"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

As I recall it, wage and price controls caused some shortages because
certain
costs could not be controlled. For example, the wellhead price of natural
gas
was regulated but the cost of drilling wasn't, so a lot of folks either
stopped
drilling altogether, or, when they were drilling for oil but hit only gas,
they'd cap the well and take the loss in one lump rather than put the well
into
production and lose money on every cubic foot of gas produced.

Exactly, people won't produce things they can't make a profit on. Thus it
results in shortages and job losses leading to reduced buying power leading
to layoffs in other industries and so on.

[snip]
It's actually even more complex than that. Operating expenses are only one
metric - there's also return on investment, market volatility, stock
prices,
regulatory controls, and a bunch of other factors.

For example, suppose a business with a total investment of $1 million has
$10
million in operating expenses and $100,000 in profits. Profit is 1% of
operating expenses but 10% of investment - is this company on rocky ground
or
not? If the operating expenses are fairly fixed, even a small drop in
sales
will put the company in the red. But if the operating expenses rise and
fall in
sync with sales, the company may be in a very solid position, profit wise.

There are all sorts of other examples. Some industries are so cyclic that
they
*need* high profits in good times to carry them through losses in bad
times.


I agree 100% but was just trying to keep it simple. It also illustrates
that it it too complex to try to regulate as we've discussed below.

"Law of Unexpected Consequences"

Look at the auto industry. Fuel prices were kept artificially low until
the
1973 embargo, when they became artificially high, and the fuel itself
became
scarce.

Because the market had become used to a semingly inexhaustible supply of
cheap
fuel, the US auto industry did not develop fuel-efficient cars, and
transportation alternatives like transit died off (or were actively killed
to
get rid of the competition to the private auto). This shortsightedness set
the
stage for massive inroads in the US market by foreign carmakers who *had*
developed fuel-efficient cars.


Yup it sure did. I certainly remember when it seemed the roadways were
dominated by foreign cars.

In addition, you have left out the most workable option. That is to work
toward a world economy that enjoys a comparable standard to ours. Once
that
occurs, industry will find it more economical to produce more locally to
trim shipping costs. Once it becomes equally costly to make a car in
Japan
as in the US for example, then the lower shipping cost means it's better
to
serve the US market with cars made in the US.

In the case of cars, this has already happened in some cases. Many
Japanese
companies (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, to name just a few) make cars in the USA
because it's cheaper!

VW started that trend way back in the '70s by buying the Westmoreland, PA
facility from Chrysler, and building Rabbits, Golfs and Jettas here
instead of
Germany. VW later sold that plant to Sony, who uses it to make CRTs
(because
it's cheaper to make them here!)

The main drawback is the fact
that it will take a very long time before the world standard of living
matches ours.

So what do we do until then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

As people have always done:
1) Some will whine and barely get by.
2) Some will simply make the best of what they have and do a bit better
3) Others will forge ahead and strive for their own personal best
development and productivity and will be reasonably comfortable.
4) Yet others will create an opportunity and become the next Bill Gates.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Exactly, people won't produce things they can't make a profit on.

More likely they simply can't produce those things.

Thus it
results in shortages and job losses leading to reduced buying power leading
to layoffs in other industries and so on.

Exactly.

Even more recently, look at the mess that the electric power industry got into
in parts of California some time back because of botched "deregulation".

[snip]
It's actually even more complex than that. Operating expenses are only one
metric - there's also return on investment, market volatility, stock
prices, regulatory controls, and a bunch of other factors.

For example, suppose a business with a total investment of $1 million has
$10
million in operating expenses and $100,000 in profits. Profit is 1% of
operating expenses but 10% of investment - is this company on rocky ground
or
not? If the operating expenses are fairly fixed, even a small drop in
sales
will put the company in the red. But if the operating expenses rise and
fall in
sync with sales, the company may be in a very solid position, profit wise.

There are all sorts of other examples. Some industries are so cyclic that
they
*need* high profits in good times to carry them through losses in bad
times.

I agree 100% but was just trying to keep it simple. It also illustrates
that it it too complex to try to regulate as we've discussed below.

There *is* a need for regulation of industry - we just have to be very careful
as to how that regulation is done. For example, I don't think US companies
should have to compete head-to-head with foreign companies whose managements
don't have to worry about environmental rules, safety rules, child labor laws,
etc.

"Law of Unexpected Consequences"

Look at the auto industry. Fuel prices were kept artificially low until
the
1973 embargo, when they became artificially high, and the fuel itself
became scarce.

Because the market had become used to a semingly inexhaustible supply of
cheap
fuel, the US auto industry did not develop fuel-efficient cars, and
transportation alternatives like transit died off (or were actively killed
to
get rid of the competition to the private auto). This shortsightedness set
the
stage for massive inroads in the US market by foreign carmakers who *had*
developed fuel-efficient cars.

Yup it sure did. I certainly remember when it seemed the roadways were
dominated by foreign cars.

In some ways they still are. Much of what we consider "American" cars are not
100% "Made in USA". In fact, many "foreign" cars have higher domestic
content...

In the past quarter century, my immediate family motor pool has included 2
Fords, 1 Saturn, 3 VWs, and 2 Hondas. All "Made in the USA".

In addition, you have left out the most workable option. That is to work
toward a world economy that enjoys a comparable standard to ours. Once
that
occurs, industry will find it more economical to produce more locally to
trim shipping costs. Once it becomes equally costly to make a car in
Japan
as in the US for example, then the lower shipping cost means it's better
to serve the US market with cars made in the US.

In the case of cars, this has already happened in some cases. Many
Japanese
companies (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, to name just a few) make cars in the
USA because it's cheaper!

VW started that trend way back in the '70s by buying the Westmoreland, PA
facility from Chrysler, and building Rabbits, Golfs and Jettas here
instead of
Germany. VW later sold that plant to Sony, who uses it to make CRTs
(because
it's cheaper to make them here!)

The main drawback is the fact
that it will take a very long time before the world standard of living
matches ours.

So what do we do until then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

As people have always done:
1) Some will whine and barely get by.
2) Some will simply make the best of what they have and do a bit better
3) Others will forge ahead and strive for their own personal best
development and productivity and will be reasonably comfortable.
4) Yet others will create an opportunity and become the next Bill Gates.

I meant as a society.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


What does any of this have to do with BPL?????

Carl, this isn't a newsgroup, it's a CHAT ROOM for the regulars
and their buddies.


Nope, not even the use of CAPITAL LETTERS makes this a chat room. It is
still a newsgroup.


All can talk on anydamnthingtheywant
because they got licensed as amateurs.


All can discuss any topic because it isn't outlawed. As you've been
quick to point out, this is an unmoderated group. You've frequently
gone quite far afield in your postings. We'll chalk this up as another
"Do as I say and not as I do" comment.


One can only talk
about actual amateur radio policy issues someplace else... :-)


What's it to you? You aren't ivolved in amateur radio.

Especially since the Carl's real intention behind his comment was based
(I think) on my being some minor irritant to him, rather than a desire
to keep the newsgroup pure and On Topic.

