The Average American: 1967 And Today

[GaryC 7]

Demographics

The Average American: 1967 And Today

Tom Van Riper, 10.17.06, 6:00 AM ET

As the U.S. population crossed the 300 million mark sometime around 7:46 a.m. Tuesday (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), the typical family is doing a whole lot better than their grandparents were in 1967, the year the population first surpassed 200 million.

Mr. and Mrs. Median's $46,326 in annual income is 32% more than their mid-'60s counterparts, even when adjusted for inflation, and 13% more than those at the median in the economic boom year of 1985. And thanks to ballooning real estate values, average household net worth has increased even faster. The typical American household has a net worth of $465,970, up 83% from 1965, 60% from 1985 and 35% from 1995.

Throw in the low inflation of the past 20 years, a deregulated airline industry that's made travel much cheaper, plus technological progress that's provided the middle class with not only better cars and televisions, but every gadget from DVD players to iPods, all at lower and lower prices, and it's obvious that Mr. and Mrs. Median are living the life of Riley compared to their parents and grandparents.

So why are they so unhappy?

Yes, despite their material prosperity, the Medians are a grumpy lot. A Parade Magazine survey (a good source for all things median) performed by Mark Clements Research in April showed that 48% of Americans believe they're worse off than their parents were. A June 2006 study by GFK-Roper group showed that 66% of Americans said that their personal situations in the "Good Old Days"--defined by the bulk of respondents as anywhere between the 1950s and the 1980s--were better than they are today. And in May, a Pew Research Center poll showed that half of U.S. adults believe the current trends point toward their children's future being worse than their own present.

Attribute some of the dissatisfaction to what economist Milton Friedman dubbed "Permanent Income Theory," which assumes that people measure where they are relative to where they expected to be a few years ago. They don't care a bit what the average income was four decades ago.

"If you expect a 3% rise in income and you get 2.5%, you're disappointed," says Ken Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board, a private research group in New York.

And because people generally judge their fortunes not in absolute terms, but by comparing themselves to others, the super-success of the top 1% can make Mr. and Mrs. Median feel relatively poorer. Take CEOs--the $19 million that Wal-Mart Chief Lee Scott raked in last year was 410 times what Mr. and Mrs. Median made, as opposed to the $469,000 a year earned by Exxon's Ken Jamieson in 1975, which was a mere 40 times more.

It's the same with celebrity athletes. Those who worshipped Joe Namath in the 1960s could at least identify with the $142,000 a year he made ($848,000 in today's dollars). But how many can identify with the $87 million Tiger Woods took in last year? And not only are the elite making much more today, relatively, than the Medians, the rise of cable television and the Internet assures that they know all about it.

"It's now easy for us to see how other people around the world live, not just how our neighbors live," says Barry Schwartz, a professor of psychology at Swarthmore College. Schwartz also argues that the plethora of consumer choices today, while generally a good thing, can be a catalyst for bringing people down. Not everyone can have a new flat screen television with both a 60 inch screen and premium sound.

"The more options you look at, the more you have to give up," he says.

It's true that the wealthy have grabbed up a larger share of the growing economic pie over the past 40 years. Census Bureau stats show that the percentage of pay collected by the middle 60% of wage earners dipped to 46% in 2005 from 52% in both 1965 and 1975. That figure doesn't include income from investments, which would make the gap even larger.

But the overall pie is much larger too. A near quadrupling of the Gross Domestic Product since 1967 means that today's Americans share $12.5 trillion in wealth, or $41,579 per capita, compared to the $3.8 trillion, or $18,951 per capita, enjoyed by 200 million people back then.

Of course, the super-rich have done even better. When the first edition of the Forbes 400 hit newsstands in 1982, the top-ranked person was shipping magnate Daniel Ludwig, with an estimated net worth of $2 billion. That was about 20,000 times the net worth of Mr. and Mrs. Median at the time. There were only 12 billionaires on the list that year.

The top person on the 2006 edition of the Forbes 400, Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) Co-Founder Bill Gates, had a net worth of $53 billion, or 133,741 times the Medians. That means that while Mr. and Mrs. Median have seen their net worth rise 130% percent since the first Forbes 400, the richest man in the country is worth 1,225% more. Oh, and every member of the list is now a billionaire.

