According to Bob Ward :
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:23:44 GMT, "Jerry Foster"
wrote:

[ ... ]

I don't know the geometry of your chairs, but, in the case of a simple
hammock, the tension on the supports greatly exceeds the weight of
the person in the hammock. How greatly depends on how much the
hammock is allowed to sag.

[ ... ]

I question your geometry.

Especially on a simple hammock, where the design requires TWO points
of support. No way can you DOUBLE the user's weight by any kind of
angle trickery.

Of course you can. And a *lot* more than double if the hammock
is not particularly stretchy.

1) Hook a steel cable between two points and pull it tight.

2) Press sideways on the middle.

3) Measure the deflection from the straight cable, and do a bit
of trig to determine how much force at right angles to the cable
adds up to what tension along the cable. (You do know how to
calculate vectors, don't you?

A hammock is a bit more stretchy, so the deflection is greater
for a given force, and thus the tension is less in the cables to the
attachment point, but the principle remains.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:51:08 -0700, RickH
wrote:

On Sep 16, 3:51 pm, "
wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:29 pm, RickH wrote:

Sounds like my Chinese kitchen faucet that lasted all of 3 days.

I hear they are planning on importing a $9000 car to the US, the
Cheri, those fuses should work in those.

They're trying to import it. Having trouble catching up on safety
though.

Good video of a crash test performed in Russia:http://news.windingroad.com/countrie...y-amulet-fails...

Holy cow, how could anything be worse than the Yugo?



Least it wasnt a Pinto Flambe


Gunner

On Sep 16, 1:29 am, RickH wrote:
On Sep 15, 8:36 pm, Jeff Wisnia wrote:





Automotive fuses...

Today's mail brought me a Safety Recall notice from Harbor Freight
telling me to stop using, remove any in use, and return the 120 piece
Mini-Blade Automotive Fuse Assortment I'd tacked onto an order I placed
with them a few months ago, because getting 120 fuses for $4.99 seemed
like a good deal. (TOO good a deal I guess...)

They're paying the postage, will refund $4.99 and gave me a "$5.00 Off
coupon" good till next February.

The recall notice includes this explanation:

"Specifically, manufacturing inconsistencies max exiat with the
materials, connections or size of the fuse elements which could result
in the fuses failing to protect the circuit from exessive current which
could cause damage to a vehicle and possibly a fire."

What's next folks?

The fuse issue isn't as funny as the "Stove Bolt Assortment" I bought
from Harbor Freight several years ago and stuck on the shelf. When I
finally wanted to use eight matching fasteners rather than the onsies
and twosies I can get from my "hell box" I went to that assortment, only
to find that all the 10-24 nuts in it had missed the threading operation
and had smooth bore holes in them.

Just for ****s and grins I wrote a letter to HF and taped a couple of
the unthreaded nuts to it. I described the problem and explained that I
assumed the threads were on backorder and asked when they expected to
ship them to me. I wasn't sure what that would get me, but figured
someone might get a laugh out of it and maybe send me another box of
fasteners.

Unfortunatly, my letter was answered by some ditzy woman with no sense
of humor because I all I got was a letter from her saying my complaint
exceeded their allowable time limit for returns and there was nothing
they could do about it now.

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.

Sounds like my Chinese kitchen faucet that lasted all of 3 days.

I hear they are planning on importing a $9000 car to the US, the
Cheri, those fuses should work in those.

China can make things real cheap and fast, but they dont believe in QA
departments.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Before everyone jumps on the "Cheaply made in The People's Republic"
bandwagon; hear this.

On a major news network: "Some pork products exported from North
America to China has been found to contain traces of a growth hormone
which is allowed in Canada and the US to be fed to animals used for
human food. But is and has been for some time, been banned in other
parts of the world, such as the Europe Community.
Hmmm! That bacon/ham doesn't look as appetizing now!
Maybe we'd better clean up our act; thought I was growing male breasts
or a third testicle or something!
You buy cheap you get cheap. That's why an AK47 costs less than an M16.

"Bob Ward" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:05:58 -0700, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:



Sit back and watch the toy companies...they are going to be used as a
lesson for the rest of Corporate America as to what happens when you
cut corners to make the CEO bonus larger.

TMT


Do CEOs make too much? Why is that? Could it be that they are hired to
do
a job and that's what the job is worth? Why do you resent high-paying
jobs?


So you think that CEOs should be rewarded for driving the company toi
the brink of bankruptcy?


It's not that simple. The CEO doesn't do day-to-day QC but...somebody down
his chain of command does and that head will roll. The captain of a ship is
ultimately responsible for everything on the ship but doesn't handle the
operation of the milkshake machine in the lounge, he delegates that...get
it?

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 16, 8:34 pm, "Noozer" wrote:
Now you are telling us that the consumer wants to give their children
poisonious toys?!?!?!

Nope... Just cheap toys.

You are so full of it.

Tom, just sit back and watch the consumer change Mattel's bottom line.

It'll be forgotten by Christmas. Sure they won't sell as much, but
they'll
still make money on the other few dozen items that they brought in from
China, which have less noticable defects.

The CEO and all others responsible deserve what is going to happen to
them.

Be given a multi-million dollar retirement package and spend the rest of
their lives basking in the south of Spain?

You must not have kids...parents have long memories for people who
attempt to poison little Johnny.

