen.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:56 amhttp://www.census.gov/ hhes/ www/ income/ income04/ statemhi.html
Comment by m12 — June 4, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Better link, but we were talking about AVERAGE not median incomes. Your link was to median incomes. Do you know the difference between average and median? They aren’t the same.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:57 amWould you like me to fax you my receipt?
Comment by timmy
Scan it and link it here. There are loss leaders, look it up. But I get Safeway sales pages and if you paid that it was an instore special because of an overstock.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:58 amYou forget the poor without households, that have to flop with family or friends or are homeless. But really “The Heritage Foundationâ€, you’re joking right.
Not joking at all. But you can choose to believe whatever you want.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:58 amInflation and jobs numbers came out last friday, so no need to “guess” on what the numbers are.
US inflation rate is 2.6%. From the same article, wages are up 3.8%.
Therefore, wages outpaced inflation by 1.2%.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:58 am#80
Pathetic, ignorant little Timmy doesn’t understand the concept of a loss leader.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:59 amScan it and link it here. There are loss leaders, look it up. But I get Safeway sales pages and if you paid that it was an instore special because of an overstock.
Comment by shane
I don’t have a scanner, I did post the ad above though. It does not show the price, but says it is buy one get on free.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pmPathetic, ignorant little Timmy doesn’t understand the concept of a loss leader.
Comment by Newt Gringo
All I said was what I paid for milk, and people questioned it.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:01 pmYes 176 times harder, even more actually.
Proof?
A company could put out an ad for a janitor and get hundreds of quality applicants the next day. If a company puts out an ad for new CEO, how many quality applicants would they get at the same salary they are paying the jantior? It is simple supply and demand.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Since you’re asking me, it means you don’t know the answer. Just giving me your opinion.
Companies hire and fire CEOs all the time with no problem. Think about the IBM situation not that long ago. Certainly seems harder to find a good janitor…
June 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pmHe was elected twice, there was nothing stolen.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 11:56 am
No, he wasn’t. Karl Rove manipulated the vote by disenfranchizing poor and black voters who generally vote Democratic.
Why do you think Tim Griffin resigned last week? Because Greg Palast has turned proof of this “voter caging” over to the authorities.
Wake up. You’ve voting against your own self-interests and values. The neocons tell you what you want to hear, but do the opposite.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pm#87
The mean income is above $60k.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new06_000.htm
June 4th, 2007 at 12:06 pm#90
That was a Chinese web site. The US government came out with their statistics and inflation was 3.4%. But this number doesn’t include food or energy, of course. Else the real number is closer to 10.5%. And if you think that is bad, watch what happens the rest of the year while stores have to compensate their prices with the cost of transportation.
Hyperinflation here we come!
June 4th, 2007 at 12:07 pmThe mean income in the US is NOT 60K. The 43k figure is the mean income of HOUSEHOLDS. The mean income of American workers is closer to 22k.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pm#90
Shhhhh! Only bad news is tolerated here!
June 4th, 2007 at 12:10 pmYes 176 times harder, even more actually.
Proof?
Prove otherwise…the proof is that companies pay that much for CEOs. The goal is to make money, they don’t want to just throw money away on unnecessary salaries.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:11 pm#93
You omitted the salient fact that the price you paid was not the regular price, but a sale price.
And that lie of omission destroys your entire argument.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:11 pmSince you’re asking me, it means you don’t know the answer. Just giving me your opinion.
Companies hire and fire CEOs all the time with no problem. Think about the IBM situation not that long ago. Certainly seems harder to find a good janitor…
Comment by unbelievable
I know the answer, you will not get a quality CEO at the same pay as the janitor. Yes companies go through CEOs often, that just shows that it is hard to find a good one that will improve the financial standing of the company. It is really hard to have a discussion with somebody that has no economic reasoning. Harder to find a good janitor than a good CEO??????????????????????????
June 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pmAll is fabulous in Bushlandia, so drink the spiked Kool-Aid.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:14 pmYou omitted the salient fact that the price you paid was not the regular price, but a sale price.
And that lie of omission destroys your entire argument.
Comment by Newt Gringo
I said it was the price I paid. Stores have sales all the time, a smart shopper does not have to pay $3 for a gallon of milk.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:14 pmUS inflation rate is 2.6%. From the same article, wages are up 3.8%.
Therefore, wages outpaced inflation by 1.2%.
Comment by muckdog — June 4, 2007 @ 11:58 am
But it’s not a one-size-fits-all.
Compared to RUCerious’s division of the pie, in strong favor for the wealthy, wages for the Average American are stagnant, at best.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm“…but says it is buy one get on free.”
Comment by timmy
I get it that you are buying milk, timmy, but what are you getting on?
June 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pmThe bus? To go home?
No, he wasn’t. Karl Rove manipulated the vote by disenfranchizing poor and black voters who generally vote Democratic.
