• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Income Inequality

What should be done to battle income inequality in the USA?

  • Do not intervene

    Votes: 39 53.4%

  • Yes, do intervene

    Votes: 34 46.6%
  • Total voters
    73
tuhaybey said:
You just don't seem to be familiar with economics. You're missing many of the most basic concepts of capitalism completely. I explained it the best I can and that didn't seem to help, so I don't know what else I can do. Maybe you ought to just take an evening class or something?
Click to expand...


and you talk of theories

some of us talk of practical experience

theories are wonderful in the world of academia.....

they dont work well in the real world......

but why not test your theories.....take your money, and your friends money, and come compete

based on your theories, you should be able to undercut anyone in any business on the planet....because as you say, you arent looking for a profit

try it out in the practical world....your choice on type of business.....it wont matter

i give you six months.....if you are lucky......
 
gdgyva said:
so the best thing we can do, is to provide a chance for people to improve themselves.....educations, trade schools, etc
Click to expand...

Exactly, and make them affordable, and inform people about the schools selling expensive courses that don't lead to jobs that actually exist, but instead prey on the vulnerable and uneducated.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Yeah in the 1930's the rich said that nothing should be done either. Remember how that turned out? History repeats itself and if you pay close enough attention you will realize what went wrong.
Click to expand...

It was the uber-rich that crashed the market, kept the depression artifically going, and pushed The New Deal - which of course was a terrible deal for Americans. It was the long-term death sentence that is now looming over us.

As always, and in all ways - the uber-rich are always maneuvering to gain control of and then expand government. Social programs are sold to the masses as help for the little guy, but as always it is nothing more than a trap that brings the little guy under the control of the government, and since the government is under the control of the Establishment rich, it brings the little guy under the control of the wealthy Establishment - your hated 1%'ers.

Bernard Baruch was FDR's attack dog in the NRA - Baruch was a lacky for JP Morgan, Rockefeller, the Schiffs, etc; he killed millions of jobs, and destroyed many companies for the benefit of his Money Trust handlers. To give the appearance of "helping the little guy", he'd give speeches at a favored company who was benefitting from government protection and Establishment money, and talk about how life was so great for the union workers at the company. Yes, those few workers benefitted, and to be sure the Establishment elite benefitted greatly - but the vast majority of the country was savaged.

How it is that you leftists can never see how you are manipulated to do the heavy lifting for the Establishment elite - to the detriment of the majority, and at the cost of liberty - is beyond me. You have blinders on - the communists refer to you as "useful idiots".
 
gdgyva said:
question....do you follow productivity history?

has there been spikes in productivity before?

this may help you

Productivity improving technologies (historical) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as more and more automation, and computers control the labor of the planet, productivity of course rises

and wages for those who work on those machines, programming them, fixing them, building them, also rise

but the non skilled wages...no they arent rising, nor will they

too many competing for the same cashier job, because that is all they can do (so why should a company pay them more than the job is worth?)

skills pay the bills......remember it.....it isnt going to change

nothing you can say, or do that will change that fact

so the best thing we can do, is to provide a chance for people to improve themselves.....educations, trade schools, etc

those opportunities are out there......but the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink applies

they have to WANT to improve, and they have to make the effort to do whatever it takes to make it happen
Click to expand...

You again seem to be having trouble distinguishing personal narrative from statistics. As an individual, it makes sense to get some marketable job skills. From a top down perspective, it really doesn't matter if we are going to have 10 or 12% unemployment. If every single American worker retrained, and chose a good, future oriented, needed craft, we still could not provide full employment. We would just have a better trained unemployed segment of the workforce.

Much of the recent growth in productivity has come because a software application can replace 10, 30, or 100 workers. Indeed, there wouldn't be much point in buying the technology, if you had to turn around and replace 100 low skilled workers with 100 IT professionals. Under our current system, those displaced are tending to drop into lower paying service jobs, or unemployment, where they do not have as much income to buy the fruits of the new production. This is the essential problem. Yes, there are new positions opening up in evolving technology, but the numbers required are much, much smaller than in the past.
 
Ganesh said:
You again seem to be having trouble distinguishing personal narrative from statistics. As an individual, it makes sense to get some marketable job skills. From a top down perspective, it really doesn't matter if we are going to have 10 or 12% unemployment. If every single American worker retrained, and chose a good, future oriented, needed craft, we still could not provide full employment. We would just have a better trained unemployed segment of the workforce.

