NYT Expose On Chinese Working Conditions In Apple Factories - Microeconomic Help Please

[tttppp]

Thats where you are wrong. Making more money than 80% of your class means nothing more and nothing less. There is no rule that says being rich and wealthy gets you more than basics. Add to that, there is no rule on what counts as basics beyond not starving.


People 100 years ago worked 40 hrs IN LABOR to get one car per family per 20 years, if not longer. Tell me with a straight face you cannot afford living in 1912 working 40 hours a week today, any non labor white collar job. Even on minimum wage

You are completely wrong. Being rich or wealthy does mean you should be able to get more than just the basics. What the hell are we working so hard for if we are successful and hit the jackpot, we still can't get more than the basics? If you can't get more than the basics even if you are successful, then we should definitely switch to communism.

You are clearly brainwashed, just like most people. You think just because you can pick your color of your car that you are free. You aren't much more free than the "slaves" used to be.

[onlyrp]

You are completely wrong. Being rich or wealthy does mean you should be able to get more than just the basics.

You obviously have a different idea of what rich, wealthy, and basics are then.

What the hell are we working so hard for if we are successful and hit the jackpot, we still can't get more than the basics?

That's your problem, I figured out how little I have to work for enjoy what I can get. You can keep complaining if you want.

If you can't get more than the basics even if you are successful, then we should definitely switch to communism.

I contest that to this point. You said you made more than 80% of your class, I give you that, don't you have a better quality of living than them? If not, then yes I wonder what you work for. Wouldn't working less and making less be even worse?

Which communist country did your lifestyle fall behind to? Cambodia? China outside of Shanghai, Guanzhou and Beijing? Cuba?

You are clearly brainwashed, just like most people. You think just because you can pick your color of your car that you are free. You aren't much more free than the "slaves" used to be.

I am well aware I am a slave by your definition, I can live with that. If you don't pick your car color, I'd love to know what the basics are you are talking about, and what the hell else you are spending money on.

Again, SHOW ME ONE communist country whose lifestyle you could not afford with your salary, SHOW ME how your lifestyle is worse than what was "basics" in 1912. You can't, because facts are NOT on your side, your desires and greed demand more as things become cheaper, so you're always complaining that things cost more, when they're NOT the same things.

[tttppp]

You obviously have a different idea of what rich, wealthy, and basics are then.



That's your problem, I figured out how little I have to work for enjoy what I can get. You can keep complaining if you want.



I contest that to this point. You said you made more than 80% of your class, I give you that, don't you have a better quality of living than them? If not, then yes I wonder what you work for. Wouldn't working less and making less be even worse?

Which communist country did your lifestyle fall behind to? Cambodia? China outside of Shanghai, Guanzhou and Beijing? Cuba?



I am well aware I am a slave by your definition, I can live with that. If you don't pick your car color, I'd love to know what the basics are you are talking about, and what the hell else you are spending money on.

Again, SHOW ME ONE communist country whose lifestyle you could not afford with your salary, SHOW ME how your lifestyle is worse than what was "basics" in 1912. You can't, because facts are NOT on your side, your desires and greed demand more as things become cheaper, so you're always complaining that things cost more, when they're NOT the same things.

You tell me, how are we better off than 1912?

[onlyrp]

You tell me, how are we better off than 1912?

What did we have in 1912?

1 car per family, and you don't get a new one for 20 years.
No television (until 1920), computer, cellphones.
Little choices of food, no "organic", very few imported.
Clothing is the same, little choices, very few imported.
No refrigerator until 1930. Meaning you cannot eat as you please, or store fresh foods, you had to buy or cook every time you wanted to eat (at least once a day).
Again, 1 car per family, so anything related to that is not available.
Tell me, what am I missing that's such a luxury or basic we had in 1912?
What is it you want about 1912 you can't have today, for cheaper? More time to read books?

That means, if you wanted to match that lifestyle with today. You'd have your rent paid first.
You'd not buy a brand new $20,000 car. You'd have no cellphone or internet access, and no long distance phone calls.
You'd either buy books in stores, or visit a library if you wanted to read, you can't use the copy machine.
Your electricity bill would be very low, because you use little during the night other than lights.
You have all the time to yourself to meditate, pray, sing, dance.
Everybody in your family would take their shower around the same time to conserve fuel and water.
You pay zero insurance, credit card debt, other stupid bills which were not available in 1912.
So basically, other than rent, then food what do you need money for? THAT is what I call "basics"
If you choose to have children, you have to deal with them constantly crying why they don't have the good and cool stuff all the other kids in the neighborhood or school have, why they get to watch TV and go to the movies. It's not illegal to deprive your children of toys, entertainment and recreation, as long as you feed them food and take them to doctor when emergency.
Tell me, what am I missing? What else can you get in 1912, or a communist country?

Perhaps you should tell me, what is "better off". I've already shown you can get the same stuff in 1912 for cheaper or less work, you have to either tell me what else you mean by "better off" or show how my reasoning is wrong. I stand by my statement, that today, YOU DEMAND MORE, that's why you're not satisfied with a "high paying job" and "nothing but basics".

[tttppp]

What did we have in 1912?

1 car per family, and you don't get a new one for 20 years.
No television (until 1920), computer, cellphones.
Little choices of food, no "organic", very few imported.
Clothing is the same, little choices, very few imported.
No refrigerator until 1930. Meaning you cannot eat as you please, or store fresh foods, you had to buy or cook every time you wanted to eat (at least once a day).
Again, 1 car per family, so anything related to that is not available.
Tell me, what am I missing that's such a luxury or basic we had in 1912?
What is it you want about 1912 you can't have today, for cheaper? More time to read books?

That means, if you wanted to match that lifestyle with today. You'd have your rent paid first.
You'd not buy a brand new $20,000 car. You'd have no cellphone or internet access, and no long distance phone calls.
You'd either buy books in stores, or visit a library if you wanted to read, you can't use the copy machine.
Your electricity bill would be very low, because you use little during the night other than lights.
You have all the time to yourself to meditate, pray, sing, dance.
Everybody in your family would take their shower around the same time to conserve fuel and water.
You pay zero insurance, credit card debt, other stupid bills which were not available in 1912.
So basically, other than rent, then food what do you need money for? THAT is what I call "basics"
If you choose to have children, you have to deal with them constantly crying why they don't have the good and cool stuff all the other kids in the neighborhood or school have, why they get to watch TV and go to the movies. It's not illegal to deprive your children of toys, entertainment and recreation, as long as you feed them food and take them to doctor when emergency.
Tell me, what am I missing? What else can you get in 1912, or a communist country?

