The Honesty Factor
Most people would be dishonest if they knew they could get away with it. According to an AP release on November 30, 64% of students have cheated on tests. That is dishonesty. Add to that 30% of high school students have admitted shoplifting. Most likely there are others who will not admit it.
Is it only society’s morality checks that keep more people from being crooks? If not for the fear of being caught, of the social stigma associated with it, the consequences both through the criminal justice system and through the loss of “face,” would more people act dishonestly? In many social circles, dishonesty is admired. Many teenagers look up to those who beat the system, even when they do so in ways that are contrary to their upbringing and their religion
Are these people reacting to the examples they see around them – sports figures and popular singers carrying guns around, abusing drugs, ignoring sexual morality, and generally flaunting their ability to do improper things and get away with insignificant punishments? Does our society now look up to the CEOs who make millions while driving their companies into bankruptcy? Then, after their business tanks, they are hired to run another company.
Honesty seems to have several meanings. People want others to be honest in their dealings, but they do not always seem to think that they need to be honest with others. We see people, public figures, accused of crimes, refusing to accept any blame, decrying any thought that they may have done something wrong, only to plead guilty a few weeks later.
Perhaps it is this jaded attitude that has opened the door to so many scammers, thieves, white-collar criminals, and other crooks. From President Clinton’s denial of sexual wrongdoing, to Vice President Gore’s supposed invention of the Internet, to president Bush’s many twists of truth in order to convince Congress and the American people that we needed to go to war in Iraq, from the top down honesty is no longer policy.
Alaska’s recently convicted Senator, Ted Stevens, totally denied any wrong-doing. He was convicted of seven counts of failing to disclose more than $250,000 in gifts and home renovations. Yet he refuses to believe he did anything wrong. He admits to having all these things done for him, yet states that since he did not formally accept the gifts, that he was just keeping them temporarily, he was not guilty of any impropriety.
Humans have been raised for thousands of years to accept the honesty of our religious leaders. In fact, since faith is the cornerstone of religion, and those who set church policy also set morality standards, how can our society maintain an appreciation of honesty when so many religious leaders have lied, stolen, ignored their vows, and committed horrendous crimes?
We also accept society’s ills as an excuse when a crime is committed. The accused did commit the crime, but it was not her fault because she was pregnant, or had just given birth, or because he had a poor childhood, or because he saw the same thing done on television. We scoff at some of the trials that result in huge settlements for seemingly little things, yet “we” are the people who are on those juries who determine the outcome. We wonder why a minor violation can result in a huge jail sentence when major criminals get off with probation or less.
All this opens the door to scammers. These people, who have purposefully set out to rob, whether through overt act or deception, rarely see any harm in their acts. It is their job. The marks or pigeons are simply there as aspects of their work.
Next week we will examine why scams work. Just how is it that such people can stay in business, in fact rack up billions each year?
Monday, December 29, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Consumer Safety & Awareness Part 1
Thieves All Around Us
My wife and I love penguins. We once traveled a few hundred miles, during a vacation, to visit a rookery. One of the most interesting facts about these creatures is that Adélie penguins, which use rocks for nests, have no hesitation stealing the rocks of other penguins. This behavior is not limited to penguins. Grosbeak, Sparrows, and Starlings have been known to steal the entire nest of other birds, occasionally taking parts and at other times just laying their eggs in nests made by others and moving right on in.
Anyone who has a flower or vegetable garden is quite familiar with animals that steal what we work hard to produce. Deer, raccoons, chipmunks all like to eat our favorite flowers. Animals also take from each other. Monkeys do not hesitate taking whatever they want, no matter who or what it belongs to. Squirrels and crows love to carry away things that would surprise you.
Although this may come as a shock, humans also steal. Yes, they do. In fact theft predates human history, that is, before we learned to write our ideas down. It is simply a human trait. When it is easier to take from someone else than to get something ourselves, our ancestors did not hesitate doing so. Morality and social attitudes towards stealing is a relatively recent addition to human behavior.
Today, throughout the world, human societies have taboos on thievery, especially from one’s own group. It has long been believed that Gypsies had no qualms about taking from others, yet there is no actual proof this is a trait of these Romanian people. Due to the need to stay alive, all creatures will steal when their survival or those of their families depend on it.
Yet some humans make an art of stealing from others, whether they need it or not. People do this to obtain things they simply want, or to deny others from having material goods. People steal works of art and other treasures simply for the pleasure of having such objects. Rich people have been known to steal simply to become richer. Many people take what is not theirs because they know they can get away with it. More than 70% of shoplifters can afford the objects they take.
In this new series, we will be looking at organized planned thievery. Although theft of opportunity probably accounts for a large portion of stolen goods and money, theft by design probably accounts for over 90% of the value of property stolen. It take only a moment, and little thought, to take a candy bar, a pair of socks, or a bottle of perfume from a store or to lift a valuable from a house you are visiting or living in. But a lot of planning must go into art heists, bank robberies, and embezzlement.
It is doubtful if anyone reading this has a Monet or a Ming vase. If you do, you probably have all sorts of alarms and insurance policies. Most thieves are not sophisticated enough to get away with super-heists. But by taking $100 or $2,000, or $15,000, organized groups and knowledgeable individuals can do just as much harm to us as those people who get millions in museum robberies. Most of these small thefts are the result of scams.
A scam is theft by design. It is planned, practiced, perfected. It uses trickery, the skill of a magician, and deception. It works because the scammers study human nature, can predict how people will react in certain situations, and they take advantage of people’s trust. They target older people who are usually in need of someone to believe in. They target religious people who have an interest in sharing
There are many types of scams. The most common, which we will be writing about in this blog, include, but are not limited to:
> Bait & Switch
> Pyramid Scams
> Advanced Fee
> Theft of Services
> Robbery
> Counterfeiting
> Theft by Design
> Blackmail
> Deceitful Advertising
By knowing how the scammers operate, and examining the types of people and situations that make their work easy, you can learn to protect yourself, your family, and your valuables.
My wife and I love penguins. We once traveled a few hundred miles, during a vacation, to visit a rookery. One of the most interesting facts about these creatures is that Adélie penguins, which use rocks for nests, have no hesitation stealing the rocks of other penguins. This behavior is not limited to penguins. Grosbeak, Sparrows, and Starlings have been known to steal the entire nest of other birds, occasionally taking parts and at other times just laying their eggs in nests made by others and moving right on in.
Anyone who has a flower or vegetable garden is quite familiar with animals that steal what we work hard to produce. Deer, raccoons, chipmunks all like to eat our favorite flowers. Animals also take from each other. Monkeys do not hesitate taking whatever they want, no matter who or what it belongs to. Squirrels and crows love to carry away things that would surprise you.
Although this may come as a shock, humans also steal. Yes, they do. In fact theft predates human history, that is, before we learned to write our ideas down. It is simply a human trait. When it is easier to take from someone else than to get something ourselves, our ancestors did not hesitate doing so. Morality and social attitudes towards stealing is a relatively recent addition to human behavior.
Today, throughout the world, human societies have taboos on thievery, especially from one’s own group. It has long been believed that Gypsies had no qualms about taking from others, yet there is no actual proof this is a trait of these Romanian people. Due to the need to stay alive, all creatures will steal when their survival or those of their families depend on it.
Yet some humans make an art of stealing from others, whether they need it or not. People do this to obtain things they simply want, or to deny others from having material goods. People steal works of art and other treasures simply for the pleasure of having such objects. Rich people have been known to steal simply to become richer. Many people take what is not theirs because they know they can get away with it. More than 70% of shoplifters can afford the objects they take.
In this new series, we will be looking at organized planned thievery. Although theft of opportunity probably accounts for a large portion of stolen goods and money, theft by design probably accounts for over 90% of the value of property stolen. It take only a moment, and little thought, to take a candy bar, a pair of socks, or a bottle of perfume from a store or to lift a valuable from a house you are visiting or living in. But a lot of planning must go into art heists, bank robberies, and embezzlement.
It is doubtful if anyone reading this has a Monet or a Ming vase. If you do, you probably have all sorts of alarms and insurance policies. Most thieves are not sophisticated enough to get away with super-heists. But by taking $100 or $2,000, or $15,000, organized groups and knowledgeable individuals can do just as much harm to us as those people who get millions in museum robberies. Most of these small thefts are the result of scams.
A scam is theft by design. It is planned, practiced, perfected. It uses trickery, the skill of a magician, and deception. It works because the scammers study human nature, can predict how people will react in certain situations, and they take advantage of people’s trust. They target older people who are usually in need of someone to believe in. They target religious people who have an interest in sharing
There are many types of scams. The most common, which we will be writing about in this blog, include, but are not limited to:
> Bait & Switch
> Pyramid Scams
> Advanced Fee
> Theft of Services
> Robbery
> Counterfeiting
> Theft by Design
> Blackmail
> Deceitful Advertising
By knowing how the scammers operate, and examining the types of people and situations that make their work easy, you can learn to protect yourself, your family, and your valuables.
Monday, December 15, 2008
“Seeing is not Believing” part 18
Christmas Sales Dangers
For the last five months, Slightly Creaky’s blog has been running a series called “Seeing is Not Believing,” explaining the ways that advertisers, manufacturers, and stores manipulate your senses in an attempt to get far more than they deserve. This week we wrap up that series and prepare for a new one.
As we close in on Christmas, all around us are advertisements for sales. Every year, November is the month or getting ready for Christmas sales, December is when we get zonked with “Buy, Buy, Buy,” and January sales are when stores get rid of the leftovers. Most of these sales are based on percentages – 10% off, 20%, 30%… even as much as 80% off. We must ask – 50% off what?
You have to wonder, if stores can take so much off their prices, and not only stay in business but expand and give the bosses and stockholders huge bonuses, then just how much of a mark-up is there? In “Seeing is not Believing” we have spoken about pre-sale markups, the concept of list price, and the manipulation of sales terms to befuddle and mystify the public. During the last four weeks, we have been carefully studying ads and sales prices and have noticed one simple trend: no matter how great the percentage discount, the prices have hardly changed.
Remember what we have previously discussed: stores can set whatever price they want on an item. We have no way of knowing how much they cost to manufacture, ship, store, and how much these businesses mark up the products. We have seen the same item, same size sell for a huge range of prices. Here in the northeast, the same can of Campbell’s 10.5 ounce gravy was selling in ShopRite for 3/$1.00, it was on sale the same week at Price Chopper for $1.00 a can, and elsewhere we have found it for as high as $2.49 a can.
If a store sets the “list price” of an item, say a lady’s blouse that cost them $10 wholesale, at $80, then that is its value. They only need to sell it at that price once. That is the value they put on it, and that value is not set in your mind. They can then sell it for any amount and call it a sale. Yet each time you see it, it’s listed as an $80 value. They can take 10% off at $72, or 30% off at $56 and still make a huge profit.
Then comes Christmas and their huge “More than 50% off” sale. This blouse, selling now for $39.95 is still bringing them a huge profit. In three months the leftovers will be at $19.95 at Marshall’s and they’ll do just fine. Even when they reduce it 30%, they are making money.
There is no law that prevents any store from removing a price tag and substituting one at a different amount. It is a general rule that stores that are holding “out-of-business” sales raise their previous prices 20 to 40% prior to putting “Everything on Sale at 30% off.” Thus the items may be selling for even more than they originally were.
At the holidays, many stores use the same ploy: raising their price tags, then discounting the items based on the higher price. Any percentage-off sale is meaningless unless you can compare the new price to what that item typically sells for. ‘Tis the season for giving; yet businesses believe this is the season for taking. Be careful, be knowledgeable, and do not believe all that you see.
Happy Holidays everyone.
Consumer Safety & Awareness
In November, I offered my services to teach a class on “Consumer Safety and Awareness” at a college near where I live. If all goes well, this offering, at their Center for Community and Educational Services, will be available to those in New York’s Hudson Valley area. This is not a college level course, rather an “adult education” presentation open to everyone.
As is my habit, when I get involved in a project I dive in, doing research, writing out ideas. Totally unanticipated, I already have far more information than I can possibly use for that 5-session offering. And my research has shown me that there’s a lot more information out there.
Therefore, as a service to the public and as an extension for those who take the class, starting next week the Slightly Creaky blog will be offering a new series “Consumer Safety & Awareness.” It is my hope to extend this to at least 50 weekly articles covering scams, fraud, household and automotive safety, Internet, mail and telephone fraud, and much more.
If you have been taken by anyone, by a scammer, a store, or a service company, we’d like to hear about it. Feel free to post your comments on this blog, on the Slightly Creaky message board, or simply write to us at info@slightlycreaky.com.
For the last five months, Slightly Creaky’s blog has been running a series called “Seeing is Not Believing,” explaining the ways that advertisers, manufacturers, and stores manipulate your senses in an attempt to get far more than they deserve. This week we wrap up that series and prepare for a new one.
As we close in on Christmas, all around us are advertisements for sales. Every year, November is the month or getting ready for Christmas sales, December is when we get zonked with “Buy, Buy, Buy,” and January sales are when stores get rid of the leftovers. Most of these sales are based on percentages – 10% off, 20%, 30%… even as much as 80% off. We must ask – 50% off what?
You have to wonder, if stores can take so much off their prices, and not only stay in business but expand and give the bosses and stockholders huge bonuses, then just how much of a mark-up is there? In “Seeing is not Believing” we have spoken about pre-sale markups, the concept of list price, and the manipulation of sales terms to befuddle and mystify the public. During the last four weeks, we have been carefully studying ads and sales prices and have noticed one simple trend: no matter how great the percentage discount, the prices have hardly changed.
Remember what we have previously discussed: stores can set whatever price they want on an item. We have no way of knowing how much they cost to manufacture, ship, store, and how much these businesses mark up the products. We have seen the same item, same size sell for a huge range of prices. Here in the northeast, the same can of Campbell’s 10.5 ounce gravy was selling in ShopRite for 3/$1.00, it was on sale the same week at Price Chopper for $1.00 a can, and elsewhere we have found it for as high as $2.49 a can.
If a store sets the “list price” of an item, say a lady’s blouse that cost them $10 wholesale, at $80, then that is its value. They only need to sell it at that price once. That is the value they put on it, and that value is not set in your mind. They can then sell it for any amount and call it a sale. Yet each time you see it, it’s listed as an $80 value. They can take 10% off at $72, or 30% off at $56 and still make a huge profit.
Then comes Christmas and their huge “More than 50% off” sale. This blouse, selling now for $39.95 is still bringing them a huge profit. In three months the leftovers will be at $19.95 at Marshall’s and they’ll do just fine. Even when they reduce it 30%, they are making money.
There is no law that prevents any store from removing a price tag and substituting one at a different amount. It is a general rule that stores that are holding “out-of-business” sales raise their previous prices 20 to 40% prior to putting “Everything on Sale at 30% off.” Thus the items may be selling for even more than they originally were.
At the holidays, many stores use the same ploy: raising their price tags, then discounting the items based on the higher price. Any percentage-off sale is meaningless unless you can compare the new price to what that item typically sells for. ‘Tis the season for giving; yet businesses believe this is the season for taking. Be careful, be knowledgeable, and do not believe all that you see.
Happy Holidays everyone.
Consumer Safety & Awareness
In November, I offered my services to teach a class on “Consumer Safety and Awareness” at a college near where I live. If all goes well, this offering, at their Center for Community and Educational Services, will be available to those in New York’s Hudson Valley area. This is not a college level course, rather an “adult education” presentation open to everyone.
As is my habit, when I get involved in a project I dive in, doing research, writing out ideas. Totally unanticipated, I already have far more information than I can possibly use for that 5-session offering. And my research has shown me that there’s a lot more information out there.
Therefore, as a service to the public and as an extension for those who take the class, starting next week the Slightly Creaky blog will be offering a new series “Consumer Safety & Awareness.” It is my hope to extend this to at least 50 weekly articles covering scams, fraud, household and automotive safety, Internet, mail and telephone fraud, and much more.
If you have been taken by anyone, by a scammer, a store, or a service company, we’d like to hear about it. Feel free to post your comments on this blog, on the Slightly Creaky message board, or simply write to us at info@slightlycreaky.com.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing Part 17
Call in the Next Five Minutes
Who can resist a special deal? When people are offered things for a deep discount or possibly free, they rush to buy. Perhaps it is human nature, perhaps greed.
We knew a person who used to look for such sales and went far out of her way to get them. If a place offered something with a rebate that saved a dollar or two, she would buy it, even if it meant spending an extra $5 on gas and tolls and take an hour round trip. A few years ago, when she was visiting and saw we had something that was not working properly, she offered to give us one from her stock of more than a dozen that she had gotten for free.
