Dennis Ferguson wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

N2EY wrote:

"Kim" wrote in message

Yeah, I am glad you re-brought that back up, Dee. I have often wondered how
"close" a comparison it is when we start comparing the wage:cost of living
ratio from yesteryears and today. Because, we do have "bigger, better"
ideas in our products today.


Sure - in fact, my current home (built 1950-51) is a case study in the
differences. I doubt anyone would build a house like mine new today in
a similar neighborhood, but a half-century ago it was a pretty
standard "little box made of ticky-tacky" design. And most of the
differences (more bathrooms, bigger, more feature-filled kitchen, AC
from the getgo) cost more than just simple square footage add-ons.

If you want a recent document with an outline of relative housing costs:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi.../afford95.html

It shows over a recent time period what I have noted over a longer time
period, which is that less people can afford to buy a modestly priced
house. In 1995, it was 44 percent could not afford to do this, an
increase from 40 percent in 1988.


Not really a recent-enough time period, however. Housing affordability
is volatile since it strongly depends on things like mortgage interest
rates and non-salary income, which can vary greatly. Obviously interest
rates have varied greatly in the downward direction in very recent years,
and we had a few good capital gains years before that.

If you look at this one

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi.../q303tab5.html

you'll see that the rate of home ownership in the US, which varied
between 63% and 66% for the 30 years prior to 1995, took a jump starting
in about 1997 and was at 68.4% in the quarter just ended. It seems
hard to argue that houses have gotten less affordable over the long
term when the fraction of people who demonstrate they can afford
to own a house by doing so remained fairly constant for so long and
actually took a significant upturn in the last few years.

Interesting. In comparing between the years that are specified in the
other document, they also show an increase! I wonder what causes the
discrepancy?

My link: 1995 ~56% 1894 ~60 %
Your link 1995 ~65% 1984 ~64.8%

Perhaps the difference is that many people are living in houses that
they can't afford? There is some data there, but I haven't had time to
check it out.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote:

Then the contract should be changed because
it's not cost-effective in the long run.


It often costs more to change a contract than it does to simply live with
a minor inefficiency. Nobody is losing that much money. It's just an
irratation to constantly buy new fans.


I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them
to do so! It's part of life in a modern industrialized
society with global trade.


I've been going in circles with Kim over this very subject. People
(consumers) purchase hundreds of items each year. Products constantly
change, meaning ongoing research for each item would be required. Because of
that, consumers simply don't have the time or the informational resources to
even superficially research each of the items they purchase. I certainly
don't do it and I seriously doubt you do either (however, Kim says she
does).


They don't have to. The govt. requires all sorts of
labels on all sorts of items, which means all one
needs to know is how to interpret those labels.
Outfits like Consumer's Union do product testing
so we don't have to. And the 'net gives us access
to enormous amounts of information.


Do remember we're talking about the economy. Labels are not going to tell
us which companies are moving factories overseas, or which are paying their
employees decent wages, or which are using illegal immigrants, or which are
using materials made overseas, which are using sweatshop labor, or so on.
And the internet does give us access to enormous amounts of information -
most of it biased, agenda-filled, garbage. Getting accurate and reliable
information is the hard part. Government at least tries to offer info about
larger corporations, but who offers that info when it comes to the stores,
businesses, and factories, in my hometown (or in hometowns around the
country)?


And it doesn't take a degree in economics to know
that if enough people stop going to Ma's Diner and
instead patronize Taco Heaven, that Ma's is going
to go out of business.


Consumers don't act as a single body, Jim. When was the last time you
pondered what other consumers are doing when you went to a restaurant?
Without doing so, there is no way to know other people have stopped going to
Ma's Diner. Instead, you go to Taco Heaven assuming everything is just fine
over at Ma's Diner. Other consumers do the same. Most only discover there's
a problem at Ma's Diner when they see the going out of business sign. The
same pattern plays out in other markets (Wal-Mart versus local stores and so
on).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Dwight, are you calling me a liar? (snip)


Well, call it what you want, Kim. You told me that you're an informed
consumer that routinely researches the products you buy.


No, Dwight. I did *not* say that at all. In fact, here is what I said:

"And, while I don't ponder global
economic implications with every shopping experience, I certainly do a lot
of the time."