Perhaps you should tell me, what is "better off". I've already shown you can get the same stuff in 1912 for cheaper or less work, you have to either tell me what else you mean by "better off" or show how my reasoning is wrong. I stand by my statement, that today, YOU DEMAND MORE, that's why you're not satisfied with a "high paying job" and "nothing but basics".

It doesn't matter how much you cut back, you can't go back to 1912. You still need a home, car, food, and clothes nomatter what. These basics take up almost all of your earnings. I've stated this numerous times, I don't know how you don't get it, better off means that a reasonably successful person would either be able to save significant amounts of money on full-time work or be able to get the basics on reduced hours.

As far as kids are concerned, they need a college education. This is incredibly expensive. If this were a true market, college prices would have gone down in the past 100 years.

Organic food. Since the beginning of time food was organic. Its only been relatively recently that food has had chemicals. If you go to a typical supermarket, all the food is loaded with tons of chemicals and non-food items. This crap wasn't there 100 years ago. There were no fast food chains to give everyone health problems either. So even though there may be some improvements in the economy, there are many problems too. Lets take health care for example. Costs have skyrocketed, while there have been no cures developed. The only industry where things have legitimately gotten better is technology.

[Steven Douglas]

I have never understood the logic or relevance behind attempts to "match lifestyles", or compare the amount of relative resources (especially labor) required for individual survival in one time versus another - especially as it gets grossly mis-applied, I believe, to both macro and microeconomics. Likewise the implication that the success or failure of an macroeconomic regime can be measured or graded based on some strange notion of what can only be called "relative labor value stability" from one time to another. Talk about meaningless. It usually comes out in some form of, "Hey, you work less hours than your counterparts in the past, and you have a lot more cooler $#@! available than they ever did, so obviously "it" worked, so what are you complaining about?"

That is some kind of mush-headed thinking in my mind, especially when irrelevant substitutions are made, and an entire economic regime is given implied credit for even technological advances, and especially division of labor that makes labor more efficient (and therefore, ostensibly, more valuable if you own your own labor). It is the same kind of logic, in my mind, that says, "Hey, if we stole 90% of Bill Gate's fortune, he would still be well within the top 1%, and living better than 99.9999% of the world, so what's the problem with doing that?"

An essay on this one is definitely on my list of things to do.

[onlyrp]

It doesn't matter how much you cut back, you can't go back to 1912. You still need a home, car, food, and clothes nomatter what.

Correct, but you can come pretty close if you lowered your demands and standards. If nothing else, start by living only in cities as populated as the average ones in 1912. Then, a car only as fuel efficient as 1912, unless it's an antique, it'll be much cheaper.

These basics take up almost all of your earnings. I've stated this numerous times, I don't know how you don't get it, better off means that a reasonably successful person would either be able to save significant amounts of money on full-time work or be able to get the basics on reduced hours.

No, they don't, at least they won't if you only went by the standards in 1912, which you can. You can't buy the things you want because you started out demanding to keep up with the time, trend and technology. I don't get it, because you have zero numbers to back this up.

As far as kids are concerned, they need a college education. This is incredibly expensive. If this were a true market, college prices would have gone down in the past 100 years.

No, they don't need a college education. Especially if they're willing to work the common blue collar jobs in 1912.

SO back to your point about how we "should" have cars that are better fuel efficient or only cost $1-2k, we have that today, they're called used cars, and they were acceptable in 1912. So unless you're going to say its unacceptable in 1912 to live as they did, or they didn't have basics, you can't say we don't have what they had back then, for less cost.

Why stop at what you're demanding?

[onlyrp]

I have never understood the logic or relevance behind attempts to "match lifestyles", or compare the amount of relative resources (especially labor) required for individual survival in one time versus another - especially as it gets grossly mis-applied, I believe, to both macro and microeconomics.

What do you propose is a better way to compare, or should we compare at all, time versus another time?
Without matching lifestyles, why not demand that you must live and own what Bill Gates or Steve Jobs had? Do you get to complain that even if you won a lottery jackpot a dozen times, you'd still not get to have what Gates and Jobs have, therefore, you don't have the "basics"?
The only other alternative I can think of is, "it's common and average that people have this, therefore it is basic", but by this logic, we must accept poor countries are acceptable to live in by their own standards, and therefore poverty on a nationwide scale is never a problem.
If matching usage of resources to compare prices isn't a good measure, what IS?

Likewise the implication that the success or failure of an macroeconomic regime can be measured or graded based on some strange notion of what can only be called "relative labor value stability" from one time to another. Talk about meaningless. It usually comes out in some form of, "Hey, you work less hours than your counterparts in the past, and you have a lot more cooler $#@! available than they ever did, so obviously "it" worked, so what are you complaining about?"

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you meant success of an economy cant or shouldn't be measured by employment rate, I agree. I believe unemployment is a sign of success, as long as poverty isn't coupled. If unemployment is an absolute indication of failure and unhappiness, retirement should be a crime, but it's a luxury and a goal.

That is some kind of mush-headed thinking in my mind, especially when irrelevant substitutions are made, and an entire economic regime is given implied credit for even technological advances, and especially division of labor that makes labor more efficient (and therefore, ostensibly, more valuable if you own your own labor). It is the same kind of logic, in my mind, that says, "Hey, if we stole 90% of Bill Gate's fortune, he would still be well within the top 1%, and living better than 99.9999% of the world, so what's the problem with doing that?"

An essay on this one is definitely on my list of things to do.

cool. please share when its done

[Steven Douglas]

What do you propose is a better way to compare, or should we compare at all, time versus another time?

Exit "lifestyles" from all consideration, and look at and compare raw hard and soft commodity fundamentals only. Not horseshoes and farriers relative to spare tires and mechanics, or even telephone landlines under Ma Bell's monopoly versus internet under Al Gore et al. - every bit of which is a ludicrous comparison of unlike terms, and a completely meaningless and entirely subjective substitution that is tantamount to post facto price fixing. Beyond moronic.

Even with comparing straight raw commodities over time you're going to have distortions, and for a number of reasons - technological advances of which are a big one - but at least they won't be further obfuscated by subjective comparisons based on "lifestyle" - whatever the HELL that means. I even get soured when people make attempts at making "lifestyle" comparisons between Chinese and American families. Those really are two different peoples living in different times - even in the same time frame. Everything about them - politically, economically, culturally, etc., - is so different as to completely defy any statistically meaningful comparison. I have stayed with Chinese families who live under circumstances and in conditions that most Americans would consider at or below poverty levels. But the comparison is absolutely meaningless, because I can project backwards and compare these Chinese families with families who would have been considered fairly well off in America in the late 1800's, and I can also clearly see, in many cases, a "quality of life" that far exceeds what many in the US have. For too many very real reasons to go into here. That is to say, there is no meaningful comparison. Lifestyle and 'quality of life', by any metric, is entirely subjective, and therefore meaningless.

