Options
BryanUT
2. Pay cash or take on payments
So that means I have 4 choices:
1. Keep current bike / pay cash for another bike ( ~$4k cash)
2. Sell current bike / pay cash for another bike ($3k for current
bike
+ $4k cash = ~$7k cash)
3. Keep current bike / take on payments ($4k cash + $7k loan = ~$11k
bike)
4. Sell bike / take on payments ($3k for current bike + $4k cash +
$7k
loan = ~ $14k bike)
What does $4k get me? Ducati Monsters, SV650s, VStroms, Sportsters
and a boat load of metric cruisers
$7k gets me into older BMWs, ST1100s and bigger stupider metric
cruisers and some Harleys
$11k gets into new Ducati GT1000s, new Harleys (XR1200) and newer
BMWs
$14k gets into later model Big Harleys, new or near new Sporttourers
Of course there is the part of me that says, "get the damn dual sport
for $2500". (little devil on the shoulder says, you can fit knobbies
on a Sportster)
Steve Mackay
> 1. Keep or sell the current bike
> 2. Pay cash or take on payments
>
> So that means I have 4 choices:
>
>
> 1. Keep current bike / pay cash for another bike ( ~$4k cash)
> 2. Sell current bike / pay cash for another bike ($3k for current
> bike
> + $4k cash = ~$7k cash)
> 3. Keep current bike / take on payments ($4k cash + $7k loan = ~$11k
> bike)
> 4. Sell bike / take on payments ($3k for current bike + $4k cash +
> $7k
> loan = ~ $14k bike)
>
>
> What does $4k get me? Ducati Monsters, SV650s, VStroms, Sportsters
> and a boat load of metric cruisers
> $7k gets me into older BMWs, ST1100s and bigger stupider metric
> cruisers and some Harleys
> $11k gets into new Ducati GT1000s, new Harleys (XR1200) and newer
> BMWs
> $14k gets into later model Big Harleys, new or near new Sporttourers
$7K can get you a newish Uly.
Picked these up with a friend this morning just south of Chicago.
2008 Ulysses and 1125R for $12K
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevemackay/4105020198/
Tim M.
How about $7k for a lightly used 2007 Ducati GT1000? There's one on
eBay now with 1,039 miles on it for a Buy It Now price of $6,995.00.
TroytheTroll
> Of course there is the part of me that says, "get the damn dual sport
> for $2500". (little devil on the shoulder says, you can fit knobbies
> on a Sportster)
Just go GET one already....
AlF
> 1. Keep or sell the current bike
> 2. Pay cash or take on payments
>
> So that means I have 4 choices:
>
5th choice -
trade your Honda with Alf's FZ-1 which will be for sale shortly. I will
be skiing in Utah this winter so I can take the bike on trailer.
Once again - what is your bike - model, year, millage?
AlF
>
> How about $7k for a lightly used 2007 Ducati GT1000? There's one on
> eBay now with 1,039 miles on it for a Buy It Now price of $6,995.00.
8 grand for 4 years old $10K Duc - it is not a good deal.
Tim
Probably that language barrier rearing its ugly head again, but....
1. $6,995 is not "8 grand."
2. A 2007 motorcycle is not yet four years old. Even with a very few
2010 motorcycles already out on the market, at WORST a 2007 motorcycle
is three model years old.
3. A 2009 Ducati GT1000 doesn't list for $10k; it lists for $11,495,
and the GT1000 Touring model lists for $11,995.
(Even the 2007 Ducati GT1000 listed for $10,495.00; if that is what
you were referring to. It's hard to tell if you were even referring
to the message to which you responded.)
If you meant to say "$7,000 for a three-year-old, 1,000 mile Ducati
that originally listed for $10,495, is not a good deal," I would say
that's a matter more of individual opinion than measurable fact. For
instance, NADA blue book lists the average retail price of that bike
is $7,365. (while the bike, with just 1,000 miles on it, appears to
be in better than average condition.)
I was simply pointing out that Bryan's oft-mentioned fondness for the
Ducati GT1000 might not necessarily require the committment of
$11,000; if, for example, he is willing to consider a good condition,
late model, used example.
BryanUT
Why on earth would you want my F4i? Truth be told, I don't take very
good care of things. Plus it is 8 years old and used 600cc sportbikes
are plentful and inexpensive.
AlF
> Why on earth would you want my F4i? Truth be told, I don't take very
> good care of things. Plus it is 8 years old and used 600cc sportbikes
> are plentful and inexpensive.
oh - I thought is a bit newer .... still my FZ-1 will be for sale soon
AlF
> On Nov 15, 2:28 pm, AlF <spamgrinder.tryla...@ggmail.com> wrote:
>> Tim M. wrote:
>>
>>> How about $7k for a lightly used 2007 Ducati GT1000? There's one on
>>> eBay now with 1,039 miles on it for a Buy It Now price of $6,995.00.
>> 8 grand for 4 years old $10K Duc - it is not a good deal.
>
> Probably that language barrier rearing its ugly head again, but....
it was a bit exaggeration. it still seems to me too much with the marker
in toilet and '08 CBR1000RR selling for 8G OTD.
Tim
Yes, it was a bit of exaggeration.
I was not exaggerating when I said "I would say that's a matter more
of individual opinion than measurable fact."
For instance, if I had one, I wouldn't trade a used '07 Ducati GT1000
with 1,000 miles on it even-up for a new leftover '08 CBR1000RR. Nor,
for that matter, would I trade my 2000 Ducati 750SS even-up for a
brand new '09 or '10 CBR1000RR - unless my intent were to immediately
sell the Honda.
In fact, it will probably not be very long at all before the average
price of a used '07 Ducati GT1000 is higher than that of a used '08
Honda CBR1000RR, anyway.
More to the point, I don't ever recall Bryan ever mentioning that he
was lusting after a late model Japanese liter-class superbike.
BryanUT
>
> In fact, it will probably not be very long at all before the average
> price of a used '07 Ducati GT1000 is higher than that of a used '08
> Honda CBR1000RR, anyway.
>
Well, I've always said that Japanese bikes are disposable...
Sportsters seem to bottom out price wise at about $3k, regardless of
year.
Some used Ducs are very reasonable but they never seem to approach a
value of $0 like so many Japanese bikes.
> More to the point, I don't ever recall Bryan ever mentioning that he
> was lusting after a late model Japanese liter-class superbike.
God, the 600 can scare the crap out of me, I can't even imagine a
litre bike like the CBR1000.
AlF
> For instance, if I had one, I wouldn't trade a used '07 Ducati GT1000
> with 1,000 miles on it even-up for a new leftover '08 CBR1000RR. Nor,
> for that matter, would I trade my 2000 Ducati 750SS even-up for a
> brand new '09 or '10 CBR1000RR - unless my intent were to immediately
> sell the Honda.
this just shows how the value of things is subjective.
> More to the point, I don't ever recall Bryan ever mentioning that he
> was lusting after a late model Japanese liter-class superbike.
I did not meant to suggest that Bryan should get CBR. It was more an
illustration that technically superior product might be get for less
then 'status of symbol' one.
BryanUT
>
> I did not meant to suggest that Bryan should get CBR. It was more an
> illustration that technically superior product might be get for less
> then 'status of symbol' one.
>
Well, I for one don't think double overhead cams with shim and bucket
adjustment are technically superior.
Nor do I think Ducs are "status symbols".
All I know is that the GT1000 gives me a raging hard on, it is pure
sex (all the Ducs are like a family of pretty sisters and cousins).
So when you are planning a ski trip up here? I'd love to meet for a
day on the slopes. I prefer Alta over all the others.
AlF
> All I know is that the GT1000 gives me a raging hard on, it is pure
> sex (all the Ducs are like a family of pretty sisters and cousins).
So go for it!
> So when you are planning a ski trip up here? I'd love to meet for a
> day on the slopes. I prefer Alta over all the others.
my skiing plans for the season are uncertain yet - will be going to
Aspen for New Year. I guess sometimes in Feb I would like to hit Utah.
Would love to meet you too ....
Best,
Andy
Tim M.
> On Nov 15, 7:40 pm, AlF <spamgrinder.tryla...@ggmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I did not meant to suggest that Bryan should get CBR. It was more an
> > illustration that technically superior product might be get for less
> > then 'status of symbol' one.
>
> Well, I for one don't think double overhead cams with shim and bucket
> adjustment are technically superior.
>
> Nor do I think Ducs are "status symbols".
The GT1000 is not a status symbol. It's a simple, light, reliable,
easy to ride, roadster that non-motorcyclists won't look at twice, and
is most likely to be admired (if at all) by middle-aged guys who
remember the original Ducati 750GT and 860GT from the early to
mid-70's.
That said, it is a great bike with a great motor, and I'm definitely
going to own one someday. I hope you get the chance sooner. My
1000SS (technically inferior $3,600 "status symbol" that it is) is
just an unbelievably fun trackday bike, and I imagine the GT1000 could
be the same thing on the street.
Tim M.
> Tim wrote:
> > For instance, if I had one, I wouldn't trade a used '07 Ducati GT1000
> > with 1,000 miles on it even-up for a new leftover '08 CBR1000RR. Nor,
> > for that matter, would I trade my 2000 Ducati 750SS even-up for a
> > brand new '09 or '10 CBR1000RR - unless my intent were to immediately
> > sell the Honda.
>
> this just shows how the value of things is subjective.
Huh.
AlF
>
> Huh.
>
> "I would say that's a matter more of individual opinion than
> measurable fact."
ups - my bad. I took it totally opposite way. my brain is taking a rest
this weekend.
phil scott
Keep the current bike,,, the economy after some smoke and wheel
spinning will be headed a lot farther south
TroytheTroll
>spinning will be headed a lot farther south
Hey! Same thing you've been claiming for a decade now....anyone seen any
hyperinflation yet?
Whats up Filbert...made up with your boy yet? Still mooching off blind
widows?
saddlebag
> >Keep the current bike,,, the economy after some smoke and wheel
> >spinning will be headed a lot farther south
>
> Hey! Same thing you've been claiming for a decade now....anyone seen any
> hyperinflation yet?
What's a Interceptor now, bout 20k?
In 1984 I bought what I considered to be an extraordinarily expensive
Honda for under $3k.
Bet if you rode the two back to back you probably wouldn't notice much
difference after all these years.
Here's a hint. The guy that made a fortune playing the Bush era
mortgage backed securities fraud is now investing 250 million of his
own winnings in gold. If you watched the 60 minutes story on him you
know how methodical and ingenious this guy is. I haven't heard his
synopsis for gold, but you can bet he this isn't a guy who would just
role the dice and count hail mary's.
TroytheTroll
>> Hey! Same thing you've been claiming for a decade now....anyone seen any
>> hyperinflation yet?
>What's a Interceptor now, bout 20k?
>In 1984 I bought what I considered to be an extraordinarily expensive
>Honda for under $3k.
>Bet if you rode the two back to back you probably wouldn't notice much
>difference after all these years.
$3000 in 1984 is approximately $6000 in todays dollars. I didn't even know
that Honda had brought back the Interceptor, or are you talking about the
old VFR?
In either case, there is no rule which says that the price of a thing can
only go up as much as inflation. Matter of fact, an investor will tell you
that they are looking for things which value faster than inflation, a real
rather than just a nominal gain.
And in no case is any of this hyperinflation.
>Here's a hint. The guy that made a fortune playing the Bush era
>mortgage backed securities fraud is now investing 250 million of his
>own winnings in gold. If you watched the 60 minutes story on him you
>know how methodical and ingenious this guy is. I haven't heard his
>synopsis for gold, but you can bet he this isn't a guy who would just
>role the dice and count hail mary's.
The double dip recession of the early 80's happened in conjunction with a
decent burst of inflation as well, and the kind of money being dumped into
the system right now is a reasonable way to cause that sort of inflation
again. You think it takes some sort of game the system expert to notice
whats happening with the basics?
And that doesn't mean whats coming will be hyperinflation either, the local
idiot has been indiscriminately predicting such nonsense as long as he's
been here.
AlF
> 1. Keep or sell the current bike
> 2. Pay cash or take on payments
>
> So that means I have 4 choices:
>
saddlebag
> >> Hey! Same thing you've been claiming for a decade now....anyone seen any
> >> hyperinflation yet?
> >What's a Interceptor now, bout 20k?
> >In 1984 I bought what I considered to be an extraordinarily expensive
> >Honda for under $3k.
> >Bet if you rode the two back to back you probably wouldn't notice much
> >difference after all these years.
>
> $3000 in 1984 is approximately $6000 in todays dollars. I didn't even know
> that Honda had brought back the Interceptor, or are you talking about the
> old VFR?
Nahh, they got a shaftie version now.
> In either case, there is no rule which says that the price of a thing can
> only go up as much as inflation. Matter of fact, an investor will tell you
> that they are looking for things which value faster than inflation, a real
> rather than just a nominal gain.
>
> And in no case is any of this hyperinflation.
Unless you're out of work and have a $250k mortgage on a house. You
gov't types don't notice inflation because mother gov't is always
there with cost of living adjustments for you. Afterall, mother gov't
isn't only our biggest employer, but our best paying one too!
> >Here's a hint. The guy that made a fortune playing the Bush era
> >mortgage backed securities fraud is now investing 250 million of his
> >own winnings in gold. If you watched the 60 minutes story on him you
> >know how methodical and ingenious this guy is. I haven't heard his
> >synopsis for gold, but you can bet he this isn't a guy who would just
> >role the dice and count hail mary's.
>
> The double dip recession of the early 80's happened in conjunction with a
> decent burst of inflation as well, and the kind of money being dumped into
> the system right now is a reasonable way to cause that sort of inflation
> again. You think it takes some sort of game the system expert to notice
> whats happening with the basics?
Oil embargos conspiring with gov't overspending to maximize employment
conspired to cause the 80s problems. As inventories came down,
Volker's interest rates cooled off borrowing, and gas came down things
leveled back off. But keep in mind, we still had a whole lot of
productive workers then and if Reagan hadn't scooped them all up to
make weapons to store in a hole, we probably still be okay.
Now what do we have? A workforce made up of young people who no
nothing but consumerism. Hell, they think the world owes them goods.
Oddly, that is the opinion of a whole lot of their parents too.