Why do you think Tim Griffin resigned last week? Because Greg Palast has turned proof of this “voter caging†over to the authorities.
Wake up. You’ve voting against your own self-interests and values. The neocons tell you what you want to hear, but do the opposite.
Comment by unbelievable
Why have we not heard anything from Kerry and Gore on losing because the elections were stolen?
June 4th, 2007 at 12:16 pmI get it that you are buying milk, timmy, but what are you getting on?
The bus? To go home?
Comment by heyzeus
I don’t understand the question.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pmThe mean income is above $60k.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/ macro/ 032005/ hhinc/ new06_000.htm
Comment by m12 — June 4, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
According to this link, there are only 115,000 households in the US.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pm“Why have we not heard anything from Kerry and Gore on losing because the elections were stolen?”
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007
“The wheels of the gods grind slow, yet exceedingly fine…”
June 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pmAll is fabulous in Bushlandia and I need a stronger dozage of drugs in the Kool-Aid to believe it.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pm#109
No, idiot, those numbers are in the thousands, putting the total at 113 million.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:21 pm“I don’t understand the question.”
Comment by timmy
Hey man, you brought up the issue of how difficult it is to find qualified personnel……being able to read and write is generally a concern for a prospective employer…
June 4th, 2007 at 12:23 pm#97
CPI puts April 06 – April 07 inflation at 2.6%.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
June 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pmThe mean income is above $60k.
Comment by m12 — June 4, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
No, the mean income for “Table HINC-06. Income Distribution to $250,000 or More for Households: 2004″ used only 113,146 households in the statistics. THAT number, not the US mean is 60,528.
Keep trying. Cry uncle if you must…
June 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pmEverybody is doing well in Bushlandia? > give me the whole pitcher of Kool-Aid to drink, because all I see are unhappy poor people and the Middle Class going downhill.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pmThe mean income of American workers is closer to 22k.
Comment by paland — June 4, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
The $18,885 number I used above was from 2000, so you’re right, it probably is up to $22,000 by now.
m12 just can’t accept the fact that he was wrong when he said that food prices in 1950’s were more than they are now. They weren’t.
Also, I think he’s shocked by the reality that the Average American is poor, because it pokes huge holes in the lies told to him by his beloved GOP.
See, m12, we told you that reality has a liberal bias. :D
June 4th, 2007 at 12:28 pmYou can’t measure income by the mean because just 10 people will jump that number astronomically high. Bill Gates will have over 20 Billion and that one man makes the mean jump $200 per person. Now multiply that by the richest 500 and you get a very high mean.
The better way is to use the median, the half way point. Then you see where half are above and half below.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:29 pmNot joking at all. But you can choose to believe whatever you want. — Comment by m12
Given their biased track record and history of making false claims, I’ll choose NOT to believe the Heritage Foundation.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:29 pmNo, the mean income for “Table HINC-06. Income Distribution to $250,000 or More for Households: 2004″ used only 113,146 households in the statistics. THAT number, not the US mean is 60,528.
Keep trying. Cry uncle if you must…
Reading is fundamental! See post 112.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:31 pmProve otherwise…
No, timmy dear, it is he who suggests that there is a teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars that must prove it.
Burden is on he who makes the claim.
the proof is that companies pay that much for CEOs.
That’s no more proof than a quarter under your pillow in the morning is proof of the tooth fairy.
The goal is to make money, they don’t want to just throw money away on unnecessary salaries.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
That should be the primary goal. And there’s now legislation before Congress to suggest that CEO salaries should be voted upon by stock holders. Not cool when your fellow rich folk began to think you’re getting paid too much too…
June 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pmunbelievable > How much can Rove pay somebody like m12 to post on TP? No way can it be $60,000, so way closer to minimum wage. GOP convinces their supplicant followers that they can be rich someday too.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pmI get it that you are buying milk, timmy, but what are you getting on?
The bus? To go home?
Hey man, you brought up the issue of how difficult it is to find qualified personnel……being able to read and write is generally a concern for a prospective employer…
Comment by heyzeus
Your question at the top does not make any sense. I agree that being able to write is generally a concern for a prospective employer…keep working on it, you will get it.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pm#118
Yep, and median household income is at $43k. Well, it was in 2003, its closer to $46k now.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:35 pmThe percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high. The number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That’s 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16760690.htm
Who cares about the mean income? Doesn’t mean squat. paland is right.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:37 pm#113
he he
June 4th, 2007 at 12:37 pmI know the answer, you will not get a quality CEO at the same pay as the janitor.
NOT what I suggested. What I suggested is that the CEO does not work 176 times harder than any of his full-time employees.
There are 24 hours in the day, and except for vampires like Dick-tater Cheney, most people sleep at least 5 of those. Factor in commuting to work, showering, etc. There are only about 18 hours one person can work in a day. If someone did this every day, it’s still NOT 176 times of anything else.