I think you have a complete grasp of the situation. Carl had nothing to
say about BPL nor did Len.

Dave K8MN

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
There *is* a need for regulation of industry - we just have to be very
careful
as to how that regulation is done. For example, I don't think US companies
should have to compete head-to-head with foreign companies whose
managements
don't have to worry about environmental rules, safety rules, child labor
laws,
etc.

And of course we need basic regulations such as preventing one company from
selling temporarily at a loss to drive another company out of business and
so on. However what I meant was that we do not know enough to manipulate
the economy to create prosperity. I.e. The most productive approach is going
to be the free market economy that has mechanisms in place to prevent
unethical business practices (as described in my first sentence) and to
prevent the drifting towards monopolies so that there are competing
companies.

The items in the last sentence of your paragraph will change as these
foreign countries become more prosperous. The US and European countries did
not enact such laws themselves until we were our economies were strong
enough to allow us to do so. This is part of what I was talking about when
I said problem of foreign competition will eventally be solved when the
foreign companies reach our level of prosperity. Of course in the meantime
it does make it difficult for us. But who ever promised life would be easy?

[snip] the most workable option. That is to work
toward a world economy that enjoys a comparable standard to ours.
Once
that
occurs, industry will find it more economical to produce more locally
to
trim shipping costs. Once it becomes equally costly to make a car in
Japan
as in the US for example, then the lower shipping cost means it's
better
to serve the US market with cars made in the US.

In the case of cars, this has already happened in some cases. Many
Japanese
companies (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, to name just a few) make cars in the
USA because it's cheaper!

VW started that trend way back in the '70s by buying the Westmoreland,
PA
facility from Chrysler, and building Rabbits, Golfs and Jettas here
instead of
Germany. VW later sold that plant to Sony, who uses it to make CRTs
(because
it's cheaper to make them here!)

The main drawback is the fact
that it will take a very long time before the world standard of living
matches ours.

So what do we do until then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

As people have always done:
1) Some will whine and barely get by.
2) Some will simply make the best of what they have and do a bit better
3) Others will forge ahead and strive for their own personal best
development and productivity and will be reasonably comfortable.
4) Yet others will create an opportunity and become the next Bill Gates.

I meant as a society.

Well it's not going to work to try to manipulate the economy and market
place. So as a society, we have patience and help these other countries to
become as prosperous as we are. And we deal individually with the hardships
as we have always done in the ups and downs of life.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Dee D.

Flint"

writes:


"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or

minimum

wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour.

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living"

wage.

It wasn't? I'd be interested in a reference on that.

I think what we're really seeing is inflation outpacing the minimum wage.

Fun fact: In 1976 I started a job as a degreed engineer at the princely

sum of

about $12,000/yr - about $6 an hour. About minimum wage today, but back

then

the prices of most things (particularly housing and transportation) was so

much

lower that it was a lot of money - to me, anyway.

73 de Jim, N2EY


And at that time minimum wage was about $1.50 per hour.


Actually a bit more, as I recall. But in any event we're talking $3000/yr to
$4000/yr, max..

In the summer of 1972, I got my first job after high school. It paid
$2.40 per hour. Minimum at that time was $2.20.

It wasn't a living
wage then either. Entry level jobs have never provided the income to
support a family.


Agreed - nor were they meant to. But it *was* possible for a person to live on
them - probably more so than today.

I lived on that $2.40 per hour. Not well, but okay.


Anyone that I have ever known in my lifetime (52 years)
that made minimum wage either lived with their parents or other relatives, a
group of roommates, or had a working spouse even back when I was a child.


Pretty much the same here.

Folks, conservative ot liberal, there is a whole other world out there!
I know of a number of families that had both parents working at minimum
or close to it.

No adult male that I knew stayed in a minimum wage job any longer than it
took to find something else because they could not pay groc, rent, and
transportation on that. It has never been high enough to do so.


'adult male'....ahem.....

The age of the "adult male" as the breadwinner is long gone. Both
husband and wife now pretty much *need* to work. If a family is in the
situation where only one needs to work, then that's great. But let's
hope they don't gloat about it.

Wages versus costs is all relative. You have to look at how many hours it
takes to buy something.


Exactly! And you also have to take into account things like creeping taxation
(even if the laws don't change, inflation causes people to pay more of their
income in taxes) and increases in the number of 'necessities'.

Taxes are a big part of the game, too. At one time the income tax rules were
such that people on the bottom end who knew the rules could pay very little in
taxes. I remember when:

- *all* interest paid (not just home mortgage interest) was deductible.
- *all* documented sales tax and *most* documented medical costs were
deductible
- the various personal and dependent deductions were larger *in infaltion
adjusted dollars*


The majority of items but not all take fewer hours
of work to purchase than they did in 1976.


In some cases, yes, in others, no.

As I recall reading a while back, in 1950, it took 14 percent of an
average workers income to put a roof over "his head". That may have
changed a little bit! 8^)

And did you know they are doing seven year loans on cars? If all was
equal, wages and prices, we would still be doing 2 and 3 year loans on them.

There are two of the major outlays for the typical family. Add to that
education costs, which have outpaced inflation by in some cases 400
percent (in my area, we had an around 12 percent increase one year
recently) and you have a bit different picture!


The cost of electronics is down
in terms of hours to buy.


True to a point - but on the other end of the scale, those electronics are
often non-repairable, and have limited useful lives, so that they must be
replaced more often.

It breaks, and you buy a new one. Break even at best.

It it actually easier to restore ham gear that is 30-40-50 years old than much
of the newer stuff, because parts for much of the newer stuff are simply
unobtainable except from junker units. The displays in the popular TS-440S is
one example - they are no longer made, and yet they are often one of the first
major parts to fail, so your chances of lifting one from a junker are slim.


The cost of houses is about the same in terms of
hours.

disagree

A lot of that depends on the interest rate and taxes. Interest rates in the
'70s were double-digit, approaching 17% in some markets at times - for home
mortgages! But since all that interest was deductible, the *effective* interest
rate was less, depending on your tax bracket.

Escalating home prices makes it harder to get started, though, because the size
of the down payment keeps growing. And since many of the fees involved with
buying and selling are a percentage of the price, the amount of cash a
first-timer needs gets really high.

Compare this to 40-50 years ago, when interest rates, taxes and down payments
were low.

agree. I know some people who are paying over 50 percent of theie take
home pay in mortgage payment. Amazingly enough, their banks allowed them
to get into that situation.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Product quality is dropping (plastics),

In some areas, yes. But people still buy the products!


People don't have any choice. As an example, I went shopping for a fan
recently (to replace the last one that quit). I couldn't find a well-built,
metal, fan anywhere in the area. I ended up with a plastic fan that will
fall apart in a month or two just like the last ones. I'm not saving any
money because I have to keep buying this plastic garbage every few weeks.


How much corporate profit is excessive? If a company
is worth $1 billion, and their profit is $100 million, that's
a 10% return on investment. Is that excessive? Who
decides?


Are you not aware of our system of government, Jim? You know, the people
we vote for to make exactly these types of decisions.