Mattel is going to get creamed this Christmas.

The retailers who sell toys are breaking records trying to test
product before Christmas...they won't make the deadline.

Many parents I know have already decided to go toy lite this
Christmas...they can't trust the greedy Corporation that wants larger
profits at the expense of their children's health.

TMT


A smart CEO will turn this to Mattel's advantage...watch and see. Besides,
if little Johnny WANTS the latest Mattel toy the parents will cave. Of
course, the parents will be doubly assured by Mattel that the toy is
extra-special-double-safe...sooo much safer than the competitor's offering.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 16, 6:49 pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:





"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Walmart is doing this for their good...not the good of the consumer.

Dunno about that.

According to a study done by Walmart, the company has provided more
assistance to lower-income Americans than all the welfare programs
(Social
Security, Medicare, WIC, etc.) combined.

Hahahahahahaha!...gasp...hoho...

Did the study say they cured cancer, too?

That'd be easy -- richer people are healthier, and their customers save
so much money...

I bet that Walmart study is interesting. Anyone have a cite? They are
the biggest retailer in the US, by a lot.

Joe Gwinn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They are responsible for 10% of the retail activity in the United
States.

They are also responsible for 90% of the Chinese stuff that is sold in
the United States.

TMT


Not true! American consumers are responsible for 100% of Chinese stuff sold
in the US. And, as an American manufacturer, I don't like it either.
Wal-Mart sells finished goods cheaper than I can get 1/2 the raw material.
Why haven't American labor unions organized a boycott against them? Why has
the whole US Gov., left and right let Chinese made goods inundate the
country?

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 16, 8:10 pm, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Sep 16, 8:24 am, George wrote:
RickH wrote:
China can make things real cheap and fast, but they dont believe in
QA
departments.

Don't kid yourself. They are quite capable of making quality stuff.
Its
the "Walmart mentality" buyers who keep on insisting on even cheaper
prices so then the quality falls as expected.

Correct...and the cheap stuff is sold because it maximizes the profit
for the seller.

What do you think the MBAs do all day? Maximizing profit does not
include maximizing quality.

Walmart is doing this for their good...not the good of the consumer.

TMT

It's what the customers want, in spite of the fact that the goods of low
quality have to be replaced and the value of good products that last
longer
isn't part of the consumer mindset. Change the consumer's paradigme.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you are telling us that the consumer wants to give their children
poisonious toys?!?!?!

You are so full of it.

Tom, just sit back and watch the consumer change Mattel's bottom line.

The CEO and all others responsible deserve what is going to happen to
them.

TMT


You know what I mean! I agree with you on this for the most part. I doubt
if Mattell or the CEO will get hurt much. The consumer's memory isn't that
long. Watch and see, bring up the subject in March if I forget.

Tom Gardner wrote:

Not true! American consumers are responsible for 100% of Chinese stuff sold
in the US. And, as an American manufacturer, I don't like it either.
Wal-Mart sells finished goods cheaper than I can get 1/2 the raw material.
Why haven't American labor unions organized a boycott against them? Why has
the whole US Gov., left and right let Chinese made goods inundate the
country?




Well, for what ever it may be worth, we have completely quit shopping at
Wall Mart...

I don't know if that makes me unamerican, or a patriot?

I guess time will tell.

But so far they don't seen too upset.

Richard

George wrote:

RickH wrote:

China can make things real cheap and fast, but they dont believe in QA
departments.


Don't kid yourself. They are quite capable of making quality stuff. Its
the "Walmart mentality" buyers who keep on insisting on even cheaper
prices so then the quality falls as expected.


There was some ass on sci.electronics.design a while back trying to
sell his company's SMD crap and bragging, "It only has a 1% failure
rate".

Think about this: If a board has 100 parts that means on average, you
have a 100% average failure rate for an assembled board. If it has more
parts, the rate goes up, as well.

He couldn't understand why no one wanted the garbage. Our average on
passives was about 1/5000, excluding parts damaged during assembly.
Even then, we had to troubleshoot some new boards, after assembly.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Check out the Milescraft sawguide at Home Depot. Multiple width guide
bars to fit almost any router or saw.
Karl


On Sep 16, 6:26 am, (Charles Bishop) wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
In alt.fan.cecil-adams Maxwell Lol wrote:
"Tom Gardner" writes:
China can make things real cheap and fast, but they dont believe
in QA departments.
Don't believe it for a minute! The Chinese produce to spec. as good
as anybody, blame the spec. guys and the purchasing customer for not
specifying any QC, that costs extra.
So, Mattel forgot to spec "non-lead paint" on their toys?

No, that was probably there. They just forgot to spec "actually test
that products are within spec". That's why sometimes you'll go to the
Circuit City and buy a box that's supposed to have a router in it, and
get home and discover that it's an old phone book.

Circuit City sells routers? Whoda thunk? I bought mine from Rafael Lumber.
I do need to find a fence guide though and since the router is old, there
doesn't seem to be one.

charles, one word, two meanings, dependent on the trade, bishop

In article om,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:


The stockholders would get a larger dividend if the CEO got a smaller
salary.

The salaries generally hover around $1 million related to
Congress trying to fix things via tax regs. The total pay gets much
bigger largely because of the results stock options and such, again the
result of governmental action to "tie the interests of the honchoes to
those of the stockholders". (Never for a minute thinking that maybe the
fact that the CEOs are making 90% of their money off the options might
lead to play games to increase the stock value...)
Anyway, you could take the CEOs salary part to zero tomorrow and not
do all that much for the dividend.

