"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in
message

Americans are spending less of their disposible income
on food as time goes by. I looked at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture site. It has that type of information but
it is unavailable due to the "shutdown". There is a
chart he http://tinyurl.com/3yqoses Americans spent
about 23% of their disposable income in 1930. We were
spending about 9.5% of it by 2010.


Of course, that is "at home"expenditure, not total.

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food places
even more frequently.




--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 06:23:31 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:



Of course, that is "at home"expenditure, not total.

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food places
even more frequently.

A few weeks back, my wife had a late doctor's appointment so we
stopped at a restaurant on the way home. This was a local chain, the
99, similar to Applebees and the like. It was a little after 5, just
enough time for parents to leave work and grab the kids from a sitter.
I was amazed at how many families were there. Like you, eating out
was a rare treat when we were kids. It was a big deal to go shopping
with mom and have lunch at the counter in Woolworths.

On 10/13/2013 8:57 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 20:50:42 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Pound of salted peanuts $3.50 in Walgreens, today.


How much for Walnuts?

Oh, nuts. I didn't check.


..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 10/13/2013 9:33 PM, wrote:
I happened to see Andy Grove giving a lecture at Berkley on
TV recently. This healthcare thing has been of some interest
to him for a long time now. He gave an example of one kind
of problem. The FDA was given the authority in the 60's to
determine if a drug was not only safe, but "effective". If
they say it's effective, then healthcare providers pretty
much have to give it to you. So
you have a cancer drug that studies show prolongs the life
of patients that without it die in 2 years. The drug extends
the life expectancy by two months. But per the FDA law, it
meets the definition of effective. So, we have insurance
companies, Medicare, Medicaid, paying for the drug. The cost?
$80K per year for one patient.


One friend of mine, has chronic back pain. One pain med
works OK, to help reduce her pain. But, due to federal
guidelines, they are trying to change her over to a more
politically correct med -- which doesn't help, and she's
in pain again. I'm not pleased with neckties in DC telling
a practicing medical doctor in NY what he cannot prescribe.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 10/13/2013 9:29 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 21:06:37 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

In '59, a bank would give you a toaster just for opening a banking
account

Now they give you a bank if you buy a toaster?


No, no, no. Now they foreclose on the toaster?

Maybe that explains the dunning letters I keep getting? The black suited
Federal Marshalls who showed up with loaves of bread?


..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

In article ,
Dean Hoffman " wrote:

Americans spent about 23% of their disposable income in 1930. We were
spending about 9.5% of it by 2010. I wonder why the big spike in the
mid to late 1940s.


WWII?
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:

The healthcare web site will be a bastion of centralized information
for hackers - just wait.


Yes, I concur. That's pretty much how I see the mater.
\
I get a couple of newsletters on health information mgt and they have
been saying that for ages. The computer program for the exchanges has
been raked over the coals for security problems by both the CBO and
HHS's Inspector General.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Monday, October 14, 2013 8:04:01 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 10/13/2013 9:33 PM, wrote:

I happened to see Andy Grove giving a lecture at Berkley on

TV recently. This healthcare thing has been of some interest

to him for a long time now. He gave an example of one kind

of problem. The FDA was given the authority in the 60's to

determine if a drug was not only safe, but "effective". If

they say it's effective, then healthcare providers pretty

much have to give it to you. So

you have a cancer drug that studies show prolongs the life

of patients that without it die in 2 years. The drug extends

the life expectancy by two months. But per the FDA law, it

meets the definition of effective. So, we have insurance

companies, Medicare, Medicaid, paying for the drug. The cost?

$80K per year for one patient.





One friend of mine, has chronic back pain. One pain med

works OK, to help reduce her pain. But, due to federal

guidelines, they are trying to change her over to a more

politically correct med -- which doesn't help, and she's

in pain again. I'm not pleased with neckties in DC telling

a practicing medical doctor in NY what he cannot prescribe.





Another fine example of how healthcare keeps going up is
the FDA now has a bug up it's ass about putting drugs that
have been used for 100+ years through the testing that is
required today. Never mind that we have a 100+ years of
them being widely used safely. So, the way it works is they
find a drug manufacturer that's willing to undertake that
big expense. That drug maker then gets the exclusive right
to sell the drug for many years.

Example of this is colchicine, which has been used forever
to treat gout attacks. It cost ~$20 for a prescription.
It still does in foreign countries. But here in the USA,
it's now illegal and you can only buy Colcrys, which costs
several hundred dollars for the same prescription. And
it's exactly the same drug, colchicine, just that it's
being sold only by Takeda who cut the deal with the FDA
and did the testing. And of course the testing showed
that it was safe and effective, as hundreds of years of
wide usage had already proven.

Per :
He had to interview twenty-seven *college graduates* before he found
somebody who could.