They've been hooked on the crack and now want gov't jobs where the
money just magically pops out of no where and into their wallets.
We are currently in business ventures with the Chinese and a couple of
Chinese engineers I work with make regular trips over there.
Occasionally, they are accompanied by a Polish Engineer and a couple
of Indians. All of them are amazed by how vibrant their economy is.
Their productive workers are paying for nice community facilities like
this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beijing_Terminal_3.jpg
Meanwhile, our Motor City looks like this:
http://www.robotnine.com/2009/10/abandoned-houses-of-detroit.html
And our gov't debates the merits of letting our poor die in the
streets.
> And that doesn't mean whats coming will be hyperinflation either, the local
> idiot has been indiscriminately predicting such nonsense as long as he's
> been here.
And lo and behold, all those thing the local idiot has been predicting
are coming to pass. Learn to speak Mandarin soon. You may be able to
land a street sweeper job when the Asians come for their money.
BryanUT
>
> Unless you're out of work and have a $250k mortgage on a house. You
> gov't types don't notice inflation because mother gov't is always
> there with cost of living adjustments for you. Afterall, mother gov't
> isn't only our biggest employer, but our best paying one too!
>
My gubbmit job doesn't give me cost of living adjustments. as a matter
of fact no pay increase in 2 years. I make a little above 1/2 what I
made in the private sector, with no chance of bonuses or big stock
payouts.
Is there bloat in gubbmit payroll? hell yes, prison guards, cops, but
dammit most of us are dedicated hard working employees.
Other than that I agree with you.
Tim M.
Of course, Troy was right about there not being any sign of
hyperinflation, and Saddle is wrong that inflation hasn't been low for
everyone (government or private sector) over the past decade.,
Obviously, people who are out of work are harder hit by inflation than
people who are working. That's not exactly a brllliant economic
analysis.
And of course, Saddle is worng about the government being the biggest
employer; the private sector is the biggest employer.
And of course, cost of living adjustments aren't limited to government
employees, private sector retirees who retired on social security get
cost of living adjustments, as do medicare recipients.
And the most recent report is that, despite falling real income in the
U.S., prices of new cars has fallen even faster, and it now takes the
least amount of weeks of the average wage earner's earnings to buy the
average entry level new car in the U.S. in history.
But never mind; of course the sky is falling. It's so much more fun
and dramatic than just being in a dull, boring, prolonged, recession.
Andrew
Who would want the avg entry level car ?
--
sent from my iPhone
TroytheTroll
>> And in no case is any of this hyperinflation.
>Unless you're out of work and have a $250k mortgage on a house.
Thats not hyperinflation either. Thats not having a job, and having a
middling sized mortgage.
>You
>gov't types don't notice inflation because mother gov't is always
>there with cost of living adjustments for you. Afterall, mother gov't
>isn't only our biggest employer, but our best paying one too!
Last year I received perhaps a $30/paycheck increase? Inflation ( not
hyperinflation ) in my medical coverage ate up about $20/paycheck of it.
You really want to represent a $10/paycheck increase as being covered by
mother government in this regard, or would you rather just stick with
whatever you can make up?
>> The double dip recession of the early 80's happened in conjunction with a
>> decent burst of inflation as well, and the kind of money being dumped
>> into
>> the system right now is a reasonable way to cause that sort of inflation
>> again. You think it takes some sort of game the system expert to notice
>> whats happening with the basics?
>Oil embargos conspiring with gov't overspending to maximize employment
>conspired to cause the 80s problems. As inventories came down,
>Volker's interest rates cooled off borrowing, and gas came down things
>leveled back off. But keep in mind, we still had a whole lot of
>productive workers then and if Reagan hadn't scooped them all up to
>make weapons to store in a hole, we probably still be okay.
We have been okay...are you not insinuating that your life story since that
period of time has been one of deprivation and hardship, what with sports
cars, motorcycles whenever you want them, random globe trotting adventures
and living in a tony part of Ohio?
>Now what do we have? A workforce made up of young people who no
>nothing but consumerism. Hell, they think the world owes them goods.
A notion which many of them are rapidly discovering was no more real than
the ever increasing home values of their parents.
>Their productive workers are paying for nice community facilities like
>this:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beijing_Terminal_3.jpg
>Meanwhile, our Motor City looks like this:=
>http://www.robotnine.com/2009/10/abandoned-houses-of-detroit.html
Yes, absolutely, there is no hardship and deprivation in China, what with
all their undercutting the US in the global labor market. Things are just
peachy. Undoubtedly the percentage of sports car and motorcycle ownership
among engineers is at an all time high, assuming that someone doesn't look
just a wee bit deeper, like some myopic American trying to pretend that the
grass is always greener, but somehow not exactly ever seeming to vote with
his feet.
Of course, one might have to avoid breathing the air or drinking the water
until they fix a few of their issues.
http://www.chinahush.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/20091020luguang14.jpg
TroytheTroll
>My gubbmit job doesn't give me cost of living adjustments. as a matter
>of fact no pay increase in 2 years. I make a little above 1/2 what I
>made in the private sector, with no chance of bonuses or big stock
>payouts.
The Feds have been paying COLA's over the past few years, Ronny was the last
Prez to put a kibosh on those. And in the interests of full disclosure,
there are bonuses available to some, although nothing like the private
sector stuff. I've got a buddy working for the phone company who gets a
decent 10% of his total salary as bonus, I've gotten a few for around $1000
or so, and they most certainly aren't guaranteed or regular in the least.
saddlebag
>
>
>
> > Unless you're out of work and have a $250k mortgage on a house. You
> > gov't types don't notice inflation because mother gov't is always
> > there with cost of living adjustments for you. Afterall, mother gov't
> > isn't only our biggest employer, but our best paying one too!
>
> My gubbmit job doesn't give me cost of living adjustments. as a matter
> of fact no pay increase in 2 years. I make a little above 1/2 what I
> made in the private sector
So why did you leave? Or was it that the private sector place could
no longer afford your services?
> with no chance of bonuses or big stock
> payouts.
Unless you're a banker, those aren't an issue these days either.
> Is there bloat in gubbmit payroll? hell yes, prison guards, cops, but
> dammit most of us are dedicated hard working employees.
>
> Other than that I agree with you.
I didn't make any suggestion that your job was the best paying. I
said that the federal gubment was the biggest and best paying. Though
Wallyworld may have taken the biggest employer banner lately. Either
way, neither are doing a thing to decrease our dependency on foreign
goods or create wealth for our economy.
saddlebag
> On Nov 27, 7:35 pm, BryanUT <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 5:30 am, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Unless you're out of work and have a $250k mortgage on a house. You
> > > gov't types don't notice inflation because mother gov't is always
> > > there with cost of living adjustments for you. Afterall, mother gov't
> > > isn't only our biggest employer, but our best paying one too!
>
> > My gubbmit job doesn't give me cost of living adjustments. as a matter
> > of fact no pay increase in 2 years. I make a little above 1/2 what I
> > made in the private sector, with no chance of bonuses or big stock
> > payouts.
>
> > Is there bloat in gubbmit payroll? hell yes, prison guards, cops, but
> > dammit most of us are dedicated hard working employees.
>
> > Other than that I agree with you.
>
> Of course, Troy was right about there not being any sign of
> hyperinflation
Define hyperinflation. Is $4 dollar gas hyperinflation? $1110 gold?
$20k Interceptors? $1.50 Euros? $200k houses that are being defaulted
on at record rates?
> and Saddle is wrong that inflation hasn't been low for
> everyone (government or private sector) over the past decade.,
Really, what was the last year the feds didn't get AT LEAST a cost of
living wage increase. This while the private sector is getting sacked
or taking massive pay cuts.
> Obviously, people who are out of work are harder hit by inflation than
> people who are working. That's not exactly a brllliant economic
> analysis.
You miss the critical part of the analysis. Why they are out of work
is the salient point.
> And of course, Saddle is worng about the government being the biggest
> employer; the private sector is the biggest employer.
The private sector is not a single employer.
> And of course, cost of living adjustments aren't limited to government
> employees, private sector retirees who retired on social security get
> cost of living adjustments, as do medicare recipients.
Gubment money.
> And the most recent report is that, despite falling real income in the
> U.S., prices of new cars has fallen even faster, and it now takes the
> least amount of weeks of the average wage earner's earnings to buy the
> average entry level new car in the U.S. in history.
Meaningless stat. Cite an example. Tell me what a Yugo cost as a
percentage of avg income in 1998.
> But never mind; of course the sky is falling. It's so much more fun
> and dramatic than just being in a dull, boring, prolonged, recession.
Nothing boring about watching one's country deteriorate due to greed
and stupidity.
saddlebag
> >My gubbmit job doesn't give me cost of living adjustments. as a matter
> >of fact no pay increase in 2 years. I make a little above 1/2 what I
> >made in the private sector, with no chance of bonuses or big stock
> >payouts.
>
> The Feds have been paying COLA's over the past few years, Ronny was the last
> Prez to put a kibosh on those. And in the interests of full disclosure,
> there are bonuses available to some, although nothing like the private
> sector stuff. I've got a buddy working for the phone company who gets a
> decent 10% of his total salary as bonus,
Undoubtedly involved in management of some sort. No one that does
anything that actually makes the company money is ever privy to that
kind of thing. My wife did get a $75 Christmas bonus this year. My
company has an across the board one year (if we are lucky) wage
freeze. This certainly will not affect upper management bonuses.
TroytheTroll
>> The Feds have been paying COLA's over the past few years, Ronny was the
>> last
>> Prez to put a kibosh on those. And in the interests of full disclosure,
>> there are bonuses available to some, although nothing like the private
>> sector stuff. I've got a buddy working for the phone company who gets a
>> decent 10% of his total salary as bonus,
>Undoubtedly involved in management of some sort. No one that does
>anything that actually makes the company money is ever privy to that
>kind of thing. My wife did get a $75 Christmas bonus this year. My
>company has an across the board one year (if we are lucky) wage
>freeze. This certainly will not affect upper management bonuses.
Its the goobermint, they can't actually hide anything from anyone.
TroytheTroll
>> Is there bloat in gubbmit payroll? hell yes, prison guards, cops, but
>> dammit most of us are dedicated hard working employees.
>>
>> Other than that I agree with you.
>I didn't make any suggestion that your job was the best paying. I
>said that the federal gubment was the biggest and best paying.
I made more on an annual basis in the private sector before the age of 30
than I do now, some 15 years later.
When do you think that best pay might show up?
Maybe another decade or two?
saddlebag
Admittedly, you are in a little different situation than most.
Petroleum/Chemical engineers actually do and always have made really
good jack in the private sector. The days of every programmer hack
getting a BMW signing bonus and six figure salary straight out of
college are long gone. That's why I don't think it's fair that he
compares his current job to something he might have done many years
ago. Not that he's a hack, but still that industry has changed
radically. Christ, you can contract Indians to do that stuff for $25/
hr. American rates for such labor run $100-150/hr with overhead.
Tim M.
> On Nov 27, 7:35 pm, BryanUT <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > with no chance of bonuses or big stock
> > payouts.
>
> Unless you're a banker, those aren't an issue these days either.
Really? And you know this how? I know plenty of people who are
getting bonuses and whose future financial security is tied up in the
stock options that they having granted to them now.
As many as 5-7 years ago? Nope. None? Hardly.
Tim M.
> On Nov 27, 11:39 pm, "Tim M." <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 27, 7:35 pm, BryanUT <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 5:30 am, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Unless you're out of work and have a $250k mortgage on a house. You
> > > > gov't types don't notice inflation because mother gov't is always
> > > > there with cost of living adjustments for you. Afterall, mother gov't
> > > > isn't only our biggest employer, but our best paying one too!
>
> > > My gubbmit job doesn't give me cost of living adjustments. as a matter
> > > of fact no pay increase in 2 years. I make a little above 1/2 what I
> > > made in the private sector, with no chance of bonuses or big stock
> > > payouts.
>
> > > Is there bloat in gubbmit payroll? hell yes, prison guards, cops, but
> > > dammit most of us are dedicated hard working employees.
>
> > > Other than that I agree with you.
>
> > Of course, Troy was right about there not being any sign of
> > hyperinflation
>
> Define hyperinflation.
Wiki: I
"In economics, hyperinflation is inflation that is very high or "out
of control", a condition in which prices increase rapidly as a
currency loses its value.[1] Definitions used by the media vary from a
cumulative inflation rate over three years approaching 100% to
"inflation exceeding 50% a month." [2] In informal usage the term is
often applied to much lower rates. As a rule of thumb, normal
inflation is reported per year, but hyperinflation is often reported
for much shorter intervals, often per month.
The definition used by most economists is "an inflationary cycle
without any tendency toward equilibrium."[citation needed] A vicious
circle is created in which more and more inflation is created with
each iteration of the cycle. Although there is a great deal of debate
about the root causes of hyperinflation, it becomes visible when there
is an unchecked increase in the money supply (or drastic debasement of
coinage) usually accompanied by a widespread unwillingness to hold the
money for more than the time needed to trade it for something tangible
to avoid further loss. Hyperinflation is often associated with wars
(or their aftermath), economic depressions, and political or social
upheavals.
Characteristics of hyperinflation:
In 1956, Phillip Cagan wrote The Monetary Dynamics of Hyperinflation,
[3] generally regarded as the first serious study of hyperinflation
and its effects. In it, he defined hyperinflation as a monthly
inflation rate of at least 50%. International Accounting Standard 1[4]
requires a presentation currency. IAS 21[5] provides for translations
of foreign currencies into the presentation currency. IAS 29[6]
establishes special accounting rules for use in hyperinflationary
environments, and lists four factors which can trigger application of
these rules:
1. The general population prefers to keep its wealth in non-monetary
assets or in a relatively stable foreign currency. Amounts of local
currency held are immediately invested to maintain purchasing power.
2. The general population regards monetary amounts not in terms of the
local currency but in terms of a relatively stable foreign currency.
Prices may be quoted in that foreign currency.
3. Sales and purchases on credit take place at prices that compensate
for the expected loss of purchasing power during the credit period,
even if the period is short.
4. Interest rates, wages and prices are linked to a price index and
the cumulative inflation rate over three years approaches, or exceeds,
100%. "
The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
"Inflation is a sustained increase in the aggregate price level.