Much of the recent growth in productivity has come because a software application can replace 10, 30, or 100 workers. Indeed, there wouldn't be much point in buying the technology, if you had to turn around and replace 100 low skilled workers with 100 IT professionals. Under our current system, those displaced are tending to drop into lower paying service jobs, or unemployment, where they do not have as much income to buy the fruits of the new production. This is the essential problem. Yes, there are new positions opening up in evolving technology, but the numbers required are much, much smaller than in the past.
Click to expand...


so you believe that even if everyone had skills, we would still be where we are

au contraire....let me explain why....

why is the number one reason why people start their own businesses?

this article explains it.....

Nothing beats the freedom of being the boss — at least when it comes to the entrepreneurial efforts of small business owners.

New research from Cox Business has found that more than half of small business owners start their own business in order to be their own boss. The researchers found that people were also motivated by the idea of creating something from the ground up. Overall, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they had started their own business for one of those reasons.

Money, on the other hand, is not a motivating factor for many small business owners: Just 8 percent of respondents said that was their main motivation for starting their own business.

The Number One Reason Most Entrepreneurs Start Businesses

they want to be their own boss.....and when you HAVE skills, you have a chance

without skills, you have zero chance

people get laid off all the time....some start working for themselves....out of need, and desire

they wouldnt do that without the prerequisite skills.....

so new businesses would start up....maybe a few new innovations would pop up.....

it may not fix everything, but i know we would be better off than we are now.....
 
gdgyva said:
so you believe that even if everyone had skills, we would still be where we are

au contraire....let me explain why....

why is the number one reason why people start their own businesses?

this article explains it.....

Nothing beats the freedom of being the boss — at least when it comes to the entrepreneurial efforts of small business owners.

New research from Cox Business has found that more than half of small business owners start their own business in order to be their own boss. The researchers found that people were also motivated by the idea of creating something from the ground up. Overall, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they had started their own business for one of those reasons.

Money, on the other hand, is not a motivating factor for many small business owners: Just 8 percent of respondents said that was their main motivation for starting their own business.

The Number One Reason Most Entrepreneurs Start Businesses

they want to be their own boss.....and when you HAVE skills, you have a chance

without skills, you have zero chance

people get laid off all the time....some start working for themselves....out of need, and desire

they wouldnt do that without the prerequisite skills.....

so new businesses would start up....maybe a few new innovations would pop up.....

it may not fix everything, but i know we would be better off than we are now.....
Click to expand...

To successfully run a small business, one needs a market for their service or product. If all those newly unemployed now open some sort of business, not because it fits with a researched business plan, but because the are unemployed and need an income, they will simply be flooding the market with whatever they intent to flog. Opening a business does not necessarily mean there will be customers, and it does not mean that suddenly there is extra wealth in the country.

If there are three coffee shops in a given area, and now there are five, as those laid off GM workers still need an income, then the pie is divided five ways instead of three, all things being equal. And in fact, what you can often have is not even that, but turmoil and dislocation. Many small businesses operate at a low margin, and can only stand so much drop in income. You may end up with none for a while as all go broke, and lose start-up or other costs.

There is a difference from looking at economic prospects from an individual perspective, and from an overall perspective.
 
well let us know what business you all plan to open

with zero profit motive, you can squeeze out all the competitors

you can pay extra to your employees

let us know how that REALLY works in the real world....

inquiring minds.....and such
 
tuhaybey said:
You just don't seem to be familiar with economics. You're missing many of the most basic concepts of capitalism completely. I explained it the best I can and that didn't seem to help, so I don't know what else I can do. Maybe you ought to just take an evening class or something?
Click to expand...

I am very familiar with making a profit. You stated yourself, I quote, "That isn't supposed to be possible in a capitalist economy if things work like the models, but it is happening and has been for like 30 years now." The problem is the models are wrong and all the comments you've made on this subject prove it.

I said before you never owned a business or managed one and that was based on your comments. You say I am missing what you are saying, your damn right I am as I would never run a business using your model. The business model I like is the one that produces massive profit, so that I can take that profit and leverage it to make yet bigger and more massive profit. And one other thing I like expensive toys, that only a very profitable business can offer.
 
Dittohead not! said:
First, I'm not wrong.
Second, no Obama is not a "pet of mine". That's absurd.
Third, the border fence is an expensive boondoggle that will never work.
Fourth, the Republicans had control of the WH and both houses, and did squat to end illegal immigration back during the Bush Administration.
Fifth, it was the arch conservative, Ronald Reagan, who actually signed amnesty into law.
Click to expand...

