Prices too high? Take a tip from me

[Stunt]

I see many threads complaining about how expensive things are these days; oil, gold, groceries, and a long list of other items. Instead of buying massive houses with mortgages, and wasting money like a typical American consumer; people should do the following.

Invest in companies who they hate buying products from. (usually people invest in companies they like) Typically these hated companies have high prices, monopolies and generate business on irregualar market conditions. Also, margins tend to get larger the closer you get to the end of the supply chain. (ie. farmers get paid the least, refineries a little more, distributers get a ton and restaurants/stores are just plain rich)

Q: What are the things people hate to pay for (ie. put off purchase of until the last minute)?
A: petrol, utilities, mortgage/bank fees, insurance, pharma/drugs.

Q: What do people like to buy (ie. always wanting, always buy)
A: electronics, cell phones, cars, clothes, media, toys.

All of the latter have weak economic moats, experience heavy competition and are not profitable. Meanwhile the items people hate to pay have done exceptionally well. Take this reasoning and apply it to investing and find yourself reaping the fruits of your own labour. What's a better way to make some of the money back you have lost to these market conditions you have little control over.

June 16th 2005 I recommended 3 stocks for those of you disgruntled with the prices of oil and natural gas. One was a heavy natural gas play (ECA), one was an income generating oil play (PWT.UN) and the other was a R&D focused producer (a canadian exxon if you will - PCA). The results for you guys would be the following:

Encana - $57.51 from $50, went as high as $68 in the winter; 0.62% dividend, Canada's biggest company by market cap. Up 16% in 10 months.
Penn West - $44.28 from $29.03; 9.42% dividend. Up 62% in 10 months.
PetroCanada - $57.4 from $39.2; 0.62% dividend, Canada's largest producer, refiner and distributer of oil/petrol. Up 47% in 10 months.

Now consider if the Americans saw the financial deficit, trade deficit and high inflation coming (many do) and you bought these Canadian companies in Canadian dollars. You would be up another 10% from currency exchange.

A mere $5000 USD invested across these three companies (in June) is now worth $7579 USD. Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure this would cover the increased costs of fuel this year.

This is not atypical from all the other said sectors above; all the oil, insurance, banks, utilities and pharma companies are doing very well for themselves. Why not make some money off the companies you hate to give your money to. Don't think of it as selling out to the man, you can still complain; just think of it as hedging against rising costs of living.

 

[Engineer]

While I agree with you, there are many that don't have enough to buy what they need (much less $5,000 or anywhere near that) much less anything to invest. However, the idea is sound: If you can't beat them (and can afford it), join them!

 

[techs]

Of course the stock market is down since about 1999. So if you invested then the average person has lost money.

 

[Slew Foot]

But but but... I just spent my $25000 home equity loan on a new car, vacation, and TV. I dont have anything left to invest.


Ha ha J/k

I bought BGEIX at $13 back in December, now its over $20
I bought FSENX last year at $41, currently at $55
I bought FNARX at $21 last year, now its at $29
I bought FCNTX at $54 and now its at $68

Investing FTW!!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: techs
Of course the stock market is down since about 1999. So if you invested then the average person has lost money.

Yep, between 1999 to 2002 I lost $3,000 when I tried stocks.

People with $5,000 to burn don't care about rising costs, the OP is a perfect example.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: techs
Of course the stock market is down since about 1999. So if you invested then the average person has lost money.

Yep, between 1999 to 2002 I lost $3,000 when I tried stocks.

People with $5,000 to burn don't care about rising costs, the OP is a perfect example.

The market's been on a tear since 2002, you got out at the wrong time

Edit: as speculators get out of flipping houses, expect some of this to flow into the stock markets. I predict metals and energy to do well this year.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: techs
Of course the stock market is down since about 1999. So if you invested then the average person has lost money.

Did you read my post?
Tech had no economic moat; the industries/companies I am mentioning in the OP do not represent the stock market.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: techs
Of course the stock market is down since about 1999. So if you invested then the average person has lost money.

Yep, between 1999 to 2002 I lost $3,000 when I tried stocks.

People with $5,000 to burn don't care about rising costs, the OP is a perfect example.

Dave, just take all the things you hate and invest in them...you will do very well.

Haliburton, Diebold, Exxon, Pharma...you don't have to loose on the market, you just sympathize with tech and forget to consider reality.


