It's the Economy, Stupid! (Was Ham-radio is a hobby not a service)
 

In article , Alun
writes:

We are still down 2 million jobs since 911. Mine was one
of the ones lost in the months after the attack. I am trying to run my own
business now, but it is a hard struggle. I would go back to working for
someone else, but there are no jobs in my field. The very few job ads I see
ask for impossibly high qualifications (for me anyway!), as employers can
pick and choose from the glut of people looking for work. For example, I
have a BS and they are looking for PhDs.

If you still have a well paid job it is easy to overlook the situation, but
it's dire. Employers are not hiring at anything like the rate expected at
this stage of an economic recovery.

That's because they learned to make do with the people they had, and are
reluctant to add more now.

2.4 million jobs were lost, and only
about 400,000 new ones have been added. It's impossible to look at those
numbers and not conclude that the economy is in terrible shape. Other
economic indicators may be good, but the employment problem is very real
and very large.

Remember Ross Perot and the "giant sucking sound"?

The current administration might prefer that we all focus on security and
foreign wars, but that's because if too many people look too hard at the
employment numbers it will hurt their chances of reelection. FWIW, I doubt
that any government can really influence the economy more than a tiny
amount, but the political facts of life say that people will vote for
someone who promises to fix the economy.

Seems to me that the real problem is more fundamental. Short term fixes won't
change long-term problems.

For example, importing 57% of our oil, and letting that number rise every year,
isn't the right trend, but it's been allowed to go on because it's cheaper in
the short term than. (Please don't blame the environmental concerns of drilling
in the Arctic and similar places until you have solid numbers on what oil from
those places costs to extract, and how much can actually be extracted.)

Another example is the expectation of a trained workforce without investing the
resources in education to produce that workforce. "Resources" doesn't just mean
"money", either, though money is a big part of it.

73 de Jim, N2EY
All the White House can do is distract, or 'run interference'. The
employment stats are so bad that it's rather like trying to hide an
elephant under the rug. That's not to say that the other issues aren't
important, although personally I'm not happy about what they are doing in
either of these areas.

In article , Alun
writes:

Then outside the disaster arena, there's all the marathons,
walk-a-thons, bike-a-thons and myriad other public events for which
hams routinely provide communications. Our club supports 4 or 5 of
these per year.

Those are good practice.

BTW, I am not intending to call anyone stupid, but I just couldn't resist
the title.

Some things just "write themselves..." :-)

By the way, the Los Angeles Marathon was a success on Sunday,
record turn-out, everything run just fine. It can be done very well
without any amateur radio help but the ARRL copy scribblers
would have a cow about that. :-)

LHA / WMD

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

We are still down 2 million jobs since 911. Mine was one
of the ones lost in the months after the attack. I am trying to run my
own business now, but it is a hard struggle. I would go back to working
for someone else, but there are no jobs in my field. The very few job
ads I see ask for impossibly high qualifications (for me anyway!), as
employers can pick and choose from the glut of people looking for work.
For example, I have a BS and they are looking for PhDs.

If you still have a well paid job it is easy to overlook the situation,
but it's dire. Employers are not hiring at anything like the rate
expected at this stage of an economic recovery.

That's because they learned to make do with the people they had, and
are reluctant to add more now.

That's a large part of it, although I think tere may be more going on.

Such as?

2.4 million jobs were lost, and only
about 400,000 new ones have been added. It's impossible to look at
those numbers and not conclude that the economy is in terrible shape.
Other economic indicators may be good, but the employment problem is
very real and very large.

Remember Ross Perot and the "giant sucking sound"?

I found his ears rather distracting

Much of what he predicted has come to pass, though.

The current administration might prefer that we all focus on security
and foreign wars, but that's because if too many people look too hard
at the employment numbers it will hurt their chances of reelection.
FWIW, I doubt that any government can really influence the economy more
than a tiny amount, but the political facts of life say that people
will vote for someone who promises to fix the economy.

Seems to me that the real problem is more fundamental. Short term fixes
won't change long-term problems.

For example, importing 57% of our oil, and letting that number rise
every year, isn't the right trend, but it's been allowed to go on
because it's cheaper in the short term than. (Please don't blame the
environmental concerns of drilling in the Arctic and similar places
until you have solid numbers on what oil from those places costs to
extract, and how much can actually be extracted.)

I think reliance on oil is too strong. More needs to be done on other
sources of energy. Fat chance with oilmen in control, not that much was
ever done before.

And the truly ironic part is that Ralph "Unsafe At Any Speed" was a major
factor in putting an oilman in the White House by dividing the opposition in
2000. And he's poised to repeat that trick later this year.

Another example is the expectation of a trained workforce without
investing the resources in education to produce that workforce.
"Resources" doesn't just mean "money", either, though money is a big
part of it.

Agreed. The cost of education is running out of control.

It has far exceeded the general inflation level, yet is more necessary than
ever.

Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania, tuition
alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very expensive at the
time. Today the same school charges more than 10 times that. But will the
starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be more than 10 times what it was in
1976, when I graduated? Is fininacial aid 10 times what it was in my time
there? Nope.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Grants and
scholarships would make more sense than tax breaks for the rich.


73 de Jim, N2EY
All the White House can do is distract, or 'run interference'. The
employment stats are so bad that it's rather like trying to hide an
elephant under the rug. That's not to say that the other issues aren't
important, although personally I'm not happy about what they are doing
in either of these areas.





73 de Alun, N3KIP

N2EY wrote:
In article , Alun
writes:


(N2EY) wrote in
:


In article , Alun
writes:


We are still down 2 million jobs since 911. Mine was one
of the ones lost in the months after the attack. I am trying to run my
own business now, but it is a hard struggle. I would go back to working
for someone else, but there are no jobs in my field. The very few job
ads I see ask for impossibly high qualifications (for me anyway!), as
employers can pick and choose from the glut of people looking for work.
For example, I have a BS and they are looking for PhDs.

If you still have a well paid job it is easy to overlook the situation,
but it's dire. Employers are not hiring at anything like the rate
expected at this stage of an economic recovery.

That's because they learned to make do with the people they had, and
are reluctant to add more now.

That's a large part of it, although I think tere may be more going on.


Such as?