But what does the pay of celebrities and CEOs have to do with the average American, other than provide fodder for jealousy? It would be one thing if growing incomes at the top stretched prices of goods and services so much as to dramatically push inflation ahead for everyone else. But inflation has been tame for over two decades.

The fact is that in real terms, the Medians are doing great. Mr. Median makes 25% more than his father did 30 years ago, even after holding for inflation. Mrs. Median is a lot more likely to work in the professional ranks than her mom was, and to be paid about three times as much doing so. And though she still makes only 77% of what her male counterparts earn, this is up from 33% in 1965. They dote on the same number of children (two), but waited longer to have them, until both careers are well under way. They also pay less tax to the federal government and have 8% more purchasing power than they did 20 years ago, including 5.7% more than they had just ten years ago.

But, if despite their prosperity, the Medians need some cheering up, there is one powerful person whose wage growth they have outpaced nicely over the last two generations.

When Lyndon Johnson occupied the White House in 1965, he earned $100,000 a year, or 14 times what the Medians earned. This year, George W. Bush will earn $400,000, or just eight times the Medians.

http://www.forbes.com/home/economy/2006/10...1017median.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is very deceiving to go by median income. For one, are we comparing 2 income families of today with single incomes of 1967 or is the author lumping them altogether?

Secondly, what is average ratio from highest family income to the lowest over the years and how has it changed? If more people are below the poverty level now than in 1967, that should be noted.

My mother worked a little back in the 60's, but my dad was the clear breadwinner. That has changed. How about comparing the average salaries for specific types of jobs (say a teacher) - how do we fare with that?

It just seems a bit deceptive to say Mr. and Mrs. Median income is better today as if all the variables stayed the same. I'm really curious to know if he strictly compared 2 income families from 1967 to today, for one. And secondly how many (what percentage of the population) falls within that median income range - comparitive to 40 years ago.

...me tired...must sleep, brother Gary. You leave me something to respond to in the morning.

Glad to have you back!

[GaryC 7]

This is very deceiving to go by median income. For one, are we comparing 2 income families of today with single incomes of 1967 or is the author lumping them altogether?

Secondly, what is average ratio from highest family income to the lowest over the years and how has it changed? If more people are below the poverty level now than in 1967, that should be noted.

My mother worked a little back in the 60's, but my dad was the clear breadwinner. That has changed. How about comparing the average salaries for specific types of jobs (say a teacher) - how do we fare with that?

It just seems a bit deceptive to say Mr. and Mrs. Median income is better today as if all the variables stayed the same. I'm really curious to know if he strictly compared 2 income families from 1967 to today, for one. And secondly how many (what percentage of the population) falls within that median income range - comparitive to 40 years ago.

...me tired...must sleep, brother Gary. You leave me something to respond to in the morning.

Glad to have you back!

He is talking about "household income" meaning the total income that can be used for the household. I know what your going to say here, that it takes two people working to do the same as one did in 1967. But if you want to throw that into the mix then you also have to throw in the "extras" that motivates both spouses to work. In the 60's most people only had one car, one TV and took a modest vacation. They lived in a modest middle class house also. Now when the wife works, at least in the case of my first marriage, it's for the extras. The bigger house, the second car, the big screen TV, the expensive vacations ect... . You have to compare lifestyles if you want to use the "wife has to work" argument.

The point of the story is not only how the middle class has more money now than in the 60's but also the reason why there are a lot of people saying the economy "sucks" when in reality they are better off. It's all about envy. Someone that sees another making a lot more than him feels slighted by society even though his own condition has improved. I can't tell you how often I have seen someone bring into the conversation how much some CEO makes when discussing the economy. What the ultra-rich makes really has nothing to do with what joe-sixpack is doing. That is just class envy and a sign that they really don't have an argument.

As far as the question about the size of the middle class goes there is no real answer to that. The whole definition of middle class has changed over the years.

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

I guess the only way to get an apple to apple comparison is to measure the number of people that live in comfortable housing, have enough to eat, are able to get health care and have a few luxuries. That is what I remember the middle class was when I was young. Today it means something different. There are a lot of the extras thrown in to the middle class mix. Just look at the average house today and compair it to the "average" house of the 60's. It's very different.