Weather you think it will work or not is not the point. You claimed the Pubs never did anything about our border and I proved you wrong. In fact your are wrong most every time. And you continue your ignorance with the statement in bold. I repeat again

Senate Passes Bill on Building Border Fence

Sign In to E-Mail This
Print
Reprints

By CARL HULSE and RACHEL L. SWARNS
Published: September 30, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — The Senate on Friday approved the building of 700 miles of fence along the nation’s southwestern border, fulfilling a demand by conservative Republicans to take steps to slow the flow of illegal immigrants before exploring broader changes to immigration law.

The Senate vote, 80 to 19, came as lawmakers finished a batch of legislation before heading home to campaign. It sent the fence measure to President Bush, who has promised to sign it despite his earlier push for a more comprehensive approach that could lead to citizenship for some who are in the country illegally.

House Republicans, fearing a voter backlash, had opposed any approach that smacked of amnesty and chose instead to focus on border security in advance of the elections, passing the fence bill earlier this month. With time running out, the Senate acquiesced despite its bipartisan passage of a broader bill in May.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/washington/30cong.html?_r=0

But hey go stand by your man Obama and the rest of the dems with their open border policy and amnesty. You have demonstrated in the past your idea of closing the border is an I-9 form. That is no different than saying come alllllllllll in.
 
Born Free said:
Weather you think it will work or not is not the point. You claimed the Pubs never did anything about our border and I proved you wrong. In fact your are wrong most every time. And you continue your ignorance with the statement in bold. I repeat again

Senate Passes Bill on Building Border Fence

Sign In to E-Mail This
Print
Reprints

By CARL HULSE and RACHEL L. SWARNS
Published: September 30, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — The Senate on Friday approved the building of 700 miles of fence along the nation’s southwestern border, fulfilling a demand by conservative Republicans to take steps to slow the flow of illegal immigrants before exploring broader changes to immigration law.

The Senate vote, 80 to 19, came as lawmakers finished a batch of legislation before heading home to campaign. It sent the fence measure to President Bush, who has promised to sign it despite his earlier push for a more comprehensive approach that could lead to citizenship for some who are in the country illegally.

House Republicans, fearing a voter backlash, had opposed any approach that smacked of amnesty and chose instead to focus on border security in advance of the elections, passing the fence bill earlier this month. With time running out, the Senate acquiesced despite its bipartisan passage of a broader bill in May.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/washington/30cong.html?_r=0

But hey go stand by your man Obama and the rest of the dems with their open border policy and amnesty. You have demonstrated in the past your idea of closing the border is an I-9 form. That is no different than saying come alllllllllll in.
Click to expand...

The only reason that anyone wants to tout a border fence is to fool the public into thinking that they're really serious about ending illegal immigration. They have taken in some people, no doubt, but the fact is that the fence idea is simply a proposal for an expensive boondoggle, coming, interestingly enough from the same people who purport to be in favor of fiscal responsibility.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The only reason that anyone wants to tout a border fence is to fool the public into thinking that they're really serious about ending illegal immigration. They have taken in some people, no doubt, but the fact is that the fence idea is simply a proposal for an expensive boondoggle, coming, interestingly enough from the same people who purport to be in favor of fiscal responsibility.
Click to expand...

The fact is you were dead wrong and just can't bring yourself to admit it. Plus you have to defend your pet Obama to the end. And who killed the fence, your beloved Obama. I'm done

Now to your fiscal responsibility comment, National security is the main goal of government. But of course to you liberals that is not the main goal.
 
Born Free said:
The fact is you were dead wrong and just can't bring yourself to admit it. Plus you have to defend your pet Obama to the end. And who killed the fence, your beloved Obama. I'm done

Now to your fiscal responsibility comment, National security is the main goal of government. But of course to you liberals that is not the main goal.
Click to expand...
Actually, you're not done.

You never got started.
 
Born Free said:
I am very familiar with making a profit. You stated yourself, I quote, "That isn't supposed to be possible in a capitalist economy if things work like the models, but it is happening and has been for like 30 years now." The problem is the models are wrong and all the comments you've made on this subject prove it.

