Scooter Rate of Inflation

[spandi]

Just thought I'd share this. When I looked up the original price for a 2005 Honda Reflex ($5200 ) I wondered what it would be in "todays" dollars and got quite a shock, almost $1000 more worth of inflation in less than ten years!


http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o645/spandi5/Screenshot2013-04-03at10557PM_zpsa252d908.png

[Admin]

Wow, that's crazy. :wtf:

[spandi]

Yeah. What are they not telling us about the true shape of the economy?

[qwertydude]

And in those 8 years how many of us got an 18% pay raise?

This is why "the middle class" is such a joke, Used to be if you worked a full time job you could actually afford a house, a car, and splurges every now and then.

The funny thing is, because people are so obsessed with getting things as cheaply as possible, jobs get shipped overseas, people lose earning power and it's a downward spiral.

[larrball]

Print more money...
That's there answer and they know going in it is in no way going to fix the currency problem.
But what is there polit---- correct answer to all this?

"Get off your ass and go get a second job and make us richer so we can pay off the yaut, you slave."

Was i close guy's?

Just my .02 cent's -- or better yet, my $2.00 +Tax

[prodigit]

But innovation is constantly happening.
Years ago, there where no chinese scoots on the US market, and getting one required you to go to China.
I'm quite sure that the chinese scoot market is pushing down sales for brand scoots; causing them to halt inflation.

So where before you had the option to get either a car, motorcycle, or a cross bike, now you can choose between much cheaper or different forms of transportation, including Segway, electric moped, motorized bicycle, scooter, motorized skate boards, etc...

For cars the same,
It won't take long before the first Chinese cars will hit the US market.
They probably will go for just under $9k, and will sell like hotcakes (know that they go for half that price on the Asian markets).
A lot of initial debate on how 'unsafe' they are to true american cars, but let me tell you something:
A 1996 corvette is less safe than a chinese car of today.

So, eventhough the original cars and scooters and motorcycles go up in price, there'll always be some kind of invention that will become available to us 10 years from now, that'll save us a buttload of money!

Perhaps soon, in a good 10 to 20 years, smart cars will be seen as luxury vehicles, all replaced by upstanding death cages (coffins), with wheels and a window.

[qwertydude]

The problem with the above scenario is low local prices with a trade deficit constantly puts downward pressure on purchasing power. It drains money from the economy. Short term it's great for cheap goods but as everyone is tired of hearing but is happening, we are all headed to the lowest common denominator. Jobs have already gone overseas, formerly very well paying jobs are now only moderately paying and service jobs? Forget it, you're poor.

Unless China starts freeing up its economy and playing by the rest of the developed world's rules we will be facing income inequality and poverty much like a third world country in order to compete with them on their level. We're already there in terms of income inequality. We're just starting to see the downward push in lower bracket earning levels. Not a real downward move just 30 years of stagnation in the face of inflation. So yeah we're heading there.

Also, Prodigit a 1996 Corvette is still safer than a Chinese car of today.

vx5JpY9DM_k

[prodigit]

The moment business CEO's will take pleasure with getting regular pays, like the other employees of their company, and spread the money to the rest of the company, everyone else in the company may actually make enough money to spend on USA products.
But as long as business CEO's happily get $250+k, while their employees have to do with less than 1/10th of that, you bet you, that they will find ways to have the basics, without having to pay an arm and a leg.

The foundation of it all is greed.
Business CEO's earn over 3x the amount today, compared to what they did in the 70's; to their lowest employee's wage.

A single CEO, earning $25k annually, frees up $225.000; which, if divided amongst 100 employees, will give each employee an annual raise of $2.250.
Not enough to buy a car, but surely enough to keep a lot of their purchases local.
Not to mention, this is only a CEO.
Many companies have several high paying positions; so having only 3 or 4 of them would increase the wage of the employee to $32.000+ annually.
This raise of $8000 is more than enough for an employee to decide to go for an american car, instead of a chinese.

