Go Fig

Why does the government get to decide when a store owner can sell
inventory at a discounted price ? Does the government then buy up any
unsold inventory the merchant is left with?

From June 24 till July 23rd, is the official 'soldes' period in Paris,
other areas is may be slightly different.

jay
Fri Jun 24, 2005
mailto:[email protected]

Earl Evleth

On 24/06/05 18:23, in article 240620050923502090%[email protected], "Go Fig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > Why does the government get to decide when a store owner can sell
    > inventory at a discounted price?

Because the French like to control things, avoiding unfair competition,
"capitalisme sauvage" and other trans-Atlantic evils.

    > Does the government then buy up any unsold inventory the merchant is left
    > with?

Don't be silly.

    >
    > From June 24 till July 23rd, is the official 'soldes' period in Paris,
    > other areas is may be slightly different.

"Ces dates sont fixées par chaque préfet de département après consultation
des organismes de professionnels et de consommateurs. La durée maximale des
soldes est de six semaines."

proo

Like Earl said, to avoid unfair competition. The shops get around this anyway by having special 'promotions'. The sales are normally crap anyway compared to the UK, they're more like student discounts.

Runge

poor evleth he was faster than you

"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
BEE20E32.6D0EF%[email protected]...
    > On 24/06/05 18:23, in article 240620050923502090%[email protected], "Go Fig"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Why does the government get to decide when a store owner can sell
    >> inventory at a discounted price?
    > Because the French like to control things, avoiding unfair competition,
    > "capitalisme sauvage" and other trans-Atlantic evils.
    >> Does the government then buy up any unsold inventory the merchant is left
    >> with?
    > Don't be silly.
    >> From June 24 till July 23rd, is the official 'soldes' period in Paris,
    >> other areas is may be slightly different.
    > "Ces dates sont fixées par chaque préfet de département après consultation
    > des organismes de professionnels et de consommateurs. La durée maximale
    > des
    > soldes est de six semaines."
    >

Mxsmanic

Go Fig writes:

    > Why does the government get to decide when a store owner can sell
    > inventory at a discounted price ?

Because it administers a society in which people are accustomed to being
told what to do by the government. Remember, France is a country in
which it is still considered a good thing to get a lifetime job as a
clerk in the civil service; the private sector is considered suspect
(just the opposite of the U.S.).

--
Transpose gmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Earl Evleth

On 25/06/05 6:15, in article [email protected],
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Go Fig writes:
    >
    >> Why does the government get to decide when a store owner can sell
    >> inventory at a discounted price ?
    >
    > Because it administers a society in which people are accustomed to being
    > told what to do by the government. Remember, France is a country in
    > which it is still considered a good thing to get a lifetime job as a
    > clerk in the civil service; the private sector is considered suspect
    > (just the opposite of the U.S.).

We could go just a little deeper. It is a question of security through
stability. Capitalism is intrinsically unstable as well as having no
social goals. Government jobs offer long term security so naturally
they are sought after by some.

While it is true that the private sector is one up in the US, do most
of the benefit from it . I wrote this up a while back so people could
get some feeling at the comparative improvements the lower class incomes
have had in France, compared to the USA. Private might be better but
not for lower income folks.

The problem is that France is in world competition and jobs can not
be protected to the depth people want. So the rules of the game are
world capitalist not some socio-capitalist mixture.

Earl

******

I wrote the following up a while back. Basically, it is hard to compare
income but it is known that the French percapita GDP is lower than the US
by 30% or so. That single number is not adequate to use for comparisons.
France has a lot of transfers for the lower income groups, especially
if they have children, the US has few. Also not discussed below is that
French poverty rates (around 5-6% after transfers) are more than half
the US poverty rates. Next, French minimum wage is about $10/hour compared
to the US $5.15. The US median (not average but median) hourly income
is about what the French minimum wage. As a results, statistically
there are very few "working poor" in France.

****

INSEE is the French statistical research institute which measures a number
of things, its web site provides information in English and some of the
reports are in English.

http://www.insee.fr/en/home/ho me_page.asp

One report I down loaded was on "The living standards of French households
between 1970-1999" by Guillemin and Roux.

The report uses data which is more detailed than I have been able to
extract from the US census economic data. *The French report computes
family standard of livings by dividing the family income by the number
of consumption units, calculated on the basis of 1 for one person, plus 0.5
for adults over 14 and 0.3 for children under. Thus a family of two adults
and two children would have 2.1 cus, and the family income divided by that
to get the standard of living. Here the income used is "disposable" income
which takes into account taxes (income, home taxes deducted) and transfers
(added). *So one can not compare these figures with the US figures which
are income per family. *But the % improvement data are comparable.