Hyperinflation is very high inflation. Although the threshold is
arbitrary, economists generally reserve the term “hyperinflation” to
describe episodes when the monthly inflation rate is greater than 50
percent. At a monthly rate of 50 percent, an item that cost $1 on
January 1 would cost $130 on January 1 of the following year.
Hyperinflation is largely a twentieth-century phenomenon. The most
widely studied hyperinflation occurred in Germany after World War I.
The ratio of the German price index in November 1923 to the price
index in August 1922—just fifteen months earlier—was 1.02 × 1010. This
huge number amounts to a monthly inflation rate of 322 percent. On
average, prices quadrupled each month during the sixteen months of
hyperinflation.
While the German hyperinflation is better known, a much larger
hyperinflation occurred in Hungary after World War II. Between August
1945 and July 1946 the general level of prices rose at the astounding
rate of more than 19,000 percent per month, or 19 percent per day.
Even these very large numbers understate the rates of inflation
experienced during the worst days of the hyperinflations. In October
1923, German prices rose at the rate of 41 percent per day. And in
July 1946, Hungarian prices more than tripled each day."
------------------------------------------------------
Since inflation statistics have been officially reported by the
federal government for the U.S. starting in 1914, the highest annual
inflation rate this country has seen has been 17.5% during World War
I. The highest in the last 30 years was 30 years ago in 1979, in the
last year of the Carter administration, when inflation was 13%. The
highest it has been in the last 20 years was in 1990, when it was
5.5.% under the Klinton administration. In the last 15 years,
inflation in the U.S. has rarely topped 2.5% annually.
2.5% inflation per year is not the same as "inflation exceeding 50%
per month", so as I pointed out, correctly, Troy was right when he
said that there is no sign of hyperinflation in the U.S. economy.
> Is $4 dollar gas hyperinflation?
No.
> $1110 gold?
No.
> $20k Interceptors?
No.
> $1.50 Euros?
No.
> $200k houses that are being defaulted on at record rates?
No.
Now, is it clear to you that hyperinflation is not present in our
economy, or are you going to insist on being moronic about this?
> > and Saddle is wrong that inflation hasn't been low for
> > everyone (government or private sector) over the past decade.,
>
> Really, what was the last year the feds didn't get AT LEAST a cost of
> living wage increase.
I don't know. I never said they hadn't. This habit of yours of
attempting to change the argument when you are wrong is silly.
> This while the private sector is getting sacked or taking massive pay cuts.
Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the inflation rate being low
for BOTH government and private workers. Really, these straw man
arguments of your are childish. Don't you have anything better to
offer?
> > Obviously, people who are out of work are harder hit by inflation than
> > people who are working. That's not exactly a brllliant economic
> > analysis.
>
> You miss the critical part of the analysis. Why they are out of work
> is the salient point.
Then you should have made that a part of your argument. You did not,
and that was not what was being discussed.
Why are you trying to change the argument now? Clearly, it is simply
because once again you have yammered your way into an unsustainable
position and are trying to wriggle out of it by diverting attention
elsewhere.
> > And of course, Saddle is worng about the government being the biggest
> > employer; the private sector is the biggest employer.
>
> The private sector is not a single employer.
Neither is "the government."
> > And of course, cost of living adjustments aren't limited to government
> > employees, private sector retirees who retired on social security get
> > cost of living adjustments, as do medicare recipients.
>
> Gubment money.
Um, no. That is money that comes from the private sector in the form
of taxes. It is not government money.
> > And the most recent report is that, despite falling real income in the
> > U.S., prices of new cars has fallen even faster, and it now takes the
> > least amount of weeks of the average wage earner's earnings to buy the
> > average entry level new car in the U.S. in history.
> Meaningless stat.
Why is it meaningless, because *you* say so? It illustrates that low
inflation, coupled with decreased labor costs, coubled with increased
production efficiency, cause *real* prices to fall for the AVERAGE
wage earned and consumer, thus making the cost of livign LOWER for the
average family in the U.S., which illustrates PERFECTLY the idiocy of
your claim that we are suffering from "hyperinflation," when in fact
we are not.
> Cite an example.
No. The study results are readily available to anyone with the
brainpower to do a search for them on the net.
> Tell me what a Yugo cost as a percentage of avg income in 1998.
No. Yugo was defunct in 1998. When the Yugo was available, it
wasn't a valid example, because the company was selling in the U.S. at
a loss in a desperate attempt to keep the communist production lines
going in a newly capitalist society. It didn't work, the cars were
shit compared even to entry level cars of the day, and your
prediliction to search for extreme outliers to support your thoroughly
discredited claims isn't going to cause me to do any research for you.
> > But never mind; of course the sky is falling. It's so much more fun
> > and dramatic than just being in a dull, boring, prolonged, recession.
>
> Nothing boring about watching one's country deteriorate due to greed
> and stupidity.
Maybe you should do something about it... like stop writing such
stupid things online. Claiming that the U.S. is suffering from
hyperinflation simply illustrates that you're part of the problem, not
part of the solution.
Tim M.
> On Nov 28, 11:32 am, "TroytheTroll" <f4_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >My gubbmit job doesn't give me cost of living adjustments. as a matter
> > >of fact no pay increase in 2 years. I make a little above 1/2 what I
> > >made in the private sector, with no chance of bonuses or big stock
> > >payouts.
>
> > The Feds have been paying COLA's over the past few years, Ronny was the last
> > Prez to put a kibosh on those. And in the interests of full disclosure,
> > there are bonuses available to some, although nothing like the private
> > sector stuff. I've got a buddy working for the phone company who gets a
> > decent 10% of his total salary as bonus,
>
> Undoubtedly involved in management of some sort. No one that does
> anything that actually makes the company money is ever privy to that
> kind of thing.
Interesting. Rubbish, of course, but interesting claim
nonetheless.
Obviously, you should be an entrepreneur working for yourself, rather
than having your hard work converted into wealth for some manager who
does noting at all for the company, a company that is, collectively,
too stupid to realize that he or shsuch a leech manager should be
fired and his or her salary given to you.
Tell us, Saddle, since you are so smart that you have seen through the
corporate shell game that takes wealth from wealth producers and
awards it to do-nothings, why haven't you called on your superior
intellect, ethics, and wealth producing skills to go out on your own
and claim what is rightfully yours in the free marketplace?
In not doing so, you become the type of person who is preventing the
U.S. from competing in the worlkd marketplace.
You become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
Rise up, and throw off the shackles of corporate slavery, and reveal
the true, entrepreneurial, self-starting, powerful,, intelligent,
wealth-producing individual you could truly be!
saddlebag
I need some gubment contacts since working people don't have money to
spend on things anymore. Got any you wanna share?
saddlebag
> In it, he defined hyperinflation as a monthly
> inflation rate of at least 50%.
Alright Tim. Now riddle me this. If prices don't change an iota, but
you don't have an income, have even the necessities become priced out
of reach?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
1 in 8 adults and 1 in 4 children in this country require foodstamps
just to survive. Basically no one in this country can afford to pay
for healthcare directly. Kids coming out of college with $100+k debts
into a job market where they fight for manual labor jobs.
I'll grant you that Walmart has managed to keep the costs of staples
within reach of people who still have a job, but if it wasn't for
gubment borrowing from the Chinese to fatten gubament payrolls, even
those prices would be hyperinflated to the avg income of the non
gubment worker.
>Why is it meaningless, because *you* say so? It illustrates that low
>inflation, coupled with decreased labor costs, coubled with increased
>production efficiency, cause *real* prices to fall for the AVERAGE
>wage earned and consumer, thus making the cost of livign LOWER for the
>average family in the U.S., which illustrates PERFECTLY the idiocy of
>your claim that we are suffering from "hyperinflation," when in fact
>we are not.
It is meaningless for more than one reason.
a) The average car could be much less car than it used to be
b) The requirement for shittier cars (due to decreased avg wages)
could cause a volume increase/price decrease for *those* types of
cars, but says nothing of the overall prices of new cars.
I just looked up the cost of a 2000 Honda Accord and compared it to a
2010 Honda Accord.
It is a mere 42% more expensive now. Maybe gubment raises have
increased at that rate, but that doesn't seem to be the case in most
of the private sector. For someone who is so fond of the status quo
and the wonderful economic situation it has provided our countrymen,
could you please tell us why if the ratio of the avg cost of goods
relative to the avg cost of wages has not hyperinflated, then why has
our consumerism suddenly hyperdeflated?
>> The private sector is not a single employer.
> Neither is "the government."
The federal gubment is and it isn't my claim. They used to boast the
largess in both persons and pay on their own job search web site.
> Maybe you should do something about it...
I do. I go to work and produce things and vote for people who seem to
have the betterment of our country (rather than just it's top income
earners) at heart.
Is it really that hard for you to see the countries producing goods
are getting rich and the rest not so much so?
Are you really in such denial that you think this is some business
cyclical inventory correction period we're undergoing?
Dude, get outta Lovelyville Va and have a look around.
TroytheTroll
>Tell us, Saddle, since you are so smart that you have seen through the
>corporate shell game that takes wealth from wealth producers and
>awards it to do-nothings, why haven't you called on your superior
>intellect, ethics, and wealth producing skills to go out on your own
>and claim what is rightfully yours in the free marketplace?
>In not doing so, you become the type of person who is preventing the
>U.S. from competing in the worlkd marketplace.
>You become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
Saddle!! Say it ain't so!!
saddlebag
TroytheTroll
>> than I do now, some 15 years later.
>>
>> When do you think that best pay might show up?
>>
>> Maybe another decade or two?
>Admittedly, you are in a little different situation than most.
>Petroleum/Chemical engineers actually do and always have made really
>good jack in the private sector.
Oh...so now there are SPECIAL federal goobermint employee's who don't fit
your "one size fits all" approach to stereotyping everything related to
those who fit into saddle's category of "worlds most despised" employee's?
I don't think my situation is different, I did a cost/benefit analysis upon
the birth of my first child, and decided that standard of living for a
family man was determined as much by working conditions than by cash in the
paycheck.
>The days of every programmer hack
>getting a BMW signing bonus and six figure salary straight out of
>college are long gone.
And certainly this never happened in the federal government that I've seen,
heading into my 3rd decade of observation. Our IT people have to fight
pretty hard to get what I consider a decent salary.....they drive 10 year
old Ford Exploders.
> Christ, you can contract Indians to do that stuff for $25/
>hr. American rates for such labor run $100-150/hr with overhead.
Not when they work for the goobermint.
saddlebag
It ain't so. I never said the corporate MBA types are do nothing.
They run the bloated Juggernauts they created well. They've got all
the right palms greased and best lawyers to do battle. Unfortunately,
this does little to help us compete with our brass tacks wealth
producing world neighbors. I'd say about 95% of corporate America is
fluff and 4% of the 5% of actually production is done overseas by
highly motivated slaves.
But what the hell, we do have the best set of metrics and pie graphs
the world has ever seen!
saddlebag
> On Nov 28, 1:47 pm, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 11:32 am, "TroytheTroll" <f4_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >My gubbmit job doesn't give me cost of living adjustments. as a matter
> > > >of fact no pay increase in 2 years. I make a little above 1/2 what I
> > > >made in the private sector, with no chance of bonuses or big stock
> > > >payouts.
>
> > > The Feds have been paying COLA's over the past few years, Ronny was the last
> > > Prez to put a kibosh on those. And in the interests of full disclosure,
> > > there are bonuses available to some, although nothing like the private
> > > sector stuff. I've got a buddy working for the phone company who gets a
> > > decent 10% of his total salary as bonus,
>
> > Undoubtedly involved in management of some sort. No one that does
> > anything that actually makes the company money is ever privy to that
> > kind of thing.
>
> Interesting. Rubbish, of course, but interesting claim
> nonetheless.
TroytheTroll
>you don't have an income, have even the necessities become priced out
>of reach?
>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
>1 in 8 adults and 1 in 4 children in this country require foodstamps
>just to survive.
And this has nothing to do with hyperinflation. Care to try again?
>Basically no one in this country can afford to pay
>for healthcare directly. Kids coming out of college with $100+k debts
>into a job market where they fight for manual labor jobs.
So....you want to blame the effects of a recession, which has happened
before, causing similar issues, with hyperinflation that doesn't exist too?
>I just looked up the cost of a 2000 Honda Accord and compared it to a
>2010 Honda Accord.
>It is a mere 42% more expensive now. Maybe gubment raises have
>increased at that rate, but that doesn't seem to be the case in most
>of the private sector.
And a decreasing standard of living because of Americans habit of buying
more than they can afford is an effect of hyperlinflation...how? Americans
standard of living has been decreasing since the early 90's at least, using
increases in 2nd wage earners ( who used to be called MOM ) to hide it so
the Jones's could buy that 3rd car or bigger house on easy credit, all the
while thinking its value would only go up.
Maybe they didn't spend enough time learning on grandpa's knee when he was
talking about how the Depression had effected them? Or maybe they just
watched too much Orange County Housewives and developed a sense of how
things worked as stupid as what Filber espouses through sheer
ignorance...and the cumulative result of decades of bad personal decisions?
>> Maybe you should do something about it...
>I do. I go to work and produce things and vote for people who seem to
>have the betterment of our country (rather than just it's top income
>earners) at heart.
So Obama dropping off a few hundred billion into various Wall Street banks
who then distribute that money in the form of bonus's is what you expected?
You think maybe those Wall Street folks aren't top income earners....they
must all be in the goobermint, right?
>Is it really that hard for you to see the countries producing goods
>are getting rich and the rest not so much so?
America is the largest manufacturing powerhouse on the planet.
Here's the 06 stats.
http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/01/22/top-10-manufacturing-countries-2006/
So now its not good enough to be #1 in manufacturing? China is certainly
going to catch us, which I can't say is that much of a surprise given their
growth rate and need to keep a population busy-busy-busy before they figure
out that 300 million pissed off middle class Chinese from the inside can
effect their world alot more than the US can from the outside.
>Are you really in such denial that you think this is some business
>cyclical inventory correction period we're undergoing?
>Dude, get outta Lovelyville Va and have a look around.
Perhaps we should stop being #1 in manufacturing just so you can be
right...once?
saddlebag
> >Alright Tim. Now riddle me this. If prices don't change an iota, but
> >you don't have an income, have even the necessities become priced out
> >of reach?
