AARoads Forum

I was wondering, if you feel you have an attachment to certain particular brands, which ones do you think they would be?

Here is my list:

   
• Boeing (airplanes)
• New Flyer (transit buses)
• IZOD (clothing)
• Amazon (shopping)
• HP (laptops)
• Samsung (cell phones)
• Moen (plumbing fixtures)
• Fulton Homes (Arizona homebuilder)

Adidas. I've primarily worn them since I was in high school. They've always felt more comfortable to me than Nike, Converse, or other "tennis shoe" brands.

General Motors, until they became "Government Motors." Now, I'd probably buy whatever was most affordable, even if it ended up being a Ford.

Coke (particularly Diet Coke) over Pepsi.

Fischer's for lunch meat (hot dogs, bologna, ham and cheese loaf). It's just better than Field's, Oscar Mayer, or other brands.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 05, 2020, 07:21:48 PM

   
• HP (laptops)

The same applied to me until I started to build my own computers (I bought both laptops & desktops from HP). The ability to pick-and-choose my own parts is a huge advantage. Additionally, I can easily upgrade the parts when I want to. I built a $1000 computer a year-and-a-half ago (during the heat of the bitcoin rush).

The domestic automakers since I have family that worked for each of them.  At the very least it's nice to be able line the pockets of a relative who is drawing pension. Granted, I just bought a Subaru lately so brand loyalty isn't as strong as it used to be.  For some reason Nike has always made running shoes that are wide enough to fit my feet comfortably, it's been a solid decade since I've bought another brand. 

Coke.  Never cared for Pepsi, inferior brand.
Hostess.  Love those cakes, was so sad when they closed temporarily.

Quote from: ozarkman417 on January 05, 2020, 07:53:37 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 05, 2020, 07:21:48 PM

   
• HP (laptops)

The same applied to me until I started to build my own computers (I bought both laptops & desktops from HP). The ability to pick-and-choose my own parts is a huge advantage. Additionally, I can easily upgrade the parts when I want to. I built a $1000 computer a year-and-a-half ago (during the heat of the bitcoin rush).

I usually build my own desktops, but for laptops I usually buy HP.

Buick -- my last 4 cars
Diet Coke
Diet Mountain Dew
New Balance shoes
Wendy's
Food Lion

New Balance - I have very wide feet (11EEEE) (my ex-GF called them "Fred Flintstone feet"), and I can always find my size with NB.
Wrangler - their jeans just seem to fit me better than other brands.
Coke - I find Pepsi is too sweet for my taste.  (I have passed taste tests given by friends who didn't believe I could tell the difference).
Krispy Kreme - To me, much better than Dunkin'.
Roy Rogers - To me, their roast beef sandwich is better than any other fast food option.

I'm sure there's more :)

I mean none of these things are "I won't ever deviate from these" but when available

Kwik Trip
Cracker Barrel
Village Inn
Perkins
Waffle House
Cub Foods
Target

Interesting topic...I've often thought about creating my preferred brands list but never had the motivation

Cars - up until our last two, I wouldn't have batted an eye and said Ford. They're going to have an uphill battle winning my wallet for the next vehicle. I know it won't be a Chevy (or any GM derivative) or a "Dodge".
Medium-duty trucks - International (until they got into bed with GM)
HD trucks - Oshkosh
School buses - Blue Bird
Municipal buses - New Flyer
Fire apparatus - Pierce, Seagrave
Ambulances - Braun
Motorcycles - Harley-Davidson
Bikes - Trek
Gas stations, car wash - Kwik Trip
Traffic signals - Eagle
Street lights - GE
Railroad signals - WC Hayes
Outdoor sirens - Federal Signal (civil defense and fire apparatus)
Die-cast - Matchbox
PCs - HP. Ten years ago, I would have said Dell, but HP allows for more user choice in what goes inside.
Keyboards & mice (trackball in my case) - Logitech
Calculators - Texas Instruments
TVs - Samsung
Mobile phones - Samsung, Motorola
Cameras - Canon
Automatic doors - Stanley
Door closers - LCN
Locks - Schlage
Elevators - Otis
Plumbing fixtures - Kohler
Shoes & sports apparel - Nike (I've tried other brands, but they don't seem to hold up as well)
TP - Angel Soft
Tissue - Puffs, I used to be a Kleenex person, but Puffs invented/perfected the lotion tissue and has a much easier box to pull JUST 1 tissue out of)
Beer - Miller, New Glarus
Soda - Coke, Sprecher
Tools - Husky (was Craftsman until they stopped innovating, started circling the drain)
Big box retail - Meijer
Food store - Woodmans
Drums - Pearl
Cymbals - Zildjian
Bells - Meneely
Pipe Organs - Aeolian-Skinner, Schantz

I'll add Walmart over Target.  All the ghetto folks in my neighborhood avoid Target but are always in the Walmart a block away but that's my store.  Granted no one knows anything but they have tons of things I want, I just sold a $25 Target gift card for $20, couldn't find anything I wanted, and I hate being called a guest.

How could I forget?

Sheetz.

Sheetz > Wawa.

Drum heads - Remo

I was always loyal to Sony as a teen. My portable cassette radio and headphones (and later Walkmans) were always from them. I never owned a Sony TV though.

I always preferred Coca-Cola over Pepsi. Still do, actually.

AFC over the NFC with NFL football (but rooting for Seattle in the playoffs right now).

American League over the National League with baseball.

Coke for my go-to soft drink
Microsoft with my family's 1st computer (then Gateway) and now my Xbox One
Shell for my gas station
Mobile phone would have to be Motorola, although Samsung has started to come in.
Vienna Beef for hot dogs, relish, and corned beef locally for the Chicagoland area, a must for cooking

I'm about to ruin this entire thread.

Since I own a business, I had an opportunity to take a free marketing class that was hosted by the Chickasaw Nation. And it blew my mind, because it made me realize how much the concept of a brand is absolute bullshit.

Basically how it works, is a company is trying to sell a product. So they come up with an idea of the sort of person who they feel would be a good fit for that product. Like, let's say, men 18 to 35 that live in Arizona. Then they study ways to manipulate that sort of person into buying the product. One tool for doing this is the Pyramid of Value:

(https://hbr.org/resources/images/article_assets/2016/08/R1609C_ALMQUIST_VALUEPYRAMID.png)

This thing is brilliantly simple, and it's stupid how consistently it works. The higher up the pyramid you go, the further away you are from talking about the product itself and more toward playing mind games with the customer–which makes you more money than just talking about how great your product is! Have a copy of it pulled up the next time you're watching TV and the commercials come on and play Marketing Bullshit Bingo. It's very satisfying.

Here's a great example: Apple products. They play hard on those middle two levels of the pyramid. The design and aesthetics. The affiliation and belonging. That if you use an Apple product you're somehow more hip and stylish than someone with a cheaper phone. None of it is true, really. The case materials and chips and circuit boards are the same stuff you find in an Android phone. But Apple can charge more because of the emotional response they've engineered to the Apple brand. Very clever.

So what do you do if you have a product that would appeal to two different types of customer? Why, it's simple, you just make a new brand and stick it on the same product so you can target the other type of person. Maybe change a few of the details to make it less obvious. Car manufacturers have been doing this for decades, of course. It's why GM doesn't brand everything a Chevrolet, or why Lincolns exist. Every so often they realize one of the brands isn't appealing to the target customer anymore, or the target customer doesn't exist anymore, so the brand goes away. Poof, no more Pontiac, but GM is still in business.

The more you look into this sort of stuff, the more money you save, because you start to catch on to the tricks the marketing is doing, and you start to think "Why do I have an attachment to this brand? Is it because of something I really like about it, or is it because the marketing department is trying to make me feel that way?"

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 07, 2020, 03:34:30 PM
Here's a great example: Apple products. They play hard on those middle two levels of the pyramid. The design and aesthetics. The affiliation and belonging. That if you use an Apple product you're somehow more hip and stylish than someone with a cheaper phone. None of it is true, really. The case materials and chips and circuit boards are the same stuff you find in an Android phone. But Apple can charge more because of the emotional response they've engineered to the Apple brand. Very clever.

I use a Mac, and I've had my data since I started using a laptop in late 2010 without losing anything at all. Remember about a year ago the "Windows 10 automatic updates" thread?

While Linux (which you use) is superior to both Microsoft and Apple if you know what you're doing, not everyone knows how to use a command line effectively.

I have a nonconsensual attachment to capitalism.

Quote from: 1 on January 07, 2020, 03:55:49 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 07, 2020, 03:34:30 PM
Here's a great example: Apple products. They play hard on those middle two levels of the pyramid. The design and aesthetics. The affiliation and belonging. That if you use an Apple product you're somehow more hip and stylish than someone with a cheaper phone. None of it is true, really. The case materials and chips and circuit boards are the same stuff you find in an Android phone. But Apple can charge more because of the emotional response they've engineered to the Apple brand. Very clever.

I use a Mac, and I've had my data since I started using a laptop in late 2010 without losing anything at all. Remember about a year ago the "Windows 10 automatic updates" thread?

While Linux (which you use) is superior to both Microsoft and Apple if you know what you're doing, not everyone knows how to use a command line effectively.

Remember that Mac computers were originally targeted for the desktop publishing industry. My first introduction to a personal computer was in 1987, when I took a job at a newspaper that had converted to Macs for outputting news copy. Pagination was not yet a thing, so we printed out copy from laser printers on plain paper, ran it through a waxer, cut it out, and pasted it up the same way we used to do stuff that was printed from a Compugraphic phototypsetting machine. The up-front costs (computers, printers, etc.) were expensive, but plain paper was a lot cheaper to buy than phototypesetting film and chemicals for the processor -- and you didn't have the smelly chemicals you had to clean out every so often.

So, when it came time for me to buy a computer of my own a few years later, I bought a Mac. Not because I had any particular affinity for the brand, but because it was what I was used to, and I already had software and fonts I could install. More me, it was a preference for the operating system over any brand name. If I want a Windows computer, I don't care if it's a Lenovo, HP, Dell, or whatever.

And, therefore, I go with Apple for smartphones and tablets, because they were designed to interact with Mac computers. I've also become familiar with the iOS and prefer it to Android, although -- as I've said before -- I like Android's expandability through the use of SD cards, and the ease of installing software by not requiring the use of a proprietary store.

Verizon
LG
Wendy's
New Balance
Rural King
Yuengling

Southwest Airlines
Speedway Fuel
Marriott Hotels
Android OS
Waffle House
Four Roses Bourbon
Wendy's
Mozilla Firefox

Horizon Airlines
Delta Airlines
McDonald's
Steak n Shake
Hewlett-Packard
Morton's Salt
Mobil 1 Oil and Oil Filters

Quote from: hbelkins on January 07, 2020, 04:15:03 PM
So, when it came time for me to buy a computer of my own a few years later, I bought a Mac. Not because I had any particular affinity for the brand, but because it was what I was used to, and I already had software and fonts I could install. More me, it was a preference for the operating system over any brand name. If I want a Windows computer, I don't care if it's a Lenovo, HP, Dell, or whatever.

And, therefore, I go with Apple for smartphones and tablets, because they were designed to interact with Mac computers. I've also become familiar with the iOS and prefer it to Android, although -- as I've said before -- I like Android's expandability through the use of SD cards, and the ease of installing software by not requiring the use of a proprietary store.

So you make your decisions based on the bottom level of the pyramid, which is where the rational decisions tend to be made. That means you're probably not swayed as easily by marketing gimmicks that play to the upper levels of the pyramid, which tend to drive more impulsive, "I want this but I can't quite articulate why" sort of purchasing decisions.

But on the other hand...are the benefits Apple provides really worth the price premium they command over comparable non-Apple products? If not...that's marketing for you.

Quote from: 1 on January 07, 2020, 03:55:49 PM
While Linux (which you use) is superior to both Microsoft and Apple if you know what you're doing, not everyone knows how to use a command line effectively.

I'd argue that the GUI on Linux has gotten superior to that of the other two as well, since Linux developers don't have a vested interest in getting you to buy more stuff with any given company. For example, in the major desktop environments, the start menu equivalent is broken down categorically (Administration, Games, Graphics, Internet, Office...) and then labeled primarily with function more prominent than program name ("Web Browser" with "Mozilla Firefox" in smaller type below it, or "Spreadsheet" with "LibreOffice Calc" below it) instead of categorization by software developer and then name (having a Microsoft Office folder that contains an entry for "Microsoft Excel" that presupposes you know what Excel is and does, training you to look under "M" for "Microsoft" instead of "O" for "Office", etc.)

Linux interfaces similarly seem to be immune to the 2010s trend of stripping out functionality in the name of making software "easier". The less-used options may be hidden under an "Advanced" button or tab, but they're all still there.