2.4 million jobs were lost, and only
about 400,000 new ones have been added. It's impossible to look at
those numbers and not conclude that the economy is in terrible shape.
Other economic indicators may be good, but the employment problem is
very real and very large.

Remember Ross Perot and the "giant sucking sound"?

I found his ears rather distracting


Much of what he predicted has come to pass, though.


The current administration might prefer that we all focus on security
and foreign wars, but that's because if too many people look too hard
at the employment numbers it will hurt their chances of reelection.
FWIW, I doubt that any government can really influence the economy more
than a tiny amount, but the political facts of life say that people
will vote for someone who promises to fix the economy.


Seems to me that the real problem is more fundamental. Short term fixes
won't change long-term problems.

For example, importing 57% of our oil, and letting that number rise
every year, isn't the right trend, but it's been allowed to go on
because it's cheaper in the short term than. (Please don't blame the
environmental concerns of drilling in the Arctic and similar places
until you have solid numbers on what oil from those places costs to
extract, and how much can actually be extracted.)

I think reliance on oil is too strong. More needs to be done on other
sources of energy. Fat chance with oilmen in control, not that much was
ever done before.


And the truly ironic part is that Ralph "Unsafe At Any Speed" was a major
factor in putting an oilman in the White House by dividing the opposition in
2000. And he's poised to repeat that trick later this year.

I heard the Green party has something to say about all this. At any
rate, they aren't backing Ralph. His support this year is likely to be
down in the noise. Without a party backing him, he's just another Harold
Stassen.



Another example is the expectation of a trained workforce without
investing the resources in education to produce that workforce.
"Resources" doesn't just mean "money", either, though money is a big
part of it.

Agreed. The cost of education is running out of control.

It has far exceeded the general inflation level, yet is more necessary than
ever.

If the cost continues at double digit increases every year, and the
graduate stands a pretty good chance of his/her entire field being made
redundant, the necessity of the education is going to go away. Granted
the would-be student is flippin burgers, but their job won't be made
irrelevant.

Makes me think of the "They Might be Giants" Sone "Minimum Wage"

Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania, tuition
alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very expensive at the
time. Today the same school charges more than 10 times that. But will the
starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be more than 10 times what it was in
1976, when I graduated? Is fininacial aid 10 times what it was in my time
there? Nope.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Alun wrote:

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:


In article , Alun
writes:


(N2EY) wrote in
:


In article , Alun
writes:


snip

I think reliance on oil is too strong. More needs to be done on other
sources of energy. Fat chance with oilmen in control, not that much was
ever done before.

And the truly ironic part is that Ralph "Unsafe At Any Speed" was a
major factor in putting an oilman in the White House by dividing the
opposition in 2000. And he's poised to repeat that trick later this
year.



Agreed up to a certain point. I think that Mr Nader will find that he gets
far fewer votes this time. The Democratic primaries have shown that people
are focussed on getting the oilmen out of the White House. That and the
fact that they saw what happened last time are likely to decimate his
support.


Another example is the expectation of a trained workforce without
investing the resources in education to produce that workforce.
"Resources" doesn't just mean "money", either, though money is a big
part of it.

Agreed. The cost of education is running out of control.

It has far exceeded the general inflation level, yet is more necessary
than ever.

Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania,
tuition alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very
expensive at the time. Today the same school charges more than 10 times
that. But will the starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be more
than 10 times what it was in 1976, when I graduated? Is fininacial aid
10 times what it was in my time there? Nope.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Grants and

scholarships would make more sense than tax breaks for the rich.


snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get worse.
At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to offshore
production.

I dunno, Alun. It might soon be hard to convince a lot of people to go
drastically into debt just to have their field be decimated upon graduation.


Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite their
overall poverty they have more English speaking educated middle class than
America (their sheer numbers help here), and they are willing to do white
collar and professional jobs for much less.

Well, the tech help I've gotten surely doesn't speak English very well! 8^)

Alun wrote in message .. .
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

snip

I think reliance on oil is too strong. More needs to be done on other
sources of energy. Fat chance with oilmen in control, not that much was
ever done before.

And the truly ironic part is that Ralph "Unsafe At Any Speed" was a
major factor in putting an oilman in the White House by dividing the
opposition in 2000. And he's poised to repeat that trick later this
year.


Agreed up to a certain point. I think that Mr Nader will find that he gets
far fewer votes this time.

I hope you are right. But it's not over till it's over.

The Democratic primaries have shown that people
are focussed on getting the oilmen out of the White House. That and the
fact that they saw what happened last time are likely to decimate his
support.

It was obvious four years ago and yet millions put their heads in the
sand.

Another example is the expectation of a trained workforce without
investing the resources in education to produce that workforce.
"Resources" doesn't just mean "money", either, though money is a big
part of it.

Agreed. The cost of education is running out of control.

It has far exceeded the general inflation level, yet is more necessary
than ever.

Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania,
tuition alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very
expensive at the time. Today the same school charges more than 10 times
that. But will the starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be more
than 10 times what it was in 1976, when I graduated? Is fininacial aid
10 times what it was in my time there? Nope.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Grants and
scholarships would make more sense than tax breaks for the rich.

snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get worse.
At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to offshore
production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite their
overall poverty they have more English speaking educated middle class than
America (their sheer numbers help here), and they are willing to do white
collar and professional jobs for much less.

Only because it costs so much less to live there.

Way back in 1783, when the US Constitution was written here in
Philadelphia, one of the limitations placed on Congress was that there
would be no tariffs on *exports*. *Imports* could be tarriffed/taxed
at will - and they were! This was done both as a source of income and
to protect local industry from destructive foreign competition. It is
my understanding that we still have some forms of this in place, in
the form of such things as limits on the number of cars that may be
imported without special taxes. These import quotas caused several
carmakers (mostly Japanese) to build assembly plants here in the USA.
Some cars are even built here and shipped *back to Japan*, because by
doing so they count against the import number.

Maybe it's time for that sort of thing to be expanded. Exporting jobs
may be good for some companies' bottom line in the short run, but in
the long run it spells big trouble.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

And the truly ironic part is that Ralph "Unsafe At Any Speed" was a major
factor in putting an oilman in the White House by dividing the opposition
in
2000. And he's poised to repeat that trick later this year.