No.
> You think maybe those Wall Street folks aren't top income earners....they
> must all be in the goobermint, right?
Ol' Goldman Sachs Geithner show do. And now so do all his banker buds.
> >Is it really that hard for you to see the countries producing goods
> >are getting rich and the rest not so much so?
>
> America is the largest manufacturing powerhouse on the planet.
>
> Here's the 06 stats.
>
> http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/01/22/top-10-manufacturing-c...
>
> So now its not good enough to be #1 in manufacturing? China is certainly
> going to catch us, which I can't say is that much of a surprise given their
> growth rate and need to keep a population busy-busy-busy before they figure
> out that 300 million pissed off middle class Chinese from the inside can
> effect their world alot more than the US can from the outside.
>
> >Are you really in such denial that you think this is some business
> >cyclical inventory correction period we're undergoing?
> >Dude, get outta Lovelyville Va and have a look around.
>
> Perhaps we should stop being #1 in manufacturing just so you can be
> right...once?
Or maybe you should take out the manufactured McNuggets and Big Macs
and ICBMs and have another look.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/20/business/20jobs.html?pagewanted=print&position=
"Total employment figures only tell part of the story, though. The
percentage of U.S. workers employed in manufacturing has dropped from
16.5% in 1987 to 10.8% today (2006)."
So what should we do with those productive workers? Do we need more
gubment desk jockeys?
And how do we turn around the trade deficit when all those people are
buying all their goods from overseas?
And if we can't turn around the trade deficit and get people employed
here making our goods, how are we going to increase tax receipts to
pay off our foreign lenders?
"Many of the millions of laid-off production workers in recent years
ended up shifting into lower-salaried service jobs, while U.S.
manufacturers relocated production facilities to low-cost countries.
That strategy helped shorten the recession in the short term, but
there's a real fear that in the long term, U.S. manufacturing may be
mortgaging its future by permanently offshoring production. Many are
hopeful that the Bush Administration, prodded by the new Democrat-led
Congress, will respond to U.S. manufacturing's plight by getting
tougher on China's trading practices."
Welp, guess we can write that one off...
This article as mfg down to 8%:
"In 1958, 28% of employed Americans worked in manufacturing; in 2008,
only 8% did so. In 1958, there were 14.6 million factory workers; in
2008, only 12.7 million Americans worked in factories. Not since the
industrial revolution in the mid-19th century has manufacturing
occupied such a small relative share of the American economy."
Now do you think it coincidental that as goes mfg so goes the country?
TroytheTroll
>> right...once?
>Or maybe you should take out the manufactured McNuggets and Big Macs
>and ICBMs and have another look.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/20/business/20jobs.html?pagewanted=print&position=
>"Total employment figures only tell part of the story, though. The
>percentage of U.S. workers employed in manufacturing has dropped from
>16.5% in 1987 to 10.8% today (2006)."
>So what should we do with those productive workers? Do we need more
>gubment desk jockeys?
Over the last few years I'll bet they've been selling each other real estate
and doing breast implants in Orange County California. In the meantime,
apparently those remaining workers are enough to make the US the biggest
manufacturer on the planet....good news!
>And how do we turn around the trade deficit when all those people are
>buying all their goods from overseas?
Certainly not with hyperinflation. And don't worry, that correction is
coming sometime too.
>And if we can't turn around the trade deficit and get people employed
>here making our goods, how are we going to increase tax receipts to
>pay off our foreign lenders?
You ask many questions, the same ones which were put forth when Ronny was
President...and as best I can tell, the basic answer is, "things keep going
round and round, only different".
Are you claiming that these intractable issues have kept you from having a
decent standard of living since then somehow?
>This article as mfg down to 8%:
>"In 1958, 28% of employed Americans worked in manufacturing; in 2008,
>only 8% did so. In 1958, there were 14.6 million factory workers; in
>2008, only 12.7 million Americans worked in factories. Not since the
>industrial revolution in the mid-19th century has manufacturing
>occupied such a small relative share of the American economy."
>Now do you think it coincidental that as goes mfg so goes the country?
?? The country uses less workers...to be the largest manufacturing country
on the planet....STILL. So now the claim is not that hyperinflation has
anything to do with this, but that the fewer manufacturing jobs required to
do something more efficiently has caused the widescale growth of the
American economy since 1958?
Or do you only blame down times on your favorite industry? Seems like you
were whining about this same stuff when we weren't in a recession though.
saddlebag
> Are you claiming that these intractable issues have kept you from having a
> decent standard of living since then somehow?
It isn't nor has it ever been about *me*. Believe it or not, our
country is bigger than that.
> >This article as mfg down to 8%:
> >"In 1958, 28% of employed Americans worked in manufacturing; in 2008,
> >only 8% did so. In 1958, there were 14.6 million factory workers; in
> >2008, only 12.7 million Americans worked in factories. Not since the
> >industrial revolution in the mid-19th century has manufacturing
> >occupied such a small relative share of the American economy."
> >Now do you think it coincidental that as goes mfg so goes the country?
>
> ?? The country uses less workers...to be the largest manufacturing country
> on the planet....STILL. So now the claim is not that hyperinflation has
> anything to do with this, but that the fewer manufacturing jobs required to
> do something more efficiently has caused the widescale growth of the
> American economy since 1958?
I claim that hyperinflation is the spread between what they make and
what they can afford. The real unemployment rate (people who still
want to work but are no longer counted since their benefits ran out)
is really running around 17% avg and much worse in the rusty
flatlands. If 20% of people who want to work can't, avg wages drop.
If inflation is the avg difference between what people make and what
things cost then costs can remain constant and still become
inflationary in an avg sense. And I can point out things whose costs
have skyrocketed over the last decade even if the gubament filters
their numbers to make the inflation costs look tamer than they deserve
to be.
> Or do you only blame down times on your favorite industry? Seems like you
> were whining about this same stuff when we weren't in a recession though.
Because Philsy and I saw it coming from 10 miles away. It ain't hard
if ya open yer eyez.
Tim M.
> I need some gubment contacts since working people don't have money to
> spend on things anymore. Got any you wanna share?
No.
Tim M.
> I claim that hyperinflation is the spread between what they make and
> what they can afford.
Well, you are making up your own definition then, since no one else
anywhere else at any other time has ever defined hyperinflation that
way.
You do understand that with automation and computerization,
manufacturing is going to continue to fall as a percentage of the
worldwide economy, including in those third world countries to which
it has fled in order to further reduce costs, right?
If you're smart, you'll find something to do that requires brainpower
instead of musclepower. Musclepower compensation is on longterm
decline worldwide, saddle.
Not just here in the United States.
TroytheTroll
"saddlebag" <sadd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5e62b66e-b21c-46a6...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 29, 7:57 pm, "TroytheTroll" <f4_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Are you claiming that these intractable issues have kept you from having
>> a
>> decent standard of living since then somehow?
>It isn't nor has it ever been about *me*. Believe it or not, our
>country is bigger than that.
Of course. But your argument seems to exclude the concept of people doing
EXACTLY what you, and perhaps I, and Timsey, and others have done. We
educate ourselves, pay our bills, some of us raise our children and send
them to schools, save a few bucks for a rainy day....and then you pretend
the country is doomed because people like you, and me and Timsey and others
don't exist, and don't contribute because we don't have jobs only
manufacturing stuff.
Your concept of "gee the country is screwed because we continue to be the
largest manufacturing center on the planet" seems to be negated by
techniques and strategies which someone as simple as YOU are capable of
enacting, yet you assume the rest of the country would rather roll over and
die....rather than enact reasonable plans which have stood some of us in
good stead.
>I claim that hyperinflation is the spread between what they make and
>what they can afford.
I claim the moon is made of green cheese. The definition for hyperinflation
has been provided, and unless you have suddenly reconfigured your career as
the Fed Chair, it is unlikely that YOUR definition can replace a real one.
>The real unemployment rate (people who still
>want to work but are no longer counted since their benefits ran out)
>is really running around 17% avg and much worse in the rusty
>flatlands. If 20% of people who want to work can't, avg wages drop.
You just said that 17% is the real rate, but something happens magically if
that rate reaches 20%? Any special significance to where you set your
arbitrary disaster points?
>If inflation is the avg difference between what people make and what
>things cost then costs can remain constant and still become
>inflationary in an avg sense.
Inflation isn't an average difference related to what people make. Here's a
real definition:
"Inflation is an increase in the price of a basket of goods and services
that is representative of the economy as a whole."
Why don't we stick with real definitions rather than whatever you happen to
want to claim from minute to minute?
>> Or do you only blame down times on your favorite industry? Seems like you
>> were whining about this same stuff when we weren't in a recession though.
>Because Philsy and I saw it coming from 10 miles away. It ain't hard
>if ya open yer eyez.
Philsy has seen so much coming he's been involuntarily committed because of
it. And seeing "it" coming has worked so well his house has wheels and he
reacts with a psychotic episode when told the word "no" by strangers on the
phone.
You, on the other hand, have weathered the storm quite nicely to date.
I seriously doubt you two see anything alike. And in no case has any of it
been related to this phantom hyperinflation which Filbert hallucinates, and
you cheerlead for other reasons, most particularly pushing your whole "the
world is ending because the US is the largest manufacturer on the planet and
that is awful" idea.
saddlebag
> On Nov 29, 8:47 pm, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I claim that hyperinflation is the spread between what they make and
> > what they can afford.
>
> Well, you are making up your own definition then, since no one else
> anywhere else at any other time has ever defined hyperinflation that
> way.
Who gives a rat's ass? The idiots calculate Gross Domestic *PRODUCT*
like this too:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending +
(exports - imports)
Since when is consumption or gov't spending a product? Is it my fault
engineers are better at quantifying things than economists?
> You do understand that with automation and computerization,
> manufacturing is going to continue to fall as a percentage of the
> worldwide economy, including in those third world countries to which
> it has fled in order to further reduce costs, right?
There are a lot of things that can be automated and a lot of things
that can't. Either way, by sending it all overseas we are cutting our
own throats. Think about it, even in a highly automated process we
can train and employ high paid engineers, programmers, and technicians
in this country to run highly create and maintain the production.
They will need accountants to make payrolls, purchasing agents, human
resources, plant managers, custodians, food preparation, and so on.
Construction workers will be required to construct and make changes to
the plant thru its life cycle. The town its in then has a wealth
creating entity that brings money *into* the town and provides tax
receipts for cops, fireman, teachers, hospitals and so on.
Move that overseas and lose it all. Except the executives cut anyway.
Is this really so hard for you to fathom?
> If you're smart, you'll find something to do that requires brainpower
> instead of musclepower. Musclepower compensation is on longterm
> decline worldwide, saddle.
>
> Not just here in the United States.
Production is production. If you've got something that can be easily
automated that's great. If not, then let less skilled people have a
crack at earning a living too.
Tim M.
> On Nov 29, 9:22 pm, "Tim M." <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 8:47 pm, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > I claim that hyperinflation is the spread between what they make and
> > > what they can afford.
>
> > Well, you are making up your own definition then, since no one else
> > anywhere else at any other time has ever defined hyperinflation that
> > way.
>
> Who gives a rat's ass?
I do. Words have meanings. If everyone makes up their own personal,
different meaning, then communication is impossible.
> The idiots calculate Gross Domestic *PRODUCT*
> like this too:
>
> GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending +
> (exports - imports)
>
> Since when is consumption or gov't spending a product? Is it my fault
> engineers are better at quantifying things than economists?
No, but it is *your* fault if you refuse to understand and accept the
common currency of communication. Feel free to point out what you
don't like about the way a particular economic statistic is COMMONLY
calculated, but what you are doing with hyperinflation is no different
than if I were to say "I prefer to define 'Gross Domestic Product' as
all of the tobacco production between February 14 and August 12 in the
Commonwealth of Virginia." Doing so makes the word completely
meaningless and useless in any attempt to communicate.
> > You do understand that with automation and computerization,
> > manufacturing is going to continue to fall as a percentage of the
> > worldwide economy, including in those third world countries to which
> > it has fled in order to further reduce costs, right?
>
> There are a lot of things that can be automated and a lot of things
> that can't. Either way, by sending it all overseas we are cutting our
> own throats.
But Saddle, I don't advocate sending it all overseas. I strenuously
advocate keeping as much high tech, automated, cutting edge, skilled,
production in the U.S. as humanly possible. That's why I advocate
buying American made cars from American car companies. That's why I
wrote about how counterproductive it is in the long run for U.S.
consumers to force buyers for Lowes and Home Depot to force such
draconian price cuts on U.S. cabinetry suppliers that they, in turn,
can't afford to buy precision machine tools from Wisconsin (because
Wisconsin toolmaker employees need to be able to feed their families
and put a roof over their heads) and instead go overseas for machine
tools that are cheaper.
> Think about it, even in a highly automated process we
> can train and employ high paid engineers, programmers, and technicians
> in this country to run highly create and maintain the production.
I don't need to "think about it." I agree and have never said
anything differently.
> They will need accountants to make payrolls, purchasing agents, human
> resources, plant managers, custodians, food preparation, and so on.
> Construction workers will be required to construct and make changes to
> the plant thru its life cycle. The town its in then has a wealth
> creating entity that brings money *into* the town and provides tax
> receipts for cops, fireman, teachers, hospitals and so on.
I agree and have never said anything differently. You cannot find a
single post in which I have ever said anything that would contradict
this. You are preaching to the choir. You are wasting my time and
yours.
> Move that overseas and lose it all.
No, you don't lose it all. Not if another smarter, more efficient,
more industrious, leaner, hungrier company moves in to take up the
slack. Not if another, different, industry sees a new marketplace
for a new product, and fills the void. You only "lose it all" is
gyour supposition is that economics and the world economy are a zero
sum game, static, with no growth, and no change in the relative
positions among the various players.
> Except the executives cut anyway.
You really have a hard-on for executives, Saddle.
> Is this really so hard for you to fathom?
You haven't said anything that I haven't understood and written and
discussed with people for at least twenty-five to thirty years.
> > If you're smart, you'll find something to do that requires brainpower
> > instead of musclepower. Musclepower compensation is on longterm
> > decline worldwide, saddle.
>
> > Not just here in the United States.