I do agree CEO’s should make more $ than their average employee – but not 176 times as much. If I make $50,000 and the CEO makes $500,000 – that’s only 10 times as much. Half a million is STILL very well off…
Yes companies go through CEOs often, that just shows that it is hard to find a good one that will improve the financial standing of the company.
How so? Please elucidate upon your claim.
It is really hard to have a discussion with somebody that has no economic reasoning.
Thanks for understanding my frustration in “debating” you.
Harder to find a good janitor than a good CEO??????????????????????????
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
No sense of humor either?
You know, all those punctuation points suggest you’re foaming at the mouth…. Should cut back on the milk. It’s known to produce excess mucus.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:39 pmtimmy…read (carefully) your own original post with the phrase “buy one, and get on free”, then get back to us….
“keep working on it, you will get it.”
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
June 4th, 2007 at 12:40 pmWhy have we not heard anything from Kerry and Gore on losing because the elections were stolen?
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
I try not to speak for other people. Ask them.
John Edwards is running for President partly because he is pissed off that Kerry just conceded too. He wanted to fight it. He has said so.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:41 pmNo, timmy dear, it is he who suggests that there is a teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars that must prove it.
Burden is on he who makes the claim.
You are the one that made the claim that nobody is worth 176 times somebody else that is working full time. You made that claim first…the burden is on you. Prove that a janitor is worth a salary closer to that of a CEO.
That’s no more proof than a quarter under your pillow in the morning is proof of the tooth fairy.
A CEOs salary is real, they are paid that much for a reason. Why do you think shareholders would be willing to pay somebody a salary that they are not worth? Why would stockholders invest in a company that pays its CEOs much more than they have to?
That should be the primary goal. And there’s now legislation before Congress to suggest that CEO salaries should be voted upon by stock holders. Not cool when your fellow rich folk began to think you’re getting paid too much too…
The reasont they are paid so much is because they deserve it. They make much more than that for the company, otherwise they would not keep their jobs as you pointed out when they get fired. It is highly competative and results are demanded.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:44 pmThe better way is to use the median, the half way point. Then you see where half are above and half below.
Comment by paland — June 4, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
The median is still much higher – twice as high as the Average American’s income.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:44 pmReading is fundamental! See post 112.
Comment by m12 — June 4, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Clearly… Your table is about “Income Distribution to $250,000 or More for Households”
June 4th, 2007 at 12:47 pmHow much can Rove pay somebody like m12 to post on TP? No way can it be $60,000, so way closer to minimum wage. GOP convinces their supplicant followers that they can be rich someday too.
Comment by Jay Randal — June 4, 2007 @ 12:34
I’m sure he’s promised him things he will never deliver…. Typical GOP tactic.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:48 pmI don’t have a scanner, I did post the ad above though. It does not show the price, but says it is buy one get on free.
Comment by timmy
That’s right, it does not show the price and buy one get one free at Safeway is full price, not $2.45. But really, why did you even start this nonsense.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:49 pmShhhhh! Only bad news is tolerated here!
Comment by m12
“Bad news” like you, timmy and muckdog IS tolerated around here. You should be grateful.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:52 pmNOT what I suggested. What I suggested is that the CEO does not work 176 times harder than any of his full-time employees.
There are 24 hours in the day, and except for vampires like Dick-tater Cheney, most people sleep at least 5 of those. Factor in commuting to work, showering, etc. There are only about 18 hours one person can work in a day. If someone did this every day, it’s still NOT 176 times of anything else.
I do agree CEO’s should make more $ than their average employee – but not 176 times as much. If I make $50,000 and the CEO makes $500,000 – that’s only 10 times as much. Half a million is STILL very well off…
Comment by unbelievable
You are assuming pay is based on how hard one works. That does not make sense. Pay is based on the benefit to the company and how many people can do the job. Millions of poeple can be janitors as you don’t even need to graduate highschool to do the job, but the pool of qualified CEOs is a lot smaller. You can break this down into hours of the week all you want, but in one hour a CEO is going to make 5 decisions that are more important than a janitor will make all year. If a CEO comes in and makes $50 million more in profit annually due to his decisions, why shouldn’t he make $5 million a year.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pmEverybody is doing well in Bushlandia? > give me the whole pitcher of Kool-Aid to drink, because all I see are unhappy poor people and the Middle Class going downhill.
Comment by Jay Randal
The trolls show it’s easier to just shut your eyes and believe everything they tell you on Fox News.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pm#134
Unfortunately, I deal with Timmies all the time. Smarts, not so much. Debate skills, nil. They deal with reality by denial and talking nonsense.
’sOkay, Timmy. We’re sending our love down the well…
June 4th, 2007 at 12:57 pmThat’s right, it does not show the price and buy one get one free at Safeway is full price, not $2.45. But really, why did you even start this nonsense.