I'd also say that Linux is superior if you don't know what you're doing, because Linux will generally only ask for a root (administrator) password when you are about to do something you really shouldn't mess with unless you know what you're doing. Windows applications have a tendency to want admin permissions for the slightest things, which trains users into a mindset of "yes, yes, go away so I can do what I want" which can get them into trouble if they're not careful. With Linux, root permissions are needed rarely enough that providing them carries a degree of gravity to the decision that can deter users from proceeding if they're not confident about what they're doing.

Dell (laptops--I just have always had good luck with their brand.  My wife has had a Lenovo which was a piece of c-word and two HP's, but I'm happy with Dell)
Canon (camera lenses...guess that's almost a given since I use a DSLR so it's either off-brand or buy a new camera)

I think this thread would be more interesting if people write out why they have an attachment to brands rather than barfing out a list of corporations.

For a few electronics, Asus has won me over (monitor, laptop, tablet) because their stuff is cheap and doesn't come with extra baggage. Also the customer service was quite good at getting my warranty repairs done. It's too bad their phones generally don't get well received (or even distributed) in America, just the same as their compatriots at HTC.

For cameras, I'm stuck with Canon because it's what I was taught with. If I were to do it over again, I'd probably choose another company entirely, or just go mirrorless for portability.

I go out of my way to ride routes using Alexander-Dennis double-decker buses, which are the most comfortable in the fleet (reclining seats and bigger windows). As far as trains go, I do like Alstom's imported DMUs in terms of seating layout.

Die Hard for car batteries, although with Sears on the ropes hanging (thanks to bankrupt Kmart for taking them down with them) I will most likely have to buy another battery brand.

Quote from: roadman65 on January 07, 2020, 06:55:33 PM
Die Hard for car batteries, although with Sears on the ropes hanging (thanks to bankrupt Kmart for taking them down with them) I will most likely have to buy another battery brand.

Sears Holdings sold Die Hard to Advance Auto Parts.

Do they have the same warranty though?

For clothing, Nike and Adidas.

I am SHOCKED that HB expressed a positive emotion for Adidas.  I had to say C A T S , cats, cats, cats; 10 times to get the thought out of my head. 

Anyway, I don't think I am as brand loyal as most of you.  I certainly could not care less if it is an Airbus or a Boeing, could not tell you the name of a bus company, and just buy whatever computer products are on sale.   As to my loyalties:

- Coke.  Specifically in my old age, Coke Zero Sugar.  Pepsi is a vile and disgusting product.  I avoid any non-alcohol restaurant that serves this swill. 

- Cars.  Any car made by someone unaffiliated with the UAW/CAW is just fine.  Would never buy a so-called "American"  car ever again. 

- I like Apple phones, but only because I am too old to learn whatever the differences are between it and some other brand. 

- Carnival cruise lines.  Although they did just switch to Pepsi, which is sad. 

- SXM.  Not buying a car without it. 

- DIRECTV.  The greatest invention ever.  Yes, you can "cord cut"  and save 40 cents, yes, the cable bandits CLAIM they have reformed from their monopoly days, whatever.  Life is too short to not enjoy the perfection of DIRECTV.

- Buffalo Trace.  Real bourbon is only made in central Kentucky, and Buffalo Trace makes the best.

                               

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 07, 2020, 05:45:12 PM
I think this thread would be more interesting if people write out why they have an attachment to brands rather than barfing out a list of corporations.

I agree; that pyramid (which is similar to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html)), I would also say that if many of the Functional needs are fulfilled, then any included Emotional wants which are fulfilled are just the icing on the cake. If you jump straight past most of the Functional ones, then that's spending on the level of a child. Attachment is what justifies your personal reason for this-brand or that-one; as companies outsource and change their structure by not meeting the demands or finances of the consumer. While they can lose that loyalty, it's can also be a personal service reason for the switch. In a lot of cases, people are likely to make changes to "brand loyalty" because of price, convenience, or just dumb luck (someone gave me this used thing for free and it's actually very good compared to what I used to own).

Canon - purchasing a SLR camera means you're more or less locked into a lens system, because of compatibility with prior and future cameras (usually). That's not to say there's anything inherently "wrong" with a comparable Nikon, Sony, Olympus, or Pentax. In fact, I bought my wife a Nikon J1 a few years back because she wanted a 4/3 mirrorless camera system, and because Canon was very late to the market. One could use the argument that once you're used to the controls of a camera (or any device), it takes time to learn differing methods and gaining familiarity to deliver the same results.

Delta Air Lines - out of convenience; greater scheduling availability (more flights) from my home airport. Their overall waiting areas at others' hubs are usually much less pleasant because everything else is a commuter jet, with all the trappings of a bus terminal. Airlines are only as loyal as you're willing to spend money with them through thick-and-thin; once you've gained status with one, you get all sorts of flexibility, reduced fees, less waiting, potential upgrades, more points, et cetera. But they're all bound to have mechanical issues, questionable delays, mishandle things, and let you down. How they react and bounce back from such situations is what makes one better than another; in some cases, the airline has a policy, but other times, the individual(s) at a location make them worthwhile. Your local hub or local airport is going to understandably make this a different experience for you.

Toyota - general reliability, ease of repair, stoutness of overall product, and personally...they gave me a major break into the auto industry. That's not to say I don't enjoy driving something different as a rental car each week. Not everything they make is gold (or even silver), some of it is truly boring and forgettable in a market that has a good bit of variety. There is a certain personal familiarity of the product, which probably gives comfort and concentration to other things. One could probably also find the same sorts of behavior and personality in any manufacturer they like.

The only non-food brand I have 100% loyalty to is Verizon Wireless.   They have always given me excellent customer service and have never dropped a call in the 17 years I have been with them.   It would take a LOT for me to change carriers, even though I probably pay more.

In the kitchen, I have a few:
Catsup/Ketchup - Heinz
Mayonnaise - Hellmans (aka Best Foods)
Chili Sauce - Bennetts

OTOH, there is one brand I will avoid at all costs:  GM vehicles (I have owned three of them in my life and all three were total lemons).   I usually buy Ford or Dodge, but my latest vehicle is a Nissan which I am very happy with.

Quote from: NE2 on January 07, 2020, 04:04:00 PM
I have a nonconsensual attachment to capitalism.

What product are you being forced to buy or sell?

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2020, 12:20:26 PM

Quote from: NE2 on January 07, 2020, 04:04:00 PM
I have a nonconsensual attachment to capitalism.

What product are you being forced to buy or sell?

I mean, if you live in America you are forced to sell your labor so that you can buy goods and services. There really is no alternative.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 01:38:10 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2020, 12:20:26 PM

Quote from: NE2 on January 07, 2020, 04:04:00 PM
I have a nonconsensual attachment to capitalism.

What product are you being forced to buy or sell?

I mean, if you live in America you are forced to sell your labor so that you can buy goods and services. There really is no alternative.

Don't tell millennials.   :biggrin:

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2020, 01:46:45 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 01:38:10 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2020, 12:20:26 PM

Quote from: NE2 on January 07, 2020, 04:04:00 PM
I have a nonconsensual attachment to capitalism.

What product are you being forced to buy or sell?

I mean, if you live in America you are forced to sell your labor so that you can buy goods and services. There really is no alternative.

Don't tell millennials.   :biggrin:

Don't tell us what?

That there's no alternative to getting a job.

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2020, 01:49:48 PM
That there's no alternative to getting a job.

I thought that was more of a hippie thing, not a millenial.

Quote from: DaBigE on January 08, 2020, 01:52:19 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2020, 01:49:48 PM
That there's no alternative to getting a job.

I thought that was more of a hippie thing, not a millenial.

Right. Hippies don't want to get a job, millenials want to get a job but can't because all of the entry-level jobs require three degrees and 35 years of experience.

I thought it was a millennial thing to live in your parents' house till you're 30 years old, refuse to get a job that doesn't make you feel fulfilled and allow you to afford free-range organic groceries from Trader Joe's, then take a number of "mental health days" for when you just really don't feel like working but don't really have a good reason not to.

Maybe I'm wrong about millennials.  It's hard to know what stereotypes are correct when I'm on the inside (I was born at the very beginning of the 80s and thus qualify as a millennial).

No, it's a millennial thing to live in your parents' house till you're 30 years old because, despite having a degree, you can't get a job that pays enough to afford housing that isn't at least six counties away from your job, then take a number of "mental health days" because your position is responsible for a workload that was split between four employees in 2008, consolidated into one position during the financial crisis, and the department has never been restaffed since then because the CEO needs that money to make payments on his eleventh yacht.

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2020, 01:46:45 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 01:38:10 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2020, 12:20:26 PM

Quote from: NE2 on January 07, 2020, 04:04:00 PM
I have a nonconsensual attachment to capitalism.

What product are you being forced to buy or sell?

I mean, if you live in America you are forced to sell your labor so that you can buy goods and services. There really is no alternative.

Don't tell millennials.   :biggrin:

Actually, I would say that millennial have greater awareness of this than most.  There is no opt-out - if you want to live in society (for which there also isn't a legal opt-out except death), you have to buy services and sell labor, even if the only opportunities you have to do so are unfavorable (or somehow convince someone else to support you) - and if those opportunities don't exist for whatever reason, you're SOL.

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2020, 02:02:31 PM
I thought it was a millennial thing to live in your parents' house till you're 30 years old, refuse to get a job that doesn't make you feel fulfilled and allow you to afford free-range organic groceries from Trader Joe's, then take a number of "mental health days" for when you just really don't feel like working but don't really have a good reason not to.

Maybe I'm wrong about millennials.  It's hard to know what stereotypes are correct when I'm on the inside (I was born at the very beginning of the 80s and thus qualify as a millennial).

Isn't there contradictory reports on where the break between Gen-X and Millennials begin?  I've seen reports showing the break occurring during; 1982, 1984, and even 1986.  I can certainly say for myself (born 1982) and my younger Sister (born in 1984) that we grew up in an environment with people who most Social Scientists would classify as Gen-X.  At minimum it seems like individualism and career growth were what was preached to us by every facet of society.  I mostly grew up in the Mid-West so maybe things were different in other parts of the country?  Having moved out on my own at 18 (Michigan to Arizona, had I not made the move there would have been no opportunities at the former locale) and having a well established career (which is more trade than something a four year degree would obtain) by 22 kind of runs on more in line with what to expect for the Gen-X crowd of stereotypes are to be believed. 

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 02:08:00 PM
No, it's a millennial thing to live in your parents' house till you're 30 years old because, despite having a degree, you can't get a job that pays enough to afford housing that isn't at least six counties away from your job, then take a number of "mental health days" because your position is responsible for a workload that was split between four employees in 2008, consolidated into one position during the financial crisis, and the department has never been restaffed since then because the CEO needs that money to make payments on his eleventh yacht.

Potato, potato.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 02:08:00 PM
No, it's a millennial thing to live in your parents' house till you're 30 years old because, despite having a degree, you can't get a job that pays enough to afford housing that isn't at least six counties away from your job, then take a number of "mental health days" because your position is responsible for a workload that was split between four employees in 2008, consolidated into one position during the financial crisis, and the department has never been restaffed since then because the CEO needs that money to make payments on his eleventh yacht.

I could name a list of millennials I know that have well-paying jobs and have lived in their own home since 18 or 22, some own a house, and some are married with children.

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 03:00:45 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 02:08:00 PM
No, it's a millennial thing to live in your parents' house till you're 30 years old because, despite having a degree, you can't get a job that pays enough to afford housing that isn't at least six counties away from your job, then take a number of "mental health days" because your position is responsible for a workload that was split between four employees in 2008, consolidated into one position during the financial crisis, and the department has never been restaffed since then because the CEO needs that money to make payments on his eleventh yacht.

I could name a list of millennials I know that have well-paying jobs and have lived in their own home since 18 or 22, some own a house, and some are married with children.

I could name a list of Virginians that don't miss the point of my post.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 03:04:25 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 03:00:45 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 02:08:00 PM
No, it's a millennial thing to live in your parents' house till you're 30 years old because, despite having a degree, you can't get a job that pays enough to afford housing that isn't at least six counties away from your job, then take a number of "mental health days" because your position is responsible for a workload that was split between four employees in 2008, consolidated into one position during the financial crisis, and the department has never been restaffed since then because the CEO needs that money to make payments on his eleventh yacht.

I could name a list of millennials I know that have well-paying jobs and have lived in their own home since 18 or 22, some own a house, and some are married with children.

I could name a list of Virginians that don't miss the point of my post.

To your point a lot of white collar jobs that didn't used to require expensive degrees two decades do today.  Even in what I do there was an industry move to attempt to push for certifications and/or degrees which largely failed.  To that end it seems like most of the younger generations want to get into white collar fields rather than anything blue collar or requires trade level skill.  The problem is everyone seems to be piling into industries that already have a entrenched work force.  So even having an expensive degree is negligible for younger people because they don't have career experience.  Thus in turn you see the problems with people living at home longer, facing long commutes from affordable areas, or even finding viable career minded employment.