Next the French report breaks down the date in to deciles, each 10% of
of the income earning populations, while most of the American data
divides by 20% hunks, except for the top 5%.

So the comparison I make between what has happened in the US and France
are NOT fully comparable but indicative.

Some important points in France

1) Effect of transfers: *The lowest 10% In France have standard of livings
which are composed of 35% transfers. Thus they earn 65% and are given 35%.
This means their incomes are increased about 50% because of transfers.
This is probably the reason why poverty rates are much lower in France
than the USA .

Transfers diminish in importance as incomes rise, representing about
20% in the second decile (10-20% group).

2) The impact of taxes increases with income, no surprise, reaching
to about 30% in the top 10% group.

3) Since 1970 the overall median French standard of living has risen at an
average of 2.6% per year.

However, the median rise in the 1970-79 period was 5.3%/yr followed by
stagnation, 0.5% (79-84), 1.1% (84-90), 0.5%(90-97) and 2.2% (97-99)
(per year data).

The lowest income group did the BEST, with the D1 lowest decile
7.2%, 2.0%, 0.6%, 3.2% for these time periods
and 3.9% per year overall.

The top D10 ncome group improved 1.6% overall, 3.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%,
0.5% and 2.3%. *The retirees did better than either with 4.8%
this improvement strongest with the retirees in the
D1 group at the bottom.

Next the ratio of the standard of livings of the highest group
and lowest decreased in the total time period from 4.8 to 3.3.

conclusion: *there is no indication from this data that the rich
are getting richer, proportionally, and the poor, poorer in France.
Obvious in terms of absolute a 5% rise for the rich represents
a lot more than 5% for th epoor.

Not quite the same data can be extracted from the US census data.

However from Table H-3 of the historical income for US families the
1981-2001 average incomes improved in the following fashion
in inflation corrected 2001 dollars,

lowest 20%: *$8,995 => $10,136, 13% total or 0.7%/yr

top 20%, * *$92,894 => $145,970, 57% total or 2.9%/yr

the top 5% *$132,239 => $260,464, 97% or 4.9%/yr

The ratio $145,97/$10,136 is around 14-15.

So the conclusion is that in the US, incomes have stagnated
for the lowest rank. *In fact the % income improvement for the
20-40% and the 40-60% in the use are about the same as for
the lowest income group, 0.9% each, and 1.3%/yr for the
60-80% group. One has to be in the top 20% to win out in
the American economy. *The well off in France do about
as well as in the US but the poorer do better.

