Minimum income - good thing or bad?

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Working in corporate finance? Quite a bit. From developing economic models to predict revenue to weighing in and factoring in opportunity cost to help drive decisions. The latter helps me in my personal life as well.

How could you ever manage like the other 310 million Americans not in finance.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

We're having a discussion on universal basic income, not minimum wage, the two differ substantially. As for my knowledge, I've studied economics for over 4 years and have read several books from varying views of economics from liberal to conservative to libertarian.

For something supposedly so objective, it's surprising it's so politicized.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Common sense, if you have a steady stream of substantial money, you're going to consume more things. It's why people who make more money tend to spend more than those who do not. Lol shit isn't rocket science yet here you are. With a universal basic income, everyone would get a preset amount of money every year (for the sake of example, let's say $10k) that would reflect a livable wage. An extra $10k/year is a lot of money to a lot of people.

Here is why I can't take you seriously:
we already have examples to pull from that you could gather data from, and instead you want to shoot from the hip using unsubstantiated theories. We already have a form of UBI in the form of SS and WIC, TANF assistance programs, and there are other countries that are utilizing it as well. I don't recall any of these problems being mentioned in that contents. You would think they would know about something that was simple common sense...odd.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

So there you go Mr. Know It All about Economics, the theory does explain it. This wasn't some theory that was made up after the fact either...it's something I've read about, studied on, and did all sorts of exciting mathematical proofs on many years ago in college.

And yet, it's still a theory...odd.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Your ranting.



Never recall saying that, but ok.



Because it does have basis in fact.

It'd be more accurate to say if you actually understood macroeconomics, we wouldn't be having these conversations.

If we're talking minimum wage, increasing that would have hardly no impact at all on inflation, unless you wanted to bump it up to something absurdly high. I also don't think it's an effective way to fight wealth inequality, expanding the EITC would be significantly more efficient at addressing that. But what do I know, the basis in which I form that opinion is "bullshit".

Pretty much, but I agree with you mostly, it should be a combination of both.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

How could you ever manage like the other 310 million Americans not in finance.

Given the financial decisions many of them make, much better off than a lot of them.

For something supposedly so objective, it's surprising it's so politicized.

It is if you get your economics related stuff from politicians, which it seems you do vs what the actual theories actually say. You really think shit like "trickle down" economics were things widely accepted by actual economists? Or that Alan Greenspan's aggressive slashing of rates during strong economic growth were things that a lot of economists thought was well rounded in theory?

Don't conflate the actual practice and theory with how it gets bastardized and politicized to suit a party's own agenda. Your equivalent on the right would make the same mistake but on the other end of the spectrum and assume that Keynesian economics is just running high deficits and high debt all the time to spur growth, which is also false.

Here is why I can't take you seriously:
we already have examples to pull from that you could gather data from, and instead you want to shoot from the hip using unsubstantiated theories. We already have a form of UBI in the form of SS and WIC, TANF assistance programs, and there are other countries that are utilizing it as well. I don't recall any of these problems being mentioned in that contents. You would think they would know about something that was simple common sense...odd.

If you think what the OP suggested (universal basic income for all) is at all similar as any of those social programs you've mentioned, then I can't take you seriously.

I know those programs you've mentioned are forms of universal basic income, but OP didn't propose those sorts of programs, he proposed an expansive and aggressive UBI of $15k/person. That applies to EVERYONE (presumably 18 or older), not people who meet a specific criteria. Those programs wouldn't really attribute to inflation since they all affect a small proportion of the overall population. What OP suggested would affect 100% of adults. Two totally different scales.

And yet, it's still a theory...odd.

Odd, so is evolution and general relativity. Funny how that works isn't it? Something doesn't have to be law to be widely accepted.

Pretty much, but I agree with you mostly, it should be a combination of both.

Odd that you agree since it's based on so called bullshit.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

You know, it never occurred to me, but were you getting reminders for every reply in this thread just because I tagged you?

Ooops...was not my intent. Have deleted you from op. No need to reply - might get into a firestorm here lol.

It's entertaining though. No melding of minds.

Yeah, fuck you too milk bagger!