I heard the Green party has something to say about all this.

I betcha there were a LOT of resignations from that party when they saw what
happened in 2000.

At any
rate, they aren't backing Ralph. His support this year is likely to be
down in the noise. Without a party backing him, he's just another Harold
Stassen.

I hope so.

Another example is the expectation of a trained workforce without
investing the resources in education to produce that workforce.
"Resources" doesn't just mean "money", either, though money is a big
part of it.

Agreed. The cost of education is running out of control.

It has far exceeded the general inflation level, yet is more necessary than
ever.

If the cost continues at double digit increases every year, and the
graduate stands a pretty good chance of his/her entire field being made
redundant, the necessity of the education is going to go away. Granted
the would-be student is flippin burgers, but their job won't be made
irrelevant.

That's one possibility. Another is bankruptcy and the resulting defaults on
student and other loans.

Makes me think of the "They Might be Giants" Sone "Minimum Wage"

Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania, tuition
alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very expensive at
the
time. Today the same school charges more than 10 times that. But will the
starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be more than 10 times what it was
in
1976, when I graduated? Is fininacial aid 10 times what it was in my time
there? Nope.

Add to this the fact that a kid who worked at minimum wage during the weekends,
summer and holidays could make a sizable dent in that $3000/year tuition. If a
kid could take home $1.50 an hour, and manage to put in 1000 hours per year,
there's half the tuition. Today, if a kid can take home $5 an hour and put in
the same 1000 hours, the resulting $5000 is only about 1/6 of the tuition.

That's just not right.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

Alun wrote:

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:


In article , Alun
writes:


(N2EY) wrote in
:


In article , Alun
writes:


snip

I think reliance on oil is too strong. More needs to be done on other
sources of energy. Fat chance with oilmen in control, not that much
was ever done before.

And the truly ironic part is that Ralph "Unsafe At Any Speed" was a
major factor in putting an oilman in the White House by dividing the
opposition in 2000. And he's poised to repeat that trick later this
year.



Agreed up to a certain point. I think that Mr Nader will find that he
gets far fewer votes this time. The Democratic primaries have shown
that people are focussed on getting the oilmen out of the White House.
That and the fact that they saw what happened last time are likely to
decimate his support.


Another example is the expectation of a trained workforce without
investing the resources in education to produce that workforce.
"Resources" doesn't just mean "money", either, though money is a big
part of it.

Agreed. The cost of education is running out of control.

It has far exceeded the general inflation level, yet is more necessary
than ever.

Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania,
tuition alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very
expensive at the time. Today the same school charges more than 10
times that. But will the starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be
more than 10 times what it was in 1976, when I graduated? Is
fininacial aid 10 times what it was in my time there? Nope.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Grants and

scholarships would make more sense than tax breaks for the rich.


snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

I dunno, Alun. It might soon be hard to convince a lot of people
to go
drastically into debt just to have their field be decimated upon
graduation.


Agreed. The only solution to that appears to be more money in grant form
rather than loan form. At least it can be targeted at particular subjects,
like EE and Comp Sci for example.


Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite their
overall poverty they have more English speaking educated middle class
than America (their sheer numbers help here), and they are willing to
do white collar and professional jobs for much less.

Well, the tech help I've gotten surely doesn't speak English very
well! 8^)



Indians in India use English mostly to communicate with eachother, as they
have a proliferation of different languages. Just because they are fluent
doesn't necessarily mean it's English as you know it, or even as I know it.

Alun wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.

True. We could just sit on our fat asses and let the world implode.
Then we'd have lots of dxpeditions cleverly disguised as UN peace
missions with 400,000 qso's per foray.

In article , Alun
writes:

That's one possibility. Another is bankruptcy and the resulting
defaults on student and other loans.

The problem with that is that I don't think you can write off student loans
through bankruptcy.

I'm not sure if you can or cannot. Anybody know for sure?

So, you may not get graduates going intentionally
bankrupt, but the inability to pay it off may lead more people into
bankruptcy. They may then still owe the loan, but it won't get paid back.

Either way spells trouble.

Makes me think of the "They Might be Giants" Sone "Minimum Wage"

Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania,
tuition alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very
expensive at the time. Today the same school charges more than 10
times that. But will the starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be
more than 10 times what it was in 1976, when I graduated? Is
fininacial aid 10 times what it was in my time there? Nope.

Add to this the fact that a kid who worked at minimum wage during the
weekends,
summer and holidays could make a sizable dent in that $3000/year
tuition. If a
kid could take home $1.50 an hour, and manage to put in 1000 hours per
year, there's half the tuition. Today, if a kid can take home $5 an
hour and put in the same 1000 hours, the resulting $5000 is only about
1/6 of the tuition.

That's just not right.

No argument there. Back home in the UK they used to give everyone grants.
They were means tested, and of course if your parents were middle income
you would be the poorest student in college.

Still, the effective result was that almost any kid who was smart enough to get
in could go to college and get a degree. The rich ones paid their way and the
rest got various forms of help but did not have to start out their professional
lives way in debt.

However, now they are phasing
out grants and bringing in loans. This is also a big mistake.

Actually, I think loans make sense *IF* they are reasonable and the job
situation is such that they can be paid back in a short period of time.

The big question nobody wants to answer is "why does a year of college cost so
much?"

Here in Radnor Township, we spend a bit over $10,000 per year per student in
the public schools. And that's one of the highest outlays in the commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, if not the whole country. Why should a year of college tuition
cost more than that? The college school day and school year are shorter, the
classes bigger, and the college students pretty much provide their own supplies
and/or pay lab fees. College students also usually provide their own
transportation, don't need special ed services, etc.

So why does college cost so much?

Our governments need to invest more in putting people through higher
education. It doesn't really matter whether they do it by giving money to
the colleges or to the students, provided the former results in lower fees,
but they need to do it. An educated workforce is the most important thing
they could be putting their money into.

I agree 100%. It's an investment in the future.

Public education (meaning universally-available, publicly funded education) was
recognized as a necessary function of government from the very beginning of
this country. Nowadays that means either college or some form of
post-high-school specialized training.

Money well spent.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
. com:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.

We had good teachers in that....

Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite their
overall poverty they have more English speaking educated middle class
than America (their sheer numbers help here), and they are willing to
do white collar and professional jobs for much less.