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Tom Gardner wrote:

Not true! American consumers are responsible for 100% of Chinese stuff
sold in the US. And, as an American manufacturer, I don't like it
either. Wal-Mart sells finished goods cheaper than I can get 1/2 the raw
material. Why haven't American labor unions organized a boycott against
them? Why has the whole US Gov., left and right let Chinese made goods
inundate the country?


Well, for what ever it may be worth, we have completely quit shopping at
Wall Mart...

I don't know if that makes me unamerican, or a patriot?

I guess time will tell.

But so far they don't seen too upset.

Richard

Why pay more? Their coffee, Cheese puffs and 9mm ammo isn't imported. Just
avoid buying crap.

on 9/16/2007 11:19 PM Jeff Wisnia said the following:
Bob Ward wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:00:18 -0500, wrote:


No, that was probably there. They just forgot to spec "actually test
that products are within spec". That's why sometimes you'll go to
the Circuit City and buy a box that's supposed to have a router in
it, and get home and discover that it's an old phone book.
--
Huey



If it's a Chinese phone book, it's full of Wong numbers to boot!


It's not just a joke any mo

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../wnames112.xml


Jeff


Has anyone seen an Indian (asian) phone book? How many are named Singh
(lion)?

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

clifto wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
The stockholders would get a larger dividend if the CEO got a smaller
salary.

Not if the smaller salary got a less skilled CEO.


Salary has little to do with quality once you are in the CEO isle. The
main thing that is needed is renumeration should be based on true long
term performance (that isn't derived from quickie fixes).

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Sep 16, 10:15 pm, clifto wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
The stockholders would get a larger dividend if the CEO got a smaller
salary.
Not if the smaller salary got a less skilled CEO.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

Haven't you heard that paying a higher salary doesn't lead to getting
a better skilled employee?

Every HR department tells that to their employees. LOL

Funny how that doesn't apply to the CEO.

Hypocrites.

Anyone want to come up with a chart that shows that higher salaries
for CEOs lead to higher skill levels? Higher company profits?

TMT

Sure, those Enron and Tyco guys for example had big salaries but look at
the great job they did (for themselves).

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:05:58 -0700, Tom Gardner wrote:
Do CEOs make too much? Why is that? Could it be that they are hired to do
a job and that's what the job is worth? Why do you resent high-paying jobs?

Tom, it would be helpful to get acquainted with the issue of CEO
compensation a little more closely, before invoking cheap capitalist
rhetoric.

The problem with "CEO compensation" is that CEOs wield a lot of
corporate power and subvert the board and "compensation committees",
who nominally set CEO salary, stuffing them with cronies, hiring
complicit "compensation consultants", and forcing them to agree to pay
them beyond what they are worth.

I am very skeptical of the possibility that there are more than one or
two people, if that many, who really are worth beyond a few millions
of dollars per year.

If you would like, I can point you to a couple of Warren Buffett's
annual letters to shareholders that explain this issue well.

i

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Now you are telling us that the consumer wants to give their children
poisonious toys?!?!?!


But he didn't say that. Our current Walmart driven culture is that the
only thing that matters is price. Thats what gets us into melamine
flavored dog food and toys with lead paint. If you keep on squeezing
suppliers and looking in every dark alley for cheap stuff you will find it.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Sep 16, 10:15 pm, clifto wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
The stockholders would get a larger dividend if the CEO got a smaller
salary.

Not if the smaller salary got a less skilled CEO.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

Haven't you heard that paying a higher salary doesn't lead to getting
a better skilled employee?

Every HR department tells that to their employees. LOL

Funny how that doesn't apply to the CEO.

Hypocrites.

Anyone want to come up with a chart that shows that higher salaries
for CEOs lead to higher skill levels? Higher company profits?

I'm sure any of the many "management consultant" (really ego stroking)
businesses would be happy to produce such a bogus chart for a nominal
fee...

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Many parents I know have already decided to go toy lite this
Christmas...they can't trust the greedy Corporation that wants larger
profits at the expense of their children's health.

TMT

They might be blaming the wrong corporation. From what I have read
Walamrt is now the biggest toy seller and they are well known for
squeezing suppliers to maintain their profit while the suppliers throw
US workers under the bus and go offshore and when that isn't enough they
still look for cheaper sources.

HeyBub wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Walmart is doing this for their good...not the good of the consumer.


Dunno about that.

According to a study done by Walmart, the company has provided more
assistance to lower-income Americans than all the welfare programs (Social
Security, Medicare, WIC, etc.) combined.



If I did a study on myself I probably wouldn't mention any bad points
either. How about you?

Thats why in my state even though we pay for the site and all of the
infrastructure and give them long term tax exemptions Walamrt employees
are the biggest burden on the state medical & welfare system. Part of
the new employee briefing is to tell them how to get the medical and
other benefits from the taxpayers that they don't get from Walmart.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


The companies also share the blame for cherry picking suppliers...they
nail them to the wall for pricing and then jump to the next supplier.
Well guess what the current supplier will do knowing that there is no
long term business relationship...he will cut every corner he can,
pocket the money and laugh at the greedy company as they move to the
next supplier/country.

