$86 for school pictures (x2)
Ohioguy
duplicate charges from one company. My wife recognized it, though -
school pictures, $86 each.
Now I remember, about 3 weeks ago, arguing about the cost, but
eventually giving in. We have a lot of relatives, and my wife wanted to
send photos to a lot of them. I remember back in the early 1980's, when
you could get a decent package for about 20 bucks. Have prices really
quadrupled since then?
My first thought was to simply use our digital camera, take 40
pictures of each kid, then either print out what we wanted at a local
store, or online. Total cost would have been about $20 each, and the
kids would still have been in the class photo. However, my wife would
have none of that.
On one side, I can see her point of view. Both she and I always had
school photos. I think if 10 was the most expensive, and 1 the least
expensive, she got about a 6. I believe my parents usually went with
something more like a 4. However, I understand her thinking that this
is expected for kids in school.
On the other hand, we will have 3 kids in school in a few years,
which will probably mean about $90 x3 by that time, or about $270 a
year. $2,700 over a decade, just for school pictures. Ouch!
Maybe I should go into the school photo business! I mean, with
these, they take the photos, and they show up a few weeks later. If I
did it, I'd use a camera that could take 6-8 digital photos, and give
the parents a week to choose their favorite online. Ah, there I go,
getting caught up in the entrepreneurial spirit. I'm guessing it is
probably really hard to break into the grade school photo business. The
company that has the business right now probably has a multi year
contract, and is probably giving a 25% kickback to the school.
h
> Derald
No one forced him to have three (!) kids. Clearly more than he can afford.
Sucks to be him.
h
"Derald" <der...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:4OednXO-nKpEMBLR...@earthlink.com...
> Perhaps, those "extra" children may offset the deficiencies imposed by
> the self-absorbed twits who regard not having children as a virtue.
> --
Huh? Where did I say not breeding was a "virtue"? It's simply the logical,
rational thing. Only stupid people breed. Smart people have better things to
do...like volunteer work. Oh, wait, since I spend at least 15 hours a week
volunteering my time to make the world a better place instead of changing
diapers on a mini-me, who is the "self-absorbed twit" now? That would be
you. PLONK!
Mrs Irish Mike
> Don't tell _me_; tell _him_. Whether three children ae more than
> he can "afford" is not for me to say and whether it "sucks" to be him
> is purely subjective and for him, not for you or I, to say. He may
> regard "sweating" to provide for three, or more, kids to be answered
> prayer. Whether his "extra" children represent some kind of "burden"
> on society or on the economy is irrelevant: Productive, civilized
> people continue to be out-bred by hordes of parasitic üntermenschen
> who, at the present pace, are destined to overrun the planet and cast
> mankind into perpetual poverty. Therefore, "spawn away", sez I.
> Perhaps, those "extra" children may offset the deficiencies imposed by
> the self-absorbed twits who regard not having children as a virtue.
> --
> Derald
Thus the need for trench warfare and collateral damage. There's big
money to be made from growing and harvesting excess populations.
h
"Mrs Irish Mike" <wilm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dbbdb7d2-f688-49a4...@m35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>Thus the need for trench warfare and collateral damage. There's big
>money to be made from growing and harvesting excess populations.
Ah, yes..."A modest proposal". When I read Swift (I was 10) I thought he was
serious. I was quite disappointed to discover "satire".
Hell, the US Social Security system is a ponzi scheme REQUIRING each
generation of taxpayers to be bigger than the last, or it will fail. Totally
insane.
Mrs Irish Mike
> Hell, the US Social Security system is a ponzi scheme REQUIRING each
> generation of taxpayers to be bigger than the last, or it will fail. Totally
> insane.
True enough... if you think the world never changes.
Productivity keeps increasing. Every year US productivity increases
by 1-5%, far outpacing the birth rate. In the past as I remember from
my youth, if productivity went up 5% everyone got 5% more stuff
(slightly less when the increased population's portion was factored
in). Recently the majority of the bounty of increased productivity has
been shared by the upper 10% of the population resulting in a greatly
increased wealth of stuff by the upper portion of the population, not
so much for the rest.
