DO WANT! (This is awesome)
-
O-Trap
They have a high savings rate likely because they have far fewer federal assistance programs.sleeper;1058338 wrote:I disagree. Look no further than China. They have a high savings rate and they have an economy that is growing at 9-10% per year.
Just as well, the percentages you cite are a tick disingenuous. With the economy starting where it did, and with people earning as little as.they did, growth at a set pace will look better.
In other words, a kid's lemonade stand that doubles its investment of $10 isn't categorically more successful than an investor who earns 150% on his million-dollar investment into a new company.
With the average Chinese income being what it is, along with a lack of socially funded programs and an economy that has been down for as long as it has, the upswing is a result of a ton of factors ... and I would contend is in spite of the absence of economic stimulation. -
justincredible
Also, at $500 this would be a steal. We need new windows in our kitchen anyway and if this thing was $500 it would be cheaper than the window we would have normally went with. -
sleeper
I don't know any web devs outside of Zuckerberg that have more than two nickels to rub together.justincredible;1058580 wrote:When you have as much money as I do, yes.
/sleeper'd -
sleeper
I just think that's a heavy leap to say that over consumption is a good thing. Of course, over consumption is only possible and good in the short term, but once again, Americans are unwillingly to make the tough decisions for the long term survival of this country. That's partially why your interest rate on your savings account are so low. There's no incentive to save in this country, only to buy the latest and greatest gadget so that you can show off how great you are to your friends.O-Trap;1058581 wrote:They have a high savings rate likely because they have far fewer federal assistance programs.
Just as well, the percentages you cite are a tick disingenuous. With the economy starting where it did, and with people earning as little as.they did, growth at a set pace will look better.
In other words, a kid's lemonade stand that doubles its investment of $10 isn't categorically more successful than an investor who earns 150% on his million-dollar investment into a new company.
With the average Chinese income being what it is, along with a lack of socially funded programs and an economy that has been down for as long as it has, the upswing is a result of a ton of factors ... and I would contend is in spite of the absence of economic stimulation. -
justincredible
Really? You must not know much about the industry, then.sleeper;1058627 wrote:I don't know any web devs outside of Zuckerberg that have more than two nickels to rub together. -
ernest_t_bass
No shit. Justin is rubbing quarters, baby.justincredible;1058659 wrote:Really? You must not know much about the industry, then. -
sleeper
Sure, some web devs make money. When I speak, I usually talk about the aggregate and the reality is while some do make incredible money, a lot are unemployed. Any time you have a skill that one can pickup a book, and within a week be almost as productive as an experienced web dev, don't expect to get paid any amount of money worth a damn.justincredible;1058659 wrote:Really? You must not know much about the industry, then. -
O-Trap
Worth is relative. You know that.sleeper;1058579 wrote:Is it really worth $500 so you don't have to drag your laptop to the kitchen and use a foot of counter space?
Sometimes, I hate this country.
I know you were teasing, but it's not an invalid point. To someone who makes $112,000 a year, with few expenses, the worth of $500 is lower than someone who makes $28,000 a year.justincredible;1058580 wrote:When you have as much money as I do, yes.
/sleeper'd -
sleeper
In this case I don't think it applies. It shouldn't be worth anything. It's moving an object 20 feet and taking up slightly less space. It'd be hard for a trillionaire to justify that cost, especially not someone who makes maybe $50k per year.O-Trap;1058732 wrote:Worth is relative. You know that.
I see what you are saying, some convenient things the cost can be justified. For example, a cell phone is convenient and justified because you can't carry around your house phone and be fully accessible by anyone anywhere you are at. Moving a laptop 20 feet in no way, shape, or form is worth $20, much less $500. This is just a thing to show off to your friends, nothing more, nothing less. There's no way to justify that either because internally your friends just probably think you're a douche. -
O-Trap
I'll say this: If the unnecessary purchases are the result of someone living beyond their means, then I agree with you. However, money being saved is essentially money taken out of the cycle of economy. If it is being saved at banks, then it's possible it might be used as investment capital, so from that point, it's not being taken out, but it's also not just being saved in the literal sense.sleeper;1058644 wrote:I just think that's a heavy leap to say that over consumption is a good thing. Of course, over consumption is only possible and good in the short term, but once again, Americans are unwillingly to make the tough decisions for the long term survival of this country. That's partially why your interest rate on your savings account are so low. There's no incentive to save in this country, only to buy the latest and greatest gadget so that you can show off how great you are to your friends.
In a nutshell, the more money consumers spend, the more the vendors earn ... which they then spend ... and that cycle perpetuates. The less money spent, the less money made.