Funny how the MBAs haven't figure out that screwing your suppliers
does come back to bite you.

TMT


The popular idea of putting young MBAs in charge is part of the problem.
Many lack a moral compass and greed is a powerful thing.

I remember the first really responsible job I had. The owner of the
company told me "the other guy has to eat too" and thats the way he ran
the company. We never screwed suppliers as is Walmart standard practice.
Today its "I win if I am standing on the other guys head".

In article , George wrote:

Thats why in my state even though we pay for the site and all of the
infrastructure and give them long term tax exemptions Walamrt employees
are the biggest burden on the state medical & welfare system.

Walmart employees are a bigger burden on the state medical and welfare system
than the chronically unemployed?

Bull****.

Part of
the new employee briefing is to tell them how to get the medical and
other benefits from the taxpayers that they don't get from Walmart.

Uh-huh. Do you have any actual evidence of that, or are you just repeating
rumors?

I thought so.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Sep 17, 2:02 am, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Sep 16, 8:10 pm, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Sep 16, 8:24 am, George wrote:
RickH wrote:
China can make things real cheap and fast, but they dont believe in
QA
departments.

Don't kid yourself. They are quite capable of making quality stuff.
Its
the "Walmart mentality" buyers who keep on insisting on even cheaper
prices so then the quality falls as expected.

Correct...and the cheap stuff is sold because it maximizes the profit
for the seller.

What do you think the MBAs do all day? Maximizing profit does not
include maximizing quality.

Walmart is doing this for their good...not the good of the consumer.

TMT

It's what the customers want, in spite of the fact that the goods of low
quality have to be replaced and the value of good products that last
longer
isn't part of the consumer mindset. Change the consumer's paradigme.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you are telling us that the consumer wants to give their children
poisonious toys?!?!?!

You are so full of it.

Tom, just sit back and watch the consumer change Mattel's bottom line.

The CEO and all others responsible deserve what is going to happen to
them.

TMT

You know what I mean! I agree with you on this for the most part. I doubt
if Mattell or the CEO will get hurt much. The consumer's memory isn't that
long. Watch and see, bring up the subject in March if I forget.



Besides, lead paint tastes good.


V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep

On Sep 16, 11:11 pm, "Tom Gardner" wrote:


A smart CEO will turn this to Mattel's advantage...watch and see. Besides,
if little Johnny WANTS the latest Mattel toy the parents will cave. Of
course, the parents will be doubly assured by Mattel that the toy is
extra-special-double-safe...sooo much safer than the competitor's offering.


Has this worked with pet food? Because I've not returned to buying any
of the brands in the pet food recall.


V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep

In article ,
George wrote:

If I did a study on myself I probably wouldn't mention any bad points
either. How about you?

Of course, if anybody outside WalMart was doing a study, they wouldn't
mention any GOOD points about them either. With WM it is all or nothing.

In article ,
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
George wrote:

RickH wrote:

China can make things real cheap and fast, but they dont believe in QA
departments.

Don't kid yourself. They are quite capable of making quality stuff. Its
the "Walmart mentality" buyers who keep on insisting on even cheaper
prices so then the quality falls as expected.

There was some ass on sci.electronics.design a while back trying to
sell his company's SMD crap and bragging, "It only has a 1% failure
rate".

Think about this: If a board has 100 parts that means on average, you
have a 100% average failure rate for an assembled board. If it has more
parts, the rate goes up, as well.

How can it possibly go up? A basic course in probability would serve
you well.

"1% failure rate" means each part has a 99% probability of NOT failing
(in some unspecified timespan, maybe on delivery). Put 100 of these
together and (assuming the failures are independent) the assemblage has
a 0.99^100 = 0.366 = 36.6% probability of not failing (in the same
timespan). That means a 63.3% chance of failure.

--
-eben P royalty.mine.nu:81

My parents went to a planet where the inhabitants have no
bilateral symmetry, and all I got was this lousy F-shirt.

On Sep 17, 12:53 am, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Bob Ward" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:05:58 -0700, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

Sit back and watch the toy companies...they are going to be used as a
lesson for the rest of Corporate America as to what happens when you
cut corners to make the CEO bonus larger.

TMT

Do CEOs make too much? Why is that? Could it be that they are hired to
do
a job and that's what the job is worth? Why do you resent high-paying
jobs?

So you think that CEOs should be rewarded for driving the company toi
the brink of bankruptcy?

It's not that simple. The CEO doesn't do day-to-day QC but...somebody down
his chain of command does and that head will roll. The captain of a ship is
ultimately responsible for everything on the ship but doesn't handle the
operation of the milkshake machine in the lounge, he delegates that...get
it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So if the CEO isn't ultimately responsible for the company's
performance, why is he making the big bucks?

Seems you like to argue the "have the cake and eat it too" approach
Tom.

You wouldn't happen to be an owner of a business, would you?

TMT

On Sep 17, 4:02 am, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Sep 16, 8:10 pm, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Sep 16, 8:24 am, George wrote:
RickH wrote:
China can make things real cheap and fast, but they dont believe in
QA
departments.

Don't kid yourself. They are quite capable of making quality stuff.
Its
the "Walmart mentality" buyers who keep on insisting on even cheaper
prices so then the quality falls as expected.

Correct...and the cheap stuff is sold because it maximizes the profit
for the seller.