Without matching lifestyles, why not demand that you must live and own what Bill Gates or Steve Jobs had?

Firstly, because I am not even thinking in those terms to begin with. To "demand" what I "must live on"? Who in the hell in their right mind even dares to think like that?! That is disgusting!

There is no "according to their needs" mindset with me, nor do I acknowledge, as credible in any way, any committee that might presume to get together to decide such a ridiculously subjective thing. Socialism and communism have those premises (abilities vs. needs and deeds); as someone lifted up the proverbial "human individual needs" hood, so that it could all be examines, and decisions could be made -- all on the basis of subjective, highly interpretative conclusions about what someone, somewhere, decided (for everyone, no less), what is necessary, or a "basic need", for human survival.

I understand the motive behind someone showing the remarkable stability of the relative purchasing power of the silver content of a Mercury dime to equivalent weights of whole grain bread over time throughout Western civilization - over hundreds of years, or even a couple of thousand. That makes complete sense, in and of itself, and I don't have a problem with that, because even allowing for substitutions, the trend is remarkably stable over time, and far more statistically meaningful than a comparison of, say, an 1984 Apple IIe computer for $1,800 versus a 2011 notebook computer with orders of magnitude more capability, at a fraction of the energy usage, for under $500. There is no meaningful comparison there, given that it is obvious that technological advances and cultural changes, not economics or monetary policy, are the primary factors. Nobody can, with a straight face, impute or credit these to economic factors, or monetary policies. Nobody can say that the industrial revolution or post-Depression prosperity (or Keynesian illusions of prosperity, with all it growing debts which HAVE YET to be paid for) was due to, rather than in spite of, or even suppressed by, FDR's New Deal. You can't go back in time and try it another way.

Lifestyle is an irrelevant, subjective distortion in itself, which has nothing to do with raw economic fundamentals. With lifestyles, the focus is on a presumptuous analysis and comparisons of individual consumption of unlike people, from unlike times, consuming many unlike things, with substitutions that are tantamount to arbitrary price fixing. Even in the case where like things are compared (e.g., wheat to gold or silver over hundreds of years) the comparisons are only somewhat meaningful, since every fundamental factor is completely different. But at least they can be examined without major substitutions, with statistical trends that can be examined that are closer to a common root - and furthermore, it can be examined in isolation, with and without the industrial revolution, recent population explosions, and a worldwide Keynesian/fiat currency crack addiction that distorts virtually everything.

In short, stick with raw hard and soft commodities, only those in common use over time (i.e., leave out aluminum and rare earths), and only for economic analysis, not personal needs comparisons. Ignore everyone and everything that presumes to decide what others "ought" to have, or even should be content with - as if anyone was in a position to decide such things. There is no "ought" to any of that - that leads to talks of demands on the basis of entitlement - claims, ultimately on other people's wealth (read=theft), or, like you said, "why not demand that you must live and own what Bill Gates or Steve Jobs had?", as if that didn't beg a nasty, fallacious bag of questions that should be obvious to anyone. Demand from who? And on what grounds - because I have needs?

[tttppp]

Correct, but you can come pretty close if you lowered your demands and standards. If nothing else, start by living only in cities as populated as the average ones in 1912. Then, a car only as fuel efficient as 1912, unless it's an antique, it'll be much cheaper.



No, they don't, at least they won't if you only went by the standards in 1912, which you can. You can't buy the things you want because you started out demanding to keep up with the time, trend and technology. I don't get it, because you have zero numbers to back this up.



No, they don't need a college education. Especially if they're willing to work the common blue collar jobs in 1912.

SO back to your point about how we "should" have cars that are better fuel efficient or only cost $1-2k, we have that today, they're called used cars, and they were acceptable in 1912. So unless you're going to say its unacceptable in 1912 to live as they did, or they didn't have basics, you can't say we don't have what they had back then, for less cost.

Why stop at what you're demanding?

You're way off. If people today went back to 1912 style jobs they wouldn't be able to afford the basics, even if the wife worked too, and even if you didn't have kids. Unless you are smart enough to start your own business, you almost have to go to college.

Cars today have about the same fuel efficiency as they did 100 years ago. Isn't there something wrong with this picture? Housing is just as expensive. Health care and education costs are way up. If this were truly a free market, wouldn't the costs be down and the results way up?

[onlyrp]

You're way off. If people today went back to 1912 style jobs they wouldn't be able to afford the basics, even if the wife worked too, and even if you didn't have kids. Unless you are smart enough to start your own business, you almost have to go to college.

Cars today have about the same fuel efficiency as they did 100 years ago. Isn't there something wrong with this picture? Housing is just as expensive. Health care and education costs are way up. If this were truly a free market, wouldn't the costs be down and the results way up?

You have no numbers to back this up, and you think "people today went back to 1912 style jobs they wouldn't be able to afford the basics" doesn't make my point? Because it does! You just admitted 2012 jobs, compared to 1912 jobs, are LESS LABOR, MORE MONEY. Did you miss the part where I said you can start by living in cities no more populated than 1912 cities?

How about you actually back this up with numbers, rather than just saying 'you can't do it, I can't do it' without specifics.

No, there's nothing wrong per se with cars being no more fuel efficient, just like there's nothing wrong with the fact planes still can't exceed the speed of light. You went ahead and ignored again, that you are free to buy used and old 1912, 1952, 1972 vehicles at much lower cost (unless its a well preserved antique). Housing is not "just as expensive" depending on where you live, now I'm not getting why you keep ignoring this. Have you been under a rock while Americans were witnesses to a massive housing bubble?

I won't contest that healthcare and education are expensive, they are, VERY EXPENSIVE. However, they are not the quality and availablity as 1912, not by a long stretch. In 1912, how many surgeries were not even physically possible that you'd die from? Today, you have the option of selling your house or going bankrupt if the surgery meant so much to you. In 1912, you can rob a bank and nobody can help you if the surgery or drug was not discovered yet.

Education is not a necessity, at least higher education is not. You can choose to, if you want the white collar job that makes more money than the 1912 job. You are free to work the 1912 job and complain what you can't afford to buy.

