In a message dated 1/17/01 4:12:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Re: Wake up
Date: 1/17/01 4:12:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Pål quotes>2.) While > poverty is high as a percentage of population, the
> level of income required to be considered 'poor' would
> be considered middle class almost anywhere in Europe,
Pål replies: Nope. The US have the higest percentage of poor in western
world.
Dead wrong there Pål. We have nearly 40 million "poor," that is, people who
do not meet the official income guidelines established by the government. I
stand ready to be corrected, but I believe the "poverty" figure to be in the
neighborhood of $13,000(?) for a family of 4. A family of 3 however, would
not meet the "poverty guidelines. A single person earning $13,000 is *not*
poor by government guidelines
a family of 8 earning $20,000 then, also falls under the official "poverty"
guidelines.
The official "poor" in America only constitute 11.2% of our population.
Significantly, American families who meet the official guidelines, and as has
been noted, outearn most families in the civilized, not just the western
world.
Pål quoted: >3.) > Prison population is inflated by jailing drug users,
> who in any other country would be given at most a slap on the wrist, well
except for Singapore where they'd be beheaded).
Pål replies:<< Doesn't matter. The whole point is that theres is a
significant percentage of population thats excluded from the buying feast.>>
About 3 million is all, some 1 million incarcerated, the other 2+ million
under judicial supervision. The "excluded" population is less than 2%, not
enough to make a statistical difference economy wise.
Pål says: <<This percentage is far larger in the US than comparable western
nations.>>
Not even close Pål. The distinction you failed to draw is not in percentages
but in raw numbers. We finally passed Russia in the raw numbers of the
imprisoned. If you count Russia's imprisoned population percentage wise,
you'll discover they outrank us.
Pål says: << Hence, the market isn't as large as seems from pure population
number and income statistics.>>
We, (those us marveling at your convoluted use of raw data) don't agree. Our
"poor" all have running water, electricity, indoor toilets, televisions, many
of them Sony PlayStations, old but serviceable automobiles, food on the
table, (though not the quantity or quality the butcher has), health care,
money to go to DisneyWorld (if they do the planning), magazine subscriptions,
cable, "disposable" income for drugs (alcohol, tobacco, "recreational powdery
stuph"), toys for Christmas and a firearm here or there. Those who want it
bad enough, do a little "off the books" work and manage to buy a Bassin'
boat.
Compare that treasure, that larder to the average European (or anyone).
Pål continues: <<This is because the money is less evenly distrubuted in the
US than probably anywhere else.>>
You are very close to being correct. The money is evenly distributed but the
poor, with less access to banking facilities, many of them paying exorbitant
rents and utility bills, spend a sizable portion of their incomes just doing
banking down at the corner Bodega. Without neighborhood banking facilities,
or credit unions or other places to save and do their banking business, the
poor pay far more to bank than others.
<<Theres far smaller percentage of poor in, say, Sweden than in the US.
Hence, an average population of 8 million Swedes will consist of larger
market than 8 million average americans.>>
Have you forgotten who the larger audience is on the PDML? People who know
better than what you are espousing. I remind you there are fewer Swedes than
in the City of New York. We (Americans) haven't yet gone to socialized
medicine, nor have we institutionalized eduction to the degree Sweden has.
Sweden, sheltered by its more "involved" neighbors, those who pay and paid
for Sweden's safety during the WWII and the Cold War, know why Sweden is a
little more economically secure than some of her European neighbors. But now
Europe is gathering her economic resources, spending billions less on the
defense of Europe, including those nations who did not, Europe will right the
economic imbalance, as will we, now that we don't have to spend the billions
of dollars supporting Europe or have the entire burden of carrying NATO on
our backs.
Pål presses on: << This is because this average american groups will contain
more people unable to consume Pentax cameras than the similar Swedish group.>>
Whoops, a clear slip-up. What you may not know is California (clearly a
"group" by your definition), by itself outspends Sweden (and all but 8 of the
world's nations). Your statement is utterly false on it face.
<<The american group will on the other include far more onscenely rich people
but that does not create more consumers.>>
Remember, California, with 33 million consumers, will outspend Sweden this
and the next 50 years, making your further point about the buying power of
any American "group" moot.
Pål, unchastened, presses on: <<This is illustrated also by the density of
typical consumer goods like computers and cellular phones where the US isn't
on top because a large number of people fall out.>
The PC world, including America, is coming to the PC saturation ownership
point, evidenced by the horrible Christmas most PC retailers had. No, we're
not on top *per capita*, some Scandinavian County is. But in raw cellphone
numbers? We kick the next nation's hiney.
Pål, doggedly plows ahead: <<My point isn't to bash the americans (although
its sometimes tempting), but to illustrate that the number of people don't
have linear relation to the number of consumers even when comparing within
the western world. I know the third world have it far worse but this was
about Pentax markets and third world isn't an important market.>>
"Third World?" We agree! But every American with money has access to whatever
he damn well wants. Making up for a lack of equity in currency, America makes
up for it in the sheer numbers of places we have to spend money.
The United States is *the* cash cow Swedes, Japanese, Germans, Swiss, French,
Italians, nearly every economy of *any* consequence, gears their entire
continued future on. When the US has an economic cough, Europe and Japan hold
their breath. When Wall Street sneezes, the world's economy offers it a
handkerchief and waits to make sure it's not an economic cold.
Whatever you think of "Americans" (*all* of us)or our "poor," remember that
the combined buying power of just our poor makes them the 21st largest
consumer economy (group)? in the world.
Then we have all these rich folks...
Be well Pål!
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