During a visit to her house we noticed a bag among her garbage containing quite a few food items in closed packages. Thinking she had placed them there by mistake, we asked whether they were food pantry donations. She stated they were all items she had bought at a discount but were now out of date. She may have saved half price on them, but threw half out.
Companies take advantage of this trait to get us to buy things that we really don’t need, and may not even want. In print ads they are called “loss-leaders,” an item the company sells at cost or even at a small loss, to get you into the store. Milk used to be a common item that headlined advertisements. Buy your milk for half what it sells for elsewhere and while you’re in the store you may get cigarettes, snacks, and other high profit items. Now you see movie DVDs used the same way.
Restaurants use soda as a loss-leader. You may think you are getting a great deal when you get a free fountain soda, or even a 12-ounce can, but the cost to the store is negligible. Consider that supermarkets make a profit when they sell 12-packs of soda for $2. Thus a can of soda can not cost them much more than eight cents each (and possibly a 5-cent deposit). If they can get you to buy a $5 sandwich (which is $4.50 profit) and throw in a can of soda for free, who wins?
Television advertisements give away “free” items frequently. Purchase the acne cure (cure?) for $20 and get six items that other companies could not sell because no one really wanted them. Remember the extra shipping and handling charges we mentioned in last week’s blog?
Cruise ships use the same technique. Most of them over-inflate the prices so they can offer $200 off each room (not each person) and $100 room credits that must be spent on their amazingly high prices. Free water, coffee, tea, and ice tea, but soda, which costs them less than coffee, is $2.00 a glass or all-you-can-drink for $40 a week. Consider that – you need to drink 20 glasses of soda in seven days to break even. Twenty 12-ounce cans at the supermarket would cost you under $4.
Taking a cruise means more than being on a ship. At each port you get a chance to visit significant destinations such as historic sites, scenic locations, wineries, or other highly publicized must-see tourist traps. If you take the cruise ship’s planned tour you are guaranteed to get back before the ship leaves port, and you will also pay twice or more than if you take a similar tour purchased locally.
We’ve taken six cruises in the last dozen years and have only taken two tours: a penguin rookery and a swim tour in the South Pacific. They were wonderful, and well worth the cost. But we balk at spending $300 a person for a one hour hard seat no-shocks bus ride to some obscure location, ten minutes touring the place, a free 3 ounce glass of grape juice, and another hour back.
In one of our previous blogs we discussed high-pressure sales (Part 7, September 13, 2008). This is where you are told you can get a substantial discount if you purchase NOW. The offer will never be available again. Radio and television ads use the same technique, but with a twist. Purchase within five minutes and you get a discount, or a free item, or free shipping…. The implication is that if you wait six minutes you will not get the special offer. Twenty minutes later you hear the same ad, possibly on a different channel, again giving you just five minutes to call in. And tomorrow it’s on again, and next week, and next month…
NOTE: There is only one more article in this series. Started on December 22 we begin a new series entitled "Consumer Safety and Awareness"
Who can resist a special deal? When people are offered things for a deep discount or possibly free, they rush to buy. Perhaps it is human nature, perhaps greed.
We knew a person who used to look for such sales and went far out of her way to get them. If a place offered something with a rebate that saved a dollar or two, she would buy it, even if it meant spending an extra $5 on gas and tolls and take an hour round trip. A few years ago, when she was visiting and saw we had something that was not working properly, she offered to give us one from her stock of more than a dozen that she had gotten for free.
During a visit to her house we noticed a bag among her garbage containing quite a few food items in closed packages. Thinking she had placed them there by mistake, we asked whether they were food pantry donations. She stated they were all items she had bought at a discount but were now out of date. She may have saved half price on them, but threw half out.
Companies take advantage of this trait to get us to buy things that we really don’t need, and may not even want. In print ads they are called “loss-leaders,” an item the company sells at cost or even at a small loss, to get you into the store. Milk used to be a common item that headlined advertisements. Buy your milk for half what it sells for elsewhere and while you’re in the store you may get cigarettes, snacks, and other high profit items. Now you see movie DVDs used the same way.
Restaurants use soda as a loss-leader. You may think you are getting a great deal when you get a free fountain soda, or even a 12-ounce can, but the cost to the store is negligible. Consider that supermarkets make a profit when they sell 12-packs of soda for $2. Thus a can of soda can not cost them much more than eight cents each (and possibly a 5-cent deposit). If they can get you to buy a $5 sandwich (which is $4.50 profit) and throw in a can of soda for free, who wins?
Television advertisements give away “free” items frequently. Purchase the acne cure (cure?) for $20 and get six items that other companies could not sell because no one really wanted them. Remember the extra shipping and handling charges we mentioned in last week’s blog?
Cruise ships use the same technique. Most of them over-inflate the prices so they can offer $200 off each room (not each person) and $100 room credits that must be spent on their amazingly high prices. Free water, coffee, tea, and ice tea, but soda, which costs them less than coffee, is $2.00 a glass or all-you-can-drink for $40 a week. Consider that – you need to drink 20 glasses of soda in seven days to break even. Twenty 12-ounce cans at the supermarket would cost you under $4.
Taking a cruise means more than being on a ship. At each port you get a chance to visit significant destinations such as historic sites, scenic locations, wineries, or other highly publicized must-see tourist traps. If you take the cruise ship’s planned tour you are guaranteed to get back before the ship leaves port, and you will also pay twice or more than if you take a similar tour purchased locally.
We’ve taken six cruises in the last dozen years and have only taken two tours: a penguin rookery and a swim tour in the South Pacific. They were wonderful, and well worth the cost. But we balk at spending $300 a person for a one hour hard seat no-shocks bus ride to some obscure location, ten minutes touring the place, a free 3 ounce glass of grape juice, and another hour back.
In one of our previous blogs we discussed high-pressure sales (Part 7, September 13, 2008). This is where you are told you can get a substantial discount if you purchase NOW. The offer will never be available again. Radio and television ads use the same technique, but with a twist. Purchase within five minutes and you get a discount, or a free item, or free shipping…. The implication is that if you wait six minutes you will not get the special offer. Twenty minutes later you hear the same ad, possibly on a different channel, again giving you just five minutes to call in. And tomorrow it’s on again, and next week, and next month…
NOTE: There is only one more article in this series. Started on December 22 we begin a new series entitled "Consumer Safety and Awareness"
Monday, December 1, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing Part 16
Hidden Fees
Have you taken a good look at your telephone or cable bill recently? The details may be shocking. While many companies advertise “low” rates for such services, by the time they add on extra fees for things you have never heard of, your bill can be twice or even three times the advertised rate.
One television advertisement for multi-line cell phones has a large $49.95 in their ad and you might think that’s the cost. Actually that is what they charge for each extra line. The monthly rate is around $100; add two lines and you are paying double. Include the service fees, subscriber charges, recovery costs, and other usually unexplained add-ons and you’re up to $240 before state, Federal, and local taxes. Plan on it going around $300 a month.
Add to that the cost of the telephone. Oh, they are giving the phone away for free? Wow. It now costs less than $10 to make a cell phone, even with all the extras. They make up for it with an “activation fee,” whatever that is, of only $49.95. Per line.
Now telephone companies are charging for each text message sent and received. There was a recent story of a California teen who did not realize there was a surcharge for texting from Canada while on vacation and the next month’s bill exceeded $20,000.
Frequently when a new service is provided, such as text messaging, walkie-talkie calling, or e-mail delivery to your cell phone, initially it is offered for no extra cost. A year later, once you are hooked, the fees kick in. In many cases there is no advanced warning that what was once free is now costing you a hefty sum. Or, if there is notice, it is in small print mixed in with five pages of similar small print that you read the first time you got the bill, but have since ignored.
Television used to be free. You put an antenna on the roof, or, if you live in a city, rabbit-ears on top of the set. Then came cable offering better reception to rural areas. Cable also offers more than 12 channels. With some cable companies you had to pay extra for local stations until Congress stepped in to end that extra hidden cost.
Now you can get cable, as part of a package, for $29.99 a month. You also needed to add telephone for a similar price, and Internet service. Actually that is not a bad combination if you need all three. Although if you want more than the “basic” package of 80 channels (74 of which you’d never watch), your cost doubles, triples, or exceeds $200 a month.
Get a free home alarm. Sounds great until you look at the hidden fees. The “free” package may only cover four windows and one door. Not many of us have four windows and one door. We had five of these “free” alarm companies visit us and the actual cost for our house (9 windows and three doors) came to just over $1,200 from a local independent company (which did not insist that we sign a long term monitoring contract) to more than $3,000. The four national companies, all of which advertise ”free” alarms, also wanted two year or longer monitoring fees of $33 or more a month. For 24 months that comes to $800, which is not so free.
After 40 years of listening to infomercials, I recently saw a product on television that I thought of purchasing. It may not have been worth $19.95, but it was something I could use and had never seen in the store. But wait… if I ordered now they would triple the order and I’d get three for the same price. Plus a shipping and handling charge of only $8.99 (why can’t they say $9?). Each. Yes, you had to purchase three, and the cost was $20, plus three $9 fees for $47.
The newest gimmicks are shipping surcharges. Some companies add on a “cost of shipping surcharge” due to the high gasoline prices. We did not see such surcharges when gasoline was going for $4.30 a gallon, only once they fell below $3.00 again. The company may not be able to tell you in advance what this surcharge is, as it is based on many factors including the cost of gas, the shipping company they use, the time of delivery, the shipping distance, and the number of box seats the boss needs for next week’s football game.
Have you taken a good look at your telephone or cable bill recently? The details may be shocking. While many companies advertise “low” rates for such services, by the time they add on extra fees for things you have never heard of, your bill can be twice or even three times the advertised rate.
One television advertisement for multi-line cell phones has a large $49.95 in their ad and you might think that’s the cost. Actually that is what they charge for each extra line. The monthly rate is around $100; add two lines and you are paying double. Include the service fees, subscriber charges, recovery costs, and other usually unexplained add-ons and you’re up to $240 before state, Federal, and local taxes. Plan on it going around $300 a month.
Add to that the cost of the telephone. Oh, they are giving the phone away for free? Wow. It now costs less than $10 to make a cell phone, even with all the extras. They make up for it with an “activation fee,” whatever that is, of only $49.95. Per line.
Now telephone companies are charging for each text message sent and received. There was a recent story of a California teen who did not realize there was a surcharge for texting from Canada while on vacation and the next month’s bill exceeded $20,000.
Frequently when a new service is provided, such as text messaging, walkie-talkie calling, or e-mail delivery to your cell phone, initially it is offered for no extra cost. A year later, once you are hooked, the fees kick in. In many cases there is no advanced warning that what was once free is now costing you a hefty sum. Or, if there is notice, it is in small print mixed in with five pages of similar small print that you read the first time you got the bill, but have since ignored.
Television used to be free. You put an antenna on the roof, or, if you live in a city, rabbit-ears on top of the set. Then came cable offering better reception to rural areas. Cable also offers more than 12 channels. With some cable companies you had to pay extra for local stations until Congress stepped in to end that extra hidden cost.
Now you can get cable, as part of a package, for $29.99 a month. You also needed to add telephone for a similar price, and Internet service. Actually that is not a bad combination if you need all three. Although if you want more than the “basic” package of 80 channels (74 of which you’d never watch), your cost doubles, triples, or exceeds $200 a month.
Get a free home alarm. Sounds great until you look at the hidden fees. The “free” package may only cover four windows and one door. Not many of us have four windows and one door. We had five of these “free” alarm companies visit us and the actual cost for our house (9 windows and three doors) came to just over $1,200 from a local independent company (which did not insist that we sign a long term monitoring contract) to more than $3,000. The four national companies, all of which advertise ”free” alarms, also wanted two year or longer monitoring fees of $33 or more a month. For 24 months that comes to $800, which is not so free.
After 40 years of listening to infomercials, I recently saw a product on television that I thought of purchasing. It may not have been worth $19.95, but it was something I could use and had never seen in the store. But wait… if I ordered now they would triple the order and I’d get three for the same price. Plus a shipping and handling charge of only $8.99 (why can’t they say $9?). Each. Yes, you had to purchase three, and the cost was $20, plus three $9 fees for $47.
The newest gimmicks are shipping surcharges. Some companies add on a “cost of shipping surcharge” due to the high gasoline prices. We did not see such surcharges when gasoline was going for $4.30 a gallon, only once they fell below $3.00 again. The company may not be able to tell you in advance what this surcharge is, as it is based on many factors including the cost of gas, the shipping company they use, the time of delivery, the shipping distance, and the number of box seats the boss needs for next week’s football game.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing Part 15
Others Charge More – Do It Yourself
Have we gotten so lazy that we no longer attempt to do the simple things ourselves? Americans have become the slaves of advertisements so much that even in this time of recession, when many of us are cutting back on purchases, we still hire expensive companies to change a dripping faucet, to mow our lawns, and to do the things our parents and grandparents would simply do themselves.
Three years ago, we were frustrated with our inability to grow grass in one part of our lawn. Falling for the advertisements, we responded to a national advertisement stating that the company will turn our lawn green, get rid of weeds, and all we had to do was sit back and enjoy. Their price was about twice what I would have paid for the “organic” fertilizer that I had been using, but they would do the work and guarantee it.
The franchise owner visited us and walked the yard. Their price (based on a minimum square footage) would cover the front and side lawns only. To do the back yard would be an extra $90 for the year. Not bad, we agreed. Two days later one of their employees pulled up, took out a spray tank, and walked the yard spraying. Twenty minutes later he was done, put up warning signs, and left. According to those signs, they did not use the non-toxic chemicals they had advertised. It was a warning to keep children and pets off the lawn for three days.
I complained. The contract I signed was for the chemical they used. They never offered the option of the non-toxic product, but should I desire, I could now switch to it. They cost would be almost five times what was originally agreed on.
The next time they came, the worker was using headphones and singing while working. He sprayed the side of the house, some of my flowerbeds, and a few shrubs. Within a day the flowers were wilted, the shrubs turning brown, and the side of the house stained. I complained. The owner came back and looked. He said he would fire the worker for being so careless (I saw him at another house, still working for the company, two months later), but there was nothing he could do about the dead flowers and shrubs.
I told him to cancel the contract; I’d take the loss. Even this summer there was one area where they sprayed that, with the original soil removed and new dirt and flowers put in, nothing grows properly.
As soon as I fired the company, I did what I should have done originally: Googled them. There were web pages filled with similar complaints, people who had negative experiences not only with this company but also with other “lawn experts.”
Using the Internet to research lawn care, and taking a few books from the library, I discovered that by trimming some branches that were shading part of the lawn, using a few bags of lime, and removing the thatch in the spring, my lawn should improve. It did.
Today, with plumbers and electricians charging almost or over $100 just to come to the house to give an estimate, with service contracts costing $400 and up, and with $40 oil changes, we need to stop depending on others, to take the time and the pride and learn to do many things ourselves.
Many school districts, colleges, libraries, and community organizations offer low cost or free adult education courses. If you no longer have the maintenance manuals that came with your lawn mower, leaf blower, or similar product, try the Internet. Companies offer free or inexpensive replacements. These manuals will show you how to change the oil, sharpen the blade, and replace fluids. If you cannot get a replacement from the company, try a bookstore. Ask the hardware store owner or worker. Lowes and Home Depot have done a good job training their employees. They also have many low cost do-it-yourself books.
Use the Internet. There are many online forums where people share their knowledge of small repairs and product reliability. One great online resource (see below for more) is newsgroups. If you have never used one, see TechFAQ first. Google Groups is a good place to start.
Other online Do-It-Yourself resources:
Slightly Creaky’s Leaky Pipes
Michigan State University: Home Maintenance & Repair
DoItYourself.com
How Stuff Works
How Things Work
This Old House
AutoZone
Lowes How-To Library
Home Depot Know-How Center
Monkey See
DIY Network
Have we gotten so lazy that we no longer attempt to do the simple things ourselves? Americans have become the slaves of advertisements so much that even in this time of recession, when many of us are cutting back on purchases, we still hire expensive companies to change a dripping faucet, to mow our lawns, and to do the things our parents and grandparents would simply do themselves.
Three years ago, we were frustrated with our inability to grow grass in one part of our lawn. Falling for the advertisements, we responded to a national advertisement stating that the company will turn our lawn green, get rid of weeds, and all we had to do was sit back and enjoy. Their price was about twice what I would have paid for the “organic” fertilizer that I had been using, but they would do the work and guarantee it.
The franchise owner visited us and walked the yard. Their price (based on a minimum square footage) would cover the front and side lawns only. To do the back yard would be an extra $90 for the year. Not bad, we agreed. Two days later one of their employees pulled up, took out a spray tank, and walked the yard spraying. Twenty minutes later he was done, put up warning signs, and left. According to those signs, they did not use the non-toxic chemicals they had advertised. It was a warning to keep children and pets off the lawn for three days.