So, YOUR TURN, HOW ABOUT SOME NUMBERS. AND HOW ABOUT YOU TELL ME WHAT WOULD COUNT AS "BETTER OFF"?
Why aren't planes faster than the speed of light? Why can't you fly yet? Why haven't humans been able to breath under water?
I thought a free market would make anything possible and cheaper!

[Steven Douglas]

I thought a free market would make anything possible and cheaper!

Can you explain why, generally speaking even, that computers are cheaper, better, more powerful, more efficient, etc., every year, while education and health care are cost prohibitive without insurance for most? In China the cost of both non-subsidized education and non-subsidized health care went steadily down while I was there, while the subsidized versions of each are either stable or slightly rising, but only modestly. What is it that prevents education and health care from following the same pattern as computers in America and their education and health care counterparts in China?

Let me answer that: There is NO SUCH THING as a free market in the States where education and health care are concerned. Not even close. Both education and health care are special interests to the core - highly protectionist/protected, deliberately overly complicated, with layers upon layers of corrupt entities on the take, and heavily subsidized in the States, way, WAY more than in China. The number of doctors that can be admitted into practice is not controlled by Chinese authorities. If everyone wanted to be a doctor, nothing would stop a glut of doctors in China. And that's happening, because labor competition is so fierce in China that a four year degree is their equivalent to a high school diploma in terms of where it will get you in the workplace.

Think we'll let many of those Chinese doctors into our borders to compete with our spoiled bastard children of the AMA? Fat chance. Only a token few. My doctor in China made house calls. Our doctors did that, once upon a time in a different America. Easily affordable, too, out of pocket. And I'm not rich, and neither was my Chinese doctor, who was EXTREMELY good, but also faced a LOT of healthy competition. Like normal people do in a free market.

Private, non-subsidized hospitals: all modern facilities, with highly competent physicians:

Medical Record workbook for the doctor to fill out: .50 cents
X-Rays $20
Blood tests - $9
MRI - $46
Antibiotics and painkillers - $8

That was one of my visits. Take all your records, including your X-rays and MRI results, with you when you go - they don't store that crap for you, it's yours. It's very strange. Very surreal. Eye-popping actually, to see medicine practiced in a free market. In "communist" China.

Oh, and want your whole mouth rebuilt, with dental implants from Swiss trained Chinese oral surgeons? You'll be lucky if you pay more than $2K for a whole mouth rebuild - everything included. For about the price of a single implant, or a couple of root canals and a single crown in the states.

Yeah, you can pretty much destroy our education and health care systems and start over from scratch. Import the $#@! out of it from overseas. Flood our bloated, corrupt, insane market. I don't see any other way, it's definitely not fixable. Both are cases of Social Engineering Insanity Gone Wild.

EDIT: I made arrangements last month for my cousin to go to China to get some medical attention AND a full mouth rebuild. He was quoted $26,000 in California (cheapest quote out of three) for his dental work. He has no medical or dental insurance. He'll be staying in Wuxi on a tourist visa for a little less than a month. But he's going to China with about $6K at his disposal, about what it will take for the cost of a visa, round trip airfare, food and lodging, a full mouth rebuild, AND full medical attention. At a small fraction of what it would have cost to rebuild his mouth here - and forget the medical, there's no way that's happening here.

[tttppp]

Can you explain why, generally speaking even, that computers are cheaper, better, more powerful, more efficient, etc., every year, while education and health care are cost prohibitive without insurance for most? In China the cost of both non-subsidized education and non-subsidized health care went steadily down while I was there, while the subsidized versions of each are either stable or slightly rising, but only modestly. What is it that prevents education and health care from following the same pattern as computers in America and their education and health care counterparts in China?

Let me answer that: There is NO SUCH THING as a free market in the States where education and health care are concerned. Not even close. Both education and health care are special interests to the core - highly protectionist/protected, deliberately overly complicated, with layers upon layers of corrupt entities on the take, and heavily subsidized in the States, way, WAY more than in China. The number of doctors that can be admitted into practice is not controlled by Chinese authorities. If everyone wanted to be a doctor, nothing would stop a glut of doctors in China. And that's happening, because labor competition is so fierce in China that a four year degree is their equivalent to a high school diploma in terms of where it will get you in the workplace.

Think we'll let many of those Chinese doctors into our borders to compete with our spoiled bastard children of the AMA? Fat chance. Only a token few. My doctor in China made house calls. Our doctors did that, once upon a time in a different America. Easily affordable, too, out of pocket. And I'm not rich, and neither was my Chinese doctor, who was EXTREMELY good, but also faced a LOT of healthy competition. Like normal people do in a free market.

Private, non-subsidized hospitals: all modern facilities, with highly competent physicians:

Medical Record workbook for the doctor to fill out: .50 cents
X-Rays $20
Blood tests - $9
MRI - $46
Antibiotics and painkillers - $8

That was one of my visits. Take all your records, including your X-rays and MRI results, with you when you go - they don't store that crap for you, it's yours. It's very strange. Very surreal. Eye-popping actually, to see medicine practiced in a free market. In "communist" China.

Oh, and want your whole mouth rebuilt, with dental implants from Swiss trained Chinese oral surgeons? You'll be lucky if you pay more than $2K for a whole mouth rebuild - everything included. For about the price of a single implant, or a couple of root canals and a single crown in the states.

Yeah, you can pretty much destroy our education and health care systems and start over from scratch. Import the $#@! out of it from overseas. Flood our bloated, corrupt, insane market. I don't see any other way, it's definitely not fixable. Both are cases of Social Engineering Insanity Gone Wild.

EDIT: I made arrangements last month for my cousin to go to China to get some medical attention AND a full mouth rebuild. He was quoted $26,000 in California (cheapest quote out of three) for his dental work. He has no medical or dental insurance. He'll be staying in Wuxi on a tourist visa for a little less than a month. But he's going to China with about $6K at his disposal, about what it will take for the cost of a visa, round trip airfare, food and lodging, a full mouth rebuild, AND full medical attention. At a small fraction of what it would have cost to rebuild his mouth here - and forget the medical, there's no way that's happening here.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. One thing I'd like to add is that in China there is Chinese traditional medicine (acupuncture and herbs), which can cure most illnesses...as opposed to western medicine which tries to get you to take the maximum number of pills for the rest of your life. If you are in China I would suggest you stop by an acupuncturist/herbalist sometime. It will prevent you from ever having to go back to a western doctor.

[tttppp]

You have no numbers to back this up, and you think "people today went back to 1912 style jobs they wouldn't be able to afford the basics" doesn't make my point? Because it does! You just admitted 2012 jobs, compared to 1912 jobs, are LESS LABOR, MORE MONEY. Did you miss the part where I said you can start by living in cities no more populated than 1912 cities?