However, spending beyond means would fit the short-term benefit you mention. It would stimulate in the short, but it would then suspend spending over the long. -
justincredible
Lol, within a week. Sure, you can learn to build a shitty static html site within a week. If you think you can be as good as a developer with even a years worth of real world experience you're...well...way off.sleeper;1058707 wrote:Sure, some web devs make money. When I speak, I usually talk about the aggregate and the reality is while some do make incredible money, a lot are unemployed. Any time you have a skill that one can pickup a book, and within a week be almost as productive as an experienced web dev, don't expect to get paid any amount of money worth a damn. -
O-Trap
There's no logical construct to assert this as a universal principle, though. It could easily be seen as a viable convenience not to have to crack open the laptop for something that will take a minute to do. Moreover, it could be used in place of a desktop, thereby eliminating the need for a desktop to take up any space, whatsoever.sleeper;1058745 wrote:In this case I don't think it applies. It shouldn't be worth anything. It's moving an object 20 feet and taking up slightly less space. It'd be hard for a trillionaire to justify that cost, especially not someone who makes maybe $50k per year.
I see what you are saying, some convenient things the cost can be justified. For example, a cell phone is convenient and justified because you can't carry around your house phone and be fully accessible by anyone anywhere you are at. Moving a laptop 20 feet in no way, shape, or form is worth $20, much less $500. This is just a thing to show off to your friends, nothing more, nothing less. There's no way to justify that either because internally your friends just probably think you're a douche.
And these are off the top of my head. It's not inconceivable to think there might be other reasons tailored to the individual aside from wanting to be a douche about your cool stuff. Fact is, one cannot say there isn't universally with any level of logical assurance. -
sleeper
I think we have reached the point where the short term we'll start being burdened by our long term problems. We've been spending way too much money, both on a personal level and on a national level.O-Trap;1058753 wrote:However, spending beyond means would fit the short-term benefit you mention. It would stimulate in the short, but it would then suspend spending over the long.
I also disagree with your notion that money being saved, at least money in a bank, is bad for the economy. Money in the bank makes more money available to loan out to companies to expand or to begin. -
sleeper
Or in reality, way on.justincredible;1058763 wrote:Lol, within a week. Sure, you can learn to build a ****ty static html site within a week. If you think you can be as good as a developer with even a years worth of real world experience you're...well...way off. -
Scarlet_Buckeye
As cool as that looks, it also looks super uncomfortable.Y-Town Steelhound;1057091 wrote:I'd rather have this:
[video=youtube;Fxhyqiy9IBI][/video] -
justincredible
Wrong, but nice try.sleeper;1058768 wrote:Or in reality, way on. -
sleeper
I live in the aggregate. That's what a lot of people don't understand about me. Every time I make a statement, I have everyone on here trying to find that one example that trumps the status quo. I'm well aware there are exceptions to everything, there's exceptions to gravity, there's (now) exceptions to the speed of light being a constant. If you try to analyze anything on a micro level, you'll spend your entire life analyzing one issue. Live and analyze in the aggregate, and in the aggregate $500 for a kitchen computer is a waste of money.O-Trap;1058766 wrote:There's no logical construct to assert this as a universal principle, though. It could easily be seen as a.viable convenience not.to have to crack open the laptop for something that will take a minute to do. Moreover, it could be used in place of a desktop, thereby eliminating the need for a desktop to take up any space, whatsoever.
And these are off the top of my head. It's not inconceivable to think there might be other reason ls tailored to the individual aside from wanting to be a douche about your cool stuff. Fact is, one cannot say there isn't universally with any level of logical assurance. -
sleeper
When you have India churning out programmers like we churn out debt, you'll be out of work shortly. I'm surprised anyone still hires Americans to develop anything, India is much cheaper and they are just as good.justincredible;1058771 wrote:Wrong, but nice try. -
justincredible
$500 for a window is not a lot of money. $500 for a window with a computer in it is definitely not a lot of money.sleeper;1058774 wrote:I live in the aggregate. That's what a lot of people don't understand about me. Every time I make a statement, I have everyone on here trying to find that one example that trumps the status quo. I'm well aware there are exceptions to everything, there's exceptions to gravity, there's (now) exceptions to the speed of light being a constant. If you try to analyze anything on a micro level, you'll spend your entire life analyzing one issue. Live and analyze in the aggregate, and in the aggregate $500 for a kitchen computer is a waste of money. -
justincredible
I've worked with developers from India. They sucked ass.sleeper;1058777 wrote:When you have India churning out programmers like we churn out debt, you'll be out of work shortly. I'm surprised anyone still hires Americans to develop anything, India is much cheaper and they are just as good. -
ernest_t_bass
Find one that sucks dick, and you'll strike gold!justincredible;1058779 wrote:I've worked with developers from India. They sucked ass. -
O-Trap
Because that money is not actually being saved in a literal sense. The bank is then spending it in the form of capital in order to turn a profit. The recipient of the loan is spending it on resources to start business or whatever their venture may be.sleeper;1058767 wrote:I also disagree with your notion that money being saved, at least money in a bank, is bad for the economy. Money in the bank makes more money available to loan out to companies to expand or to begin.