Only because it costs so much less to live there.

That's true, and ironically that's probably due to the huge number of poor
people there. Basic food and services are likely to be provided to the
Indian middle classes by people who are far poorer than we can really
imagine.

That's true but there are other factors to consider: the budget deficit, the
trade deficit and the strong dollar.

The figures for the January trade deficit came out recently. The highest in US
history, something like 46 billion in one month. Much of that is with East
Asian countires like China, Japan, and maybe India. But particularly China.

Imports are inexpensive in part because these countries keep their currencies
low relative to the dollar. Because of the trade deficit, lots of dollars wind
up there, but they don't use those dollars to buy US products. Instead, they
buy US investments - both government securities and private-sector companies.

IOW we export money and jobs, and they use the money to finance our debt and
buy up the USA a little at a time.

Way back in 1783, when the US Constitution was written here in
Philadelphia, one of the limitations placed on Congress was that there
would be no tariffs on *exports*. *Imports* could be tarriffed/taxed
at will - and they were! This was done both as a source of income and
to protect local industry from destructive foreign competition. It is
my understanding that we still have some forms of this in place, in
the form of such things as limits on the number of cars that may be
imported without special taxes. These import quotas caused several
carmakers (mostly Japanese) to build assembly plants here in the USA.
Some cars are even built here and shipped *back to Japan*, because by
doing so they count against the import number.

Maybe it's time for that sort of thing to be expanded. Exporting jobs
may be good for some companies' bottom line in the short run, but in
the long run it spells big trouble.


Forgive me for saying this as a foreigner, but there seems to be no limit
to the level of greed exhibited by corporate America.

How do you define "greed", Alun? Wanting to make a profit? How much profit is
OK and how much is greed?

As you say, it will
lead to big trouble in the long run. Look at what happened to the stock
market in the '20s.

And in 2000.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun
writes:

I dunno, Alun. It might soon be hard to convince a lot of people
to go
drastically into debt just to have their field be decimated upon
graduation.


Agreed. The only solution to that appears to be more money in grant form
rather than loan form. At least it can be targeted at particular subjects,
like EE and Comp Sci for example.

I agree with grants, but they should be targeted at occupations where there's a
shortage, not a glut, of trained workers.

Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite their
overall poverty they have more English speaking educated middle class
than America (their sheer numbers help here), and they are willing to
do white collar and professional jobs for much less.

Well, the tech help I've gotten surely doesn't speak English very
well! 8^)

Indians in India use English mostly to communicate with eachother, as they
have a proliferation of different languages. Just because they are fluent
doesn't necessarily mean it's English as you know it, or even as I know it.

From a purely numerical standpoint, it could be claimed that *their* usage is
standard and *we* all have accents...

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun
writes:

Still, the effective result was that almost any kid who was smart
enough to get in could go to college and get a degree. The rich ones
paid their way and the rest got various forms of help but did not have
to start out their professional lives way in debt.

Correct

That's a good thing!

However, now they are phasing out grants and bringing in loans. This
is also a big mistake.

Actually, I think loans make sense *IF* they are reasonable and the job
situation is such that they can be paid back in a short period of time.

True.

I'm not sure whether those couple of IFs hold true in the UK as I'm not
there. An engineer's starting salary over there would not have been enough
to pay back a loan when I graduated (it was barely enough to live on), but
I think things have improved since then.

If that's the case, then I share your opinion that loans aren't a good idea at
all.

As for the US, the problem is more the size of the fees rather than the
size of the paychecks. That and finding a job.

Exactly.

The big question nobody wants to answer is "why does a year of college
cost so much?"

Here in Radnor Township, we spend a bit over $10,000 per year per
student in the public schools. And that's one of the highest outlays in
the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, if not the whole country. Why should
a year of college tuition cost more than that? The college school day
and school year are shorter, the classes bigger, and the college
students pretty much provide their own supplies and/or pay lab fees.
College students also usually provide their own transportation, don't
need special ed services, etc.

So why does college cost so much?

I don't know. It's a puzzle. I don't think it's big salaries.

Some years back the local paper did a series of stories on my alma mater and
the tuition explosion. Two things were obvious cost-increasers: big jump in the
number and ratio of nonteaching administrators, and a building boom.

Still, the local school district built a new elementary school a few years ago
without breaking the bank. We're not top-heavy with administration by any
means, either.

I would think that primary and secondary education are actually more complex
and costly than college, for a number of factors ranging from classroom hours
to diversity of student needs.

Our governments need to invest more in putting people through higher
education. It doesn't really matter whether they do it by giving money
to the colleges or to the students, provided the former results in
lower fees, but they need to do it. An educated workforce is the most
important thing they could be putting their money into.

I agree 100%. It's an investment in the future.

Public education (meaning universally-available, publicly funded
education) was recognized as a necessary function of government from
the very beginning of this country. Nowadays that means either college
or some form of post-high-school specialized training.

Money well spent.

Responsibility to the next generation. What a concept.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Alun
writes:


That's one possibility. Another is bankruptcy and the resulting
defaults on student and other loans.

The problem with that is that I don't think you can write off student loans
through bankruptcy.


I'm not sure if you can or cannot. Anybody know for sure?


Yes and no:

from

http://www.mdbankruptcylaw.com/lawgu...u_cant_pay.asp


Another possible solution is to discharge your student loan in
bankruptcy. However, due to a 1998 change in the bankruptcy law, this is
harder than ever to do. In general, you can discharge a student loan in
bankruptcy only if you can prove that repaying the loan would be a
severe hardship for you. There are several factors that courts consider
in making this determination, but suffice it to say, it's a very
difficult standard to meet.


At one time, many students simply completed their education, and as a
matter of course, declared bankruptcy and wiped out their debts (HA!
America's best and brightest, eh?) After it caught on that they were
doing this, the law was changed.

So a person that declares bankruptcy has to continue repayment unless
they can prove they simply can't pay. And that isn't all that likely to
happen.



So, you may not get graduates going intentionally
bankrupt, but the inability to pay it off may lead more people into
bankruptcy. They may then still owe the loan, but it won't get paid back.


Either way spells trouble.