I complained. The contract I signed was for the chemical they used. They never offered the option of the non-toxic product, but should I desire, I could now switch to it. They cost would be almost five times what was originally agreed on.
The next time they came, the worker was using headphones and singing while working. He sprayed the side of the house, some of my flowerbeds, and a few shrubs. Within a day the flowers were wilted, the shrubs turning brown, and the side of the house stained. I complained. The owner came back and looked. He said he would fire the worker for being so careless (I saw him at another house, still working for the company, two months later), but there was nothing he could do about the dead flowers and shrubs.
I told him to cancel the contract; I’d take the loss. Even this summer there was one area where they sprayed that, with the original soil removed and new dirt and flowers put in, nothing grows properly.
As soon as I fired the company, I did what I should have done originally: Googled them. There were web pages filled with similar complaints, people who had negative experiences not only with this company but also with other “lawn experts.”
Using the Internet to research lawn care, and taking a few books from the library, I discovered that by trimming some branches that were shading part of the lawn, using a few bags of lime, and removing the thatch in the spring, my lawn should improve. It did.
Today, with plumbers and electricians charging almost or over $100 just to come to the house to give an estimate, with service contracts costing $400 and up, and with $40 oil changes, we need to stop depending on others, to take the time and the pride and learn to do many things ourselves.
Many school districts, colleges, libraries, and community organizations offer low cost or free adult education courses. If you no longer have the maintenance manuals that came with your lawn mower, leaf blower, or similar product, try the Internet. Companies offer free or inexpensive replacements. These manuals will show you how to change the oil, sharpen the blade, and replace fluids. If you cannot get a replacement from the company, try a bookstore. Ask the hardware store owner or worker. Lowes and Home Depot have done a good job training their employees. They also have many low cost do-it-yourself books.
Use the Internet. There are many online forums where people share their knowledge of small repairs and product reliability. One great online resource (see below for more) is newsgroups. If you have never used one, see TechFAQ first. Google Groups is a good place to start.
Other online Do-It-Yourself resources:
Slightly Creaky’s Leaky Pipes
Michigan State University: Home Maintenance & Repair
DoItYourself.com
How Stuff Works
How Things Work
This Old House
AutoZone
Lowes How-To Library
Home Depot Know-How Center
Monkey See
DIY Network
Monday, November 17, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing -- Part 14
The No-Price Policy
A friend recently responded to an advertisement for a bathtub refitting company. The product was just what she needed to solve several issues, loss of mobility and an aging bathroom. The advertisement did not list a price, and she invited a salesman into her house to demonstrate, with sample material, without asking how much the product cost. She never made the purchase as, with free installation and a $500 discount, the new bathtub was more than four times what she was willing to pay, over $20,000.
This is an old sales technique. Get the person to want the product badly enough and they may not argue about the price. Automobile ads make cars look sexy for that reason. Door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen (I was one, briefly, in the 1960s) hooked the parents on why their kids needed the product before mentioning the $1000+ price. Many products are now advertised in magazines and newspapers using this technique.
As an example, we can examine a magazine many people trust: the October, 2008 AARP Bulletin. AARP sells space for these ads, they do not profit from the advertising techniques. The information below was garnered during the week of October 12. (Slightly Creaky often links to AARP articles as we find them to be well researched and worded so any one can understand.)
Page 2 – full page. Sleep Number Bed. The Select Comfort web site offers both a 4-day delivery and a $500 discount, but to find the actual price you have to actually order the product, including inputting a credit card (we did not). The small print includes: “$500 cash off only for Queen and King Sleep Number® 9000 and Sleep Number Memory Foam T bed sets, and is not stackable on extended financing plan,” as well as, “As of September 1, 2008, variable APR is 22.98% and on all accounts in default, 28.99%.”
There were two additional ads for Sleep Comfort beds in this issue
Page 15 – full page. Nutrisystem. The advertisement says “Eat FREE for 3 weeks.” (Capitalization and color as in original ad.) It states that Tony Orlando lost 103 pounds and Marie Osmond dropped 40. The small print states, “Results not typical.” The only price listed is “All for about $10 a day.”
Their web site did not list the price and made additional promises. Their disclaimer is, “Offer good on Auto-Delivery order only. One additional free week of food will be included with your first and second deliveries. With Auto-Delivery, you are automatically charged and shipped your 28-Day program once every 4 weeks unless you cancel…. However for this offer you must stay on Auto-Delivery for at least two consecutive 28-Day program deliveries to receive the second free week of food,” Three pages down you find that each 28-day program costs a minimum of $329.95. If we are to believe that this is for 28 days, which comes to $11.78 a day, which is “about $10 a day.”
You need to be careful, though, as hidden in a scroll-down box is, “Substituted food items may contain different ingredients and allergens than those in items originally ordered.”
Page 34 – quarter-page ad. Premier Walk-In Tub. “As seen on TV.” The web advertisement promises, “Low entry, built in seat and temperature control are some of the benefits our tubs offer.” Some models offer optional hydrotherapy jets.
To view their products, you pop a virtual soap bubble and are taken to a different page. Thus it is nearly impossible to compare the products. Nowhere on the web site are prices listed – you need to call, mail, or e-mail a request. There were dozens of companies, in addition to the manufacturer’s home page, advertising for this product. None listed a price.
Back Cover – full page. BOSE Acoustic Wave music system. As with the others, there is no hint as to how much it costs, but you can make “12 easy payments.” The small print stated, “on orders of $299-$1500,” does give you an amazingly wide range. The BOSE web site lists the price right on the top right: $1,378.00.
A friend recently responded to an advertisement for a bathtub refitting company. The product was just what she needed to solve several issues, loss of mobility and an aging bathroom. The advertisement did not list a price, and she invited a salesman into her house to demonstrate, with sample material, without asking how much the product cost. She never made the purchase as, with free installation and a $500 discount, the new bathtub was more than four times what she was willing to pay, over $20,000.
This is an old sales technique. Get the person to want the product badly enough and they may not argue about the price. Automobile ads make cars look sexy for that reason. Door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen (I was one, briefly, in the 1960s) hooked the parents on why their kids needed the product before mentioning the $1000+ price. Many products are now advertised in magazines and newspapers using this technique.
As an example, we can examine a magazine many people trust: the October, 2008 AARP Bulletin. AARP sells space for these ads, they do not profit from the advertising techniques. The information below was garnered during the week of October 12. (Slightly Creaky often links to AARP articles as we find them to be well researched and worded so any one can understand.)
Page 2 – full page. Sleep Number Bed. The Select Comfort web site offers both a 4-day delivery and a $500 discount, but to find the actual price you have to actually order the product, including inputting a credit card (we did not). The small print includes: “$500 cash off only for Queen and King Sleep Number® 9000 and Sleep Number Memory Foam T bed sets, and is not stackable on extended financing plan,” as well as, “As of September 1, 2008, variable APR is 22.98% and on all accounts in default, 28.99%.”
There were two additional ads for Sleep Comfort beds in this issue
Page 15 – full page. Nutrisystem. The advertisement says “Eat FREE for 3 weeks.” (Capitalization and color as in original ad.) It states that Tony Orlando lost 103 pounds and Marie Osmond dropped 40. The small print states, “Results not typical.” The only price listed is “All for about $10 a day.”
Their web site did not list the price and made additional promises. Their disclaimer is, “Offer good on Auto-Delivery order only. One additional free week of food will be included with your first and second deliveries. With Auto-Delivery, you are automatically charged and shipped your 28-Day program once every 4 weeks unless you cancel…. However for this offer you must stay on Auto-Delivery for at least two consecutive 28-Day program deliveries to receive the second free week of food,” Three pages down you find that each 28-day program costs a minimum of $329.95. If we are to believe that this is for 28 days, which comes to $11.78 a day, which is “about $10 a day.”
You need to be careful, though, as hidden in a scroll-down box is, “Substituted food items may contain different ingredients and allergens than those in items originally ordered.”
Page 34 – quarter-page ad. Premier Walk-In Tub. “As seen on TV.” The web advertisement promises, “Low entry, built in seat and temperature control are some of the benefits our tubs offer.” Some models offer optional hydrotherapy jets.
To view their products, you pop a virtual soap bubble and are taken to a different page. Thus it is nearly impossible to compare the products. Nowhere on the web site are prices listed – you need to call, mail, or e-mail a request. There were dozens of companies, in addition to the manufacturer’s home page, advertising for this product. None listed a price.
Back Cover – full page. BOSE Acoustic Wave music system. As with the others, there is no hint as to how much it costs, but you can make “12 easy payments.” The small print stated, “on orders of $299-$1500,” does give you an amazingly wide range. The BOSE web site lists the price right on the top right: $1,378.00.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing Part 13
The Gifts That Keep Taking
Here comes Christmas, a birthday, any event that calls for the giving of a gift. Everyone’s interests are so diverse that you might not even know what your spouse, neighbor, or third cousin wants. So you solve the problem by purchasing a gift card.
Just about every store now has them: grocery, clothing, beauty parlors, tool shops, and phone companies. Most people think that giving a gift card solves many problems, but actually it can create even more.
Most gift cards come with a time limit – use them within a certain number of months or the store starts deducting a percentage or cash amount each month for “maintenance.” Some of them expire completely on a set date. Thus if the person receiving the $100 card does not use it by the set time, you may be only giving $85 or $60, or nothing at all.
Stores like gift cards. Not only are they inexpensive to produce, it ensures that someone will be coming in to make a purchase. Frequently the item bought exceeds the value of the card generating additional profit for the store. This is one reason many stores now give such cards rather than cash when you get a refund – it ensures that you must come back, and you will probably purchase more than the value of the card.
Consumer Reports cautions against the use of gift cards: “Earlier this year, TowerGroup, a research firm in Needham, Mass., estimated the value of unused gift cards in the U.S. at $8 billion for 2006. And in its fiscal 2006 annual report, the retailer Best Buy revealed a $43 million gain from gift cards that were unlikely to be used.” Recently their parent company filed a report with the FTC about people losing the value of the cards when a store closes or files for bankruptcy. (Also see “$8 Billion in Gift Cards Went Unredeemed Last Year”.)
The FTC has been active, warning people that gift cards are not always the best way to go. “But before you buy a sack-full of gift cards from your favorite retailer, restaurant, or local financial institution, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wants you to know that some strings may be attached.” Among the problems reported are identity theft, loss of funds, counterfeit or fraudulent cards, and hidden fees. Be sure to read the FTC Fact Sheet (PDF file) about gift cards before buying or even accepting one as a gift.
With a growing number of scams revolving around gift cards, even those you buy in your favorite store might be tampered with prior to purchase. Think twice before purchasing one.
Additional resources:
New Gift Card Scams
Beware New Gift Card Scam
What is a Gift Card Scam?
Gift Card Fraud
Buyer Beware: Gift Card Scam Alert
Here comes Christmas, a birthday, any event that calls for the giving of a gift. Everyone’s interests are so diverse that you might not even know what your spouse, neighbor, or third cousin wants. So you solve the problem by purchasing a gift card.
Just about every store now has them: grocery, clothing, beauty parlors, tool shops, and phone companies. Most people think that giving a gift card solves many problems, but actually it can create even more.
Most gift cards come with a time limit – use them within a certain number of months or the store starts deducting a percentage or cash amount each month for “maintenance.” Some of them expire completely on a set date. Thus if the person receiving the $100 card does not use it by the set time, you may be only giving $85 or $60, or nothing at all.
Stores like gift cards. Not only are they inexpensive to produce, it ensures that someone will be coming in to make a purchase. Frequently the item bought exceeds the value of the card generating additional profit for the store. This is one reason many stores now give such cards rather than cash when you get a refund – it ensures that you must come back, and you will probably purchase more than the value of the card.
Consumer Reports cautions against the use of gift cards: “Earlier this year, TowerGroup, a research firm in Needham, Mass., estimated the value of unused gift cards in the U.S. at $8 billion for 2006. And in its fiscal 2006 annual report, the retailer Best Buy revealed a $43 million gain from gift cards that were unlikely to be used.” Recently their parent company filed a report with the FTC about people losing the value of the cards when a store closes or files for bankruptcy. (Also see “$8 Billion in Gift Cards Went Unredeemed Last Year”.)
The FTC has been active, warning people that gift cards are not always the best way to go. “But before you buy a sack-full of gift cards from your favorite retailer, restaurant, or local financial institution, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wants you to know that some strings may be attached.” Among the problems reported are identity theft, loss of funds, counterfeit or fraudulent cards, and hidden fees. Be sure to read the FTC Fact Sheet (PDF file) about gift cards before buying or even accepting one as a gift.
With a growing number of scams revolving around gift cards, even those you buy in your favorite store might be tampered with prior to purchase. Think twice before purchasing one.
Additional resources:
New Gift Card Scams
Beware New Gift Card Scam
What is a Gift Card Scam?
Gift Card Fraud
Buyer Beware: Gift Card Scam Alert
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing Part 12
Most people use coupons when they shop. They appear to save us money, especially since many stores double them. But in reality, they are simply another form of advertising and generate additional profits for both the manufacturers and the stores.
There are two common types of sales coupons: those from the manufacturers on specific products and those from stores. Both serve the same purposes – to get you in so you will shop, and to get you to buy a product you may not otherwise purchase. In some cases the items are new, and providing a discount coupon is a major sales technique to win your loyalty to the product. Manufacturers believe, and they are frequently correct, that once an item is tried many shoppers come back to it.
Over the years, stores have tried to attract customer loyalty by placing their own coupons in advertisements – you only get the discount on the product at that specific store. Of couse the manufacturer gains as well, and has probably reduced the wholesale price to that store during the sales period. One advantage to the store is that they do not double their own coupons. A 75 cent off manufacturer’s coupon may cost the store $1.50 if they double, but their own coupon for the same amount would cost them half that amount.
Stores usually limit the doubling to coupons under a dollar. Thus a 75-cent coupon is worth $1.50 to the consumer, but a $1.00 is only worth face value. This explains why manufacturers have so many $1 coupons. BUT – to use them you need to buy multiples of the product. Thus you see $1 off two or three items, which forces you to buy more than you might need or reasonably use. You may be tempted to pass the item by, but the name remains in your mind through this subtle advertising technique.
Recently one cat food manufacturer has been offering a dollar off if you purchase 24 cans at one time – thus less than three cents per item – and each can sells for over 60 cents. Thus to get your dollar back you have to spend at least $14.
So how can a consumer win at this game? Selectively use coupons only for items you would otherwise purchase. I happen to use the brand of cat food mentioned above, and wait for it to go on sale, usually around once a month. I currently have around 60 discount coupons for items I generally use anyway and compare them to what is on sale, using a coupon only if it is to my advantage to do so.
One of my favorite grocery stores offers coupons that seem to provide significant discounts. They may be for $1 off any frozen food item in the store or 25 cents for a loaf of bread. The catch is that you have to spend $15 (not including the coupon items) to qualify. Since I make a shopping list and rarely vary from it, there are times I pass on such items.
One way you can take advantage of such promotions is to have a separate list of items you know you’ll need sometime within the next few weeks that do not normally go on sale: garbage or storage bags, detergent, spices, tea… If you need a few dollars more to make the spending requirement, purchase one or more of these items.
Used properly, couponing can save you several hundred dollars a year as well as give you the opportunity to try items you might not normally purchase. Just remember that neither the manufacturer nor the store is losing money on them, and they are gaining a customer.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Who is Best For the Slightly Creaky?
The Slightly Creaky web site is not political in nature, but as this Blog was established as our editorial wing we feel it is our obligation to express the opinions of the editorial staff prior to what may be one of the most important presidential elections of our lives. We feel that the 2008 election will decide:
1. Health Care issues for the next 20 years.
2. Social Security’s future.
3. The reformatting of Medicare and Medicaid as well as the prescription drug plan Part D.
4. Regulations controlling the cost of prescription drugs for the next 20 years.
5. The composition of the Supreme Court.
6. Regulations controlling the excessive profits and incomes of those American companies and CEOs whose actions control prices.
7. Local taxes including property and school. As Federal taxes are reduced, local and state governments must raise their taxes to compensate.
8. Morality in government. While it may not be our business to pry into the personal lives of those in government, it is our obligation to make sure our government respects the rights of the people.
9. The way the United States is respected overseas. This affects both our safety and our pocketbook.
(Please refer to the Internet links for comparative data. The information presented here comes from each candidate’s web site, position statements, and speeches unless noted otherwise.)
1. Health Care. Whether you have medical coverage or not, whether you are uncovered, can afford your own medical insurance plan or are wealthy enough to simply pay as you need it, whatever is recommended by the next president will have a great impact on what Congress decides. Remember, the President can only suggest. It is Congress that actually passes the laws.