PS. I do care about rising costs, that's why I invest in companies who can pay me back some of my lost money. I've done very well with oils because I knew the conditions. You are ranting and raving about $4 /gallon oil...go buy the stock!

 

[Future Shock]

Last I looked, the average income for a family of 4 in the US was $42k per year. After taxes (probably 27-30% at minimum), healthcare, mortgate/rent, transportation, and food...$5000 probably represents about what they have left if they are very, very lucky. So if they don't have children, don't have any accidents, have no parents to support, live EXTREMELY frugally...then they could possibly follow your plan.

Of the ~40 million people in poverty (defined as a household income of less than ~$20k) in the US, that $5000 represents at BEST 1/4 of their net income, before anything is deducted for any essentials. The good news for them is that their tax liability is of course much reduced both in percentage and actual value. However, the cost of food, transportation, clothing, etc does not change...rendering that $5000 target basically unreachable.

Tell me Stunt, do you actually KNOW these numbers? Do you actually KNOW any poor people? How is life in the gated community these days?

Future Shock

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Last I looked, the average income for a family of 4 in the US was $42k per year.
Future Shock

I was pretty sure the average income in the US was about $34K which would make 68K for a family of 4. I could be wrong though, maybe that's just CA.

 

[1EZduzit]

Yeah, I lost my ass in Kmart so I invested some in a utlility company (NWPS) and it went broke. So I put some money in CD's with a company calleed SBM certificate co. a while back at 6%. They came due and I reinvested them back at 4.5%. Yesterday I got a letter that the CD's are frozen pending a SEC investigation.

Some people seem to have the midas touch, but remember for every winner there is a loser. Investing is worth the chips.... if you have the chips and not everyone does.

Then consider the fact the if the average guy scapes and scrimps he might be able to afford to invest $5000 a year, but the richer people can afford to invest 10 times that (or maybe even more). If you get a 10% return you think your doing pretty good but the rich people are making a killing conmpared to you and the result is just more widening of the gap between the rich and the rest of us.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Last I looked, the average income for a family of 4 in the US was $42k per year. After taxes (probably 27-30% at minimum), healthcare, mortgate/rent, transportation, and food...$5000 probably represents about what they have left if they are very, very lucky. So if they don't have children, don't have any accidents, have no parents to support, live EXTREMELY frugally...then they could possibly follow your plan.

Of the ~40 million people in poverty (defined as a household income of less than ~$20k) in the US, that $5000 represents at BEST 1/4 of their net income, before anything is deducted for any essentials. The good news for them is that their tax liability is of course much reduced both in percentage and actual value. However, the cost of food, transportation, clothing, etc does not change...rendering that $5000 target basically unreachable.

Tell me Stunt, do you actually KNOW these numbers? Do you actually KNOW any poor people? How is life in the gated community these days?

Future Shock

Median family income is ~$60,000.
This doesn't work for the ultra poor, but the ultra poor don't even need insurance, mortgages, or cars. So yeah the strategy doesn't work...but it does for the vast majority of people.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Last I looked, the average income for a family of 4 in the US was $42k per year.
Future Shock

I was pretty sure the average income in the US was about $34K which would make 68K for a family of 4. I could be wrong though, maybe that's just CA.

The average income for a family of 4 in Orange County was about $62K when I googled to find some data for the above. Just happened to remember it...

Also, you seem to think that women double the household income...they do not. The issue is that not all women work. So, statistically, household incomes are a LOT lower than simply doubling two average incomes - although that varies by region (a chicken or egg problem - do more women work because they live in an expensive region, or is the region more expensive because more people are working and have disposable income?)

Future Shock

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: techs
Of course the stock market is down since about 1999. So if you invested then the average person has lost money.

It has? That's news to me and my investments. Aside from that little dip in 1999-2003, overall it makes a linear curve going up...

http://flagship5.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw...1&FundIntExt=INT&DisplayBarChart=false

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Yeah, I lost my ass in Kmart so I invested some in a utlility company (NWPS) and it went broke. So I put some money in CD's with a company calleed SBM certificate co. a while back at 6%. They came due and I reinvested them back at 4.5%. Yesterday I got a letter that the CD's are frozen pending a SEC investigation.

Some people seem to have the midas touch, but remember for every winner there is a loser. Investing is worth the chips.... if you have the chips and not everyone does.