In a country like USA, forget about this. The whole conversation is idiotic. For Finland, the whole conversation is needed, and I FUCKING HATE THAT STUPID MOTHER FUCKING SHIT!!

So how do I really feel about it? Lemme share, my dear milk abusing friend who should be locked up!

Here we have many people who need social security to support their families, and can't accept a job because they'd be cut off from their social support programs because they start earning money. Sounds fair? Yes. But in reality, they are low income workers, usually with kids and for their futures, and for them to become tax payers that will benefit our government, we need them working. They are in a really shitty situation now, since they can't work, they can't start benefitting themselves, because they will lose the food from their tables.

Then there are the students, who get support and free university here, as long as they don't work. In most cities, the rent is close to 500, the total benefits are 450, and if you get paid enough to eat and to rent, you need to work more since the government will take the aid back. It is in our countrys best interest to get the students out from school to the real ass jobs as fast as possible and with as much work experience as possible since every 22 year old these days has a resume of a 50 year old.

So, I get it. I truly do get it, there are benefits for this such as not humiliating those who are poor and in a tough spot but...

How about us making a gigantic reform that enables let's say 10% of the students and 20% of those who benefit from social security benefits make their cases? For students like I was, hands down no extra support. I didn't get along with my parents, student loans kept food in my table. But no fucking way would my dad let me starve. I worked during the summer and while school was on to build a resume, but


I wasn't going hungry! That 10% should be saved for those who has no rich parents, no help from outside and still go to school and work every day. In my way, they would get to keep their government assistance, and work for money without fearing they have to pay it back.

The poor people in tough situations? They should be allowed to earn money and work experience without fearing they'll lose the food from their table too. It enables them to become better tax payers in the future and builds their financial confidence. They can start planning on things, which saves them money, which saves the government money.

This is the thing, if we try to make it nationwide , even in a country this small, lib is right. We can make it a million a month and in three months none of us will remember what one could buy with a million in the old days.

So, I agree the idea is great. But instead make it truly benefit the poor who are willing to work their way up, that way they will benefit us all more, and their children get positive role models from working parents, and the new poor here, the students from poor families can get a head start at the job market.

Edit. As a concussion: All Canadians will suffer after I take over the world if you don't stop those milk baggers ruining the world. You all are sick and perverted and I hope you all die in some horrible accident that makes your hot pm move to finland and use me as his personal guide.

Really. He is that hot.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Your equivalent on the right would make the same mistake but on the other end of the spectrum and assume that Keynesian economics is just running high deficits and high debt all the time to spur growth, which is also false.

Are you referring to me?

Because I thought I mentioned in one of my posts that everyone ignores the other half of Keynes approach which is to act counter cyclical and save to replenish and pay off the deficit run. I thought I had a *reasonable* though not expert understanding of Keynesian economics.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Lups

Yeah, fuck you too milk bagger!

In a country like USA, forget about this. The whole conversation is idiotic. For Finland, the whole conversation is needed, and I FUCKING HATE THAT STUPID MOTHER FUCKING SHIT!!

So how do I really feel about it? Lemme share, my dear milk abusing friend who should be locked up!

Here we have many people who need social security to support their families, and can't accept a job because they'd be cut off from their social support programs because they start earning money. Sounds fair? Yes. But in reality, they are low income workers, usually with kids and for their futures, and for them to become tax payers that will benefit our government, we need them working. They are in a really shitty situation now, since they can't work, they can't start benefitting themselves, because they will lose the food from their tables.

Then there are the students, who get support and free university here, as long as they don't work. In most cities, the rent is close to 500, the total benefits are 450, and if you get paid enough to eat and to rent, you need to work more since the government will take the aid back. It is in our countrys best interest to get the students out from school to the real ass jobs as fast as possible and with as much work experience as possible since every 22 year old these days has a resume of a 50 year old.

So, I get it. I truly do get it, there are benefits for this such as not humiliation those who are poor and in a tough spot but...