I said before you never owned a business or managed one and that was based on your comments. You say I am missing what you are saying, your damn right I am as I would never run a business using your model. The business model I like is the one that produces massive profit, so that I can take that profit and leverage it to make yet bigger and more massive profit. And one other thing I like expensive toys, that only a very profitable business can offer.
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't understand what a model is. It is not an approach to running a business, it is a a way to predict outcomes in the market. Capitalism is based on the idea that certain things will tend to function in certain ways. Those are the models that capitalism is based on. If things aren't working according to those models, then we need to look at whether we can fix that, and if not, whether we need to look at a different economic system. How you run your business or whatever has nothing to do with any of that.
 
tuhaybey said:
Maybe you don't understand what a model is. It is not an approach to running a business, it is a a way to predict outcomes in the market. Capitalism is based on the idea that certain things will tend to function in certain ways. Those are the models that capitalism is based on. If things aren't working according to those models, then we need to look at whether we can fix that, and if not, whether we need to look at a different economic system. How you run your business or whatever has nothing to do with any of that.
Click to expand...

You continue to shy away from where I started and I have repeatably challenge your comments and I do so again. You respond with models and all economist agree on this and that. It's all nonsense. Your concept of operating and running a business is off the planet, unless you are running a non-profit business or one that would never exist. I ask that you take your comments in bold and try and explain how this works in the real business world, then we can measure it up against a real business like Microsoft that you claim is a failure to perform well.

I quote

"I quote you as saying "The profits an owner takes are waste?" To you, but not an owner of a company. Then you go onto say "They are created by charging customers more than the things you sell them are worth" Sorry but that is how you make a profit and the more profit a company makes the more expansion the company can make and the owners can by more yachts and planes and more toys. Then you say "paying employees less than they are worth." Sorry they are worth what the market dictates. Then you say "It's a business failing to perform well." You are wrong again, the higher the profit the more successful it is. I am going to use one example of high profit - Microsoft. And you say Microsoft, as a business, is failing to perform well. What planet are you on."
 
Born Free said:
You continue to shy away from where I started and I have repeatably challenge your comments and I do so again. You respond with models and all economist agree on this and that. It's all nonsense. Your concept of operating and running a business is off the planet, unless you are running a non-profit business or one that would never exist. I ask that you take your comments in bold and try and explain how this works in the real business world, then we can measure it up against a real business like Microsoft that you claim is a failure to perform well.

I quote

"I quote you as saying "The profits an owner takes are waste?" To you, but not an owner of a company. Then you go onto say "They are created by charging customers more than the things you sell them are worth" Sorry but that is how you make a profit and the more profit a company makes the more expansion the company can make and the owners can by more yachts and planes and more toys. Then you say "paying employees less than they are worth." Sorry they are worth what the market dictates. Then you say "It's a business failing to perform well." You are wrong again, the higher the profit the more successful it is. I am going to use one example of high profit - Microsoft. And you say Microsoft, as a business, is failing to perform well. What planet are you on."
Click to expand...

Anyways man, if you sincerely want to understand, I think I've laid it out in enough detail. At this point, this seems more to me like you just aren't really interested in understanding so much as trying to change the topic.
 
tuhaybey said:
Definitely lots of businesses are expensive to get started in, but I don't buy that regulations are a significant driver of those costs. Most regulations actually don't apply until you get 50 employees or 200 employees or in some cases hit certain revenue baselines and whatnot. Most small businesses are more or less de-regulated as long as they don't violate basic common law crimes like fraud and whatnot. For example, I was part of the management team at a start-up for a while. We had one and only one regulatory burden- we had to file out taxes once a year. That was kind of a pain to be sure. The CEO did it himself the first couple years and found it annoying. But then he hired an accountant for a few hundred once a year and that was that. That's it. That's the only regulatory thing we ever encountered. That's pretty typical unless you're like actually trying to do whatever it is that the regulations are there to prevent, like trying to sell unsafe products or scam your employees or something.
Click to expand...
Regulations are involved in EVERYTHING. They determine WHO you buy WHAT supplies from, and thus, for how much. If, say, Hobart is the only pot and pan machine you are ALLOWED to use, and Sysco is the ONLY company in your area you are ABLE to purchase such a thing from? That's called a monopoly, and a government enforced one, no less. There is absolutely NO reason why a pot washer/steamer should cost 25K, or MORE. Same with automotive, same with healthcare, same with just about everything. It's EVERYWHERE. The gauze we complain about our hospitals charging 20 bucks for? Well, they charge that, because there is only ONE supplier they are likely ALLOWED to purchase it from. And they are gonna charge whatever the hell the feel they can get away with. And since the only check and balance on THAT really is insurance, guess what? They can get away with QUITE a lot.
 
joG said:
Are you referring to the marginal level of productivity?
Anyway, the problem at present is that there are too many workers in the States (though, it is getting better again) because consumers have been buying 10 Cents t-shirts from Bangladesh and the factories have been opening up there or in China. If wages in the US are lifted, the situation will get worse, because they will buy more stuff out there, capital will build factories there and fewer jobs will be enough productive to justify the pay. If you want Americans to be employed and make money, lower the wage.
Click to expand...