Then consider the fact the if the average guy scapes and scrimps he might be able to afford to invest $5000 a year, but the richer people can afford to invest 10 times that (or maybe even more). If you get a 10% return you think your doing pretty good but the rich people are making a killing conmpared to you and the result is just more widening of the gap between the rich and the rest of us.

Damn...no wonder you liberals are so pessimistic! You all lose money in bull markets...
Listen to me, I will make you more money than you are losing! jeez...

 

[Legend]

Also use tax shelters, like IRAs. You'll make even more money.

At age 20, starting an IRA with low risk mutual funds will make you loads of money. It doesn't really require any thinking. Max it each year for about 15-20 years, and you should have at least a few million for retirement.

Vanguard Wellington averages nearly 10% in recent years. That equates to tripling your investment every decade. Meaning that in 40 years, you'll have 81 times what you started with.

But because of inflation, that's only going to end you up with nearly a million in today's money. So you should invest in stuff like 401k and price match as much as possible. Invest in a home when you need it. Because buying a large house with the extra cost overhead is NOT a good investment ($200 more a month for utilities, more maintenance, property taxes, loan interest, etc).

Then with any extra income, study the market and do some high risk investing. I think the problem is that people in the late 90s went "Gee golly, look at that bullish stock market. I'm going to invest everything I have in NASDAQ." and in early 2000s, "OMG WTF, I lost 1/2 my investment! I better sell now! The stock market is evil and steals your money.".

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Last I looked, the average income for a family of 4 in the US was $42k per year. After taxes (probably 27-30% at minimum), healthcare, mortgate/rent, transportation, and food...$5000 probably represents about what they have left if they are very, very lucky. So if they don't have children, don't have any accidents, have no parents to support, live EXTREMELY frugally...then they could possibly follow your plan.

Of the ~40 million people in poverty (defined as a household income of less than ~$20k) in the US, that $5000 represents at BEST 1/4 of their net income, before anything is deducted for any essentials. The good news for them is that their tax liability is of course much reduced both in percentage and actual value. However, the cost of food, transportation, clothing, etc does not change...rendering that $5000 target basically unreachable.

Tell me Stunt, do you actually KNOW these numbers? Do you actually KNOW any poor people? How is life in the gated community these days?

Future Shock

Median family income is ~$60,000.
This doesn't work for the ultra poor, but the ultra poor don't even need insurance, mortgages, or cars. So yeah the strategy doesn't work...but it does for the vast majority of people.

Not according to the The US Census Bureau. According to them, in 2004 the average US income for a family was $44,389. It had held steady from 2003 to 2004.

Come on, go find a right wing blog that excerpts numbers from Orange County, the Bay Area, and New York City to "prove" that it is $60k or higher. They exist, I found a lot of them when I Googled. But all in all, it's hard to argue with the US Government Census...

And I said mortgages/rent not just mortgage-> which everyone not in government housing has to pay (and we don't have government housing for the 40 million below the poverty line, so we must assume they are paying something).

And I said transport not cars -> because even if you live in the city, there is a good chance that the houses that you clean, or the baby that you nanny, or the office in which you are a janitor is not next door. In fact, the transportation expenses for the working poor are VERY significant, totaling hundreds of after tax dollars per month in a city like New York. Just google the cost of a monthly MTBA bus and subway pass in New York, or a Metro North monthly pass if you happen to live outside and commute in...

Give up your white-bred job for a few months Stunt, go live in the Bronx, and then let me know your economic theories on how the poor could cope so much better....if you come out alive. Frankly, your "I know best" attitude of someone with obviosly no academic training in socio-economics, and no real-world experience in the problems of the underclass, is getting rather strained...

Future Shock

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Yeah, I lost my ass in Kmart so I invested some in a utlility company (NWPS) and it went broke. So I put some money in CD's with a company calleed SBM certificate co. a while back at 6%. They came due and I reinvested them back at 4.5%. Yesterday I got a letter that the CD's are frozen pending a SEC investigation.

Some people seem to have the midas touch, but remember for every winner there is a loser. Investing is worth the chips.... if you have the chips and not everyone does.

Then consider the fact the if the average guy scapes and scrimps he might be able to afford to invest $5000 a year, but the richer people can afford to invest 10 times that (or maybe even more). If you get a 10% return you think your doing pretty good but the rich people are making a killing conmpared to you and the result is just more widening of the gap between the rich and the rest of us.