How about us making a gigantic reform that enables let's say 10% of the students and 20% of those who benefit from social security benefits make their cases? For students like I was, hands down no extra support. I didn't get along with my parents, student loans kept food in my table. But no fucking way would my dad let me starve. I worked during the summer and while school was on to build a resume, but


I wasn't going hungry! That 10% should be saved for those who has no rich parents, no help from outside and still go to school and work every day. In my way, they would get to keep their government assistance, and work for money without fearing they have to pay it back.

The poor people in tough situations? They should be allowed to earn money and work experience without fearing they'll lose the food from their table too. It enables them to become better tax payers in the future and builds their financial confidence. They can start planning on things, which saves them money, which saves the government money.

This is the thing, if we try to make it nationwide , even in a country this small, lib is right. We can make it a million a month and in three months none of us will remember what one could buy with a million in the old days.

So, I agree the idea is great. But instead of making it truly benefit the poor who are willing to work their way up, that way they will benefit us all more, and their children get positive role models from working parents, and the new poor here, the students from poor families can get a head start at the job market.

Edit. As a concussion: All Canadians will suffer after I take over the world if you don't stop those milk baggers ruining the world. You all are sick and perverted and I hope you all die in some horrible accident that makes your hot pm move to finland and use me as his personal guide.

Really. He is that hot.

I gave you an appreciate for this post.

I'm really just appreciating your post for all the words.

So many words.

Really, I'm speechless.

I'm going to ship you a bag of milk if you'll give me your address. I feel like if you were able to properly hold it in your hands and study the way the plastic reflects the sunlight that you might come around to the idea of milk in bags.

I'm not saying its not an interesting idea. I'm saying it won't work in practice. Not with human nature the way it is. But here's what I can get behind in your statement - the allowing of a certain percentage of people on welfare to make a case to be able to earn add'l income if they can show merit.

Because that way, sure, they'll make a little more at first, but they will develop skills and experience that make them more valuable, to the point where they will make much more than welfare and they'll come off welfare and work.

I think this idea would work better with a time cap though - say they can earn extra for the first 4 years (just spitballing a number) - after 4 years is up, they are completely off welfare for at least one year, no matter what. This way, they are incentivized to work hard so that they can support themselves by the 4th year, PLUS, only those who are willing to work hard and make something of themselves would apply, because who else would want to lose their benefits by the 4th year.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Given the financial decisions many of them make, much better off than a lot of them.

Given the financial decisions that everyone made, even large investment banks with people who are far more savy than you or I made, you mean.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

It is if you get your economics related stuff from politicians, which it seems you do vs what the actual theories actually say. You really think shit like "trickle down" economics were things widely accepted by actual economists? Or that Alan Greenspan's aggressive slashing of rates during strong economic growth were things that a lot of economists thought was well rounded in theory?

Again, if there were hard facts and information surrounding these decisions, they would have never been made. Then again, who was I to question Greenspan, chair of the Fed, on these matters, right?

(Which is essentially what you've argued a few pages ago)

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Don't conflate the actual practice and theory with how it gets bastardized and politicized to suit a party's own agenda. Your equivalent on the right would make the same mistake but on the other end of the spectrum and assume that Keynesian economics is just running high deficits and high debt all the time to spur growth, which is also false.

Watch as I pull data points out my ass you'll fall over yourself to refute. FDR's New Deal caused growth every year except the year when they cut spending for fear of the growing debt.

Crazy how that works.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

If you think what the OP suggested (universal basic income for all) is at all similar as any of those social programs you've mentioned, then I can't take you seriously.

Trust me, this whole conversation has been a joke to me from the start. Economic IS as much bullshit as psychology is. Just because you add finance to the equation doesn't make it more accurate, you're just adding another variable to what is already a convoluted mess of information.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

I know those programs you've mentioned are forms of universal basic income, but OP didn't propose those sorts of programs, he proposed an expansive and aggressive UBI of $15k/person. That applies to EVERYONE (presumably 18 or older), not people who meet a specific criteria. Those programs wouldn't really attribute to inflation since they all affect a small proportion of the overall population. What OP suggested would affect 100% of adults. Two totally different scales.

I'm inclined to agree on the comment of scope, however I just don't agree with your assessment of the outcome.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Odd, so is evolution and general relativity. Funny how that works isn't it? Something doesn't have to be law to be widely accepted.