Earl

michaelnewport

Earl Evleth wrote:
    > On 25/06/05 6:15, in article [email protected],
    > "Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Go Fig writes:
    > >
    > >> Why does the government get to decide when a store owner can sell
    > >> inventory at a discounted price ?
    > >
    > > Because it administers a society in which people are accustomed to being
    > > told what to do by the government. Remember, France is a country in
    > > which it is still considered a good thing to get a lifetime job as a
    > > clerk in the civil service; the private sector is considered suspect
    > > (just the opposite of the U.S.).
    > We could go just a little deeper. It is a question of security through
    > stability. Capitalism is intrinsically unstable as well as having no
    > social goals. Government jobs offer long term security so naturally
    > they are sought after by some.
    > While it is true that the private sector is one up in the US, do most
    > of the benefit from it . I wrote this up a while back so people could
    > get some feeling at the comparative improvements the lower class incomes
    > have had in France, compared to the USA. Private might be better but
    > not for lower income folks.
    > The problem is that France is in world competition and jobs can not
    > be protected to the depth people want. So the rules of the game are
    > world capitalist not some socio-capitalist mixture.
    > Earl
    > ******
    > I wrote the following up a while back. Basically, it is hard to compare
    > income but it is known that the French percapita GDP is lower than the US
    > by 30% or so. That single number is not adequate to use for comparisons.
    > France has a lot of transfers for the lower income groups, especially
    > if they have children, the US has few. Also not discussed below is that
    > French poverty rates (around 5-6% after transfers) are more than half
    > the US poverty rates. Next, French minimum wage is about $10/hour compared
    > to the US $5.15. The US median (not average but median) hourly income
    > is about what the French minimum wage. As a results, statistically
    > there are very few "working poor" in France.
    > ****
    > INSEE is the French statistical research institute which measures a number
    > of things, its web site provides information in English and some of the
    > reports are in English.
    > http://www.insee.fr/en/home/ho me_page.asp
    > One report I down loaded was on "The living standards of French households
    > between 1970-1999" by Guillemin and Roux.
    > The report uses data which is more detailed than I have been able to
    > extract from the US census economic data. The French report computes
    > family standard of livings by dividing the family income by the number
    > of consumption units, calculated on the basis of 1 for one person, plus 0.5
    > for adults over 14 and 0.3 for children under. Thus a family of two adults
    > and two children would have 2.1 cus, and the family income divided by that
    > to get the standard of living. Here the income used is "disposable" income
    > which takes into account taxes (income, home taxes deducted) and transfers
    > (added). So one can not compare these figures with the US figures which
    > are income per family. But the % improvement data are comparable.
    > Next the French report breaks down the date in to deciles, each 10% of
    > of the income earning populations, while most of the American data
    > divides by 20% hunks, except for the top 5%.
    > So the comparison I make between what has happened in the US and France
    > are NOT fully comparable but indicative.
    > Some important points in France
    > 1) Effect of transfers: The lowest 10% In France have standard of livings
    > which are composed of 35% transfers. Thus they earn 65% and are given 35%.
    > This means their incomes are increased about 50% because of transfers.
    > This is probably the reason why poverty rates are much lower in France
    > than the USA .
    > Transfers diminish in importance as incomes rise, representing about
    > 20% in the second decile (10-20% group).
    > 2) The impact of taxes increases with income, no surprise, reaching
    > to about 30% in the top 10% group.
    > 3) Since 1970 the overall median French standard of living has risen at an
    > average of 2.6% per year.
    > However, the median rise in the 1970-79 period was 5.3%/yr followed by
    > stagnation, 0.5% (79-84), 1.1% (84-90), 0.5%(90-97) and 2.2% (97-99)
    > (per year data).
    > The lowest income group did the BEST, with the D1 lowest decile
    > 7.2%, 2.0%, 0.6%, 3.2% for these time periods
    > and 3.9% per year overall.
    > The top D10 ncome group improved 1.6% overall, 3.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%,
    > 0.5% and 2.3%. The retirees did better than either with 4.8%
    > this improvement strongest with the retirees in the
    > D1 group at the bottom.
    > Next the ratio of the standard of livings of the highest group
    > and lowest decreased in the total time period from 4.8 to 3.3.
    > conclusion: there is no indication from this data that the rich
    > are getting richer, proportionally, and the poor, poorer in France.
    > Obvious in terms of absolute a 5% rise for the rich represents
    > a lot more than 5% for th epoor.
    > Not quite the same data can be extracted from the US census data.
    > However from Table H-3 of the historical income for US families the
    > 1981-2001 average incomes improved in the following fashion
    > in inflation corrected 2001 dollars,
    > lowest 20%: $8,995 => $10,136, 13% total or 0.7%/yr
    > top 20%, $92,894 => $145,970, 57% total or 2.9%/yr
    > the top 5% $132,239 => $260,464, 97% or 4.9%/yr
    > The ratio $145,97/$10,136 is around 14-15.
    > So the conclusion is that in the US, incomes have stagnated
    > for the lowest rank. In fact the % income improvement for the
    > 20-40% and the 40-60% in the use are about the same as for
    > the lowest income group, 0.9% each, and 1.3%/yr for the
    > 60-80% group. One has to be in the top 20% to win out in
    > the American economy. The well off in France do about
    > as well as in the US but the poorer do better.
    > Earl

same happens in Belgium, the sales start on a pre-determined date

Earl Evleth

On 25/06/05 8:28, in article
[email protected]. com,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > same happens in Belgium, the sales start on a pre-determined date

I don't know if there is a control and how much of a discount can
be offered, however. There is a rule on the trickery of marking
down prices which are not really marked down. For instance, it
is easy to write on a sales tag 99 euros, cross it out and write
in below 50 euros. That is illegal but I think that prosecution
for doing so is rare.

Generally French shoppers know if they are getting a deal but sometimes
the hysteria of buying will lead people to pay more than they normally
would, auctioneers play on this human weakness.

The US used to have the tradition of the "fire sale". These are items,
usually furniture, which have been purportedly smoke damaged and sold
at a heavy discount. In fact that was a scam, even to the point that
some furniture was subject to being smoked (like salmon!) in order
to stampede the buyer into buying.

I understand that in any case the margains on things like furniture
and clothing are high, and a 30% markdown still permits a good profit
on most item while allowing one to clean out a stock of slow moving
items.

