You know you are in the US when...

[Mr.Yankees]

Well, it's not that I'm intentionally "narrowing my perspective," but rather that even halfway down my list is well above anything I'd consider a typical purchase. Given that one of the $350 items on that list is something that I'm saving money for and will probably take a few years before I can afford, I guess I was somewhat taken aback by your casual dismissal of it.

I'm still honestly puzzled by what you're referring to that "can't be bought" with $700. Even tickets to a sporting event would be around $200. A hotel room is going to be less than that, unless you go shopping for high-priced hotels. You mentioned a piece of furniture, to which I responded that all but the largest (desks, or large-size booksheves) would be available for less than that, if possibly not with the priciest materials. As for "varying prices," the majority of prices I quoted are straight from Best Buy's website, and their prices are the same throughout the country.

I suppose a car would be more? Or a condominium? But both of those are normally bought with loans, not cash.

Again, you are narrowing your perspective. You are saying things like: "Given that one of the $350 items on that list is something that I'm saving money for and will probably take a few years before I can afford, I guess I was somewhat taken aback by your casual dismissal of it." Isn't that narrowing your perspective?

You also said: "You mentioned a piece of furniture, to which I responded that all but the largest (desks, or large-size booksheves) would be available for less than that, if possibly not with the priciest materials." Where are you getting this information from? Please, don't tell me it's common sense or experience because that won't help your argument.

Look, you are making the evidence fit your point instead of letting the evidence make your point. You are doing that because you are narrowing your perspective to your specific case. I understand the emotional attachment and all but when you are trying to prove a point, emotions should be put aside.

[AngryMollusc]

The global (PPP adjusted) GDP per capita is approximately $10,000. That makes $700 only marginally less than the average global gross income. Deduct tax from that, and it's over a month's income for the average person, without even considering living costs. On top of that, for roughly 2.7 billion people (over a third of the world's population) that amount of money is roughly equivalent to a year's income, working every single day.

Do not try to pretend that it isn't a lot of money. Maybe not for you, but for a lot of people it certainly is.

[Aethers]

Again, you are narrowing your perspective. You are saying things like: "Given that one of the $350 items on that list is something that I'm saving money for and will probably take a few years before I can afford, I guess I was somewhat taken aback by your casual dismissal of it." Isn't that narrowing your perspective?

You also said: "You mentioned a piece of furniture, to which I responded that all but the largest (desks, or large-size booksheves) would be available for less than that, if possibly not with the priciest materials." Where are you getting this information from? Please, don't tell me it's common sense or experience because that won't help your argument.

Not "common sense," just going by the prices I saw last I was in Office Depot. Checking their website, it's about as I remember seeing it in the store: Chairs are in the $100 to $200 range, as are desks. It's fine if these aren't the pieces of furniture you'd buy, but your claim, that $700 won't buy anything, has been specifically refuted there and by the many other examples I've cited, which as I mentioned are prices of national chains and thus unaffected by urban price inflation.

Look, you are making the evidence fit your point instead of letting the evidence make your point. You are doing that because you are narrowing your perspective to your specific case. I understand the emotional attachment and all but when you are trying to prove a point, emotions should be put aside.

Exactly what point do you think I'm trying to prove? I stated my opinion, that it is a lot of money. You said that it was not a lot of money and implied that I should not be making that claim. I explained the reasons for my opinion, which I admitted was subjective. Now you're saying that I shouldn't be talking about my opinion because it's "narrowing my perspective."

Look, it's fine if you don't consider it much money and I do. We've already established that ad nauseam. What I don't get is how you can say I've got a narrow perspective when you're doing the same thing -- narrowing your focus to the circumstances that are typical for you -- when making your own judgment? Just disagreeing is fine, but through this whole debate you have been claiming that my opinion, based on experience, that it is a lot of money is not valid. So why is that? Not to mention that you keep citing "narrowness" without giving a single example of a case I'm ignoring (besides furniture, which I've already discussed.)

[Mr.Yankees]

Again, you are narrowing your perspective. You are saying things like: "Given that one of the $350 items on that list is something that I'm saving money for and will probably take a few years before I can afford, I guess I was somewhat taken aback by your casual dismissal of it." Isn't that narrowing your perspective?

You also said: "You mentioned a piece of furniture, to which I responded that all but the largest (desks, or large-size booksheves) would be available for less than that, if possibly not with the priciest materials." Where are you getting this information from? Please, don't tell me it's common sense or experience because that won't help your argument.

Not "common sense," just going by the prices I saw last I was in Office Depot. Checking their website, it's about as I remember seeing it in the store: Chairs are in the $100 to $200 range, as are desks. It's fine if these aren't the pieces of furniture you'd buy, but your claim, that $700 won't buy anything, has been specifically refuted there and by the many other examples I've cited, which as I mentioned are prices of national chains and thus unaffected by urban price inflation.