Perhaps now you understand why we elect the people we do.

That is *exactly* where I was going with it.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 10/14/2013 8:50 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

The healthcare web site will be a bastion of centralized information
for hackers - just wait.


Yes, I concur. That's pretty much how I see the mater.
\
I get a couple of newsletters on health information mgt and they have
been saying that for ages. The computer program for the exchanges has
been raked over the coals for security problems by both the CBO and
HHS's Inspector General.

Should we overload the machine with bogus information,
and spam the system?


..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 06:23:31 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:



Of course, that is "at home"expenditure, not total.

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice
a year thing and there was no such thing as "fast
food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have proliferated
and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food
places even more frequently.

A few weeks back, my wife had a late doctor's appointment
so we stopped at a restaurant on the way home. This was
a local chain, the 99, similar to Applebees and the like.
It was a little after 5, just enough time for parents to
leave work and grab the kids from a sitter. I was amazed
at how many families were there. Like you, eating out
was a rare treat when we were kids. It was a big deal to
go shopping with mom and have lunch at the counter in
Woolworths.

Gotta love that roast beef sandwich with mashed potato, all covered by the
ubiquitous brown gravy

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On 10/13/2013 1:51 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Looks like his plan is to take from the middle class and give to the
poor. If your income is low, the premiums are lower, but still stiff
for what you earn.

If poor people, who can't afford insurance, have a major problem now
they wind up in an emergency room. That is a real expensive way to
provide medicine. And the hospital raises its rates to cover the cost.

The same is true for people who can get insurance and don't - like young
adults. Then they can't pay for huge medical costs. The hospital raises
its rates to cover the cost.

The cost of uncompensated care is a major part of the medical cost for
the rest of us. If you have insurance you are already paying for
providing medical care for other people. If everyone has insurance that
cost goes away, which means medical costs go down. (That is the reason
for everyone to get insurance.)

Minnesota has had a program to get affordable insurance for people who
can't get it on the open market. It was financed by something like
surcharges to hospitals. Because people were insured the uncompensated
medical costs went down, which helps hospitals. As a result hospitals
liked the program. Some of these people can get insurance on the
exchanges because preexisting conditions no longer count. Some other
people have been moved to the extended Medicaid(?) which states can opt
into.

The county I live in has a pilot program to provide medical care to
homeless people (if I remember right). They then don't get routine care
in emergency rooms. And routine care is far cheaper than allowing
medical problems to escalate. The program is pretty new but the costs
look good. It may be funded by extended Medicaid(?).

Exchanges are a republican idea to use competition to lower costs. The
plans are easily comparable, which was not very easy now. There are 4
levels of insurance with lower premiums and higher copays at one end.
The Minnesota exchange has some of the lowest cost plans in the country.

On 10/14/2013 12:21 PM, Oren wrote:
I'd opine that it's evenly distributed across the population and that
most politicians in both parties are pandering to an ignorant and
decadent populace.

Is one party "worse" than the other? I doubt it as both are mostly
representing special interests in order to get the money they need for
television commercials at election time.

Because they have this mind set that they were elected to "govern";
instead of being sent to congress to "represent" the people.

So named "our Nation's Leaders" instead of elected reps.


..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

On 10/14/2013 1:33 PM, wrote:

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or
twice a year thing and there was no such thing as
"fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they
patronize fast food places even more frequently.

That shows just how much more money people have, after
the basics.

Or, the lack of education and parents in the home.
No one knows how to cook, these days.


Sure they do, tells you right on the package...microwave for "x" minutes.



--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 17:40:15 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sunday, October 13, 2013 6:40:10 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:25:56 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Sunday, October 13, 2013 2:31:57 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 23:46:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:







On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 22:15:48 -0500, Dean Hoffman



" wrote:











According to the Carpe Diem site one had to work 885 hours in 1959



to earn the same goods as one can earn working 170 hours in 2013.







More he http://tinyurl.com/lrq8suo







One would work about 28 hours to buy a gas stove in 2013 compared to



almost 91 hours in 1959. He has ten other examples of decreasing work



hours needed to buy given items.











Thanks for posting that. I've often used the "how many hours" in



discussions. Prices on many goods have come down and are of better



quality. Such as the color TV. I also recall paying $5 for a really



good white dress shirt (made in USA) in the early 1960's. Not as good



quality, but you can get shirts for $15 at discount stores (made in



some third world country) .



And the good quality, american dress shirt is about $60, more or



less.



What American dress shirts for $60? I haven't seen one in years.

The typical quality dress shirt made overseas retails for $45 - $60.



I buy them for $15-$30, tops. Wait until they're on sale. In the

late Winter, it's pretty easy to find long-sleeved shirts (all I wear)

at a very good price. Last year I found a bunch of nice Oxfords for

about $20.