Comment by shane
Because somebody said that the price of milk raised considerably quickly and I was pointing out that I purchased 2 gallons for less than the one he purchased. I shop at Safeway every week and they often give the buy one get one free promotion on milk. At least once a month.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:58 pmYou are the one that made the claim that nobody is worth 176 times somebody else that is working full time. You made that claim first…the burden is on you. Prove that a janitor is worth a salary closer to that of a CEO.
Actually I said that you (in the generic sense) would now try to claim that one person clould work 176 times harder than another. See the diff?
I never claimed a janitor should make the same as a CEO. You brought in the CEO and the janitor.
If I make $50,000, and my CEO makes 176 times that much – which is close to $100,000,000. You are cool with that? If so – why?
A CEOs salary is real, they are paid that much for a reason.
Which is? I’m waiting for your argument instead of your speculative assumption on the matter.
Why do you think shareholders would be willing to pay somebody a salary that they are not worth? Why would stockholders invest in a company that pays its CEOs much more than they have to?
So, when Safeway stops selling milk at two-for-one, you gonna pay regular price? Why?
There’s your answer.
The reasont they are paid so much is because they deserve it. They make much more than that for the company, otherwise they would not keep their jobs as you pointed out when they get fired.
That doesn’t make logical sense.
The CEOs aren’t running the show by themselves. They are relying on the work of their employees, the infrastructure built for them (all of us) by previous tax payers, and by the Average American who buys the companies products. Sure they take a risk in making decisions, but they have advisors and employees to support them. It;’s not a one-man/woman show.
It is highly competative and results are demanded.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Whose job ISN’T like that?
June 4th, 2007 at 12:58 pmtimmy is the name of a cactus I rescued from being washed away down the arroyo.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:04 pmIt’s a cholla.
It’s recovering well.
Because somebody said that the price of milk raised considerably quickly and I was pointing out that I purchased 2 gallons for less than the one he purchased. I shop at Safeway every week and they often give the buy one get one free promotion on milk. At least once a month.
Comment by timmy
So we’ve come full circle and are back where you started. Much like all the corners turned in Iraq. But the fact is Safeway DOES NOT sell milk buy one get one free at a sale price but at full price. And on other weeks they sell them 2 for $5.00. Both are loss leaders to get you into the store. The Costco example that started the discussion is a TRUE price because they don’t have loss leaders and sell milk at the lowest price they can. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:06 pmYou are assuming pay is based on how hard one works. That does not make sense.
Of course it does. Value comes from what you are getting in return for your $.
Pay is based on the benefit to the company and how many people can do the job.
That’s just your belief. And it’s ridiculous.
There’s not a shortage of competent CEOs to justify millions and billions in salaries and bonuses.
That would mean, that for every person, there would only be one qualified CEO per 100 million people. You’re telling me there are only THREE capable CEO’s in the United States? Nonsense.
Millions of poeple can be janitors as you don’t even need to graduate highschool to do the job, but the pool of qualified CEOs is a lot smaller.
I never claimed they were equal. My argument is that one is 176 times more valuable than the other.
You can break this down into hours of the week all you want, but in one hour a CEO is going to make 5 decisions that are more important than a janitor will make all year. If a CEO comes in and makes $50 million more in profit annually due to his decisions, why shouldn’t he make $5 million a year.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
$5,000,000/176 = $28,409
You aren’t even willing to pay the janitor a living wage to clean your building?
Shame on you.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:06 pmtimmy…read (carefully) your own original post with the phrase “buy one, and get on freeâ€, then get back to us….
“keep working on it, you will get it.â€
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Comment by heyzeus
Safeway offers this at least once a month so if I buy 2 gallons each week for my family at $2.45 per gallon, but once every 4 weeks I am able to buy 2 gallons at $2.45 total, it drives down the average price. 7 gallons of milk X $2.45 + 1 gallon of milk X $0.00, $17.15 total=average gallon $2.14.
The post I was responding to said that milk was now $2.99 a gallon, 40% more than I am paying.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:07 pmWow timmy, that’s awesome, are you a math teacher?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pmThey still deliver milk in wealthy neighborhoods. But you wouldn’t know.
Comment by shane
Nope, I am just a middle class guy.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 11:56 am
A middle class guy into computers without a scanner? Kind of hard to believe. But if the American Dream is so easy to achieve why are you just middle class. Since it’s not the fault of the government it must me your own incompetence then. So you’re doing the best you could do no matter what the economy. Poor bastard.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:11 pmGuys, while I think timmy isn’t arguing his points competently because he doesn’t actually know why he thinks what he thinks, can we not call him names? He’s not doing to us, and he is “debating” in good faith.
I diagree with im vehemently, but let’s attack his arguments, until he proves himself to be whack-a-troll like Jake and MA.
Thanks.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:11 pmA CEOs salary is real, they are paid that much for a reason.
Which is? I’m waiting for your argument instead of your speculative assumption on the matter.
They are paid that much because the company sees that he/she is worth that much. The shareholders decide that in order to make a profit they need to be willing to pay a large salary to a CEO. Salaries are dictated by supply and demand, the most basic economic theory.