There is no doubt that both the Senate and the House of Representatives will have a significant Democratic majority for the next two years, possibly (and historically) for four years and longer. It is unlikely that Congress will accept John McCain’s proposal, not just because he is a Republican, but also because so many health and economic experts rejected its basic premise. Simply said, giving a tax credit of up to $5,000 per couple ($2,500 for single adults) as well as taxing the value of health care for those whose companies now provide it for free, violates all that our federal government has done in the way of social programs for the last 80 years.
In addition, the McCain proposal will add to the ever-increasing inflationary costs we have seen in medical coverage. Simply giving people money to purchase medical insurance does not guarantee that the insurance companies will reduce the nearly 7% increase we see annually. If that continues, the amount of coverage $5,000 will afford us will be negligible.
Obama’s plan has several reasons for success. In addition to having already won the support of a majority of Democrats (and some Republicans), it maintains the best of the current health coverage policies. People would have a choice of keeping the plan they already have if it works, if it is cost effective, and if it provides them with the options they want. If not, they have a second plan they can compare with what they currently have and choose to select it.
In the short run, both plans would cost around the same. Taken over a period of twenty years, though, inflation and the demonstrated greed of the health insurance industry, would make McCain’s plan considerably more expensive for the individual, the family, the American People, and inflate the government’s contributions from $5,000 to (over 20 years) an estimated $12,000. If the McCain plan’s coverage does not have an inflationary clause it simply will survive for only a few years and then be fiscally useless.
2. Social Security. It is for certain that Social Security needs fixing, yet no one wants to pay for the fixes. Those who really need this retirement and disability plan cannot afford to pay more for it. Those in the middle class who depend on Social Security for having more than a minimal of comfort (if affords them the ability to raise their winter temperature from 65 degrees to a more comfortable 68 and gives them the option of an occasional luxury such as a meal out or an extra gallon of gasoline), are having enough of a struggle with what they currently have.
There are several options for the survival of Social Security (whose inflationary COLA will result in a 5.8% increase in 2009).
> We can raise the amount everyone pays by increasing the percentage taken from our wages (currently 7.65% since 1990, 15.3% for self-employed). That hurts everyone immediately, especially unlikely at a time when we foresee several more years of international economic turmoil.
> We can eliminate the ceiling on which you pay this tax from the current $102,000 ($106,800 in 2009).
> We can reduce the benefits or set it so that people do not receive benefits until later in life.
> We can create a window of non-payment similar to the Plan D Prescription law: everyone pays until a certain amount of income (such as the $106,800 in place for 2009) and then there are no social security taxes until your income exceeds $250,000 annually.
> We can divide Social Security into two parts – one amount guaranteed and one part dependent on the stock market. This is known as “individual investment accounts.”
When Social Security was introduced in 1937, people paid 1% of their salary into the plan. This amount has been increased 25 times. The current amount has been stable for 18 years, the longest in history. In fact the second longest period of stability was 12 years (at 1%). It is unlikely that Congress will ask self-employed people to contribute more than the current 15.3%.
Individual investment accounts, as proposed by President Bush and kept alive by John McCain, have previously been rejected by Congress, by the American people, and by financial experts. Had that proposal passed in 2004, those who had contributed would have lost around 50% of their retirement investment during the last two years.
While it’s impossible to predict what the stock market will do, we cannot afford to gamble with our future economic security. The idea behind Social Security is to give the people a cushion where they know they will have an income once they can (disability) or choose to no longer work (at age 62 or later).
Those who wish to gamble with their retirement, and can afford to do so, already have several options, all more secure than the individual investment account plan: 401(k) and IRAs. A compromise plan would include maintaining social security with some payment alteration to secure its future, and adding optional retirement accounts such as the 401(k). It is likely that businesses can be encouraged to contribute to such plans, as many have, through low-cost tax incentives.
Of the options presented, increasing the wage limit on payment seems fairest to all. Congress has been increasing this amount annually anyway. At this time it makes sense to use the option that has worked with Plan B: provide a window where middle class wage earners do not have to pay. Should that prove insufficient, the window can be reduced in the future with minimal harm to the greatest amount of people.
3. Medicare. In 2007, Medicare alone accounted for $394.5 billion of the federal budget. Medicaid and other health benefits added $276.4 billion. Together they amount for $670 billion of the total $2.8 trillion budget, almost a quarter of the total Federal budget. Add to that the amount that states and local governments put into health care and it’s obvious that something must be done.
Some in Congress want to see these medical entitlement programs eliminated, combined perhaps with a new total medical coverage package (see topic 1 above). Should that be workable, without a significant increase in total or percentage costs, then it is to everyone’s benefit.
Neither candidate has expressed a definitive thought on this issue, except that Barack Obama wants all children covered either by individual plans, an improved national health plan, or through Medicaid (or SCHIP for those caught between the Medicare limits and those who can afford a health care plan). Senator McCain’s statement on health care does not offer any coverage for children nor does he address Medicare specifically.
4. Prescription Drugs. With Plan D in effect, neither candidate has addressed this issue other than stating (both of them) that they support the importation of drugs if the price from foreign countries is lower. This includes the following:
> McCain has a history of supporting health benefits for seniors, although he refused to support Plan D, and he voted against expanding it. He is in favor of income indexing Plan D so that wealthier people pay more for coverage. “Under the McCain proposal, Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes of more than $82,000 for an individual or $164,000 for a couple would pay higher premiums for prescription drug coverage.”
> Obama wants to lift the current ban that prevents the US government from dealing directly with drug companies to increase bulk purchases and the lowering of costs.
> Both candidates are looking to reduce the time it takes for generic drugs to become available
5. Supreme Court. With three potential retirements among the Justices within the next four years, all of them with liberal or moderate tendencies, it is important for voters to decide whether they wish to support Obama and thus maintain the current equality between the liberal and conservative wings of the Court, or McCain and cause the court to drift towards conservatism for the next twenty years.
6. Excessive Profits and Taxes. One issue that Senator Obama keeps on returning to is that the wealthiest Americans can afford to pay a greater percentage of taxes, thus reducing the burden on middle class people and undoing the shift created by the Bush tax cuts. McCain would like to see the benefits given to the rich during the last eight years to remain in place.
Historically, the wealthier have paid a greater percentage of their income in taxes. This has been the backbone of the graduated income tax system used by the Federal government and most states. When the 16th Amendment was finally passed in 1913, the tax rate was set ranging from 1 to 7% of income based on how much you made, with the largest amount for those making over $500,000 (in 1913!). Less than 1% of the entire country had to pay any income tax under this original plan.
In 1916 the Federal income tax rate was change to range from 2% to 15%. “By 1917 a taxpayer with only $40,000 faced a 16 percent rate and the individual with $1.5 million faced a tax rate of 67 percent.” (Department of the Treasury Fact Sheet) Supporting the historic differential, “By 1936 the lowest tax rate had reached 4 percent and the top rate was up to 79 percent.”
Currently the difference is significantly less with far fewer tax steps than we have historically had and ranging from 10% (making $16,000 married) to 35% for the wealthiest making over $357,700.
Thus, for a person earning $10 million a year, not including the massive tax loopholes the wealthy usually find, in 2008 such an income would result in a Federal income tax of $3.5 million. Correspondingly, in 1916 such a person would have paid $6.7 million, and in 1936 $7.9 million.
John McCain wants to maintain the current 35% limit on taxes as well as reduce corporate taxes from 35% to 25%. Senator Obama would like to see a repeal of the Bush tax cut for the wealthy (over $250,000 annual income) and use the amount generated by this to give those making less than this amount a tax breaK. This is not socialism nor is it “redistribution of wealth.”
This means a return to how things were taxed throughout more than 70% of the history of federal income tax. It puts a larger burdon on the wealthiest 1% of the country, whether they are a small business owner or a corporate CEO. Under this plan, 99% of the population would see a tax reduction. In addition (according to CNN), Obama’s plan would “eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 per year and eliminating all capital gains taxes on start-ups and small businesses.”
Both candidates are looking to help those with children. Obama wants to increase tax savings on college accounts and McCain assures that there will be no new taxes on cell phones and Internet usage (Obama has not addressed these issues).
7. Local taxes. Federal tax savings during the last twenty years have saved us nothing. For every dollar the federal rate is cut, the local and state taxes have gone up even more. The rate of increase in property and school taxes is greater now than it has ever been. The average family sees less of their income due to these increases.
While neither candidate addresses these issues, John McCain looks for an across-the-board Federal spending reduction to help balance the budget. In normal times this would be an admirable goal. However, with inflation so high, with the world in an economic tailspin, and ever increasing local government costs, an across-the-board freeze or reduction will be an income tax increase to everyone.
During the Bush years, while we paid a smaller percentage to the Federal government, the states have had to pick up the slack on education, highway (and other infrastructure costs), medical and welfare, as well as every other form of governmental program. In some locations people are paying almost twice as much for state and local taxes as they were seven years ago. McCain’s plans would feed into this frenzy of increased non-Federal tax increases.
Barack Obama recognizes several things: Federal tax rates for the majority of people have to remain the same or be reduced (reduction is planned for 99% of the population), seniors on fixed incomes need even more tax relief, governmental spending must back state and local needs so that a country-wide reduction does not result in local increases.
Obama is seeking to maintain or raise funding support in crucial areas, specifically health, infrastructure, and education. An increase of government spending in these fields will also provide stimulation to the declining job rates and economy by providing more jobs in the crucial construction and health fields. The top-down proposals that the Republicans have pushed since the 1970s has only produced income increases for the wealthy. Cutting corporate taxes and lowering the amount the wealthiest Americans pay has resulted in more income for the top 1% of the rich while others have seen their purchasing power decline.
8. Morality in Government. The talking heads and sound bites that seem to impress many people point out negativity in every candidate. Yet no person alive has ever had a pristine life. Should we judge a person’s ability to lead our nation based on a personal life, no one would qualify.
What is more important, from a governmental point of view, is whether the people in power can be trusted to be fair to all Americans. George Bush and his circle of advisors have proven many times over that they can simply not be trusted. They hide behind “executive privilege” to refuse giving testimony on issues of vital importance to this country’s security as well as whether they have violated the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Nothing says more about the quality of a person than whether they are willing to answer questions about their actions. In many cases these testimonies are sealed and secret, yet the Bush administration, both those currently in office and those resigned, retired, and removed, refuse to do so. This is government by fiat – a dictatorial practice that is not only forbidden by the Constitution, but which has been avoided by every branch of the government since our country was founded.
There are many questions about the start of the war in Iraq and how it has been conducted that the Bush administration refuses to answer. This also applies to their actions in Afghanistan, the reasons behind the failure of the New Orleans recovery program, the toxins in the trailers used for those who lost their homes, the federal attorney scandal and dozens of other issues. The lack of trust in our executive branch caused by this secrecy has been a national disaster.
We are not just voting on a president. When a person is elected to this office, he (she) is responsible for selecting the Cabinet, judges, ambassadors, and hundreds of thousands of others. Ultimately the buck stops at the top. Any improper action by an executive official reflects on the president directly. The Bush administration’s greatest failure is the unwillingness to admit to any fault and their attempt to hide all mistakes.
Thus it is fair to look at the background of each candidate to see how each person has reacted in the past. It may seem unjustified to bring up Obama’s nebulous association with a 1960s radical or McCain’s association with several people who have gone to jail for financial impropriety. But these things must be considered, however briefly.
In all fairness, both Senators have minor instances of relationships with people of questionable character, but both McCain and Obama themselves have outstanding characters and can be trusted not to repeat the secrecy and distrust fostered by the Bush administration.
The difference, though, lies in their selection for vice-president, the person who is a heartbeat from the chief executive’s office. Although we hate to admit it, there are thousands of biased people in this country and an attempt on Barack Obama’s life, should he be elected, is not only possible, but likely. At the same time, John McCain does not have a pristine medical history, and while he is in good health at the moment there is always a chance his cancer might return and he is subject to other frailties that people his age succumb to.
Joe Biden, a man whom no one accuses of any impropriety other than occasionally saying things he should not, is respected by Democrats, Republicans, and, since no country is isolated, those in foreign countries who deal on the executive level. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has demonstrated, through her few years as mayor and governor, that she abuses her authority and advises her assistants to hide behind executive privilege, just as George Bush does. This week’s disclosure that she billed Alaskan tax payers for non-business vacation travel with her children demonstrates that she puts her needs above the law.
While neither of the presidential candidates has named specifically whom they might appoint to their Cabinet or other important positions, we need look no further than the person they selected as their potential replacement to get a glimpse of how their administration might be run.
9. Respect Overseas. The United States is still the world’s superpower. While Russia may flex its strength attacking one of the world’s weakest nations, and China is a growing giant with poverty throughout its rural areas, no other country can match this one for military strength, the ability to move arms and men around as needed, and the responsibility to use such strength wisely. That is until George Bush invaded Iraq.
Security is a two-way street. You must do what you can to protect yourself, but you must also avoid giving cause for others to dislike you. Bush’s foreign policy of preemptive attacks, name calling, secretive prisons, torture, and unilateral actions have undermined 200 years of American fairness.
Although the next president will have dozens of significant priorities to get this country and the economy back on track, one that needs to be addressed foremost is that of international relations and internal security. You can never protect yourself from everyone; you can never foresee every potential action. You can, and should, though, minimize the risks by reducing the reasons people have to attack you.
In a marriage or any other relationship, success and friendship only come with open communications and honesty. A partner who lies, by deceit or omission, who does not play by the rules set for harmony, who insists that only his policy will work, and who advance with force rather than through cooperation, will only destroy that relationship. The same is true in international relations whether with another legitimate country or a terrorist organization.
Sarah Palin and John McCain have continuously criticized Obama’s desire to hold open and honest talks with anyone at any time. Pakistan and India still have border disputes and refuse to discuss them. China and Vietnam had a falling out over issues of trust. The two Koreas still cannot resolve issues more than 50 years after their conflict. The same is true in dozens of places throughout the world.
The first step towards working out difficulties in a marriage, in a business contract, in any dispute is to hold open and honest communications. Even Israel, whose existence depends on ever-vigilant security, this week has decided that it is time to consider swapping land for peace. One of George Bushes success stories is the result of his opening a dialogue with Libya’s Muammar al-Qadhfi. In three years this country had moved, through open and respectful talks, from one of the “axis of evil” to a country with whom we can now open diplomatic relations.
For six years George Bush refused to talk with North Korea. During the last 18 months the negotiations and communications have resulted in their dismantling nuclear facilities. There is a long way to go there, but it’s a positive step. One has to give before one can receive. One has to open communications before there can be any understanding.
Barack Obama is willing to follow the path taken by President Nixon, whose actions brought China from a reclusive threat to one which, while still not conforming to “western standards,” holds diplomatic channels opened and freely resolves many issues that made us consider them the world’s largest threat in the 1970s. Ronald Reagan used diplomacy to end the Cold War. Even the Cuban Missile Crisis, we now know, was not solved by Kennedy’s threat of war but by behind-the-scenes negotiations that gave Russia some of what they wanted in European security in exchange for removing their armaments from Cuba.
Palin seems to view the world as a wilderness. When a moose walks in front of her she reaches for her gun. McCain, in retrospect, is now saying low level talks with anyone is fine. Barack Obama repeats the Teddy Roosevelt thesis of “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” (According to Roosevelt, that was an African proverb, not an original idea.) Obama is willing to hold negotiations with anyone at any time in order to gain security for this country, but should such communications fail he is willing (and no less a person that Colin Powell believes him) to use the force of this mighty nation to protect us.
Palin and McCain want to continue the mistakes of the first six years of George Bush’s administration. Even Bush has learned from those mistakes.
Slightly Creaky is not endorsing either candidate, yet it’s obvious how we, as slightly creaky people in our 60s view the issues and the people. Please be sure to enter this election with open eyes and an open mind.
On November 4th we intend, as a group, to be at the Town of Newburgh, NY Recreation Center before 8:00 in the morning to vote in what may be the most important election since the Depression. Whoever you support, be sure you, too, accept your obligation and right to participate and vote.
1. Health Care issues for the next 20 years.
2. Social Security’s future.
3. The reformatting of Medicare and Medicaid as well as the prescription drug plan Part D.
4. Regulations controlling the cost of prescription drugs for the next 20 years.
5. The composition of the Supreme Court.
6. Regulations controlling the excessive profits and incomes of those American companies and CEOs whose actions control prices.
7. Local taxes including property and school. As Federal taxes are reduced, local and state governments must raise their taxes to compensate.
8. Morality in government. While it may not be our business to pry into the personal lives of those in government, it is our obligation to make sure our government respects the rights of the people.