Are these made in America or made overseas? Made overseas, I
agree you can find them at those prices on sale. But at the large
dept stores that typically have the big sales,

Yes, overseas. They're $60 normally.

I haven't seen a made in America dress shirt in years. Not that I specifically
went looking for one, but I sure haven't noticed any. I would
think there are still some manufacturers left, but I bet they
are expensive.

Only custom made, AFAIK. You aren't getting one for $60, either. I
knew a woman who had to have her shirts custom made because of her
sleeve length and collar size (*long* and small). She wore men's
custom-made shirts because it would have cost a bloody fortune to have
them made for a woman (costs a bunch to have the buttons sewn on the
other side, ya' know). They were still well over $100 each. That was
over 20 years ago.

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 21:06:37 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/13/2013 4:06 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 22:15:48 -0500, Dean Hoffman
" wrote:

One would work about 28 hours to buy a gas stove in 2013 compared to
almost 91 hours in 1959. He has ten other examples of decreasing work
hours needed to buy given items.

In '59, a bank would give you a toaster just for opening a banking
account

Now they give you a bank if you buy a toaster?

No, no, no. They give you a bank if you buy a politician.

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:29:24 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/14/2013 8:50 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

The healthcare web site will be a bastion of centralized information
for hackers - just wait.


Yes, I concur. That's pretty much how I see the mater.
\
I get a couple of newsletters on health information mgt and they have
been saying that for ages. The computer program for the exchanges has
been raked over the coals for security problems by both the CBO and
HHS's Inspector General.

Should we overload the machine with bogus information,
and spam the system?


Already thought of. Like signing up (voters) from the Dallas Cowboys.

The bad or good news; depending one your point of view, when you go to
federal prison you "get to keep your doctor"

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 06:23:31 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in
message

Americans are spending less of their disposible income
on food as time goes by. I looked at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture site. It has that type of information but
it is unavailable due to the "shutdown". There is a
chart he http://tinyurl.com/3yqoses Americans spent
about 23% of their disposable income in 1930. We were
spending about 9.5% of it by 2010.


Of course, that is "at home"expenditure, not total.

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food places
even more frequently.

That shows just how much more money people have, after the basics.

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 19:57:53 -0500, Dean Hoffman
" wrote:

On 10/13/13 5:44 PM, Neill Massello wrote:
Dean Hoffman " wrote:

He has ten other examples of decreasing work hours needed to buy given
items.

And concludes that everybody is getting richer, which is quite
unwarranted unless the time cost of little things like food, housing,
transportation, medical care, education, and taxes are also taken into
account. This kind of half-baked, disingenuous crap is about the only
thing AEI puts out any more. Like many of the other so-called
"conservative" or "free enterprise" organizations, it has largely become
a shill for big business.

A bit here about U.S. house sizes:
http://tinyurl.com/ldc2ms2

House sizes roughly doubled since the 1950s despite family size
decreasing. Houses have been getting a bit smaller lately. Maybe
people are regaining their sanity.

I see no evidence that they're getting smaller. There are a dozen or
so going up in my neighborhood, all of which are in the 3000-4000ft^2
range. All five and six bedroom. The smallest in the neighborhood is
about 2500ft^2 but none of the new ones are that small. No one is
building small houses (2000ft^2) around here.

Sanity? Is your left leg that much shorter than your right?

On 10/14/2013 1:33 PM, wrote:

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food places
even more frequently.

That shows just how much more money people have, after the basics.


Or, the lack of education and parents in the home.
No one knows how to cook, these days.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:32:44 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:29:24 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/14/2013 8:50 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

The healthcare web site will be a bastion of centralized information
for hackers - just wait.


Yes, I concur. That's pretty much how I see the mater.
\
I get a couple of newsletters on health information mgt and they have
been saying that for ages. The computer program for the exchanges has
been raked over the coals for security problems by both the CBO and
HHS's Inspector General.

Should we overload the machine with bogus information,
and spam the system?


Already thought of. Like signing up (voters) from the Dallas Cowboys.

Sorta like Barry Soetoro, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC.?

The bad or good news; depending one your point of view, when you go to
federal prison you "get to keep your doctor"

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:37:52 -0400, wrote:




House sizes roughly doubled since the 1950s despite family size
decreasing. Houses have been getting a bit smaller lately. Maybe
people are regaining their sanity.

I see no evidence that they're getting smaller. There are a dozen or
so going up in my neighborhood, all of which are in the 3000-4000ft^2
range. All five and six bedroom.

You have to measure them. Hard to see the changes on a daily basis,
but if you measure them once a month you can see the shrinkage.

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:51:59 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/14/2013 1:33 PM, wrote:

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food places
even more frequently.

That shows just how much more money people have, after the basics.


Or, the lack of education and parents in the home.
No one knows how to cook, these days.