It all comes down to expectations. What you expect out of society today compaired to the expectations of the 60's. It's hard to get an apple to apple compairison.

[rebeccajo 14]

It was much easier to find work in the 60's. Good work instead of the service type jobs available today.

And when you found that job you weren't shelling out so much of your take home pay for health insurance. In fact you probably weren't paying anything towards it.

What was the percentage of income in the 60's that went towards your housing costs? Heating costs? Transportation?

I think a better statistic would be disposable income including the amount available for savings.

Edited October 19, 2006 by rebeccajo

[GaryC 7]

It was much easier to find work in the 60's. Good work instead of the service type jobs available today.

Thats just a sign of the changing state of technology. In the 60's things were done by hand instead of the automation that we have today. We were also the lone powerhouse in the industrial world. We really didn't have that much competition. Things have changed and we need to change with it or get left behind. It's a lot like things were at the turn of the 20'th century. When the industrial age came in all the people that did things one at a time by hand were left out in the cold. I am sure there was a big industry for making buggies and harnesses. But the car killed that. The ones that made buggies and harnesses had to learn a new trade. The day of someone standing at an assembly line turning the same bolt all day long is gone. The times call for something new. It's not the fault of the government, business or anyone else. It's just the way it is. It's survival of the fittest. Adapt or die.

And when you found that job you weren't shelling out so much of your take home pay for health insurance. In fact you probably weren't paying anything towards it.

That is also a sign of the changing times. Health care is much more expensive now. Why? Because it has also gone high tech. We are able to cure more problems now than we were then. We have a choice there. Go back to the state of health care in the 60's and pay less or take all the wonderful cures and treatments available now and pay for it. If you go to the third world and look at their health care it really strikes you. They have the same level of care that we did in the 60's. It costs much less.

What was the percentage of income in the 60's that went towards your housing costs? Heating costs? Transportation?

Same argument again. In the 60's we had more modest houses compared to today. Things are more expensive because of the size of the houses, the extra do-dad's that we have in them and the fact that we have moved away from the population centers and spread out.

Heating costs are higher because in the 60's oil was a few dollars a barrel. Today it's $70. Not much we can do about that other than find a way to get out of our oil addiction. Transportation cost have the same argument. The cars are nicer and more high-tech. They are also safer and more efficient. Stands to reason that they would cost more.

I think a better statistic would be disposable income including the amount available for savings.

That would depend on if you count the things we take for granted today that we didn't have then. Is a cell phone a neccesity? Is cable TV? Is two cars? If you eliminate those and count that income as disposable then I would say we have more today.

[rebeccajo 14]

Simply because we have 'more' doesn't make our life 'better'.

The 'more' has brought along with it more debt.

Personally, I'm off that 'more' train. One of the reasons we have our home for sale is to buy a SMALLER one. ####### do I need with my 'big' house in the 'burbs, that suck heating dollars out of my pocket and fuel dollars out of my ONE car - yes I refuse to have more than one.

Since when does having MORE improve the quality of one's life? If I'm busting my chops to earn a buck to pay for a load of gadgets, bigger wheels and a house too big for me to dust and vacuum in one hour? Is that living?

I'm sorry I just don't buy into that.

Edited October 19, 2006 by rebeccajo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Simply because we have 'more' doesn't make our life 'better'.

The 'more' has brought along with it more debt.

Personally, I'm off that 'more' train. One of the reasons we have our home for sale is to buy a SMALLER one. ####### do I need with my 'big' house in the 'burbs, that suck heating dollars out of my pocket and fuel dollars out of my ONE car - yes I refuse to have more than one.

Since when does having MORE improve the quality of one's life? If I'm busting my chops to earn a buck to pay for a load of gadgets, bigger wheels and a house too big for me to dust and vacuum in one hour? Is that living?

I'm sorry I just don't buy into that.

[Mirorgate 0]

Simply because we have 'more' doesn't make our life 'better'.

The 'more' has brought along with it more debt.

Personally, I'm off that 'more' train. One of the reasons we have our home for sale is to buy a SMALLER one. ####### do I need with my 'big' house in the 'burbs, that suck heating dollars out of my pocket and fuel dollars out of my ONE car - yes I refuse to have more than one.