But without the details it's a moot point. Suppose a
company has a string of bad years and then a good
year - should their profits in the good year be
confiscated and a blind eye turned towards the bad
years?


It's not my job to come up with all the details, Jim. I've already said I
don't have all the answers. But why does that make an idea a moot point.


Price controls were tried in the late '60s and early '70s
to "Whip Infaltion Now". Didn't work in the long term.


I don't remember that.


Because the *market* (people who make the buying
decisions) go to the Wal Mart instead of the local stores.
That's where the real problem lies - people who do not
think about the long-term economic results of their actions.


Why should they? They're going to Wal-Mart to buy a power tool or
whatever, not ponder the global economic implications of that purchase.


Do you know this for a fact? Car price increases also
reflect the enormous investment in engineering and tooling
to build cars using the latest technology. Remember when
most cars fell apart before reaching 10 years or 100,000
miles?


Do I know putting a regulatory cap on credit in the car market will drive
down auto prices? Absolutely. If people have to pay more cash up front, with
less financed by credit, very few would be able to afford the prices of
today's automobiles. Companies will be forced to cut prices if they want to
continue selling automobiles and Americans will have more money in their
pockets to spend elsewhere (benefiting a wider segment of the overall
economy).

And, no, I don't remember when most cars fell apart before reaching 10
years or 100,000 miles. I've owned plenty of older cars in my life
(certainly throughout the 60's and 70's) and I don't think any of them were
less then 10 years old or had less than 100,000 miles on them. And all of
them were built much better than today's models. My $35k SUV today is filled
with plastic that is already starting to decay with only 40,000 miles on the
vehicle. The Jeep I owned in 1972 had almost 200,000 miles on it with all
original body parts (a little dented, but all original).


As long as people are willing to pay the prices, the markets
are driven that way. Supply and demand.


But, as always, companies control the supply. The difference is that
today's monopolistic companies are not dependant on the daily sales of a
single product, so are able to manipulate supply in an effort to raise
prices. Since these companies often control whole market segments, consumer
are left with only two choices - not purchase the goods they want or pay the
higher prices. In today's economy, the concept of supply and demand seems
rather quaint, Jim.


What about people trying to get started as homeowners?
Raising the price of credit makes it impossible for them to
buy a first house.


I said nothing about raising the price of credit. I was referring to
credit caps - a cap on the percentage of the total purchase price that could
be financed or a cap on the percentage of a person's income that could be
used to establish the monthly credit payments. Both were common in the
fifties, sixties, and early seventies, and the economy and consumers did
just fine.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

You know Nixon tried wage and price controls and we
started developing shortages. Other countries in the
world have tried it too and also failed. Every where that
has been tried, the standard of living dropped, goods and
services became hard to get and unemployment rose. So
why try what has already been proven to fail.


Wage and price controls are commonplace in Europe and the standard of
living did not drop, goods and services did not became hard to get, and
unemployment did not rise.


Please show that profits are obscene. Don't quote dollars,
quote percentage of operating expenses. (snip)


I'm not going to quote anything, Dee. I gave my personal opinion. While
you're certainly free to agree or disagree with that, there is no
requirement whatsoever to prove an opinion. If, on the other hand, you think
my opinion is that important, you're certainly free to prove it's wrong.


In addition, you have left out the most workable option. That
is to work toward a world economy that enjoys a comparable
standard to ours. (snip)


You honestly think that is a workable option? It will take many decades,
perhaps longer, to accomplish that. What happens to everyone else in the
meantime?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

In the case of cars, this has already happened in some cases.
Many Japanese companies (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, to name
just a few) make cars in the USA because it's cheaper!

VW started that trend way back in the '70s by buying the
Westmoreland, PA facility from Chrysler, and building Rabbits,
Golfs and Jettas here instead of Germany. VW later sold that
plant to Sony, who uses it to make CRTs (because it's cheaper
to make them here!)


Wasn't that much more the result of our own import tariffs, significantly
increased in the 80's to "protect" companies like Chrysler from foreign
competition?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

In the case of cars, this has already happened in some cases.
Many Japanese companies (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, to name
just a few) make cars in the USA because it's cheaper!

VW started that trend way back in the '70s by buying the
Westmoreland, PA facility from Chrysler, and building Rabbits,
Golfs and Jettas here instead of Germany. VW later sold that
plant to Sony, who uses it to make CRTs (because it's cheaper
to make them here!)


Wasn't that much more the result of our own import tariffs,
significantly
increased in the 80's to "protect" companies like Chrysler from foreign
competition?


Nope. It was a result of two things. One, the US automakers buckled down
and reduced their production costs to be competitive. Secondly in the case
of Japanese automobiles, the Japanese government quit subsidizing car
production when their automakers succeeded in obtaining a significant
percentage of the US market (their government then put the money into
subsidizing other industries they wanted to get off the ground). Once that
happened the prices of Japanese cars rose. The net result was that US and
Japanese automakers were now on a "level playing field" and the customers
could once again pick a car from a US auto company without a major
difference in cost.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote:

In some ways they still are. Much of what we
consider "American" cars are not 100% "Made
in USA". In fact, many "foreign" cars have higher
domestic content...

In the past quarter century, my immediate family
motor pool has included 2 Fords, 1 Saturn, 3 VWs,
and 2 Hondas. All "Made in the USA".


When shopping for a car, how can you tell which are made in the USA? My
wife's Plymouth was made in Mexico and my Ford was made in Canada. I didn't
find that out until the vehicles were actually delivered. The purchase of
these "American" cars certainly didn't help US automobile workers much.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) The minimum wage is just high enough to keep a
single person with no dependents from starving and
freezing if they are willing to settle for bare bones survival.
It's never been higher than that.


Well, it's hardly even that today. While going to college in the early
70's, my near minimum wage paycheck was enough to rent a one bedroom duplex
w/garage ($100 per month) just outside LA (Ontario), furnish that duplex,
finance a car, feed the two of us, and pay for some school books ($320 per
month from the VA paid the tuition and other school costs). Today, my wife
pays almost as much for books and lab fees each semester as I paid for
tuition.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

Product quality is dropping (plastics),

In some areas, yes. But people still buy the products!


People don't have any choice. As an example, I went shopping for a fan
recently (to replace the last one that quit). I couldn't find a
well-built,
metal, fan anywhere in the area. I ended up with a plastic fan that will
fall apart in a month or two just like the last ones. I'm not saving any
money because I have to keep buying this plastic garbage every few weeks.


Try JC Whitney. That's at least one of many links that came up when I did
an Altavista Search for metal fan. There's loads of other choices. $24.99.

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

You know Nixon tried wage and price controls and we
started developing shortages. Other countries in the
world have tried it too and also failed. Every where that
has been tried, the standard of living dropped, goods and
services became hard to get and unemployment rose. So
why try what has already been proven to fail.


Wage and price controls are commonplace in Europe and the standard of
living did not drop, goods and services did not became hard to get, and
unemployment did not rise.