Look, you are making the evidence fit your point instead of letting the evidence make your point. You are doing that because you are narrowing your perspective to your specific case. I understand the emotional attachment and all but when you are trying to prove a point, emotions should be put aside.

Exactly what point do you think I'm trying to prove? I stated my opinion, that it is a lot of money. You said that it was not a lot of money and implied that I should not be making that claim. I explained the reasons for my opinion, which I admitted was subjective. Now you're saying that I shouldn't be talking about my opinion because it's "narrowing my perspective."

Look, it's fine if you don't consider it much money and I do. We've already established that ad nauseam. What I don't get is how you can say I've got a narrow perspective when you're doing the same thing -- narrowing your focus to the circumstances that are typical for you -- when making your own judgment? Just disagreeing is fine, but through this whole debate you have been claiming that my opinion, based on experience, that it is a lot of money is not valid. So why is that? Not to mention that you keep citing "narrowness" without giving a single example of a case I'm ignoring (besides furniture, which I've already discussed.)

I never said that $700 will buy you nothing, I said that it's not a lot of money but let's leave semantics aside.

You created a list of small items you said you obtained from the Internet (first from Best Buy, now from Office Depot but let's leave that aside) but you never provided a list of big items (I will not count furniture because you imposed "restrictions" on them). When I said you have a narrow perspective, I am stating that you are picking the evidence that will fit your point. Yes, that's a good way to make your point heard but it does not make it valid much less accurate.

I mentioned to you to provide me some economical date to back your point but you have not. I provided to you some date (which you chose to ignore and/or not provide a counter argument for).

I will now provide you with some statistical evidence. Keep in mind that you challenged my point and I am not obligated to prove anything but I will provide this evidence for the sake of....(insert nice phrase here)

Statistics obtained from the BLS:

Weekly Median earnings for full-time wage workers in the first quarter of 2009: $738

Among the major occupational groups, persons employed full time in management, professional, and related occupations had the highest median weekly earnings: $1,258

Full-time workers age 25 and over without a high school diploma had median weekly earnings of $450, compared with $620 for high school graduates (no college) and $1,138 for those holding at least a bachelor's degree. Among college graduates with advanced degrees (professional or master's degree and above), the highest earning 10 percent of male workers made $3,224 or more per week.

In 2005, this is the breakdown in the Educational level in the US:

Some high school 8.5%
High school graduate 32.2%
Some college 16.8%
Associate's degree 8.6%
Bachelor's degree 18.1%
Master's degree 6.8%
Doctoral degree 1.2%
Professional degree 1.5%

Now, let's see more evidence from 2005.

Median Household Income:

$0 to $25,000 (28.22%)
$25,000 to $50,000 (26.65%)
$50,000 to $75,000 (18.27%)
$75,000 to $100,000 (10.93%)
$100,000 or more (15.73%)

The median yearly earnings for men in 2007 was $45,113.

Earnings per person in 2006:

$0 to $25,000 (35%)
$25,000 to $50,000 (36%)
$50,000 to $75,000 (16%)
$75,000 to $100,000 (6%)
$100,000 or more (7%)

Now, take all of the info I just gave you. From education to mean income per person to earnings per household, etc. and reach your own conclusions from there on whether $700 is a lot of money or not.

[Aethers]

Um, what restrictions? I didn't make any restrictions on furniture that I'm aware of.

Anyway, you quoted it yourself in your own statistics: $700 is only slightly more than the weekly income for wage workers. Any way you slice it, a week's wages is "a lot of money." I'll grant it wouldn't necessarily be a lot of money for you. That's fine and not what I am discussing here.

The first list was from Best Buy among other sources. You objected that there was no furniture so when I responded I went to a site that sold furniture (Home Depot) to check their prices. Would you have preferred I'd stuck with electronics? I'm honestly not sure what your criticisms mean this time.

Anyway, unless I have a change of heart I'm done posting here because I really see no purpose in refuting your statements when you start denying ever making them, as with your claim that $700 won't buy much of anything.

[Mr.Yankees]

Um, what restrictions? I didn't make any restrictions on furniture that I'm aware of.

Anyway, you quoted it yourself in your own statistics: $700 is only slightly more than the weekly income for wage workers. Any way you slice it, a week's wages is "a lot of money." I'll grant it wouldn't necessarily be a lot of money for you. That's fine and not what I am discussing here.

The first list was from Best Buy among other sources. You objected that there was no furniture so when I responded I went to a site that sold furniture (Home Depot) to check their prices. Would you have preferred I'd stuck with electronics? I'm honestly not sure what your criticisms mean this time.

