Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

That's why the range is so large. The low end is the middle of Mississippi while the high end would be for just outside the San Francisco area. Also, being just above those figures doesn't make someone well-off, just a higher than normal income. Don't be so defensive about earning a good wage.

Being single is also a huge factor. $90k goes a lot farther when flying solo, than it does with a family of 7. I still can't figure how my Ft. Wayne cousin, her husband, and their 5 kids, get by on his music teacher's salary (which I presume is about $45-50k at his seniority/locale in IN).

EDIT: Well, OK. They don't ski or vacation in Aspen, for one.

[St. Clown]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Neglect not, the b*tching about illegals and welfare queens in the comments.

I didn't even think to read the comments. It's the internet, so I'm sure they're all spot on and hold great insight.

[St. Clown]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

One set of numbers says very little. A great salary in Butte won't buy a studio apartment in Brooklyn.

According to those numbers I'm upper class; I guess I should turn Republican and f-ck the rest of you over.

That's why the range is so large. The low end is the middle of Mississippi while the high end would be for just outside the San Francisco area. Also, being just above those figures doesn't make someone well-off, just a higher than normal income. Don't be so defensive about earning a good wage.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Pew Research released the Middle Class numbers.

Neglect not, the b*tching about illegals and welfare queens in the comments.

[Kepler]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

I feel middle class (or what I think middle class should be, comfortable with some disposable income), but according to this my family of three makes too much. Am I upper middle class? I don't think I would have considered myself that.

Upper middle class is probably 1.25 - 1.5x those numbers, and lower middle class .75x - .875x. So if your household income is > 1.5x their number for F3, congrats, you're rich.

[Kepler]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Pew Research released the Middle Class numbers.

One set of numbers says very little. A great salary in Butte won't buy a studio apartment in Brooklyn.

According to those numbers I'm upper class; I guess I should turn Republican and f-ck the rest of you over.

[BassAle]

Pew Research released the Middle Class numbers.

I feel middle class (or what I think middle class should be, comfortable with some disposable income), but according to this my family of three makes too much. Am I upper middle class? I don't think I would have considered myself that.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Interesting. Those numbers look pretty good to me.

[St. Clown]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Pew Research released the Middle Class numbers.

The American middle class keeps shrinking.

"The share of American adults in middle-income households also decreased, from 55% in 2000 to 51% in 2014," Pew Research Center reports. "At the same time, the share of adults in the upper-income tier increased from 17% to 20%."

...

Here's the breakdown of how much you have to earn each year to qualify as middle-income, depending on the size of your family:

Household of one: $24,042 to $72,126

Household of two: $34,000 to $102,001

Household of three: $41,641 to $124,925

Household of four: $48,083 to $144,251

Household of five: $53,759 to $161,277

[St. Clown]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Exactly.


But what newspapers report as "profit" is any gain above break-even, even if it is well below a "normal" profit level.

Then some of them can demagogue the issue and get people all worked up about it.

That's because there's a difference between an accountancy profit, which is what 99% of people consider to be a profit, including the IRS, and what economists consider a profit because economists measure social profits.

[FreshFish]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

An economic profit is a gain in excess of "normal" profits, generally measured as profits greater than current rates of return in either the bond market or stock market. Basically, an economic profit is only seen after consideration of opportunity costs.

Exactly.


But what newspapers report as "profit" is any gain above break-even, even if it is well below a "normal" profit level.

Then some of them can demagogue the issue and get people all worked up about it.

[St. Clown]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

An economic profit is a gain in excess of "normal" profits, generally measured as profits greater than current rates of return in either the bond market or stock market. Basically, an economic profit is only seen after consideration of opportunity costs.

[aparch]

Not at all surprising. Their upper management is a joke ever since Jobs kicked the bucket. No innovation or vision at all, just happy to collect profits from hipster d-bags, and Boomers who think Android is too difficult to figure out.

Agreed that Apple is now more interested in profitable incremental change than innovation.

As for the "Android is too difficult," I myself wanted an iPhone for the longest time because my wife's iPhone 4 worked well as a phone when we travelled, yet my Android (Moto Xprt, Samsung Note 2, Moto Droid Turbo) (all work phones) were utter trash and didn't work well (or hardly worked right) and had issues requiring the removal of the battery to unfreeze the system.

Today, I have a Samsung S7 Edge which I chose over the iPhone 7 because Android AND Samsung got their sh** figured out. They made a phone that can receive calls (not that anyone actually uses a smartphone for that reason anymore) and work when its supposed to.

Apple has done well selling the iPhone based on "it just works." Android/Google is working on it on two fronts by finally building their own (Pixel/Nexus), and by Samsung being innovative.

And how is Motorola, who was owned by Google for five years, still so terrible at building phones?

[FreshFish]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

I worked with a person once who had taken $10,000 and a great idea, and built a $15 million company. He had two friends, each of whom invested $15,000 alongside him at the beginning, each of who received 20% stake in the company in return. They each turned $15,000 into $3 million. I asked the person how he felt about it, and he replied, "They earned it; not only did they invest their money, their ongoing insight and guidance and coaching was invaluable. I could never have had the success I did without them."

Without knowing how much time they invested every year, or what it was worth, it's hard to calculate a true rate of return. Let's say their ongoing oversight and involvement was worth $10,000 annually. That works out to a compound pre-tax return of 20% annually.

Is that "unreasonable" in this case?

Well, the invention took a device used very widely in engineering, and made it cheaper, more efficient, and more durable: it created a great deal of value for every customer who bought it in terms of cost savings and improved efficiency. Those customers of his then used his device in production, so that their customers paid less for those products than they otherwise would have.

[FreshFish]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

It seems like accountants and economists have a technical definition of "profit" that is different from the way most people understand the term "profit" and as a result, there is a great deal of unfortunate confusion in which people just talk past each other without having any sense at all of what the other people are trying to say.

If you lend me money, I pay you interest; and usually, you would want some security as well: if I default on paying you back, you want to at least get something back in return, be it a repossessed car or boat, or a foreclosed piece of real estate.

There are situations in which a person needs money, yet is unable to borrow on terms which would allow him to be in a situation in which his revenue exceeds his debt service payments.

In that situation, instead of lending money, other people invest in that person's business instead. Instead of earning interest, they receive a return on capital, which is called "profits." Just as you would not deny a lender the right to receive interest, you would not deny an investor the right to receive "profits" in this technical sense.


The problem is not that people earn "profits", it is how much they earn relative to what is a "reasonable" return on capital, and whether they earn their profits legally; and in many cases, whether they are good "citizens in their community" or not.


When people say they are complaining about "profits," nearly every time, their complaint actually is:
-- it is beyond "reasonable", or
-- they obtain them illegally, or
-- they are the opposite of "good citizens in their community," they hurt people.


Ironically, "profits" are the consumer's best friend: for whenever "profits" are available, so also is an opportunity for someone else to come along and do it better and/or cheaper.


If "excess profits" bother you, then you should support anti-trust enforcement (like I do). The more competitors, the narrower the "excess profit" margin, and the returns on capital become more "reasonable" than before.