Yes. Make us competitive with the wonderful countries like Chine and Bangladesh, AKA, republicrat wonderlands.
 
KevinKohler said:
Regulations are involved in EVERYTHING. They determine WHO you buy WHAT supplies from, and thus, for how much. If, say, Hobart is the only pot and pan machine you are ALLOWED to use, and Sysco is the ONLY company in your area you are ABLE to purchase such a thing from? That's called a monopoly, and a government enforced one, no less. There is absolutely NO reason why a pot washer/steamer should cost 25K, or MORE. Same with automotive, same with healthcare, same with just about everything. It's EVERYWHERE. The gauze we complain about our hospitals charging 20 bucks for? Well, they charge that, because there is only ONE supplier they are likely ALLOWED to purchase it from. And they are gonna charge whatever the hell the feel they can get away with. And since the only check and balance on THAT really is insurance, guess what? They can get away with QUITE a lot.
Click to expand...

How do you see regulations making it so you can only buy a Hobart pot washer from Sysco? This is going to take some more explanation than you've offered so far.
 
tuhaybey said:
How do you see regulations making it so you can only buy a Hobart pot washer from Sysco? This is going to take some more explanation than you've offered so far.
Click to expand...

Well, in the world of restaurants, for instance, everything you use must be rated for food service. That is a legal term, "rated for food service", or "professional grade". So, the 20 microwave from walmart is, quite literally, ILLEGAL. No, you need the 900 dollar one, even if all you ever intend to use it for is melting butter. Same with a dish washer, or an oven. You can't go to home depot and buy those things, they are ILLEGAL in food service. You need the 20K and 50K variants, which are only offered by about two different companies in the entire country. Within every area, there is one, MAYBE two, designated suppliers of these sorts of things...that is, suppliers that the government has deemed trustworthy enough to bring you the monopolized products they require you to have. Hell, liquor is even WORSE, if you have a full bar at the place. Wanna buy budwieser? Well, in your area, there will only be ONE person you are LEGALLY allowed to purchase it from. LITERALLY. True story, look it up, sometime.

Why has this happened? Because somewhere, at some point in time, a lobbyist convinced someone else that in order to keep people safe, they need to use ONLY pro rated equipment in the food industry. ANything less would just be barbaric.


This same concept applies across a vast array of fields. It's a MAJOR reason why our healthcare costs so damn much in this country.
 
KevinKohler said:
Well, in the world of restaurants, for instance, everything you use must be rated for food service. That is a legal term, "rated for food service", or "professional grade". So, the 20 microwave from walmart is, quite literally, ILLEGAL. No, you need the 900 dollar one, even if all you ever intend to use it for is melting butter. Same with a dish washer, or an oven. You can't go to home depot and buy those things, they are ILLEGAL in food service. You need the 20K and 50K variants, which are only offered by about two different companies in the entire country. Within every area, there is one, MAYBE two, designated suppliers of these sorts of things...that is, suppliers that the government has deemed trustworthy enough to bring you the monopolized products they require you to have. Hell, liquor is even WORSE, if you have a full bar at the place. Wanna buy budwieser? Well, in your area, there will only be ONE person you are LEGALLY allowed to purchase it from. LITERALLY. True story, look it up, sometime.

Why has this happened? Because somewhere, at some point in time, a lobbyist convinced someone else that in order to keep people safe, they need to use ONLY pro rated equipment in the food industry. ANything less would just be barbaric.


This same concept applies across a vast array of fields. It's a MAJOR reason why our healthcare costs so damn much in this country.
Click to expand...

If you are having trouble finding enough appliances approved for use in restaurants in your area, why not take a trip into the city to pick one up? I don't think you can blame the government if your county doesn't have a ton of stores that sell equipment for restaurants.
 