So, when Safeway stops selling milk at two-for-one, you gonna pay regular price? Why?
There’s your answer.
I will not stop drinking milk, but maybe I will buy less. I might have toast in the morning instead of a bowl of raisn bran.
That doesn’t make logical sense.
The CEOs aren’t running the show by themselves. They are relying on the work of their employees, the infrastructure built for them (all of us) by previous tax payers, and by the Average American who buys the companies products. Sure they take a risk in making decisions, but they have advisors and employees to support them. It;’s not a one-man/woman show.
Of course it is not a one man show, but the leader always makes the most. They are the ones that make the ultimate decisions, they are the ones that are praised the most when things go well and they are the ones that are blamed the most when things go badly.
Whose job ISN’T like that?
Yes, all jobs are competative and results are demanded but at a much smaller scale than that of a CEO.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pm40% more than I am paying.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
40% more than you paid at one time. When it is regular price again in the future, it will no longer apply to the present.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pmGuys, while I think timmy isn’t arguing his points competently because he doesn’t actually know why he thinks what he thinks, can we not call him names? He’s not doing to us, and he is “debating†in good faith.
Comment by unbelievable
Okay unbelievable, but I called him one before I read your post. Sorry. I’ll try harder.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:15 pmA middle class guy into computers without a scanner? Kind of hard to believe. But if the American Dream is so easy to achieve why are you just middle class. Since it’s not the fault of the government it must me your own incompetence then. So you’re doing the best you could do no matter what the economy. Poor bastard.
Comment by shane
I don’t have a need for a scanner. I’m happy to be middle class. I am only 28, I hope to move up the chain. My parents are very poor and I was poor growing up.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:16 pm“timmy” might be a close relative to “Daryll”, the same simplistic, monotonic fixation on a single subject.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:17 pm$5,000,000/176 = $28,409
You aren’t even willing to pay the janitor a living wage to clean your building?
Shame on you.
Comment by unbelievable
I think $28,000 a year to do something that does not require a highschool diploma and no real skills is a fair wage.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:19 pm“timmy†might be a close relative to “Daryllâ€, the same simplistic, monotonic fixation on a single subject.
Comment by heyzeus
No comment. I’m trying hard to behave. But it’s so difficult …
Unbelievable, do we HAVE to be good … it is summer break isn’t it?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:20 pmThey are paid that much because the company sees that he/she is worth that much. The shareholders decide that in order to make a profit they need to be willing to pay a large salary to a CEO. Salaries are dictated by supply and demand, the most basic economic theory.
Not so… There wouldn’t be legislation before Congress to allow shareholders to vote for a CEO’s salary if they were already doing that.
You haven’t proven supply and demand applies here. I can argue that it’s not suply and demand but GREED and EGO and without substantiation, myargument is just as valid as your argument.
You’re not proving anything – just giving your opinion. Show me proof.
I will not stop drinking milk, but maybe I will buy less. I might have toast in the morning instead of a bowl of raisn bran.
But you won’t give it up, you’ll pay what it is and that’s the point.
Of course it is not a one man show, but the leader always makes the most. They are the ones that make the ultimate decisions, they are the ones that are praised the most when things go well and they are the ones that are blamed the most when things go badly.
Again, fine that the make more. But why isn’t 10 times enough? Why 176 and more times as much? I showed you the math and you keep ignoring what it means in real numbers. Why?
Yes, all jobs are competative and results are demanded but at a much smaller scale than that of a CEO.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Prove it.
You can’t say a thing is so without this thing called evidence. Your opinion is not evidence.
And, I maintain that more is understandable, but I think 176 times more is unreasonable when you have to take that money from others who work hard to give it to them.
Why would anyone need more than $500,000? More than $1,000,000? Especially when that money is giving someone else a wage that isn’t even livable?
You’re ignoring that there is a finite amount of money the company makes. Everyone’s salary must come from it. In order to give the CEO 176 times more, you must give others less. And in many cases, it’s not even enough to live comfortably. You are okay with that?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:22 pmSo we’ve come full circle and are back where you started. Much like all the corners turned in Iraq. But the fact is Safeway DOES NOT sell milk buy one get one free at a sale price but at full price. And on other weeks they sell them 2 for $5.00. Both are loss leaders to get you into the store. The Costco example that started the discussion is a TRUE price because they don’t have loss leaders and sell milk at the lowest price they can. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
Comment by shane
The milk was 2 for $2.45 (the regular price) not 2 for $5.00. As for getting people in the store, I agree that is what they are doing, but that is irrelevent. They do this once a month at least, so it drops the avg price of milk well below the $2.99 that was stated above.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:22 pmwhat do you do for a living, timmy?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:24 pm40% more than you paid at one time. When it is regular price again in the future, it will no longer apply to the present.
