In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

(Bill Sohl wrote):

But in today's world, even telecom has cut back on training
expenses.

That is because they intend to get rid of every possible employee
whenever possible. Why would you train people that aren't going to be
working for you in a few years?

The military does it all the time!

Side note: These good folk could probably save money if they were to
get a bill passed requiring all Americans to learn Indian language in
school. That way they wouldn't have to train their new help to speak
English.

Which language of India?

Companies can not afford to support products for long terms
and they MUST keep coming out with the latest products
because if they don't, the consumer will pass them by.
The irony of non-support for older products is that in
some cases, cottage or niche companies are created
to fill the void if there is sufficient consumer interest.

This isn;t a new game. Back in the late 1950s, US automakers "redesigned"
their cars every year. Most of the "redesign" was cosmetic, not functional.
Their goal wasn't to make cars that would last - they wanted those who
were the
new-car buyers to come back into the dealerships every year. They almost
succeeded - at one point, the average new-car buyer was back every two
years, and it was very rare for a car to last 100,000 miles even with the
best of
care.

Yet today the average car hit 200K miles or more.

And the new car is so expensive that it darn well *better* make 200 K
miles. They have become waay too expensive. Did you know that they are
offering 7 year auto loans now? All the "innovative" techniques that the
companies had to do over the years to sell cars as the price went up is
reaching an end-game for them. Most people do not want to pay $500-$600
or more a month for a vehicle.

Are cars *really* more expensive, adjusted for inflation?

Back in 2001, my Honda Odyssey minivan cost about $26,000 new. How much did,
say, the classic Ford Country Squire station wagon with the woodlike sides cost
in 1964? How much has typical income increased in that time period?

I just paid it off, and it's got a lot more usable life in it. So the total
lifetime cost may be less in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Leasing looked good for a while, but of course you have no trade-in, and
the lease company doesn't really want you to trade the thing in, they
want you to buy-out. But oh those car payments!

All depends on a whole bunch of unknowns like residual value, interest rate,
repair cost, etc.

Look at the
ever newer, faster and more memory for PCs.

Not just memory but every part of the machine - processor, drives, etc.
However, these improvements are often done at the price of quality.

Huh? Based on what information do you make that statement?

Open up an old IBM PC, then open up a clone box built for cheap
performance. I can send you pix of some I have in my garage.

Agreed. But that's in large part because they are not meant to last that long.
And because enough people buy on price alone.

Meanwhile, folks like me cherrypick the trailing edge for pennies. This Amidon
350MHz box cost me a lot less than $100, and most of that was for the CD-ROM
burner and the modem.

Consider too that
a few years back, marketing considered anything under $300
to be an "impulse buy" (i.e. no real thought as to price vs value
is applied by the consumer).

A few years back, the Dow was near 12,000, the Federal budget was
balanced, Congress was trying to figure out how to spend the "peace
dividend",
unemployment *and* inflation were at record lows and a lot of folks I knew
were
talking about retiring at 55.

And Ahnold was a movie actor.

Your point?

You like it better this way?

I don't.

All changed now.

Your point?

Same question.

73 de Jim, N2EY