In Paris, to get things cheap, habitually, one can pick up items at
outdoor markets or the cheaper stores in certain areas. Selling
right now are electric fans, which differ widely in size-capacity
quality and price. Prices run from a low of about 15 euros to over
100 euros. These probably will not be on sale now, since they
are in demande but the price range is such that one can buy
a cheap one. However, the prices on brand name items remain
fairly fixed.

Earl

Go Fig

In article <BEE2D172.6D20F%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 25/06/05 8:28, in article
    > [email protected]. com,
    > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > same happens in Belgium, the sales start on a pre-determined date
    >
    > I don't know if there is a control and how much of a discount can
    > be offered, however. There is a rule on the trickery of marking
    > down prices which are not really marked down. For instance, it
    > is easy to write on a sales tag 99 euros, cross it out and write
    > in below 50 euros. That is illegal but I think that prosecution
    > for doing so is rare.
    >
    > Generally French shoppers know if they are getting a deal but sometimes
    > the hysteria of buying will lead people to pay more than they normally
    > would, auctioneers play on this human weakness.
    >
    > The US used to have the tradition of the "fire sale". These are items,
    > usually furniture, which have been purportedly smoke damaged and sold
    > at a heavy discount. In fact that was a scam, even to the point that
    > some furniture was subject to being smoked (like salmon!) in order
    > to stampede the buyer into buying.
    >
    > I understand that in any case the margains on things like furniture
    > and clothing are high, and a 30% markdown still permits a good profit
    > on most item while allowing one to clean out a stock of slow moving
    > items.

How would you know?

Have you ever managed a retail inventory under the pressure of making a
payroll?

And when a new shipment of more desirable inventory is available,
should the retailer rent some space to store the slow moving inventory
till it is legal to mark the stuff down... there's a lot of good money
after bad.

    >
    > In Paris, to get things cheap, habitually, one can pick up items at
    > outdoor markets or the cheaper stores in certain areas.

So were you lying when you talk about competitive fairness, or you
think this is fair to the retailer that is precluded under this
draconian regulation to do the same ? Like the retailer that has been
using space all winter long to store fans ?

jay
Sat Jun 25, 2005
mailto:[email protected]



    > Selling
    > right now are electric fans, which differ widely in size-capacity
    > quality and price. Prices run from a low of about 15 euros to over
    > 100 euros. These probably will not be on sale now, since they
    > are in demande but the price range is such that one can buy
    > a cheap one. However, the prices on brand name items remain
    > fairly fixed.
    >
    > Earl
    >

Earl Evleth

On 25/06/05 11:17, in article 250620050217552732%[email protected], "Go Fig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <BEE2D172.6D20F%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > How would you know?

My father and brother were ran small businesses.

    > Have you ever managed a retail inventory under the pressure of making a
    > payroll?

From the web

"Most furniture retailers sell at discounts of 40 - 60% off suggested retail
prices. Since furniture is typically marked up 100% - 150%, this discounting
represents margins of 17 - 30%."

like I was saying. `

You can a taste for the markup if you compare the
market replacement value for a piece of jewelry and what you can insure for.
You have to specify in the insurance contract what you want to insure for.
The factor is typically three.

You can check this by buying a expensive piece of jewelry and then walking
down the block and try to sell it!


    >>
    >> In Paris, to get things cheap, habitually, one can pick up items at
    >> outdoor markets or the cheaper stores in certain areas.
    >
    > So were you lying when you talk about competitive fairness, or you
    > think this is fair to the retailer that is precluded under this
    > draconian regulation to do the same ?

Why get aggressive and accuse me of lying? I will try and clarify
things for you, son, but don't be immature about it.

Not the same items are sold. If you want a cheapie fan you go to a cheap
place. It won't be the same manufacturer.

Books are an example for instance. Current volumes can't be discounted more
than 5% or so. However, after a while, when the book is no longer being
sold, it is discounted off. That is why you can pick up relatively
"expensive" books at the outside stands of some book stores, like along
the Blvd St. Michel. Often recently published books are jobbed off after
6 months. You won't yget a new copy of Dan Brown's book at a discounter.

It that clearer?

Mxsmanic

Earl Evleth writes:

    > While it is true that the private sector is one up in the US, do most
    > of the benefit from it . I wrote this up a while back so people could
    > get some feeling at the comparative improvements the lower class incomes
    > have had in France, compared to the USA. Private might be better but
    > not for lower income folks.