Comment by unbelievable
I have been shopping at the same Safeway for 5 years and as I said before this promotion goes on at least once a month, the price obviously has risen but they continue to give the buy one get one free offer. That factor has to be applied to the average cost of milk.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:25 pmOkay unbelievable, but I called him one before I read your post. Sorry. I’ll try harder.
Comment by shane — June 4, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
You didn’t call him any names.
Thanks for understanding.
I am all for whacking Jake and the other pointless trolls who name-call as a way of communicating, but think it hurts us when we do it to all conservatives just because we disagree with their points.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:25 pmI’m happy to be middle class. I am only 28, I hope to move up the chain. My parents are very poor and I was poor growing up.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
That’s where they got you Timmy. They have you thinking that it’s possible for you to be one of them. It isn’t. Rich is inherited… You have been odds of winning the lottery than becoming one of them. Why? Because they don’t want you to become one of them. They want their money to go to their offspring, and will fight to keep it that way.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:28 pmI think $28,000 a year to do something that does not require a highschool diploma and no real skills is a fair wage.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
YOU think? How noble…
You think that’s fair based on what?
It’s not about what YOU think timmy, it’s about the fact that someone who does an honest job should be able to survive off of it. That’s just humane.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:31 pmUnbelievable, do we HAVE to be good … it is summer break isn’t it?
Comment by shane — June 4, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Jake’s gotta be around here somewhere… Whack him. He’s earned it :D
June 4th, 2007 at 1:32 pmNot so… There wouldn’t be legislation before Congress to allow shareholders to vote for a CEO’s salary if they were already doing that.
You haven’t proven supply and demand applies here. I can argue that it’s not suply and demand but GREED and EGO and without substantiation, myargument is just as valid as your argument.
You’re not proving anything – just giving your opinion. Show me proof.
What do you mean by proof? I am more than happy to give examples of CEOs raising profits in companies and making most of their money on stock options (they raise the stock and their stock goes up) if you would like.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:35 pmYOU think? How noble…
You think that’s fair based on what?
It’s not about what YOU think timmy, it’s about the fact that someone who does an honest job should be able to survive off of it. That’s just humane.
Comment by unbelievable
What should somebody that has no skills and does a job that virtually anybody could do be paid?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:36 pmThat factor has to be applied to the average cost of milk.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Exactly the point that has been trying to be made to you. It means your occasional special doesn’t make milk half price for you as you originally claimed…
By the way, I hope milk goes to $10 a gallon. It’s cruel how the food industry abuses food animals. Imagine being permanently pregnant and milked 10 times a day with cold metal machinery that blisters your flesh?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:37 pmThat’s where they got you Timmy. They have you thinking that it’s possible for you to be one of them. It isn’t. Rich is inherited… You have been odds of winning the lottery than becoming one of them. Why? Because they don’t want you to become one of them. They want their money to go to their offspring, and will fight to keep it that way.
Comment by unbelievable
The owner of the company I work for started his business out of the back of his car (while sleeping in it while traveling to sell our product at stores across the country), last year we had $20 million in sales and he is rolling in money. It can happen, it happens all the time.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:39 pmExactly the point that has been trying to be made to you. It means your occasional special doesn’t make milk half price for you as you originally claimed…
By the way, I hope milk goes to $10 a gallon. It’s cruel how the food industry abuses food animals. Imagine being permanently pregnant and milked 10 times a day with cold metal machinery that blisters your flesh?
Comment by unbelievable
I never said that it is half price, I said that I got it at half price at Safeway last time I went. I am pointing out that my avg cost for milk is well below $2.99.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:41 pmWhat do you mean by proof?
Oh, come on. You know what proof it. Show examples that will justify full-time working people living in poverty because some CEO needs to make $5 milion dollars a year.
I am more than happy to give examples of CEOs raising profits in companies and making most of their money on stock options (they raise the stock and their stock goes up) if you would like.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
I’ve already agreed that was the case.
I want you to justify a CEO NEEDING to make 176 times more than another full-time employee at that employees expense because there’s a finite amount of money the company has. If you can do that, I’ll concede. But you have to do it with verifiable data (secular university research tends to be the most credible because it’s not as biased as private studies).
I’ll check back later. I need to do laundry…
June 4th, 2007 at 1:41 pmI am all for whacking Jake and the other pointless trolls who name-call as a way of communicating, but think it hurts us when we do it to all conservatives just because we disagree with their points.
Comment by unbelievable
Thank you, I am not looking to get into a fight with anybody. Just trying to debate my perspective.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:42 pmwhat do you do for a living, timmy?
Comment by heyzeus
I am an operations planner at a med sized company.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:44 pmunbelievable sez:
Did you know that commercial milk has a maximum allowable pus content? And that that number is not zero?
One of the many reasons I don’t drink milk anymore. Commercial pasteurized, homogenized cow’s milk is one of the most harmful substances you can put into your body.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:44 pmI see, got tired of being a Jeezus freak in the IT field, huh?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:48 pmOnly in Bushworld….