9. The way the United States is respected overseas. This affects both our safety and our pocketbook.
(Please refer to the Internet links for comparative data. The information presented here comes from each candidate’s web site, position statements, and speeches unless noted otherwise.)
1. Health Care. Whether you have medical coverage or not, whether you are uncovered, can afford your own medical insurance plan or are wealthy enough to simply pay as you need it, whatever is recommended by the next president will have a great impact on what Congress decides. Remember, the President can only suggest. It is Congress that actually passes the laws.
There is no doubt that both the Senate and the House of Representatives will have a significant Democratic majority for the next two years, possibly (and historically) for four years and longer. It is unlikely that Congress will accept John McCain’s proposal, not just because he is a Republican, but also because so many health and economic experts rejected its basic premise. Simply said, giving a tax credit of up to $5,000 per couple ($2,500 for single adults) as well as taxing the value of health care for those whose companies now provide it for free, violates all that our federal government has done in the way of social programs for the last 80 years.
In addition, the McCain proposal will add to the ever-increasing inflationary costs we have seen in medical coverage. Simply giving people money to purchase medical insurance does not guarantee that the insurance companies will reduce the nearly 7% increase we see annually. If that continues, the amount of coverage $5,000 will afford us will be negligible.
Obama’s plan has several reasons for success. In addition to having already won the support of a majority of Democrats (and some Republicans), it maintains the best of the current health coverage policies. People would have a choice of keeping the plan they already have if it works, if it is cost effective, and if it provides them with the options they want. If not, they have a second plan they can compare with what they currently have and choose to select it.
In the short run, both plans would cost around the same. Taken over a period of twenty years, though, inflation and the demonstrated greed of the health insurance industry, would make McCain’s plan considerably more expensive for the individual, the family, the American People, and inflate the government’s contributions from $5,000 to (over 20 years) an estimated $12,000. If the McCain plan’s coverage does not have an inflationary clause it simply will survive for only a few years and then be fiscally useless.
2. Social Security. It is for certain that Social Security needs fixing, yet no one wants to pay for the fixes. Those who really need this retirement and disability plan cannot afford to pay more for it. Those in the middle class who depend on Social Security for having more than a minimal of comfort (if affords them the ability to raise their winter temperature from 65 degrees to a more comfortable 68 and gives them the option of an occasional luxury such as a meal out or an extra gallon of gasoline), are having enough of a struggle with what they currently have.
There are several options for the survival of Social Security (whose inflationary COLA will result in a 5.8% increase in 2009).
> We can raise the amount everyone pays by increasing the percentage taken from our wages (currently 7.65% since 1990, 15.3% for self-employed). That hurts everyone immediately, especially unlikely at a time when we foresee several more years of international economic turmoil.
> We can eliminate the ceiling on which you pay this tax from the current $102,000 ($106,800 in 2009).
> We can reduce the benefits or set it so that people do not receive benefits until later in life.
> We can create a window of non-payment similar to the Plan D Prescription law: everyone pays until a certain amount of income (such as the $106,800 in place for 2009) and then there are no social security taxes until your income exceeds $250,000 annually.
> We can divide Social Security into two parts – one amount guaranteed and one part dependent on the stock market. This is known as “individual investment accounts.”
When Social Security was introduced in 1937, people paid 1% of their salary into the plan. This amount has been increased 25 times. The current amount has been stable for 18 years, the longest in history. In fact the second longest period of stability was 12 years (at 1%). It is unlikely that Congress will ask self-employed people to contribute more than the current 15.3%.
Individual investment accounts, as proposed by President Bush and kept alive by John McCain, have previously been rejected by Congress, by the American people, and by financial experts. Had that proposal passed in 2004, those who had contributed would have lost around 50% of their retirement investment during the last two years.
While it’s impossible to predict what the stock market will do, we cannot afford to gamble with our future economic security. The idea behind Social Security is to give the people a cushion where they know they will have an income once they can (disability) or choose to no longer work (at age 62 or later).
Those who wish to gamble with their retirement, and can afford to do so, already have several options, all more secure than the individual investment account plan: 401(k) and IRAs. A compromise plan would include maintaining social security with some payment alteration to secure its future, and adding optional retirement accounts such as the 401(k). It is likely that businesses can be encouraged to contribute to such plans, as many have, through low-cost tax incentives.
Of the options presented, increasing the wage limit on payment seems fairest to all. Congress has been increasing this amount annually anyway. At this time it makes sense to use the option that has worked with Plan B: provide a window where middle class wage earners do not have to pay. Should that prove insufficient, the window can be reduced in the future with minimal harm to the greatest amount of people.
3. Medicare. In 2007, Medicare alone accounted for $394.5 billion of the federal budget. Medicaid and other health benefits added $276.4 billion. Together they amount for $670 billion of the total $2.8 trillion budget, almost a quarter of the total Federal budget. Add to that the amount that states and local governments put into health care and it’s obvious that something must be done.
Some in Congress want to see these medical entitlement programs eliminated, combined perhaps with a new total medical coverage package (see topic 1 above). Should that be workable, without a significant increase in total or percentage costs, then it is to everyone’s benefit.
Neither candidate has expressed a definitive thought on this issue, except that Barack Obama wants all children covered either by individual plans, an improved national health plan, or through Medicaid (or SCHIP for those caught between the Medicare limits and those who can afford a health care plan). Senator McCain’s statement on health care does not offer any coverage for children nor does he address Medicare specifically.
4. Prescription Drugs. With Plan D in effect, neither candidate has addressed this issue other than stating (both of them) that they support the importation of drugs if the price from foreign countries is lower. This includes the following:
> McCain has a history of supporting health benefits for seniors, although he refused to support Plan D, and he voted against expanding it. He is in favor of income indexing Plan D so that wealthier people pay more for coverage. “Under the McCain proposal, Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes of more than $82,000 for an individual or $164,000 for a couple would pay higher premiums for prescription drug coverage.”
> Obama wants to lift the current ban that prevents the US government from dealing directly with drug companies to increase bulk purchases and the lowering of costs.
> Both candidates are looking to reduce the time it takes for generic drugs to become available
5. Supreme Court. With three potential retirements among the Justices within the next four years, all of them with liberal or moderate tendencies, it is important for voters to decide whether they wish to support Obama and thus maintain the current equality between the liberal and conservative wings of the Court, or McCain and cause the court to drift towards conservatism for the next twenty years.
6. Excessive Profits and Taxes. One issue that Senator Obama keeps on returning to is that the wealthiest Americans can afford to pay a greater percentage of taxes, thus reducing the burden on middle class people and undoing the shift created by the Bush tax cuts. McCain would like to see the benefits given to the rich during the last eight years to remain in place.
Historically, the wealthier have paid a greater percentage of their income in taxes. This has been the backbone of the graduated income tax system used by the Federal government and most states. When the 16th Amendment was finally passed in 1913, the tax rate was set ranging from 1 to 7% of income based on how much you made, with the largest amount for those making over $500,000 (in 1913!). Less than 1% of the entire country had to pay any income tax under this original plan.
In 1916 the Federal income tax rate was change to range from 2% to 15%. “By 1917 a taxpayer with only $40,000 faced a 16 percent rate and the individual with $1.5 million faced a tax rate of 67 percent.” (Department of the Treasury Fact Sheet) Supporting the historic differential, “By 1936 the lowest tax rate had reached 4 percent and the top rate was up to 79 percent.”
Currently the difference is significantly less with far fewer tax steps than we have historically had and ranging from 10% (making $16,000 married) to 35% for the wealthiest making over $357,700.
Thus, for a person earning $10 million a year, not including the massive tax loopholes the wealthy usually find, in 2008 such an income would result in a Federal income tax of $3.5 million. Correspondingly, in 1916 such a person would have paid $6.7 million, and in 1936 $7.9 million.
John McCain wants to maintain the current 35% limit on taxes as well as reduce corporate taxes from 35% to 25%. Senator Obama would like to see a repeal of the Bush tax cut for the wealthy (over $250,000 annual income) and use the amount generated by this to give those making less than this amount a tax breaK. This is not socialism nor is it “redistribution of wealth.”
This means a return to how things were taxed throughout more than 70% of the history of federal income tax. It puts a larger burdon on the wealthiest 1% of the country, whether they are a small business owner or a corporate CEO. Under this plan, 99% of the population would see a tax reduction. In addition (according to CNN), Obama’s plan would “eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 per year and eliminating all capital gains taxes on start-ups and small businesses.”
Both candidates are looking to help those with children. Obama wants to increase tax savings on college accounts and McCain assures that there will be no new taxes on cell phones and Internet usage (Obama has not addressed these issues).
7. Local taxes. Federal tax savings during the last twenty years have saved us nothing. For every dollar the federal rate is cut, the local and state taxes have gone up even more. The rate of increase in property and school taxes is greater now than it has ever been. The average family sees less of their income due to these increases.
While neither candidate addresses these issues, John McCain looks for an across-the-board Federal spending reduction to help balance the budget. In normal times this would be an admirable goal. However, with inflation so high, with the world in an economic tailspin, and ever increasing local government costs, an across-the-board freeze or reduction will be an income tax increase to everyone.
During the Bush years, while we paid a smaller percentage to the Federal government, the states have had to pick up the slack on education, highway (and other infrastructure costs), medical and welfare, as well as every other form of governmental program. In some locations people are paying almost twice as much for state and local taxes as they were seven years ago. McCain’s plans would feed into this frenzy of increased non-Federal tax increases.
Barack Obama recognizes several things: Federal tax rates for the majority of people have to remain the same or be reduced (reduction is planned for 99% of the population), seniors on fixed incomes need even more tax relief, governmental spending must back state and local needs so that a country-wide reduction does not result in local increases.
Obama is seeking to maintain or raise funding support in crucial areas, specifically health, infrastructure, and education. An increase of government spending in these fields will also provide stimulation to the declining job rates and economy by providing more jobs in the crucial construction and health fields. The top-down proposals that the Republicans have pushed since the 1970s has only produced income increases for the wealthy. Cutting corporate taxes and lowering the amount the wealthiest Americans pay has resulted in more income for the top 1% of the rich while others have seen their purchasing power decline.
8. Morality in Government. The talking heads and sound bites that seem to impress many people point out negativity in every candidate. Yet no person alive has ever had a pristine life. Should we judge a person’s ability to lead our nation based on a personal life, no one would qualify.
What is more important, from a governmental point of view, is whether the people in power can be trusted to be fair to all Americans. George Bush and his circle of advisors have proven many times over that they can simply not be trusted. They hide behind “executive privilege” to refuse giving testimony on issues of vital importance to this country’s security as well as whether they have violated the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Nothing says more about the quality of a person than whether they are willing to answer questions about their actions. In many cases these testimonies are sealed and secret, yet the Bush administration, both those currently in office and those resigned, retired, and removed, refuse to do so. This is government by fiat – a dictatorial practice that is not only forbidden by the Constitution, but which has been avoided by every branch of the government since our country was founded.
There are many questions about the start of the war in Iraq and how it has been conducted that the Bush administration refuses to answer. This also applies to their actions in Afghanistan, the reasons behind the failure of the New Orleans recovery program, the toxins in the trailers used for those who lost their homes, the federal attorney scandal and dozens of other issues. The lack of trust in our executive branch caused by this secrecy has been a national disaster.
We are not just voting on a president. When a person is elected to this office, he (she) is responsible for selecting the Cabinet, judges, ambassadors, and hundreds of thousands of others. Ultimately the buck stops at the top. Any improper action by an executive official reflects on the president directly. The Bush administration’s greatest failure is the unwillingness to admit to any fault and their attempt to hide all mistakes.
Thus it is fair to look at the background of each candidate to see how each person has reacted in the past. It may seem unjustified to bring up Obama’s nebulous association with a 1960s radical or McCain’s association with several people who have gone to jail for financial impropriety. But these things must be considered, however briefly.
In all fairness, both Senators have minor instances of relationships with people of questionable character, but both McCain and Obama themselves have outstanding characters and can be trusted not to repeat the secrecy and distrust fostered by the Bush administration.
The difference, though, lies in their selection for vice-president, the person who is a heartbeat from the chief executive’s office. Although we hate to admit it, there are thousands of biased people in this country and an attempt on Barack Obama’s life, should he be elected, is not only possible, but likely. At the same time, John McCain does not have a pristine medical history, and while he is in good health at the moment there is always a chance his cancer might return and he is subject to other frailties that people his age succumb to.
Joe Biden, a man whom no one accuses of any impropriety other than occasionally saying things he should not, is respected by Democrats, Republicans, and, since no country is isolated, those in foreign countries who deal on the executive level. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has demonstrated, through her few years as mayor and governor, that she abuses her authority and advises her assistants to hide behind executive privilege, just as George Bush does. This week’s disclosure that she billed Alaskan tax payers for non-business vacation travel with her children demonstrates that she puts her needs above the law.
While neither of the presidential candidates has named specifically whom they might appoint to their Cabinet or other important positions, we need look no further than the person they selected as their potential replacement to get a glimpse of how their administration might be run.
9. Respect Overseas. The United States is still the world’s superpower. While Russia may flex its strength attacking one of the world’s weakest nations, and China is a growing giant with poverty throughout its rural areas, no other country can match this one for military strength, the ability to move arms and men around as needed, and the responsibility to use such strength wisely. That is until George Bush invaded Iraq.
Security is a two-way street. You must do what you can to protect yourself, but you must also avoid giving cause for others to dislike you. Bush’s foreign policy of preemptive attacks, name calling, secretive prisons, torture, and unilateral actions have undermined 200 years of American fairness.
Although the next president will have dozens of significant priorities to get this country and the economy back on track, one that needs to be addressed foremost is that of international relations and internal security. You can never protect yourself from everyone; you can never foresee every potential action. You can, and should, though, minimize the risks by reducing the reasons people have to attack you.
In a marriage or any other relationship, success and friendship only come with open communications and honesty. A partner who lies, by deceit or omission, who does not play by the rules set for harmony, who insists that only his policy will work, and who advance with force rather than through cooperation, will only destroy that relationship. The same is true in international relations whether with another legitimate country or a terrorist organization.
Sarah Palin and John McCain have continuously criticized Obama’s desire to hold open and honest talks with anyone at any time. Pakistan and India still have border disputes and refuse to discuss them. China and Vietnam had a falling out over issues of trust. The two Koreas still cannot resolve issues more than 50 years after their conflict. The same is true in dozens of places throughout the world.
The first step towards working out difficulties in a marriage, in a business contract, in any dispute is to hold open and honest communications. Even Israel, whose existence depends on ever-vigilant security, this week has decided that it is time to consider swapping land for peace. One of George Bushes success stories is the result of his opening a dialogue with Libya’s Muammar al-Qadhfi. In three years this country had moved, through open and respectful talks, from one of the “axis of evil” to a country with whom we can now open diplomatic relations.
For six years George Bush refused to talk with North Korea. During the last 18 months the negotiations and communications have resulted in their dismantling nuclear facilities. There is a long way to go there, but it’s a positive step. One has to give before one can receive. One has to open communications before there can be any understanding.
Barack Obama is willing to follow the path taken by President Nixon, whose actions brought China from a reclusive threat to one which, while still not conforming to “western standards,” holds diplomatic channels opened and freely resolves many issues that made us consider them the world’s largest threat in the 1970s. Ronald Reagan used diplomacy to end the Cold War. Even the Cuban Missile Crisis, we now know, was not solved by Kennedy’s threat of war but by behind-the-scenes negotiations that gave Russia some of what they wanted in European security in exchange for removing their armaments from Cuba.
Palin seems to view the world as a wilderness. When a moose walks in front of her she reaches for her gun. McCain, in retrospect, is now saying low level talks with anyone is fine. Barack Obama repeats the Teddy Roosevelt thesis of “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” (According to Roosevelt, that was an African proverb, not an original idea.) Obama is willing to hold negotiations with anyone at any time in order to gain security for this country, but should such communications fail he is willing (and no less a person that Colin Powell believes him) to use the force of this mighty nation to protect us.
Palin and McCain want to continue the mistakes of the first six years of George Bush’s administration. Even Bush has learned from those mistakes.
Slightly Creaky is not endorsing either candidate, yet it’s obvious how we, as slightly creaky people in our 60s view the issues and the people. Please be sure to enter this election with open eyes and an open mind.
On November 4th we intend, as a group, to be at the Town of Newburgh, NY Recreation Center before 8:00 in the morning to vote in what may be the most important election since the Depression. Whoever you support, be sure you, too, accept your obligation and right to participate and vote.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing Part 11
Stay Tuned After the Commercial
Almost every night my family watches network news after supper while cleaning up from our meal. No matter which network we watch, they use the formula introduced in the 1920s to get you to come back for the next show, or in this case, to stay for the commercial. Instead of leaving us with the heroine tied to the railroad tracks, though, they promise an amazing story immediately “following this brief break.”