Savings accounts at banks aren't "saving" really. They're essentially interest-free (in most cases) loans for the bank to leverage in such a way as to turn a profit.
So even in your example, the "saved" money is only valuable to the economy when it is being used as capital or to somehow fund private enterprise, both of which involve spending it in the short term, with some level of risk attached, even.
sleeper;1058774 wrote:I live in the aggregate. That's what a lot of people don't understand about me. Every time I make a statement, I have everyone on here trying to find that one example that trumps the status quo. I'm well aware there are exceptions to everything, there's exceptions to gravity, there's (now) exceptions to the speed of light being a constant. If you try to analyze anything on a micro level, you'll spend your entire life analyzing one issue. Live and analyze in the aggregate, and in the aggregate $500 for a kitchen computer is a waste of money.
1. You've shown nothing to establish that what you perceive to be the aggregate is actually so.
2. You're entire point is still subjective, so it really doesn't matter whether you're establishing the exception or the rule. The determination of what is a "waste" is always based on subjective criteria put through a series of defeaters. As such, your view on this.cannot ultimately be established as true for anyone but ... well ... you. It cannot be applied to anyone else, and CERTAINLY not the aggregate, with anything but subjective opinion.
I can attest to this. India churn out IT personnel at a lower level than most American web masters I've worked with (which is a few).justincredible;1058779 wrote:I've worked with developers from India. They sucked ass. -
sleeper
That's really stretching the meaning of "savings". I'm not saying you are incorrect, I just find it odd that your schema of savings is that complex. Tell me, does anyone actually buy anything, or is it merely a transfer of wealth from one person to another?O-Trap;1058872 wrote:Because that money is not actually being saved in a literal sense. The bank is then spending it in the form of capital in order to turn a profit. The recipient of the loan is spending it on resources to start business or whatever their venture may be.
Savings accounts at banks aren't "saving" really. They're essentially interest-free (in most cases) loans for the bank to leverage in such a way as to turn a profit.
So even in your example, the "saved" money is only valuable to the economy when it is being used as capital or to somehow fund private enterprise, both of which involve spending it in the short term, with some level of risk attached, even. -
O-Trap
To your first point, the complexity I referenced is the same complexity you had already established as being what was good for the economy. If were to take the simple definition of saving, and not attributing the reinvestment by the banks (stuffing it in a mattress for example), then while it ceases to be complex, it also ceases to be beneficial to the economy.sleeper;1058889 wrote:That's really stretching the meaning of "savings". I'm not saying you are incorrect, I just find it odd that your schema of savings is that complex. Tell me, does anyone actually buy anything, or is it merely a transfer of wealth from one person to another?
In essence, the only time "saving" is good for the economy is when spending is involved. Interesting how it works, really.
To your latter question, spending truly is ultimately the transfer of value on a macro level, but that's mostly an economic philosophy discussion, and has no practical use that I can think of. -
sleeper
I just find it odd you don't apply a literal sense to saving(because it doesn't fit your argument) but then chose a literal sense for buying/consumption.O-Trap;1058907 wrote:To your first point, the complexity I referenced is the same complexity you had already established as being what was good for the economy. If were to take the simple definition of saving, and not attributing the reinvestment by the banks (stuffing it in a mattress for example), then while it ceases to be complex, it also ceases to be beneficial to the economy.
In essence, the only time "saving" is good for the economy is when spending is involved. Interesting how it works, really.
To your latter question, spending truly is ultimately the transfer of value on a macro level, but that's mostly an economic philosophy discussion, and has no practical use that I can think of.
I guess when I think of savings, I take it is consuming less now to have the ability to consume more in the future. Saving is good for the economy because it raises available funds for more investment and cheaper loans to the doers of this country. It also helps provide a buffer for people when they hit hard economic times and lowers the burden on society to bail out unfunded debts from irresponsible lending. Those shocks are much more detrimental to the economy than people not consuming as much as they possibly can. It's unsustainable, it time we start changing the culture of this country. I'm not saying let's be hard nose savers and only buy food and shelter, but a $500 computer window for your kitchen is a waste of money, which is my point.