Quote from: TristramEvans;476046$7.25? Jesus. That's what I was making working retail as a teen in the 90s. How can anyone live on that?

The really sad thing is that if you double that amount to $14.50 an hour, you still can't really make much of a living.

Quote from: jgants;476065The really sad thing is that if you double that amount to $14.50 an hour, you still can't really make much of a living.

I went from making $14.50 an hour doing part-time inventory/web write-ups of products for a small business to making $7.50 an hour doing retail sales for a large corporation. The retail job requires far more knowledge and know-how than the inventory gig did too. But getting laid-off sucks; what can ya do?

I'm in my senior year of college, so my plan is to get my degree, and do what my ancestors did; move the fuck out of my shithole homeland.

anyway, being poor isn't as difficult as you guys make it sound. With my shiity wage I can afford to live in a roach-infested double next to an elderly hoarder in the highest-crime rated section of the city, buy a monthly bus pass every month, eat most days, and pay for an internet connection. I run games I can download for free or have owned for nigh on 20 years already.

Quote from: Endless Flight;476049I'm probably in the minority, but I didn't mind the production values in the 80s. They were utilitarian and fit their intended purpose: presenting rules for games.

It's a similar situation for the overpriced comic books of today. $4 an issue will give you great production values, but I'll take the cheap newsprint of the early 80s any day.

I do miss being able to take a magnifying glass and turn a comic book page into a Lichtenstein.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;476062Not every job is something that should support a full-time career or living wage.  Try to make the minimum wage artificially high and you end up killing those jobs completely, because it's not worth it to the employer to have the position.

If those jobs were set aside for teens and other special circumstance employees that might work, but as it is there are way too many single moms and recent immigrants forced to take jobs at McDonalds or Walmart. I don't buy that those companies would go out of business if they had to pay a decent living wage to their employees, and if they can't afford to stay in business without providing a basic living to the people who are basically doing the work, then maybe those companies don't need to exist.

Quote from: TristramEvans;476071I do miss being able to take a magnifying glass and turn a comic book page into a Lichtenstein.

How the hell you'd take old newsprint and a 2 power magnifier and create a small European country is anyone's guess, though.

Quote from: jgants;476065The really sad thing is that if you double that amount to $14.50 an hour, you still can't really make much of a living.

Which is why many who can't afford college are basically doomed to a life bordering on indentured slavery in the retail or food service industries I guess.

Quote from: TristramEvans;476072I don't buy that those companies would go out of business if they had to pay a decent living wage to their employees, and if they can't afford to stay in business without providing a basic living to the people who are basically doing the work, then maybe those companies don't need to exist.

I don't think they'd necessarily go out of business, I think they'd stay in business, but eliminate the positions that weren't economically worthwhile at the mandated wage level.  That's not going to help those single moms and recent immigrants (in fact, you could argue that it's even worse for them), and it's also going to push down production or quality of service at the companies where the low-skill/low-wage jobs were eliminated.

Another possibility is that the company keeps the position, but increases prices to cover the costs.  So you're going to have some companies eliminating the low-wage jobs, and others increasing prices.  Neither of those is very good for those on the shallow end of the wage pool, either.  And you're going to have employees like low-level managers (who were making the living wage before it was mandated) asking for raises.  After all, prices are going up, and their position is worth more than the line burger flipper or the retail door-greeter that's now making the same amount they are.  And so it goes.

The fact is, when you try to legislate economics you can't get around economic reality (at least not forever).  It will eventually catch up to you.  You'll have unintended consequences rippling through the economy.  Some jobs aren't valuable enough to warrant a living wage.  I think a job can be valuable and valid and morally licit without being an "earn a living" kind of position.

Price rises are I think mostly due to higher prices for all paper products, and improved production values.

It should be noted that for many years Aussie prices were simply, "take the US$ price, double it and add 10% for sales tax." When the A$ was US$0.60 or so this made some sense, as we approached parity it made less sense. We were seeing things like GURPS Characters for A$64, which at the time was US$50. It was cheaper to buy it online from SJG. People did that, so now the prices have dropped a bit.

This is pretty much the cheapest rpg shop in my city. Bear in mind the Aussie dollar is worth a tad more than the US$ now.

We also pay $70-$120 for new release computer games, $30 for new CDs, DVDs vary a lot. Adult cinema tickets are $17-$22. Basically Aussies pay quite a bit for entertainment media.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;476085I think a job can be valuable and valid and morally licit without being an "earn a living" kind of position.

Okaayyyy... This just helps make the problem worse. Have you recently found yourself in Aristotle's cave? I'll wager you're there and don't even know it.

Finance 101 in the modern U.S.
1. With one hand the government prints money. Not a lot, just enough, so there's enough to go around for everyone and not really lose value, because you see they print only a limited amount to keep the money supply balanced. This type of paper currency exchange has historically (since the time it was introduced in ancient China) collapsed about every 200 years or so. Mostly due to the natural imbalances created, when the few want to control the fate of many, and use that currency as a means of control, instead of as a tool to facilitate the trades of goods and services.

2. With the other hand the government has licensed private business
to create it's own currencies. This is so private businesses can create their own "money" supply. Start a corporation with a few of your buds, and you decide the base value of your stock. You can obtain credit from other businesses, sell a portion of the stock you created for operating funds, and do a bunch of other interesting things. This was originally designed to balance and mitigate the worst effects of the more or less regular paper currency crashes. It recent years it has been used by the few (who consider themselves smarter than everyone else) as a means of control, instead of as a tool to exclusively facilitate the trade of goods and services.