Is this really where you get your information from, Kim? I stopped
looking
after seeing the prominent "Boycott Bush" link on the
www.ethicalconsumer.org home page. If this site is at all typical of the
others, these are sites pushing their own little agendas, not sources of
accurate and reliable consumer information.


Then, get your own damned sites, Dwight. Point is, become smart about what
you're buying. And if you're going to disregard all of something just
because of a part of it you don't like, then you'll never get
anywhere--other than where you are right now: able to spew a bunch of crap
with no basis in fact or reality.

You really are lazy, eh, Dwight?

For cryin' out loud, Dwight, who the phucking (HansTM) hell
do you think is going to keep "business, the government, and
the courts" responsible?

Well, isn't that just an astonishing revelation, Kim? Did you just now
realize this entire discussion is all within the context of this country,
it's people, and their system of government? That's what's going on in
this
thread, Kim - people discussing what they think their government should
do.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



Gads, you're an ass Dwight...

Kim W5TIT

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

Then the contract should be changed because it's not cost-effective in
the long run.

Because whether such ideas work or not is largely
dependent on those details.

I wasn't aware we were here to make a particular idea work. This is a
general discussion in a newsgroup. Anything more than that would require
considerable time (which I place a high value on) and a research &
development budget (which I haven't seen anyone offer).

I'm simply saying that the hard work is in the details.


heh I bet Dwight couldn't handle the idea that he's probably more
manipulated by subliminal advertising than the "average joe." :)

Kim W5TIT

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:55:56 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Yep, sure have and did! And, along with that, customer service/support is
"shipped"overseas quite often. When you call the "local" help group for a
service you're purchasing, or product, it's likely you're talking to someone
in the Phillipines.

Mostly India now.


What outfits use accounting in India? no question that tech support has
in large part moved there.

The only time I legitimately expected offshore customer support, and
got it, was when I needed warranty repair on a kitchen appliance
made in and branded as from Australia. The lady's Aussi accent at
the end of the 800 number transfer string was unmistakable.

She referred me to the service department of my local dealer, of
course. Not like Seiko which wanted me to contact the local dealer
who would have to ship the defective watch (30 years old) back to Japan
for service. I canned it and bought a Timex.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article , "charlesb"
writes:

Hey, I hate to interrupt the historical and political discussion, but I have
a Ham Radio - related question.

Sorry to abruptly drift back on-topic like this, but what is the latest poop
on the BPL rollout in Virginia? There has been more than enough time for
something to have happened... So what happened?

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Docket 03-104 is still active. As of the close of the day on Thursday,
13 November 2003, there were 5,088 documents in the ECFS on BPL.

FCC 03-104 isn't an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). All the
Commission wanted was some guidance from all on what standards
should be imposed when they DO issue an NPRM. Go to the ECFS
and look at the end of the list for the FCC documents originally
issued.

By now the Commission has gotten at least 4500 comments from all
sorts of folks saying IT IS NOT A GOOD THING. BPL isn't a good
thing. It is a bad thing for everyone except a minority of would-be
profit makers wanting to soak the public for BPL access to the
Internet.

LHA

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:
N2EY wrote:
"Kim" wrote in message
Yeah, I am glad you re-brought that back up, Dee. I have often wondered how
"close" a comparison it is when we start comparing the wage:cost of living
ratio from yesteryears and today. Because, we do have "bigger, better"
ideas in our products today.


Sure - in fact, my current home (built 1950-51) is a case study in the
differences. I doubt anyone would build a house like mine new today in
a similar neighborhood, but a half-century ago it was a pretty
standard "little box made of ticky-tacky" design. And most of the
differences (more bathrooms, bigger, more feature-filled kitchen, AC
from the getgo) cost more than just simple square footage add-ons.

If you want a recent document with an outline of relative housing costs:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi.../afford95.html

It shows over a recent time period what I have noted over a longer time
period, which is that less people can afford to buy a modestly priced
house. In 1995, it was 44 percent could not afford to do this, an
increase from 40 percent in 1988.

Not really a recent-enough time period, however. Housing affordability
is volatile since it strongly depends on things like mortgage interest
rates and non-salary income, which can vary greatly. Obviously interest
rates have varied greatly in the downward direction in very recent years,
and we had a few good capital gains years before that.