[qwertydude]

1970's CEO made 40 times their lowest paid, now they make upwards of 400 times. That's an increase in inequality of 10 times more. It's worse than you think.

And yes greed is part of it. The other is complacency and ill-informed individuals on the lower end. How many of today's poor vote for people who give millionaires and billionaires tax cuts but are themselves poor. That's voting against your own best interest. And is the reason Warren Buffet pays less in taxes per dollar he earns than his secretary.

The problem is there was always greed, but we had a system to check that greed. That system is now rigged by the rich for the rich.

You can't expect CEO's to voluntarily give up money out of generosity. You have to impose rules. CEO's are like children give em an inch they take a foot. Only now the poor are more than happy to give them that foot and expect to get an inch in return. Trickle down economics, and that doesn't work.

[spandi]

225K? Try more like 225 MILLION! :ugh: :nuts: >:(

[prodigit]

The average CEO doesn't make millions a year. There are plenty who do, but if you count the amount of companies, and CEO's spread out over USA, there are A LOT!
Many ceo's are CEO's of small companies of 3 to 5 people. Because of tax reasons they keep their wage below $250k, and invest the rest of their money (in retirement, or company stocks and bonds); so that they won't have to pay too much on taxes.

The word 'overqualified' should not exist. 80% of people are qualified to learn and do just about any job out there, including being a CEO.
Being a CEO requires less than what people think it does.
So is being a manager.
It sounds all so big, but in reality, I've seen companies run with CEO's and managers with less intelligence or talents then myself, and I'm not a CEO or manager.

The 'you know me, so you give me a good job, and the rest of the world can go on the crapper'-kind of mentality is completely wrong!
The 'select few' gaining lots of money, and spend a lot of company money to go on luscious dinings, expensive vacations, buy large houses and expensive cars, for doing less than the person cleaning the toilets; I think is completely wrong.

The guy who got hired as a manager for $30k/yr, and promoted to a CEO for $200k/yr, hires another manager for $28k/yr; who when he gets promoted, hires another manager for $26k/yr; and the cycle goes on; leaving more and more money in the pockets of the top 10 (or top 5) of the company.

[hardd1]

don't worry gang as we are on our way to socialism...

[prodigit]

IF that where the case, most surely those CEO's will move out to another country way before that with all their money!

[qwertydude]

don't worry gang as we are on our way to socialism...

People who use socialism as an insult, don't generally even know what socialism is. What's ironic is we are in fact a socialist state. All these people saying "get your government hands of my medicare," the people who don't want to pay taxes but still want public education for their kids, a police department to keep them safe, a fire department to keep their house from burning down. All of these are social welfare programs.

Instead what we have is not capitalism. It's capitalism for the poor, subsidized social welfare for the rich, ie bailouts, humongous tax "incentives", billions in oil subsidies for companies that already make tens of billions.

[thumper650]

And in those 8 years how many of us got an 18% pay raise?


Fortunately, I can say ME!

Several job changes were involved though.

[qwertydude]

Fortunately, I can say ME!

Several job changes were involved though.

That's not a pay raise, that's a move upwards in economic mobility. I'm saying for those in the same job did you get a steady increase in pay to offset inflation? Government jobs ironically enough used to not pay all that well. Private sector roundly beat government pay. But many government jobs were mandated by a long time ago law to maintain a wage level consistent with the inflation rate, COLA cost of living adjustments.

So a 2% raise every year was about all you'd expect. Really not all that much. It's actually slightly less than the average inflation rate. So basically the same government sector job that in years past paid less than the same equivalent job, now pays more simply because the wages for the private sector stagnated since the 1970's.

And it's not because the work is any less valuable, but that people basically allowed this to happen to themselves in the name of the "free market". According to the rule of 32, 2% inflation a year will cut your effective wages in half in just 16 years. So people who vote for tax cuts for corporations and millionaires have no business complaining their jobs don't pay enough.

[thumper650]

I guess moving upwards in economic mobility is the way to go!!