Sorry, I meant that it's a millennial thing to go tens of thousands of dollars into financial debt to get the same college degree that every other one of your peers has, then expect to have a high-paying job in your career field waiting for you when you graduate, then complain about how hard it is to make it financially.

The alternative is to get a college degree that nobody else has, because any jobs associated with it can't pay the bills.

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2020, 03:24:24 PM
Sorry, I meant that it's a millennial thing to go tens of thousands of dollars into financial debt to get the same college degree that every other one of your peers has, then expect to have a high-paying job in your career field waiting for you when you graduate, then complain about how hard it is to make it financially.

Which is kind of the point I was getting at above.  A trend I've noticed with employers is that they are tending value career experience over paper degrees.  That's a decidedly different mindset than what I grew up in.  For a time it seemed all that mattered was having a degree and didn't matter how much actual experience someone had.  To that end it seemed a lot of Baby Boomers around the turn of the century were pushed out jobs or advancement in fields they worked in for decades simply because they didn't have degrees.  Now a college degree is essentially worthless unless you can obtain the career experience to back it up.  It's almost better to just attempting to find something entry level in your career field of choice these days and attempting to get a degree part time or if at all. 

My generation (remember, I'm a millennial) was constantly told by our elders that we should get a college degree if we ever wanted to get a decent-paying job.  At my first college class, the teacher asked us all to share why we were in college.  One of the students said "I'm in college because, well, that's what you do after high school, right?"  And that pretty much summed up how my generation thought of college.  To boot, that was a private university, and a lot us were racking up serious debt in the process.  (I was fortunate enough to have zero student loans, and also to flunk out my first year because not going to class isn't a good path to success.)

Fast forward a decade or two, and–surprise!–there's a glut of people with college degrees expecting to fill career positions that are much fewer in number than the people seeking them.  By and large, this glut of people are carrying a huge financial debt and no foreseeable way to pay it off.

I'm not saying it's the fault of millennials that they had that mindset going in.  It's probably the fault of our parents.  But it's a millennial thing nonetheless.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 08, 2020, 03:45:01 PM
It's almost better to just attempting to find something entry level in your career field of choice these days and attempting to get a degree part time or if at all. 

Skilled trades are arguably a better career path these days.

^^^

See that's the interesting thing, you were getting a totally different message on college and career paths.  Pretty much all the teachers at school, parents, and really anyone of consequence were emphasizing trying to get in skilled position (which makes sense given the Automotive industry was still a big player in Michigan) rather than wasting money on college.  Hell, the military was pushed as an alternate option for those who wanted to go to college but didn't could get scholarships.  It wasn't lost on anyone that anything white collar would require a degree but it definitely wasn't pushed like I'm to understand it is now.  Maybe that was just a regional difference?  Either way there seem to be a variance with people of roughly the same age born in the 1980s in terms of the career advice they were getting.

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2020, 03:24:24 PM
Sorry, I meant that it's a millennial thing to go tens of thousands of dollars into financial debt to get the same college degree that every other one of your peers has, then expect to have a high-paying job in your career field waiting for you when you graduate, then complain about how hard it is to make it financially.

I knew lots of Gen-Xers who thought the same. Many were amazed that most post-graduation jobs paid roughly $20-30K/year.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 03:04:25 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 03:00:45 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 02:08:00 PM
No, it's a millennial thing to live in your parents' house till you're 30 years old because, despite having a degree, you can't get a job that pays enough to afford housing that isn't at least six counties away from your job, then take a number of "mental health days" because your position is responsible for a workload that was split between four employees in 2008, consolidated into one position during the financial crisis, and the department has never been restaffed since then because the CEO needs that money to make payments on his eleventh yacht.

I could name a list of millennials I know that have well-paying jobs and have lived in their own home since 18 or 22, some own a house, and some are married with children.

I could name a list of Virginians that don't miss the point of my post.

What is the point that you are trying to make?

Rather than criticizing millennials like some are wont to do, I made some positive and uplifting statements.  A lot are doing very well, per various reports.

Is it really that much to ask that a full time entry level job pay more than about $20K a year?

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 06:19:38 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 03:04:25 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 03:00:45 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 02:08:00 PM
No, it's a millennial thing to live in your parents' house till you're 30 years old because, despite having a degree, you can't get a job that pays enough to afford housing that isn't at least six counties away from your job, then take a number of "mental health days" because your position is responsible for a workload that was split between four employees in 2008, consolidated into one position during the financial crisis, and the department has never been restaffed since then because the CEO needs that money to make payments on his eleventh yacht.

I could name a list of millennials I know that have well-paying jobs and have lived in their own home since 18 or 22, some own a house, and some are married with children.

I could name a list of Virginians that don't miss the point of my post.

What is the point that you are trying to make?

Rather than criticizing millennials like some are wont to do, I made some positive and uplifting statements.  A lot are doing very well, per various reports.

It's cool that you have one or two friends that are doing well for themselves. That's not the experience of the majority, so citing those examples isn't really uplifting, it just serves to shit on those that aren't.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 07, 2020, 05:37:37 PM
But on the other hand...are the benefits Apple provides really worth the price premium they command over comparable non-Apple products? If not...that's marketing for you.

Well, given the fact that I already have an investment in iOS apps and chargers, plus the fact that my work devices are Apple and not Android, it's now worth it. Early on, perhaps, it may not have been. But now, it is.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 09:26:39 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 06:19:38 PM
Rather than criticizing millennials like some are wont to do, I made some positive and uplifting statements.  A lot are doing very well, per various reports.

It's cool that you have one or two friends that are doing well for themselves. That's not the experience of the majority, so citing those examples isn't really uplifting, it just serves to shit on those that aren't.

It is many more than one or two, and most are not 'friends' per se.

I have to admit that I am attracted to single women in that age group!  They can bear children.  In my church, one is a registered nurse, another an accountant supervisor, another a dietician.

Check this out
https://dynamicsignal.com/2018/10/09/key-statistics-millennials-in-the-workplace/
Excerpts:
Millennials already are the largest segment in the workplace.  Within the next two years, 50 percent of the U.S. workforce is expected to be made up of Millennials.  It will be 75 percent by 2030, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Millennials are first-generation digital natives who feel at home on the Internet,"  concluded the guide "How Millennials Want to Work and Live."   "Technology — particularly gadgets like smartphones, but also tablets and laptops — have revolutionized the way they connect and interact with one another and the rest of the world.  While the vast majority of Americans surf the Web from a desktop or laptop computer at home or work, 85 percent of Millennials access the Internet from their phones — more than all other generations."

"Millennials are more likely to use higher-end technologies in their personal lives, so it's no surprise that they have a more positive view of IT strategies that encourage the use of personal devices at work,"  according to the "Millennial Digital Workers Really Do Differ from Their Elders"  report.

"The Best Workplaces for Millennials give employees the tools they need to succeed,"  wrote CEO Michael Bush.  "They set the bar for other organizations seeking to retain and develop the next generation of leaders and prove that giving Millennials jobs with purpose and meaning drives them to give their best at work, benefitting the company as a whole."

Quote from: SP Cook on January 08, 2020, 09:23:38 AM
I am SHOCKED that HB expressed a positive emotion for Adidas.  I had to say C A T S , cats, cats, cats; 10 times to get the thought out of my head.                             

UK was a Converse school until Eddie Sutton came along. He famously allowed Roger Harden to keep wearing Converse when UK switched to Nike because Harden's dad was a sales rep for Converse. I don't remember what UK wore during the Pitino or Smith days. Back then, the coaches negotiated shoe deals. At some point, the athletic department took it over and UK went Nike for all its programs.

Chuck Taylors were popular when I was in grade school, but I never liked them. Nike seems to have gotten its popularity in this area not from UK, but from Michael Jordan long before UK went to Nike.

Not sure why Louisville went for Adidas during Pitino's tenure there. I don't remember what they wore during the Denny Crum years.

---

Regarding degrees vs. skilled trades, it helps if people get useful degrees. There's a huge market for some things, while not so much for rather esoteric pursuits. How marketable is someone with a degree in African-American transgendered women's studies, after all? What jobs can anyone with a degree in a major like that (and yes, I know that's a fictional example, but you get the point) expect to get?

There will always be demands for certain majors -- teachers, biologists, engineering, accountants, and so on. A degree in an in-demand field is worth it. Something like women's studies or French literature? There's not exactly a booming market in those job categories.

There's always a market for plumbers and electricians and HVAC repairmen and auto mechanics. i wish I had the physical ability and aptitude to work in a skilled trade. I'd certainly be better off financially than I am now. My problem is that I never had the skills required to succeed in that world. Engineering was also out of the question, even a two-year engineering tech degree, because although I did well in science and math in school, I didn't have a great interest or aptitude.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 07, 2020, 05:45:12 PM
I think this thread would be more interesting if people write out why they have an attachment to brands rather than barfing out a list of corporations.

Since my list is [so far] the longest, and I'm sure no one else is really interested in the full backstory behind each one, I'll sum up my attachments this way:

Most come from mostly positive experiences using the item/product. In other cases, it comes from a combination of positive experiences, longevity, and familiarity with various idiosyncrasies the product may have/preference to the way they operate. A select few also carry pride for the product being made in my home state. A few others have the link due to family and friends who worked for the company.

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 10:21:39 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 09:26:39 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 06:19:38 PM
Rather than criticizing millennials like some are wont to do, I made some positive and uplifting statements.  A lot are doing very well, per various reports.

It's cool that you have one or two friends that are doing well for themselves. That's not the experience of the majority, so citing those examples isn't really uplifting, it just serves to shit on those that aren't.

It is many more than one or two, and most are not 'friends' per se.

I have to admit that I am attracted to single women in that age group!  They can bear children.  In my church, one is a registered nurse, another an accountant supervisor, another a dietician.

Check this out
https://dynamicsignal.com/2018/10/09/key-statistics-millennials-in-the-workplace/
Excerpts:
Millennials already are the largest segment in the workplace.  Within the next two years, 50 percent of the U.S. workforce is expected to be made up of Millennials.  It will be 75 percent by 2030, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Millennials are first-generation digital natives who feel at home on the Internet,"  concluded the guide "How Millennials Want to Work and Live."   "Technology — particularly gadgets like smartphones, but also tablets and laptops — have revolutionized the way they connect and interact with one another and the rest of the world.  While the vast majority of Americans surf the Web from a desktop or laptop computer at home or work, 85 percent of Millennials access the Internet from their phones — more than all other generations."

"Millennials are more likely to use higher-end technologies in their personal lives, so it's no surprise that they have a more positive view of IT strategies that encourage the use of personal devices at work,"  according to the "Millennial Digital Workers Really Do Differ from Their Elders"  report.

"The Best Workplaces for Millennials give employees the tools they need to succeed,"  wrote CEO Michael Bush.  "They set the bar for other organizations seeking to retain and develop the next generation of leaders and prove that giving Millennials jobs with purpose and meaning drives them to give their best at work, benefitting the company as a whole."

End of the day things could be way worse, it's not like the Great Depression is on and 25% of the population is unemployed.  I would rather be in the position of someone trying to make a career now as opposed to having face some of the Industrial Revolution era work environments.  Also, teens used to be expected to work and produce in manual labor, that isn't the wide scale thing it once was.  Suffice to say the career problems of Millennials are somewhat luxurious compared to some generations of the not so far past. 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 09, 2020, 12:33:44 AM

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 10:21:39 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 09:26:39 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 06:19:38 PM
Rather than criticizing millennials like some are wont to do, I made some positive and uplifting statements.  A lot are doing very well, per various reports.

It's cool that you have one or two friends that are doing well for themselves. That's not the experience of the majority, so citing those examples isn't really uplifting, it just serves to shit on those that aren't.

It is many more than one or two, and most are not 'friends' per se.

I have to admit that I am attracted to single women in that age group!  They can bear children.  In my church, one is a registered nurse, another an accountant supervisor, another a dietician.

Check this out
https://dynamicsignal.com/2018/10/09/key-statistics-millennials-in-the-workplace/
Excerpts:
Millennials already are the largest segment in the workplace.  Within the next two years, 50 percent of the U.S. workforce is expected to be made up of Millennials.  It will be 75 percent by 2030, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Millennials are first-generation digital natives who feel at home on the Internet,"  concluded the guide "How Millennials Want to Work and Live."   "Technology — particularly gadgets like smartphones, but also tablets and laptops — have revolutionized the way they connect and interact with one another and the rest of the world.  While the vast majority of Americans surf the Web from a desktop or laptop computer at home or work, 85 percent of Millennials access the Internet from their phones — more than all other generations."

"Millennials are more likely to use higher-end technologies in their personal lives, so it's no surprise that they have a more positive view of IT strategies that encourage the use of personal devices at work,"  according to the "Millennial Digital Workers Really Do Differ from Their Elders"  report.