Of cause the whole idea is to get you to remain attentive during the commercial. Most people, I’d venture to say almost everyone, would like to mentally block out the latest automotive sale, the coming attractions to a sit-com we’d never watch, or whatever they are pushing. But we absolutely have to remain so that we “find out if tomorrow will be even hotter than today” (no it will not be) or to “discover which Hollywood star is expecting triplets” (someone we have never heard of and could not care about).
To make matters worse, after three minutes of news they take a “brief” 60-second break, come back with another 5-second teaser (thus the break is over) and have another 60 seconds of advertising. In addition, if the story is really something you’d like to hear about, they do not show it immediately, but tease for it several times before commercials before finally showing it.
Television dramas are picking up on this, showing as many commercials as they can in the most unexpected places. At the end of an hour show (40 minutes if you subtract the commercials), you know it’s over, only the punch line is missing. “We’ll be right back,” After that final commercial, some shows are then showing a split screen with another commercial and a fifteen-minute concluding scene that is usually anticlimactic anyway.
Product placement in a movie or show used to be subtle, now it’s blatant. You know what soda or beer they are drinking, what brand cereal they are having, and the model of the chase car is clearly in focus. Look around the room and there will be perhaps a dozen brand products showing. On street scenes there are commercial billboards or buses with advertising passing by.
We have been told that it costs a considerable amount of money to produce these shows and if it were not for the commercials we would have pay-TV. Even on the “premium” cable channels that you do pay extra for there are commercials for other shows as well as an increasing amount of product placement.
Perhaps it’s time to reduce the number of channels from the over 300 now available (900 if you consider each has a Spanish, and a high definition version), to less than 50 to reduce costs. Of the 300 or so channels, perhaps you watch 10 or 12 on a regular basis and most likely no more than 25 or 30 total. If you are reading this it’s unlikely you’re the type to watch Celebrity Bowling Ball Painting or Dancing With the Inmates.
Almost every night my family watches network news after supper while cleaning up from our meal. No matter which network we watch, they use the formula introduced in the 1920s to get you to come back for the next show, or in this case, to stay for the commercial. Instead of leaving us with the heroine tied to the railroad tracks, though, they promise an amazing story immediately “following this brief break.”
Of cause the whole idea is to get you to remain attentive during the commercial. Most people, I’d venture to say almost everyone, would like to mentally block out the latest automotive sale, the coming attractions to a sit-com we’d never watch, or whatever they are pushing. But we absolutely have to remain so that we “find out if tomorrow will be even hotter than today” (no it will not be) or to “discover which Hollywood star is expecting triplets” (someone we have never heard of and could not care about).
To make matters worse, after three minutes of news they take a “brief” 60-second break, come back with another 5-second teaser (thus the break is over) and have another 60 seconds of advertising. In addition, if the story is really something you’d like to hear about, they do not show it immediately, but tease for it several times before commercials before finally showing it.
Television dramas are picking up on this, showing as many commercials as they can in the most unexpected places. At the end of an hour show (40 minutes if you subtract the commercials), you know it’s over, only the punch line is missing. “We’ll be right back,” After that final commercial, some shows are then showing a split screen with another commercial and a fifteen-minute concluding scene that is usually anticlimactic anyway.
Product placement in a movie or show used to be subtle, now it’s blatant. You know what soda or beer they are drinking, what brand cereal they are having, and the model of the chase car is clearly in focus. Look around the room and there will be perhaps a dozen brand products showing. On street scenes there are commercial billboards or buses with advertising passing by.
We have been told that it costs a considerable amount of money to produce these shows and if it were not for the commercials we would have pay-TV. Even on the “premium” cable channels that you do pay extra for there are commercials for other shows as well as an increasing amount of product placement.
Perhaps it’s time to reduce the number of channels from the over 300 now available (900 if you consider each has a Spanish, and a high definition version), to less than 50 to reduce costs. Of the 300 or so channels, perhaps you watch 10 or 12 on a regular basis and most likely no more than 25 or 30 total. If you are reading this it’s unlikely you’re the type to watch Celebrity Bowling Ball Painting or Dancing With the Inmates.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing Part 10
We Know What You Need
Someone in your family probably has a cell phone that takes pictures, contains a GPS, provides Internet and e-mail access, records memos, provides a daily calendar, and dispenses dental floss. Next week they will discard that product when the manufacturer comes out with Model 16 that does all the above and contains a pop-out comb, toothbrush (with your choice of toothpaste), and nose hair clipper.
Around 19 years ago, we purchased a new washer and dryer with dozens of possible settings, temperature for wash and rinse, and a variety of drying options. Over the years knobs have fallen off or broken, yet it makes no difference: we only use two settings on the washer and one on the dryer. Now they have dryers that offer simulated dry-cleaning and washers that use “the power of oxygen” rather than detergent.
TV Cable companies (as well as satellite and the telephone companies’ recent entries into the field) also know what channels you want to watch, all 900 of them. Fighting consumer suggestions and complaints and using their lobbying power to keep Congress at bay, they have fought all attempts to give people the option to select and pay for only the channels they want. The TV providers claim they are only following regulations, so that smaller television stations, which have few followers, can survive. In actuality they are following profits, and everyone knows it. Most of these smaller broadcast companies will eventually move to the Internet anyway, where they will do just fine.
Commercial garbage haulers are the same. They offer one plan: once-a-week pickup of one container of trash, plus recycling, all for $30 or more a month. Fortunately, where we live, we have a trash transfer station where seniors can drop off their refuse at fifty cents a bag with no cost for recycling. It is now three years since we dropped our garbage hauler and we’ve saved over $1,100.
One industry that has not conformed to this all-inclusive party is the computer manufacturers. Even though Microsoft has attempted to force their products on to every PC, you still do best configuring your machine at the company web site, HP, Dell, Gateway, Mac, and others, just the way your family or business needs it. You can then purchase only the software that you wish to use.
Hospitals and doctors also follow the all-you-can use policy. In order to avoid potential lawsuits and cover their insurance company’s demands, they frequently order many lab tests that are not needed and avoid providing expensive ones that might save a life. Dentists demand a cleaning every 3 or 4 months now, and even veterinarians have gone to a one-size-fits-all, six-month pet checkup.
Consumers must not follow blindly. Be aware, ask questions, and demand alternatives. If a store, service company, or even your medical providers do not offer options or compromises, then go somewhere else. They treat us like this only because so many people let them.
Someone in your family probably has a cell phone that takes pictures, contains a GPS, provides Internet and e-mail access, records memos, provides a daily calendar, and dispenses dental floss. Next week they will discard that product when the manufacturer comes out with Model 16 that does all the above and contains a pop-out comb, toothbrush (with your choice of toothpaste), and nose hair clipper.
Around 19 years ago, we purchased a new washer and dryer with dozens of possible settings, temperature for wash and rinse, and a variety of drying options. Over the years knobs have fallen off or broken, yet it makes no difference: we only use two settings on the washer and one on the dryer. Now they have dryers that offer simulated dry-cleaning and washers that use “the power of oxygen” rather than detergent.
TV Cable companies (as well as satellite and the telephone companies’ recent entries into the field) also know what channels you want to watch, all 900 of them. Fighting consumer suggestions and complaints and using their lobbying power to keep Congress at bay, they have fought all attempts to give people the option to select and pay for only the channels they want. The TV providers claim they are only following regulations, so that smaller television stations, which have few followers, can survive. In actuality they are following profits, and everyone knows it. Most of these smaller broadcast companies will eventually move to the Internet anyway, where they will do just fine.
Commercial garbage haulers are the same. They offer one plan: once-a-week pickup of one container of trash, plus recycling, all for $30 or more a month. Fortunately, where we live, we have a trash transfer station where seniors can drop off their refuse at fifty cents a bag with no cost for recycling. It is now three years since we dropped our garbage hauler and we’ve saved over $1,100.
One industry that has not conformed to this all-inclusive party is the computer manufacturers. Even though Microsoft has attempted to force their products on to every PC, you still do best configuring your machine at the company web site, HP, Dell, Gateway, Mac, and others, just the way your family or business needs it. You can then purchase only the software that you wish to use.
Hospitals and doctors also follow the all-you-can use policy. In order to avoid potential lawsuits and cover their insurance company’s demands, they frequently order many lab tests that are not needed and avoid providing expensive ones that might save a life. Dentists demand a cleaning every 3 or 4 months now, and even veterinarians have gone to a one-size-fits-all, six-month pet checkup.
Consumers must not follow blindly. Be aware, ask questions, and demand alternatives. If a store, service company, or even your medical providers do not offer options or compromises, then go somewhere else. They treat us like this only because so many people let them.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing Part 9
Fewer calories? Greater Profit!
They contain only 100 calories per bag: potato chips, cookies, fruit drinks, flavored popcorn, and dozens of other products. Originally this marketing trend was advertised for kids’ lunch bags – give them the snacks they want, but control the amount of calories they get. Does it work? Not at all.
The products in the 100-calorie packages are the same items that are found in the larger bags. They contain the came number of calories per ounce (or serving), the same amount of fat, the same amount of salt. The only differences are that they are packaged in smaller bags and cost considerably more per ounce.
If, as they are presented, these products are only used as a child’s snack, then one can argue that there is merit in them (if money and health was not considered). Children, and adults, that are given a full-sized bag will eat as much as they can. If the bag is of limited size, they can only eat what is in that bag. Unless they feel unsatisfied and reach for a second, or third package.
They are the lazy mom’s solution. It is far less expensive, and far better for the child, to purchase a store-brand box of zip-seal bags (around three cents each and reusable) and select only the healthy snacks you really want your child to have: low calorie, low fat, low sodium. In addition, you can give them a greater variety, including different items every day.
According to netgrocer.com (http://netgrocer.com/), here are a few comparison prices:
Chips Ahoy! Candy Bites - 100 Calorie Packs: $2.29 a bag (.59 an ounce)
Chips Ahoy! Cookies - Candy Blasts – full size bag: $3.56 (.25 an ounce)
Less than half the price
Oreo Candy Bites - 100 Calorie Packs: $2.59 a bag (.55 an ounce)
Oreo Cookies - Reduced Fat Chocolate Sandwich: $4.04 (.22 an ounce)
Pop-Secret Microwave Popcorn - 100 Calorie Premium Butter: $6.39 (.64 an ounce)
Pop-Secret Microwave Popcorn - 94% Fat Free Butter: $3.85 (.42 an ounce)
ShopRite Microwave Popcorn - Light Original: $1.79 (.20 an ounce)
In every example above, and in every 100-calorie pack we cound find, even taking into account the extra cost of packaging and shipping, the promoted product was at least twice the cost, and twice the profit, of the regular sized bag.
Better yet, provide a healthy snack with no added sugar, salt, or other things the kids (and adults) don’t need: a banana, an apple, a peach, or a 1.5 ounce box or raisins (90 calories).
They contain only 100 calories per bag: potato chips, cookies, fruit drinks, flavored popcorn, and dozens of other products. Originally this marketing trend was advertised for kids’ lunch bags – give them the snacks they want, but control the amount of calories they get. Does it work? Not at all.
The products in the 100-calorie packages are the same items that are found in the larger bags. They contain the came number of calories per ounce (or serving), the same amount of fat, the same amount of salt. The only differences are that they are packaged in smaller bags and cost considerably more per ounce.
If, as they are presented, these products are only used as a child’s snack, then one can argue that there is merit in them (if money and health was not considered). Children, and adults, that are given a full-sized bag will eat as much as they can. If the bag is of limited size, they can only eat what is in that bag. Unless they feel unsatisfied and reach for a second, or third package.
They are the lazy mom’s solution. It is far less expensive, and far better for the child, to purchase a store-brand box of zip-seal bags (around three cents each and reusable) and select only the healthy snacks you really want your child to have: low calorie, low fat, low sodium. In addition, you can give them a greater variety, including different items every day.
According to netgrocer.com (http://netgrocer.com/), here are a few comparison prices:
Chips Ahoy! Candy Bites - 100 Calorie Packs: $2.29 a bag (.59 an ounce)
Chips Ahoy! Cookies - Candy Blasts – full size bag: $3.56 (.25 an ounce)
Less than half the price
Oreo Candy Bites - 100 Calorie Packs: $2.59 a bag (.55 an ounce)
Oreo Cookies - Reduced Fat Chocolate Sandwich: $4.04 (.22 an ounce)
Pop-Secret Microwave Popcorn - 100 Calorie Premium Butter: $6.39 (.64 an ounce)
Pop-Secret Microwave Popcorn - 94% Fat Free Butter: $3.85 (.42 an ounce)
ShopRite Microwave Popcorn - Light Original: $1.79 (.20 an ounce)
In every example above, and in every 100-calorie pack we cound find, even taking into account the extra cost of packaging and shipping, the promoted product was at least twice the cost, and twice the profit, of the regular sized bag.
Better yet, provide a healthy snack with no added sugar, salt, or other things the kids (and adults) don’t need: a banana, an apple, a peach, or a 1.5 ounce box or raisins (90 calories).
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing Part 8
Are You “Well Qualified?”
We are used to hearing the term “…for well qualified buyers…” on auto advertisements, but recently this phrase has also been appearing in advertisements for homes, mortgages, furniture and appliance ads, and elsewhere. None of these ads, except occasionally in the tiniest of print that appears for a few seconds only, explains what makes someone qualified for the special treatment or low rates offered.
We checked hundreds of online ads to discover what some of these requirements are and discovered that none of the advertisements we saw explained this phrase on the advertisement page. You had to go as far as eight clicks below the ad to discover a definition, and not all of them even provided a definition. Most offer no explanation at all. Some examples:
> “Three important factors - adjusted capitalized cost, residual value and the money factor - determine the monthly rate of a lease.”
> “See your local [brand] automobile dealer for program details and offer. This is not an offer of direct financing.”
> “Financing is simple, quick and no-obligation.”
> “Dealers set actual vehicle sales prices. See participating dealers for details. For well qualified buyers. Not all buyers may qualify.”
> “If qualified, dealer retains all rebates and incentives.”
> “Upfront acquisition fee and capitalized cost reduction with no security deposit; total net capitalized cost and base monthly payment does not include tax, license, title, registration, documentation fees, options, insurance and the like). Not all buyers may qualify.”
> “Not valid with current offer. Does not apply to prior or future purchases. Restrictions may apply. Void where prohibited.”
> “Incentives available to residents only.”
Generally, “well-qualified” can mean whatever the dealer, company, or salesperson wants it to mean as it is not a legal term, nor is it regulated by law. It may be based on a variety of factors including:
> Credit score
> Prior purchase from same store
> Prior ownership of same model
> Residency within a township or distance from store
> Trade-in
> Membership in an approved organization
> Limited time offer
> Availability of a limited stock item
It is recommended that, when you see an offer of special consideration for a “well-qualified buyer,” that you ask to see, in writing, the company’s policy regarding the advertisement. If they have no written policy, you should not trust the dealership or company and purchase the product elsewhere.
We are used to hearing the term “…for well qualified buyers…” on auto advertisements, but recently this phrase has also been appearing in advertisements for homes, mortgages, furniture and appliance ads, and elsewhere. None of these ads, except occasionally in the tiniest of print that appears for a few seconds only, explains what makes someone qualified for the special treatment or low rates offered.
We checked hundreds of online ads to discover what some of these requirements are and discovered that none of the advertisements we saw explained this phrase on the advertisement page. You had to go as far as eight clicks below the ad to discover a definition, and not all of them even provided a definition. Most offer no explanation at all. Some examples:
> “Three important factors - adjusted capitalized cost, residual value and the money factor - determine the monthly rate of a lease.”
> “See your local [brand] automobile dealer for program details and offer. This is not an offer of direct financing.”
> “Financing is simple, quick and no-obligation.”
> “Dealers set actual vehicle sales prices. See participating dealers for details. For well qualified buyers. Not all buyers may qualify.”
> “If qualified, dealer retains all rebates and incentives.”
> “Upfront acquisition fee and capitalized cost reduction with no security deposit; total net capitalized cost and base monthly payment does not include tax, license, title, registration, documentation fees, options, insurance and the like). Not all buyers may qualify.”
> “Not valid with current offer. Does not apply to prior or future purchases. Restrictions may apply. Void where prohibited.”
> “Incentives available to residents only.”