Please show that profits are obscene. Don't quote dollars,
quote percentage of operating expenses. (snip)


I'm not going to quote anything, Dee. I gave my personal opinion. While
you're certainly free to agree or disagree with that, there is no
requirement whatsoever to prove an opinion. If, on the other hand, you
think
my opinion is that important, you're certainly free to prove it's wrong.


That's true Dee. I gave him my opinion, *with* the reasons behind it...such
as an overwhelming public opinion that there are jobs our immigrant
population will do before the average American...and he chose to ignore
those facts also...

Kim W5TIT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
Wasn't that much more the result of our own import
tariffs, significantly increased in the 80's to "protect"
companies like Chrysler from foreign competition?

Nope. It was a result of two things. One, the US automakers
buckled down and reduced their production costs to be
competitive. Secondly in the case of Japanese automobiles,
the Japanese government quit subsidizing car production when
their automakers succeeded in obtaining a significant
percentage of the US market (their government then put the
money into subsidizing other industries they wanted to get off
the ground). Once that happened the prices of Japanese cars
rose. The net result was that US and Japanese automakers
were now on a "level playing field" (snip)


I don't understand. Does the U.S. collect tariffs on imported foreign
products? If so, how can U.S. and Japanese automakers possibly be on a
"level playing field" if everything else you say above (no subsidies in
Japan) is true? Japanese automakers have the added burden of shipping
vehicles from Japan and the added costs of the import tariffs. They were
obviously willing to absorb the extra shipping costs prior to the increase
in tariffs during the 80's. So, with all that in mind, it appears the
tariffs is actually what drove a few Japanese automakers to build cars here.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) The minimum wage is just high enough to keep a
single person with no dependents from starving and
freezing if they are willing to settle for bare bones survival.
It's never been higher than that.



Well, it's hardly even that today. While going to college in the early
70's, my near minimum wage paycheck was enough to rent a one bedroom duplex
w/garage ($100 per month) just outside LA (Ontario), furnish that duplex,
finance a car, feed the two of us, and pay for some school books ($320 per
month from the VA paid the tuition and other school costs). Today, my wife
pays almost as much for books and lab fees each semester as I paid for
tuition.


In 1972, my $2.40 per hour kept me in an apartment, food, clothing, and
even allowed me to buy a motorcycle. That was .20 above the minimum wage.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) The minimum wage is just high enough to keep a
single person with no dependents from starving and
freezing if they are willing to settle for bare bones survival.
It's never been higher than that.


Well, it's hardly even that today. While going to college in the early
70's, my near minimum wage paycheck was enough to rent a one bedroom duplex
w/garage ($100 per month) just outside LA (Ontario), furnish that duplex,
finance a car, feed the two of us, and pay for some school books ($320 per
month from the VA paid the tuition and other school costs). Today, my wife
pays almost as much for books and lab fees each semester as I paid for
tuition.

Let's do the math, shall we?

Say you were making $4000/yr (about $2/hr, ) back then. That's
$334/month. Out of that came rent ($100), furnishing ($20/mo?) food
($100?) car ($100 including gas and insurance?). Leaves $13.

That $320 from the VA was almost equal to your salary.

At $2/hr, the rent cost 50 hours' work. I presume utilities were
included.
Today 50 hrs work at minimum wage is what - $300?

And then there's taxes....

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

In the case of cars, this has already happened in some cases.
Many Japanese companies (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, to name
just a few) make cars in the USA because it's cheaper!

VW started that trend way back in the '70s by buying the
Westmoreland, PA facility from Chrysler, and building Rabbits,
Golfs and Jettas here instead of Germany. VW later sold that
plant to Sony, who uses it to make CRTs (because it's cheaper
to make them here!)


Wasn't that much more the result of our own import tariffs, significantly
increased in the 80's to "protect" companies like Chrysler from foreign
competition?

As I understand the tariffs, they were/are only imposed beyond a
certain number of vehicles/yr imported. Vehicles *exported* reduce the
total. Toyota, for example, set up a line to build Corolla sedans in
Japan and Corolla wagons in the USA (might have been the other way
around, but the principle is the same). Cars were actually *exported*
to Japan - but the Japanese did not count them that way because they
were made by a Japanese company.

VW's trick was to build power assemblies in Germany but the rest of
the car in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Final assembly was in the PA
plant.

There are rules which determine whether a car is "domestic" or
"imported" based on how much of its content is made here. The
companies are careful to stay above the limit.

Also, the cost of transporting larger cars is greater, so at some
point it makes sense to build plants here.

Then there's Saturn, a domestic company (actually a GM division) that
turns out a quality car for a competitive price. Only problem is they
don't have a complete line - yet.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Product quality is dropping (plastics),

In some areas, yes. But people still buy the products!

People don't have any choice. As an example, I went shopping for a fan
recently (to replace the last one that quit). I couldn't find a well-built,
metal, fan anywhere in the area. I ended up with a plastic fan that will
fall apart in a month or two just like the last ones. I'm not saving any
money because I have to keep buying this plastic garbage every few weeks.

As Kim points out, look elsewhere. The 'net gives us a powerful tool
to find other sources. The problem is that you may have to wait for
the item, and pay more for it (delivery vs. sales tax).

How much corporate profit is excessive? If a company
is worth $1 billion, and their profit is $100 million, that's
a 10% return on investment. Is that excessive? Who
decides?


Are you not aware of our system of government, Jim? You know, the people
we vote for to make exactly these types of decisions.

But they do not always make them wisely.

But without the details it's a moot point. Suppose a
company has a string of bad years and then a good
year - should their profits in the good year be
confiscated and a blind eye turned towards the bad
years?

It's not my job to come up with all the details, Jim. I've already said I
don't have all the answers.

The devil is in the details. A good idea can be ruined by bad details.

But why does that make an idea a moot point.

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


Price controls were tried in the late '60s and early '70s
to "Whip Infaltion Now". Didn't work in the long term.

I don't remember that.

I do. First Nixon, then Ford. Basically came down to denying reality.

The USA economy had been built since at least the end of WW2 on
several concepts:

- lack of foreign competition
- cheap, abundant oil for energy
- high investment of tax dollars in certain technologies (highways and
air transport, military hardware, nukes) and low/nonexistent
investment in other, competing technology (railroads/transit/ships,
domestic electronics, energy conservation and alternative sources).
- unquestioned belief in unlimited growth and consumption, as well as
disposability of almost anything

When the slack ran in, US industry was poorly prepared. Look at the
oil situation alone - gasoline prices had been stable at less than 25
cents/gallon for decades until 1973. Then they doubled overnight, and
5-6 years later doubled again. So did all other petroleum fuel
products. Those increases dominoed through US industry.

Because the *market* (people who make the buying
decisions) go to the Wal Mart instead of the local stores.
That's where the real problem lies - people who do not
think about the long-term economic results of their actions.


Why should they?

Because it's their responsibility. Part of a free market economy is
being a *customer*, not a *consumer*.

They're going to Wal-Mart to buy a power tool or
whatever, not ponder the global economic implications of that purchase.