>
> Production is production. If you've got something that can be easily
> automated that's great. If not, then let less skilled people have a
> crack at earning a living too.
No problem with that. I'm sure you'd be quite good at digging
ditches. At least, you'd almost certainly be better at it than you
are at constructing cogent arguments for your views on global
economics.
Where we differ is that you believe that the United States has lost
some kind of global economic war and will soon be destitute and that
China will soon rule the world with no competition from the smoking
ruins of North America, while I believe that the current global trade
dislocations and adjustments are simply an inevitable part of an
increasingly complex and growing and mutating and ever-changing global
economy that is never going to be controlled by one country or one
government or one person, nor in fact, by any global or national
economic council or committee. Nor do I believe that such a global
economy guarantees the diminishment of the U.S. to pauperhood, as you
do.
TroytheTroll
>advocate keeping as much high tech, automated, cutting edge, skilled,
>production in the U.S. as humanly possible.
Sounds good.
>That's why I advocate
>buying American made cars from American car companies.
Whats your take on Mexican made cars by American companies, or American made
cars by Japanese companies?
Whats more valuable...high tech, automated, cutting edged assembly feeding
the citizens of Mexico, the profit from which arrives at the corporate level
in a US based company, or high tech, automated, cutting edged assembly
feeding the citizens of Kentucky, the proceeds of which arrive at the
corporate level elsewhere?
saddlebag
> Where we differ is that you believe that the United States has lost
> some kind of global economic war and will soon be destitute
Soon? Seen our debt figures lately?
> China will soon rule the world with no competition from the smoking
> ruins of North America
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/fortune/0910/gallery.china_shopping_list.fortune/index.html
> Nor do I believe that such a global
> economy guarantees the diminishment of the U.S. to pauperhood, as you
> do.
Not pauperhood per se, but more of a banana republic where there are a
small band of rich and large masses of poor. The middle class that
made us special is unfortunately dwindling...
saddlebag
> > I strenuously
> >advocate keeping as much high tech, automated, cutting edge, skilled,
> >production in the U.S. as humanly possible.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> >That's why I advocate
> >buying American made cars from American car companies.
>
> Whats your take on Mexican made cars by American companies, or American made
> cars by Japanese companies?
>
> Whats more valuable...high tech, automated, cutting edged assembly feeding
> the citizens of Mexico
It depends. If all the parts are being designed and manufactured and
sent south to be screwed together, while not optimal, still a pretty
good gig for the states. If Japan designs and mfgs all of its parts
in Japan and sends the parts to the US for us to screw together,
better than nothing, but not great.
Tim M.
Excellent question, and a good subject for debate. I guess I would
rank "good for the U.S." in general:
1. U.S. company with majority U.S. shareholders paying U.S. taxes,
building cars or trucks or engines or subassemblies in U.S. factories
using U.S. labor.
2. Same as above but in North American factories using North American
labor.
3. Foreign company that permits international investment, building
cars or trucks or engines or subassemblies in U.S. factories using
U.S. labor.
4. Same as above but in North American factories using North American
labor.
In which case I think Fords built in Mexico orf Canada by citizens of
those countries are better for the U.S. than Hondas built by Americans
in Kentucky or BMWs built by Americans in South Carolina. But I'd
certainly enjoy researching and quantifying the various benefits and
drawbacks of each approach to see which trully is better for the
U.S. Who knows, they short-term answer may be different than the
long-term answer, too!
Tim
> On Nov 30, 9:35 pm, "Tim M." <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Where we differ is that you believe that the United States has lost
> > some kind of global economic war and will soon be destitute
> Soon? Seen our debt figures lately?
Doesn't mean we will be destitute. Certainly doesn't represent some
sort of "loss" in some sort of global economic war. You might want to
read about some of the challenges that China faces before declaring
unilateral defeat.
> > China will soon rule the world with no competition from the smoking
> > ruins of North America
>
> http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/fortune/0910/gallery.china_shoppi...
"Thanks to the export of cheap products, like these Limited t-shirts
being made in this factory in Lesotho, China has amassed some $2
trillion in foreign reserves. To rebalance its economy and to fuel
growth beyond light manufacturing, China plans to invest some of that
cash abroad in industries ranging from finance to autos to
semiconductors."
This illustrates your "proof" that the U.S. and North America is a
smoking ruin? If only we could compete with China in world t-shirt
production, the U.S. middle class would be "saved." Do you want to
tell the people in Danville, Virginia, that they would be better off
making t-shirts again, like they did in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's,
and 70's and stopped doing in the 80's, but that they will have to do
so for real wages that are LESS than what their grandparents made in
the 1930's, thus becoming a vanguard for the return to American
greatness?
> > Nor do I believe that such a global
> > economy guarantees the diminishment of the U.S. to pauperhood, as you
> > do.
>
> Not pauperhood per se, but more of a banana republic where there are a
> small band of rich and large masses of poor. The middle class that
> made us special is unfortunately dwindling...
And we can stop all this if only we can build iPods and T-shirts for
less than the Chinese. What a wonderful blueprint you have for a
return to U.S. world dominance!
I can't wait to see you staff your t-shirt factory and undercut the
Chinese in wholesaling them to WalMart.
---------------------------
Your "all gloom and doom, all the time" approach to the U.S. economic
situation is in stark contrast to the long cherished "can do" spirit
of America that for so long, as you say, "made us special."
Joey Tribiani
"Tim M." <tomorrowat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e0db2562-4397-4d0c...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> That's why I
>wrote about how counterproductive it is in the long run for U.S.
>consumers to force buyers for Lowes and Home Depot to force such
>draconian price cuts on U.S. cabinetry suppliers that they, in turn,
>can't afford to buy precision machine tools from Wisconsin (because
>Wisconsin toolmaker employees need to be able to feed their families
>and put a roof over their heads) and instead go overseas for machine
>tools that are cheaper.
that's hardly the fault of Lowes or The Home Depot. The cabinet manufacturer
doesn't have to cut their profits out to make the sale, they are simply
afraid if they *don't* then they won't survive when another manufacturer
does do it...
Tim
> "Tim M." <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e0db2562-4397-4d0c...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > That's why I
> >wrote about how counterproductive it is in the long run for U.S.
> >consumers to force buyers for Lowes and Home Depot to force such
> >draconian price cuts on U.S. cabinetry suppliers that they, in turn,
> >can't afford to buy precision machine tools from Wisconsin (because
> >Wisconsin toolmaker employees need to be able to feed their families
> >and put a roof over their heads) and instead go overseas for machine
> >tools that are cheaper.
>
> that's hardly the fault of Lowes or The Home Depot.
I agree. They strive to offer their customers the cabinets they want
at the lowest possible price. They don't include long term damage to
the United States economy or even to their own business future when
considering whether to source their products from China or Winchester,
Virginia.
> The cabinet manufacturer
> doesn't have to cut their profits out to make the sale, they are simply
> afraid if they *don't* then they won't survive when another manufacturer
> does do it...
Actually, that is almost exactly the equation the cabinetmaker in
question had to make. They weren't worried about whether they would
remain profitable; they had long since determined that settling for
"break-even" would keep their business running, their employee's paid
and the employee's families housed and fed, and the local economy from
plummeting even further into a localized depression. They were told
what the price was that buyers for the stores were willing to pay, and
in order to meet that price and sell enough cabinets to remain in
business, they could not buy their updated tooling from their
traditional tool supplier in Wisconsin, unless that supplier could
substantially reduce their price. The Wisconsin tool supplier, in
turn, cut everything they could possibly cut, and gave their best
price. It was not good enough. The cabinetmaker bought their tooling
from (can't remember if it was South Korea or China, but suffice to
say that it was) a foreign rather than domestic supplier. The
Wisconsin toolmaker, which had been in business for over a hundred
years, subsequently went bankrupt, as have many others. The
cabinetmaking company is still soldiering on, and my friend who works
for them as a process engineer is still there.
I think that the loss of that company would be - just as I think the
loss of the toolmaker was - counterproductive to the U.S. economy in
the long run. I also think that if there were a way to make it clear
to consumers of such products that, say (and this is just an off the
cuff example, not real numbers) they were willing to pay $3,150 for
their cabinets instead of $3,000; then two companies that employ
hundreds of fellow Americans will remain in business, and that
otherwise those businesses and the livelihoods they provide will
either go out of business of provide those livelihoods (albeit on a
substantially lower plane) to workers and families in Asia, then those
consumers might be willng to wait an extra three months and pay the
extra 5% premium to have those cabinets made in the U.S.
I guess this is another example of the phrase "race to the bottom."
Consumers demand lower and lower prices, and one way - often the only
way - to lower prices further is to source goods offshore where labor
or land or taxes or environmental controls or safety standards or
government regulations or all or some combination of the above all add
up to production costs that can't be matched in the U.S.
People want to "buy American" but they don't want to pay extra to do
so, and they want to get the best quality that they can afford
(whatever that might be) for whatever it is that they are buying.
All other things beling equal, that often adds up to outsourcing.
Now, Saddle would like everyone to believe - as he apparently does -
that the evil Republicans and the "fatcat" evil executives outsource
all these "American" jobs in order to line their own pockets with
massive, immoral, windfall profits, but the fact is that in a global
economy, the marketplace (which of course, takes into account
government's actions as well) itself is driving these sorts of
decisions.
I don't pretend to know what, if any, longterm "solution" there will
be for this, nor what the outcome is going to be, but I resent the
concept that A) it is a very simple, ideologically driven situation
that can be simply reversed by simple black and white political
decisions, i.e. voting Democrat instead of Republican, and B) that the
inevitable - and short term - conclusion to the current global
economic dynamic is the destruction of the U.S. economy, the
destruction of any stature of the U.S. in the world economic order,
and depression and mass destitution and hunger for U.S. citizens.
Saddle and Phil can cite every economic bellweather event (Dubai
Defaults! U.S. becomes largest debtor nation in the world!) as
evidence that they are right and the sky really IS falling, but I've
never thought it was that simple, and I don't think it is now.
Joey Tribiani
"Tim" <tomorrowe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:af797fa9-d10e-4cd0...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>I agree. They strive to offer their customers the cabinets they want
>at the lowest possible price. They don't include long term damage to
>the United States economy or even to their own business future when
>considering whether to source their products from China or Winchester,
>Virginia.
I can't really agree there, at least locally... 15 years ago, yes, folks
would not only pay a little more for made in USA cabinets, but would also
pay a little more for locally made cabinets. Not so now. I'm "in the field"
and I don't even have a shop anymore to make my own custom cabinets, as I
did in the past. These days many folks don't care where things are made, who
makes them or even the quality of them, just "what's the total"... Comparing
a set of custom made cabinets to a set of manufactured cabinets is a night
and day difference(even the higher end semi-custom cabinet lines) but folks
don't see that and think vinyl lamintated particle board is just as good as
solid wood or vennered plywood when it's not "seen"... Price trumps quality,
place of manufacture, and longevity nearly everytime..... most folks don't
realize that the best value isn't always the lowest price. Since I don't do
my own custom cabinets anymore, I contract and subcontract many jobs
installing factory built cabinets these days. I've *always* been available
for that(for the past 15 years) and did many sets while I was also building,
selling, and installing my custom cabinets.. If folks could only see how far
the quality of many manufactured cabinets cabinets has dropped, as the
prices have risen, they'd be upset. The quality drops when they have to
manufacture them "cheaper". Many cabinet suppliers are actually outsourcing
their moldings to china... It's cheaper to have cut lumber shipped over,
milled down, finished, and shipped back than it is to do it here... there
are many molding manufacturers here in Va that are hurting these days.(does
your friend work for Kraftmaid(Masco) ?)
>I guess this is another example of the phrase "race to the bottom."
>Consumers demand lower and lower prices, and one way - often the only
>way - to lower prices further is to source goods offshore where labor
>or land or taxes or environmental controls or safety standards or
>government regulations or all or some combination of the above all add
>up to production costs that can't be matched in the U.S.
I agree, as I said above, folks don't always realize that value isn't always
the lowest price... once we hit that "bottom" and they have to adapt to the
bartering system, they may realize how it really is important to get your
goods and services from those close to you whenever possible.
>People want to "buy American" but they don't want to pay extra to do
>so, and they want to get the best quality that they can afford
>(whatever that might be) for whatever it is that they are buying.
>All other things beling equal, that often adds up to outsourcing.
the overwhelming majority don't want the best quality they can afford, they
want the most for what they can afford, quality is secondary... at least in
my experience. And sadly, for many years the quality of what us Americans
were making may have been secondary to the quality of the same item that was
available from overseas, and at a cheaper price... over time that tends to
bite ya, and we've been bitten...
saddlebag
Yes, they would absolutely be better off creating a 2 trillion dollar
piggy bank PRODUCING t-shirts, toilet brushes, or Tampax dispensers
then they are being overly compensated sucking gov't tit that is fed
by a country of people who amassed a 2 trillion dollar piggy bank
PRODUCING t-shirts.
> And we can stop all this if only we can build iPods and T-shirts for
> less than the Chinese. What a wonderful blueprint you have for a
> return to U.S. world dominance!
Walk into a hardware, stereo, appliance, auto, or any other store ya
like Tim. Asians make it all and we sit like fat, diabetic kids
filling our faces in a candy store waiting to enter coma...
> Your "all gloom and doom, all the time" approach to the U.S. economic
> situation is in stark contrast to the long cherished "can do" spirit
> of America that for so long, as you say, "made us special."
The problem isn't spirit it is lack of incentive. When you can go sit
in a gov't office and make $90k a year pushing paper, why bother doing
anything useful?
saddlebag
> A) it is a very simple, ideologically driven situation
> that can be simply reversed by simple black and white political
> decisions, i.e. voting Democrat instead of Republican
You are the one who creates such dichotomies. You don't ever hear me
singing the praises of either party. I'm critical of modern day
Republicans because most of them are unrepentant criminals. OTOH, I'm
all for fiscal conservatism. I practice it in my own life. I also
pay my bills and don't whine about paying my fair share of taxes in a
feeble attempt to keep our country out of the red either.
Everyone who championed this insane Arabic crusade and the crushing
debt it imposed should lose a body part every time they whine about
paying taxes.
TroytheTroll
>The problem isn't spirit it is lack of incentive. When you can go sit
>in a gov't office and make $90k a year pushing paper, why bother doing
>anything useful?