Well, with those theories, they have undergone rigorous challenges and testing, can we say the same for the tenets of economics?

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Odd that you agree since it's based on so called bullshit.

Oh it is, but I'm full of shit too.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

I gave you an appreciate for this post.

I'm really just appreciating your post for all the words.

So many words.

Really, I'm speechless.

I'm going to ship you a bag of milk if you'll give me your address. I feel like if you were able to properly hold it in your hands and study the way the plastic reflects the sunlight that you might come around to the idea of milk in bags.

I'm not saying its not an interesting idea. I'm saying it won't work in practice. Not with human nature the way it is. But here's what I can get behind in your statement - the allowing of a certain percentage of people on welfare to make a case to be able to earn add'l income if they can show merit.

Because that way, sure, they'll make a little more at first, but they will develop skills and experience that make them more valuable, to the point where they will make much more than welfare and they'll come off welfare and work.

I think this idea would work better with a time cap though - say they can earn extra for the first 4 years (just spitballing a number) - after 4 years is up, they are completely off welfare for at least one year, no matter what. This way, they are incentivized to work hard so that they can support themselves by the 4th year, PLUS, only those who are willing to work hard and make something of themselves would apply, because who else would want to lose their benefits by the 4th year.

Oh fuck off, I don't want your mistreated milk! I have Valio here to protest against! And I'm serious, I boycott them too since they sold their ice cream manufacturing business to Nestlé. Man, I have so much to boycott before the whole milk shipment from an us resident who is a milk bagger gets here, I'll die of thirst before landing of the abused milk.

I agree, there has to be a time limit, but it has to adjust to situations. I'd say 3 years in full for low income students (again, in finland.) and for poor families with one parent, I'd first explore the job market for them while paying the extra, and help them reach education in their chosen field. Basically make them earn more to be able to cut off the support.

That saves money in so many ways. People who only benefit from the system tends to hang out with people who only benefit from the system. People who don't work for their income abuse benefits. A double net of support and building up the resumes and time spending issues (drugs, alcohol, depression, you name it, people with very little tends to make it harder for themselves too) will pay back.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Z K

You're in a totally different thing...

My father used to have a restaurant. Every employee was a more than an employee, they were a friend. When hard times happened, they all shared in it. When business was booming - they all shared in that as well.

A small business may be a big in a local setting but the world doesn't revolve around small businesses as you say. The amount of money and influence of small businesses is tiny. Large companies employ more people than anything else.

And as for automation in small business, that is not really true as well. In Japan, there is often no need for a host or waiter in most small restaurants. Customers buy meal tickets from a vending machine. The cook gets the order on a screen from the vending machine and prepares the food. You sit down and punch in your seat number with your meal ticket number. The food comes to you on a conveyer belt. When you finish, you put the tray and dishes in individual bins that drop into a washing machine. Only a few people are needed to run the entire restaurant. Food is not expensive, its fresh, tasty and customers can finish eating in less than 20 minutes from start of ordering. And they can serve hundreds of people every day efficiently.

Depending on the source, there are 28m small business in the US. 22m of those are non employment businesses. Yet those small business employ between 48% and 55% of working Americans. And 65% of the new jobs since 1974 were created by small businesses.

With the exception of some tech and communication companies, if all mega corporations went away tomorrow, the small business would pick up the slack without much of a problem while absorbing the vast majority of those mega corporation employees.

The government (federal, state and local) employs about 25% of the rest of the US work force which means large companies employ less than half of what small business do.

Government and large corporations are similar in the fact that they are the wizard behind the curtain. The have money and power to wield and anyone with money and power is worshipped in this day and age. Both could go away and we'd all be just fine.

But my argument isn't for zero government, nor zero business regulation, nor zero automation. I'm all for small, short reaching government, common sense regulations and automation for wherever it makes sense. The fastest growing markets in the small business sector are made up of auto repair shops, beauty shops and dry cleaners. 1/3 of these are somewhat automated which likely represents the future ratio of automated small business in the future as most small business can't afford the cost of admission for true automation or their industry just can't be automated.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Given the financial decisions that everyone made, even large investment banks with people who are far more savy than you or I made, you mean.