How about you actually back this up with numbers, rather than just saying 'you can't do it, I can't do it' without specifics.

No, there's nothing wrong per se with cars being no more fuel efficient, just like there's nothing wrong with the fact planes still can't exceed the speed of light. You went ahead and ignored again, that you are free to buy used and old 1912, 1952, 1972 vehicles at much lower cost (unless its a well preserved antique). Housing is not "just as expensive" depending on where you live, now I'm not getting why you keep ignoring this. Have you been under a rock while Americans were witnesses to a massive housing bubble?

I won't contest that healthcare and education are expensive, they are, VERY EXPENSIVE. However, they are not the quality and availablity as 1912, not by a long stretch. In 1912, how many surgeries were not even physically possible that you'd die from? Today, you have the option of selling your house or going bankrupt if the surgery meant so much to you. In 1912, you can rob a bank and nobody can help you if the surgery or drug was not discovered yet.

Education is not a necessity, at least higher education is not. You can choose to, if you want the white collar job that makes more money than the 1912 job. You are free to work the 1912 job and complain what you can't afford to buy.

So, YOUR TURN, HOW ABOUT SOME NUMBERS. AND HOW ABOUT YOU TELL ME WHAT WOULD COUNT AS "BETTER OFF"?
Why aren't planes faster than the speed of light? Why can't you fly yet? Why haven't humans been able to breath under water?
I thought a free market would make anything possible and cheaper!

Where the hell are your numbers? You haven't given me any facts. I can speak from person experience, the vast majority of people struggle to break even. And its not their fault.

You would absolutely make a horrible manager. I've worked with people like you before. They assume everything is perfect and nothing can be improved upon. Your making the same mistake when analyzing the economy. Education, housing, healthcare, auto, planes all $#@!ty industries because of government involvement. But according to you its ok. Its ok for car manufacturer to not add any value over a hundred year period.

As far as surgeries are concerned, surgeries are not cures. Surgeries injure people just as often as they help them. If the U.S. has switched to chinese traditional medicine, they would have cured millions of more people at lower cost.

[Steven Douglas]

I agree with pretty much everything you said. One thing I'd like to add is that in China there is Chinese traditional medicine (acupuncture and herbs), which can cure most illnesses...as opposed to western medicine which tries to get you to take the maximum number of pills for the rest of your life. If you are in China I would suggest you stop by an acupuncturist/herbalist sometime. It will prevent you from ever having to go back to a western doctor.

Chinese doctors are required to know traditional medicine (not acupuncture, but the herbalist side). I have been prescribed traditional medicine several times - and took what I was given. It's all packaged like any other medicine, and looks very "pharmaceutical" - like this, one of my prescriptions when I had a spleen infection (still have the x-ray from it):



I think the total cost on the above, back in 2007, was about 17 RMB, or around $2.50. You poke the rubber seal on the top with a plastic straw and drink the semi-bitter contents, one vial a day for seven days (the first given by the doctor at the hospital). I took that along with my western prescriptions, all of which were prescribed by the same doctor. I had relief pretty much the same day, total comfort within two, and absolutely zero way of knowing what role, if any, the traditional medicine played in that.

The scientific jury is still out on all the claims of Chinese traditional medicine, but that doesn't mean there isn't something to it. Centuries of trial and error, and I'm sure a lot of placebo effect along the way, but also successes, and things we have yet to learn. Likewise, the reality jury is still out on much of western pharmaceuticals. Lots of experimenting with an incredibly complex, mostly self-healing, life form that we still have a long way to go in learning. I don't have blind faith in any generalized school of medicine, nor would I be so naive as to think they both aren't in the relative dark ages in terms of what is possible for the future. Medicine is still called a "practice" for very good reason - for all our many advances, we are about as far from perfect as we can get.

As for herbalists and chemists, that's the roots of our modern day pharmaceutical industry, with lots of blind faith trial and error to get it started. Edward Stone was an herbalist back in 1763 who used willow bark for treating fevers. Science later learned that it contained a substance that was labeled salicylic acid - the sole ingredient of common aspirin. I don't expect our protectionist pharmaceutical-driven medicine machine to be excited about Chinese traditional medicine, as it isn't patentable. But Asian researchers are doing studies and writing papers, and I expect they will get a lot of it sorted out. If, sadly enough, only for themselves.

So count me a hopeful skeptic, and one who is not afraid to at least take a chance. I'm not their first guinea pig for sure. Even most Chinese see western medicine for much of its "right now" advantages as cures, and Chinese traditional medicine, which they take mostly on faith (their own normalcy bias), for the long haul.

[onlyrp]

Where the hell are your numbers? You haven't given me any facts. I can speak from person experience, the vast majority of people struggle to break even. And its not their fault.

You would absolutely make a horrible manager. I've worked with people like you before. They assume everything is perfect and nothing can be improved upon. Your making the same mistake when analyzing the economy. Education, housing, healthcare, auto, planes all $#@!ty industries because of government involvement. But according to you its ok. Its ok for car manufacturer to not add any value over a hundred year period.

As far as surgeries are concerned, surgeries are not cures. Surgeries injure people just as often as they help them. If the U.S. has switched to chinese traditional medicine, they would have cured millions of more people at lower cost.

I could answer by first asking "How about you tell me first what is BETTER OFF"

But I'll answer you, you want numbers?
This is not my personal experience alone, but at least a dozen people I personally know living in my area.
I agree with you no matter how much you cut your living expense, you need a house and food. But car and clothes do not need to be bought every month.
We'll start with cars, since you are obsessed with it being $20,000-40,000 without better fuel efficiency. Most of the people I am speaking of spent less than $10,000 on their past 2 cars (together, including any repairs). Most of our cars are 5 years old when we buy, and last very well for another 5, they cost less than $5000 to buy.
So that's a start, 10 years, 2 cars, $10,000 total. If you insist you must have 2 cars costing $20,000 each, or $40,000 , that's your problem.

Housing? Single bed apartments cost typically $1000-1400 in populated areas.
We live in suburbs, if it's not shared, it's a studio. So we sacrifice either size or convenience, sometimes the luxury of safe neighborhoods.
Rent is now $700 max for us, it's fluctuated up and down, but never past $1000 without either a better location or a bigger space.

Food, we eat on less than $200 a month. No junk food snacks, doesn't include soda or alcohol. We're not vegetarians, just smart shoppers.

Utilities, electricity, water, gas add up to less than $100 a month. If you're low income you may get assistance, but we don't. Cable, internet and cellphones are not necessities or basics.