What do you think the MBAs do all day? Maximizing profit does not
include maximizing quality.

Walmart is doing this for their good...not the good of the consumer.

TMT

It's what the customers want, in spite of the fact that the goods of low
quality have to be replaced and the value of good products that last
longer
isn't part of the consumer mindset. Change the consumer's paradigme.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you are telling us that the consumer wants to give their children
poisonious toys?!?!?!

You are so full of it.

Tom, just sit back and watch the consumer change Mattel's bottom line.

The CEO and all others responsible deserve what is going to happen to
them.

TMT

You know what I mean! I agree with you on this for the most part. I doubt
if Mattell or the CEO will get hurt much. The consumer's memory isn't that
long. Watch and see, bring up the subject in March if I forget.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds good...I think this Christmas will be the worst for toy
manufacturers in decades...the retail numbers will tell the story.

I do know that the retailers are spending MUCH money trying to save
their Christmas seasons...I believe it is too little too late.

As I said, when you try to poison the little darlings, Mommy remembers
at the retail counter.

"I will pay more (for toys) because I know it will ensure safety,"
said Lisa Sallese, a Wilton, Conn., mother of a 7-month-old boy and a
2-year-old girl. "But it stinks. It should have been safe to begin
with."


TMT

Consumers Could Face Higher Toy Prices
Consumers Could Face As Much As a 10 Percent Increase in Toy Prices
Amid Increased Controls
By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO AP Business Writer
The Associated Press
NEW YORK


Someone is going to have to pay all the extra costs of making toys
safer.

For now, toy makers and retailers are sharing the burden, but that's
only expected to last until the holiday season. Next year, American
consumers will be facing price increases of up to 10 percent to pay
for the industry's increased vigilance after more than 3 million lead-
tainted toys from China were recalled worldwide since June.

That means a $6.99 Barbie doll could go up to about $7.70, or a $70
child-friendly digital camera could retail next year for almost $80.

A 10 percent average increase would be the biggest one-time price hike
in toys in several years, analysts say. And it's more than twice the
government's measure of consumer inflation of 4.7 percent during the
first seven months of this year.

Consumers could also see higher prices on other Chinese imports like
fish and children's apparel, but the big price gains in toys could be
more jolting.

Shoppers have become accustomed to cheap playthings from China because
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and other discounters have waged cost-cutting
campaigns. Critics say real safeguards were sacrificed to keep prices
low.

Analysts said the price increases are unlikely to hit until at least
January because manufacturers and sellers already ordered the toys for
Christmas. That's no consolation for parents, though.

"I will pay more (for toys) because I know it will ensure safety,"
said Lisa Sallese, a Wilton, Conn., mother of a 7-month-old boy and a
2-year-old girl. "But it stinks. It should have been safe to begin
with."

Most of the rising costs come from emergency third-party testing in
the U.S. by both makers and sellers as they aim to root out any unsafe
products, analysts say.

Mattel Inc.'s three high profile recalls of lead painted toys since
the beginning of August have pushed product testing to a frenzied
pace. Companies are removing playthings from shelves and sending them
to independent laboratories to be examined. The price of labor,
overtime and testing will drive up costs in the short term, analysts
said, but increased regulation will likely keep them higher.

The U.S. Toy Industry Association supports a federal requirement to
make safety testing and inspection mandatory and is working with the
American National Standards Institute to develop industrywide safety
procedures. But during Wednesday's Congressional hearing on toy
safety, senators urged even more stringent measures including stepping
up fines for selling or failing to report dangerous items.

This year, "both retailers and manufacturers will share the costs,"
said Eric Johnson, professor of operations management at Dartmouth's
Tuck School of Business. "But in the longer term, costs will have to
go somewhere. And consumers will see it."

Johnson estimated toy prices will rise by 10 percent next year. He
said most vulnerable are mass-market toys, including die-cast
vehicles, which run the risk of containing lead.

Anita Frazier, toy analyst at market research company NPD Group Inc.,
added that higher prices will stick around because some toy makers
will shift a portion of their production from China to the U.S. or
Europe, where labor is more expensive.

This week, Toys "R" Us Inc., the nation's second-largest toy seller
behind Wal-Mart, said it would be using an independent laboratory to
test every branded product. The retailer will be absorbing the extra
costs for now, but company spokeswoman Kathleen Waugh said she
believes "pricing could increase" next year.

The Walt Disney Co. hit by Mattel's recall of 436,000 cars based on
"Sarge," a character in the Disney-Pixar movie "Cars," that were
believed to contain lead paint will independently test toys featuring
its characters. The tests will begin in the next two weeks and will
include all categories of products from about 2,000 licensees,
including Mattel, which is the largest maker of Disney-related toys.

Disney consumer products spokesman Gary Foster said Disney will absorb
the additional costs, which he estimated to be about several million
dollars this year. It's unclear whether future costs will be shared by
licensees, he said.

Price wars led by Wal-Mart have put financial pressure on toy
manufacturers, though they have been able to push through price
increases in recent years as they face higher resin and other related
costs.

The average toy price remains relatively cheap because the bulk of
toys sold involve $1 items such as card games and miniature cars
impulse purchases that can be picked up in the local supermarket.
According to NPD, which tracks prices of specific toys and categories,
the average selling price of a toy increased to $7.53 in 2006,
compared with $7.17 in 2005 and $6.97 in 2004.