Then they should not complain when the hardware store and the American
power tool plants shut down, quality degrades, unemployment rises,
etc.

Do you know this for a fact? Car price increases also
reflect the enormous investment in engineering and tooling
to build cars using the latest technology. Remember when
most cars fell apart before reaching 10 years or 100,000
miles?


Do I know putting a regulatory cap on credit in the car market will drive
down auto prices? Absolutely. If people have to pay more cash up front, with
less financed by credit, very few would be able to afford the prices of
today's automobiles. Companies will be forced to cut prices if they want to
continue selling automobiles and Americans will have more money in their
pockets to spend elsewhere (benefiting a wider segment of the overall
economy).

And the auto companies will be in trouble because their sales are off.

However, I agree with your concept, now that I understand what you
meant. See below.

And, no, I don't remember when most cars fell apart before reaching 10
years or 100,000 miles. I've owned plenty of older cars in my life
(certainly throughout the 60's and 70's) and I don't think any of them were
less then 10 years old or had less than 100,000 miles on them. And all of
them were built much better than today's models. My $35k SUV today is filled
with plastic that is already starting to decay with only 40,000 miles on the
vehicle. The Jeep I owned in 1972 had almost 200,000 miles on it with all
original body parts (a little dented, but all original).

Those aren't cars - they're trucks.

By "cars" I mean ordinary American passenger cars. And until they had
to deal with foreign competition, they would not last as long as they
do today.

However, note that where and how a car is used makes a big difference.
Those of us in snowy, seaside and humid climates will have far more
trouble with rust than those in arid climes. A car driven 100,000
miles in stop-and-go city traffic has a lot more stresses on it than a
car driven 250,000 miles on the highway. In fact, I've often thought
cars should have running time meters and startup counters in addition
to odometers. Because miles and years don't begin to tell the whole
story.

As long as people are willing to pay the prices, the markets
are driven that way. Supply and demand.


But, as always, companies control the supply. The difference is that
today's monopolistic companies are not dependant on the daily sales of a
single product, so are able to manipulate supply in an effort to raise
prices. Since these companies often control whole market segments, consumer
are left with only two choices - not purchase the goods they want or pay the
higher prices.

There are *always* other sources. That's why I built an Elecraft
rather than buy Ikensu.

In today's economy, the concept of supply and demand seems
rather quaint, Jim.

Are you saying Adam Smith is obsolete? I disagree.

What about people trying to get started as homeowners?
Raising the price of credit makes it impossible for them to
buy a first house.

I said nothing about raising the price of credit. I was referring to
credit caps - a cap on the percentage of the total purchase price that could
be financed or a cap on the percentage of a person's income that could be
used to establish the monthly credit payments.

Now *that* makes sense - and I agree! Would prevent a lot of
bankruptcies.

Both were common in the
fifties, sixties, and early seventies, and the economy and consumers did
just fine.

Maybe in the 50s and 60s, but not in the '70s! But the 70s problems
were definitely not caused by excessive borrowing by ordinary people.

But it all comes down to a level of personal responsibility,
education, and being a customer, not a consumer.

And accepting that there *are* limits to growth, and what we can
afford. People are not necessarily happier with, say, a bigger house,
if they have to go up to their necks in hock to buy it and take care
of it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Then they should not complain when the hardware store and the American
power tool plants shut down, quality degrades, unemployment rises,
etc.

Whoever can deliver the best value for my dollar (note I didn't say
"cheapest"), regardless of what imaginary boundary drawn on the surface of
the globe they inhabit, will capture my business. I do that in my business
and I do it in my personal life. If every commercial enterprise built
their business model on that principle then the best would flourish and the
poorest would wither. What a concept!

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Then they should not complain when the hardware store and the American
power tool plants shut down, quality degrades, unemployment rises,
etc.

Whoever can deliver the best value for my dollar (note I didn't say
"cheapest"), regardless of what imaginary boundary drawn on the surface of
the globe they inhabit, will capture my business. I do that in my business
and I do it in my personal life. If every commercial enterprise built
their business model on that principle then the best would flourish and the
poorest would wither. What a concept!

How do you determine "best value"?

Does it include things like whether the producers used environmentally-friendly
processes, the working conditions of the workers who actually make the product,
etc.?

Or is it based solely on the product itself, with no concern about its
production process?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

How do you determine "best value"?

Depending on the product it can be a variety of things, sometimes a very
complex mix of parameters determines "value". My factory purchases
products of many different types, complexities, which they range from pure
"commodities" like solder to specialty products like custom chips, plastic
moldings, and similar "proprietary" materials which find there way into our
finished goods.

Obviously price factors into the mix, and all other things being equal,
price wins.

But "all other things" are almost never equal. For example, some suppliers
have earned "dock to stock" status with us because their outgoing quality
control is good enough that we do not have to perform incoming quality
control. This saves us money (inspection labor) and time (no delay in
inspection) so we favor such suppliers even if they may charge slightly
higher prices, and they benefit by earlier payment because their invoice is
not held pending QA acceptance of their product. Other favorable factors
would be their willingness to deal with us on a "consigned inventory" basis,
shield us from part shortage allocations, and similar "pipeline" issues.
Suppliers with a "track record" are generally favored over "new guys", but
new guys who can demonstrate "value added" (which can be a host of things)
will certainly be given some business to prove their case. Within reason,
we will favor enterprises "close to home" because we feel an obligation to
contribute to the communities where we live and work, and there is an
obvious advantage to dealing with a supplier who you can quickly meet for
lunch to discuss issues, rather than by telecommunications or strapping a
757 to your ass for several hours.

As you can see, "best value" encompasses many factors and issues beyond the
actual physical product which you touch and feel.

Does it include things like whether the producers used
environmentally-friendly processes, the working
conditions of the workers who actually make the product,
etc.?

No ethical company would ignore those issues. Certainly we will not
knowingly deal with suppliers who pollute the environment or mistreat their
workers, but we are not staffed with EPA-like or OSHA-like inspectors and
evaluators In cases where we are qualifying a new significant new
supplier, we perform on-site evaluations which give us some visibility
of working conditions, etc., but it is naturally not an in depth review of
their HR practices, or validating their compliance with EPA standards.
Were we a huge conglomerate like General Motors or IBM, I'm sure
we'd have more formal means of dealing with this issue, but in the
meantime they obviously are subject to the usual state, federal,
provincial (or whatever) regulatory constraints. We make a special
effort in the area of supplier diversity, and support many regional
Supplier Diversity Councils, such as Chicago Minority Business
Development Council, Dallas/Ft. Worth Minority Business Development
Council, Georgia Minority Supplier Development Council, Minnesota
Minority Supplier Development Council, Virginia Regional Minority
Supplier Development Council, Southern California Regional
Purchasing Councils, Inc., and others. This context includes woman-owned
or veteran-owned enterprises.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
Wasn't that much more the result of our own import
tariffs, significantly increased in the 80's to "protect"
companies like Chrysler from foreign competition?