So there you have it, BASICS cost less than $1000 a month. (and this is suburbs of southern California, it gets even better if you lived in foreclosureville, but that'll make income harder to find as well)
Even the lowest income among us makes $1200 net a month, leaving him $200 extra in he needs to buy gasoline for travel.
So what did I forget to include that is either basic or necessity? Anybody who has told us they can't make a living or get the basics without making $30,000 a year, has conceded and admitted after just looking at their numbers that they only "can't" because they CHOSE TO DEMAND MORE.

Medical care, that's the hard part, I concede that is expensive today and hard to have access to. Education is also optional.
(many of us are taking risks because we don't have any health coverage, but we get by, if you consider than a basic or necessity, fine)
YOUR TURN.

Hey, I'll make it easier for you. I'll give you the benefit of doubt that my numbers are way underestimated and you can't possibly get what we do. I'll DOUBLE MINE. Can you live on $2000 a month? If not, please list me what great basics you can't pay for.

[onlyrp]

As for herbalists and chemists, that's the roots of our modern day pharmaceutical industry, with lots of blind faith trial and error to get it started.

yeah, because the alternative such as prayer, esoteric knowledge, no trial no error is obviously better.

[Steven Douglas]

yeah, because the alternative such as prayer, esoteric knowledge, no trial no error is obviously better.

It is? Was that sarcasm? Were you under the impression that I believed something in particular with regard to prayer, esoteric knowledge, or the absence of trial and error, or even that I was criticizing trial and error as somehow being a bad thing?

[onlyrp]

It is? Was that sarcasm? Were you under the impression that I believed something in particular with regard to prayer, esoteric knowledge, or the absence of trial and error, or even that I was criticizing trial and error as somehow being a bad thing?

yes it was sarcasm, sorry. No it wasn't you specifically, it was just me venting the old criticism against western medicine that somehow the philosophy of scientific testing, or the attitude of "give drug when symptoms arise" is wrong, as if there is a more better alternative. I know you were not criticizing trial and error.

[tttppp]

Chinese doctors are required to know traditional medicine (not acupuncture, but the herbalist side). I have been prescribed traditional medicine several times - and took what I was given. It's all packaged like any other medicine, and looks very "pharmaceutical" - like this, one of my prescriptions when I had a spleen infection (still have the x-ray from it):



I think the total cost on the above, back in 2007, was about 17 RMB, or around $2.50. You poke the rubber seal on the top with a plastic straw and drink the semi-bitter contents, one vial a day for seven days (the first given by the doctor at the hospital). I took that along with my western prescriptions, all of which were prescribed by the same doctor. I had relief pretty much the same day, total comfort within two, and absolutely zero way of knowing what role, if any, the traditional medicine played in that.

The scientific jury is still out on all the claims of Chinese traditional medicine, but that doesn't mean there isn't something to it. Centuries of trial and error, and I'm sure a lot of placebo effect along the way, but also successes, and things we have yet to learn. Likewise, the reality jury is still out on much of western pharmaceuticals. Lots of experimenting with an incredibly complex, mostly self-healing, life form that we still have a long way to go in learning. I don't have blind faith in any generalized school of medicine, nor would I be so naive as to think they both aren't in the relative dark ages in terms of what is possible for the future. Medicine is still called a "practice" for very good reason - for all our many advances, we are about as far from perfect as we can get.

As for herbalists and chemists, that's the roots of our modern day pharmaceutical industry, with lots of blind faith trial and error to get it started. Edward Stone was an herbalist back in 1763 who used willow bark for treating fevers. Science later learned that it contained a substance that was labeled salicylic acid - the sole ingredient of common aspirin. I don't expect our protectionist pharmaceutical-driven medicine machine to be excited about Chinese traditional medicine, as it isn't patentable. But Asian researchers are doing studies and writing papers, and I expect they will get a lot of it sorted out. If, sadly enough, only for themselves.

So count me a hopeful skeptic, and one who is not afraid to at least take a chance. I'm not their first guinea pig for sure. Even most Chinese see western medicine for much of its "right now" advantages as cures, and Chinese traditional medicine, which they take mostly on faith (their own normalcy bias), for the long haul.

Chinese traditional medicine has been around for roughly 5,000 years. Over that time its pretty much been perfected. There's a cure for every imbalance you can have. When a acupuncturist/herbalist examines you, they can tell based on your tongue exactly what your condition is and exactly how to treat you. It tells them exactly where to put the needles and exactly what combination of herbs to give you. Its not guess work.

I'm not sure what the requirements are for education in china, but I know in american if you go to a doctor who knows acupuncture or herbs, they are completely incompetent. You have to go to a specialist in chinese traditional medicine to get anywhere.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Education, housing, healthcare, auto, planes all $#@!ty industries because of government involvement.

Read Steven's comment for a moment, it's NOT government but the PRIVATE SECTOR is making things better in China, government-substituted systems are costing more while private systems are getting cheaper & better.

Why do you think politicians & bureaucrats have much incentive to improve things? They can ROB (tax & inflate) the people, so there's very little incentive for them to do any good to raise standards. People in the private sector have profit-incentive, they compete for profit amongst themselves, government can just TAKE money, it doesn't have to work a lot to earn it that's why communism/socialism fails. As far as the living standards go, if government weren't STEALING so much money out of the economy by way of taxes & debt, & putting crippling "regulations" only to protect big lobbying companies & crush the little guys then it would be much much better than it is right now so of course, the problem is government.

Again, you keep missing the point, it's NOT about "money", it's about resources - goods & services (REAL WEALTH), the more there are the higher living-standards people will experience - & the only way to ensure that is to allow those people who produce goods & services to keep their profits & re-investing it to produce even more & so on. Again, if someone could just take money "legally" or otherwise, they've no incentive to be very productive.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Can you explain why, generally speaking even, that computers are cheaper, better, more powerful, more efficient, etc., every year, while education and health care are cost prohibitive without insurance for most? In China the cost of both non-subsidized education and non-subsidized health care went steadily down while I was there, while the subsidized versions of each are either stable or slightly rising, but only modestly. What is it that prevents education and health care from following the same pattern as computers in America and their education and health care counterparts in China?

Let me answer that: There is NO SUCH THING as a free market in the States where education and health care are concerned. Not even close. Both education and health care are special interests to the core - highly protectionist/protected, deliberately overly complicated, with layers upon layers of corrupt entities on the take, and heavily subsidized in the States, way, WAY more than in China. The number of doctors that can be admitted into practice is not controlled by Chinese authorities. If everyone wanted to be a doctor, nothing would stop a glut of doctors in China. And that's happening, because labor competition is so fierce in China that a four year degree is their equivalent to a high school diploma in terms of where it will get you in the workplace.