"The Best Workplaces for Millennials give employees the tools they need to succeed,"  wrote CEO Michael Bush.  "They set the bar for other organizations seeking to retain and develop the next generation of leaders and prove that giving Millennials jobs with purpose and meaning drives them to give their best at work, benefitting the company as a whole."

End of the day things could be way worse, it's not like the Great Depression is on and 25% of the population is unemployed.  I would rather be in the position of someone trying to make a career now as opposed to having face some of the Industrial Revolution era work environments.  Also, teens used to be expected to work and produce in manual labor, that isn't the wide scale thing it once was.  Suffice to say the career problems of Millennials are somewhat luxurious compared to some generations of the not so far past.

Nah.  Take a look at the federal minimum wage's value adjusted for inflation over time and do the same with costs for college.  In terms of getting paid, Boomers benefitted from a minimim wage that paid basic bills and very cheap college.  For example, my father went to the University of Utah in the late 1960s and his tuition for four years of college COMBINED was less than $1000 in CURRENT dollars.  Even more stunning for Millennials is that there were public colleges that even had FREE tuition for Boomers (e.g., Queens College -- not your most exclusive place).

Kids these days face economic challenges not seen since the Depression.

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 06:42:36 AM
Nah.  Take a look at the federal minimum wage's value adjusted for inflation over time and do the same with costs for college.  In terms of getting paid, Boomers benefitted from a minimim wage that paid basic bills and very cheap college.  For example, my father went to the University of Utah in the late 1960s and his tuition for four years of college COMBINED was less than $1000 in CURRENT dollars.  Even more stunning for Millennials is that there were public colleges that even had FREE tuition for Boomers (e.g., Queens College -- not your most exclusive place).

Kids these days face economic challenges not seen since the Depression.

My engineering program was 8 school terms and 6 work terms for a total of 5 years of school. The first term's tuition was $7500 (CAD) and the last term reached $8700. That's a 16% increase! I worked with someone who said they were in the same school and program as me <10 years earlier and they only paid $4000 a term. It's crazy! They should lock you into a price when you start the program so you know how much you'll be paying by the end.

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 06:42:36 AM
Take a look at the federal minimum wage's value adjusted for inflation over time and do the same with costs for college.  In terms of getting paid, Boomers benefitted from a minimim wage that paid basic bills and very cheap college.

In the year 1970, the United States minimum wage was $1.60.

Assuming a 40-hour week, that wasn't nearly enough to support one person in a tiny apartment with an old car, with no college.

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 06:42:36 AM
For example, my father went to the University of Utah in the late 1960s and his tuition for four years of college COMBINED was less than $1000 in CURRENT dollars.

Two family members went to Virginia Tech in the early 1970s, one of the lower priced public universities at the time.  Four years of tuition and room and board was about $7,000 for a student, as paid at that time.

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 06:42:36 AM
Even more stunning for Millennials is that there were public colleges that even had FREE tuition for Boomers (e.g., Queens College -- not your most exclusive place).

Where other than NYC, and only a couple.

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 06:42:36 AM
Kids these days face economic challenges not seen since the Depression.

More like attitude challenges.  I see nothing above about learning a trade.  They are always in demand, and many of them pay very well.

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 06:42:36 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 09, 2020, 12:33:44 AM

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 10:21:39 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 09:26:39 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 06:19:38 PM
Rather than criticizing millennials like some are wont to do, I made some positive and uplifting statements.  A lot are doing very well, per various reports.

It's cool that you have one or two friends that are doing well for themselves. That's not the experience of the majority, so citing those examples isn't really uplifting, it just serves to shit on those that aren't.

It is many more than one or two, and most are not 'friends' per se.

I have to admit that I am attracted to single women in that age group!  They can bear children.  In my church, one is a registered nurse, another an accountant supervisor, another a dietician.

Check this out
https://dynamicsignal.com/2018/10/09/key-statistics-millennials-in-the-workplace/
Excerpts:
Millennials already are the largest segment in the workplace.  Within the next two years, 50 percent of the U.S. workforce is expected to be made up of Millennials.  It will be 75 percent by 2030, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Millennials are first-generation digital natives who feel at home on the Internet,"  concluded the guide "How Millennials Want to Work and Live."   "Technology — particularly gadgets like smartphones, but also tablets and laptops — have revolutionized the way they connect and interact with one another and the rest of the world.  While the vast majority of Americans surf the Web from a desktop or laptop computer at home or work, 85 percent of Millennials access the Internet from their phones — more than all other generations."

"Millennials are more likely to use higher-end technologies in their personal lives, so it's no surprise that they have a more positive view of IT strategies that encourage the use of personal devices at work,"  according to the "Millennial Digital Workers Really Do Differ from Their Elders"  report.

"The Best Workplaces for Millennials give employees the tools they need to succeed,"  wrote CEO Michael Bush.  "They set the bar for other organizations seeking to retain and develop the next generation of leaders and prove that giving Millennials jobs with purpose and meaning drives them to give their best at work, benefitting the company as a whole."

End of the day things could be way worse, it's not like the Great Depression is on and 25% of the population is unemployed.  I would rather be in the position of someone trying to make a career now as opposed to having face some of the Industrial Revolution era work environments.  Also, teens used to be expected to work and produce in manual labor, that isn't the wide scale thing it once was.  Suffice to say the career problems of Millennials are somewhat luxurious compared to some generations of the not so far past.

Nah.  Take a look at the federal minimum wage's value adjusted for inflation over time and do the same with costs for college.  In terms of getting paid, Boomers benefitted from a minimim wage that paid basic bills and very cheap college.  For example, my father went to the University of Utah in the late 1960s and his tuition for four years of college COMBINED was less than $1000 in CURRENT dollars.  Even more stunning for Millennials is that there were public colleges that even had FREE tuition for Boomers (e.g., Queens College -- not your most exclusive place).

Kids these days face economic challenges not seen since the Depression.

You do realize most people in early 20th Century America would consider a high school education to be a luxury for the common person?  More so, you get into things like the almost total lack of societal systems that would actually help people back before World War II was a massive problem?   Suffice to say as a whole from the standpoint of quality of life for the average person in the United States has steadily improved since World War II.  I'm not saying the world is perfect nor the economy is as good as the 1960s, I'm just saying that this isn't the end time for millennials or future generations since things could be infinitely worse.  I would concede inflation in regards to college hasn't kept pace with historic values but there are a lot of other things that are still within proportion. 

Also, speaking of brands why whenever the conversation of colleges comes up is it about just four year schools?   Most four year schools will accept transfers from two year junior colleges.  That is a pretty good way to bypass a lot of the up front costs of a four year school (especially loan) or avoiding living in a dorm.  I want to say the average credit hour was $50-55 at the Maricopa County Junior colleges in the early 2000s compared to the $300-$400 at Arizona State in the early 2000s (if I remember right).  It was way easier to pay for courses out of pocket at a JC in my early 20s since I could transfer them to the big school.  It seems like most the college talk these days is still oriented towards the "name brand"  schools when it really doesn't matter for average profession where a degree comes from. 

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2020, 08:57:18 PM
Is it really that much to ask that a full time entry level job pay more than about $20K a year?

I don't see why it has to.

(theoretical numbers)
$800 per month for rent and utilities = $9600 per year
$75 per week for groceries = $3900 per year
$100 per month for transit = $1200 per year
$75 per month for cell phone = $900 per year
$450 per month for health insurance = $5400 per year

That comes to $21,000 per year.  Not carrying health insurance and having a roommate knocks it down to under $11,000 a year.  If a person cannot afford to live on $20,000 per year, then chances are they're spending money they don't need to.  Being able to afford your own house and your own car and going out to eat and subscribing to cable TV etc.–these are things that shouldn't be expected of an unskilled entry-level position.

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 11:15:13 AM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2020, 08:57:18 PM
Is it really that much to ask that a full time entry level job pay more than about $20K a year?

I don't see why it has to.

(theoretical numbers)
$800 per month for rent and utilities = $9600 per year
$75 per week for groceries = $3900 per year
$100 per month for transit = $1200 per year
$75 per month for cell phone = $900 per year
$450 per month for health insurance = $5400 per year

That comes to $21,000 per year.  Not carrying health insurance and having a roommate knocks it down to under $11,000 a year.  If a person cannot afford to live on $20,000 per year, then chances are they're spending money they don't need to.  Being able to afford your own house and your own car and going out to eat and subscribing to cable TV etc.–these are things that shouldn't be expected of an unskilled entry-level position.

One of the larger issues I see with people in general is that they don't know how to budget their expenses.  Granted, if you're working just to pay for bills and exists that's a problem in the long term.  It can be done short term at the expense of things like entertainment, recreation, and really anything fun.  What I've tended to notice (and this is just a observation that I don't have data to back up) is that discretionary spending in younger age groups has greatly increased.  Does someone really need to buy games, have an expensive cell phone plan, have cable, or other nice things to survive?...not really.  I was always under the impression that early adulthood was supposed to be a financial struggle until you could establish yourself with a good job and/or career?  Having to do what you have to get by on your own is something most of us have to do regardless of generational differences.   

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 11:15:13 AM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2020, 08:57:18 PM
Is it really that much to ask that a full time entry level job pay more than about $20K a year?

I don't see why it has to.

(theoretical numbers)
$800 per month for rent and utilities = $9600 per year
$75 per week for groceries = $3900 per year
$100 per month for transit = $1200 per year
$75 per month for cell phone = $900 per year
$450 per month for health insurance = $5400 per year

That comes to $21,000 per year.  Not carrying health insurance and having a roommate knocks it down to under $11,000 a year.  If a person cannot afford to live on $20,000 per year, then chances are they're spending money they don't need to.  Being able to afford your own house and your own car and going out to eat and subscribing to cable TV etc.–these are things that shouldn't be expected of an unskilled entry-level position.

Laundry, car maintenance, appliance replacements, clothes, computer, deductibles for health insurance, and probably a few others I'm forgetting.

Also, this is the bare minimum; someone who only pays the expenses you're mentioning cannot celebrate Christmas, spend time with family, or care for their children if they have any.

Another thing is that you don't get $25,000 if your job nominally pays that, because of income tax.

You also mention $100 per month for transit. In any place with decent public transit, the cost of living will be higher.

Quote from: 1 on January 09, 2020, 12:07:29 PM
Laundry, car maintenance, appliance replacements, clothes, computer, deductibles for health insurance, and probably a few others I'm forgetting.

If you're paying rent, why would you have to pay for appliance replacements? Or are you referring to a toaster? A computer would still be a luxury item. If you're paying the amount for a phone that kphoger is suggesting, there is very little you'd need a physical computer for anymore these days. And even then, there's usually a library or Kinkos around if you're near transit.

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 11:15:13 AM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2020, 08:57:18 PM
Is it really that much to ask that a full time entry level job pay more than about $20K a year?

I don't see why it has to.

(theoretical numbers)
$800 per month for rent and utilities = $9600 per year
$75 per week for groceries = $3900 per year
$100 per month for transit = $1200 per year
$75 per month for cell phone = $900 per year
$450 per month for health insurance = $5400 per year

At least in this area, if you're able to get rent that cheap with utilities, you're not going to have access to mass transit.

Quote from: 1 on January 09, 2020, 12:07:29 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 11:15:13 AM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2020, 08:57:18 PM
Is it really that much to ask that a full time entry level job pay more than about $20K a year?

I don't see why it has to.

(theoretical numbers)
$800 per month for rent and utilities = $9600 per year
$75 per week for groceries = $3900 per year
$100 per month for transit = $1200 per year
$75 per month for cell phone = $900 per year
$450 per month for health insurance = $5400 per year

That comes to $21,000 per year.  Not carrying health insurance and having a roommate knocks it down to under $11,000 a year.  If a person cannot afford to live on $20,000 per year, then chances are they're spending money they don't need to.  Being able to afford your own house and your own car and going out to eat and subscribing to cable TV etc.–these are things that shouldn't be expected of an unskilled entry-level position.

Laundry, car maintenance, appliance replacements, clothes, computer, deductibles for health insurance, and probably a few others I'm forgetting.

Also, this is the bare minimum; someone who only pays the expenses you're mentioning cannot celebrate Christmas, spend time with family, or care for their children if they have any.

Another thing is that you don't get $25,000 if your job nominally pays that, because of income tax.

You also mention $100 per month for transit. In any place with decent public transit, the cost of living will be higher.

Total laundromat costs for one person should total less than $400 per year.

Appliance replacement is generally not a thing for people who rent.  Small appliances like coffee makers?  OK, $100 per year.

A computer is a one-time expense, and computers are generally available to the public at libraries, schools, etc.

Celebrating Christmas is definitely possible without buying presents, and it's more than possible to celebrate it without spending more than $100 on presents.

Spending time with family is possible if they live nearby.  If not, then (1) that's a lifestyle choice and (2) hitchhiking is free.  Take it from someone who used to do plenty of hitchhiking back before (and also after) I got married.

Caring for children should be done by two parents, and so it's reasonable to assume that the annual income will be more than one person's wages.  If both parents work full-time, then double the income.  If one parent works part-time, then it's still a bump.