Wow, maybe you should try mutual funds. I've doubled my money in less than 5 years and still going strong playing around with vanguard. I never invest in individual stocks because you can get your ass handed to you.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Yeah, I lost my ass in Kmart so I invested some in a utlility company (NWPS) and it went broke. So I put some money in CD's with a company calleed SBM certificate co. a while back at 6%. They came due and I reinvested them back at 4.5%. Yesterday I got a letter that the CD's are frozen pending a SEC investigation.

Some people seem to have the midas touch, but remember for every winner there is a loser. Investing is worth the chips.... if you have the chips and not everyone does.

Then consider the fact the if the average guy scapes and scrimps he might be able to afford to invest $5000 a year, but the richer people can afford to invest 10 times that (or maybe even more). If you get a 10% return you think your doing pretty good but the rich people are making a killing conmpared to you and the result is just more widening of the gap between the rich and the rest of us.

Wow, maybe you should try mutual funds. I've doubled my money in less than 5 years and still going strong playing around with vanguard. I never invest in individual stocks because you can get your ass handed to you.

I tried mutual funds back in the 80's. I meet a guy who moved here back then and started an investment office with IDS. He had a cardboard box for his desk, no crap. He and I got to be hunting buddies. He was a good guy.

I scraped and scrimped (money was almost non existent then) and manged to invest a couple of thousand (I was making less then $6/hr then and my wife was making less then $4). I did OK, I think I doubled what I had managed to save (no IRA's back then either) but he really did well and went to work for Chubb. He moved out of town with his new job, so I took a stab at stocks. I found a new stockbroker, investing was just starting to get to be a big deal/popular then and I wanted to take a chance on Texaco. It was in bankruptcy and I had seen so many of the farmers come out of bankruptcy??? I didn't think the goverment was going to break them, I forget why they were in trouble now? Anyway the stockbroker talked me into another company, said it was an up and comer.

Heh, Texaco won their case and I could have almost doubled my money in 2 months. The other company? Yeah, it went broke and I lost it all. I forget the name of the company, but they made those flat panel speakers when they first came out.

My friend? He made a ton of money and always had the best of everything. Even his mistress was the best money could buy. His wife divorced him and he felt like he had to make up some lost ground (she was pretty conservative with money and he always felt she held him back). He did some leveraging and that's when the market went to hell. He ended up losing all his money AND all his Mom's money, which was supposed to be consevativly invested. He felt so bad that he went into the garage. closed the door and started the car. That was quite a while ago and I still haven't made it to that town so I can visit his grave.

And trust me, I could go on for several pages without making anything up.

 

[MonkeyK]

Stop crapping on the OPs thread. While he is somewhat abrasive in assuming you spend your money irresponsibly, he does bring up an interesting point (and one whose meaning liberals should be jumping on)

Please note that Stunt is saying that you should invest in things that you don't like to buy. Why don't you like to buy those things and why are the companies of things you don't like to buy so profitable?

From an investing perspective, there is a view that says, if your goal is reform, you should only buy companies that you do not like. As a shareholder, you have a say in how the company is run. I've seen this in action with my Pfizer stock. In the shareholders meeting catalog thingie (I own more stock than business acumen), there are a couple of motions to vote on regarding animal testing.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Last I looked, the average income for a family of 4 in the US was $42k per year. After taxes (probably 27-30% at minimum), healthcare, mortgate/rent, transportation, and food...$5000 probably represents about what they have left if they are very, very lucky. So if they don't have children, don't have any accidents, have no parents to support, live EXTREMELY frugally...then they could possibly follow your plan.

Of the ~40 million people in poverty (defined as a household income of less than ~$20k) in the US, that $5000 represents at BEST 1/4 of their net income, before anything is deducted for any essentials. The good news for them is that their tax liability is of course much reduced both in percentage and actual value. However, the cost of food, transportation, clothing, etc does not change...rendering that $5000 target basically unreachable.

Tell me Stunt, do you actually KNOW these numbers? Do you actually KNOW any poor people? How is life in the gated community these days?

Future Shock

Median family income is ~$60,000.
This doesn't work for the ultra poor, but the ultra poor don't even need insurance, mortgages, or cars. So yeah the strategy doesn't work...but it does for the vast majority of people.

Not according to the The US Census Bureau. According to them, in 2004 the average US income for a family was $44,389. It had held steady from 2003 to 2004.