Anyway, unless I have a change of heart I'm done posting here because I really see no purpose in refuting your statements when you start denying ever making them, as with your claim that $700 won't buy much of anything.

This is my advice to you and I am not being ill-hearted,

Don't take on an argument that:

1) You have no facts (or little) to back it up
2) You are just expressing your opinion
3) You feel compelled to argue against because of your feelings

Those will always bring you trouble. A good orator will always keep his feeling out when debating an argument (there are exceptions to that. Sometimes expressing your feelings will help you) especially when debating in text.

There is no winner or loser and that's something you need to keep in mind when arguing your point. It's about arguing your point in the best way possible. Take all of what I have said as an advice, nothing else.

[Amazeroth]

Um, what restrictions? I didn't make any restrictions on furniture that I'm aware of.

Anyway, you quoted it yourself in your own statistics: $700 is only slightly more than the weekly income for wage workers. Any way you slice it, a week's wages is "a lot of money." I'll grant it wouldn't necessarily be a lot of money for you. That's fine and not what I am discussing here.

The first list was from Best Buy among other sources. You objected that there was no furniture so when I responded I went to a site that sold furniture (Home Depot) to check their prices. Would you have preferred I'd stuck with electronics? I'm honestly not sure what your criticisms mean this time.

Anyway, unless I have a change of heart I'm done posting here because I really see no purpose in refuting your statements when you start denying ever making them, as with your claim that $700 won't buy much of anything.

This is my advice to you and I am not being ill-hearted,

Don't take on an argument that:

1) You have no facts (or little) to back it up
2) You are just expressing your opinion
3) You feel compelled to argue against because of your feelings

Those will always bring you trouble. A good orator will always keep his feeling out when debating an argument (there are exceptions to that. Sometimes expressing your feelings will help you) especially when debating in text.

There is no winner or loser and that's something you need to keep in mind when arguing your point. It's about arguing your point in the best way possible. Take all of what I have said as an advice, nothing else.

Stop this patronizing rhetorics, and answer to his last argument - it's not bad. Your weak point is that you think "a lot" is a term that can be objective or abstract, when it's clearly a subjective one that has to be examined considering a given person. Or, to use your statistics, for the average full-time worker without high school, it would be slightly less than a month's half wage, which will mean "a lot" for him, for the 10% on the top it wouldn't. For some reason your statistic seems to completely ignore unemployment - thus more or less distorting the whole statistics with this.

Furthermore, you pretend that the only way to determine if 700$ is "a lot" is to compare wages and not prices, which is quite problematic - wages don't tell half as much as prices about the worth of a currency.

Your arguments are in no way better than aether's, they are just more arrogantly phrased.

[TPD]

So, after this exciting tale (I need to let it out people. That's what they taught me in those anger management classes), you can clearly see what identifies America. It's a shame that people resort to that kind of lifestyle. Sure, you need the money; you are hungry or thirsty but you couldn't care less if you are making someone else life harder (I won't say miserable because it's not my case). So, for those of you petyy thieves out there and those who are thinking about stealing whether you truly need the money or not, you are not Robin Hood. You are not stealing from the rich to give to the poor. You are a miserable and selfish scum bag who only cares him/herself and don't care whether someone else gets screwed.

A lesson for life. I understand you're angry, however, I still think it's a bit naive leaving your wallet on display (note: in an expensive car, especially) and not expecting anything to happen in today's world. Sure, it shouldn't happen, but it can so that's where you should take all precautions possible.

[Sam]

You don't need luck, you just need some knowledge of computer programming so that you can cheat.

You've watched Ocean's Eleven more than enough times.

I've never seen that movie. Found the story somewhere on Usenet while searching for stuff about 6502 programming.

[Mr.Yankees]

So, after this exciting tale (I need to let it out people. That's what they taught me in those anger management classes), you can clearly see what identifies America. It's a shame that people resort to that kind of lifestyle. Sure, you need the money; you are hungry or thirsty but you couldn't care less if you are making someone else life harder (I won't say miserable because it's not my case). So, for those of you petyy thieves out there and those who are thinking about stealing whether you truly need the money or not, you are not Robin Hood. You are not stealing from the rich to give to the poor. You are a miserable and selfish scum bag who only cares him/herself and don't care whether someone else gets screwed.

A lesson for life. I understand you're angry, however, I still think it's a bit naive leaving your wallet on display (note: in an expensive car, especially) and not expecting anything to happen in today's world. Sure, it shouldn't happen, but it can so that's where you should take all precautions possible.

It definitely was a lesson for life. And I know that leaving the wallet in plain sight was not the recommended thing to do.