For starters, YOU can't sit in my government office and push paper because
A) you don't have my resume, you have your resume, and B) I don't push
paper.
I realize that to a manufacturing-centric person the concept of research
might not have any value because, well, research is published and anyone who
wants can look at it, read it, use the concepts therein to their own ends.
I wonder which is better, those who innovate and can afford to give it away
for free, secure in the knowledge that innovation has value, or those who
must wait for the innovators to innovate? How terrible none of this involves
manufacturing, eh Saddle?
Tim M.
Nice try at changing the subject.
Tim M.
Really? Great, then. Saddle, answer this, since you are so much
smarter than everyone else and have all the answers:
1. Where will the capital come from to refurbish, renovate, or build
hi-tech new factories to produce t-shirts?
2. Who will buy the t-shirts?
3. Where will the t-shirts, made by Americans making less than their
grandparents did in real wages 70 years ago, but STILL costing more
than imported t-shirts, be stored when no buyers are found for them?
> > And we can stop all this if only we can build iPods and T-shirts for
> > less than the Chinese. What a wonderful blueprint you have for a
> > return to U.S. world dominance!
>
> Walk into a hardware, stereo, appliance, auto, or any other store ya
> like Tim. Asians make it all and we sit like fat, diabetic kids
> filling our faces in a candy store waiting to enter coma...
So, being the smart, educated, analytical, and cool-headed individual
you are, you would correct this and have fat, diabetic Asians buying
exported American products by:
1. Lowering the minimum wage in the U.S. to $1.00 per day?
2. Eliminating all environmental and OSHA regulations on any company
that manufactures items?
3. Erect a trade barrier wherein imports to the U.S. are slapped with
a 200% tariff, while preventing foreign countries from retaliating by
setting up their own trade barriers?
4. Click your heels three times while repeating "I want to go back to
the 1940's and 50's and 60's" ?
> > Your "all gloom and doom, all the time" approach to the U.S. economic
> > situation is in stark contrast to the long cherished "can do" spirit
> > of America that for so long, as you say, "made us special."
>
> The problem isn't spirit it is lack of incentive. When you can go sit
> in a gov't office and make $90k a year pushing paper, why bother doing
> anything useful?
Ah, well that is an interesting explanation for why global
manufacturing is pursuing low wage production capabilities.
Whew.
saddlebag
> >The problem isn't spirit it is lack of incentive. When you can go sit
> >in a gov't office and make $90k a year pushing paper, why bother doing
> >anything useful?
>
> For starters, YOU can't sit in my government office and push paper because
> A) you don't have my resume, you have your resume, and B) I don't push
> paper.
I wasn't even thinking about you. I was thinking more along
secretarial types.
> I realize that to a manufacturing-centric person the concept of research
> might not have any value because, well, research is published and anyone who
> wants can look at it, read it, use the concepts therein to their own ends.
Yeah, yeah, when I see you out in a field with a pole dippin fer oil
I'll believe you're a researchin.
> I wonder which is better, those who innovate and can afford to give it away
> for free, secure in the knowledge that innovation has value, or those who
> must wait for the innovators to innovate? How terrible none of this involves
> manufacturing, eh Saddle?
Depends. Both are useful activities and put people to work. Often
the people doing the innovating work for a company that produces the
innovation. The manufacturing end usually employs a lot more people
for longer periods of the innovation's lifecycle.
saddlebag
Nowhere as long as American laws permit competing sales from slave
labor in environmental disaster zones.
> 2. Who will buy the t-shirts?
Us and anyone else who likes t-shirts with eagles and 4 wheel drives
stamped on them.
> 3. Where will the t-shirts, made by Americans making less than their
> grandparents did in real wages 70 years ago, but STILL costing more
> than imported t-shirts, be stored when no buyers are found for them?
Now you're not asking questions, but jumping to illogical conclusions.
> > > And we can stop all this if only we can build iPods and T-shirts for
> > > less than the Chinese. What a wonderful blueprint you have for a
> > > return to U.S. world dominance!
>
> > Walk into a hardware, stereo, appliance, auto, or any other store ya
> > like Tim. Asians make it all and we sit like fat, diabetic kids
> > filling our faces in a candy store waiting to enter coma...
>
> So, being the smart, educated, analytical, and cool-headed individual
> you are, you would correct this and have fat, diabetic Asians buying
> exported American products by:
>
> 1. Lowering the minimum wage in the U.S. to $1.00 per day?
Unnecessary.
> 2. Eliminating all environmental and OSHA regulations on any company
> that manufactures items?
Unnecessary.
> 3. Erect a trade barrier wherein imports to the U.S. are slapped with
> a 200% tariff, while preventing foreign countries from retaliating by
> setting up their own trade barriers?
Let them. It will only serve to make our drive toward economic
independence stronger.
> 4. Click your heels three times while repeating "I want to go back to
> the 1940's and 50's and 60's" ?
For a model of a self sufficient, productive country, those are good
years to use as a basis.
Just because we have transistors now doesn't mean the basics of
economics have changed. You can play all the games you'd like with
currency, but at the end of the day, we are all still bartering goods
and services. And since it is far harder to sell people across the
globe services than it is goods and since we do a whole lot of neither
and *depend* on the kindness of foreigners to keep us in $90k cushy
gubment jobs, I'm all for bringing back Rosie the Riveter and friends!
> > > Your "all gloom and doom, all the time" approach to the U.S. economic
> > > situation is in stark contrast to the long cherished "can do" spirit
> > > of America that for so long, as you say, "made us special."
>
> > The problem isn't spirit it is lack of incentive. When you can go sit
> > in a gov't office and make $90k a year pushing paper, why bother doing
> > anything useful?
>
> Ah, well that is an interesting explanation for why global
> manufacturing is pursuing low wage production capabilities.
Honesty is the first step toward recovery.
TroytheTroll
>> For starters, YOU can't sit in my government office and push paper
>> because
>> A) you don't have my resume, you have your resume, and B) I don't push
>> paper.
>I wasn't even thinking about you. I was thinking more along
>secretarial types.
Whats your beef with secretary types? My office has perhaps 80-90 people in
it, and exactly 3 ladies who collect timesheets, answer phones, buy stuff
for us, collect and distribute passports and handle travel paperwork, and
basically do everything.
Do you consider 3 secretary/admin types unreasonable for 80-90 people who
all answer their own phones?
>> I realize that to a manufacturing-centric person the concept of research
>> might not have any value because, well, research is published and anyone
>> who
>> wants can look at it, read it, use the concepts therein to their own
>> ends.
>Yeah, yeah, when I see you out in a field with a pole dippin fer oil
>I'll believe you're a researchin.
Your view of what research is sounds pretty restricted.
>> I wonder which is better, those who innovate and can afford to give it
>> away
>> for free, secure in the knowledge that innovation has value, or those who
>> must wait for the innovators to innovate? How terrible none of this
>> involves
>> manufacturing, eh Saddle?
>Depends. Both are useful activities and put people to work. Often
>the people doing the innovating work for a company that produces the
>innovation. The manufacturing end usually employs a lot more people
>for longer periods of the innovation's lifecycle.
So you don't inherently hate research sounds like.
Tim
> On Dec 1, 10:38 pm, "TroytheTroll" <f4_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >The problem isn't spirit it is lack of incentive. When you can go sit
> > >in a gov't office and make $90k a year pushing paper, why bother doing
> > >anything useful?
>
> > For starters, YOU can't sit in my government office and push paper because
> > A) you don't have my resume, you have your resume, and B) I don't push
> > paper.
>
> I wasn't even thinking about you. I was thinking more along
> secretarial types.
I haven't seen a "secretarial type" or an administrative government
position in the last 20 years. While I have no doubt that a tiny
fraction of those positions still exist, they are no doubt still GS-04
to GS-09 positions, which for the Detroit area would range from about
$29,000 a year to $65,000 for someone at the top of the scale and with
about 30 years of experience.
I do see government project managers, senior requirements staff,
contracting officers, senior engineering staff, senior scientists, and
program directors, some of whom make $90k a year.
You are living in a fantasy construct of your own making.
Tim
So, you would immediately have the U.S. resign from the WTO, revoke
our free trade agreements with Australia,
Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua,
Oman, Peru, and Singapore, and slap at least 100% and possibly higher
tariffs on imported products, correct?
> > 2. Who will buy the t-shirts?
>
> Us and anyone else who likes t-shirts with eagles and 4 wheel drives
> stamped on them.
So, you are going to check the labels, and buy the Americamade t-shirt
even if it costs $39 while the imported shirts are three for $9.99?
You and how many other Americans? Because that's the equation that
got us to where we are, boyo.
> > 3. Where will the t-shirts, made by Americans making less than their
> > grandparents did in real wages 70 years ago, but STILL costing more
> > than imported t-shirts, be stored when no buyers are found for them?
>
> Now you're not asking questions, but jumping to illogical conclusions.
No, I'm not. You have posited a SINGLE change of the basic parameters
that have got us where we are now, but somehow you think that your
whining will MAGICALLY change things? Bullshit.
> > > > And we can stop all this if only we can build iPods and T-shirts for
> > > > less than the Chinese. What a wonderful blueprint you have for a
> > > > return to U.S. world dominance!
>
> > > Walk into a hardware, stereo, appliance, auto, or any other store ya
> > > like Tim. Asians make it all and we sit like fat, diabetic kids
> > > filling our faces in a candy store waiting to enter coma...
>
> > So, being the smart, educated, analytical, and cool-headed individual
> > you are, you would correct this and have fat, diabetic Asians buying
> > exported American products by:
>
> > 1. Lowering the minimum wage in the U.S. to $1.00 per day?
>
> Unnecessary.
>
> > 2. Eliminating all environmental and OSHA regulations on any company
> > that manufactures items?
>
> Unnecessary.
>
> > 3. Erect a trade barrier wherein imports to the U.S. are slapped with
> > a 200% tariff, while preventing foreign countries from retaliating by
> > setting up their own trade barriers?
>
> Let them. It will only serve to make our drive toward economic
> independence stronger.
You do realize that this has been tried, repeatedly, and has failed,
right?
> > 4. Click your heels three times while repeating "I want to go back to
> > the 1940's and 50's and 60's" ?
>
> For a model of a self sufficient, productive country, those are good
> years to use as a basis.
June! Is dinner ready yet? Where are Wally and the Beaver? Saddle
is coming for dinner and he expects pot roast, dammit! And he's
going to be wearing his ruby red slippers!
> Just because we have transistors now doesn't mean the basics of
> economics have changed. You can play all the games you'd like with
> currency, but at the end of the day, we are all still bartering goods
> and services. And since it is far harder to sell people across the
> globe services than it is goods and since we do a whole lot of neither
> and *depend* on the kindness of foreigners to keep us in $90k cushy
> gubment jobs, I'm all for bringing back Rosie the Riveter and friends!
Good. Now tell me how you are going to fix it. What are the ground
rules of the game in today's global economy, and how are you going to
force fit your vision into the reality that exists? You've given
ZERO clues, just your disdain and hatred of people who don't work at
the jobs you think are worthwhile, even while those jobs disappear by
the tens and hundreds of thousands. I'd like to hear something other
than pure whining from you. HOW do you propose to stem the tide?
>
> > > > Your "all gloom and doom, all the time" approach to the U.S. economic
> > > > situation is in stark contrast to the long cherished "can do" spirit
> > > > of America that for so long, as you say, "made us special."
>
> > > The problem isn't spirit it is lack of incentive. When you can go sit
> > > in a gov't office and make $90k a year pushing paper, why bother doing
> > > anything useful?
>
> > Ah, well that is an interesting explanation for why global
> > manufacturing is pursuing low wage production capabilities.
>
> Honesty is the first step toward recovery.
I'll look forward to you behaving honestly in your discussions, but I
won't hold my breath. You certainly haven't argued honestly to date.
Tim
No, just any reaearch you do that doesn't involve *you* getting dirty
and working at hard physical labor!
Tim M.
> On Dec 2, 6:21 am, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 10:38 pm, "TroytheTroll" <f4_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >The problem isn't spirit it is lack of incentive. When you can go sit
> > > >in a gov't office and make $90k a year pushing paper, why bother doing
> > > >anything useful?
>
> > > For starters, YOU can't sit in my government office and push paper because
> > > A) you don't have my resume, you have your resume, and B) I don't push
> > > paper.
>
> > I wasn't even thinking about you. I was thinking more along
> > secretarial types.
>
> I haven't seen a "secretarial type" or an administrative government
> position in the last 20 years. While I have no doubt that a tiny
> fraction of those positions still exist, they are no doubt still GS-04
> to GS-09 positions, which for the Detroit area would range from about
> $29,000 a year to $65,000 for someone at the top of the scale and with
> about 30 years of experience.
I stand corrected. Secretarial and administrative positions are GS-01
to GS-07; GS-08 and GS-09 are semi-professional/technical slots. So
the min/max for those "$90k a year paper pushing government sitting
jobs" is actually $17,540 entry-level ($8.43 per hour) to $43,521 for
30 years of experience.
saddlebag
> >> because
> >> A) you don't have my resume, you have your resume, and B) I don't push
> >> paper.
> >I wasn't even thinking about you. I was thinking more along
> >secretarial types.
>
> Whats your beef with secretary types? My office has perhaps 80-90 people in
> it, and exactly 3 ladies who collect timesheets, answer phones, buy stuff
> for us, collect and distribute passports and handle travel paperwork, and
> basically do everything.
No beef. We have a similar ratio, but our gals don't make $90k a
year, get a bazillion days off a year, and get govie sized benies.
Then again, if we want a paycheck at all, we must produce something
someone else is willing to pay for. Showing up and waiting for a
funding derived from people producing things isn't enough...given we
don't have law enforcement to take others stuff and give to us.
> Do you consider 3 secretary/admin types unreasonable for 80-90 people who
> all answer their own phones?
>
> >> I realize that to a manufacturing-centric person the concept of research
> >> might not have any value because, well, research is published and anyone
> >> who
> >> wants can look at it, read it, use the concepts therein to their own
> >> ends.
> >Yeah, yeah, when I see you out in a field with a pole dippin fer oil
> >I'll believe you're a researchin.
>
> Your view of what research is sounds pretty restricted.