Makes me think of the "They Might be Giants" Sone "Minimum Wage"


Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania,
tuition alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very
expensive at the time. Today the same school charges more than 10
times that. But will the starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be
more than 10 times what it was in 1976, when I graduated? Is
fininacial aid 10 times what it was in my time there? Nope.

Add to this the fact that a kid who worked at minimum wage during the
weekends,
summer and holidays could make a sizable dent in that $3000/year
tuition. If a
kid could take home $1.50 an hour, and manage to put in 1000 hours per
year, there's half the tuition. Today, if a kid can take home $5 an
hour and put in the same 1000 hours, the resulting $5000 is only about
1/6 of the tuition.

That's just not right.


No argument there. Back home in the UK they used to give everyone grants.
They were means tested, and of course if your parents were middle income
you would be the poorest student in college.


Still, the effective result was that almost any kid who was smart enough to get
in could go to college and get a degree. The rich ones paid their way and the
rest got various forms of help but did not have to start out their professional
lives way in debt.


However, now they are phasing
out grants and bringing in loans. This is also a big mistake.


Actually, I think loans make sense *IF* they are reasonable and the job
situation is such that they can be paid back in a short period of time.

The loans and their repayment are pretty reasonable.

The big question nobody wants to answer is "why does a year of college cost so
much?"

You actually do know, don't you?



- Mike KB3EIA -

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , Alun
writes:

Then outside the disaster arena, there's all the marathons,
walk-a-thons, bike-a-thons and myriad other public events for which
hams routinely provide communications. Our club supports 4 or 5 of
these per year.

Those are good practice.


By the way, the Los Angeles Marathon was a success on Sunday,
record turn-out, everything run just fine.

What was your finishing time, Len? How were course conditions?

It can be done very well
without any amateur radio help

How do you know? Ever work at a race? I have, in a variety of roles.
LA and other major marathons have been using amateur radio operators
for race communications for years.

See:

http://www.lamarathon.com/2004/volunteers.php


http://www.doitsports.com/volunteer/info.tcl?job_id=488

(sign up for radio operators - only licensed hams need apply)


http://www.cert-la.com/

(scroll down a bit to where it says "ham radio operators wanted")


but the ARRL copy scribblers would have a cow about that. :-)

"ARRL copy scribblers"? Who are they? You mean folks who write the
facts about what actually happened?

http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2002/02/28/1/?nc=1

Nice write up about the 2002 LA Marathon

Maybe you didn't see the hams, so you just assume they are not there
and play no role. That's simply Not True.

N2EY wrote:
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

In article , Alun
writes:


Then outside the disaster arena, there's all the marathons,
walk-a-thons, bike-a-thons and myriad other public events for which
hams routinely provide communications. Our club supports 4 or 5 of
these per year.

Those are good practice.


By the way, the Los Angeles Marathon was a success on Sunday,
record turn-out, everything run just fine.


What was your finishing time, Len? How were course conditions?


It can be done very well
without any amateur radio help


How do you know? Ever work at a race? I have, in a variety of roles.
LA and other major marathons have been using amateur radio operators
for race communications for years.

A local bike race decided to try using cell phones as an experiment last
year. The hams were along, with the knowledge that we might be
"redundant in the future. They found out:

Every person had to be called separately. When a message had to go to
the whole group, everyone had to be called.

Those who were out of coverage range did not get the messages.

Coverage over the entire course was pretty bad.

Using cell phones was an immediate and complete failure. they realized
this on the first call that had to go to everyone.


Cell phones work for some things, but the idea that they can replace
radio operators is best advanced by those that don't really know how
that particular job is done.


http://www.lamarathon.com/2004/volunteers.php


Some hams and ham equipment spotted in the pix.


http://www.doitsports.com/volunteer/info.tcl?job_id=488


(sign up for radio operators - only licensed hams need apply)


Really? I thunk all you needed was a cell phone and the ability to say
"can you hear me now?....how about now? 8^)

http://www.cert-la.com/

(scroll down a bit to where it says "ham radio operators wanted")

Do you think maybe they put that in as an affirmative action sort of
thing? Maybe they just wanted to get the Hams to shut their yap's? ;^)



but the ARRL copy scribblers would have a cow about that. :-)


"ARRL copy scribblers"? Who are they? You mean folks who write the
facts about what actually happened?

http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2002/02/28/1/?nc=1

Nice write up about the 2002 LA Marathon

Maybe you didn't see the hams, so you just assume they are not there
and play no role. That's simply Not True.

Capitalization noted, Jim. Do some people think that the hams are
suppose to be in the lead vehicle or leading the parade? Heck they are
supposed to be behind the scenes. Go figure.

-

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

Then outside the disaster arena, there's all the marathons,
walk-a-thons, bike-a-thons and myriad other public events for which
hams routinely provide communications. Our club supports 4 or 5 of
these per year.

Those are good practice.


By the way, the Los Angeles Marathon was a success on Sunday,
record turn-out, everything run just fine.

What was your finishing time, Len? How were course conditions?

It can be done very well
without any amateur radio help

How do you know?

1. By reading about it in a respected newspaper.

2. By viewing it on broadcast television.

3. By knowing some details about it from one of its officials.

Ever work at a race?

Not in a foot race.

Why is that important to the "Economy, Stupid?"

LA and other major marathons have been using amateur radio operators
for race communications for years.

If you insist...and you WILL insist. You are a Believer.

Have you ever been IN Los Angeles?

Have you ever worked IN any volunteer function here?

YOU have NO relationship with the city of Los Angeles. I live here.
You don't.

Reality check: ANY marathon foot race can be done with available
non-amateur radio communications readily available in any large
urban area. The first Olympic marathon event was done without any
amateur radio "help." Several Games after that had NO amateur
radio "help" and also succeeded.

Maybe you didn't see the hams, so you just assume they are not there
and play no role. That's simply Not True.

I don't care one way or another about "ham radio help in marathons."

I know a marathon can be run WITHOUT amateur radio help. That's
been done many times.

You keep insisting amateur radio MUST be there...and that's simply
Not True.

Now go do some DX or gab expertly about The Economy, Kosher
Food, or choo-choo trains. Don't they need "ham radio help?"

LHA / WMD

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

How do you define "greed", Alun? Wanting to make a profit? How much profit is
OK and how much is greed?