Nope. It was a result of two things. One, the US automakers
buckled down and reduced their production costs to be
competitive. Secondly in the case of Japanese automobiles,
the Japanese government quit subsidizing car production when
their automakers succeeded in obtaining a significant
percentage of the US market (their government then put the
money into subsidizing other industries they wanted to get off
the ground). Once that happened the prices of Japanese cars
rose. The net result was that US and Japanese automakers
were now on a "level playing field" (snip)


I don't understand. Does the U.S. collect tariffs on imported foreign
products? If so, how can U.S. and Japanese automakers possibly be on a
"level playing field" if everything else you say above (no subsidies in
Japan) is true? Japanese automakers have the added burden of shipping
vehicles from Japan and the added costs of the import tariffs. They were
obviously willing to absorb the extra shipping costs prior to the increase
in tariffs during the 80's. So, with all that in mind, it appears the
tariffs is actually what drove a few Japanese automakers to build cars
here.


Let me make this as plain as possible. At one time (prior to the 1980s),
the Japanese government actually gave Japanese automakers money from
government coffers so that the automakers could sell their product at a
price less than it actually cost to get it to market. The goal was to
penetrate the market. Once they penetrated it, they believed that they
could hold a significant share of it as the consumers would be used to
buying their product. Once they penetrated the market, the Japanese
government classified autos as a mature industry and quit subsidizing it.
Once the automakers had to make profits without the benefit of subsidies,
the US companies were able to compete and the Japanese found that they
needed to have manufacturing sites in the US to continue to stay in the
market. The tariffs were never high enough to make much difference in the
situation.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote:

As Kim points out, look elsewhere. The 'net gives
us a powerful tool to find other sources. The problem
is that you may have to wait for the item, and pay
more for it (delivery vs. sales tax).


But I shouldn't have to do that, Jim. I don't think a quality fan should
be an esoteric item requiring a nation-wide search. Yet that is exactly the
case. And this was only one example - I run into similar situations just
about every day of the week. By the way, the fans are purchased locally
because that's in the contract.


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).


Because it's their responsibility. Part of a free market
economy is being a *customer*, not a *consumer*.


Again, shoppers are going to the store to ponder the global economic
implications of the purchases they make. It is absurd to even expect them to
do so (see my next paragraph below).


Then they should not complain when the hardware store
and the American power tool plants shut down, quality
degrades, unemployment rises, etc.


Jim, short of setting up a dictatorship, you're never going to get even a
significant portion of the 280 million people in this country to shop the
way you want. Consumers in general have neither the business awareness or
economic awareness to make those types of decisions on their own. And they
also certainly don't have the time or money to fully research an industry
each time they want to go shopping for something. Business darn well knows
all that, which is exactly why they point to consumer spending as the main
cause of a poor economy. Doing so absolves business of any responsibility
for that economic situation and instead places the entire nation's economic
burden, and sole blame for a bad economy (and blame for the things you list
above), on consumers alone. Business has some responsibility in all this.
Your argument gives them a free ride when it comes to that responsibility.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Try JC Whitney. That's at least one of many links that
came up when I did an Altavista Search for metal fan.
There's loads of other choices. $24.99.


To save time, I decided to consolidate my responses. Therefore, see my
response to Jim for more about this, Kim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Yeah..... that may be true but circumstances now have forced many to suffer
with it as a "living" wage.


--
Ryan KC8PMX

Why is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but
it takes a whole box to start a barbecue?

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or
minimum
wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour.

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living"
wage.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee,

You must be living in a "fairy tale" world if yo believe this to be still
true. It is a simple fact that there is not the same type of jobs available
that were around in the 1965-1980's range of time. The changes in the
employment economy and shifts in employment trends are why. Take GM for
instance....... At least up here in the Tri- Cities and Flint, GM is
constantly cutting back, and even closing plants, not the opposite. Hell,
locally speaking, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning also have cut more than half
their workforce in the past 15 years or so.

Construction jobs around here suck, unless you hold "paper" you are nothing
and still making the under 8 dollar an hour range wage, before taxes. I can
bring up more examples if you want referring to my area if ya want.


--
Ryan KC8PMX

All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no
attention to criticism.



And at that time minimum wage was about $1.50 per hour. It wasn't a
living
wage then either. Entry level jobs have never provided the income to
support a family. Anyone that I have ever known in my lifetime (52 years)
that made minimum wage either lived with their parents or other relatives,
a
group of roommates, or had a working spouse even back when I was a child.
No adult male that I knew stayed in a minimum wage job any longer than it
took to find something else because they could not pay groc, rent, and
transportation on that. It has never been high enough to do so.

Wages versus costs is all relative. You have to look at how many hours it
takes to buy something. The majority of items but not all take fewer
hours
of work to purchase than they did in 1976. The cost of electronics is
down
in terms of hours to buy. The cost of houses is about the same in terms
of
hours.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The minimum wage is just high enough to keep a single person with no
dependents from starving and freezing if they are willing to settle for
bare
bones survival. It's never been higher than that.

The hell it is.... to get by without living almost an institutional type of
life, a person needs to work at least 65 hours a week, every week to break
even.



The problem today, as more and more people become locked into lower
wages,
is that the minimum wage doesn't address the extra needs of the worker's
family or future. Taxpayers pay a price for that down the road (welfare,
food stamps, medical costs, student aid, and so on). If companies paid
better wages, much of that would be sharply reduced.


You are not supposed to stay in a minimum wage job. You get work
experience, demonstrate your ability to be dependable, get recommendations
(i.e "he/she is a hard worker") and move on.

Pure bull****, and more proof that some people live in a fairy tale world.
Employees are expendable as toilet paper regardless of how well you are as
an employee. I know many people who would make excellent candidates as the
"employee of the year," but still get passed up, or worse yet, let go
because of the fact they were merely nothing but a number on a balance
sheet/statement.



The solution is not to mandate a higher wage but to actively seek out
these
people and get them ready to move on to the better jobs by making
training,
etc accessible.

When I was young (too long ago), I worked minimum wage jobs but I
certainly
knew that was not something I should consider doing lifelong.


Once again, fairy tale world?? Most of the people who are not high
school/college students feel the same way, but are stuck in a rut that never
seems to fill in. Yes, education is a key, but the problem there is if you
are working 60+ hours or more per week, chances are there is not
opportunities to even take these classes. Fact number two, there is
something called financial aid, but it DOES NOT cover all of the educational
expenses, which are not going to be able to come out of those "minimum"
wages.


--
Ryan KC8PMX

Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach that
person to use The Internet and they won't bother you for weeks.

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

As Kim points out, look elsewhere. The 'net gives
us a powerful tool to find other sources. The problem
is that you may have to wait for the item, and pay
more for it (delivery vs. sales tax).


But I shouldn't have to do that, Jim. I don't think a quality fan should
be an esoteric item requiring a nation-wide search. Yet that is exactly
the
case. And this was only one example - I run into similar situations just
about every day of the week. By the way, the fans are purchased locally
because that's in the contract.


Now I see what you are doing. You are OVER reacting to any little thing
just to try and hang on to whatever concept it is you have, Dwight.
"Nationwide search?" That is hysterical! It took me less than one minute
to find that fan--and that was at the top of the search list; there were
hundreds to look at.

It took me less than 2 minutes to "happen" to look last night while I was at
Wal-Mart. Now, true, they are a nationwide outlet so you may have to travel
the nation before you find one of those stores--but they had more than one
choice of metal fans. So, don't know why you can't find 'em.


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).


'Scuse me? Surely you are basing the content of your opinions on at least
*some* kind of facts that you've either experienced or heard, or whatever,
over the course of your life. In fact, I bet I can find a comment you made
to me in this thread that lends itself to not basing my opinions from out of
thin air! And, if you wish to be a proponent of something, it's nearly
imperative that you be able to convince others why it's a good idea. Maybe
that's why your ideas flop; and why the American people don't change things
as they need to be changed.


Because it's their responsibility. Part of a free market
economy is being a *customer*, not a *consumer*.

Again, shoppers are going to the store to ponder the global economic
implications of the purchases they make. It is absurd to even expect them
to
do so (see my next paragraph below).


I think you probably meant "aren't" above. And, while I don't ponder global
economic implications with every shopping experience, I certainly do a lot
of the time. I don't buy strictly "American," either. One blaring example
is that since the Exxon Valdez oil spill, I have never bought gasoline from
Exxon. Now, have researched what other companies own or are owned by Exxon?
No. It would probably frustrate the heck out of me to realize it, though.
I feel personally gratified by not buying their gasoline. I don't really do
it to make a statement to the world--but I should.


Then they should not complain when the hardware store
and the American power tool plants shut down, quality
degrades, unemployment rises, etc.


Jim, short of setting up a dictatorship, you're never going to get even
a
significant portion of the 280 million people in this country to shop the
way you want.


See Jim? Give a dog a bone and he buries it. When someone submits
something contrary to the way Dwight wants everything to be--*without*
substantiated concepts I might add--by *his* own admission--he suddenly gets
short and impatient with others.


Consumers in general have neither the business awareness or
economic awareness to make those types of decisions on their own.


So, as in real debate, let's bring this full-circle. You are stating that
consumers--presumably *American* consumers--are too lazy and/or incapable of
business or economic awareness to decide "smart" shopping decisions?! And,
just leaving that by itself, you blare out at *ME* for the idea that
immigrant workers are more willing to do the jobs of "less importance" than
most Americans will do?! Ludicrous at best.


And they
also certainly don't have the time or money to fully research an industry
each time they want to go shopping for something.


They sure do. And many do. We live in an information glut these days. If
someone can't get information they are looking for, they need to ask someone
how to find it--because it's pretty much there and it's there fairly
quickly.


Business darn well knows
all that, which is exactly why they point to consumer spending as the main
cause of a poor economy. Doing so absolves business of any responsibility
for that economic situation and instead places the entire nation's
economic
burden, and sole blame for a bad economy (and blame for the things you
list
above), on consumers alone. Business has some responsibility in all this.
Your argument gives them a free ride when it comes to that responsibility.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



Oh OK. It's always going to be the corporate entity's fault. Now, speak of
liberal slinging...

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Try JC Whitney. That's at least one of many links that
came up when I did an Altavista Search for metal fan.
There's loads of other choices. $24.99.


To save time, I decided to consolidate my responses. Therefore, see my
response to Jim for more about this, Kim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



Yeah...I did. The post from you, above, makes more sense than that one did.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

That's true Dee. I gave him my opinion, (snip) and he
chose to ignore those facts also...


I didn't ignore your opinions, Kim. I read and responded to them for a
solid week. Instead, what I did was disagree with almost every one of those
opinions (after all, they were simply wrong). As for facts, I saw very
little of that from you.

Anyway, since you keep bringing up my name in your conversations with
others, it's clear you cannot accept the notion that someone might actually
disagree with you. Try to get over it and move on, Kim. Your ongoing
attempts to find solace from others now is truly not very becoming.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

Let's do the math, shall we?

Say you were making $4000/yr (about $2/hr, ) back then.


I don't remember what I was paid back then (that was a long time, and a
lot of jobs, ago). All I do remember is that it was just barely above
minimum wage. But, for the purposes of your example, that salary figure is
probably good enough.


That's $334/month. Out of that came rent ($100), furnishing
($20/mo?) food ($100?) car ($100 including gas and insurance?).
Leaves $13.


Hey, we were hippies back then - we didn't pay that much for furniture and
much of what we had was homemade. ;-)

The car payments were also less than that. No insurance and about a tank
of gas a week (we rode bicycles almost as much as we drove the car - another
hippy thing).


That $320 from the VA was almost equal to your salary.


Yes, it was. And it was a real disaster when that check didn't arrive on
time for whatever reason (it didn't twice).


At $2/hr, the rent cost 50 hours' work. I presume utilities
were included.


I think everything except gas was included. We paid the gas bill
separately. But that was about it (we couldn't afford a phone).


Today 50 hrs work at minimum wage is what - $300?


Can you imagine even trying to rent an apartment in Southern California
for $300 today (just that - forget the other stuff)? I guess one could be
found but I probably wouldn't want to live in it. It would probably take
about a hundred hours of work at minimum wage today to find a decent
apartment in that area.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

In 1972, my $2.40 per hour kept me in an apartment,
food, clothing, and even allowed me to buy a motorcycle.
That was .20 above the minimum wage.


Yep, that sounds right. You know, thinking back, I believe I was actually
happier back then. I didn't have much, but I don't remember feeling anything
was missing in my life. Perhaps I'm getting too old to remember things back
then clearly. Maybe I'll start a late mid-life crisis and go looking for
those youthful days again. I remember this one girl...


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Let me make this as plain as possible. (snip)


You explained it just fine in the last message. I just don't agree
subsidies alone were the deciding factors - I suspect tariffs played a much
bigger role than you suggest.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

As I understand the tariffs, they were/are only
imposed beyond a certain number of vehicles/yr
imported. (snip)


I don't know the details of the various tariffs, so I'll take your word
for it, Jim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
See Jim? Give a dog a bone and he buries it. When someone submits
something contrary to the way Dwight wants everything to be--*without*
substantiated concepts I might add--by *his* own admission--he suddenly
gets
short and impatient with others.

Kim W5TIT

Kim, you made my morning with this little tidbit. "Give a dog a bone and he
buries it." I can hardly type, I'm laughing so hard.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

P.S. Tried to e-mail you. Could you drop me one, if possible?

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Now I see what you are doing. You are OVER reacting
to any little thing just to try and hang on to whatever
concept it is you have, Dwight. "Nationwide search?"
That is hysterical! (snip)


Kim, at least try to think before posting. When you search for something
on the internet, you're not exactly limiting your search to your hometown,
now are you? The search is nation-wide, and even world-wide. Duh!


It took me less than 2 minutes to "happen" to look last night
while I was at Wal-Mart. Now, true, they are a nationwide
outlet so you may have to travel the nation before you find
one of those stores--but they had more than one choice of
metal fans. So, don't know why you can't find 'em.