My view of research is that it is something the private sector should
be doing. Gov't may have an occasional need for it, but they can
purchase it or contract it out as needed like everyone else.
> >Depends. Both are useful activities and put people to work. Often
> >the people doing the innovating work for a company that produces the
> >innovation. The manufacturing end usually employs a lot more people
> >for longer periods of the innovation's lifecycle.
>
> So you don't inherently hate research sounds like.
I don't inherently hate anything, I just prefer things be done in an
efficient manner that benefits our country.
saddlebag
BS. I pointed out to TTT many moons ago that she was drawing nearly
$100k as a secretary when she snitched on Lewinsky. I also went to
engineering school with a woman who complained what a pay cut she
would have to take when she graduated as she was a Colonel's secretary
at the base.
Now I don't know a lot of secretaries, but I find it odd that the two
I do know who work for the gubament are making mid-level manager money
in major corporations. Again, if you could land a gubment coffee
fetchin gig like that, why would you ever consider doing anything
else? I think my school mate was flibbin crazy! BTW, she was maybe
in her mid 30s at the time so had nowhere near 30 years of experience.
Tim M.
Nope, that's the scale, and that's the law.
> I pointed out to TTT many moons ago that she was drawing nearly
> $100k as a secretary when she snitched on Lewinsky. I also went to
> engineering school with a woman who complained what a pay cut she
> would have to take when she graduated as she was a Colonel's secretary
> at the base.
Nonsensical. You'll have to back those up with facts.
> Now I don't know a lot of secretaries, but I find it odd that the two
> I do know who work for the gubament are making mid-level manager money
> in major corporations.
It seems odd because they were or are lying to you about how much they
make.
> Again, if you could land a gubment coffee
> fetchin gig like that, why would you ever consider doing anything
> else?
Again, if it were true, why aren't there more than two undocumented
cases of it in the entire country? Because it's not true,
obviously.
> I think my school mate was flibbin crazy!
Either fibbing or crazy or both, that's certain.
> BTW, she was maybe
> in her mid 30s at the time so had nowhere near 30 years of experience.
Obviously, therefore she was lying, and you obviously know nothing
at all about government pay scale, time in grade, step increases, or
anything else you are currently whining about in this particular
thread.
saddlebag
> So, you would immediately have the U.S. resign from the WTO, revoke
> our free trade agreements with Australia,
> Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
> Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua,
> Oman, Peru, and Singapore, and slap at least 100% and possibly higher
> tariffs on imported products, correct?
I would immediately retrain a bunch of feds doing nothing into trade
auditors. These people could do spot audits on our trading partners
and enact fines for human rights/environmental violations and if
problems don't get resolved, blackball that partner for some time
period. Either way, improving their standards or being cutoff would
give American business under American laws a chance to compete.
And don't tell me there aren't enough useless govies around to pick up
the slack. My gawd, there are more dingbats in gov't dreaming up
nonsense than you can shake a stick at. Christ, they've got hundreds
of engineers where I work spending 25% or more of their week "export
tagging." Now I'm all for controlling access to classified
technologies and the like, but I'm talking every screw, pin, and
washer that gets or may get shipped overseas has to be investigated by
an engineer to determine if it may require a gov't export license. It
is like Al Queda was put in charge of our gov't to ensure American
business can't compete. Hell even as clever as they are, they
probably couldn't have dreamed up as patently absurd yet delightfully
effective at destroying any chance at reviving American innovation and
competitiveness.
> So, you are going to check the labels, and buy the Americamade t-shirt
> even if it costs $39 while the imported shirts are three for $9.99?
> You and how many other Americans? Because that's the equation that
> got us to where we are, boyo.
Sure, after all, you checked the label and bought a $20k Harley for
which you could have gotten a foreign equivalent for thousands less.
Some of us consider patriotism something more than painting misspelled
signs and hollering "Socialist" at passers by while tangling tea bags
from your ear lobes.
> > > 3. Where will the t-shirts, made by Americans making less than their
> > > grandparents did in real wages 70 years ago, but STILL costing more
> > > than imported t-shirts, be stored when no buyers are found for them?
>
> > Now you're not asking questions, but jumping to illogical conclusions.
>
> No, I'm not. You have posited a SINGLE change of the basic parameters
> that have got us where we are now, but somehow you think that your
> whining will MAGICALLY change things? Bullshit.
No whining. I'm telling you how to fix it. Take it or leave it.
> > > 1. Lowering the minimum wage in the U.S. to $1.00 per day?
>
> > Unnecessary.
>
> > > 2. Eliminating all environmental and OSHA regulations on any company
> > > that manufactures items?
>
> > Unnecessary.
>
> > > 3. Erect a trade barrier wherein imports to the U.S. are slapped with
> > > a 200% tariff, while preventing foreign countries from retaliating by
> > > setting up their own trade barriers?
>
> > Let them. It will only serve to make our drive toward economic
> > independence stronger.
>
> You do realize that this has been tried, repeatedly, and has failed,
> right?
Example?
Tell me why you think that someone making a t-shirt in the US would
have to work for $1/day, but don't demand that the Walmart worker
selling you the t-shirt work for $1/day.
> > > 4. Click your heels three times while repeating "I want to go back to
> > > the 1940's and 50's and 60's" ?
>
> > For a model of a self sufficient, productive country, those are good
> > years to use as a basis.
>
> June! Is dinner ready yet? Where are Wally and the Beaver? Saddle
> is coming for dinner and he expects pot roast, dammit! And he's
> going to be wearing his ruby red slippers!
I look good in red.
> Good. Now tell me how you are going to fix it.
I already did.
a) Make education a national funded priority
b) Change free trade laws to fair trade laws
c) Lower gubment pay by half. This would incentivize people to get
off the dole and do more productive things and bring some legitimacy
back to the term government *servant*. You want praise for "serving"
your country fine, serve it for the sake of service, not because it's
the best paying job you can find.
> You've given ZERO clues, just your disdain and hatred of people who don't work at
> the jobs you think are worthwhile,
Didn't Joey recently pop you for you scolding someone for presuming to
know your thoughts and motivations?
If I've told you once I've told you a hundred times, I don't hate
anyone. Hell, I don't even blame anyone for taking a gravy gig making
premio bucks with mother gubament. I collectively blame our
electorate for voting people into power who encourage such stupidity
sure, but I don't hate them. I would like them to wake up before it's
too late though.
> I'll look forward to you behaving honestly in your discussions, but I
> won't hold my breath. You certainly haven't argued honestly to date.
Really? Perhaps you'd like to share with the good people of AMS what I
lied about.
TroytheTroll
>> Whats your beef with secretary types? My office has perhaps 80-90 people
>> in
>> it, and exactly 3 ladies who collect timesheets, answer phones, buy stuff
>> for us, collect and distribute passports and handle travel paperwork, and
>> basically do everything.
>No beef. We have a similar ratio, but our gals don't make $90k a
>year, get a bazillion days off a year, and get govie sized benies.
For starters, I know the GS wage level of the admin officer and the 3
secretaries, and maybe, MAYBE the AO ( responsible for a $30M budget down to
the the penny and enforcing upon his peons every byzantine government
regulation known to man ) might have reached $90K, after 25 years of
service. The others make a fraction of that. I realize you often confuse the
likes of Linda Tripp with being a "secretary", but your confusion between
the GS pay grade series and the SES paygrades for anyone who might have the
word "Secretary" in their position description isn't a surprise.
And those govie benies aren't what you pretend to think they are either, I
get off Christmas now!! And my retirement is excellent!!!...assuming I save
lots of money for it myself of course. Having christmas off sure is nice
though....
>Then again, if we want a paycheck at all, we must produce something
>someone else is willing to pay for.
Same here. My section produces stuff all the time, and someone pays us to do
it. What, you think we do it for free?
>> Your view of what research is sounds pretty restricted.
>My view of research is that it is something the private sector should
>be doing. Gov't may have an occasional need for it, but they can
>purchase it or contract it out as needed like everyone else.
Really? So...Exxon Mobil decides to pay the government $100 for the offshore
oil rights to, say, offshore Texas. You think it is reasonable to contract
out to a consulting firm, consisting of ex-Exxon Mobil people, the decision
as to what those rights are actually worth?
>> So you don't inherently hate research sounds like.
>I don't inherently hate anything, I just prefer things be done in an
>efficient manner that benefits our country.
Well, perhaps not "hate", perhaps "biased against" is more appropriate.
Certainly when you used to claim that a Boeing jet only has value when its
sold to someone overseas was an old amusing example of this "saddle bias" in
action.
TroytheTroll
>> to GS-07; GS-08 and GS-09 are semi-professional/technical slots. So
>> the min/max for those "$90k a year paper pushing government sitting
>> jobs" is actually $17,540 entry-level ($8.43 per hour) to $43,521 for
>> 30 years of experience.
>BS. Now I don't know a lot of secretaries, but I find it odd that the two
>I do know who work for the gubament are making mid-level manager money
>in major corporations.
Tims GS scale quotes are quite accurate. Like I said, now you think its
unreasonable that The SECRETARY of the Interior is overpaid because hey,
they are a SECRETARY right?
There are secretaries and there are secretaries. The ones I know fit Tims
pay scale, and really, I'm not sure they fit my definition of "secretary"
even then.
>Again, if you could land a gubment coffee
>fetchin gig like that, why would you ever consider doing anything
>else?
The usual reasons. The last 3 I know did it for more money. Lots more money.
>I think my school mate was flibbin crazy! BTW, she was maybe
>in her mid 30s at the time so had nowhere near 30 years of experience.
And so now you want us to believe that a secretary is paid as much as, say,
the director of Yellowstone National Park because your friend is paid
special somehow, and doesn't fit within the federal GS pay scales?
saddlebag
By this logic, everyone ought to work for the gubament because it is
surely impossible for gubament to contract anyone to do anything who
doesn't have a potential conflict of interest.
> >> So you don't inherently hate research sounds like.
> >I don't inherently hate anything, I just prefer things be done in an
> >efficient manner that benefits our country.
>
> Well, perhaps not "hate", perhaps "biased against" is more appropriate.
> Certainly when you used to claim that a Boeing jet only has value when its
> sold to someone overseas was an old amusing example of this "saddle bias" in
> action.
Except I never claimed such a thing. Transportation benefits us and
buying our own rather than having to borrow someone else's is
certainly beneficial. If we were self sufficient, there wouldn't even
be a need to sell it overseas. The fact that Being jets can be traded
to foreign countries for money to help sustain our goods dependency is
an added bonus.
TroytheTroll
>Either fibbing or crazy or both, that's certain.
>> BTW, she was maybe
>> in her mid 30s at the time so had nowhere near 30 years of experience.
>Obviously, therefore she was lying, and you obviously know nothing
>at all about government pay scale, time in grade, step increases, or
>anything else you are currently whining about in this particular
>thread.
Why worry about facts when making stuff up is more fun? But time in grade?
I've got that one beat baby!!!
saddlebag
> > I pointed out to TTT many moons ago that she was drawing nearly
> > $100k as a secretary when she snitched on Lewinsky. I also went to
> > engineering school with a woman who complained what a pay cut she
> > would have to take when she graduated as she was a Colonel's secretary
> > at the base.
>
> Nonsensical. You'll have to back those up with facts.
I was wrong, she was a receptionist (those are secretaries who don't
type well):
Besides a military force of one and a half million people, the Defense
Department employs about 800,000 civilians. Linda Tripp is one of
them, holding the position of public affairs specialist with a civil
service ranking of GS-15, Step 6. That puts the 49-year-old high-
school grad at the top of the Pentagon's middle management ranks. Like
all GS employees, she just received an across-the-board-pay increase.
Tripp's raise, including a "locality" adjustment for working in the
Washington, D.C., area, was 3.68 percent, bringing her salary to
$94,098 a year.
> > Now I don't know a lot of secretaries, but I find it odd that the two
> > I do know who work for the gubament are making mid-level manager money
> > in major corporations.
>
> It seems odd because they were or are lying to you about how much they
> make.
That was many years ago. Maybe after all these years as an engineer
she has gotten back to her former salary.
> > Again, if you could land a gubment coffee
> > fetchin gig like that, why would you ever consider doing anything
> > else?
>
> Again, if it were true, why aren't there more than two undocumented
> cases of it in the entire country? Because it's not true,
> obviously.
>
> > I think my school mate was flibbin crazy!
>
> Either fibbing or crazy or both, that's certain.
>
> > BTW, she was maybe
> > in her mid 30s at the time so had nowhere near 30 years of experience.
>
> Obviously, therefore she was lying, and you obviously know nothing
> at all about government pay scale, time in grade, step increases, or
> anything else you are currently whining about in this particular
> thread.
I see all kinds of $55k gubment secretaries here:
http://www.jobbankusa.com/jobs_employment_work/industry/government-secretary-83400-1.html
$57k is the median for new engineers:
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Years_Experience=1-4_years/Salary
Now tell me that if a secretary had to get a clearance to type up
classified briefs that there wouldn't be additional pay.
Tim M.
> On Dec 2, 5:39 pm, "Tim M." <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I pointed out to TTT many moons ago that she was drawing nearly
> > > $100k as a secretary when she snitched on Lewinsky. I also went to
> > > engineering school with a woman who complained what a pay cut she
> > > would have to take when she graduated as she was a Colonel's secretary
> > > at the base.
>
> > Nonsensical. You'll have to back those up with facts.
>
> I was wrong, she was a receptionist (those are secretaries who don't
> type well):
>
> Besides a military force of one and a half million people, the Defense
> Department employs about 800,000 civilians. Linda Tripp is one of
> them, holding the position of public affairs specialist with a civil
> service ranking of GS-15, Step 6. That puts the 49-year-old high-
> school grad at the top of the Pentagon's middle management ranks. Like
> all GS employees, she just received an across-the-board-pay increase.
> Tripp's raise, including a "locality" adjustment for working in the
> Washington, D.C., area, was 3.68 percent, bringing her salary to
> $94,098 a year.
A Public Affairs Specialist is not a secretary, is not a receptionist,
and is not in an administrative position. A GS-15 Step 6 federal
employee is a professional, senior person. Linda Tripp, with a HS
diploma, held a job that would typically be occupied by a college
graduate. Rather than scorn, she deserved respect for rising far
beyond the typical limits on a person in a professional career with a
simple high school diploma. Furthermore, she is an excellent example
of someone who is "the exception that proves the rule."