You didn't say whether your $20k figure included taxes or not, so don't use that as an argument against my rebuttal.

Aside from, say, the top five most expensive cities to live in, where can a single person not find a studio apartment for less than $800 a month?  Or at least a two-bedroom apartment that he or she could split in half with a roommate?  Chicago, for example, which has excellent transit and whose monthly transit pass is just a hair over $100, has plenty of 2BR apartments for less than $900 a month.  Split that with a roommate, and your rent is less than $450.  Back in 2005 or so, I used to live in Wheaton (a nice suburb of Chicago) and split a nice 2BR apartment with two roommates, and rent for each of us was less than $300 a month.

We have a family of five, and we make around $30k a year.  We are able to do our own laundry, own a car on which we perform maintenance, buy clothes, exchange Christmas presents, spend time with family, care for our children, give to our church, conduct mission trips, have cell phones with data plans, subscribe to Netflix and Amazon, go on dates, etc, etc, etc.  By your reasoning, we should have to make well over $40k in order to afford all that stuff.

Probably the only legitimate issue is that health care is insanely expensive.  That's why I don't have it, and neither does my wife.  That's a choice we've made.  It sucks, but there it is.  We used to have it, back when Obamacare first made it mandatory, but we dumped it not too long after that.

Quote from: 1 on January 09, 2020, 12:07:29 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 11:15:13 AM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2020, 08:57:18 PM
Is it really that much to ask that a full time entry level job pay more than about $20K a year?

I don't see why it has to.

(theoretical numbers)
$800 per month for rent and utilities = $9600 per year
$75 per week for groceries = $3900 per year
$100 per month for transit = $1200 per year
$75 per month for cell phone = $900 per year
$450 per month for health insurance = $5400 per year

That comes to $21,000 per year.  Not carrying health insurance and having a roommate knocks it down to under $11,000 a year.  If a person cannot afford to live on $20,000 per year, then chances are they're spending money they don't need to.  Being able to afford your own house and your own car and going out to eat and subscribing to cable TV etc.–these are things that shouldn't be expected of an unskilled entry-level position.

Laundry, car maintenance, appliance replacements, clothes, computer, deductibles for health insurance, and probably a few others I'm forgetting.

Also, this is the bare minimum; someone who only pays the expenses you're mentioning cannot celebrate Christmas, spend time with family, or care for their children if they have any.

Another thing is that you don't get $25,000 if your job nominally pays that, because of income tax.

You also mention $100 per month for transit. In any place with decent public transit, the cost of living will be higher.

You hit on some of the things I was getting at in the post above.  Things like recreation or even the ability to spend time with family would more fall under the definition of a luxury (a computer and cell are still to extent partial luxury items) rather than a true need to survive.  Granted the income levels were talk about meant to be entry level which in "theory"  should be something a single individual attempting to establish a career can do.  The problem is more and more people are staying in jobs said pay band later into adulthood when that level of income can no longer support them.  For what it's worth it seems that things tend to be leveling off for most around the age of 30.  It's almost as though 25 is the new 18 and 30 is the new 25 in the way people more or less progress through their life/adulthood nowadays.  Personally I find it odd having growing up under the knowledge that at 18 I was expected to GTFO of the house but it seems to be the trend people are growing up slower. 

I'm curious if this is a trend mostly seen in the United States or is it similar in other western countries as well?  I know we have a lot of posters from other countries like Canada and places in Europe, maybe someone can opine on what they are seeing?

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 11:15:13 AM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2020, 08:57:18 PM
Is it really that much to ask that a full time entry level job pay more than about $20K a year?

I don't see why it has to.

(theoretical numbers)
$800 per month for rent and utilities = $9600 per year
$75 per week for groceries = $3900 per year
$100 per month for transit = $1200 per year
$75 per month for cell phone = $900 per year
$450 per month for health insurance = $5400 per year

That comes to $21,000 per year.  Not carrying health insurance and having a roommate knocks it down to under $11,000 a year.  If a person cannot afford to live on $20,000 per year, then chances are they're spending money they don't need to.  Being able to afford your own house and your own car and going out to eat and subscribing to cable TV etc.–these are things that shouldn't be expected of an unskilled entry-level position.

I'm guessing this is under the table since you didn't include Federal Taxes, State Taxes, FICA, Unemployment Tax, Family Leave Tax, Medicare, etc, etc.

So $21k is net.

I'm guessing you live in a nudist colony, since no money was allocated for clothing.

I'm guessing you allocated $10 a day for eating and drinking.  Ramon Noodles and Water every day gets a little tiring.

I'm guessing you live in a state without a sales tax, which would eat into those allocations.

I'm guessing that even with health insurance, there's no copays or prescription drugs.

I'm guessing that you're not even gonna ever get a cold, so forget about over-the-counter drugs.

This list is so barebones that someone living on $21k...after taxes...will barely scrape by.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2020, 12:37:27 PM
I'm guessing you allocated $10 a day for eating and drinking.  Ramon Noodles and Water every day gets a little tiring.

When I'm by myself, this what I have:
Lunch:
½ pound of ham for $3.25; lasts about a week
10 slices of cheese for $2.69; lasts 5 days
1 loaf of bread for about $3 (typically the healthier types); lasts about a week
Dinner:
105 fish sticks for $12; lasts 13 days
1 instant rice for $2.19; lasts 1 day

That's $4.54 per day, almost of half of which is the rice. Take out the rice and add a banana (20¢ each), and it will be only $2.55.

This doesn't include breakfast or snacks, which I do have. My purchases are about $20-25 per week, but I don't always eat at home by myself, so I can't provide an exact number.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2020, 12:37:27 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 11:15:13 AM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2020, 08:57:18 PM
Is it really that much to ask that a full time entry level job pay more than about $20K a year?

I don't see why it has to.

(theoretical numbers)
$800 per month for rent and utilities = $9600 per year
$75 per week for groceries = $3900 per year
$100 per month for transit = $1200 per year
$75 per month for cell phone = $900 per year
$450 per month for health insurance = $5400 per year

That comes to $21,000 per year.  Not carrying health insurance and having a roommate knocks it down to under $11,000 a year.  If a person cannot afford to live on $20,000 per year, then chances are they're spending money they don't need to.  Being able to afford your own house and your own car and going out to eat and subscribing to cable TV etc.–these are things that shouldn't be expected of an unskilled entry-level position.

I'm guessing this is under the table since you didn't include Federal Taxes, State Taxes, FICA, Unemployment Tax, Family Leave Tax, Medicare, etc, etc.

So $21k is net.

I'm guessing you live in a nudist colony, since no money was allocated for clothing.

I'm guessing you allocated $10 a day for eating and drinking.  Ramon Noodles and Water every day gets a little tiring.

I'm guessing you live in a state without a sales tax, which would eat into those allocations.

I'm guessing that even with health insurance, there's no copays or prescription drugs.

I'm guessing that you're not even gonna ever get a cold, so forget about over-the-counter drugs.

This list is so barebones that someone living on $21k...after taxes...will barely scrape by.

The post I replied to said nothing about taxes.  Why did you assume $20k was before taxes?  I didn't.

I hardly spend any money on clothes.  One pair of pants a year, tops.  Hardly ever shirts or socks.  One pair of shoes every few years.  Not a factor.

$75 per week buys more than Ramen noodles.  When my wife and I were first married, we budgeted $75 per week for both of us.  Eggs are cheap, beans are cheap, pasta is cheap, rice is cheap.  Besides, we're not talking about what gets tiring.  We're talking about what people can afford.  If you want variety in your diet, then you expect to pay a little more.

Nope, I factored sales tax into everything.  Find where I didn't.

Health care is the biggie.  I personally have only seen a doctor twice in the last, oh, probably ten years or so.  There are clinics here with sliding scales based on your income, so the co-pay ranges from zero up to $100 per visit.

I get a cold, I get sick to the stomach.  That doesn't mean I have to take medicine for them.  A few years ago, I had influenza but, by the time the clinic opened after the New Year, it was too late to do anything about.  I lived.  OTC drugs are not really a thing for me.  A couple of Advil to fight a headache once every month or so, that's about the extent of it.

As I said, I have a family of five and we do fine on somewhere around $30k per year.  Before taxes.  Your assertion contradicts my reality.

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 12:32:27 PM
Spending time with family is possible if they live nearby.  If not, then (1) that's a lifestyle choice and (2) hitchhiking is free.  Take it from someone who used to do plenty of hitchhiking back before (and also after) I got married.

These days, one usually moves to where they can get a job offer, especially at entry level (and it's getting harder to find jobs outside of big cities, especially for professional work).  If you want more choice about where to live, you generally have to be willing to move further away so that your job search will encompass more metro areas.  No doubt one of the reasons it was harder for me to find a job after college was because I'm not willing to move outside upstate NY.

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 12:51:56 PM
The post I replied to said nothing about taxes.  Why did you assume $20k was before taxes?  I didn't.

I hardly spend any money on clothes.  One pair of pants a year, tops.  Hardly ever shirts or socks.  One pair of shoes every few years.  Not a factor.

At least around here, job salaries are always quoted as the rate before taxes are taken out.

Regarding clothes, there are gender differences as well.  Men's clothes tend to be cheaper, fit better, last longer, are warmer (thicker, longer sleeves, etc.) and fewer things are needed (no bras, for example, plus the need to layer clothes).  I probably spend about $300/year and still fill like I'm perpetually behind regarding filling out my wardrobe and replacing things that wear out.  Not to mention, that the more business-like you need to dress for work, the more expensive things will be and the less you can let it wear out before it needs to be replaced.

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2020, 07:54:56 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 06:42:36 AM
Take a look at the federal minimum wage's value adjusted for inflation over time and do the same with costs for college.  In terms of getting paid, Boomers benefitted from a minimim wage that paid basic bills and very cheap college.

In the year 1970, the United States minimum wage was $1.60.

That's $10.66 after adjusting for inflation.  Meanwhile, federal minimum wage is still $7.25.

Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2020, 01:51:32 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2020, 07:54:56 AM
In the year 1970, the United States minimum wage was $1.60.

That's $10.66 after adjusting for inflation.  Meanwhile, federal minimum wage is still $7.25.

It still wasn't enough to support one person living independently assuming a 40 hour week.

Minimum wage never has been designed for that. 

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2020, 02:04:31 PM

Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2020, 01:51:32 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2020, 07:54:56 AM
In the year 1970, the United States minimum wage was $1.60.

That's $10.66 after adjusting for inflation.  Meanwhile, federal minimum wage is still $7.25.

It still wasn't enough to support one person living independently assuming a 40 hour week.

Minimum wage never has been designed for that.

Besides most states with a high cost of living already exceed that $10.66 figure and current $7.25 Federal Minimum via state laws.  Minimum wage in California moved to $13 an hour for businesses over 26 employees and $12 for those under.   The minimum will be $15 across the board come 2023.   $13-$15 won't be enough for a person trying to live alone in the bigger cities but in rural areas or small cities like Fresno/Bakersfield it probably can be done bare bones factoring the high state income tax.  Either way the pay scale increases at least here were meant to reflect entry level working wages in urban areas, those jobs aren't exactly meant to be long lasting. 

Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2020, 01:51:32 PM
Men's clothes tend to ... last longer, are warmer ...

Oh, heck yeah!  It boggles the mind how much thinner women's shirts are, for example.  Holes and runners develop in such short order, it's pathetic.  OTOH, they tend to stretch better, so maybe the two are related.  And God help you find a good underwire bra that (1) doesn't end up having the wire poking out after a year and (2) still fits your body shape after two years.

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2020, 02:04:31 PM

Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2020, 01:51:32 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2020, 07:54:56 AM
In the year 1970, the United States minimum wage was $1.60.

That's $10.66 after adjusting for inflation.  Meanwhile, federal minimum wage is still $7.25.

It still wasn't enough to support one person living independently assuming a 40 hour week.

Minimum wage never has been designed for that. 

Correct.  A 'living wage' is that which allows one to meet his or her needs without further assistance.  A 'minimum wage' assumes that those on the bottom may still require assistance to meet their needs.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 09, 2020, 02:18:20 PM
for a person trying to live alone

I just don't think people who make the minimum should expect to be able to necessarily afford living on their own.

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 02:19:49 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 09, 2020, 02:18:20 PM
for a person trying to live alone

I just don't think people who make the minimum should expect to be able to necessarily afford living on their own.

Nor do I, those pay scales usually are oriented towards people living with roommates or family.  The indirect consequence of the wage hikes here locally is that someone probably "could live alone"  in a low cost areas on a full time minimum wage job if they were crafty with their budget.  But then again if someone making minimum wage is fantastic with money management they aren't likely to be making minimum wage for long. 