3. In recent years, private business have automated their trades. They now allow computers to automatically do the trades of securities and financial instruments that are created by their companies. This, and an overabundance of unsecured lines of credit in the form of mortgage derivatives directly led to the economic crash of November, 2008. Prior to that, the last major crash was the collapse of paper currency in October of 1929.

Allow me to contrast this for a just a moment, with the economic systems put into place by the founding fathers of the U.S. Once they had established their colonies the Dutch, the Quakers, and the Puritans all put into effect an economic plan. With this plan, almost 100% of the people were employed. Even the aged, the infirm, and the ill were employed full time, if they did not already start their own business. The ministers at that time, routinely collected alms during weddings and other public events, and redistributed those proceeds to the very few folks who were truly bereft, incapacitated, or otherwise incapable of contributing to their society. This economic system worked, and worked well.

With all work, one should be able to "Earn a Living". That is to say, put food on the table, put a roof over your head, and to have a little extra to put into savings for emergencies, or for a vacation now and again. Personally I prefer annual vacations or sabbaticals, but one should be able to work full time and be able to earn an extra amount to facilitate some extended recreational time.

Before the colonists came the average native American hunter/gatherer worked two days out of seven, the remainder being leisure or craft time. There's more people now, and less available land (because the corporations purchased large tracts that now lie fallow and unused).

A job where you can't earn a living is not valuable, is definitely immoral, and should be against the law, unfortunately, the greedy have legislated part-time jobs as completely legal, and a desirable alternative to no job at all.

They also legislated an economic system where not having a job, or work is ok. Not in order to facilitate economic trading, but to facilitate control of the few over the masses. Generally, whenever money is misused in this manner, eventually a grevious economic collapse occurs regardless of what the leaders claim.

Plan now for what you are going to do about this and decide. We are likely to see the results of this financial folly during our lifetime

Quote from: ptingler;476040Looks like it was $3.35/hour ($7.60). Current Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour.

Which is about half of what it should be if it had kept pace with the cost of living.

Quote from: ptingler;476013AD&D
Player's Handbook $8.99 ($20.39)
DMG $12.99 ($29.47)

So, adjusted for inflation, about the retail price of a Pathfinder CRB?

Not too horrible, especially, if as someone else said, these are discounted prices, a'la Amazon in the present day.

Quote from: GameDaddy;4761181. With one hand the government prints money.

Yep.  I agree with you about fiat/paper currency.

Quote2. With the other hand the government has licensed private business
to create it's own currencies.

I agree with you that government licensing is all about control and has very nasty side effects.

Quote3. In recent years, private business have automated their trades. They now allow computers to automatically do the trades of securities and financial instruments that are created by their companies. This, and an overabundance of unsecured lines of credit in the form of mortgage derivatives directly led to the economic crash of November, 2008.

While I think there are more factors than just this, I agree those were important factors (especially the way the mortgage derivatives were handled).  Unfortunately, the root cause is more of an underlying systemic problem.

QuoteAllow me to contrast this for a just a moment, with the economic systems put into place by the founding fathers…This economic system worked, and worked well.

I don't disagree with you, but you didn't say what you saw as the major distinctions of this economic system compared to what we're saddled with, now.  Pre-central bank and fiat currency?  Just curious.  (EDIT -- actually, you did mention trust in and reliance on private charity, which I agree is a superior approach.  And you mentioned employment rate, although that's more of an effect than a feature of the system, and it's subject to other variables like population/technology/etc.)

QuoteWith all work, one should be able to "Earn a Living"…A job where you can't earn a living is not valuable, is definitely immoral, and should be against the law, unfortunately, the greedy have legislated part-time jobs as completely legal, and a desirable alternative to no job at all.

This is where I disagree.  I don't think offering a part-time (or even temporary) position is immoral.  I think it's a part-time or temporary position; it's not supposed to be a career.  

QuoteThey also legislated an economic system where not having a job, or work is ok. Not in order to facilitate economic trading, but to facilitate control of the few over the masses. Generally, whenever money is misused in this manner, eventually a grevious economic collapse occurs regardless of what the leaders claim.

I agree.

QuotePlan now for what you are going to do about this and decide. We are likely to see the results of this financial folly during our lifetime

I agree.  As I said, earlier, I don't think you can't legislate away economic reality; it will eventually catch up to you.  (Keynes famously said that in the long run we're all dead; might be true for him, but some of us will be around when the party gets shut down.)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;476073How the hell you'd take old newsprint and a 2 power magnifier and create a small European country is anyone's guess, though.

Psst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

Quote from: The Butcher;476173Psst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

Ah, yeah, I got it chief.

Quote from: TristramEvans;476046How can anyone live on that?

Rather poorly I imagine.

Quote from: everloss;476066anyway, being poor isn't as difficult as you guys make it sound. With my shiity wage I can afford to live in a roach-infested double next to an elderly hoarder in the highest-crime rated section of the city, buy a monthly bus pass every month, eat most days, and pay for an internet connection. I run games I can download for free or have owned for nigh on 20 years already.

That's the (new) American spirit! Now be a good citizen and vote for a politician who will keep you "lean and mean"!

Remember, wealth is for the wealthy and work is for the workers.  It says so right in their name!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;476099Basically Aussies pay quite a bit for entertainment media.

How do Aussie prices compare for non-entertainment imports?

Is there any Aussie RPG companies who have taken advantage of the overblown pricing and successfully marketed their own?