Think we'll let many of those Chinese doctors into our borders to compete with our spoiled bastard children of the AMA? Fat chance. Only a token few. My doctor in China made house calls. Our doctors did that, once upon a time in a different America. Easily affordable, too, out of pocket. And I'm not rich, and neither was my Chinese doctor, who was EXTREMELY good, but also faced a LOT of healthy competition. Like normal people do in a free market.

Private, non-subsidized hospitals: all modern facilities, with highly competent physicians:

Medical Record workbook for the doctor to fill out: .50 cents
X-Rays $20
Blood tests - $9
MRI - $46
Antibiotics and painkillers - $8

That was one of my visits. Take all your records, including your X-rays and MRI results, with you when you go - they don't store that crap for you, it's yours. It's very strange. Very surreal. Eye-popping actually, to see medicine practiced in a free market. In "communist" China.

Oh, and want your whole mouth rebuilt, with dental implants from Swiss trained Chinese oral surgeons? You'll be lucky if you pay more than $2K for a whole mouth rebuild - everything included. For about the price of a single implant, or a couple of root canals and a single crown in the states.

Yeah, you can pretty much destroy our education and health care systems and start over from scratch. Import the $#@! out of it from overseas. Flood our bloated, corrupt, insane market. I don't see any other way, it's definitely not fixable. Both are cases of Social Engineering Insanity Gone Wild.

EDIT: I made arrangements last month for my cousin to go to China to get some medical attention AND a full mouth rebuild. He was quoted $26,000 in California (cheapest quote out of three) for his dental work. He has no medical or dental insurance. He'll be staying in Wuxi on a tourist visa for a little less than a month. But he's going to China with about $6K at his disposal, about what it will take for the cost of a visa, round trip airfare, food and lodging, a full mouth rebuild, AND full medical attention. At a small fraction of what it would have cost to rebuild his mouth here - and forget the medical, there's no way that's happening here.

+1

Good piece

[onlyrp]

Read Steven's comment for a moment, it's NOT government but the PRIVATE SECTOR is making things better in China, government-substituted systems are costing more while private systems are getting cheaper & better.

how are you disagreeing with him that costs have gone up in the US due to government involvement?

And, if you agree with him, do we expect ALL AND ANY countries with less government, to have better or cheaper services of those mentioned above?

[tttppp]

Read Steven's comment for a moment, it's NOT government but the PRIVATE SECTOR is making things better in China, government-substituted systems are costing more while private systems are getting cheaper & better.

Why do you think politicians & bureaucrats have much incentive to improve things? They can ROB (tax & inflate) the people, so there's very little incentive for them to do any good to raise standards. People in the private sector have profit-incentive, they compete for profit amongst themselves, government can just TAKE money, it doesn't have to work a lot to earn it that's why communism/socialism fails. As far as the living standards go, if government weren't STEALING so much money out of the economy by way of taxes & debt, & putting crippling "regulations" only to protect big lobbying companies & crush the little guys then it would be much much better than it is right now so of course, the problem is government.

Again, you keep missing the point, it's NOT about "money", it's about resources - goods & services (REAL WEALTH), the more there are the higher living-standards people will experience - & the only way to ensure that is to allow those people who produce goods & services to keep their profits & re-investing it to produce even more & so on. Again, if someone could just take money "legally" or otherwise, they've no incentive to be very productive.

How am I missing the point? You obviously have not read my prior posts. I argued for all industries to be deregulated and allow the free market to work. I was criticizing our government for creating a system is which companies are not allowed to do business unless they run their business the way the government would. For some reason you are trying to lecture me that the free market is better than the government. I already made that point, why are you lecturing me?

[onlyrp]

How am I missing the point? You obviously have not read my prior posts. I argued for all industries to be deregulated and allow the free market to work. I was criticizing our government for creating a system is which companies are not allowed to do business unless they run their business the way the government would. For some reason you are trying to lecture me that the free market is better than the government. I already made that point, why are you lecturing me?

now that we got that out of the way, please respond to my "way off" numbers, or give me your own.

Thanks.

[tttppp]

I could answer by first asking "How about you tell me first what is BETTER OFF"

But I'll answer you, you want numbers?
This is not my personal experience alone, but at least a dozen people I personally know living in my area.
I agree with you no matter how much you cut your living expense, you need a house and food. But car and clothes do not need to be bought every month.
We'll start with cars, since you are obsessed with it being $20,000-40,000 without better fuel efficiency. Most of the people I am speaking of spent less than $10,000 on their past 2 cars (together, including any repairs). Most of our cars are 5 years old when we buy, and last very well for another 5, they cost less than $5000 to buy.
So that's a start, 10 years, 2 cars, $10,000 total. If you insist you must have 2 cars costing $20,000 each, or $40,000 , that's your problem.

Housing? Single bed apartments cost typically $1000-1400 in populated areas.
We live in suburbs, if it's not shared, it's a studio. So we sacrifice either size or convenience, sometimes the luxury of safe neighborhoods.
Rent is now $700 max for us, it's fluctuated up and down, but never past $1000 without either a better location or a bigger space.

Food, we eat on less than $200 a month. No junk food snacks, doesn't include soda or alcohol. We're not vegetarians, just smart shoppers.

Utilities, electricity, water, gas add up to less than $100 a month. If you're low income you may get assistance, but we don't. Cable, internet and cellphones are not necessities or basics.

So there you have it, BASICS cost less than $1000 a month. (and this is suburbs of southern California, it gets even better if you lived in foreclosureville, but that'll make income harder to find as well)
Even the lowest income among us makes $1200 net a month, leaving him $200 extra in he needs to buy gasoline for travel.
So what did I forget to include that is either basic or necessity? Anybody who has told us they can't make a living or get the basics without making $30,000 a year, has conceded and admitted after just looking at their numbers that they only "can't" because they CHOSE TO DEMAND MORE.

Medical care, that's the hard part, I concede that is expensive today and hard to have access to. Education is also optional.
(many of us are taking risks because we don't have any health coverage, but we get by, if you consider than a basic or necessity, fine)
YOUR TURN.

Hey, I'll make it easier for you. I'll give you the benefit of doubt that my numbers are way underestimated and you can't possibly get what we do. I'll DOUBLE MINE. Can you live on $2000 a month? If not, please list me what great basics you can't pay for.