If you look at this one

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi.../q303tab5.html

you'll see that the rate of home ownership in the US, which varied
between 63% and 66% for the 30 years prior to 1995, took a jump starting
in about 1997 and was at 68.4% in the quarter just ended. It seems
hard to argue that houses have gotten less affordable over the long
term when the fraction of people who demonstrate they can afford
to own a house by doing so remained fairly constant for so long and
actually took a significant upturn in the last few years.

I don't think it hard to argue at all, Dennis. Years back, people were
advised not to spend more than 25% of their income on housing. Later
this was revised to 33%. Today it is not uncommon for folks with two
incomes paying *half* of their combined income for housing.

In my area, houses are being given away and property taxes are very low.
Wait until you're near retirement before buying here though. You have
to bring your own money.

Dave K8MN

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"N2EY" wrote:

Then the contract should be changed because
it's not cost-effective in the long run.

It often costs more to change a contract than it does to simply live with
a minor inefficiency. Nobody is losing that much money. It's just an
irratation to constantly buy new fans.

If the old one was that great, why isn't it still running?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them
to do so! It's part of life in a modern industrialized
society with global trade.

I've been going in circles with Kim over this very subject. People
(consumers) purchase hundreds of items each year. Products constantly
change, meaning ongoing research for each item would be required. Because of
that, consumers simply don't have the time or the informational resources to
even superficially research each of the items they purchase. I certainly
don't do it and I seriously doubt you do either (however, Kim says she
does).

It isn't necessary to research each and every item you buy, Dwight.
I certainly do research before I make big purchases and I make my
decision after weighing a number of factors including quality, where an
item is made and how much it costs. With items like TV's and VCR's, I
only worry about quality and price. There haven't been any of those
devices made in this country in years.

Take amateur radio gear as an example. Did you buy the "plastic fan" of
amateur radio equipment? Was it made in the U.S.? I run Ten-Tec gear
despite price. I get a superior performance from a transceiver made in
the U.S. I could have gotten a cheaper radio made in Japan.

And it doesn't take a degree in economics to know
that if enough people stop going to Ma's Diner and
instead patronize Taco Heaven, that Ma's is going
to go out of business.

Consumers don't act as a single body, Jim. When was the last time you
pondered what other consumers are doing when you went to a restaurant?
Without doing so, there is no way to know other people have stopped going to
Ma's Diner. Instead, you go to Taco Heaven assuming everything is just fine
over at Ma's Diner. Other consumers do the same. Most only discover there's
a problem at Ma's Diner when they see the going out of business sign. The
same pattern plays out in other markets (Wal-Mart versus local stores and so
on).

Then no one who isn't eating at Ma's should wring his hands when it
closes if they've spent their money Taco Heaven. I buy major appliances
from a local fellow. Part of it is good will. Part of it pure
selfishness on my part. When something breaks, the local fellow comes
right out to make repairs. I don't have to schedule a visit by a fellow
40 miles away. I just bought a quarter of beef. The steer was standing
out in a field a few days ago. I paid $2.00/lb and the only middle man
is the fellow who cut, wrapped and froze it.

By the way, we've noticed no BPL rollout here in West, by God, Virginia.

Dave K8MN

Phil Kane wrote:
She referred me to the service department of my local dealer, of
course. Not like Seiko which wanted me to contact the local dealer
who would have to ship the defective watch (30 years old) back to Japan
for service. I canned it and bought a Timex.

I dunno Phil. I just took delivery of a piece of bound carpet and two
runners for our dining room. It took Lowe's eighty days after my order
and payment to deliver it. I could have had a Turk hand weave the thing
and personally deliver it in that period.

Dave K8MN

Around here in this county I live in, home ownership is next to impossible,
except for spending at least $75,000 or better. The average small 3 bedroom
house, no basement or garage (slab built) on a half to full acre runs *at
least* 75 grand or better. Go immediately outside of the county lines of
this county, and the similar/equivalent structure is anywhere from 25-50%
less. I guess it is something about Midland county I guess.

Ryan

If you want a recent document with an outline of relative housing costs:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi.../afford95.html

It shows over a recent time period what I have noted over a longer time
period, which is that less people can afford to buy a modestly priced
house. In 1995, it was 44 percent could not afford to do this, an
increase from 40 percent in 1988.

- Mike KB3EIA -