Chris Byrne, a New York-based toy consultant, said shoppers can still
expect price wars this holiday season, led by Wal-Mart.

Some shoppers say they are postponing toy buying until they are
comfortable that the toys are safe.

"I am open to price increases as long as they are going to do their
job," said Jenny McMorow of Buffalo, N.Y. "We've been spoiled enough
by the low prices."

For her twin sons' birthday next month, McMorow will be avoiding
traditional toys and looking at playswings or a sand box. "Nothing
they can chew on or swallow," she said.



Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

On Sep 17, 1:11 am, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Sep 16, 8:34 pm, "Noozer" wrote:
Now you are telling us that the consumer wants to give their children
poisonious toys?!?!?!

Nope... Just cheap toys.

You are so full of it.

Tom, just sit back and watch the consumer change Mattel's bottom line.

It'll be forgotten by Christmas. Sure they won't sell as much, but
they'll
still make money on the other few dozen items that they brought in from
China, which have less noticable defects.

The CEO and all others responsible deserve what is going to happen to
them.

Be given a multi-million dollar retirement package and spend the rest of
their lives basking in the south of Spain?

You must not have kids...parents have long memories for people who
attempt to poison little Johnny.

Mattel is going to get creamed this Christmas.

The retailers who sell toys are breaking records trying to test
product before Christmas...they won't make the deadline.

Many parents I know have already decided to go toy lite this
Christmas...they can't trust the greedy Corporation that wants larger
profits at the expense of their children's health.

TMT

A smart CEO will turn this to Mattel's advantage...watch and see. Besides,
if little Johnny WANTS the latest Mattel toy the parents will cave. Of
course, the parents will be doubly assured by Mattel that the toy is
extra-special-double-safe...sooo much safer than the competitor's offering.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A "smart" CEO would never have allowed this situation to develop.

It is not rocket science that a company needs to inspect incoming
merchandise from a supplier.

The losses that Mattel suffers (and they have admited that they will
be significant) should come out of the CEO's compensation.

Then this problem will not happen again.


TMT

On Sep 17, 7:04 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article om,

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
The stockholders would get a larger dividend if the CEO got a smaller
salary.

The salaries generally hover around $1 million related to
Congress trying to fix things via tax regs. The total pay gets much
bigger largely because of the results stock options and such, again the
result of governmental action to "tie the interests of the honchoes to
those of the stockholders". (Never for a minute thinking that maybe the
fact that the CEOs are making 90% of their money off the options might
lead to play games to increase the stock value...)
Anyway, you could take the CEOs salary part to zero tomorrow and not
do all that much for the dividend.

When I am talking salary I am talking overall compensation...sorry
about the misunderstanding.

When you make CEOs personably accountable for these problems, the
problems will go away.

Isn't accountability the reason why they get the big bucks?

At the expense of the dividend to the stockholders?

TMT

On Sep 17, 9:24 am, George wrote:
clifto wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
The stockholders would get a larger dividend if the CEO got a smaller
salary.

Not if the smaller salary got a less skilled CEO.

Salary has little to do with quality once you are in the CEO isle. The
main thing that is needed is renumeration should be based on true long
term performance (that isn't derived from quickie fixes).

Quality has EVERYTHING to do with what the CEO should be paid.

Quality determines sales...which determines profits...which determines
his compensation.

Tie his compensation to QA and the problems go away..and your children
will not be poisoned.

TMT

"I will pay more (for toys) because I know it will ensure safety,"
said Lisa Sallese, a Wilton, Conn., mother of a 7-month-old boy and a
2-year-old girl. "But it stinks. It should have been safe to begin
with."

....and she pays twice as much for a insert well known toy company here toy
instead of a Mattel toy, not knowing that both companies had stuff
manufactured at the same plant in China.

Sounds like a WIN solution for the toy companies. They can double their
prices, citing increased safety costs, while not actually doing anything to
improve safety.

On Sep 17, 9:32 am, George wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Now you are telling us that the consumer wants to give their children
poisonious toys?!?!?!

But he didn't say that. Our current Walmart driven culture is that the
only thing that matters is price. Thats what gets us into melamine
flavored dog food and toys with lead paint. If you keep on squeezing
suppliers and looking in every dark alley for cheap stuff you will find it.

Wrong...what gets us poisoned dog food, poisoned toothpaste and
poisoned toys is that American companies are not doing QA to save a
buck and passing those savings on to the CEO's compensation.

And we had a Republican Congress and President who allowed it to
happen while being compensated for it.

Consumers always choose quality over price when the kids and the dog
are dropping dead.

TMT

On Sep 17, 9:28 am, Ignoramus26157 ignoramus26...@NOSPAM.
26157.invalid wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:05:58 -0700, Tom Gardner wrote:
Do CEOs make too much? Why is that? Could it be that they are hired to do
a job and that's what the job is worth? Why do you resent high-paying jobs?

Tom, it would be helpful to get acquainted with the issue of CEO
compensation a little more closely, before invoking cheap capitalist
rhetoric.

The problem with "CEO compensation" is that CEOs wield a lot of
corporate power and subvert the board and "compensation committees",
who nominally set CEO salary, stuffing them with cronies, hiring
complicit "compensation consultants", and forcing them to agree to pay
them beyond what they are worth.