In my last job I was making roughly $50,000 year and was saving less than $10,000 year. The only thing I spent money on that wasn't a necessity was cable and internet. I don't know about you but but making $10,000 year for my personal use doesn't really motivate me to work. Especially considering the student loans I have to pay off, $10,000 does add up to much.

My parents used to make over $150,000 combined, and were able to save more money. But after putting 3 kids through college they aren't even going to be able to afford to retire.

Of the people I worked with who made similar salaries to me, none of them were able to save any money. Although most of them did waste their money.

The majority of kids I went to school with were not able to find decent jobs getting out of school, and had to live with their parents. Roughly 20 years of school should ensure that most kids are able to find adequate work and be able to move out on their own.

[brushfire]

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...-apple-factory

[onlyrp]

In my last job I was making roughly $50,000 year and was saving less than $10,000 year. The only thing I spent money on that wasn't a necessity was cable and internet. I don't know about you but but making $10,000 year for my personal use doesn't really motivate me to work. Especially considering the student loans I have to pay off, $10,000 does add up to much.

My parents used to make over $150,000 combined, and were able to save more money. But after putting 3 kids through college they aren't even going to be able to afford to retire.

Of the people I worked with who made similar salaries to me, none of them were able to save any money. Although most of them did waste their money.

The majority of kids I went to school with were not able to find decent jobs getting out of school, and had to live with their parents. Roughly 20 years of school should ensure that most kids are able to find adequate work and be able to move out on their own.

Be a little specific, what do you mean "saving $10,000 a year"? Do you mean, all expenses paid, $10,000 was saved into your bank account unspent each year? If so, how is that not more than necessities?

How did you end up spending $40,000 a year? (I understand taxes take out about 13,000)

You just identified your problem, you're not motivated to work unless you are paid what you want, too bad. I'll keep working and saving, you can stop working and see who wants to bail you out.

How much did 3 kids going to college cost? I hope they were all worthy majors (sounds like you guys went to college on a combination of savings and loans) Looks like you admitted most people just waste their money, so what's to complain? You can't say "waste" until you've taken care of your basics and necessities. So you're still not telling me how you're unable to afford basics, and/or how we're worse off than 1912.

Roughly 20 years of school? First 12 is mandatory, therefore doesn't help you get ahead of the crowd. What really counts is the last 4, or last 8, and that's optional. As for your attitude about "why don't I make enough, why can't I move out" you pretty much admitted it's all the choices you made.

So, please tell me , more specifically, how did you end up spending $27,000 of your salary? (I used $50,000 - 13,000 income tax, - 10,000 you said you saved). I'm not going to let you go so easily, though you've already admitted you were able to save up some money, and others who did not, were simply wasteful. But I'm willing to look at more detail, how did you end up spending $20,000-25,000 for living, were they all and only basics and necessities?

[tttppp]

Be a little specific, what do you mean "saving $10,000 a year"? Do you mean, all expenses paid, $10,000 was saved into your bank account unspent each year? If so, how is that not more than necessities?

How did you end up spending $40,000 a year? (I understand taxes take out about 13,000)

You just identified your problem, you're not motivated to work unless you are paid what you want, too bad. I'll keep working and saving, you can stop working and see who wants to bail you out.

How much did 3 kids going to college cost? I hope they were all worthy majors (sounds like you guys went to college on a combination of savings and loans) Looks like you admitted most people just waste their money, so what's to complain? You can't say "waste" until you've taken care of your basics and necessities. So you're still not telling me how you're unable to afford basics, and/or how we're worse off than 1912.

Roughly 20 years of school? First 12 is mandatory, therefore doesn't help you get ahead of the crowd. What really counts is the last 4, or last 8, and that's optional. As for your attitude about "why don't I make enough, why can't I move out" you pretty much admitted it's all the choices you made.

So, please tell me , more specifically, how did you end up spending $27,000 of your salary? (I used $50,000 - 13,000 income tax, - 10,000 you said you saved). I'm not going to let you go so easily, though you've already admitted you were able to save up some money, and others who did not, were simply wasteful. But I'm willing to look at more detail, how did you end up spending $20,000-25,000 for living, were they all and only basics and necessities?

I don't remember the cost breakout. All I remember is I made about $50,000 and saved less than $10,000, when the only major non-basic thing I had was cable, internet, and phone. I also had student loans. I think it was $30,000-$40,000. So if I spent all my savings toward paying back my loans it would take 3-4 years just to break even.

I never said we're worse off than 1912. I said we are not significantly better than 1912. In 1912 a full days worth got you just enough of the basics for you to afford to make it back to work the next day. The same is true today. 80% of my salary should not go to taxes and the basics. It should be the other way around. Roughly 80% of my salary should go to me, and I should decide on how to spend or save it.

Of all the people I know, everyone makes a salary, and I can only think of one who makes a significant amount more than their expenses...this person only got that way because she worked her way towards the top of a company. Which is what I said happens to a few people. A small percentage of people who either work their way to the top of a company or start their own company and have success can have much more than the basics. But this is basically just a small percentage of people.

[onlyrp]

I don't remember the cost breakout. All I remember is I made about $50,000 and saved less than $10,000, when the only major non-basic thing I had was cable, internet, and phone. I also had student loans. I think it was $30,000-$40,000. So if I spent all my savings toward paying back my loans it would take 3-4 years just to break even.

I never said we're worse off than 1912. I said we are not significantly better than 1912. In 1912 a full days worth got you just enough of the basics for you to afford to make it back to work the next day. The same is true today. 80% of my salary should not go to taxes and the basics. It should be the other way around. Roughly 80% of my salary should go to me, and I should decide on how to spend or save it.

Of all the people I know, everyone makes a salary, and I can only think of one who makes a significant amount more than their expenses...this person only got that way because she worked her way towards the top of a company. Which is what I said happens to a few people. A small percentage of people who either work their way to the top of a company or start their own company and have success can have much more than the basics. But this is basically just a small percentage of people.

Let me know when you remember. Because it matters.
How much do you think cable, internet and phone cost you a year? $1000? $2000?
You still have to account for how you managed to spend close to $40,000.
So until you do, and can, I suggest you not complain.

"I never said we're worse off than 1912."
So you purposely wasted my time asking me to explain to you how we're better today than 1912?
Or what did you mean when you said we work more hours for less today and are better off in a communsit country?

What is 80%? A flat rate for all salaries even if you made minimum wage? So if I made minimum wage I should spend my basics and still keep 80%?
Yes, it's rare to be smart and responsible, but you can go with the crowd, or choose something better, if you want. If spending upfront makes you happier, why save?