"carl mciver" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...\

| Frankly, if people can't live reasonably on $50,000 year, they're doing
| something wrong. I have no respect for folks that are knocking down
| hundreds of thousand per year, generally at the cost of others doing
| without. It's the one thing that prevents us from donating to *any*
| charity. If the CEO makes big bucks, we're out.

You must live somewhere cheap.

Chuckle! Sure as hell do! Onalaska, WA, where our 5-1/2 acres of land cost
a whopping $17,500 when it was purchased in '90. The standing timber was
worth more than we paid, but being a dumb city slicker (from the general
SLC, Utah area), I had no clue.

Having read Jim's comments, a kid (he's young enough to be my son) I have
long admired, I'm keeping watch on the parcel of land behind me, with him in
mind. Sounds like he's about ready to live where you don't need a half
million bucks in your pocket to buy groceries, and I can't imagine a better
neighbor. :-)

In San Francisco, nobody can live for
any where near that amount or even twice as much. The citizens, in order
to
create a more perfect society, have elected officials who, in order to
create a more perfect society, have priced any one/family who makes around
$100K or less out of town. A $250,000 house wouldn't last a minute on the
market!

I've been to San Francisco, and, frankly, I don't get it. Don't much like
the place, never have. Don't like Vegas, either. Used to like Reno, but
not any more. I've grown to enjoy my own company and the peace and quiet
of our remote location.

Harold