On a personal level I was able to live splitting the cost of housing with two other people in the Phoenix Market when $7.25 became law.  When I was making $14 an hour two years later I rolled that money into renting my own place.  That's the typical progression I see minimum wage designed fit into with entry level employment and adulthood.  The problem with a Federal Minimum is that it can't possibly factor the cost of living for fifty states which can vary hugely.  More so, job seekers aren't meant to stay in entry level jobs. 

A good example of how pay scales have worked differently for me.  In Florida I would typically start my security people at $9-10 an hour in Metro Orlando on entry level jobs.  Most of those guys were going to school and share the cost of living with someone.  Florida has no income tax and pretty much the cost of everything low compared to most states.  For the same jobs I start people at $14-$15 in California which is largely an adjustment based on the high income tax level and cost of goods like gas being near the highest in the nation.  $15 dollars an hour minimum in Florida would be absurd but it is more logical in California. 

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2020, 07:54:56 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 06:42:36 AM
Take a look at the federal minimum wage's value adjusted for inflation over time and do the same with costs for college.  In terms of getting paid, Boomers benefitted from a minimim wage that paid basic bills and very cheap college.

In the year 1970, the United States minimum wage was $1.60.

Assuming a 40-hour week, that wasn't nearly enough to support one person in a tiny apartment with an old car, with no college.

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 06:42:36 AM
For example, my father went to the University of Utah in the late 1960s and his tuition for four years of college COMBINED was less than $1000 in CURRENT dollars.

Two family members went to Virginia Tech in the early 1970s, one of the lower priced public universities at the time.  Four years of tuition and room and board was about $7,000 for a student, as paid at that time.

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 06:42:36 AM
Even more stunning for Millennials is that there were public colleges that even had FREE tuition for Boomers (e.g., Queens College -- not your most exclusive place).

Where other than NYC, and only a couple.

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 06:42:36 AM
Kids these days face economic challenges not seen since the Depression.

More like attitude challenges.  I see nothing above about learning a trade.  They are always in demand, and many of them pay very well.

Let's not be ingenuine; I'll do the inflation calculation that you deliberately ignored:  $1.60 in 1970 is $10.61 today.  Current fed minimum wage = $7.25.

You added room and board making the comparison inappropriate.  And because of the examples I provided, your assertion that VA Tech was on the cheaper side is unfounded.

I agree about the trades.  However, the exponential cost in attending college has been outright immoral.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 09, 2020, 08:13:09 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 06:42:36 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 09, 2020, 12:33:44 AM

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 10:21:39 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 09:26:39 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 06:19:38 PM
Rather than criticizing millennials like some are wont to do, I made some positive and uplifting statements.  A lot are doing very well, per various reports.

It's cool that you have one or two friends that are doing well for themselves. That's not the experience of the majority, so citing those examples isn't really uplifting, it just serves to shit on those that aren't.

It is many more than one or two, and most are not 'friends' per se.

I have to admit that I am attracted to single women in that age group!  They can bear children.  In my church, one is a registered nurse, another an accountant supervisor, another a dietician.

Check this out
https://dynamicsignal.com/2018/10/09/key-statistics-millennials-in-the-workplace/
Excerpts:
Millennials already are the largest segment in the workplace.  Within the next two years, 50 percent of the U.S. workforce is expected to be made up of Millennials.  It will be 75 percent by 2030, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Millennials are first-generation digital natives who feel at home on the Internet,"  concluded the guide "How Millennials Want to Work and Live."   "Technology — particularly gadgets like smartphones, but also tablets and laptops — have revolutionized the way they connect and interact with one another and the rest of the world.  While the vast majority of Americans surf the Web from a desktop or laptop computer at home or work, 85 percent of Millennials access the Internet from their phones — more than all other generations."

"Millennials are more likely to use higher-end technologies in their personal lives, so it's no surprise that they have a more positive view of IT strategies that encourage the use of personal devices at work,"  according to the "Millennial Digital Workers Really Do Differ from Their Elders"  report.

"The Best Workplaces for Millennials give employees the tools they need to succeed,"  wrote CEO Michael Bush.  "They set the bar for other organizations seeking to retain and develop the next generation of leaders and prove that giving Millennials jobs with purpose and meaning drives them to give their best at work, benefitting the company as a whole."

End of the day things could be way worse, it's not like the Great Depression is on and 25% of the population is unemployed.  I would rather be in the position of someone trying to make a career now as opposed to having face some of the Industrial Revolution era work environments.  Also, teens used to be expected to work and produce in manual labor, that isn't the wide scale thing it once was.  Suffice to say the career problems of Millennials are somewhat luxurious compared to some generations of the not so far past.

Nah.  Take a look at the federal minimum wage's value adjusted for inflation over time and do the same with costs for college.  In terms of getting paid, Boomers benefitted from a minimim wage that paid basic bills and very cheap college.  For example, my father went to the University of Utah in the late 1960s and his tuition for four years of college COMBINED was less than $1000 in CURRENT dollars.  Even more stunning for Millennials is that there were public colleges that even had FREE tuition for Boomers (e.g., Queens College -- not your most exclusive place).

Kids these days face economic challenges not seen since the Depression.

You do realize most people in early 20th Century America would consider a high school education to be a luxury for the common person?  More so, you get into things like the almost total lack of societal systems that would actually help people back before World War II was a massive problem?   Suffice to say as a whole from the standpoint of quality of life for the average person in the United States has steadily improved since World War II.  I'm not saying the world is perfect nor the economy is as good as the 1960s, I'm just saying that this isn't the end time for millennials or future generations since things could be infinitely worse.  I would concede inflation in regards to college hasn't kept pace with historic values but there are a lot of other things that are still within proportion. 

Also, speaking of brands why whenever the conversation of colleges comes up is it about just four year schools?   Most four year schools will accept transfers from two year junior colleges.  That is a pretty good way to bypass a lot of the up front costs of a four year school (especially loan) or avoiding living in a dorm.  I want to say the average credit hour was $50-55 at the Maricopa County Junior colleges in the early 2000s compared to the $300-$400 at Arizona State in the early 2000s (if I remember right).  It was way easier to pay for courses out of pocket at a JC in my early 20s since I could transfer them to the big school.  It seems like most the college talk these days is still oriented towards the "name brand"  schools when it really doesn't matter for average profession where a degree comes from.

So...safety nets (welfare?) is your answer?  I am saying that for Boomers, they didn't need safety nets because of the higher value of the minimum wage.

I agree that going to community college is cheaper, but for Boomers to have been able to better afford college for four years and having a better paying wage to then turn around and bash the younger generations given the current economic fiasco Boomers themselves are responsible for is ridiculous.

^^^

Well my original comparison really wasn't about the living conditions of Baby Boomers it was the generations right before them.  Post World War II America went through an economic boom which was unprecedented for the average person.  There was no way that the heights of purchasing power were going to stay at that level forever.  What I was trying to say was that things haven't declined to the point of Depression Era economics where mass unemployment and what would many would consider "true poverty"  were much more of a regular occurrence.  That isn't to say things could get better or worse for future generations.  Right now things are definitely trending towards a harder way of life for younger people. 

Regarding the brand equity of four year colleges, I certainly hope that tapers off with time with all the other options available.  Most of the angst from Baby Boomers towards Millennials seems to be mostly attributable to older people just not liking younger generations, that certainly isn't a new phenomenon.  So called "Greatest Generation" ' aged folks gave Baby Boomers and Gen-Xs just as much crap but didn't have a mass media platform to vocalize it like Boomed/Gen-Xers do now. 

Tying the concept of scraping pennies back to the original topic of this thread, let's talk about store-brand grocery items.

For most items, I don't care what brand is on the outside.  I just want what costs less but doesn't suck.  For several things, I actually enjoy the cheapest brand the best.  My morning granola is a great example:  the best I've found is the Kroger store brand, and it's way cheaper than the name brands.

However, there are certain items for which I just refuse to buy off-brands.  If I can't afford the name brand, then I simply don't buy it at all. Such items for me are...
- Nabisco Fig Newtons, because the other brands are nasty.
- Saran wrap, the only brand of cling wrap that doesn't end up a tangled mess for me, plus it's strong.
- Dole pineapple juice, because nothing else comes close.

For the most part I just buy the store-brand version whenever available.  Obviously the cost is usually substantially cheaper than name brands and sometimes comes from the same supplier.   Even generic items like Kirkland Vodka more often than not are just as good as name brand equivalents.  Walmart has their own brand of Sodas also which often are just as good or superior to name brand counterparts. 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 09, 2020, 03:23:47 PM
Even generic items like Kirkland All Vodka more often than not are just as good as name brand equivalents.

I realize these might be fighting words, but vodka is vodka is vodka.  They say the only slight taste variation is mainly due to the water it's diluted with, not the actual liquor itself.

Just recently, I bought my first bottle of gin.  Does anyone have any "brand attachment" to a certain kind of gin?  There are couple I'd like try, but that's a fairly high-dollar item to just go trying things out willy-nilly.

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 03:32:16 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 09, 2020, 03:23:47 PM
Even generic items like Kirkland All Vodka more often than not are just as good as name brand equivalents.

I realize these might be fighting words, but vodka is vodka is vodka.  They say the only slight taste variation is mainly due to the water it's diluted with, not the actual liquor itself.

Just recently, I bought my first bottle of gin.  Does anyone have any "brand attachment" to a certain kind of gin?  There are couple I'd like try, but that's a fairly high-dollar item to just go trying things out willy-nilly.

Vodka is pretty vanilla and hard to get something that appreciably less quality.  I tend to stick Tanqueray with Gin but haven't really had enough of it give a qualified opinion on if there is much variance in taste between labels.  Whiskey seems to be one of the liquors that get a much better taste the more expensive you go.  Rum tends to have some varying taste, I tend to stick to Sailor Jerry's since I like mine spiced. 

Speaking of cost savings measures, cheap store brand vodka used to be one of my big coat savers in my early 20s.  The nice thing with Vodka was that it was easy to drink straight or mix with whatever soda you so desired.  I used to make Mountain Dew Vodka mixers for Sunday's that I had to myself to watch racing and NFL.  I want to say the store brand Vodkas usually cost $9-$10 dollars back in the early 2000s.  Usually a bottle would last me one or two months which was way cheaper than buying packs of beer. 

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 03:17:52 PM
Tying the concept of scraping pennies back to the original topic of this thread, let's talk about store-brand grocery items.

For most items, I don't care what brand is on the outside.  I just want what costs less but doesn't suck.

I'm the same way for the most part.

Food-wise, Mac & Cheese, Oreos, and soda are the only things we will not buy in an off-brand. Whatever Kraft puts in their cheese flavoring the generics can't match...similar with the Oreo creme. We will occasionally make an exception with soda, but only for generic cola or "Dr. Pepper-esq" flavors. We usually have Vanilla or Cherry Coke in the fridge (right now, Cinnamon Coke)...again, flavors the generic companies cannot match.

Usually we'll go with off-brand paper towels, storage bags, and kitchen wrap. There is a particular brand (the name escapes me at the moment) we do stick with for trash bags, as they're the only ones stocked in our area that are biodegradable (without decomposing before it gets to the trash truck).

Tape is another item we'll go name-brand (Scotch). We've fumbled with way to many dollar-store tape that sticks better to itself than anything else (combined with dispensers that can't cut it) over the years.

Trash bags and paper towels are two household items we stick with the brand name for, too.  I get sick of trash bags tearing or paper towels not absorbing.

For toilet paper, I'm brand-loyal to Cottonelle, the purple package.  Anything cheaper is too harsh, and anything more expensive is too pillowy.  For the back bathroom (kids only), we buy the cheap stuff.

Ooh!  Wrapping paper.  I only buy it at the Hallmark store now.  Much better paper, and you get more than ten square inches on a roll.

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 04:32:17 PM
Ooh!  Wrapping paper.  I only buy it at the Hallmark store now.  Much better paper, and you get more than ten square inches on a roll.

We found some at Costco several years back... I think it's a metallic paper. Super durable, recyclable, and reasonably priced. I don't recall how many square feet, but as you can imaging, significantly more than you'd get in any regular store. We've been using it for any holiday wrapping needs (got a generic pattern/color) for at least three years now -- based on how much is left on the roll, we'll be using it for at least another four years.

I guess I'll throw my hat into the ring, as a member of the younger generation. Chastise me all you want, but...

I don't particularly have any attraction towards any brand.

Case in point, I owned an HP laptop before my current Acer laptop; farther back I used to share a Mac with the rest of the family. One of these days, when I can finally convince my parents to get a computer OR I manage to gather enough money (I've considered getting a job, either this summer or the next), I plan to custom build my computer and install Linux. By then, hopefully I've gained enough expertise in coding that I can learn the command line interface and more or less figure out how to hack things together.

Most products I buy I try to source from word of mouth; for example, say I'm buying a camera - rather than looking at a website like CNET, I instead browse some forums and see what people have to say about their cameras or other cameras. This principle runs especially true if I'm purchasing an object over $50; I want to do my research before completely investing.