I didn't realize large investment banks were people but ok.

Watch as I pull data points out my ass you'll fall over yourself to refute. FDR's New Deal caused growth every year except the year when they cut spending for fear of the growing debt.

Crazy how that works.

Refuting you is about as easy as it is to throw on a pair of shoes but you're more than welcome to try. Refuting one who is clueless and ignorant tends to be a very simple thing to do.

Trust me, this whole conversation has been a joke to me from the start. Economic IS as much bullshit as psychology is. Just because you add finance to the equation doesn't make it more accurate, you're just adding another variable to what is already a convoluted mess of information.

Well of course it would be to someone who doesn't know a thing about it. I categorize you in the same vain as I categorize climate change deniers. Don't agree with something? Clearly it must be bullshit. Lol it's seriously about as dumb as it gets.

I'm inclined to agree on the comment of scope, however I just don't agree with your assessment of the outcome.

Well you clearly like being wrong so this is not surprising.

Well, with those theories, they have undergone rigorous challenges and testing, can we say the same for the tenets of economics?

Ahh I see, is there a certain, hard number of rigorous challenges and testing a theory must go through before it's no longer bullshit? I also didn't realize psychology was also bullshit. Wonder what that field did to make you so bitter.

Oh it is, but I'm full of shit too.

As much as you are clueless.

Let's say we compromise and just call it fake science and move on since you obviously lack the maturity to bother to actually understand something before writing it off as bullshit, at least those of us with tact are capable of doing so.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Was just reading some discussions about Canada instituting a minimum income (numbers being thrown around are $15K per person).

I think this is very much in the fledgling stage and probably actually will never come to reality, despite the Green Party and the NDP seemingly proposing the idea - neither are really a force in Canada. NDP maybe a little, the Green Party is a joke though. Thankfully.

As for me, I'm going to lose it if fricking Turdeau or that crook Wynne institutes it in Canada. It's a lousy idea. And the proponents go further to say it should be in ADDITION to all the other welfare programs we have.

Precisely how much do I, as a contributing member of society need to pay someone else, who doesn't contribute meaningfully to society, to reach this magical political correctness goal that the Liberals have set forth for us?

It is crap - either do something that society values and reap the rewards, or don't, but don't expect society to kick in and support you in that case.

Edit: Do other countries have this already? Is it working?

Damn it. You edited Lups out of this post. I was going to respond to it every time i made a post.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Damn it. You edited Lups out of this post. I was going to respond to it every time i made a post.

What the fuck did I ever do to you? You a milk bagger? Are ya? Huh?

Now, I have a new agenda these days!!
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1364890

As of now, 82 people have opened the fucking thread, and apparently nobody has kids and nobody has even heard about the greatest book Sweden has produced?

Come on! I hate the swedes! They are better than us finns. But you guys keep telling us Sweden sucks and ... It doesn't. Why? That book.

My new hobby, children books posted to the politics sub forum.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

I didn't realize large investment banks were people but ok.

I didn't say they were, but their actions are governed by people. How could they be so wrong?

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Refuting you is about as easy as it is to throw on a pair of shoes but you're more than welcome to try. Refuting one who is clueless and ignorant tends to be a very simple thing to do.

Why not?

I notice your counter was a personal attack. I'll chalk this up as 'win' for me. I thought massive debt and spending were supposed to weigh down the economy - that's the theory, right?

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Well of course it would be to someone who doesn't know a thing about it. I categorize you in the same vain as I categorize climate change deniers. Don't agree with something? Clearly it must be bullshit. Lol it's seriously about as dumb as it gets.

I understand it perfectly, I'm just not on board with a pretentious social science that is constantly trying to justify it's own existence. Sorry that you carry an inflated worth of what should otherwise another footnote in a college textbook.

Such a science there is zero consensus between literally any economist on any subject.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Well you clearly like being wrong so this is not surprising.

You're batting at .000 dude.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Ahh I see, is there a certain, hard number of rigorous challenges and testing a theory must go through before it's no longer bullshit? I also didn't realize psychology was also bullshit. Wonder what that field did to make you so bitter.