Public might be better but not for higher-income folks. Do lower-income
folks have a greater value has human beings that makes them more
deserving?

--
Transpose gmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Go Fig

In article <BEE2FA64.6D32E%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 25/06/05 11:17, in article 250620050217552732%[email protected], "Go Fig"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <BEE2D172.6D20F%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > How would you know?
    >
    > My father and brother were ran small businesses.
    >
    > > Have you ever managed a retail inventory under the pressure of making a
    > > payroll?
    >
    > From the web

So that is a "no" ?

Your "from the web" standard is no standard at all.
    >
    > "Most furniture retailers sell at discounts of 40 - 60% off suggested retail
    > prices. Since furniture is typically marked up 100% - 150%, this discounting
    > represents margins of 17 - 30%."

How utterly rudimentary!

How long do they sit on this product before a purchase? What is the
overhead to maintain the item? What are the terms from the
manufacture/wholesaler ? What is the 'cash' position currently of the
store ? Is payroll funded ?

    >
    > like I was saying. `
    >
    > You can a taste for the markup if you compare the
    > market replacement value for a piece of jewelry and what you can insure for.
    > You have to specify in the insurance contract what you want to insure for.
    > The factor is typically three.
    >
    > You can check this by buying a expensive piece of jewelry and then walking
    > down the block and try to sell it!
    >
    >
    > >>
    > >> In Paris, to get things cheap, habitually, one can pick up items at
    > >> outdoor markets or the cheaper stores in certain areas.
    > >
    > > So were you lying when you talk about competitive fairness, or you
    > > think this is fair to the retailer that is precluded under this
    > > draconian regulation to do the same ?
    >
    > Why get aggressive and accuse me of lying?

It was a question.

    > I will try and clarify
    > things for you, son,

I'm not your son.


    > but don't be immature about it.
    >
    > Not the same items are sold. If you want a cheapie fan you go to a cheap
    > place. It won't be the same manufacturer.

So what ? Sounds like an unfair trade restraint in favor of China.

    >
    > Books are an example for instance. Current volumes can't be discounted more
    > than 5% or so. However, after a while, when the book is no longer being
    > sold, it is discounted off. That is why you can pick up relatively
    > "expensive" books at the outside stands of some book stores, like along
    > the Blvd St. Michel. Often recently published books are jobbed off after
    > 6 months. You won't yget a new copy of Dan Brown's book at a discounter.
    >
    > It that clearer?

I understand the mechanism very well, I was a legal resident of France
for more than a year.... so that's like 2 "soldes"

jay
Sat Jun 25, 2005
mailto:[email protected]