Profit is defined as pecuniary compensation for services rendered.

U.S. amateur radio is defined as specifically NOT for pecuniary interest.

Try to stay focussed.

LHA / WMD

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
e.com:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.

We had good teachers in that....

Guilty as charged

Exactly. You'd think we'd learn by others' mistakes.

Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite
their overall poverty they have more English speaking educated
middle class than America (their sheer numbers help here), and they
are willing to do white collar and professional jobs for much less.

Only because it costs so much less to live there.

That's true, and ironically that's probably due to the huge number of
poor people there. Basic food and services are likely to be provided to
the Indian middle classes by people who are far poorer than we can
really imagine.

That's true but there are other factors to consider: the budget
deficit, the trade deficit and the strong dollar.

The figures for the January trade deficit came out recently. The
highest in US history, something like 46 billion in one month. Much of
that is with East Asian countires like China, Japan, and maybe India.
But particularly China.

Imports are inexpensive in part because these countries keep their
currencies low relative to the dollar. Because of the trade deficit,
lots of dollars wind up there, but they don't use those dollars to buy
US products. Instead, they buy US investments - both government
securities and private-sector companies.

IOW we export money and jobs, and they use the money to finance our
debt and buy up the USA a little at a time.

Way back in 1783, when the US Constitution was written here in
Philadelphia, one of the limitations placed on Congress was that
there would be no tariffs on *exports*. *Imports* could be
tarriffed/taxed at will - and they were! This was done both as a
source of income and to protect local industry from destructive
foreign competition. It is my understanding that we still have some
forms of this in place, in the form of such things as limits on the
number of cars that may be imported without special taxes. These
import quotas caused several carmakers (mostly Japanese) to build
assembly plants here in the USA. Some cars are even built here and
shipped *back to Japan*, because by doing so they count against the
import number.

Maybe it's time for that sort of thing to be expanded. Exporting jobs
may be good for some companies' bottom line in the short run, but in
the long run it spells big trouble.


Forgive me for saying this as a foreigner, but there seems to be no
limit to the level of greed exhibited by corporate America.

How do you define "greed", Alun? Wanting to make a profit? How much
profit is OK and how much is greed?

It's more of an attitude

Check this out:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...6&e=17&u=/wash
post/20040311/ts_washpost/a48216_2004mar10

"Six months after promising to create an office to help the nation's
struggling manufacturers, President Bush settled on someone to head it, but
the nomination was being reconsidered last night after Democrats revealed
that his candidate had opened a factory in China."

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:


Check this out:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...6&e=17&u=/wash
post/20040311/ts_washpost/a48216_2004mar10

"Six months after promising to create an office to help the nation's
struggling manufacturers, President Bush settled on someone to head it, but
the nomination was being reconsidered last night after Democrats revealed
that his candidate had opened a factory in China."

He ended up "declining" to take the position. Probably a smart move.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

Then outside the disaster arena, there's all the marathons,
walk-a-thons, bike-a-thons and myriad other public events for which
hams routinely provide communications. Our club supports 4 or 5 of
these per year.

Those are good practice.


By the way, the Los Angeles Marathon was a success on Sunday,
record turn-out, everything run just fine.

What was your finishing time, Len? How were course conditions?

It can be done very well
without any amateur radio help

How do you know?

1. By reading about it in a respected newspaper.

Grit? USA Today, the newspaper for those who haven't the time for CNN's
in-depth coverage?

2. By viewing it on broadcast television.

You strike me as the kind of guy who has time for lots of things, like
watching an entire marathon in order to see if amateur radio is involved
or like making numerous lengthy posts to an internet newsgroup which
deals with an activity in which you are not a participant.

3. By knowing some details about it from one of its officials.

One official. Some details. Yep, that makes you an expert on the L.A.
Marathon.

Ever work at a race?

Not in a foot race.

Political race?

Why is that important to the "Economy, Stupid?"

Allow me to jog your memory. Jim responded to your comments. How did
they relate to the "Economy", Stupid?

LA and other major marathons have been using amateur radio operators
for race communications for years.

If you insist...and you WILL insist. You are a Believer.

He didn't insist. He provided you with a way to check out details.

Have you ever been IN Los Angeles?

Have you ever been in Bissau?

Have you ever worked IN any volunteer function here?

Did you ever worked in any capacity in Bissau?

YOU have NO relationship with the city of Los Angeles. I live here.
You don't.

YOU must BE an EXPERT. YOU live THERE so YOU must KNOW everything which
goes on THERE.

Reality check: ANY marathon foot race can be done with available
non-amateur radio communications readily available in any large
urban area. The first Olympic marathon event was done without any
amateur radio "help." Several Games after that had NO amateur
radio "help" and also succeeded.

That's nice. You were provided links to information which seems to
disprove your earlier statements. Your "first Olympic marathon" tap
dance isn't going to get you on "American Idol".

Maybe you didn't see the hams, so you just assume they are not there
and play no role. That's simply Not True.

I don't care one way or another about "ham radio help in marathons."

That's odd. You certainly seemed to care when you decided to take
another shot at amateur radio by bringing up the topic.

I know a marathon can be run WITHOUT amateur radio help. That's
been done many times.

A marathon. You brought up the Los Angeles Marathon. Run without
amateur radio help? Those links provided by Jim seem to disprove your
claims, kindly old gent.

You keep insisting amateur radio MUST be there...and that's simply
Not True.

What's not true is that amateur radio wasn't there. Look at the links.

Now go do some DX or gab expertly about The Economy, Kosher
Food, or choo-choo trains. Don't they need "ham radio help?"

Why, Len? Are you a ham?

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

How do you define "greed", Alun? Wanting to make a profit? How much profit is
OK and how much is greed?

Profit is defined as pecuniary compensation for services rendered.

That'd be incorrect. You'd have to deduct expenditures first.

U.S. amateur radio is defined as specifically NOT for pecuniary interest.

No kidding? Are you a radio amateur?

Try to stay focussed.

Are we to do as you do or do as you say, Leonard?

Dave K8MN

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

In article , Alun
writes:


Then outside the disaster arena, there's all the marathons,
walk-a-thons, bike-a-thons and myriad other public events for which
hams routinely provide communications. Our club supports 4 or 5 of
these per year.