Objects like clothes I understand that they're made with cheap factory labor - what else can I do? Here, I just follow what my mom thinks, and just pick whatever looks nice from the men's section.

Other stuff like food, I leave up to my parents to decide; yes, I still can't cook at 15.

And re: minimum wage - I think the minimum wage should be livable. Not saying it should be able to afford things like college or a Ferrari, but we shouldn't have Walmart employees who live in homeless shelters.

I have always found Kirkland-brand products (from Costco) to be very superb in quality. Hell, even my glasses (which I got at Costco a few months ago) are Kirkland-brand, and they were way, way, way cheaper than getting glasses at other places (they were maybe around $50)–albeit the quality is just as good. I am a fan of the Kirkland flavored sparkling waters, and I can't tell a difference in taste and quality between that and the other brand (that's identical save the brand name)–except for one flavor (the Strawberry Kiwi), which taste different and have different colors (one green, one pink)–both flavors are equally good in taste and quality, they simply differ in that one flavor.

But anyways, on the other hand, I have typically had mediocre experiences with Kroger-brand products compared to the main brands. For example, Kroger-brand potato chips are not anywhere remotely close to as good as those from the actual chip brands (such as Lays). Also, Kroger-brand Mylanta (over-the-counter medication for acid reflux) was absolutely horrible. I have no idea how effective it was in relieving the symptoms because I just couldn't drink the stuff. It tasted absolutely nasty, and I just could not choke it down. We had picked it up that one time because regular-brand Mylanta was out of stock at the moment, but I will just forego Mylanta entirely before I would drink that stuff again. I think brands (i.e. Kroger) should stick to producing what they're good at, instead of trying to cash in on extra industries they don't specialize in. Although as mentioned earlier, I have always had incredible quality with most or all Kirkland-brand products I have gotten, so some brands can pull it off.

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 02:42:20 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2020, 07:54:56 AM
I see nothing above about learning a trade.  They are always in demand, and many of them pay very well.

Let's not be ingenuine; I'll do the inflation calculation that you deliberately ignored:  $1.60 in 1970 is $10.61 today.  Current fed minimum wage = $7.25.

Like I have said, $1.60 in 1970 x 40 hours a week was not enough to support even one person in a small apartment with an old car.

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 02:42:20 PM
You added room and board making the comparison inappropriate.  And because of the examples I provided, your assertion that VA Tech was on the cheaper side is unfounded.

Since I was applying to colleges then I have a fairly good idea of what they cost.

I don't know the exact tuition amount but it was about 1/2.  Including room and board is important if you need to live on campus, i.e. are too far away to commute.

VA Tech was definitely less expensive than UVA and W&M.

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 02:42:20 PM
I agree about the trades.  However, the exponential cost in attending college has been outright immoral.

No argument there.  My alma mater for my business school degrees, from their website today --
Residents of Virginia pay an annual total price of $32,041 to attend Virginia Commonwealth University on a full time basis.  This fee is comprised of $12,094 for tuition, $11,506 room and board, $2,860 for books and supplies and $2,399 for other fees.

Now if you take your first 2 years commuting to a community college, which is feasible given that there are 40 campuses around the state.  From their website today --
With higher education costs continuing to increase across the commonwealth and nationwide, Virginia's Community Colleges remain a smart choice for students who are beginning postsecondary education or returning to college mid-career.

Virginia's Community Colleges are meeting an affordable tuition goal: tuition will not exceed half of the average cost to attend a public four-year institution in Virginia.

For the 2018-19 academic year, in-state tuition and mandatory fees for our colleges will be approximately $4,620 for two semesters of full-time study (15 credit hours per semester).

Quote from: noelbotevera on January 09, 2020, 06:39:04 PM
Case in point, I owned an HP laptop before my current Acer laptop; farther back I used to share a Mac with the rest of the family. One of these days, when I can finally convince my parents to get a computer OR I manage to gather enough money (I've considered getting a job, either this summer or the next), I plan to custom build my computer and install Linux. By then, hopefully I've gained enough expertise in coding that I can learn the command line interface and more or less figure out how to hack things together.

The command line interface–better start calling it a shell if you're moving to Linux, and besides it's shorter–really has nothing to do with coding. It's more akin to learning how to use Windows Explorer, but by typing instead of clicking.

If you want a preview while you're still on Windows, press Win+R, type cmd, hit enter, and have fun. 'cd' changes directories, 'dir/w' lets you see what's in them.

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2020, 07:54:56 AM
I see nothing above about learning a trade.  They are always in demand, and many of them pay very well.

Quote from: Rothman on January 09, 2020, 02:42:20 PM
I agree about the trades.  However, the exponential cost in attending college has been outright immoral.

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2020, 07:54:56 AM
No argument there.  My alma mater for my business school degrees, from their website today...

I'm not going to discount the trades, but a good trade school can cost as much as junior college (or greater, once tools, supplies, and materials are factored in). Learning a trade is far easier if you had a family member to learn/borrow from in the first place. It's also going to be 5+ years until one is going to be profitable an pay off associated debts; possibly longer if you're starting your own business out of it, unless the demand is intense for your services.

Quote from: formulanone on January 10, 2020, 10:17:12 AM
I'm not going to discount the trades, but a good trade school can cost as much as junior college (or greater, once tools, supplies, and materials are factored in). Learning a trade is far easier if you had a family member to learn/borrow from in the first place. It's also going to be 5+ years until one is going to be profitable an pay off associated debts; possibly longer if you're starting your own business out of it, unless the demand is intense for your services.

So it would take the equivalent of 4 full-time semesters to learn a trade?

How many trades would take more than 4 months of fulltime study to learn and become certified in?

Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2020, 10:43:31 AM

Quote from: formulanone on January 10, 2020, 10:17:12 AM
I'm not going to discount the trades, but a good trade school can cost as much as junior college (or greater, once tools, supplies, and materials are factored in). Learning a trade is far easier if you had a family member to learn/borrow from in the first place. It's also going to be 5+ years until one is going to be profitable an pay off associated debts; possibly longer if you're starting your own business out of it, unless the demand is intense for your services.

So it would take the equivalent of 4 full-time semesters to learn a trade?

How many trades would take more than 4 months of fulltime study to learn and become certified in?

I can't say precisely, I haven't learned a trade; but it depends on the complexity of the repair and skills acquired, right? The same reason you don't become a physician after four years of undergraduate school. I don't think there's a lot of well-paying trades that can truly promise you a degree in four months unless you had significant training and expertise in a similar field of work, and could shift those skills over quickly and adeptly in short order.

But I do work with automotive/truck technicians on a frequent basis, many go for at least 2-3 years (what, 5-6 semesters). Some people get a good bit of prior experience, and start out a little lower on the ladder; that's not to say they're less-qualified, but like a college degree, some level of proven mastery makes you more valuable. I think many of the trade school-educated auto/truck technicians learn one or two makes, because it's a good feeder system for the best students to a job. There are some "dropouts", or those who have to try another semester, or they turn wrenches elsewhere for a lower rate of pay, depending on experience, aptitude, and job performance.

So they can rack up debt for a starting pay of $8-15/hour as well, depending on the area. There's always demand for good and great technicians, but basic n'er-do-wells are a dime a dozen in the industry. Don't get me wrong, the ones who are truly problem solvers and take pride in their work are modern-day magicians.

Tractor-trailer driving schools take a few months, but I gather that is a much tougher trade than many think, that it takes about 3 years of driving employment to get to a decent income and decent hours.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 10, 2020, 02:22:58 AM
If you want a preview while you're still on Windows, press Win+R, type cmd, hit enter, and have fun. 'cd' changes directories, 'dir/w' lets you see what's in them.

If only it were actual DOS!

When I don't have a good idea where to find a file or exactly what it's called, I still use the command prompt to search for the filename by using command options:  for example,  dir/s *undab* | more, if I'm looking for a file that I'm pretty sure contains "roundabout" in the filename.

Also, command prompt is a good way to check your internet connection if you dropping offline:  you can even use options to specify how many packets to send out and other things like that.  For example, below are screenshots from a ping test I just sent out from my computer here at work.  (Note:  I had to add the word "out" in that previous sentence, because here's what it looks like otherwise due to an apparent forum autocorrect:  a pin test I just computer)

(https://i.imgur.com/ZXNUVQJ.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/5PpWSXJ.jpg)

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2020, 01:55:38 PM

Quote from: DaBigE on January 08, 2020, 01:52:19 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2020, 01:49:48 PM
That there's no alternative to getting a job.

I thought that was more of a hippie thing, not a millenial.

Right. Hippies don't want to get a job, millenials want to get a job but can't because all of the entry-level jobs require three degrees and 35 years of experience.

Get this man a cookie! I 5000% back this statement!

What jobs are you applying for that require that?  I work in a business that in takes young, inexperienced workers all the time.

Quote from: kphoger on January 10, 2020, 03:31:10 PM
What jobs are you applying for that require that?  I work in a business that in takes young, inexperienced workers all the time.

Because a good portion of Millennials want to work for tech companies that have a entrenched work force.   All those once called "nerds"  from the 80s and 90s who had a computer are now senior in their career field.  Meanwhile other less popular job fields that require manual labor or a mechanical skill are going on unstaffed because they aren't popular. 

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 09, 2020, 07:05:43 PM
I have always found Kirkland-brand products (from Costco) to be very superb in quality. Hell, even my glasses (which I got at Costco a few months ago) are Kirkland-brand, and they were way, way, way cheaper than getting glasses at other places (they were maybe around $50)–albeit the quality is just as good. I am a fan of the Kirkland flavored sparkling waters, and I can't tell a difference in taste and quality between that and the other brand (that's identical save the brand name)–except for one flavor (the Strawberry Kiwi), which taste different and have different colors (one green, one pink)–both flavors are equally good in taste and quality, they simply differ in that one flavor.

But anyways, on the other hand, I have typically had mediocre experiences with Kroger-brand products compared to the main brands. For example, Kroger-brand potato chips are not anywhere remotely close to as good as those from the actual chip brands (such as Lays). Also, Kroger-brand Mylanta (over-the-counter medication for acid reflux) was absolutely horrible. I have no idea how effective it was in relieving the symptoms because I just couldn't drink the stuff. It tasted absolutely nasty, and I just could not choke it down. We had picked it up that one time because regular-brand Mylanta was out of stock at the moment, but I will just forego Mylanta entirely before I would drink that stuff again. I think brands (i.e. Kroger) should stick to producing what they're good at, instead of trying to cash in on extra industries they don't specialize in. Although as mentioned earlier, I have always had incredible quality with most or all Kirkland-brand products I have gotten, so some brands can pull it off.

The thing about the store brand names is that they are rebrandings of the brands that have brand recognition from an outside distributor; so you are paying more for a label; just like BIG Food: all the packaging labels with a farm theme, they likely come from a place like Tyson Foods -- a very big name in the industry.

As regards brands (the original topic of this thread):  I thought Scott5411 had an excellent post on the first page of this thread about how economic actors (not just companies, but entities in general that have some of the key characteristics of a firm, such as state DOTs) build and then exploit brand equity.  As I have grown older, I have become less and less attached to brands and more aware of the reasons for the brand attachments I do have.  I like Toyota cars not because they bat a thousand on every single model, but rather because Toyota does very specific marketing things (such as publishing New Car Features books that run to over 200 pages per model at the debut of a new generation) that light up my brain.  I like Pennzoil Platinum not because they have the absolute best synthetic oil on the market, but rather because their marketing stresses cleanliness (minimum deposits on internal engine parts) and I don't like to be looking up specs more often than once every five or ten years.  I like MoDOT for their signing plans:  not because their signs look good in the field, and not because any other part of a MoDOT plans set looks especially good, but rather because their signs have a very clean and consistent appearance on D-31 sign panel detail sheets.

As for the ins and outs of making your nut in modern America, for an economist the fundamental reality is that a level of pay that supports a comfortable lifestyle--whatever "comfortable" means to you personally--is, like profit itself, connected to the ability to draw monopoly rents.  That in turn is often tied to entry barriers such as credentialing requirements, such as a college degree (which carried a proven premium in the immediate run-up to the 2008 recession) or a trade certification based on multiple years of apprenticeship.  And no matter what career field you choose or the extent to which it is protected by entry barriers, you are still vulnerable to demand/supply mismatches of the kind that resulted in, e.g., taxi-driving PhDs in the 1970's.  It takes an entrepreneurial approach--including the willingness to endure some disappointment and tolerate some risk--to land on something you do well, that you like to spend your time doing, and that pays well.

In terms of food, some people prefer the taste of certain brands over others. To me, peanut butter is peanut butter, whether it's Peter Pan, Skippy, Jif, or the store brands for Kroger, Save-A-Lot, Walmart, or Dollar General I've tried the Family Dollar store brand, though, and don't like it. I have a cousin, though, who won't eat anything but one brand. While I prefer the taste of Diet Coke over Diet Pepsi, I can't tell a lot of difference in most other brands.