KevinKohler said:
Yes. Make us competitive with the wonderful countries like Chine and Bangladesh, AKA, republicrat wonderlands.
Click to expand...

Well, you can do a Bill Gates instead. That is an other way to create jobs and make money.
 
tuhaybey said:
Anyways man, if you sincerely want to understand, I think I've laid it out in enough detail. At this point, this seems more to me like you just aren't really interested in understanding so much as trying to change the topic.
Click to expand...

Again you deflect away from defending your own comments. You post up trash and you say I'm trying to change the topic. The topic is what you posted and it is that which I responded too. Further I am trying to understand, yet you can't defend or explain your own comments. You want to post up BS then you can expect to be challenged on it, otherwise don't post up BS.
 
Ganesh said:
The question is not people making what they can, but under what circumstances this is best for society at large.
Click to expand...

So you want to cap what people make in their business and you call that is best for society at large.

Some people "can" make obscene amounts of money, given their leverage.
Click to expand...

Yes they can, a company makes a profit and they can use that profit to leverage that profit to expand, in turn their business grows and more people are employed.

Vladimir Putin, for example, has no doubt made large amounts of money, because he can, in his capitalist system, but that doesn't mean that is best for Russian society.
Click to expand...

Putin is not in business, he is in politics, now if your suggesting he can make large amounts of money because he can. If Putin is making large amounts of money is he doing it legally or illegally?

The Walton family has made massive amounts of money, but any reasonable sociological or economic analysis of their efforts is going to produce, at best, pretty mixed reviews of what this has done to American society.
Click to expand...

And Microsoft and the like have made much more than the Walton family and how would you measure their efforts in producing for society?

People can make what they want, but it must come under the scrutiny of the people,
Click to expand...

Every dime a company makes comes under the scrutiny of the people. We have taxation, and a bazillion regulations that a company has to follow in accordance with the scrutiny of the people.

The right wing in American politics wants to insist (urged on by the desires of the one percent) on a child-like view of the world, in which all good boys deserve favours, and only the best win out in the end, for purely their own ends, not for yours.
Click to expand...

What this is all about is you can't stand to see a company make money, you can't stand to see an owner go buy a 2 million dollar yacht. Let alone a person like Steven Spielberg's yacht cost 200 million.

Here take a look, this will really piss you off. And he's a liberal

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ste...m%2Ftag%2Fsteven-spielberg-yacht%2F;1600;1200
 
KevinKohler said:
Regulations are involved in EVERYTHING. They determine WHO you buy WHAT supplies from, and thus, for how much. If, say, Hobart is the only pot and pan machine you are ALLOWED to use, and Sysco is the ONLY company in your area you are ABLE to purchase such a thing from? That's called a monopoly, and a government enforced one, no less. There is absolutely NO reason why a pot washer/steamer should cost 25K, or MORE. Same with automotive, same with healthcare, same with just about everything. It's EVERYWHERE. The gauze we complain about our hospitals charging 20 bucks for? Well, they charge that, because there is only ONE supplier they are likely ALLOWED to purchase it from. And they are gonna charge whatever the hell the feel they can get away with. And since the only check and balance on THAT really is insurance, guess what? They can get away with QUITE a lot.
Click to expand...

I read a post like that one and wonder just how much truth there is to it. If it's even partly so, then it would explain why it costs so much to do business.

The only logical explanation for rules like that is that the vendor who has a monopoly has it because of having purchased enough political influence to get his way, which, unfortunately, is how all too many decisions are made.

But, if I have a restaurant, I can't go out and buy the same sort of microwave I have in my kitchen at home? Really?
 
Dittohead not! said:
I read a post like that one and wonder just how much truth there is to it. If it's even partly so, then it would explain why it costs so much to do business.

The only logical explanation for rules like that is that the vendor who has a monopoly has it because of having purchased enough political influence to get his way, which, unfortunately, is how all too many decisions are made.

But, if I have a restaurant, I can't go out and buy the same sort of microwave I have in my kitchen at home? Really?
Click to expand...


no you cant....but you dont have to buy new either....there are auctions all the time of companies that file BK, and their equipment comes up all the time

my wife owns a deli/market/catering business in DC

she bought a two year old oven in one a few weeks back....new 80k....she paid 33k

you have to be smart.....buying new is the fastest way to go broke

buildout on a new restaurant using refurbished/used equipment will still cost you a cool million.....

and we own sysco stock....have for years.....great dividends, and one of the companies who you can count on to just keep chugging on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom