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

"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


Quite simply, it's easy to live in an alternate reality when one goes around
"just not agreeing" with things that are staring them in the face... I used
to do it, but I grew up...

Kim W5TIT

In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
But its perfectly okay to pay some union bum a ton of wages for doing a
repetitive task, (a skill that same 14 y.o. that passed a ham test
could
do) therefore jacking the cost of a product, lets say a car for this
example, to a ridiculous price??? (actually both the fast food worker
and
the person on the line at the factory ARE BOTH doing repetitive
tasks....)

Hold on a sec....

"union bum"?

Yep... there are a ton of them in this state..... collect a "phat" wage ($20
per hour or more) for a job a kid could do, brag about only working 2 of the
8 hours in a shift, and admit to stealing and other fraudulant
practices..... .yeah, those are bums... Not all union workers are bums, but
there are alot that are.

Then they're bums, pure and simple - not "union bums".

As for "a job a kid could do", rest assured that if some employers could use
child labor, they would - and pay 'em less than minimum wage, too.

The basic concept that Dwight is talking about is a "living wage" -
meaning jobs that pay enough in wages and benefits to permit people to
live above the poverty line *without* government help. Yes, paying a
living wage makes products and services cost more, but it also removes
people from the govt. support system.

So.... basically, one way or another people have to pay for it, be it in
higher service/product costs or paying in taxes for a government program.

Sure. But which is more efficient economically - private industry or the govt.
programs?

Some say "the marketplace" should set wages. But "the marketplace" is
tilted by a bunch of factors, such as the exportation of jobs and the
importation of workers.

Yes, that is what is called an idealism, but in reality it doesn't work that
way. Let's look at my county for example..... Republican owners of
businesses and places to rent charge considerably higher for products,
services and housing. These are also in most of the cases the employers in
the area. For example, on average, a single bedroom apartment cannot be
found for less than $350-400. That does not even include utilities.

That's actually quite inexpensive compared to a lot of places.

The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or minimum
wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour. Now, do the math on that. The first
of the normal 2 paychecks (paid every 2 weeks) each month barely even
covers the rent, let alone the utilities. Factor in transportation of any
means, and basic food needs, and that exceeds the second check.

Sure - but that's if you live alone.

This does
not include for any savings, clothing or medicine purchases and of course
nothing in the "entertainment" category on the spreadsheet.
That is why alot of people around here are forced to work two jobs. Problem
there is, there is no time left over for family or even better, trying to
take classes to get a degree to get out of the ruts. Typically in my area
as well, certain market indicators such as milk, bread, gasoline etc, is at
least 10-20 percent higher than surrounding counties. Basically they want
you to work for as little as possible, but charge ya up the ying-yang for
everything. Guess that is the American way eh?

Supply and demand. Obviously there's no labor shortage there, so the employers
control the wages. The answer is to vote with your feet.

The "living wage" concept and reality are largely a result of
organized labor unions leveling the playing field a bit by unifying
the many workers in negotiating with the relatively few employees. The
really smart employers learned to treat their workers well enough that
they wouldn't unionize.

Look at what working conditions were like in various industries
100-150 years ago, before organized labor had any real power.

Just like they are for non-unionized labor now! hihi

Because of the weakening of the unions.


Yep. $20,000/yr isn't much at all anymore in many parts of the
country. Not to raise a family, anyway.

Or for a single person either...... that 20,000 grand is PRE-TAX and
PRE-BENEFIT (if any) and can quickly become as low as 13,000-15,000 dollars
depending on the circumstances.

The trick is to go where the good jobs are...

As for the $15 burrito and coke at Taco Bell, think about this:

At least here in EPA, we have a decent selection of independent diners
as an alternative to the fast food chains. The food in them is not
much more expensive than the chains, and usually better for you. The
workers in those places make at least as much as the fast food chains.
One reason for their survival is that they don't spend bazillions on
advertising. Another is local loyalty of customers.

So what's the answer, Dwight - Ryan - Kim?

I don't assume to have all of the answers, but I am sure that you can go
through just about any company or organization and thin out the dead-wood.

That depends on the company. Many are constantly doing just that.

People who just are not returning equivalent value for the service they are
supposed to provide as an employee. There is a case of 3 people who are
"riding the clock out" in my full time employment place of work. And
compared to the remainder of the department they are making more than twice
our wages for similar/same work but just have been here a while. With those
three people to finally retire or move on, that would allow for at least 4-5
more people to replace them, that will ACTUALLY WORK, and still allow for
the rest of the department to get a $1.00 per hour raise, and STILL SAVE
SOME MONEY on overall department wages.

How?

If there are 3 people slacking, they could probably be replaced by 1 or 2 good
workers, not 4 or 5.

The math has been figured out here
on this and it is true....

The other answer is for employers to finally see the value in helping the
employee with training/education. If an employer is credible enough, the
employee will stay with that employer with the new training they have
recieved.

Both my present and former employers do that.

Even though people want to believe otherwise, there are more and more people
having to, and trying to survive on what were supposed to be considered
"high school kid" jobs.

Why?

Do they refuse to relocate?
Do they lack education and other qualifications?

One thing *has* changed in the past 30-odd years. There used to be a lot of
jobs that a kid with a high-school diploma could get, that would lead up the
ladder to better paying jobs. Today those jobs take a college degree. Call it
education inflation or whatever, it's a fact.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:


As for "a job a kid could do", rest assured that if some employers could use
child labor, they would - and pay 'em less than minimum wage, too.

Hehe, that brings us to one of the reasons that U****S got started in
the first place. The employers *were* using children, *were* paying them
almost nothing, and abusing them most terribly.

So the people who argue that raising the minimum wage is putting young
people out of work do know what they are talking about!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Nope. Do it yourself. I've told you the information is
there to be had--and it's that simple. People get paid
good money to do what you're asking me to do, above.
If you do it, Dwight, maybe you'll have some facts
behind your opinions...


You and I both knew you couldn't do it, Kim. The information it not that
easily available and it would take considerable effort for consumers to
research the products they purchase each day, week, or year. In spite of
your claims otherwise, you don't do it. I certainly don't do it. And I don't
know anyone who does. But someone has to have some responsibility for which
products are sold and effects on the overall economy. Since it is beyond the
abilities of the average consumer, the burden automatically falls on
business, the government, and the courts.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) 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^)


LOL. Oh, I think my wife might certainly try.


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


Anything white and expensive will do the job ("cute" is a bonus). I don't
know why, but women seem to love white vehicles. I suspect it has something
to do with the reason why women who would never do so elsewhere so easily
shed their cloths around water. Of course, this is clearly not the reason I
drive a white vehicle today - white is just a safer color on the road. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

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.

You might want to check

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm

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.

Yep. Think about why that is.

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.

A lot has to do with choices made and their individual circumstances.

Besides the economic concerns, in a lot of professions today, a person cannot
simply stop working for several years and expect to be employable when they
return.

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^)

It changed big time. Same for medical and education costs.

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.

Part of that is people *choosing* to buy bigger and more luxurious cars.

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!

Precisely. And a college degree is much more of a necessity today.

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.

Yep - and a losing game at worst.

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.

Personal bankruptcies are going up, too.

And that's part of what Dwight would reform! (lack of caps on how much debt a
person can get into)

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:
Mike Coslo writes:

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.

You might want to check

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm


The difference really isn't that unusual, Jim. You're obviously forgetting
state minimum wage laws which can add to the federal minimum wage. Perhaps
Mike lived in a state with it's own minimum wage laws at the time. As you
probably know, state minimum wage laws were a growing trend in the 70's, but
that growth has pretty much died out over the years. In fact, I'm not even
sure any state still has an active minimum wage law today.


(snip) Personal bankruptcies are going up, too.

And that's part of what Dwight would reform! (lack
of caps on how much debt a person can get into)


Hey, now wait a minute, Jim. I realize what you meant. But, before you
confuse people, watch how you word that. I'm not running for political
office, so I'm not likely to reform anything. Anyway, I do think this is one
of the areas that has to be addressed in any serious reform effort. It is
amazing how much debt is floating around out there. I see college students
who have not worked a day in their life graduating with debts exceeding
twenty, thirty, and even forty, thousand dollars (student and personal
loans). I see people buying homes and cars that are far beyond what they can
reasonably afford on their incomes. I've seen reports of average credit card
debts exceeding $8,000 today. Clearly, something has to be done to reel in
this madness. A cap on the percentage of a person's income that can be used
to establish monthly payments for all loans seems logical (and the least
intrusive) to me.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"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.

All of which are essentially "price" issues because you wind up
paying, one way or another.

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.

Plus it keeps you from becoming totally dependent on one supplier.

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.

Exactly! And I agree with all of these policies 100%.

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.

Sounds like a very reasonable approach. And if a supplier were
deficient in those areas, or tried to hide things, I bet your company
wouldn't do business with them - even if it meant paying more,
elsewhere.

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.

Thanks for a complete and concise answer, Hans. And for showing that
it's not just the bottom line that drives business decisions.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) 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^)



LOL. Oh, I think my wife might certainly try.



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



Anything white and expensive will do the job ("cute" is a bonus). I don't
know why, but women seem to love white vehicles. I suspect it has something
to do with the reason why women who would never do so elsewhere so easily
shed their cloths around water. Of course, this is clearly not the reason I
drive a white vehicle today - white is just a safer color on the road. ;-)

Side story, in 1980, I bought my first brand new car, a 1980 Fiesta. In
a fit of I don't know what, I bout it in a bright orange. Darn car was
run into by more people than any other car I've ever owned! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

Nope. Do it yourself. I've told you the information is
there to be had--and it's that simple. People get paid
good money to do what you're asking me to do, above.
If you do it, Dwight, maybe you'll have some facts
behind your opinions...

You and I both knew you couldn't do it, Kim. The information it not that
easily available and it would take considerable effort for consumers to
research the products they purchase each day, week, or year. In spite of
your claims otherwise, you don't do it. I certainly don't do it. And I
don't
know anyone who does. But someone has to have some responsibility for
which
products are sold and effects on the overall economy. Since it is beyond
the
abilities of the average consumer, the burden automatically falls on
business, the government, and the courts.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



Dwight, are you calling me a liar? Yes, I have done it, and yes it is not
all that difficult to do. Anyone on the internet has the capability and
it's not difficult at all. Try these sites, since you're apparently too
damned lazy to take the effort. You will have to add the typical front end
to each of these addresses:

ethicalconsumer.org (check out the research link)
epa.gov/tri (toxic release inventory)
greenchoices.org (has some links to fairly every-day things we buy)
corpgov.net (good primer on the topic)

I might also remind you of something, truly stupid I might add, that you
said above: "since it is beyond the abilities of the average consumer, the
burden automatically falls on business, the government, and the courts."
This in a follow-up to a brilliant observation you made: "...someone has to
have some responsibility for which products are sold and the effects on the
overall economy."

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

And, let me further make a suggestion: before *you* make yourself look any
more stupid, get some education on the topic we've been discussing in this
thread. Jim and Dee are far better at me than history and perspective and
you've repeatedly negated their points of view--even going so far as to say
[paraphrasing here] that you don't have to have facts because we are "just
debating." Go "just debate" with the Kindergartners...I take this subject
far more seriously.

Kim W5TIT

N2EY wrote:

Thanks for a complete and concise answer, Hans. And for showing that
it's not just the bottom line that drives business decisions.

Ah, but I think you missed the best part of the whole message, Jim. Every
action I described has a tendency to reduce my overall cost of goods sold,
either in reducing fixed factory costs, in reduced variable costs, in
higher inventory turns, in shorter manufacturing cycles, in better cash
flow, or in reduced headcount. All of that DOES drop directly to my bottom
line.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote

The present paradigm will undoubtably hold sway until accountants see
*thier* jobs shipped out to a third world country.

Don't look now, but accounting is one of the "back office" functions which
most manufacturing companies have outsourced to India and similar places a
***long*** time ago.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

One thing *has* changed in the past 30-odd years. There used to be a lot
of
jobs that a kid with a high-school diploma could get, that would lead up
the
ladder to better paying jobs. Today those jobs take a college degree. Call
it
education inflation or whatever, it's a fact.


That's because all too often these days that high school diploma is
insufficient to prove the applicant can even read and write.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

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^)

It changed big time. Same for medical and education costs.

However as noted in later in this same post for cars (now snipped), people
now demand more features in that house and more room in that house that was
common in 1950. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

"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.


Thats assuming a certain age too. I have sacraficed as well, but do the
math, at 5-7 bucks an hour, trying to support your self, in the minimal of
settings, (housing, transportation etc.) and also have funds to pay for
college does not always work as conviently as you prescribe. I have been
working on my degree since 1989, and am almost done. Unfortunately you live
in some type of world where kids are allowed to live with the parents above
the age of 18. Myself, as well as many others do not have that luxury.



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.

Again, not all people have the luxury of living off the parents beyond
graduation of high school. To expect every person to have been in the exact
same circumstances as you is also pretty shakey as well. As far as the
pregnant teenager issue, I wasn't gonna mention that one either.


People allow themselves to fail and become victims of circumstance.

Following that logic, then the people IN the WTC buildings are also as well
then......


Ryan KC8PMX

On 13 Nov 2003 01:29:13 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Trouble is finding foreigners who are knowledgeable about American accounting
practices - particularly for tax purposes.

Ten years ago there were few if any qualified computer professionals
in those third-world countres to which we now "offshore" more and
more of our technical expertise. Now there is a plethora of same.

Finding trained "foreign professionals" is no big deal anymore. I
have met many US-qualified accountants from the Pacific Rim when I
lived in a neighborhood adjacent to one with a large population of
such immmigrants in California.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

I didn't think Jim would every go that "low" but a kid to me is someone
almost in the college years! (somewhere between 18-21..... hi hi) Never
would have implied child labor (under 14.)


--
Ryan KC8PMX

Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...
N2EY wrote:


As for "a job a kid could do", rest assured that if some employers could
use
child labor, they would - and pay 'em less than minimum wage, too.

Hehe, that brings us to one of the reasons that U****S got started in
the first place. The employers *were* using children, *were* paying them
almost nothing, and abusing them most terribly.

So the people who argue that raising the minimum wage is putting young
people out of work do know what they are talking about!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Then they're bums, pure and simple - not "union bums".

If they are bums, and part of a union, then the logic displayed here by
certain others dictates they are by definition then, "union bums."
I don't get any union protection whatsoever... why should they?



As for "a job a kid could do", rest assured that if some employers could
use
child labor, they would - and pay 'em less than minimum wage, too.

Hmmm, did I say child labor or kids..... kids in reference to me was
referring to the teeny boppers up til around somewhere between 18-21.


The basic concept that Dwight is talking about is a "living wage" -
meaning jobs that pay enough in wages and benefits to permit people to
live above the poverty line *without* government help. Yes, paying a
living wage makes products and services cost more, but it also removes
people from the govt. support system.

So.... basically, one way or another people have to pay for it, be it in
higher service/product costs or paying in taxes for a government program.

Sure. But which is more efficient economically - private industry or the
govt.
programs?


Not really sure, but if the costs were about the same, I am not really sure
if there would be a difference.
Not saying I support government intervention either....


Some say "the marketplace" should set wages. But "the marketplace" is
tilted by a bunch of factors, such as the exportation of jobs and the
importation of workers.

Yes, that is what is called an idealism, but in reality it doesn't work
that
way. Let's look at my county for example..... Republican owners of
businesses and places to rent charge considerably higher for products,
services and housing. These are also in most of the cases the employers
in
the area. For example, on average, a single bedroom apartment cannot be
found for less than $350-400. That does not even include utilities.

That's actually quite inexpensive compared to a lot of places.

Yeah... but the "living wage, or prevailing minimum wage" is higher in
those "other places" I would have to imagine.


The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or
minimum
wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour. Now, do the math on that. The
first
of the normal 2 paychecks (paid every 2 weeks) each month barely even
covers the rent, let alone the utilities. Factor in transportation of
any
means, and basic food needs, and that exceeds the second check.

Sure - but that's if you live alone.

Yeah..... true, but so far I have not seen anything around here like some
type of "roommate arranger" or anything like that. In fact I am almost
hesitant to roommate with anyone I do not know almost as well as I know
family members. When living in the crotch of Michigan, otherwise known as
Flint, I lost everything to my name because of one of the two roommates had
some outstanding debt to some shady characters, that I wasn't even aware of
because on the surface the person seemed as credible as most anyone in this
newsgroup. Lost all my photography gear, computer, SCUBA gear, and DJ
equipment and music collection at the time, to a tune of almost $10,000
worth of stuff.

And as another posted in this thread somewhere, it is not always feasable to
"mooch off the parents" for alot of people, although some are fortunate
enough to do so.



This does
not include for any savings, clothing or medicine purchases and of course
nothing in the "entertainment" category on the spreadsheet.
That is why alot of people around here are forced to work two jobs.
Problem
there is, there is no time left over for family or even better, trying to
take classes to get a degree to get out of the ruts. Typically in my
area
as well, certain market indicators such as milk, bread, gasoline etc, is
at
least 10-20 percent higher than surrounding counties. Basically they
want
you to work for as little as possible, but charge ya up the ying-yang for
everything. Guess that is the American way eh?

Supply and demand. Obviously there's no labor shortage there, so the
employers
control the wages. The answer is to vote with your feet.
The "living wage" concept and reality are largely a result of
organized labor unions leveling the playing field a bit by unifying
the many workers in negotiating with the relatively few employees. The
really smart employers learned to treat their workers well enough that
they wouldn't unionize.

Look at what working conditions were like in various industries
100-150 years ago, before organized labor had any real power.

Just like they are for non-unionized labor now! hihi

Because of the weakening of the unions.


Only if all jobs had union protectionism schemes helping them.




Yep. $20,000/yr isn't much at all anymore in many parts of the
country. Not to raise a family, anyway.

Or for a single person either...... that 20,000 grand is PRE-TAX and
PRE-BENEFIT (if any) and can quickly become as low as 13,000-15,000
dollars
depending on the circumstances.

The trick is to go where the good jobs are...

Again, that is not always feasable as well. My last move cost almost $1,000
that I have recently paid off to a friend who was generous enough to loan me
the money to do so. (fortunately he allowed me to stretch the payments
out.)


As for the $15 burrito and coke at Taco Bell, think about this:

At least here in EPA, we have a decent selection of independent diners
as an alternative to the fast food chains. The food in them is not
much more expensive than the chains, and usually better for you. The
workers in those places make at least as much as the fast food chains.
One reason for their survival is that they don't spend bazillions on
advertising. Another is local loyalty of customers.

So what's the answer, Dwight - Ryan - Kim?

I don't assume to have all of the answers, but I am sure that you can go
through just about any company or organization and thin out the
dead-wood.

That depends on the company. Many are constantly doing just that.

People who just are not returning equivalent value for the service they
are
supposed to provide as an employee. There is a case of 3 people who are
"riding the clock out" in my full time employment place of work. And
compared to the remainder of the department they are making more than
twice
our wages for similar/same work but just have been here a while. With
those
three people to finally retire or move on, that would allow for at least
4-5
more people to replace them, that will ACTUALLY WORK, and still allow for
the rest of the department to get a $1.00 per hour raise, and STILL SAVE
SOME MONEY on overall department wages.

How?

If there are 3 people slacking, they could probably be replaced by 1 or 2
good
workers, not 4 or 5.

Yes, but the 3 people are also by raises and cost of living allowances
(COLA's) are making almost 15 bucks per hour, (45 dollars per hour total)
and in the same positions, and same level of responsibility, but just have
been around quite a while and never moved anywhere within the department..

Now hiring at least four people at say 8 bucks an hour to start, (higher
than they normally do right now) makes 32 dollars an hour, plus giving the
other 6 people a dollar an hour raise which would bring all employees up to
at least 8 dollars or more per hour, which now gives us a total of 38
dollars an hour cost for the four new people and giving the existing ones a
raise, which would boost the moral as well. Still leaves a savings of about
7 bucks per hour, or they could spend 1 dollar more per hour and have a
total of five people and use up that seven an hour savings. That would give
us 5 actually working employees instead of 3 that don't do much.



The math has been figured out here
on this and it is true....

The other answer is for employers to finally see the value in helping the
employee with training/education. If an employer is credible enough, the
employee will stay with that employer with the new training they have
recieved.

Both my present and former employers do that.

Not the majority around here. There are some that are intelligent enough to
see the value in training and continuing education. I myself pursue at
least 120-150 hours each year in continuing education credits.



Even though people want to believe otherwise, there are more and more
people
having to, and trying to survive on what were supposed to be considered
"high school kid" jobs.

Why?

Do they refuse to relocate?

Unless it is something new, I have yet to see any organization, public or
private that assists with moving/relocation costs. Someone making less than
10 bucks per hour pre-tax/pre-benefit cannot afford to pick up and move
across the country that easy.

Do they lack education and other qualifications?

That is a possibility, but I cannot speak for others. There is the "who you
know" factor as well. Many unqualified people get those jobs where a
qualified person didn't, merely by who they knew. (or what butt they kissed)



One thing *has* changed in the past 30-odd years. There used to be a lot
of
jobs that a kid with a high-school diploma could get, that would lead up
the
ladder to better paying jobs. Today those jobs take a college degree. Call
it
education inflation or whatever, it's a fact.

That is true 100%. I have been working on my degree since 1989, as finances
allow.


--
Ryan KC8PMX

Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Mike Coslo" wrote

The present paradigm will undoubtably hold sway until accountants see
*thier* jobs shipped out to a third world country.

Don't look now, but accounting is one of the "back office" functions which
most manufacturing companies have outsourced to India and similar places a
***long*** time ago.

73, de Hans, K0HB



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.

Kim W5TIT

"charlesb" wrote in message
.com...

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



Haven't a clue...

Kim W5TIT

"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. It seems to me
that if one routinely researches products, the locations of sites with such
information would be instantly familiar. But, when I then asked you for
information about several products, you didn't offer the sites you
supposedly use - you had to search the internet to find sites. By the way,
the sites you finally did list certainly didn't dispute my claim that
reliable info is not that easy for consumers to get (see next paragraph
below).


ethicalconsumer.org (check out the research link)
epa.gov/tri (toxic release inventory)
greenchoices.org (has some links to fairly every-day things we buy)
corpgov.net (good primer on the topic)


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.


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/

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Side story, in 1980, I bought my first brand new
car, a 1980 Fiesta. In a fit of I don't know what,
I bought it in a bright orange. Darn car was run
into by more people than any other car I've ever
owned! 8^)


Bright orange, huh? Interesting color choice. Anyway, didn't you notice
the number of orange cones littering the highways around construction sites?
I don't know if people just can't see them or they intentionally run over
them. I worked at a truck rental place many years ago and a customer
returned a truck one afternoon with an orange cone dangling under the front.
When I asked him about it, he said it must have come from the construction
site he went through up the road. Obviously, he wasn't even aware that he
had run over it. Hopefully there was no worker standing near that cone. If
so, he fell off before the truck got to our location. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


The present paradigm will undoubtably hold sway until accountants see
*thier* jobs shipped out to a third world country.


Don't look now, but accounting is one of the "back office" functions which
most manufacturing companies have outsourced to India and similar places a
***long*** time ago.


Hadn't heard of that. Any idea who and when?


- Mike KB3EIA -

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Mike Coslo" wrote


The present paradigm will undoubtably hold sway until accountants see
*thier* jobs shipped out to a third world country.

Don't look now, but accounting is one of the "back office" functions which
most manufacturing companies have outsourced to India and similar places a
***long*** time ago.

73, de Hans, K0HB




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.


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

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


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^)

It changed big time. Same for medical and education costs.


However as noted in later in this same post for cars (now snipped), people
now demand more features in that house and more room in that house that was
common in 1950. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Well if we cant compare houses to houses because houses to houses is
apples to oranges..............

C'mon, Dee - there has to be *some* sort of comparison that can be
made! If my comments about people paying 50 percent or more of their
take home pay to put a roof over their head compared to 14 percent way
back when are irrelevant, and if people doing 30 year mortgages vs 10 or
15 year mortgages are irrelevant, than I guess you are saying that
buying a house in 1950 is the exact equivalent of buying one in 2003?


......but it isn't because it's an apples to oranges comparison?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.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.

Why not, Dwight?

I don't think a quality fan should
be an esoteric item requiring a nation-wide search. Yet that is exactly the
case.

That's today's reality, brought about by a number of factors such as
the willingness of people to buy cheap stuff.

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.

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.

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

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.

No dictatorship needed. Just education. Look at how Hans' company
deals with suppliers - all those principles apply to individuals as
well. Sure, we individuals aren't going to make detailed
investigations of every product we buy, but we *can* become better
educated about them and make better choices. Just like Hans' and many
other companies do.

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

Then they need to learn. Just like our ancestors had to learn how to
deal with their environment.

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 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.

Business darn well knows
all that, which is exactly why they point to consumer spending as the main
cause of a poor economy.

Do you think they're going to blame themselves?

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.

I disagree. All businesses are regulated to some degree - many to a
very high degree. And in many cases it's justified, on the basis of
safety.

Business has some responsibility in all this.
Your argument gives them a free ride when it comes to that responsibility.

Not at all.

My point is that *everyone* has some responsibility in all this.
Business, government, and customers are all part of it. Every purchase
we make is "voting with our wallets". But some people don't want that
responsibility, because it takes some effort and it detracts from the
perfect images we see in advertisements.

For example, it doesn't take a degree in nutrition to know that if
someone eats 3000 calories a day and only burns off 2000 calories a
day, they're going to gain weight and keep gaining it until something
changes. And the required changes (eating less, eating differently,
becoming more active) may not be 100% fun. In fact, they may be 0%
fun.

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
N2EY wrote:

Thanks for a complete and concise answer, Hans. And for showing that
it's not just the bottom line that drives business decisions.

Ah, but I think you missed the best part of the whole message, Jim.

I didn't miss it, but perhaps I wasn't clear about my appreciation of
it. I wrote about how those policies were all "price" policies because
they worked to reduce the true cost of things bought. (If you have to
spend a nickel to inspect every 10 cent widget you buy, it's actually
cheaper to buy a 12 cent widget that doesn't need incoming
inspection). Etc.

Every
action I described has a tendency to reduce my overall cost of goods sold,
either in reducing fixed factory costs, in reduced variable costs, in
higher inventory turns, in shorter manufacturing cycles, in better cash
flow, or in reduced headcount. All of that DOES drop directly to my bottom
line.

Not every action! The ethical concerns you mentioned would tend to
raise it, if:

1) you spend money to check out suppliers
2) you would refuse a lower priced supplier on ethical grounds alone -
even if the supplier wasn't breaking any laws.
3) you spend more money to buy from local and minority/woman owned
companies, etc.

Of course all three can be looked upon as long-term investments that
will ultimately benefit the bottom line 'someday'. Much better than
taking a short-term view that ultimately winds up costing more in the
long term.

And I agree with all those actions 100%.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

Dennis Ferguson

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

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 -

They must be buying immodestly priced houses, then, because there are
more homeowners than ever before.

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 -