| Everything hikes except salary!!! | |
|---|---|
| Sep 14, 2007 04:48 |   |
 | A survey conducted by a demestic research institution reveals that about 60% white collars feel the pressure caused by the soaring prices for food and other commodities. Those white collars' salary do no keep pace with the skyrocketing prices. Miss Wang told the newpaper that her salary has not be raised at least for four years. Not long before, China declared in a report that the average salary has been raised a lot. This report has aroused heated discussions. Most people say that their salaries are actually not raised as what the report said. What does this suggest? Even those white collars feel the pressure from the soaring prices, how about those ordinary people? The prices for food and non-food products should be controled now. |
| Sep 16, 2007 03:53 | #1 |
| Jimmyb, there is a link between supply and demand if left to the market to decide. Once a product becomes too expencive to buy it will either be discontinude or the maker will find a cheaper way to make it as they need to sell. If there are no Buyers He will go broke. IMO goverments should leave pricing to the market place. Dodger. |
| Sep 16, 2007 05:05 | #2 |
| Dodger, true, true, true It really goes like this: (putting it simpe) Produce something, it sells. Company is going fine. Workers want their share of company wealth. Wages begin get higher. Productivity of company begin get lower. Owners think ways to improve company abundance. One way is to lower production costs. Growing global economy gives low cost countries a possibility to offer companies ways to produce their goods cheaper. But, in time circle closes itself and costs begin to grow because others wants their share, too. |
| Sep 17, 2007 01:21 | #3 |
| Dodger, I can understand what you said. However, things do not always go as we expected. Some makers try to monopolize the market because they can make more profits by doing this. The soaring price of instant noodles is the best example. Some makers colluded with each other and raised the price together. When the government declared to prohibit the random price increase of instant noodles, they immediately decreased the price. Reasonable increase of prices can be accepted. If they increase the price randomly, administrative measures should be adopted to regulate the market. |
| Sep 18, 2007 15:50 | #4 |
| Jimmyb, the only group who can impose to monopolize a market are goverments. In a Free market ( there are no realy free ones) companies compete for your disposable income. If we can find a product with the same quality but cheaper we will buy it. Colluding between companies in pricing is in most countries against the law. |
| Sep 18, 2007 18:54 | #5 |
| Carlos and Dodger, what you both said is true. Demand and offer, or to say it more directly, competitiveness, can be impaired in many different cases, particularly in case of monopoly (private or public), but also in the case of an informal agreement in case of oligopoly. So sometimes, the government needs to intervene as you just said because it is against the law. Though I don't think the problem is here (or not completly at least). I don't know what Chinese noodles are made of, but assuming it is made of wheat like Italian ones, these rocketing prices can be understood because of the price of wheat. It has never been so high. US farmers (one of the biggest producer, if not the biggest) recorded very average harvests this year. The world raw materials being quoted in Chicago, the prices of wheat raised by more than 50% (because of the small quantites to sell) even in the countries which production was quite good. Another explanation I have, which is even more uncertain, is that the survey you are talking about is not correct. Why do I think so ? Because Chinese people have never been consuming so much as they are doing today. But to consume, you need money, and if it increases it means otherwise Chinese saved a lot and are spending what they saved, otherwise the have other sources of revenu. Noone can buy more with the same amount of money, especially in a context of rocketing inflation. |
| Sep 19, 2007 04:25 | #6 |
| Quote:Colluding between companies in pricing is in most countries against the law. Yes, those who collude with each other in pricing are against the law. Thus, they need to be punished. The increasing price of Chinese instant noodles is a good example. It is reported that those makers once held meetings to discuss the issue of increasing the instant noodles together. In order to make the market develop healthily and stably, the government intervenes in this matter and requires them to make the price back into normal. Erencius, you ignore one thing----the widening income gap. The rich people have a lot of money to comsume. But how about those poor people? |
| Sep 19, 2007 06:05 | #7 |
| Jimmyb, please do not forget that you cannot sell very much to a poor man. It has only been in this age of mass production that more people have ever had access to quality food, clothing, housing and medical care. Poor is a relitive term. I am poor again ( thanks ex wife) but not as poor as others.Being poor in Australia means not being able to afford things that others do not even dream about. Dodger |
| Sep 19, 2007 17:48 | #8 |
| Quote: Erencius, you ignore one thing----the widening income gap. The rich people have a lot of money to comsume. But how about those poor people? To do so you need a really great number of rich people at least as numerous as the poor ones to double the prices. Sounds impossible to me especially for noodles: the consumption of it doesnt increase proportionaly with your wealth (rich or not you are human your body is physically limited) contrary to TV sets or computers. Yes of course the first people touched by the soaring prices are the poor ones. Their situation is not gonna be better unfortunately. |
| Sep 20, 2007 02:59 | #9 |
| Dodger, I agree with you that we can not sell very much to the poor people. But we should find ways to help them. Shall we see them starve to death in front of us? Impossible. Those businessmen only care profits. This is very sad. In 2006, Gini coefficient in China exceeded the warning line, reaching 0.47. What's more, ten percent rich men have seventy percent social wealth. What does this data suggest? The disparity between the rich and the poor in China is too wide. In this situation, do you think we should only sell products to those ten percent people and ignore others? |
| Sep 20, 2007 06:00 | #10 |
| Jimmyb, it was only just over 100 years ago that 95% of the wealth in the UK was held by 5% of the people.At the same time only 20% of the people owned their own home. It has now increased to around 70%. Things change. It is early days for China in the new World. In the mid 19th centerary only the rich could aford to wear underwear ( silk) untill the mass production of cheap cotten from the US. Yes there is a disparity but the gap will close as the market expands. Those businessmen who only care for profits will find a way to sell to everyone and they will have to compete against others who will have to find a better way. The expansion of the US happerned when there was almost no goverment controll. Dodger. |
Page 1 of 4 < Previous Next > Page:
Post a Reply to: Everything hikes except salary!!!
Copyright © 1998-2024 All rights reserved.