Those are good practice.


By the way, the Los Angeles Marathon was a success on Sunday,
record turn-out, everything run just fine.


What was your finishing time, Len? How were course conditions?


It can be done very well
without any amateur radio help


How do you know? Ever work at a race? I have, in a variety of roles.
LA and other major marathons have been using amateur radio operators
for race communications for years.

A local bike race decided to try using cell phones as an experiment last
year. The hams were along, with the knowledge that we might be
"redundant in the future. They found out:

Every person had to be called separately. When a message had to go to
the whole group, everyone had to be called.

Those who were out of coverage range did not get the messages.

Coverage over the entire course was pretty bad.

Using cell phones was an immediate and complete failure. they realized
this on the first call that had to go to everyone.

They couldn't figure all that out ahead of time?

Sounds to me like the hams were smart enough to simply let them try it
and see the problems first-hand.

Those same problems surfaced in groups searching for wreckage from the
space shuttle disaster last year.

Of course cell phones *do* have uses in those situations. Where one
specific person needs to talk to another specific person, and both are
in the coverage area, they're perfect.

Cell phones work for some things, but the idea that they can replace
radio operators is best advanced by those that don't really know how
that particular job is done.

You mean like folks who comment on marathons without ever having been
involved in one other than as a spectator? Or like folks who comment
on amateur radio without ever having been involved other than as a
spectator?

http://www.lamarathon.com/2004/volunteers.php

Some hams and ham equipment spotted in the pix.

Of course.

http://www.doitsports.com/volunteer/info.tcl?job_id=488

(sign up for radio operators - only licensed hams need apply)

Really? I thunk all you needed was a cell phone and the ability to say
"can you hear me now?....how about now? 8^)

That's what some "professionals" would have us believe...

http://www.cert-la.com/

(scroll down a bit to where it says "ham radio operators wanted")

Do you think maybe they put that in as an affirmative action sort of
thing? Maybe they just wanted to get the Hams to shut their yap's? ;^)

Naw, it's simpler than that.

Besides their considerable skills and experience, ham volunteers at
events like the LA Marathon provide their own equipment and usually
their own transportation and other support. Try hiring 200
"communications professionals" for a day just to supply radio
communications and see what happens to the race entry fee. (LA says
200 hams, NYC marathon says 400, but of course NYC is a lot bigger
race).

but the ARRL copy scribblers would have a cow about that. :-)

"ARRL copy scribblers"? Who are they? You mean folks who write the
facts about what actually happened?

http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2002/02/28/1/?nc=1

Nice write up about the 2002 LA Marathon

Maybe you didn't see the hams, so you just assume they are not there
and play no role. That's simply Not True.

Capitalization noted, Jim. Do some people think that the hams are
suppose to be in the lead vehicle or leading the parade?

Looks like it. But there are some folks who would deny the
participation and contributions of hams no matter what they did.

Heck they are
supposed to be behind the scenes. Go figure.

Of course. It's about the race!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Philadelphia Independence Marathon, 1982 and 1983.

In article , Dave Heil
writes:


Are we to do as you do or do as you say, Leonard?

Not required...but, most readers get the impression that all MUST
do, say, act, and everything else as YOU direct.

Go back to sulking about long-ago perceived personal affronts. That's
your forte'.

LHA / WMD

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

Then outside the disaster arena, there's all the marathons,
walk-a-thons, bike-a-thons and myriad other public events for which
hams routinely provide communications. Our club supports 4 or 5 of
these per year.

Those are good practice.

By the way, the Los Angeles Marathon was a success on Sunday,
record turn-out, everything run just fine.

What was your finishing time, Len? How were course conditions?

Go back to your usual participatory rantings. No one has to be IN
a race in order to WATCH it. None of the officials who run it have to
be IN the race in order to administer it.

Have you understood that yet or must you RANT and WHINE some
more about not being IN something?

Did you get a legal surname change? Try not to respond to certain
posts made to others as if they were directed to you. Few care
about your imagined personal affronts.

Go back to sitting in fromt of your orion and get more oriongasms.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(TAFKARJ on a verbal marathon without end) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

Then outside the disaster arena, there's all the marathons,
walk-a-thons, bike-a-thons and myriad other public events for which
hams routinely provide communications. Our club supports 4 or 5 of
these per year.

Those are good practice.

By the way, the Los Angeles Marathon was a success on Sunday,
record turn-out, everything run just fine.

What was your finishing time, Len? How were course conditions?

Well, Len? You said "everything run just fine".

Yes. Everything RAN just fine...using the word "ran" (or "run") as in
an adminstrative action or organizing, starting, keeping it going, and
finally take-down.

You are mighty peevish again, perceiving personal insults at the
slightest provocation. Tsk, tsk, tsk...too many endorphins? :-)

My marathon PR (personal record) is 3 hours 57 minutes 37 seconds.

Have you written the Guiness editors yet?

Did you carry along your code key while setting that terrific time?

Work any DX while running your foot race?


What's your marathon PR, Len?

I don't do Public Relations any more, TAFKARJ.

League isn't too swift in that department and can't get good penetration
of the mass media.

Not my problem.

Go file a complaint with the two League presidents.


Consider that Sports CARS are in Road Races...on roads.
Did that once in a sporty '53 Austin Healey two-seater; the
aluminum body was a great ground plane for a short CB
whip 1959 - 1961. Great make-out vehicle. :-)

The L.A. 2004 Marathon was on the STREETS of Los Angeles,
on on any "roads." :-)


Go back to solving the nation's Economic and Social and
Political Problems in this amateur radio policy newsgroup,
TAFKARJ. Your ham license and marathon times and
morsemanship and ivy-fringed degrees are the
"qualifications" for that, are they not? :-)

LHA / WMD

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

Profit is defined as pecuniary compensation for services rendered.

That'd be incorrect. You'd have to deduct expenditures first.

U.S. amateur radio is defined as specifically NOT for pecuniary interest.

No kidding? Are you a radio amateur?

Really? No kidding?

Is that why I said that repeater owners cannot charge for repeater use?

Yep, probably.

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

Then outside the disaster arena, there's all the marathons,
walk-a-thons, bike-a-thons and myriad other public events for which
hams routinely provide communications. Our club supports 4 or 5 of
these per year.