I am very skeptical of the possibility that there are more than one or
two people, if that many, who really are worth beyond a few millions
of dollars per year.

If you would like, I can point you to a couple of Warren Buffett's
annual letters to shareholders that explain this issue well.

i

Ig is right.

TMT

Quality has EVERYTHING to do with what the CEO should be paid.

Quality determines sales...which determines profits...which determines
his compensation.

Quality has NOTHING to do with sales. How do you think places like Walmart
survive and? Why do you think there are so many imports from China?
Consumers want what is CHEAP, not what works.

On Sep 17, 9:37 am, George wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Many parents I know have already decided to go toy lite this
Christmas...they can't trust the greedy Corporation that wants larger
profits at the expense of their children's health.

TMT

They might be blaming the wrong corporation. From what I have read
Walamrt is now the biggest toy seller and they are well known for
squeezing suppliers to maintain their profit while the suppliers throw
US workers under the bus and go offshore and when that isn't enough they
still look for cheaper sources.

I agree that there are more than one compay to blame.

Mattel is the one because they are the ones who import the toys into
the country.

Not knowing when to say "No" to a retailer demanding cost reductions
is called "corporate greed".

TMT

On Sep 17, 10:35 am, Veronique wrote:
On Sep 17, 2:02 am, "Tom Gardner" wrote:





"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Sep 16, 8:10 pm, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Sep 16, 8:24 am, George wrote:
RickH wrote:
China can make things real cheap and fast, but they dont believe in
QA
departments.

Don't kid yourself. They are quite capable of making quality stuff.
Its
the "Walmart mentality" buyers who keep on insisting on even cheaper
prices so then the quality falls as expected.

Correct...and the cheap stuff is sold because it maximizes the profit
for the seller.

What do you think the MBAs do all day? Maximizing profit does not
include maximizing quality.

Walmart is doing this for their good...not the good of the consumer.

TMT

It's what the customers want, in spite of the fact that the goods of low
quality have to be replaced and the value of good products that last
longer
isn't part of the consumer mindset. Change the consumer's paradigme.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you are telling us that the consumer wants to give their children
poisonious toys?!?!?!

You are so full of it.

Tom, just sit back and watch the consumer change Mattel's bottom line.

The CEO and all others responsible deserve what is going to happen to
them.

TMT

You know what I mean! I agree with you on this for the most part. I doubt
if Mattell or the CEO will get hurt much. The consumer's memory isn't that
long. Watch and see, bring up the subject in March if I forget.

Besides, lead paint tastes good.

V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've heard that is goes well over corn flakes.

TMT

On Sep 17, 11:50 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Sep 17, 4:02 am, "Tom Gardner" wrote:





"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Sep 16, 8:10 pm, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Sep 16, 8:24 am, George wrote:
RickH wrote:
China can make things real cheap and fast, but they dont believe in
QA
departments.

Don't kid yourself. They are quite capable of making quality stuff.
Its
the "Walmart mentality" buyers who keep on insisting on even cheaper
prices so then the quality falls as expected.

Correct...and the cheap stuff is sold because it maximizes the profit
for the seller.

What do you think the MBAs do all day? Maximizing profit does not
include maximizing quality.

Walmart is doing this for their good...not the good of the consumer.

TMT

It's what the customers want, in spite of the fact that the goods of low
quality have to be replaced and the value of good products that last
longer
isn't part of the consumer mindset. Change the consumer's paradigme..-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you are telling us that the consumer wants to give their children
poisonious toys?!?!?!

You are so full of it.

Tom, just sit back and watch the consumer change Mattel's bottom line.

The CEO and all others responsible deserve what is going to happen to
them.

TMT

You know what I mean! I agree with you on this for the most part. I doubt
if Mattell or the CEO will get hurt much. The consumer's memory isn't that
long. Watch and see, bring up the subject in March if I forget.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds good...I think this Christmas will be the worst for toy
manufacturers in decades...the retail numbers will tell the story.

I do know that the retailers are spending MUCH money trying to save
their Christmas seasons...I believe it is too little too late.

As I said, when you try to poison the little darlings, Mommy remembers
at the retail counter.

"I will pay more (for toys) because I know it will ensure safety,"
said Lisa Sallese, a Wilton, Conn., mother of a 7-month-old boy and a
2-year-old girl. "But it stinks. It should have been safe to begin
with."

TMT

Consumers Could Face Higher Toy Prices
Consumers Could Face As Much As a 10 Percent Increase in Toy Prices
Amid Increased Controls
By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO AP Business Writer
The Associated Press
NEW YORK

Someone is going to have to pay all the extra costs of making toys
safer.

For now, toy makers and retailers are sharing the burden, but that's
only expected to last until the holiday season. Next year, American
consumers will be facing price increases of up to 10 percent to pay
for the industry's increased vigilance after more than 3 million lead-
tainted toys from China were recalled worldwide since June.

That means a $6.99 Barbie doll could go up to about $7.70, or a $70
child-friendly digital camera could retail next year for almost $80.

A 10 percent average increase would be the biggest one-time price hike
in toys in several years, analysts say. And it's more than twice the
government's measure of consumer inflation of 4.7 percent during the
first seven months of this year.

Consumers could also see higher prices on other Chinese imports like
fish and children's apparel, but the big price gains in toys could be
more jolting.