Wonder why you're so invested in trying to make economics more than the subcategory of social science it is. For me, it's barely above philosophy in regards to practical application on knowledge.

And YES, actual testing is one of the tenets of scientific method, I'm not the asshole because you don't know that.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

As much as you are clueless.

Let's say we compromise and just call it fake science and move on since you obviously lack the maturity to bother to actually understand something before writing it off as bullshit, at least those of us with tact are capable of doing so.

Sorry, I'm not willing to play that game. You obviously overestimated your own depth in this field, and come up short on facts and examples (REAL EXAMPLES) to prove your point. I can't even call it a fake science in any sense because there is barely any real science behind what they assume is human nature. Shit, Borin was literally stating people will act in their own self interest (which is literally a philosophical argument of Thomas Hobbes) And no one is holding his theory as the definitive truth, yet when we throw money into the equation, it become true? GTFO of here with that bullshit.

[Taskmaster]

Salt.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Lups

What the fuck did I ever do to you? You a milk bagger? Are ya? Huh?

Now, I have a new agenda these days!!
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1364890

As of now, 82 people have opened the fucking thread, and apparently nobody has kids and nobody has even heard about the greatest book Sweden has produced?

Come on! I hate the swedes! They are better than us finns. But you guys keep telling us Sweden sucks and ... It doesn't. Why? That book.

My new hobby, children books posted to the politics sub forum.

No milk bags here. Just good old fashioned almond milk.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

No milk bags here. Just good old fashioned almond milk.

You evil mofo!

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

No milk bags here. Just good old fashioned almond milk.

Almond milk is delicious.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Depending on the source, there are 28m small business in the US. 22m of those are non employment businesses. Yet those small business employ between 48% and 55% of working Americans. And 65% of the new jobs since 1974 were created by small businesses.

With the exception of some tech and communication companies, if all mega corporations went away tomorrow, the small business would pick up the slack without much of a problem while absorbing the vast majority of those mega corporation employees.

The government (federal, state and local) employs about 25% of the rest of the US work force which means large companies employ less than half of what small business do.

Government and large corporations are similar in the fact that they are the wizard behind the curtain. The have money and power to wield and anyone with money and power is worshipped in this day and age. Both could go away and we'd all be just fine.

But my argument isn't for zero government, nor zero business regulation, nor zero automation. I'm all for small, short reaching government, common sense regulations and automation for wherever it makes sense. The fastest growing markets in the small business sector are made up of auto repair shops, beauty shops and dry cleaners. 1/3 of these are somewhat automated which likely represents the future ratio of automated small business in the future as most small business can't afford the cost of admission for true automation or their industry just can't be automated.

I've no doubt that there's a lot of small businesses. The problem is small businesses don't team together. Instead they compete against each other for a small slice of customers.

A large company creates a uniform structure and because of their size can bargain for health insurance and offer benefits for little cost for their employees. Likewise, they can go after large work contracts and be able to perform them. Because of their size, they find efficiency in everything they do. For companies such as VW, they are so huge, they own their own supply chain, make their own components and don't need suppliers for a lot of parts. The cost savings are huge. Large companies are needed to provide the things customers want at a low price - they have "economy of scale".

The other thing is, when has a "small business" created a whole new product like a smart phone? Or started manufacturing cars on a global scale? For these things, you need a ton of money and lots of moving parts to get things to work together. They also have the capital to innovate and change how things are done due to their scale. Sony created and came to market with Bluray discs. Because they were so big, they got everyone to support their standard and now everyone uses Bluray discs for movies.

For your example of "auto repair shops, beauty shops and dry cleaners"... most of these small business owners are not independent but just resale services and rely on others. Car dealers and manufacturers work on proprietary interfaces and products that make it hard for independent shops to work on their cars. For some troubleshooting, they can't do it but the dealers can. Beauty shops often buy products from distributors. They are little more than resellers of products. Dry cleaners... most dry cleaners I've seen do not operate their own dry cleaning equipment. Instead the clothes are sent to a large facility that does the cleaning because its more cost effective. The dry cleaning shop is just a middle man in this process. There are a lot of demand for these services but they don't innovate or change the markets.

Anyway, this is going way off topic...