We could change the situation to where increased productivity means
not more stuff, but the ability to work less for the same amount of
stuff. A 5% increase in productivity over ten years would mean a 50%
(+,-) increase in productivity. That is, it takes 50% less labor to
produce the same amount of product (stuff). Now, we could all work 50%
less or 50% of the work force would no longer need to labor.
Now wouldn't that be insane if the majority of people had employment
not because they had to have a job, but rather they worked for
luxuries and prestige?
Lou
>
> We could change the situation to where increased productivity means
> not more stuff, but the ability to work less for the same amount of
> stuff. A 5% increase in productivity over ten years would mean a 50%
> (+,-) increase in productivity. That is, it takes 50% less labor to
> produce the same amount of product (stuff). Now, we could all work 50%
> less or 50% of the work force would no longer need to labor.
That thought is over a century old. It was back in England when machinery
was introduced for making pins of all things. Productivity (among pin
makers anyway) doubled. Someone (Malthus? Adam Smith?) pointed out that pin
makers could cut their hours in half, earn just as much as before, and the
price and availability of pins wouldn't change. What happened instead?
Half the pin makers lost their jobs.
In the long run, that's probably just as well - who today in the developed
world would want an eighteenth century standard of living?
More philosophically and personally, it wouldn't work. Our wants expand
with, or even faster than, our means. For instance, when I was a kid, we
had one used car, one black and white TV (no remote control), one phone, no
air conditioning, less than 1,000 square feet of living space for the
family, one bathroom, no one had their own room, things like watermelon was
a once or twice a summer treat, etc. Today, I could earn that standard of
living by working a couple of days a week. But I want more than that, and
put in a full work week just like everyone did way back when.
h
"Lou" <lpo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i6p5ed$tgj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> That thought is over a century old. It was back in England when machinery
> was introduced for making pins of all things. Productivity (among pin
> makers anyway) doubled. Someone (Malthus? Adam Smith?) pointed out that
> pin
> makers could cut their hours in half, earn just as much as before, and the
> price and availability of pins wouldn't change. What happened instead?
> Half the pin makers lost their jobs.
>
> In the long run, that's probably just as well - who today in the developed
> world would want an eighteenth century standard of living?
>
> More philosophically and personally, it wouldn't work. Our wants expand
> with, or even faster than, our means. For instance, when I was a kid, we
> had one used car, one black and white TV (no remote control), one phone,
> no
> air conditioning, less than 1,000 square feet of living space for the
> family, one bathroom, no one had their own room, things like watermelon
> was
> a once or twice a summer treat, etc. Today, I could earn that standard of
> living by working a couple of days a week. But I want more than that, and
> put in a full work week just like everyone did way back when.
>
Interesting. We have one used car, one color TV (which cost less than the
black and white my parents bought in the early 60s), 1,800 sq ft house (200
year old farmhouse - part is converted barn space), 1.5 bathrooms, and no
AC. And, to keep this "lavish" lifestyle afloat, both of us work slightly
more than full time. So did both my parents, but they put my mother's ENTIRE
income as a teacher into savings. Not an option these days. And...my parents
managed to do this while raising a child, and DH and I are childfree. They
could afford health insurance, we cannot. They could afford to eat out once
a week, we cannot. However...we could do all those things 5 years ago. I
doubt we will ever be able to do them again.
Rod Speed
That is not very common tho.
So did both my parents,
> but they put my mother's ENTIRE income as a teacher into savings. Not an option these days.
Plenty of recent immigrants do that sort of thing.
And...my parents managed to do this while
> raising a child, and DH and I are childfree. They could afford health
> insurance, we cannot. They could afford to eat out once a week, we cannot.
Plenty can.
However...we could do all those things 5 years ago. I doubt
> we will ever be able to do them again.
Plenty do.