Generally, “well-qualified” can mean whatever the dealer, company, or salesperson wants it to mean as it is not a legal term, nor is it regulated by law. It may be based on a variety of factors including:
> Credit score
> Prior purchase from same store
> Prior ownership of same model
> Residency within a township or distance from store
> Trade-in
> Membership in an approved organization
> Limited time offer
> Availability of a limited stock item
It is recommended that, when you see an offer of special consideration for a “well-qualified buyer,” that you ask to see, in writing, the company’s policy regarding the advertisement. If they have no written policy, you should not trust the dealership or company and purchase the product elsewhere.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
A Tail of Two Attitudes
In the world of commerce, there are two conflicting truisms: “Buyer Beware,” and “The Customer is Always Right.” It is rare that either of them is completely accurate in any given situation. On the other hand, it is true that “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”
When it comes to customer satisfaction, some stores and many salespeople do not wish to put customers first. Although I try not to mention specific company names in this blog, several must be mentioned today. These stories relate to Sears, ShopRite, The Tractor Supply Company and two clothing chains.
Our local ShopRite (a North-East food supermarket) has many super-sized stores that carry just about everything. The one nearest to us, though, is more than 40-years old and, by today’s standards, antiquated. There is another Shoprite 10 miles away, twice the size, yet I avoid it when possible. The small store may not have everything in the newspaper ad, but it more than makes up for it by having courteous concerned people working there.
On three occasions during the last month the store did not have an advertised product in stock – in fact they probably never had and never would. Each time, as soon as I showed the ad at the “Courtesy Counter” The phone was picked up, the floor person called, the product was found or something was substituted. (With personal thanks to Dennis, and many others, whose efforts make this small store seem like the best place to shop.)
On the other hand…. One of these stores is a clothing shop. Six months ago, a customer on crutches and starting to feel pain asked a clerk for a chair. She was told they do not provide chairs. When told there were four by the front registers the response was, “So, go there and use one.” Eventually the manager was called and she stated, “We have a wheelchair by the front door, you should have taken that if you felt you were not going to be able to walk around.” Not customer satisfaction.
Sears’ Craftsman promises a lifetime guarantee on their non-power tools. I purchased a hoe there more than 20 years ago and, as the blade bent, got another in exchange with no questions asked. Six years ago I bought their most expensive rake and exchanged it four years later when seven tines snapped off. Now I want to exchange it again as this one did not hold up too well, but the company has discontinued the model and the nearest to it is of lesser quality. No one at Sears can tell me what to do. (I can be reached at info@slightlycreaky.com.) Hopefully this will soon be resolved as the leaves are already starting to fall.
One other clothing store…. Towel sets were advertised on a half-price sale. At the store there were only a few left and nothing matching. I asked the salesclerk for assistance and she seemed bewildered. The department manager told me that this was an in-store special only and not available online, yet they had none in stock and the store did not give out rain checks (which violates New York State law). I really wanted those towels so I asked for the store manager.
The woman who approached me seemed friendly, but when I asked for a rain check and was refused, then explained that it was state law, she walked away from me. I asked for her name so I could complain to the company and the Attorney General’s office, and she started screaming, went into the stock room, and got two young men, considerably larger than me, and told them to throw me out. After she walked away, the larger of the storage clerks asked me what the problem was, offered to call me if the towels came in on that afternoon’s truck, and gave me the manager’s name. While the company did respond positively to my e-mail and telephone calls, that lady was never reprimanded.
Now for The Tractor Supply Store. I used to laugh at their commercials, but when one opened near me a few years ago I had to go in to see what it was all about. I am now a confirmed shopper there for four reasons: they always have what they advertise, their prices are reasonable, their quality is high, and everyone in the store puts the customers first. Whether it is a company-wide policy, or just that the manager (Kay Covert – Highland, NY) sets such a wonderful example, I’m not sure, but they have my vote for what a company needs to do to retain customers.
When it comes to customer satisfaction, some stores and many salespeople do not wish to put customers first. Although I try not to mention specific company names in this blog, several must be mentioned today. These stories relate to Sears, ShopRite, The Tractor Supply Company and two clothing chains.
Our local ShopRite (a North-East food supermarket) has many super-sized stores that carry just about everything. The one nearest to us, though, is more than 40-years old and, by today’s standards, antiquated. There is another Shoprite 10 miles away, twice the size, yet I avoid it when possible. The small store may not have everything in the newspaper ad, but it more than makes up for it by having courteous concerned people working there.
On three occasions during the last month the store did not have an advertised product in stock – in fact they probably never had and never would. Each time, as soon as I showed the ad at the “Courtesy Counter” The phone was picked up, the floor person called, the product was found or something was substituted. (With personal thanks to Dennis, and many others, whose efforts make this small store seem like the best place to shop.)
On the other hand…. One of these stores is a clothing shop. Six months ago, a customer on crutches and starting to feel pain asked a clerk for a chair. She was told they do not provide chairs. When told there were four by the front registers the response was, “So, go there and use one.” Eventually the manager was called and she stated, “We have a wheelchair by the front door, you should have taken that if you felt you were not going to be able to walk around.” Not customer satisfaction.
Sears’ Craftsman promises a lifetime guarantee on their non-power tools. I purchased a hoe there more than 20 years ago and, as the blade bent, got another in exchange with no questions asked. Six years ago I bought their most expensive rake and exchanged it four years later when seven tines snapped off. Now I want to exchange it again as this one did not hold up too well, but the company has discontinued the model and the nearest to it is of lesser quality. No one at Sears can tell me what to do. (I can be reached at info@slightlycreaky.com.) Hopefully this will soon be resolved as the leaves are already starting to fall.
One other clothing store…. Towel sets were advertised on a half-price sale. At the store there were only a few left and nothing matching. I asked the salesclerk for assistance and she seemed bewildered. The department manager told me that this was an in-store special only and not available online, yet they had none in stock and the store did not give out rain checks (which violates New York State law). I really wanted those towels so I asked for the store manager.
The woman who approached me seemed friendly, but when I asked for a rain check and was refused, then explained that it was state law, she walked away from me. I asked for her name so I could complain to the company and the Attorney General’s office, and she started screaming, went into the stock room, and got two young men, considerably larger than me, and told them to throw me out. After she walked away, the larger of the storage clerks asked me what the problem was, offered to call me if the towels came in on that afternoon’s truck, and gave me the manager’s name. While the company did respond positively to my e-mail and telephone calls, that lady was never reprimanded.
Now for The Tractor Supply Store. I used to laugh at their commercials, but when one opened near me a few years ago I had to go in to see what it was all about. I am now a confirmed shopper there for four reasons: they always have what they advertise, their prices are reasonable, their quality is high, and everyone in the store puts the customers first. Whether it is a company-wide policy, or just that the manager (Kay Covert – Highland, NY) sets such a wonderful example, I’m not sure, but they have my vote for what a company needs to do to retain customers.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing – Part 7
Pressure Sales
During the 1970s and 1980s, Time Share marketers perfected the “used car” selling technique known as pressure sales. This is a multi-step procedure involving getting you interested and involved in a product (in this case time share vacations) and selling it to you at an extremely high price. The sales person knows that it is unlikely that you will purchase the item at the price quoted, but they have a great offer for you, in fact a whole bunch of great offers.
Initially they sell you a one-week vacation, but once you turn it down they offer the right (at a nominal fee, which, once it is closely examined is not at all inexpensive) to shift your week to another week and even another location almost anywhere in the world. Even better, if you buy two weeks, and they do not have to be together, you get a substantial discount.
Once you show resistance to that, they bring out the big guns: if you sign up today, and today only, they will throw in a major discount. That might be a significant percentage off the price, a third week for free, or some such “sweetener.” Turn that offer down and the sales manager comes over with an even better offer. High pressure and even insults are used to persuade you to BUY NOW.
Recently that technique is being used for other products, especially home improvement items. At least one bathroom remodeling company offers to replace your existing shower with a state-of-the-art enclosure that does wonderful things and provides increased comfort, usage, and safety, for only… a price that far exceeds what you would expect to pay. Once you turn them down they sweeten the offer with free products, a reduced price, a quick installation, and other high-pressure tactics, but only if you make the purchase immediately.
Home alarm companies use the same technique. Their advertisements appear to offer a free or inexpensive home alarm system, but once you get to the contract you discover it only covers a few doors and perhaps no windows (substituting an interior motion sensor). Then they offer small add-ons at “low cost,” which, once added up, comes to a substantial selling price. But if you do not purchase it today you will not be able to get all of this at the same price tomorrow.
Television and radio sales use a similar technique. Purchase within the next ten minutes and you will get two for the price of one (although you may have to pay a high “shipping and handling” cost for the second item), or get other products as part of the promotion. But the offer is only good for the next ten minutes. Of course, twenty minutes later you hear the ad repeated, and tomorrow… and next week.
Automotive and computer products give you “limited time offers.” They may have reasonable sales in their advertising, but with a time limit. Next week you will find a new advertisement, a new time limit, and possibly a better deal. It is almost impossible to know when to buy as they confuse you with double-talk.
The best thing to do is to determine for yourself, without looking at the advertisements, whether you need a new or replacement item (or vacation home) and then do online consumer research. Find a reasonable price range for the product you want. Consider all options ahead of time. Then seek at least three companies that provide the product you want. Investigate and compare price, quality, installation or delivery time, and warranty (watch for the small print – many warranties are worthless). After each sales pitch make a comparison chart so you can easily see which company is offering closest to what you want at a price you are willing to pay. If the company offers you a buy-today-and-save option, show them the door.
During the 1970s and 1980s, Time Share marketers perfected the “used car” selling technique known as pressure sales. This is a multi-step procedure involving getting you interested and involved in a product (in this case time share vacations) and selling it to you at an extremely high price. The sales person knows that it is unlikely that you will purchase the item at the price quoted, but they have a great offer for you, in fact a whole bunch of great offers.
Initially they sell you a one-week vacation, but once you turn it down they offer the right (at a nominal fee, which, once it is closely examined is not at all inexpensive) to shift your week to another week and even another location almost anywhere in the world. Even better, if you buy two weeks, and they do not have to be together, you get a substantial discount.
Once you show resistance to that, they bring out the big guns: if you sign up today, and today only, they will throw in a major discount. That might be a significant percentage off the price, a third week for free, or some such “sweetener.” Turn that offer down and the sales manager comes over with an even better offer. High pressure and even insults are used to persuade you to BUY NOW.
Recently that technique is being used for other products, especially home improvement items. At least one bathroom remodeling company offers to replace your existing shower with a state-of-the-art enclosure that does wonderful things and provides increased comfort, usage, and safety, for only… a price that far exceeds what you would expect to pay. Once you turn them down they sweeten the offer with free products, a reduced price, a quick installation, and other high-pressure tactics, but only if you make the purchase immediately.
Home alarm companies use the same technique. Their advertisements appear to offer a free or inexpensive home alarm system, but once you get to the contract you discover it only covers a few doors and perhaps no windows (substituting an interior motion sensor). Then they offer small add-ons at “low cost,” which, once added up, comes to a substantial selling price. But if you do not purchase it today you will not be able to get all of this at the same price tomorrow.
Television and radio sales use a similar technique. Purchase within the next ten minutes and you will get two for the price of one (although you may have to pay a high “shipping and handling” cost for the second item), or get other products as part of the promotion. But the offer is only good for the next ten minutes. Of course, twenty minutes later you hear the ad repeated, and tomorrow… and next week.
Automotive and computer products give you “limited time offers.” They may have reasonable sales in their advertising, but with a time limit. Next week you will find a new advertisement, a new time limit, and possibly a better deal. It is almost impossible to know when to buy as they confuse you with double-talk.
The best thing to do is to determine for yourself, without looking at the advertisements, whether you need a new or replacement item (or vacation home) and then do online consumer research. Find a reasonable price range for the product you want. Consider all options ahead of time. Then seek at least three companies that provide the product you want. Investigate and compare price, quality, installation or delivery time, and warranty (watch for the small print – many warranties are worthless). After each sales pitch make a comparison chart so you can easily see which company is offering closest to what you want at a price you are willing to pay. If the company offers you a buy-today-and-save option, show them the door.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing – Part 6
Size Matters
Consider the life cycle of a package of cereal. When you first purchase it you get 18 ounces for $1.99. The package has no particular advertising slogans on it. Six months later, although you are not aware of it, while the outer package stays the same, the contents shrink to 17 ounces. Six months after that it’s advertised as “a full pound for the same price.”
Two years after your initial purchase, there is a special: 10% more for the same price. (That’s an extra 1.6 ounces.) Strangely the package is a smaller size, although the contents now fill the inner bag. Once the sale is over, the box remains the same yet the contents have shrunk to 14 ounces. Soon after you see a “new larger size,” 16 ounces, and, glad to be getting more for your money, you may not notice that it’s now selling for $2.49.
Watching the weight of the contents is of major importance when making purchases. Many products come in several sizes, although the larger one is not always the best bargain. One of the finest food stores we have ever visited has been selling carrots at 59¢ a pound with 5-pound bags going for $2.99. When you weigh the 5-pound bag it comes to a few ounces over. Each of the one-pounders is also a few ounces over, and five of them weigh around 6 pounds. Yet together they cost 4 cents less.
Larger sizes, if you are going to use the entire item while it’s still fresh, may be a great deal. You may only need two pounds of ricotta for the lasagna, and it costs $2.99, yet the 3-pound may be selling for the same price or $3.49, still far less per pound than the smaller size. What else can you make with ricotta this week?
Personally, I do not think “churned” ice cream tastes any better than the old-fashioned type. By churning it, there will be more air and less actual product in the package, yet it looks like you are getting more. Therefore the new 56-ounce “half gallons” look the same size that the 64-ounce half gallons did.
Another trick is for the company to make you think they are doing something for you: easy to hold bottles contain less than the previously not so hard to hold ones did. “New and improved” is a sure sign that there is either less in the package, a higher price, or the company has somehow saved itself some cost. How does a brighter color on the package translate to a better deal for the consumer?
Consider the life cycle of a package of cereal. When you first purchase it you get 18 ounces for $1.99. The package has no particular advertising slogans on it. Six months later, although you are not aware of it, while the outer package stays the same, the contents shrink to 17 ounces. Six months after that it’s advertised as “a full pound for the same price.”
Two years after your initial purchase, there is a special: 10% more for the same price. (That’s an extra 1.6 ounces.) Strangely the package is a smaller size, although the contents now fill the inner bag. Once the sale is over, the box remains the same yet the contents have shrunk to 14 ounces. Soon after you see a “new larger size,” 16 ounces, and, glad to be getting more for your money, you may not notice that it’s now selling for $2.49.
Watching the weight of the contents is of major importance when making purchases. Many products come in several sizes, although the larger one is not always the best bargain. One of the finest food stores we have ever visited has been selling carrots at 59¢ a pound with 5-pound bags going for $2.99. When you weigh the 5-pound bag it comes to a few ounces over. Each of the one-pounders is also a few ounces over, and five of them weigh around 6 pounds. Yet together they cost 4 cents less.
Larger sizes, if you are going to use the entire item while it’s still fresh, may be a great deal. You may only need two pounds of ricotta for the lasagna, and it costs $2.99, yet the 3-pound may be selling for the same price or $3.49, still far less per pound than the smaller size. What else can you make with ricotta this week?
Personally, I do not think “churned” ice cream tastes any better than the old-fashioned type. By churning it, there will be more air and less actual product in the package, yet it looks like you are getting more. Therefore the new 56-ounce “half gallons” look the same size that the 64-ounce half gallons did.
Another trick is for the company to make you think they are doing something for you: easy to hold bottles contain less than the previously not so hard to hold ones did. “New and improved” is a sure sign that there is either less in the package, a higher price, or the company has somehow saved itself some cost. How does a brighter color on the package translate to a better deal for the consumer?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Seeing is NOT Believing -- Part 5
Lowest Price of the Season
If you watch television, you will be familiar with stores that run sales for special occasions. It might be Back to School, Columbus Day, Lowest Price of the Season, or some such silliness. Some stores run two to three sales a week and in many cases the same items are on sale, for the same price.
Most states have laws regulating what can be advertised as “on sale.” To circumvent these laws, all a store has to do is have a “list” or “suggested” price and occasionally sell the item at that amount. Usually it is so high that no one would buy it; but tomorrow it will be On Sale again.
One crafts store is noted for having huge signs outside their building and announcements in their ads for “50% off all picture frames.” This sale has been running for years. In actuality, the price they sell the frames for is so high that even at the discounted rate you may not be getting a good deal.
Clothing stores are prone to special occasion sales since no one knows what the products actually cost to make, ship, and handle. Silk shirts may sell for $20 each, and next to them are silk ties, using a quarter as much fabric, requiring no buttonholes, buttons, and few seams, selling for more than twice the price. What is the justification? Two blocks away, at the same chain’s outlet mall store, the shirts may be “discounted” to $30 and the ties are selling for $15.