Since when does having MORE improve the quality of one's life? If I'm busting my chops to earn a buck to pay for a load of gadgets, bigger wheels and a house too big for me to dust and vacuum in one hour? Is that living?

I'm sorry I just don't buy into that.

Indeed. I work to pay off college tuition. rent keeps goin up, Cost of living also... is out-pacing any type of raise or merit increase that companies offer lately. and my health isurance premiums have have gone from $100 four yrs ago, to over $400 this year... sure that includes my wife now as well, but shes only an added $75 a month. cant wait till the children get here for that increase !

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is very deceiving to go by median income. For one, are we comparing 2 income families of today with single incomes of 1967 or is the author lumping them altogether?

Secondly, what is average ratio from highest family income to the lowest over the years and how has it changed? If more people are below the poverty level now than in 1967, that should be noted.

My mother worked a little back in the 60's, but my dad was the clear breadwinner. That has changed. How about comparing the average salaries for specific types of jobs (say a teacher) - how do we fare with that?

It just seems a bit deceptive to say Mr. and Mrs. Median income is better today as if all the variables stayed the same. I'm really curious to know if he strictly compared 2 income families from 1967 to today, for one. And secondly how many (what percentage of the population) falls within that median income range - comparitive to 40 years ago.

...me tired...must sleep, brother Gary. You leave me something to respond to in the morning.

Glad to have you back!

He is talking about "household income" meaning the total income that can be used for the household. I know what your going to say here, that it takes two people working to do the same as one did in 1967. But if you want to throw that into the mix then you also have to throw in the "extras" that motivates both spouses to work. In the 60's most people only had one car, one TV and took a modest vacation. They lived in a modest middle class house also. Now when the wife works, at least in the case of my first marriage, it's for the extras. The bigger house, the second car, the big screen TV, the expensive vacations ect... . You have to compare lifestyles if you want to use the "wife has to work" argument.

The point of the story is not only how the middle class has more money now than in the 60's but also the reason why there are a lot of people saying the economy "sucks" when in reality they are better off. It's all about envy. Someone that sees another making a lot more than him feels slighted by society even though his own condition has improved. I can't tell you how often I have seen someone bring into the conversation how much some CEO makes when discussing the economy. What the ultra-rich makes really has nothing to do with what joe-sixpack is doing. That is just class envy and a sign that they really don't have an argument.

As far as the question about the size of the middle class goes there is no real answer to that. The whole definition of middle class has changed over the years.

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

I guess the only way to get an apple to apple comparison is to measure the number of people that live in comfortable housing, have enough to eat, are able to get health care and have a few luxuries. That is what I remember the middle class was when I was young. Today it means something different. There are a lot of the extras thrown in to the middle class mix. Just look at the average house today and compair it to the "average" house of the 60's. It's very different.

It all comes down to expectations. What you expect out of society today compaired to the expectations of the 60's. It's hard to get an apple to apple compairison.

Do you really think it's about envy as the author suggests? That assumes that people place higher value in material things than in their personal relationships. Yes, people do become materialistic, but our consumer driven society creates such an environment. Most people are buying that sh!t on credit...usually at incredibly high interest rates. The statistics show that we are saving less and going into debt to spend more - meanwhile someone's telling us that it's good for our economy (consumer index). While I would agree that many people are buying sh!t that they don't need, they are also mixing up their financial priorities (going into to debt to buy a huge, flat screen TV instead of setting aside money for the kid's college tuition).

[Mirorgate 0]

Do you really think it's about envy as the author suggests? That assumes that people place higher value in material things than in their personal relationships. Yes, people do become materialistic, but our consumer driven society creates such an environment. Most people are buying that sh!t on credit...usually at incredibly high interest rates. The statistics show that we are saving less and going into debt to spend more - meanwhile someone's telling us that it's good for our economy (consumer index). While I would agree that many people are buying sh!t that they don't need, they are also mixing up their financial priorities (going into to debt to buy a huge, flat screen TV instead of setting aside money for the kid's college tuition).

#######... paradigm shift.... I'm agreein with Steven in another post.

lord knows where this will end

[GaryC 7]

This is very deceiving to go by median income. For one, are we comparing 2 income families of today with single incomes of 1967 or is the author lumping them altogether?

Secondly, what is average ratio from highest family income to the lowest over the years and how has it changed? If more people are below the poverty level now than in 1967, that should be noted.