    >
    >

Runge

Don't talk to him about Belgium, he never heard of the place

<[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]. com...
    > Earl Evleth wrote:
    >> On 25/06/05 6:15, in article [email protected],
    >> "Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> > Go Fig writes:
    >> >
    >> >> Why does the government get to decide when a store owner can sell
    >> >> inventory at a discounted price ?
    >> >
    >> > Because it administers a society in which people are accustomed to
    >> > being
    >> > told what to do by the government. Remember, France is a country in
    >> > which it is still considered a good thing to get a lifetime job as a
    >> > clerk in the civil service; the private sector is considered suspect
    >> > (just the opposite of the U.S.).
    >> We could go just a little deeper. It is a question of security through
    >> stability. Capitalism is intrinsically unstable as well as having no
    >> social goals. Government jobs offer long term security so naturally
    >> they are sought after by some.
    >> While it is true that the private sector is one up in the US, do most
    >> of the benefit from it . I wrote this up a while back so people could
    >> get some feeling at the comparative improvements the lower class incomes
    >> have had in France, compared to the USA. Private might be better but
    >> not for lower income folks.
    >> The problem is that France is in world competition and jobs can not
    >> be protected to the depth people want. So the rules of the game are
    >> world capitalist not some socio-capitalist mixture.
    >> Earl
    >> ******
    >> I wrote the following up a while back. Basically, it is hard to compare
    >> income but it is known that the French percapita GDP is lower than the US
    >> by 30% or so. That single number is not adequate to use for comparisons.
    >> France has a lot of transfers for the lower income groups, especially
    >> if they have children, the US has few. Also not discussed below is that
    >> French poverty rates (around 5-6% after transfers) are more than half
    >> the US poverty rates. Next, French minimum wage is about $10/hour
    >> compared
    >> to the US $5.15. The US median (not average but median) hourly income
    >> is about what the French minimum wage. As a results, statistically
    >> there are very few "working poor" in France.
    >> ****
    >> INSEE is the French statistical research institute which measures a
    >> number
    >> of things, its web site provides information in English and some of the
    >> reports are in English.
    >> http://www.insee.fr/en/home/ho me_page.asp
    >> One report I down loaded was on "The living standards of French
    >> households
    >> between 1970-1999" by Guillemin and Roux.
    >> The report uses data which is more detailed than I have been able to
    >> extract from the US census economic data. The French report computes
    >> family standard of livings by dividing the family income by the number
    >> of consumption units, calculated on the basis of 1 for one person, plus
    >> 0.5
    >> for adults over 14 and 0.3 for children under. Thus a family of two
    >> adults
    >> and two children would have 2.1 cus, and the family income divided by
    >> that
    >> to get the standard of living. Here the income used is "disposable"
    >> income
    >> which takes into account taxes (income, home taxes deducted) and
    >> transfers
    >> (added). So one can not compare these figures with the US figures which
    >> are income per family. But the % improvement data are comparable.
    >> Next the French report breaks down the date in to deciles, each 10% of
    >> of the income earning populations, while most of the American data
    >> divides by 20% hunks, except for the top 5%.
    >> So the comparison I make between what has happened in the US and France
    >> are NOT fully comparable but indicative.
    >> Some important points in France
    >> 1) Effect of transfers: The lowest 10% In France have standard of
    >> livings
    >> which are composed of 35% transfers. Thus they earn 65% and are given
    >> 35%.
    >> This means their incomes are increased about 50% because of transfers.
    >> This is probably the reason why poverty rates are much lower in France
    >> than the USA .
    >> Transfers diminish in importance as incomes rise, representing about
    >> 20% in the second decile (10-20% group).
    >> 2) The impact of taxes increases with income, no surprise, reaching
    >> to about 30% in the top 10% group.
    >> 3) Since 1970 the overall median French standard of living has risen at
    >> an
    >> average of 2.6% per year.
    >> However, the median rise in the 1970-79 period was 5.3%/yr followed by
    >> stagnation, 0.5% (79-84), 1.1% (84-90), 0.5%(90-97) and 2.2% (97-99)
    >> (per year data).
    >> The lowest income group did the BEST, with the D1 lowest decile
    >> 7.2%, 2.0%, 0.6%, 3.2% for these time periods
    >> and 3.9% per year overall.
    >> The top D10 ncome group improved 1.6% overall, 3.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%,
    >> 0.5% and 2.3%. The retirees did better than either with 4.8%
    >> this improvement strongest with the retirees in the
    >> D1 group at the bottom.
    >> Next the ratio of the standard of livings of the highest group
    >> and lowest decreased in the total time period from 4.8 to 3.3.
    >> conclusion: there is no indication from this data that the rich
    >> are getting richer, proportionally, and the poor, poorer in France.
    >> Obvious in terms of absolute a 5% rise for the rich represents
    >> a lot more than 5% for th epoor.
    >> Not quite the same data can be extracted from the US census data.
    >> However from Table H-3 of the historical income for US families the
    >> 1981-2001 average incomes improved in the following fashion
    >> in inflation corrected 2001 dollars,
    >> lowest 20%: $8,995 => $10,136, 13% total or 0.7%/yr
    >> top 20%, $92,894 => $145,970, 57% total or 2.9%/yr
    >> the top 5% $132,239 => $260,464, 97% or 4.9%/yr
    >> The ratio $145,97/$10,136 is around 14-15.
    >> So the conclusion is that in the US, incomes have stagnated
    >> for the lowest rank. In fact the % income improvement for the
    >> 20-40% and the 40-60% in the use are about the same as for
    >> the lowest income group, 0.9% each, and 1.3%/yr for the
    >> 60-80% group. One has to be in the top 20% to win out in
    >> the American economy. The well off in France do about
    >> as well as in the US but the poorer do better.
    >> Earl
    > same happens in Belgium, the sales start on a pre-determined date
    >

Earl Evleth

On 25/06/05 12:55, in article [email protected],
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Public might be better but not for higher-income folks.

All the people I know who are working in the US public sector
are not lower income.

They are academics, and earn close to $100,000 a year,
have guaranteed jobs and golden retirements.

Martin

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:41:17 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On 25/06/05 12:55, in article [email protected],
    >"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Public might be better but not for higher-income folks.
    >All the people I know who are working in the US public sector
    >are not lower income.
    >They are academics, and earn close to $100,000 a year,
    >have guaranteed jobs and golden retirements.

It's a different world.
--
Martin