Monday, December 25, 2006
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Of Purchasing Power and Men...
In 1969, the largest private employer in the United States was an auto company (either Ford or General Motors, I can't recall which). The average yearly income for an employee of this company was about $40,000.
Fast forward to today (2006, for those who will read this 50 years from now haha): the largest private employer in the United States is Walmart, whose employees have an average yearly income of $18,000. I'm sure you're thinking what I'm thinking. In the last 25 years, inflation has increased dramatically, while wages have not really significantly improved. And consider the impact of purchasing power! I can't even imagine the type of lifestyle a person could afford in 1969 off 40,000 bucks, but you can be sure it's a lot better than what you get for 18 grand today!
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Since We're On The Subject...
Forgive the cynicism. Must be early Douglas Coupland popping through. Or Kurt Vonnegut. I just finished reading Vonnegut's Player Piano and Jailbird, novels that deal with the structure of the economy. I've also been reading Pierre Bourdieu, a sociologist who studies just that very thing. My faith in structure is currently jaded, although I think humanity involves certain things worth believing in.
The smartest thing economists ever did (and this is me talking, although I'm sure I've been influenced by others' ideas) was convince the world that humans have nothing to do with economics. Why do prices go up and down? It's supply and demand. No one ever mentions that stock numbers do not magically appear; someone, somewhere, has to say "This number has now become that number." And thus it becomes fact.
If asked, an economist will say that something is worth more than something else because it is both valued and valuable. And why is it valued? What makes items like land and diamonds so bloody expensive (pun intended)? Economists will tell you that it is valuable because humans want it. Supply and demand. What makes these certain items more valuable is that humans want it, but there's only so much of it to go around. The demand is so high, the supply so low, that prices inch ever higher. Diamonds are worth more than common granite because there are hardly any diamonds but a whole crapload of granite. This is a given.
A 'given' is considered commonsense, and lately I've come to regard with suspicion anything considered commonsense. Diamonds are worth more because there are less of it. Why do we think this way? Why are rare items considered more valuable than ordinary items? This seems like a stupid question. The question is treated as if it has a universal answer. But it is worth pointing out that rare items are worth more because humans at one time decided that rare items should be worth more. There is no 'invisible hand'; humans make the rules of economics, everthing from complex legal law right down to the simplest of assumptions. Sure, there are plenty of rational reasons why a rare item should be expensive, but I'm making the point that that's not always the case. Why can't common items be worth more? What if the rare item serves absolutely no purpose and stinks like slimy fish tacos? Who the hell would buy that?
My point is that economists tell us that the market is out of our hands. And that is true, only in that the market is very peculiar about which hands are controlling things. That isn't meant to sound conspiracy-theory crazy, just belligerent. In other words, I don't like the current state of affairs.
After all, there is an item that we see everyday, touch all the time, play with constantly -- yet is considered quite valuable in the grand scheme of things. This item is also fluid, in that humans treat it both as a rarity or a commonality, depending on the person's mood or level of drunkeness. I am talking, of course, about the dollar.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
In the Xmas Spirit, Let's Talk About Money
The per capita wealth of the USA is $144,000. That is not a typo. Think of how much money a rich person has to be making so as to end up with that figure. Think of how many people live on welfare or less.
The report summary includes the following:
Surprisingly, household debt is relatively unimportant in poor countries. As the authors of the study point out: ‘While many poor people in poor countries are in debt, their debts are relatively small in total. This is mainly due to the absence of financial institutions that allow households to incur large mortgage and consumer debts, as is increasingly the situation in rich countries’
The authors go on to note that ‘many people in high-income countries have negative net worth and—somewhat paradoxically—are among the poorest people in the world in terms of household wealth.’
Which actually seems commonsensical when you think about it. And seems easy enough to solve: stop spending money on shit when you don't actually have money! But don't tell that to the guy who just got approved for a $50,000 limit on his credit card. If he has it, he'll spend it.
Obviously, I'm not a fan of the wealth discrepancy. Any ideas on how to stop the cannibalistic steam engine we call Capitalism?