She certainly doesn't bolster your ridiculous case that people aren't
taking low paying jobs in private sector goods-producing positions
because they can be secretaries and receptionists for the government
for $90,000 per year.
BryanUT
Am I the only one that sees the irony of this whole exchange / debate.
On one side we have Saddle (a left leaning individual) railing against
big gubbmit and on the side we have 2 conservatives (I believe)
defending large gubmit salaries.
Strange.
It's is much like my unemployeed neighbor (a union electrician) that
bitches about unions yet is waiting for that next high paying union
gig. I just talk to him about fishing and BBQ. No point in getting
political.
saddlebag
> On Dec 2, 3:52 pm, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Am I the only one that sees the irony of this whole exchange / debate.
>
> On one side we have Saddle (a left leaning individual)
I lean left regarding social issues. I'm all about the capitalism,
with a reasonable safety net for the needy.
> railing against
> big gubbmit and on the side we have 2 conservatives (I believe)
> defending large gubmit salaries.
They aren't conservative. They are born again neo-cons who believe
the gov't should be privy to the details of everyone's personal life
and citizens should spend all their money supporting the peeping Toms
and global empire building.
> Strange.
>
> It's is much like my unemployeed neighbor (a union electrician) that
> bitches about unions yet is waiting for that next high paying union
> gig. I just talk to him about fishing and BBQ. No point in getting
> political.
Well, which is it, fish or BBQ. If you like fish you're obviously anti-
American and should be put to death by bounta bounta.
saddlebag
Really, what does a Public Affairs Specialist with a HS diploma do
exactly if not greet the public? We call them receptionists at our
place, sorry for the confusion.
BryanUT
>
> Well, which is it, fish or BBQ. If you like fish you're obviously anti-
> American and should be put to death by bounta bounta.
Heh, the neighbor refuses to believe the high mercury content of local
fish has any thing to do with local (intermountain west) mining
practices, it's "all natural" according to him.
We do agree that proper BBQ is best over a fruitwood fire.
Cognitive dissonance, it is everywhere.
Tim M.
There's no point in continuing to attempt to communicate if you are
unable to comprehend the difference between a receptionist and a
public affairs specialist.
Toodles.
Tim M.
>
> Am I the only one that sees the irony of this whole exchange / debate.
>
> On one side we have Saddle (a left leaning individual) railing against
> big gubbmit and on the side we have 2 conservatives (I believe)
> defending large gubmit salaries.
>
> Strange.
What I find strange is that you think there was something (anything) I
posted here or anywhere else, now or at any other time, "defending
large gubmit salaries."
Tim M.
> They aren't conservative. They are born again neo-cons who believe
> the gov't should be privy to the details of everyone's personal life
> and citizens should spend all their money supporting the peeping Toms
> and global empire building.
Laughs.
Tim M.
> Cognitive dissonance, it is everywhere.
Especially in AMS when Saddlebag is typing.
TroytheTroll
>> offshore
>> oil rights to, say, offshore Texas. You think it is reasonable to
>> contract
>> out to a consulting firm, consisting of ex-Exxon Mobil people, the
>> decision
>> as to what those rights are actually worth?
>By this logic, everyone ought to work for the gubament because it is
>surely impossible for gubament to contract anyone to do anything who
>doesn't have a potential conflict of interest.
No. It isn't impossible. Its wasteful. Do you know what my time bills for
( not what they would pay me of course ) working at a consulting firm versus
being an in firm expert on a particular topic? Would the goobermint rather
have 100 hours of my time instantly available for questions they might have
related to technical topics, or would they rather pay 5X more for the same
time and advice one year from now after the appropriate contracts have been
drawn up, signed by everyone, and then wait 6 months for me to foist off
part of the 100 hours on lower paid flunkies while I write the final report?
One of the distinct advantages being not only am I cheaper on the payroll,
but I am required to meet financial disclosure requirements, meaning I can't
invest, anytime, anywhere, in the industry I know most about and am most
likely to profit from. Is that one of those goobermint bennys you keep
referring to, or do you want me to lump that one right there with "I could
make more money elsewhere but saddle thinks all us govies are overpaid"?
>> Certainly when you used to claim that a Boeing jet only has value when
>> its
>> sold to someone overseas was an old amusing example of this "saddle bias"
>> in
>> action.
>Except I never claimed such a thing.
Yeah, I must have been drunk when you wrote it and made it up.
TroytheTroll
>type well):
According to you she was a public affairs specialist...doesn't sound like
reception or secretary.
>> It seems odd because they were or are lying to you about how much they
>> make.
>That was many years ago. Maybe after all these years as an engineer
>she has gotten back to her former salary.
I made more when in 1993 then I do now. Of course, that was one of them thar
private industry GOOD jobs! Man I wish the goobermint paid what you claimed
they do!! Of course, I was 29 then and knew much less. Maybe these
goobermint bennies can make up for near 17 years of reduced income!
TroytheTroll
"Tim M." <tomorrowat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40c54b27-69eb-4285...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 2, 9:03 pm, BryanUT <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Cognitive dissonance, it is everywhere.
>Especially in AMS when Saddlebag is typing.
Or drinking.
Vaughn
Confirmed. That's about the same pay range for administrative
assistants in state gov't, too. They get health insurance and all the
bennies, which may equate to about 12K/year in additional personnel
costs, too.
'Round here, there are three of them for about 50 employees. All but
two of us answer our own phones, make our own copies, and handle
pretty much all our mundane work on our own.
Vaughn
> "Tim" <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:af797fa9-d10e-4cd0...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >I agree. They strive to offer their customers the cabinets they want
> >at the lowest possible price. They don't include long term damage to
> >the United States economy or even to their own business future when
> >considering whether to source their products from China or Winchester,
> >Virginia.
> >Actually, that is almost exactly the equation the cabinetmaker in
> >question had to make. They weren't worried about whether they would
> >remain profitable; they had long since determined that settling for
> >"break-even" would keep their business running, their employee's paid
> >and the employee's families housed and fed, and the local economy from
> >plummeting even further into a localized depression. They were told
> >what the price was that buyers for the stores were willing to pay, and
> >in order to meet that price and sell enough cabinets to remain in
> >business, they could not buy their updated tooling from their
> >traditional tool supplier in Wisconsin, unless that supplier could
> >substantially reduce their price. The Wisconsin tool supplier, in
> >turn, cut everything they could possibly cut, and gave their best
> >price. It was not good enough. The cabinetmaker bought their tooling
> >from (can't remember if it was South Korea or China, but suffice to
> >say that it was) a foreign rather than domestic supplier. The
> >Wisconsin toolmaker, which had been in business for over a hundred
> >years, subsequently went bankrupt, as have many others. The
> >cabinetmaking company is still soldiering on, and my friend who works
> >for them as a process engineer is still there.
> >I think that the loss of that company would be - just as I think the
> >loss of the toolmaker was - counterproductive to the U.S. economy in
> >the long run. I also think that if there were a way to make it clear
> >to consumers of such products that, say (and this is just an off the
> >cuff example, not real numbers) they were willing to pay $3,150 for
> >their cabinets instead of $3,000; then two companies that employ
> >hundreds of fellow Americans will remain in business, and that
> >otherwise those businesses and the livelihoods they provide will
> >either go out of business of provide those livelihoods (albeit on a
> >substantially lower plane) to workers and families in Asia, then those
> >consumers might be willng to wait an extra three months and pay the
> >extra 5% premium to have those cabinets made in the U.S.
>
> I can't really agree there, at least locally... 15 years ago, yes, folks
> would not only pay a little more for made in USA cabinets, but would also
> pay a little more for locally made cabinets. Not so now. I'm "in the field"
> and I don't even have a shop anymore to make my own custom cabinets, as I
> did in the past. These days many folks don't care where things are made, who
> makes them or even the quality of them, just "what's the total"... Comparing
> a set of custom made cabinets to a set of manufactured cabinets is a night
> and day difference(even the higher end semi-custom cabinet lines) but folks
> don't see that and think vinyl lamintated particle board is just as good as
> solid wood or vennered plywood when it's not "seen"... Price trumps quality,
> place of manufacture, and longevity nearly everytime..... most folks don't
> realize that the best value isn't always the lowest price. Since I don't do
> my own custom cabinets anymore, I contract and subcontract many jobs
> installing factory built cabinets these days. I've *always* been available
> for that(for the past 15 years) and did many sets while I was also building,
> selling, and installing my custom cabinets.. If folks could only see how far
> the quality of many manufactured cabinets cabinets has dropped, as the
> prices have risen, they'd be upset. The quality drops when they have to
> manufacture them "cheaper". Many cabinet suppliers are actually outsourcing
> their moldings to china... It's cheaper to have cut lumber shipped over,
> milled down, finished, and shipped back than it is to do it here... there
> are many molding manufacturers here in Va that are hurting these days.(does
> your friend work for Kraftmaid(Masco) ?)
>
> >I guess this is another example of the phrase "race to the bottom."
> >Consumers demand lower and lower prices, and one way - often the only
> >way - to lower prices further is to source goods offshore where labor
> >or land or taxes or environmental controls or safety standards or
> >government regulations or all or some combination of the above all add
> >up to production costs that can't be matched in the U.S.
>
> I agree, as I said above, folks don't always realize that value isn't always
> the lowest price... once we hit that "bottom" and they have to adapt to the
> bartering system, they may realize how it really is important to get your
> goods and services from those close to you whenever possible.
>
> >People want to "buy American" but they don't want to pay extra to do
> >so, and they want to get the best quality that they can afford
> >(whatever that might be) for whatever it is that they are buying.
> >All other things beling equal, that often adds up to outsourcing.
>
> the overwhelming majority don't want the best quality they can afford, they
> want the most for what they can afford, quality is secondary... at least in
> my experience. And sadly, for many years the quality of what us Americans
> were making may have been secondary to the quality of the same item that was
> available from overseas, and at a cheaper price... over time that tends to
> bite ya, and we've been bitten...
>
Sad but true.
The word "Quality," as expounded upon by R. Pirsig, hasn't developed
to maturity in our great nation of consumer culture and magic pills.
Most people renovating something are interested in quick turn around
and fancy veneers - not realizing they'll have to tear it all out and
replace it again in a decade or so.
Vaughn
> On Dec 1, 1:04 pm, "Joey Tribiani" <J...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Tim M." <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:e0db2562-4397-4d0c...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > That's why I
> > >wrote about how counterproductive it is in the long run for U.S.
> > >consumers to force buyers for Lowes and Home Depot to force such
> > >draconian price cuts on U.S. cabinetry suppliers that they, in turn,
> > >can't afford to buy precision machine tools from Wisconsin (because
> > >Wisconsin toolmaker employees need to be able to feed their families
> > >and put a roof over their heads) and instead go overseas for machine
> > >tools that are cheaper.
>
> > that's hardly the fault of Lowes or The Home Depot.
>
> I agree. They strive to offer their customers the cabinets they want
> at the lowest possible price. They don't include long term damage to
> the United States economy or even to their own business future when
> considering whether to source their products from China or Winchester,
> Virginia.
>
> > doesn't have to cut their profits out to make the sale, they are simply
> > afraid if they *don't* then they won't survive when another manufacturer
> > does do it...
> Consumers demand lower and lower prices, and one way - often the only
> way - to lower prices further is to source goods offshore where labor
> or land or taxes or environmental controls or safety standards or
> government regulations or all or some combination of the above all add
> up to production costs that can't be matched in the U.S.
>
> so, and they want to get the best quality that they can afford
> (whatever that might be) for whatever it is that they are buying.
> All other things beling equal, that often adds up to outsourcing.
>
Overall, I think you offer an excellent analysis here - and it is very
well written. (Do you per chance have a degree in Economics, as many
in your former line of Intelligence work do?)
It is my opinion that trade laws and regulation are the next big issue
facing our country, and it will be very interesting to see how Obama
and company face off against the multi national corps.
The one factor I would most like to see, and I suspect you might
agree, is Fair Trade and Fair Labor Labeling laws. One of the
fundamental principles of capitalism is "Perfect Information," but
what we seem to have today is very clever marketing to obfuscate
informed decision making.
In my small community, folks are real interested in fair trade and
local products, and they research, discuss, and expect that local
vendors label products as such if they are to get our business. But
in the vast majority of US communities, my impression is that folks
that too, but they often don't bother to look beyond the veneer to
find the facts.
Walmart flying the American Flag while selling sweatshop products that
were produced overseas next to cesspool of waste is a good example.
Many people suspect/believe that it is patriotic to shop Walmart. The
labeling of goods there is virtually non-existent - and the company
has little incentive to do so unless there is a requirement to label
products that are produced with fair labor practices, environmentally
sound practices, and traded fairly.
The Fair Trade movement is just the beginning, in my opinion. It goes
far beyond gourmet coffee and chocolates for the upper middle class.
People need more information to make choices that are in line with
their values. Government or NGO information dissemination and
labeling is fundamental, in my opinion, and this is one answer to the
question of how we can survive ethically as an informed capitalist
society.
If restaurants can label "angus beef" on their menu, any other product
could achieve the same level of product controls and labeling in any
category that is important to consumers.
I believe that how people vote is transcended by how they spend their
dollars, and making more informed decisions about what products we
consume could have a profound impact on global trade and production
practices.
saddlebag
Best since you can't articulate a difference besides their job title.
saddlebag
> >> Really? So...Exxon Mobil decides to pay the government $100 for the
> >> offshore
> >> oil rights to, say, offshore Texas. You think it is reasonable to
> >> contract
> >> out to a consulting firm, consisting of ex-Exxon Mobil people, the
> >> decision
> >> as to what those rights are actually worth?
> >By this logic, everyone ought to work for the gubament because it is
> >surely impossible for gubament to contract anyone to do anything who
> >doesn't have a potential conflict of interest.
>
> No. It isn't impossible. Its wasteful. Do you know what my time bills for
> ( not what they would pay me of course ) working at a consulting firm versus
> being an in firm expert on a particular topic? Would the goobermint rather
> have 100 hours of my time instantly available for questions they might have
> related to technical topics, or would they rather pay 5X more
Or would they just shop the competition?