Shoppers have become accustomed to cheap playthings from China because
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and other discounters have waged cost-cutting
campaigns. Critics say real safeguards were sacrificed to keep prices
low.

Analysts said the price increases are unlikely to hit until at least
January because manufacturers and sellers already ordered the toys for
Christmas. That's no consolation for parents, though.

"I will pay more (for toys) because I know it will ensure safety,"
said Lisa Sallese, a Wilton, Conn., mother of a 7-month-old boy and a
2-year-old girl. "But it stinks. It should have been safe to begin
with."

Most of the rising costs come from emergency third-party testing in
the U.S. by both makers and sellers as they aim to root out any unsafe
products, analysts say.

Mattel Inc.'s three high profile recalls of lead painted toys since
the beginning of August have pushed product testing to a frenzied
pace. Companies are removing playthings from shelves and sending them
to independent laboratories to be examined. The price of labor,
overtime and testing will drive up costs in the short term, analysts
said, but increased regulation will likely keep them higher.

The U.S. Toy Industry Association supports a federal requirement to
make safety testing and inspection mandatory and is working with the
American National Standards Institute to develop industrywide safety
procedures. But during Wednesday's Congressional hearing on toy
safety, senators urged even more stringent measures including stepping
up fines for selling or failing to report dangerous items.

This year, "both retailers and manufacturers will share the costs,"
said Eric Johnson, professor of operations management at Dartmouth's
Tuck School of Business. "But in the longer term, costs will have to
go somewhere. And consumers will see it."

Johnson estimated toy prices will rise by 10 percent next year. He
said most vulnerable are mass-market toys, including die-cast
vehicles, which run the risk of containing lead.

Anita Frazier, toy analyst at market research company NPD Group Inc.,
added that higher prices will stick around because some toy makers
will shift a portion of their production from China to the U.S. or
Europe, where labor is more expensive.

This week, Toys "R" Us Inc., the nation's second-largest toy seller
behind Wal-Mart, said it would be using an independent laboratory to
test every branded product. The retailer will be absorbing the extra
costs for now, but company spokeswoman Kathleen Waugh said she
believes "pricing could increase" next year.

The Walt Disney Co. hit by Mattel's recall of 436,000 cars based on
"Sarge," a character in the Disney-Pixar movie "Cars," that were
believed to contain lead paint will independently test toys featuring
its characters. The tests will begin in the next two weeks and will
include all categories of products from about 2,000 licensees,
including Mattel, which is the largest maker of Disney-related toys.

Disney consumer products spokesman Gary Foster said Disney will absorb
the additional costs, which he estimated to be about several million
dollars this year. It's unclear whether future costs will be shared by
licensees, he said.

Price wars led by Wal-Mart have put financial pressure on toy
manufacturers, though they have been able to push through price
increases in recent years as they face higher resin and other related
costs.

The average toy price remains relatively cheap because the bulk of
toys sold involve $1 items such as card games and miniature cars
impulse purchases that can be picked up in the local supermarket.
According to NPD, which tracks prices of specific toys and categories,
the average selling price of a toy increased to $7.53 in 2006,
compared with $7.17 in 2005 and $6.97 in 2004.

Chris Byrne, a New York-based toy consultant, said shoppers can still
expect price wars this holiday season, led by Wal-Mart.

Some shoppers say they are postponing toy buying until they are
comfortable that the toys are safe.

"I am open to price increases as long as they are going to do their
job," said Jenny McMorow of Buffalo, N.Y. "We've been spoiled enough
by the low prices."

For her twin sons' birthday next month, McMorow will be avoiding
traditional toys and looking at playswings or a sand box. "Nothing
they can chew on or swallow," she said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Note how the companies are using the "higher price" tactic to scare
and prepare the consumer.

It would be a shame if the companies had to eat the higher production
cost, wouldn't it?

If consumers stopped buying, they would.

TMT

In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Sep 17, 7:04 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article om,

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
The stockholders would get a larger dividend if the CEO got a smaller
salary.

The salaries generally hover around $1 million related to
Congress trying to fix things via tax regs. The total pay gets much
bigger largely because of the results stock options and such, again the
result of governmental action to "tie the interests of the honchoes to
those of the stockholders". (Never for a minute thinking that maybe the
fact that the CEOs are making 90% of their money off the options might
lead to play games to increase the stock value...)
Anyway, you could take the CEOs salary part to zero tomorrow and not
do all that much for the dividend.

When I am talking salary I am talking overall compensation...sorry
about the misunderstanding.

Happens alot. Which is why I am on this crusade that you just got
caught up in (g). Actually over the course of time, pay has little to do
with what happens with the dividend. At least salary (pay) as cause and
dividends as effect.


Isn't accountability the reason why they get the big bucks?

Apparently not. Although how you enforce that is beyond my immediate
comprehension. Every time the PTB tried, they usually muck things up
worse.

At the expense of the dividend to the stockholders?

Not just enough in most cases to make much of an impact on
dividend. STOCK price, is where the CEO has the most impact.

In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Quality determines sales...which determines profits...which determines
his compensation.

Tie his compensation to QA and the problems go away..and your children
will not be poisoned.

hasn't worked so far. If anything the attempts to play with CEO
compensation has made things worse. When people are getting paid in
stock options, etc., then making the stock go up becomes paramount and
cooking the books becomes inevitable.