Come on, go find a right wing blog that excerpts numbers from Orange County, the Bay Area, and New York City to "prove" that it is $60k or higher. They exist, I found a lot of them when I Googled. But all in all, it's hard to argue with the US Government Census...

And I said mortgages/rent not just mortgage-> which everyone not in government housing has to pay (and we don't have government housing for the 40 million below the poverty line, so we must assume they are paying something).

And I said transport not cars -> because even if you live in the city, there is a good chance that the houses that you clean, or the baby that you nanny, or the office in which you are a janitor is not next door. In fact, the transportation expenses for the working poor are VERY significant, totaling hundreds of after tax dollars per month in a city like New York. Just google the cost of a monthly MTBA bus and subway pass in New York, or a Metro North monthly pass if you happen to live outside and commute in...

Give up your white-bred job for a few months Stunt, go live in the Bronx, and then let me know your economic theories on how the poor could cope so much better....if you come out alive. Frankly, your "I know best" attitude of someone with obviosly no academic training in socio-economics, and no real-world experience in the problems of the underclass, is getting rather strained...

Future Shock

You said family of four. US Census Bureau Thanks for the spin though, it's quite obvious you are struggling for a legitimate argument.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Stop crapping on the OPs thread. While he is somewhat abrasive in assuming you spend your money irresponsibly, he does bring up an interesting point (and one whose meaning liberals should be jumping on)

Please note that Stunt is saying that you should invest in things that you don't like to buy. Why don't you like to buy those things and why are the companies of things you don't like to buy so profitable?

From an investing perspective, there is a view that says, if your goal is reform, you should only buy companies that you do not like. As a shareholder, you have a say in how the company is run. I've seen this in action with my Pfizer stock. In the shareholders meeting catalog thingie (I own more stock than business acumen), there are a couple of motions to vote on regarding animal testing.

I assume your talking to me, so kindly explain to me how telling the truth is "crappin in his thread"??

You think investing is a sure thing? You have a right to your opinion, but it's a big old mean world out there and anything can happen at any time.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Stop crapping on the OPs thread. While he is somewhat abrasive in assuming you spend your money irresponsibly, he does bring up an interesting point (and one whose meaning liberals should be jumping on)

Please note that Stunt is saying that you should invest in things that you don't like to buy. Why don't you like to buy those things and why are the companies of things you don't like to buy so profitable?

From an investing perspective, there is a view that says, if your goal is reform, you should only buy companies that you do not like. As a shareholder, you have a say in how the company is run. I've seen this in action with my Pfizer stock. In the shareholders meeting catalog thingie (I own more stock than business acumen), there are a couple of motions to vote on regarding animal testing.

I assume your talking to me, so kindly explain to me how telling the truth is "crappin in his thread"??

You think investing is a sure thing? You have a right to your opinion, but it's a big old mean world out there and anything can happen at any time.

Yes it is a sure thing. As long as there's an economy, mutual funds go up in the long term. Something like the crash of 1929 would have to happen for you to lose your investment.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Last I looked, the average income for a family of 4 in the US was $42k per year. After taxes (probably 27-30% at minimum), healthcare, mortgate/rent, transportation, and food...$5000 probably represents about what they have left if they are very, very lucky. So if they don't have children, don't have any accidents, have no parents to support, live EXTREMELY frugally...then they could possibly follow your plan.

Of the ~40 million people in poverty (defined as a household income of less than ~$20k) in the US, that $5000 represents at BEST 1/4 of their net income, before anything is deducted for any essentials. The good news for them is that their tax liability is of course much reduced both in percentage and actual value. However, the cost of food, transportation, clothing, etc does not change...rendering that $5000 target basically unreachable.

Tell me Stunt, do you actually KNOW these numbers? Do you actually KNOW any poor people? How is life in the gated community these days?

Future Shock

Median family income is ~$60,000.
This doesn't work for the ultra poor, but the ultra poor don't even need insurance, mortgages, or cars. So yeah the strategy doesn't work...but it does for the vast majority of people.

Not according to the The US Census Bureau. According to them, in 2004 the average US income for a family was $44,389. It had held steady from 2003 to 2004.

Come on, go find a right wing blog that excerpts numbers from Orange County, the Bay Area, and New York City to "prove" that it is $60k or higher. They exist, I found a lot of them when I Googled. But all in all, it's hard to argue with the US Government Census...