My mother worked a little back in the 60's, but my dad was the clear breadwinner. That has changed. How about comparing the average salaries for specific types of jobs (say a teacher) - how do we fare with that?

It just seems a bit deceptive to say Mr. and Mrs. Median income is better today as if all the variables stayed the same. I'm really curious to know if he strictly compared 2 income families from 1967 to today, for one. And secondly how many (what percentage of the population) falls within that median income range - comparitive to 40 years ago.

...me tired...must sleep, brother Gary. You leave me something to respond to in the morning.

Glad to have you back!

He is talking about "household income" meaning the total income that can be used for the household. I know what your going to say here, that it takes two people working to do the same as one did in 1967. But if you want to throw that into the mix then you also have to throw in the "extras" that motivates both spouses to work. In the 60's most people only had one car, one TV and took a modest vacation. They lived in a modest middle class house also. Now when the wife works, at least in the case of my first marriage, it's for the extras. The bigger house, the second car, the big screen TV, the expensive vacations ect... . You have to compare lifestyles if you want to use the "wife has to work" argument.

The point of the story is not only how the middle class has more money now than in the 60's but also the reason why there are a lot of people saying the economy "sucks" when in reality they are better off. It's all about envy. Someone that sees another making a lot more than him feels slighted by society even though his own condition has improved. I can't tell you how often I have seen someone bring into the conversation how much some CEO makes when discussing the economy. What the ultra-rich makes really has nothing to do with what joe-sixpack is doing. That is just class envy and a sign that they really don't have an argument.

As far as the question about the size of the middle class goes there is no real answer to that. The whole definition of middle class has changed over the years.

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

I guess the only way to get an apple to apple comparison is to measure the number of people that live in comfortable housing, have enough to eat, are able to get health care and have a few luxuries. That is what I remember the middle class was when I was young. Today it means something different. There are a lot of the extras thrown in to the middle class mix. Just look at the average house today and compair it to the "average" house of the 60's. It's very different.

It all comes down to expectations. What you expect out of society today compaired to the expectations of the 60's. It's hard to get an apple to apple compairison.

Do you really think it's about envy as the author suggests? That assumes that people place higher value in material things than in their personal relationships. Yes, people do become materialistic, but our consumer driven society creates such an environment. Most people are buying that sh!t on credit...usually at incredibly high interest rates. The statistics show that we are saving less and going into debt to spend more - meanwhile someone's telling us that it's good for our economy (consumer index). While I would agree that many people are buying sh!t that they don't need, they are also mixing up their financial priorities (going into to debt to buy a huge, flat screen TV instead of setting aside money for the kid's college tuition).

Who's fault is that? Our society has become materialistic. The whole point is that we do have more than we did back in the 60's. We are just getting stupid with the way we manage that. I am VERY guilty of that. When I left my marriage 3 years ago I had a negitive net worth even though together we made $70K+/year. That was our fault. I now have a different perspective on life. Saving and planning for the future are the important things. If we had the values as a society that we had in the 60's we would all be so much better off today than we were then. It's our fault not the economy or the governments fault.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who's fault is that? Our society has become materialistic. The whole point is that we do have more than we did back in the 60's. We are just getting stupid with the way we manage that. I am VERY guilty of that. When I left my marriage 3 years ago I had a negitive net worth even though together we made $70K+/year. That was our fault. I now have a different perspective on life. Saving and planning for the future are the important things. If we had the values as a society that we had in the 60's we would all be so much better off today than we were then. It's our fault not the economy or the governments fault.

I agree that getting in over our heads in debt is mostly our fault - although many Americans have unpaid medical bills. It's not a blame game, but just being honest about where we are today, compared to 40 years ago. The article paints it rosey and I'm not buying it. You're implying (or the article is) that such an improvment is to someone's credit (business, gov't policies), but then anything negative falls entirely on the individual...hmmmm.

Another perspective...

Beyond Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart is usefully becoming the symbol of an America where tens of millions of hard-working families cannot make ends meet.

Its wages and health benefits are so dismal that in several states Wal-Mart displaces worker healthcare costs onto tax-supported Medicaid for the poor. Wal-Mart batters down wages not just in the United States, but in Third World countries, where it plays foreign suppliers against one another to demand the lowest possible wholesale price (and wage).