Please provide the names of those fans. I've searched Wal-Mart several
times, and taken several of their fans apart, and they do not have an all
metal fan. The motor is the most critical part since that is what wears out
so quickly. In each of the fans I took apart, major internal parts (gears,
bearings, motor mounts, and so on) were plastic, not metal. Of course, I
don't expect much more than that from Wal-Mart. They sell cheap fans. But I
even found similar materials in much more expensive fans at stores that
specialize in products targeted towards business and industry.


'Scuse me? Surely you are basing the content of your
opinions on at least *some* kind of facts that you've
either experienced or heard, or whatever, over the course
of your life. In fact, I bet I can find a comment you made
to me in this thread that lends itself to not basing my
opinions from out of thin air! (snip)


Do so, Kim. Show me where I've said anything of the sort to you (the
actual message, not a quote you've taken out of context). While I've
occasionally asked someone for details on something he or she claims to be
fact, I don't believe I've ever asked anyone to provide facts to support an
opinion.


And, if you wish to be a proponent of something, it's
nearly imperative that you be able to convince others
why it's a good idea. Maybe that's why your ideas
flop; and why the American people don't change things
as they need to be changed.


I'm also not here to be a proponent of anything, Kim. When are you going
to understand this is just a newsgroup, not a meeting of Congress? None of
us have the power to change anything by simply posting to this newsgroup.
Instead, we're simply discussing issues, comparing opinions, and perhaps
getting a difference insight in the process.


See Jim? Give a dog a bone and he buries it. When
someone submits something contrary to the way Dwight
wants everything to be--*without* substantiated
concepts I might add--by *his* own admission--he
suddenly gets short and impatient with others.


Hello? Where have I been short and impatient with anyone other than you,
Kim? I stated what I believe to be bloody obvious - "short of setting up a
dictatorship, you're never going to get even a significant portion of the
280 million people in this country to shop the way you want." I don't think
Jim would disagree with that and you don't even address it in your response.


So, as in real debate, let's bring this full-circle. You
are stating that consumers--presumably *American*
consumers--are too lazy and/or incapable of business
or economic awareness to decide "smart" shopping
decisions?! (snip)


No, that is not what I said, Kim. I said exactly what I meant - "consumers
in general [and, since I'm a consumer, that would certainly include me] have
neither the business awareness or economic awareness to make those types of
decisions on their own." I'm certainly not aware of all the business
activities and interactions of the many companies whose products I purchase.
Likewise, I'm not fully aware of the economic policies and practices of this
country or the countries we trade with. Such an awareness would require an
army of employees and the financial resources of the government just to
research. Court cases involving such issues, centering on just a single
large company, have taken years to resolve.


They sure do. And many do. We live in an information
glut these days. If someone can't get information they
are looking for, they need to ask someone how to find it-
-because it's pretty much there and it's there fairly
quickly.


Is that true, Kim? You said to ask someone. Okay, since you claim such
information can be easily and quickly found, I'll ask you and put your claim
to the test. I'm going shopping this morning to buy six products - Mary Jane
Bread, Jiffy Pop Popcorn, Pam Cooking Spray, Brawney Napkins, and some
screws and plywood from Home Depot (whatever brands they carry). Please
provide me with information about each of these products, the companies, and
the overall industries, involved. This should include all information needed
to be a truly informed, "concerned," shopper - manufacturing processes,
product safety, environmental issues, financial information, ties with other
companies both here and overseas, markets, details and backgrounds of owners
and senior management, employee composition, and so on. Since the
information is so easily and quickly found, this shouldn't take you more
than a few minutes (with the results posted here today). When you're
finished with that, then you can start on this evening's shopping lists - my
wife is going grocery shopping for a few dozen products and we're both later
going to the mall for another half dozen or so products.


Oh OK. It's always going to be the corporate entity's fault.
Now, speak of liberal slinging...


Did you suddenly lose the ability to comprehend what you've read, Kim? I
clearly said, "Business has _SOME_ responsibility in all this." Only you
could read that as "It's always..." their "...fault."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yeah..... that may be true but circumstances now have forced many to
suffer
with it as a "living" wage.


Yeah that's the same "victim" argument some of my friends made when I went
to college and they didn't. But I sacrificed to go to college. My parents
didn't pay for it.

I worked a minimum wage job, lived at home, did not buy a car, did not buy
records and so on. I put the money aside and did without so I could go to
college. So that "circumstances" argument is pretty shakey. And don't try
the "pregnant and alone teenager" argument either. I knew some of them in
college and they made it too.

People allow themselves to fail and become victims of circumstance.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


--
Ryan KC8PMX

Why is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but
it takes a whole box to start a barbecue?

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or
minimum
wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour.

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living"
wage.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Dee,

You must be living in a "fairy tale" world if yo believe this to be still
true. It is a simple fact that there is not the same type of jobs
available
that were around in the 1965-1980's range of time. The changes in the
employment economy and shifts in employment trends are why. Take GM for
instance....... At least up here in the Tri- Cities and Flint, GM is
constantly cutting back, and even closing plants, not the opposite. Hell,
locally speaking, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning also have cut more than
half
their workforce in the past 15 years or so.


Economies, markets and jobs are always changing. This is nothing new. A
lot of us have had to change with them, rebuild our skills and move to not
only different jobs but different locations in the country to stay employed.

I've faced and made some hard economic choices in my life and did not and do
not expect the government to fix it for me or the world to stay static.
Security is and always has been an illusion. I've faced that a long time
ago and dealt with it.

Construction jobs around here suck, unless you hold "paper" you are
nothing
and still making the under 8 dollar an hour range wage, before taxes. I
can
bring up more examples if you want referring to my area if ya want.



So if they suck, why don't the people go elsewhere. People have
traditionally followed the job markets to get ahead. You can't make the
market come to you. That is an unrealistic fairy tail and illusion.

By the way, check the tax tables. Someone making $8 per hour or under and
has a family probably won't be paying any significant income taxes unless
their spouse is also working but even then their tax burden is still
minimal.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Let me make this as plain as possible. (snip)


You explained it just fine in the last message. I just don't agree
subsidies alone were the deciding factors - I suspect tariffs played a
much
bigger role than you suggest.



Well I go by what the auto industry journals said at the time since they
were circulated around the workplace. I give more credence to those
analysts than I would my personal opinions as they had the actual data.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

In 1972, my $2.40 per hour kept me in an apartment,
food, clothing, and even allowed me to buy a motorcycle.
That was .20 above the minimum wage.



Yep, that sounds right. You know, thinking back, I believe I was actually
happier back then. I didn't have much, but I don't remember feeling anything
was missing in my life. Perhaps I'm getting too old to remember things back
then clearly. Maybe I'll start a late mid-life crisis and go looking for
those youthful days again. I remember this one girl...

I don't know if I was happier then, but I was having a blast.

As for a mid-life crisis, remember you worked hard for it, you deserve
it, and no one is going to deprive you of it! 8^)

I hear the MLC car of choice is a BMW Z3. Almost makes me want to have
one so I can pick one up.

- Mike KB3EIA -