And I said mortgages/rent not just mortgage-> which everyone not in government housing has to pay (and we don't have government housing for the 40 million below the poverty line, so we must assume they are paying something).

And I said transport not cars -> because even if you live in the city, there is a good chance that the houses that you clean, or the baby that you nanny, or the office in which you are a janitor is not next door. In fact, the transportation expenses for the working poor are VERY significant, totaling hundreds of after tax dollars per month in a city like New York. Just google the cost of a monthly MTBA bus and subway pass in New York, or a Metro North monthly pass if you happen to live outside and commute in...

Give up your white-bred job for a few months Stunt, go live in the Bronx, and then let me know your economic theories on how the poor could cope so much better....if you come out alive. Frankly, your "I know best" attitude of someone with obviosly no academic training in socio-economics, and no real-world experience in the problems of the underclass, is getting rather strained...

Future Shock

You said family of four. US Census Bureau Thanks for the spin though, it's quite obvious you are struggling for a legitimate argument.

Nice job catching his lies, I didn't even notice family vs. family of four.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Last I looked, the average income for a family of 4 in the US was $42k per year. After taxes (probably 27-30% at minimum), healthcare, mortgate/rent, transportation, and food...$5000 probably represents about what they have left if they are very, very lucky. So if they don't have children, don't have any accidents, have no parents to support, live EXTREMELY frugally...then they could possibly follow your plan.

Of the ~40 million people in poverty (defined as a household income of less than ~$20k) in the US, that $5000 represents at BEST 1/4 of their net income, before anything is deducted for any essentials. The good news for them is that their tax liability is of course much reduced both in percentage and actual value. However, the cost of food, transportation, clothing, etc does not change...rendering that $5000 target basically unreachable.

Tell me Stunt, do you actually KNOW these numbers? Do you actually KNOW any poor people? How is life in the gated community these days?

Future Shock

Median family income is ~$60,000.
This doesn't work for the ultra poor, but the ultra poor don't even need insurance, mortgages, or cars. So yeah the strategy doesn't work...but it does for the vast majority of people.

Not according to the The US Census Bureau. According to them, in 2004 the average US income for a family was $44,389. It had held steady from 2003 to 2004.

Come on, go find a right wing blog that excerpts numbers from Orange County, the Bay Area, and New York City to "prove" that it is $60k or higher. They exist, I found a lot of them when I Googled. But all in all, it's hard to argue with the US Government Census...

And I said mortgages/rent not just mortgage-> which everyone not in government housing has to pay (and we don't have government housing for the 40 million below the poverty line, so we must assume they are paying something).

And I said transport not cars -> because even if you live in the city, there is a good chance that the houses that you clean, or the baby that you nanny, or the office in which you are a janitor is not next door. In fact, the transportation expenses for the working poor are VERY significant, totaling hundreds of after tax dollars per month in a city like New York. Just google the cost of a monthly MTBA bus and subway pass in New York, or a Metro North monthly pass if you happen to live outside and commute in...

Give up your white-bred job for a few months Stunt, go live in the Bronx, and then let me know your economic theories on how the poor could cope so much better....if you come out alive. Frankly, your "I know best" attitude of someone with obviosly no academic training in socio-economics, and no real-world experience in the problems of the underclass, is getting rather strained...

Future Shock

You said family of four. US Census Bureau Thanks for the spin though, it's quite obvious you are struggling for a legitimate argument.

Hmm, my bad on the income, I DID type "family of 4" and use a figure for "a family". It's late here, and unlike you, I looked at a bit of data from several sources as I responded. Sorry to have confused the data metrics.

But my arguement is hardly lacking for anything, because IF you insist that it be a family of 4 you speculate on, THEN you need to deduct the cost of 2 children from the disposable income. And, having two of them myself, I can tell you that you have more than offset the $20k pre-tax differential...which after taxes was only $13k or so at that level. Believe me, children cost more than $500 per month each in food, clothing, healthcare, etc.

So my position of the applicability of your "$5000 invested in companies that charging you up the a** offsets the higher prices" still stands, regardless of which figure you use, either for a family of 4 or for an average family not including the cost of the children.

And your rebuttal is??? Oh, yeah, nothing besides cross-posting from ANOTHER thread in which you pretend to have all the answers to the poor...rather than "thread crap" into your own thread as you have done, I will answer those questions in that thread...after I sleep a bit.

Future Shock