The New York Times reported recently that Democratic politicians from Senator Joseph Lieberman to his winning opponent in the Connecticut primary, Ned Lamont, are making Wal-Mart their nemesis. This focus is certainly helpful in spotlighting one mega-employer that is symbol and substance of an America where the middle-class dream is vanishing, but the problems go far beyond Wal-Mart.

The America of a generation ago had multiple institutions for enabling worker incomes to rise with their rising productivity. More industries were regulated. The federal minimum wage was equal to about half the average wage; today, it is below one - third. The federal government actually enforced workers' right to organize a union. Nearly half of U.S. workers were covered by decent, federally guaranteed pensions, instead of funny-money worker-savings plans. Wall Street was more tightly regulated, and corporate executives were not able to grab such an outlandish share of the total pie. Taxation was progressive, and ordinary workers paid much lower rates. We did not trade with countries that had something close to slave labor, like the Chinese factory system.

Since the mid-1970s, under three Republican presidents and too- often-feeble Democratic ones, this social compact was blown up. Since the early 1970s, real incomes for the top 1 percent have doubled, while earnings for most Americans have stagnated. Middle-class Americans have stayed even only thanks to a second wage-earner -- an average increase of more than 500 annual work hours per household. This is a disguised loss in living standards, cutting into leisure and parenting time, and incurring child-care and transportation costs.

Politicians may legislate special laws, requiring higher minimum wages for mega-stores (as Chicago has done) or requiring them to contribute to health coverage (as Maryland has attempted), but until our political system addresses the larger problems, even reforming Wal-Mart is a drop in the bucket.

The system is now essentially rigged so that workers' productivity can rise, but workers' incomes can't. A study prepared last month for Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee and released by Representative Barney Frank of Newton showed that since 2002 annual productivity growth has averaged more than 3 percent, while real wage increases have been under half of 1 percent. Corporate profits, meanwhile, have risen from 8.5 percent to 14.4 percent of national income.

Whenever wages show signs of rising with productivity, the Federal Reserve whacks them back down. It shows no such concern about corporate profits being excessive. Until this month, when the Federal Reserve announced a "pause" in rate hikes, our central bank had hiked interest rates 17 times since June 2004, citing fears of inflation, mainly in rising labor costs. But note the sleight of hand. If workers' wages are lagging well behind workers' increased productivity, then rising wages are not a source of inflation. The rising "total labor costs" include pensions and health insurance. Doesn't that benefit workers? In fact, the increase in recent employer contributions to pension plans is mainly to make up for the corporate looting of plans during the 1990s.

In the stock market euphoria of that decade, corporations used outlandish assumptions about future stock market returns to reduce annual contributions they were supposed to make to pension funds. The replenishing of fund shortfalls in recent years is not a source of true worker compensation -- and it can hardly be burdensome given the huge increase in net corporate profits.

The hike in employer health insurance costs, likewise, is not a true benefit for workers. It reflects a health system out of control, and excessive charges and profits by health maintenance organizations and drug companies. Actual health insurance benefits to workers are being cut back, and not just by Wal-Mart. Corporations generally are hiking the employee share of premiums, and plans are increasing deductibles and copayments.

I hope Wal-Mart does become a poster child for all that's out of whack with the U.S. economy. But we need to go after a great deal more than Wal-Mart if politicians are serious about restoring the dream of an America where people who work hard and play by the rules can aspire to be middle class.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. This column originally appeared in The Boston Globe.

[GaryC 7]

Bah! I don't buy into the bash Walmart crowd. Walmart does a service to the working class by making the things we want and need affordable. It's utter BS to blame Walmart for being successful. I love Walmart and I shop there all the time. If you don't like the pay and benefits they offer then don't work there!

[Mirorgate 0]

Wal-Mart = Cheap ####### made Cheaply

[GaryC 7]

Wal-Mart = Cheap ####### made Cheaply

Well, this is a free country. If you don't like the stuff then don't shop there. It seems that an awfull lot of people do not agree since they are the biggest retailer in the country. Personally I think they offer good stuff at a good price. I can get what I want without spending a fortune for it. It helps MY bottom line.

Oh well, have fun guys. Now it's my bedtime!