This is no longer a supply and demand market. Today prices are set by the store, and if the items do not sell they simply spend more money on advertising stating what a great deal the high prices are.
One of the reasons you can frequently get good deals in a discount store is not that the products cost less to make or are of lower value, but the stores do not spend millions weekly in advertising and then have to raise the prices of the products to pay for the ads.
Toothpaste is a good example. There are actually few companies manufacturing this product. Each may place the same formula in as many as three-dozen competing packages. The ones that advertise, the so-called name brands, have to charge two to three times what the unadvertised store brands get, yet it’s basically the same product.
Americans, and in increasing numbers others around the world, have been tricked into believing ads. You MUST have this specific brand (only available at this store), and you “MUST buy it now since it’s on sale at THE LOWEST PRICE OF THE SEASON.” Next week it will no longer be on sale, it will no longer be the same season, and the price will be 20% less.
If you watch television, you will be familiar with stores that run sales for special occasions. It might be Back to School, Columbus Day, Lowest Price of the Season, or some such silliness. Some stores run two to three sales a week and in many cases the same items are on sale, for the same price.
Most states have laws regulating what can be advertised as “on sale.” To circumvent these laws, all a store has to do is have a “list” or “suggested” price and occasionally sell the item at that amount. Usually it is so high that no one would buy it; but tomorrow it will be On Sale again.
One crafts store is noted for having huge signs outside their building and announcements in their ads for “50% off all picture frames.” This sale has been running for years. In actuality, the price they sell the frames for is so high that even at the discounted rate you may not be getting a good deal.
Clothing stores are prone to special occasion sales since no one knows what the products actually cost to make, ship, and handle. Silk shirts may sell for $20 each, and next to them are silk ties, using a quarter as much fabric, requiring no buttonholes, buttons, and few seams, selling for more than twice the price. What is the justification? Two blocks away, at the same chain’s outlet mall store, the shirts may be “discounted” to $30 and the ties are selling for $15.
This is no longer a supply and demand market. Today prices are set by the store, and if the items do not sell they simply spend more money on advertising stating what a great deal the high prices are.
One of the reasons you can frequently get good deals in a discount store is not that the products cost less to make or are of lower value, but the stores do not spend millions weekly in advertising and then have to raise the prices of the products to pay for the ads.
Toothpaste is a good example. There are actually few companies manufacturing this product. Each may place the same formula in as many as three-dozen competing packages. The ones that advertise, the so-called name brands, have to charge two to three times what the unadvertised store brands get, yet it’s basically the same product.
Americans, and in increasing numbers others around the world, have been tricked into believing ads. You MUST have this specific brand (only available at this store), and you “MUST buy it now since it’s on sale at THE LOWEST PRICE OF THE SEASON.” Next week it will no longer be on sale, it will no longer be the same season, and the price will be 20% less.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Colleges Want to Drop Drinking Age
("Seeing is NOT Believing" will return next week)
Hidden in the news about rising prices and rising tension between Russia and the world, was an article in USA Today entitled “College presidents want lower drinking age.” It appears that “College presidents from about 100 of the best-known U.S. universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.”
Their rationale is that college (and probably non-college) students 18 to 21 are drinking anyway, so why not make it legal? Pressure has been put on these college leaders by a group called “the Amethyst Initiative,” headed by a former college president from Vermont, which has been lobbying for this change. If you are interested in their reasoning, visit their web site. One thing lacking there, though, are reasons not to lower the drinking age. Here are a few.
1. When states increased the drinking age from 18 to 21, drunk-driving accidents, especially in college communities, dropped significantly.
2. Around 40% of all college students already have signs of alcohol abuse or even dependence. There is no study to indicate how this would change by lowering the drinking age, but it certainly would not decrease.
3. The use of alcoholic drinks reduces cognitive abilities. The resulting reduction in both creative and rational thinking is not what we expect to see on college campuses.
4. The availability of alcoholic drinks for 18 year olds would increase the likelihood that those under 18 would have an easier time getting such products. Many school districts already report students as young as 8 coming to school drunk.
5. Mixing alcohol with the strong hormonal impulses of those in their late teens may result in an increase in pregnancy, date rape, vandalism, aggressive responses, and similar undesirable behavior.
6. By reducing the drinking age, more young people will have access to the product and develop a life-long dependency on alcoholic drinks.
7. During the last twenty years we have seen that restricting easy access to cigarettes has contributed to a reduction in smoking. A corollary can be seen with drinking. By making alcoholic beverages available to those 18 to 21, we will be indicating to a highly impressionable age group that drinking is acceptable.
8. Alcohol abuse is already a social, medical, and emotional problem for many. By lowering the drinking age we risk increasing the number of people who will become alcohol dependent and increase the impact alcoholism has on our society.
9. The increase rate of college-aged suicides continues to rise. This is an accurate assessment of the emotional fragility of this age group. Alcohol abuse is a leading cause of depression and is, itself, a depression-causing drug. By lowering the drinking age we are not combating this trend, and will, rather, see an increase in youth suicides.
10. By admitting that they can neither control nor discourage their students from drinking, the college presidents who are joining this organization are admitting defeat rather than putting increased effort into combating alcohol abuse.
Hidden in the news about rising prices and rising tension between Russia and the world, was an article in USA Today entitled “College presidents want lower drinking age.” It appears that “College presidents from about 100 of the best-known U.S. universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.”
Their rationale is that college (and probably non-college) students 18 to 21 are drinking anyway, so why not make it legal? Pressure has been put on these college leaders by a group called “the Amethyst Initiative,” headed by a former college president from Vermont, which has been lobbying for this change. If you are interested in their reasoning, visit their web site. One thing lacking there, though, are reasons not to lower the drinking age. Here are a few.
1. When states increased the drinking age from 18 to 21, drunk-driving accidents, especially in college communities, dropped significantly.
2. Around 40% of all college students already have signs of alcohol abuse or even dependence. There is no study to indicate how this would change by lowering the drinking age, but it certainly would not decrease.
3. The use of alcoholic drinks reduces cognitive abilities. The resulting reduction in both creative and rational thinking is not what we expect to see on college campuses.
4. The availability of alcoholic drinks for 18 year olds would increase the likelihood that those under 18 would have an easier time getting such products. Many school districts already report students as young as 8 coming to school drunk.
5. Mixing alcohol with the strong hormonal impulses of those in their late teens may result in an increase in pregnancy, date rape, vandalism, aggressive responses, and similar undesirable behavior.
6. By reducing the drinking age, more young people will have access to the product and develop a life-long dependency on alcoholic drinks.
7. During the last twenty years we have seen that restricting easy access to cigarettes has contributed to a reduction in smoking. A corollary can be seen with drinking. By making alcoholic beverages available to those 18 to 21, we will be indicating to a highly impressionable age group that drinking is acceptable.
8. Alcohol abuse is already a social, medical, and emotional problem for many. By lowering the drinking age we risk increasing the number of people who will become alcohol dependent and increase the impact alcoholism has on our society.
9. The increase rate of college-aged suicides continues to rise. This is an accurate assessment of the emotional fragility of this age group. Alcohol abuse is a leading cause of depression and is, itself, a depression-causing drug. By lowering the drinking age we are not combating this trend, and will, rather, see an increase in youth suicides.
10. By admitting that they can neither control nor discourage their students from drinking, the college presidents who are joining this organization are admitting defeat rather than putting increased effort into combating alcohol abuse.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing, Part 4
Discount Stores
During the last 20 years, the United States has seen a growth in both high-end and low-end stores that advertise that they provide deep discounts (or similar euphemistic advertising slogan). Generally these stores fall into three categories: “Dollar” shops, membership clubs, and outlet malls. A careful consumer can obtain many good bargains at these places, but they can also spend more money on items here than they might at a supermarket or variety store.
In the dark ages of the modern world, the Five & Dime stores held the place that the Dollar shops do now. There were several important differences: Woolworth, J.J Newberry, Kresge, and similar stores offered many items at small prices, but they did not stop there. It was also possible to spend several dollars for products. They were “variety” stores that provided a huge range of products.
Today’s Dollar stores, and there are several national and many local names, state that every item in the store is the same price. For the most part that’s accurate, although some may be 2-for-a –dollar and others higher, usually marked as “special purchases.” Comparing the typical product in such stores with WalMart and Target will show that you can purchase similar products for slightly less or more elsewhere. Many items in the discount stores are discontinued, overstocked items, or holiday specials that, while still in date, have passed their intended target.
You can obtain many items in these Dollar stores that are not easily available elsewhere, especially gift boxes and packaging, Mylar balloons, and trinkets. There are also major savings on telephone and computer cables and jacks, electrical tape, pet toys, and simple kitchen gadgets.
The large membership stores, not limited to BJ’s, Sam’s, and Costco, charge an annual fee that is advertised to provide a discount on prices saving you more than the membership cost. There are two catches, though: you generally have to buy larger sizes and they rarely put items on sale. If you are a small business and have need of gallon sizes of pickles or mustard, or if you go through diapers, snack food, and kitty litter so fast that you need a huge supply, then these stores are for you.
But not all is at a discount. If you compare prices to your local supermarket, you will find that many items, even those not on sale, are less expensive, and you have a wider selection of products and brands elsewhere.
In addition, some membership stores, especially those who specialize in furniture and home goods, do not always offer either quality or discounts. Shop around and compare prices before buying. You need not waste gas or run all over: check online. Slightly Creaky’s Consumer Assistance Page provides a list of Price Research Sites to assist you.
Likewise, outlet stores are best for those who either know typical prices for the items they are seeking, or those who absolutely have to have name brands. In many cases, the discounted off-name products are made on the same assembly line or in the same Chinese factory that the advertised products are.
During the last 20 years, the United States has seen a growth in both high-end and low-end stores that advertise that they provide deep discounts (or similar euphemistic advertising slogan). Generally these stores fall into three categories: “Dollar” shops, membership clubs, and outlet malls. A careful consumer can obtain many good bargains at these places, but they can also spend more money on items here than they might at a supermarket or variety store.
In the dark ages of the modern world, the Five & Dime stores held the place that the Dollar shops do now. There were several important differences: Woolworth, J.J Newberry, Kresge, and similar stores offered many items at small prices, but they did not stop there. It was also possible to spend several dollars for products. They were “variety” stores that provided a huge range of products.
Today’s Dollar stores, and there are several national and many local names, state that every item in the store is the same price. For the most part that’s accurate, although some may be 2-for-a –dollar and others higher, usually marked as “special purchases.” Comparing the typical product in such stores with WalMart and Target will show that you can purchase similar products for slightly less or more elsewhere. Many items in the discount stores are discontinued, overstocked items, or holiday specials that, while still in date, have passed their intended target.
You can obtain many items in these Dollar stores that are not easily available elsewhere, especially gift boxes and packaging, Mylar balloons, and trinkets. There are also major savings on telephone and computer cables and jacks, electrical tape, pet toys, and simple kitchen gadgets.
The large membership stores, not limited to BJ’s, Sam’s, and Costco, charge an annual fee that is advertised to provide a discount on prices saving you more than the membership cost. There are two catches, though: you generally have to buy larger sizes and they rarely put items on sale. If you are a small business and have need of gallon sizes of pickles or mustard, or if you go through diapers, snack food, and kitty litter so fast that you need a huge supply, then these stores are for you.
But not all is at a discount. If you compare prices to your local supermarket, you will find that many items, even those not on sale, are less expensive, and you have a wider selection of products and brands elsewhere.
In addition, some membership stores, especially those who specialize in furniture and home goods, do not always offer either quality or discounts. Shop around and compare prices before buying. You need not waste gas or run all over: check online. Slightly Creaky’s Consumer Assistance Page provides a list of Price Research Sites to assist you.
Likewise, outlet stores are best for those who either know typical prices for the items they are seeking, or those who absolutely have to have name brands. In many cases, the discounted off-name products are made on the same assembly line or in the same Chinese factory that the advertised products are.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Seeing is Not Believing -- Part 3
Bait & Switch: 2008
We all recognize the old Bait & Switch advertising. Illegal in every state, companies advertise one product to bait you into the store and then either do not have the product or it’s of such poor quality that you are easily switched to another more expensive item.
They still do it, more subtly, and they still get away with it. Here are a few examples:
Vacuum Cleaner: The bait: Advertised for a seemingly low price, probably with several free “exclusive offers” such as a car vac, computer attachments, or a steam iron. The switch: buy a better model and get extended warrantees and free cleaning for up to 20 years at ever increasing prices. Beware: The “free” products may be of poor quality and generally not things you might use. Note, though, that if you do keep the vacuum in good condition and get it cleaned using their program, it will probably last the 20 years and do a good job.
Meal Discount Coupons: The Bait: buy one meal at the regular price and get the second for free or at a discount. Possibly buy two meals and get a discount on both. The Switch: There may be many exceptions to this policy: minimum purchase prices (spend $50 to qualify), good only on certain days or at certain meals, or limited menu selections. Beware: When you use such a coupon, check the bill carefully. The restaurant may ignore your coupon (“we forgot,” “computer error”) charge you more than the listed price for the meal, or add a surcharge to make up for using the coupon. We have experienced restaurants adding non-ordered or delivered items onto the bill, such as soup, an extra appetizer, or a beverage.
Furniture: The Bait: Buy a complete living room set and get free end or coffee tables; possibly “close out” sales with deep discounts. The Switch: The free products, and possibly the items offered are of poor quality or do not match. Beware: the sales staff is trained to use high-pressure tactics to move you up to items they want to sell. Most showrooms are so large, and the sales staff follows you so closely, that they show you what they want to sell, not what you may wish to purchase. Ask to be left alone to browse at your own pace. Many companies now charge for delivery and for removal of old items.
If you have replaced a large item, and the old product is still in somewhat usable condition, consider advertising for it at a local college. Offer it for free “as is.” That way a needy college student gets something they can use and you do not have to pay removal charges.
Membership Clubs: The Bait: Pay a small annual fee to join and get deep-discount prices. The Switch: A few companies offer low quality and limited selection at prices that really do not provide a discount. While Costco, Sam’s Club, and BJ’s have made this business model a success, and if you need to buy in bulk these companies have a reputation for providing what they advertise, you can frequently find items for less at a non-membership food market. Beware: A few home supply stores have used the membership ploy to sell low quality items at discounted prices. Be especially careful if the store does not display items but only provides catalogues.
We all recognize the old Bait & Switch advertising. Illegal in every state, companies advertise one product to bait you into the store and then either do not have the product or it’s of such poor quality that you are easily switched to another more expensive item.
They still do it, more subtly, and they still get away with it. Here are a few examples:
Vacuum Cleaner: The bait: Advertised for a seemingly low price, probably with several free “exclusive offers” such as a car vac, computer attachments, or a steam iron. The switch: buy a better model and get extended warrantees and free cleaning for up to 20 years at ever increasing prices. Beware: The “free” products may be of poor quality and generally not things you might use. Note, though, that if you do keep the vacuum in good condition and get it cleaned using their program, it will probably last the 20 years and do a good job.
Meal Discount Coupons: The Bait: buy one meal at the regular price and get the second for free or at a discount. Possibly buy two meals and get a discount on both. The Switch: There may be many exceptions to this policy: minimum purchase prices (spend $50 to qualify), good only on certain days or at certain meals, or limited menu selections. Beware: When you use such a coupon, check the bill carefully. The restaurant may ignore your coupon (“we forgot,” “computer error”) charge you more than the listed price for the meal, or add a surcharge to make up for using the coupon. We have experienced restaurants adding non-ordered or delivered items onto the bill, such as soup, an extra appetizer, or a beverage.
Furniture: The Bait: Buy a complete living room set and get free end or coffee tables; possibly “close out” sales with deep discounts. The Switch: The free products, and possibly the items offered are of poor quality or do not match. Beware: the sales staff is trained to use high-pressure tactics to move you up to items they want to sell. Most showrooms are so large, and the sales staff follows you so closely, that they show you what they want to sell, not what you may wish to purchase. Ask to be left alone to browse at your own pace. Many companies now charge for delivery and for removal of old items.
If you have replaced a large item, and the old product is still in somewhat usable condition, consider advertising for it at a local college. Offer it for free “as is.” That way a needy college student gets something they can use and you do not have to pay removal charges.
Membership Clubs: The Bait: Pay a small annual fee to join and get deep-discount prices. The Switch: A few companies offer low quality and limited selection at prices that really do not provide a discount. While Costco, Sam’s Club, and BJ’s have made this business model a success, and if you need to buy in bulk these companies have a reputation for providing what they advertise, you can frequently find items for less at a non-membership food market. Beware: A few home supply stores have used the membership ploy to sell low quality items at discounted prices. Be especially careful if the store does not display items but only provides catalogues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)