Those are good practice.

By the way, the Los Angeles Marathon was a success on Sunday,
record turn-out, everything run just fine.

What was your finishing time, Len? How were course conditions?

Well, Len? You said "everything run just fine".

Yes.

What was your finishing time, Len? How were course conditions?

Or were you DNS?

Everything RAN just fine...using the word "ran" (or "run") as in
an adminstrative action or organizing, starting, keeping it going, and
finally take-down.

How do you know?

You are mighty peevish again, perceiving personal insults at the
slightest provocation.

Not me. You're the one shouting and calling names.

My marathon PR (personal record) is 3 hours 57 minutes 37 seconds.

Have you written the Guiness editors yet?

You sound jealous, Len.

What's your marathon PR, Len?

I don't do Public Relations any more,

Good. Your style here indicates you'd be very bad at it.

Consider that Sports CARS are in Road Races...on roads.

They're not allowed in the LA Marathon.

The L.A. 2004 Marathon was on the STREETS of Los Angeles,
on on any "roads." :-)

They're called road races, Len.

As suspected, you were not involved in the LA Marathon in any way except as a
distant spectator. Same as your involvement as in amateur radio.

Well, Len, once more you've lived up to your profile and shown us your purpose
here. As if there was any doubt. Plonk time again.

N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

N2EY wrote:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...


In article , Alun
writes:



Then outside the disaster arena, there's all the marathons,
walk-a-thons, bike-a-thons and myriad other public events for which
hams routinely provide communications. Our club supports 4 or 5 of
these per year.

Those are good practice.


By the way, the Los Angeles Marathon was a success on Sunday,
record turn-out, everything run just fine.


What was your finishing time, Len? How were course conditions?



It can be done very well
without any amateur radio help


How do you know? Ever work at a race? I have, in a variety of roles.
LA and other major marathons have been using amateur radio operators
for race communications for years.

A local bike race decided to try using cell phones as an experiment last
year. The hams were along, with the knowledge that we might be
"redundant in the future. They found out:

Every person had to be called separately. When a message had to go to
the whole group, everyone had to be called.

Those who were out of coverage range did not get the messages.

Coverage over the entire course was pretty bad.

Using cell phones was an immediate and complete failure. they realized
this on the first call that had to go to everyone.


They couldn't figure all that out ahead of time?

Amazingly enough, no! Cell phones are seductive little things. After
all you can call around the world, send pictures of whatever, and even
look up your email on the web with them. So how on earth can such a
wonderful instrument *not* be good at running a race? Imagine, each and
every participant with their own little radio, ready for direct contact.

Any conclusion may be reached with insufficient thought!


Sounds to me like the hams were smart enough to simply let them try it
and see the problems first-hand.

Yup. All of us that had done events before just chuckled and waited.
First call for our help came through a couple minutes after the start.

Those same problems surfaced in groups searching for wreckage from the
space shuttle disaster last year.

Of course cell phones *do* have uses in those situations. Where one
specific person needs to talk to another specific person, and both are
in the coverage area, they're perfect.

Sure enough. But when many people need to hear instructions at the same
time, or if the area is large and rural, You need a multi-mode system,
and not just line of site low power stuff.

Cell phones work for some things, but the idea that they can replace
radio operators is best advanced by those that don't really know how
that particular job is done.


You mean like folks who comment on marathons without ever having been
involved in one other than as a spectator? Or like folks who comment
on amateur radio without ever having been involved other than as a
spectator?

Well, when you put it *that* way, yup!



http://www.lamarathon.com/2004/volunteers.php

Some hams and ham equipment spotted in the pix.


Of course.


http://www.doitsports.com/volunteer/info.tcl?job_id=488

(sign up for radio operators - only licensed hams need apply)

Really? I thunk all you needed was a cell phone and the ability to say
"can you hear me now?....how about now? 8^)


That's what some "professionals" would have us believe...


Any conclusion is possible given insufficient......... oh wait, I
already said that, didn't I?

http://www.cert-la.com/

(scroll down a bit to where it says "ham radio operators wanted")

Do you think maybe they put that in as an affirmative action sort of
thing? Maybe they just wanted to get the Hams to shut their yap's? ;^)


Naw, it's simpler than that.

Besides their considerable skills and experience, ham volunteers at
events like the LA Marathon provide their own equipment and usually
their own transportation and other support. Try hiring 200
"communications professionals" for a day just to supply radio
communications and see what happens to the race entry fee. (LA says
200 hams, NYC marathon says 400, but of course NYC is a lot bigger
race).


The price for professional radio operators would be from 80 to 160
thousand dollars for an 8 hour day, according to my BOE scribbling.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Are we to do as you do or do as you say, Leonard?

Not required...but, most readers get the impression that all MUST
do, say, act, and everything else as YOU direct.

I don't believe you. I don't think you've had any input from "most
readers". It is interesting that you responded to a question with two
distinct choices with "Not required". Do you think most readers have
the idea that radio amateurs are supposed to go along with your view of
how amateur radio should be regulated? After all, you have nothing to
do with amateur radio.

Go back to sulking about long-ago perceived personal affronts. That's
your forte'.

I am forte-laden, Leonard. One of mine is that I'm a radio amateur.
You aren't.

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

Then outside the disaster arena, there's all the marathons,
walk-a-thons, bike-a-thons and myriad other public events for which
hams routinely provide communications. Our club supports 4 or 5 of
these per year.

Those are good practice.

By the way, the Los Angeles Marathon was a success on Sunday,
record turn-out, everything run just fine.

What was your finishing time, Len? How were course conditions?

Go back to your usual participatory rantings. No one has to be IN
a race in order to WATCH it. None of the officials who run it have to
be IN the race in order to administer it.

Have you understood that yet or must you RANT and WHINE some
more about not being IN something?

Did you get a legal surname change? Try not to respond to certain
posts made to others as if they were directed to you. Few care
about your imagined personal affronts.

Uhhhhhh, Len? You seem to be tangled up in your responses. You're
addressing Jim's statement.

Go back to sitting in fromt of your orion and get more oriongasms.

Do you think that "most readers" get the idea that you're busy telling
people what to do?

You can buy an Orion too, Leonard. You can think of it as a very
expensive SWL receiver.

Dave K8MN