June 4th, 2007 at 1:50 pmOh, come on. You know what proof it. Show examples that will justify full-time working people living in poverty because some CEO needs to make $5 milion dollars a year.
This article here sums up sound reasons behind paying CEOs so much.
http://equityprivate.typepad.com/ep/2006/03/yesterday_finan.html
June 4th, 2007 at 1:54 pmI see, got tired of being a Jeezus freak in the IT field, huh?
Comment by heyzeus
Once again, I have no idea what your question means? Is that a shot because I don’t have a scanner?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:55 pmCool. So that means my net raise this year is worth… -2% when factoring in cost of living increases! Sweet! Thanks, W! Can’t wait until open enrollment in August when I get to hear all the cool things my health care plan is stripping out while at the same time raising my premiums and drug co-pays again.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:08 pmYes, it must really suck to be a high school dropout. How do you folks make it in a cruel world that values an educated and skilled workforce? If you had it to do over again, would you stay in school?
June 4th, 2007 at 2:08 pmTo Timmy in regards to CEO pay.
Disneys recently fired CEO?
Come on dude….
June 4th, 2007 at 2:17 pmBy the way, I hope milk goes to $10 a gallon. It’s cruel how the food industry abuses food animals. Imagine being permanently pregnant and milked 10 times a day with cold metal machinery that blisters your flesh?
Comment by unbelievable
Have you seen what they do to chickens for eggs? The keep them in this tiny space, never letting them move, and they tip the space so the eggs roll out. I saw it on the Food Network last year, never on a science program, and have only bought free range eggs since. If I couldn’t afford those I would not buy them either. I buy organic milk but I’m not sure the milking is any more humane for them, probably not.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:57 pmDid you know that commercial milk has a maximum allowable pus content? And that that number is not zero?
One of the many reasons I don’t drink milk anymore. Commercial pasteurized, homogenized cow’s milk is one of the most harmful substances you can put into your body.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — June 4, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Makes me glad I’m lactose intolerant. I buy organic milk for the family though, do you think that’s just as bad?
June 4th, 2007 at 2:58 pmYes, it must really suck to be a high school dropout. How do you folks make it in a cruel world that values an educated and skilled workforce? If you had it to do over again, would you stay in school?
Comment by muckdog
Sorry muckdog but I think you’re the only dropout here.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:00 pmComment by shane — June 4, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
I can’t speak to the various “organic” brands regarding the treatment of their cows, but presumably, not jamming a cow full of hormones and antibiotics to maximize milk production should make for a much healthier milk.
But that’s only part of the problem. All milk has to be pasteurized by law. Pasteurization, while preventing much illness from spoilage, also destroys the enzymes present in raw milk, making it terrifically difficult to digest. Homogenization introduces the exact opposite problem. It pulverizes the fat droplets up so finely that the pass straight through the walls of the small intestine into the bloodstream. Once there, it scars the arterial linings, making it much easier for plaque to stick and grow there, vastly increasing the likelihood of arteriosclerosis.
If you must drink milk, the best is raw goat’s milk (goat’s milk is the most similar to human milk…cow’s milk has too much protein). Since you can’t legally purchase raw milk, the only alternative is to buy a goat.
It’s much easier to just do away with milk entirely. I haven’t drank milk in 25 years, and only use it in cooking when I can’t substitute anything else.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:35 pmIt’s much easier to just do away with milk entirely. I haven’t drank milk in 25 years, and only use it in cooking when I can’t substitute anything else.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
You’re really missing out on your daily ration of pus. :P
June 4th, 2007 at 4:21 pmWhat should somebody that has no skills and does a job that virtually anybody could do be paid?
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
A living wage. You’d figure a “compassionate” conservative would get that it’s only fair to pay someone who is working a full-time job enough to support his or her family.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:47 amThe owner of the company I work for started his business out of the back of his car (while sleeping in it while traveling to sell our product at stores across the country), last year we had $20 million in sales and he is rolling in money. It can happen, it happens all the time.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
You cite one example and claim it happens ALL the time? Come on…
Happiness and success in life rarely have anything to do with rolling in other people’s milk money.
If you think achievement is about rolling in money, you are not destined for a very happy life. Because, you will always want more. Discount me now, but I’m 17 years older than you and I’ve seen what money really does to people. I saw what it did to me. I used to believe what you did. I learned the hard way, and so too will you it seems.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:51 amI am pointing out that my avg cost for milk is well below $2.99.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
But not nearly as much as you implied, nor enough to make such a scene about it.
That’s why people got irked with you.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:52 amThank you, I am not looking to get into a fight with anybody. Just trying to debate my perspective.
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
You’re welcome. You just have to understand that there are people in your party who come here to attack and insult, and many of us are reactive to new people.