Which leads me to this...

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 11, 2020, 05:59:20 PM
The thing about the store brand names is that they are rebrandings of the brands that have brand recognition from an outside distributor; so you are paying more for a label; just like BIG Food: all the packaging labels with a farm theme, they likely come from a place like Tyson Foods -- a very big name in the industry.

While that's true in many cases, I remember seeing a company once upon a time promoting the fact that it only produces it own brand of products, and its plants/factories don't produce store brands or generics. Can't remember what company that was now, though.

It may come as a surprise to some that many baked goods (Mrs. Freshley's, TastyKakes, and others) are produced in the same bakery. There's a Flowers bakery in London, Ky., that produces many different brands of snack cakes.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 03:37:56 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 10, 2020, 03:31:10 PM
What jobs are you applying for that require that?  I work in a business that in takes young, inexperienced workers all the time.

Because a good portion of Millennials want to work for tech companies that have a entrenched work force.   All those once called "nerds"  from the 80s and 90s who had a computer are now senior in their career field.  Meanwhile other less popular job fields that require manual labor or a mechanical skill are going on unstaffed because they aren't popular. 

It's really any industry, though. When I was first hunting for radio jobs I had at least two employers immediately lose interest during interviews upon hearing my lack of experience, and these were tiny markets with high turnover of young people right out of school.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 19, 2020, 12:58:09 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 03:37:56 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 10, 2020, 03:31:10 PM
What jobs are you applying for that require that?  I work in a business that in takes young, inexperienced workers all the time.

Because a good portion of Millennials want to work for tech companies that have a entrenched work force.   All those once called "nerds"  from the 80s and 90s who had a computer are now senior in their career field.  Meanwhile other less popular job fields that require manual labor or a mechanical skill are going on unstaffed because they aren't popular. 

It's really any industry, though. When I was first hunting for radio jobs I had at least two employers immediately lose interest during interviews upon hearing my lack of experience, and these were tiny markets with high turnover of young people right out of school.

It's been that way for a long time.  They want experience when you're trying to get experience.  I ran into that in the early 2000s.

Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2020, 03:53:17 PM
My generation (remember, I'm a millennial) was constantly told by our elders that we should get a college degree if we ever wanted to get a decent-paying job.  At my first college class, the teacher asked us all to share why we were in college.  One of the students said "I'm in college because, well, that's what you do after high school, right?"  And that pretty much summed up how my generation thought of college.  To boot, that was a private university, and a lot us were racking up serious debt in the process.  (I was fortunate enough to have zero student loans, and also to flunk out my first year because not going to class isn't a good path to success.)

Fast forward a decade or two, and–surprise!–there's a glut of people with college degrees expecting to fill career positions that are much fewer in number than the people seeking them.  By and large, this glut of people are carrying a huge financial debt and no foreseeable way to pay it off.

I'm not saying it's the fault of millennials that they had that mindset going in.  It's probably the fault of our parents.  But it's a millennial thing nonetheless.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 08, 2020, 03:45:01 PM
It's almost better to just attempting to find something entry level in your career field of choice these days and attempting to get a degree part time or if at all. 

Skilled trades are arguably a better career path these days.

IMHO, a LOT of that is elitist high school counselors who are essentially committing educational malpractice in herding students into the universities who have no business being there.  These are the people who enjoy working with their hands to build things, fix things, do things, deliver things, make things, etc - the people who enjoy the day to day mission of making the world work smoothly for everyone.

There are young skilled trades people who are already (and very satisfyingly I might add!) pulling in six-figure annual incomes while their 'university' track classmates are still busy racking up unforgivable six-figure student loan debts with no assurances that they'll ever be able to find a way to benefit from them and pay them back.

(This subject really, REALLY frosts my cookies!   :banghead:  )

And the blue-collar trades are *CRYING* for people to fill the roles of the older guys who are reaching retirement age.

Mike

I suspect that brand loyalty is a form of self-affirmation.  If it was a good idea to buy a certain brand yesterday, then it is today.  If you change brands, that's like admitting that you were wrong for buying it before.  But I've seen brands change, especially after being bought or undergoing corporate leadership changes.  I've seen good products, the ones I'd always buy, turn into bad products.  I promptly dropped those brands, because it isn't a marriage, it's a decision to make each day.

For a while, I would change car insurance companies every three years, because after that long they'd raise my rates for no reason and hope my brand loyalty would hold.  It didn't; I changed and saved the money.  Now I've been with the same company for a long time, because they realized that I won't put up with that and they stopped trying.  I have a perfect record, no accidents or claims and no moving violations ever, my insurance should be cheap.

My loyalty is to quality and price.  Sometimes the label on the packaging tells me that this is the one I like to buy, but if anything changes it can as easily become one I don't want.

Once upon a time, I bought whatever brand of pop was on sale. Didn't matter if it was Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi. Then, for some reason, my tastebuds decided that Diet Pepsi is swill, and I will buy it only if I'm in a captive-type situation.

I guess one area where I am brand-loyal taste-wise is lunch meats and hot dogs. Fischer's is the best, especially hot dogs, bologna, and ham & cheese loaf. I'll definitely pay more for something I like. But, peanut butter is peanut butter, and corn flakes are corn flakes.

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 11, 2020, 05:59:20 PM

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 09, 2020, 07:05:43 PM
But anyways, on the other hand, I have typically had mediocre experiences with Kroger-brand products compared to the main brands. For example, Kroger-brand potato chips are not anywhere remotely close to as good as those from the actual chip brands (such as Lays). Also, Kroger-brand Mylanta (over-the-counter medication for acid reflux) was absolutely horrible. I have no idea how effective it was in relieving the symptoms because I just couldn't drink the stuff. It tasted absolutely nasty, and I just could not choke it down. We had picked it up that one time because regular-brand Mylanta was out of stock at the moment, but I will just forego Mylanta entirely before I would drink that stuff again. I think brands (i.e. Kroger) should stick to producing what they're good at, instead of trying to cash in on extra industries they don't specialize in. Although as mentioned earlier, I have always had incredible quality with most or all Kirkland-brand products I have gotten, so some brands can pull it off.

The thing about the store brand names is that they are rebrandings of the brands that have brand recognition from an outside distributor; so you are paying more for a label; just like BIG Food: all the packaging labels with a farm theme, they likely come from a place like Tyson Foods -- a very big name in the industry.

The store brands may come from the same big manufacturers, but they often are NOT the same product.  Other than its cheeses and canned/frozen vegetables, I too generally avoid Kroger-brand foods because they have a taste, texture, or whatever other characteristic that I have tried and don't like.  They are not the same recipes as the brand names.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 19, 2020, 03:42:29 PM
Once upon a time, I bought whatever brand of pop was on sale. Didn't matter if it was Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi. Then, for some reason, my tastebuds decided that Diet Pepsi is swill, and I will buy it only if I'm in a captive-type situation.

I guess one area where I am brand-loyal taste-wise is lunch meats and hot dogs. Fischer's is the best, especially hot dogs, bologna, and ham & cheese loaf. I'll definitely pay more for something I like. But, peanut butter is peanut butter, and corn flakes are corn flakes.

And sugar is sugar.  At least it was in the 90s, when the Imperial Sugar factory tour showed they used the same product to fill bags for their brand and for every store brand and discount brand you've ever or never heard of.  I don't know if that's still true, but I still buy whatever pure cane sugar has the lowest price, and I've never noticed a difference.

Quote from: wxfree on January 19, 2020, 03:52:23 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on January 19, 2020, 03:42:29 PM
Once upon a time, I bought whatever brand of pop was on sale. Didn't matter if it was Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi. Then, for some reason, my tastebuds decided that Diet Pepsi is swill, and I will buy it only if I'm in a captive-type situation.

I guess one area where I am brand-loyal taste-wise is lunch meats and hot dogs. Fischer's is the best, especially hot dogs, bologna, and ham & cheese loaf. I'll definitely pay more for something I like. But, peanut butter is peanut butter, and corn flakes are corn flakes.

And sugar is sugar.  At least it was in the 90s, when the Imperial Sugar factory tour showed they used the same product to fill bags for their brand and for every store brand and discount brand you've ever or never heard of.  I don't know if that's still true, but I still buy whatever pure cane sugar has the lowest price, and I've never noticed a difference.

Sugar cane tastes way different in soda versus corn syrup, especially in anything that has a citrus taste.  I can't even drink Fanta without it having sugar cane in it, with corn syrup it tastes wrong.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 19, 2020, 11:00:08 PM

Quote from: wxfree on January 19, 2020, 03:52:23 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on January 19, 2020, 03:42:29 PM
Once upon a time, I bought whatever brand of pop was on sale. Didn't matter if it was Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi. Then, for some reason, my tastebuds decided that Diet Pepsi is swill, and I will buy it only if I'm in a captive-type situation.

I guess one area where I am brand-loyal taste-wise is lunch meats and hot dogs. Fischer's is the best, especially hot dogs, bologna, and ham & cheese loaf. I'll definitely pay more for something I like. But, peanut butter is peanut butter, and corn flakes are corn flakes.

And sugar is sugar.  At least it was in the 90s, when the Imperial Sugar factory tour showed they used the same product to fill bags for their brand and for every store brand and discount brand you've ever or never heard of.  I don't know if that's still true, but I still buy whatever pure cane sugar has the lowest price, and I've never noticed a difference.

Sugar cane tastes way different in soda versus corn syrup, especially in anything that has a citrus taste.  I can't even drink Fanta without it having sugar cane in it, with corn syrup it tastes wrong.

Cane sugar was the only way I'd drink Sierra Mist and was why I went back to Sprite, when Pepsi switched to corn syrup in 2016.

I like Coca-Cola with cane sugar, à la Mexican Coke.  I also like Pepsi Throwback.  Mountain Dew Throwback, however, just tasted wrong to me.

Quote from: kphoger on January 20, 2020, 01:52:13 PM
I like Coca-Cola with cane sugar, à la Mexican Coke.  I also like Pepsi Throwback.  Mountain Dew Throwback, however, just tasted wrong to me.

Funny enough I don't mind the taste of Mountain Dew with corn syrup or in diet form, I did appreciate that every 711 I went to in Florida had twist cap sugar cane variants.  Moving back west made finding sugar cane colas pretty straight forward again.  Vons/Safeway stocks Coke and Pepsi products on the shelves whereas some of the majority the taco trucks around Fresno offer others like Fanta.  Weirdly I can't find sugar cane Mountain Dew anywhere around Fresno.

Quote from: kphoger on January 20, 2020, 01:52:13 PM
I like Coca-Cola with cane sugar, à la Mexican Coke.  I also like Pepsi Throwback.  Mountain Dew Throwback, however, just tasted wrong to me.

I like Mountain Dew Throwback, but the regular version is nasty piss to me. Although recently I picked a Throwback out of a gas station cooler, looked at the 147% daily sugar content, and was disgusted enough to put it back.

^^
Good point.

I try not to attach myself to brands. Mostly because I feel like doing so will get me conned into more expensive (and therefore more emotional) purchases later.

That said, I have a couple:

Samsung:
* I'm on my fourth Samsung phone;
* I have an eight-year-old Samsung laptop that I use for school (and which continues to work very well with its SSD);
* a three-year-old Gear S3 Frontier watch which has massively improved with updates;
* their CRG9 32:9 monitor; and
* I also have a Samsung tablet that I use sparingly.

I wouldn't say that I have an emotional attachment to Samsung, but I feel their products are worth the price (except for some things like appliances). Some of their stuff (like the CRG9 monitor and my Note9 phone) were fairly expensive, but again, I feel that the price was justified, and I'm extremely happy with both. My watch is faster than the day I bought it, even though it's over three years old. They've done me no wrong.

Volkswagen:
* I've only owned one Volkswagen vehicle. Even though it's one of their diesels, and I was technically gypped, I absolutely love my car. One day I will buy an electric car (difficult as it currently is, given my street-parking situation), but until such time, I get such a kick out of the diesel/manual combo. I would buy another in a heartbeat. I had a Golf Wagon 4Motion as a loaner last year. While it was the gas/dual-clutch combo, that too was just a blast to drive. Plus it was just stupidly practical. VW, for as terrible of a choice as they made, still build a fantastic car. The interiors, at least in my opinion, are above the rest of the class; fit and finish is remarkable. Reliability is certainly not their strong suit, but sticking to the tried-and-true models, especially those that have been out in Europe for a year or two, pretty dramatically reduces the chance of long-term issues. My Golf is approaching 85k miles after almost 4.5 years, and my only issue was a faulty fuel injector (which did leave me stranded) -- of course, my post-scandal warranty now extends to about 128k miles, so I really don't care. At any rate, it's a non issue when I consider how much joy the car has brought me over the years. I would say, for the first car purchase that I made entirely on my own, I did well. Looking to the Mk8 GTI as my next purchase, maybe in three or four years. Hopefully they're still selling the 6MT by then!