I appreciate the ability to debate with people of opposing views if they are willing to make it about the topics and not turn it personal. But if you ever do start name-calling, I won’t defend you. :D
June 5th, 2007 at 9:55 amDid you know that commercial milk has a maximum allowable pus content? And that that number is not zero?
Gross!
One of the many reasons I don’t drink milk anymore. Commercial pasteurized, homogenized cow’s milk is one of the most harmful substances you can put into your body.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — June 4, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
I totally agree.
Drinking too much milk (high protein) causes your bones to leech calcium and actually leads to osteoporosis.
Human adults are the only animals that continue to consume a high quantity of milk… There’s a reason other animals don’t.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:58 amThis article here sums up sound reasons behind paying CEOs so much.
http://equityprivate.typepad.com/ ep/ 2006/ 03/ yesterday_finan.html
Comment by timmy — June 4, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
It doesn’t validate paying a CEO so much money at the expense of other full-time employees living in poverty. And you won’t find anything ethical that does Timmy, because no such thing exists.
And, by the way, your article is NOT an unbiased or valid reference. It’s just opinion of someone with money-lust.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:01 amFrom your link Timmy:
“Keep it up, America. Right or wrong, we private equity folks love the massive flood of senior management talent currently being driven our way out of public companies.”
See, even your biased moneyman questions his own ethics. And if your source can’t defend his own integrity – how can you?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:04 amHave you seen what they do to chickens for eggs? The keep them in this tiny space, never letting them move, and they tip the space so the eggs roll out. I saw it on the Food Network last year, never on a science program, and have only bought free range eggs since. If I couldn’t afford those I would not buy them either.
Unfortunately yes… It’s why I went vegan. Made me sick that we could treat other living beings so cruelly. I refuse to contribute to their system.
I buy organic milk but I’m not sure the milking is any more humane for them, probably not.
Comment by shane — June 4, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
It takes time, but I can no longer tell the difference between most soy based dairy alternatives and the originals – when used in context to a meal and not just eating them out of the carton or jar. Cheese still isn’t up to par, but cream creese, milk and mayo all are.
The dairy industry tried to slam soy milk. They know that it’s a real rival. They make false claims about the isoflavones in soy leading to ‘gayness’ – it’s ridiculous.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:09 amI haven’t drank milk in 25 years, and only use it in cooking when I can’t substitute anything else.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — June 4, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
I use soymilk, and so far I haven’t seen it not work. :D
June 5th, 2007 at 10:12 amA living wage. You’d figure a “compassionate†conservative would get that it’s only fair to pay someone who is working a full-time job enough to support his or her family.
Comment by unbelievable
What is a living wage? You balked at the $28,000 per year figure from earlier. What is a janitor worth if anybody off the street can do it? What ever happened to personal responsibility to improve ones plight?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:57 amBut not nearly as much as you implied, nor enough to make such a scene about it.
That’s why people got irked with you.
Comment by unbelievable
I never implied anything that I did not outright say. I said that I received milk at buy one get one free and people said I was lying. I then produced the ad to prove it and that wasn’t enough. The promotion happens at least once a month. I really don’t understand why people are unable to grasp this.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:59 amYou cite one example and claim it happens ALL the time? Come on…
Happiness and success in life rarely have anything to do with rolling in other people’s milk money.
If you think achievement is about rolling in money, you are not destined for a very happy life. Because, you will always want more. Discount me now, but I’m 17 years older than you and I’ve seen what money really does to people. I saw what it did to me. I used to believe what you did. I learned the hard way, and so too will you it seems.
Comment by unbelievable
Obviously money does not make happiness. Somebody stated that it is impossible to make if you are not born in it, I gave an example of a situation where that is not true.
http://www.askmen.com/money/successful/53_success.html
“About 80[%] of [the millionaires] are first-generation affluent.” That’s right. Forget about the myth of old money; most people in this country work hard (and smart) to make their money. One of the major ingredients for success is to use good old “elbow grease.”
June 5th, 2007 at 11:03 amIt doesn’t validate paying a CEO so much money at the expense of other full-time employees living in poverty. And you won’t find anything ethical that does Timmy, because no such thing exists.
And, by the way, your article is NOT an unbiased or valid reference. It’s just opinion of someone with money-lust.
Comment by unbelievable
A company’s job is to make money. If the company feels that they can make more money and rise their stock value by paying a CEO 176 times more than the janitor, it is their choice. If the janitor wants to make a living wage, he should go back and get his high school diploma or develop a skill that any bum off the street cannot do. Our society rewards education and skill.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:10 am“Keep it up, America. Right or wrong, we private equity folks love the massive flood of senior management talent currently being driven our way out of public companies.â€
See, even your biased moneyman questions his own ethics. And if your source can’t defend his own integrity – how can you?
Comment by unbelievable
What did you think of the reasons he stated CEOs should be paid a lot? I never said it was unbiased.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:12 amUhmmm… this is ‘trickle down’?
June 6th, 2007 at 1:11 pm