How hard is it to throw a pizza into the microwave?

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:40:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote
in Re Household goods
affordability:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 06:23:31 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:



Of course, that is "at home"expenditure, not total.

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food places
even more frequently.

A few weeks back, my wife had a late doctor's appointment so we
stopped at a restaurant on the way home. This was a local chain, the
99, similar to Applebees and the like. It was a little after 5, just
enough time for parents to leave work and grab the kids from a sitter.
I was amazed at how many families were there. Like you, eating out
was a rare treat when we were kids. It was a big deal to go shopping
with mom and have lunch at the counter in Woolworths.

I think that eating out when we were kids (in the 1950s) was a big
deal because we had a father that worked all day and a mother that was
a "housewife" all day. There wasn't enough income to splash around
eating out and dinners were part of mom's job anyway.

Then by the 1980 we saw a metamorphosis to the "two-income" family.
That brought in more income to pay for a larger and fancier house, a
larger car (usually a gas guzzling SUV), a second car to support the
second job and childcare for kids that were too young for school
(which by then was nothing more than day care paid for by the state).
The two jobs don't leave time for preparing dinners, hence the
restaurant bonanza.

In effect, most husbands and wives decided to dump family living for
conspicuous consumption and debt. The debt comes from the second job
usually not bringing in enough after-tax income to pay for the larger
house, second and larger car and all its costs, day care, eating out,
etc. It just builds up on a credit card.

It would be fun to watch if it wasn't so pitiful.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:59:21 -0400, wrote:

Should we overload the machine with bogus information,
and spam the system?


Already thought of. Like signing up (voters) from the Dallas Cowboys.

Sorta like Barry Soetoro, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC.?


Wrong name, but you have the correct address though!

The bad or good news; depending one your point of view, when you go to
federal prison you "get to keep your doctor"

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:00:11 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:51:59 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/14/2013 1:33 PM, wrote:

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food places
even more frequently.

That shows just how much more money people have, after the basics.


Or, the lack of education and parents in the home.
No one knows how to cook, these days.

How hard is it to throw a pizza into the microwave?

My wife and I have a mandatory understanding. I'm a better cook!

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:14:03 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:59:21 -0400, wrote:

Should we overload the machine with bogus information,
and spam the system?


Already thought of. Like signing up (voters) from the Dallas Cowboys.

Sorta like Barry Soetoro, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC.?


Wrong name, but you have the correct address though!

It must be the correct name. He's registered to vote at that address.

The bad or good news; depending one your point of view, when you go to
federal prison you "get to keep your doctor"

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:12:50 -0500, CRNG
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:40:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote
in Re Household goods
affordability:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 06:23:31 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:



Of course, that is "at home"expenditure, not total.

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food places
even more frequently.

A few weeks back, my wife had a late doctor's appointment so we
stopped at a restaurant on the way home. This was a local chain, the
99, similar to Applebees and the like. It was a little after 5, just
enough time for parents to leave work and grab the kids from a sitter.
I was amazed at how many families were there. Like you, eating out
was a rare treat when we were kids. It was a big deal to go shopping
with mom and have lunch at the counter in Woolworths.

I think that eating out when we were kids (in the 1950s) was a big
deal because we had a father that worked all day and a mother that was
a "housewife" all day. There wasn't enough income to splash around
eating out and dinners were part of mom's job anyway.

Then by the 1980 we saw a metamorphosis to the "two-income" family.
That brought in more income to pay for a larger and fancier house, a
larger car (usually a gas guzzling SUV), a second car to support the
second job and childcare for kids that were too young for school
(which by then was nothing more than day care paid for by the state).
The two jobs don't leave time for preparing dinners, hence the
restaurant bonanza.

In effect, most husbands and wives decided to dump family living for
conspicuous consumption and debt. The debt comes from the second job
usually not bringing in enough after-tax income to pay for the larger
house, second and larger car and all its costs, day care, eating out,
etc. It just builds up on a credit card.

It would be fun to watch if it wasn't so pitiful.

OTOH, we go out for, usually, three meals a week, have zero carryover
on our cards, a 3600sq.ft. house (and a 2600sq.ft. that we're in the
process of selling) and two new vehicles. Go figure.

wrote in message
...
On Monday, October 14, 2013 8:04:01 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 10/13/2013 9:33 PM, wrote:

I happened to see Andy Grove giving a lecture at Berkley on

TV recently. This healthcare thing has been of some interest

to him for a long time now. He gave an example of one kind

of problem. The FDA was given the authority in the 60's to

determine if a drug was not only safe, but "effective". If

they say it's effective, then healthcare providers pretty

much have to give it to you. So

you have a cancer drug that studies show prolongs the life

of patients that without it die in 2 years. The drug extends

the life expectancy by two months. But per the FDA law, it

meets the definition of effective. So, we have insurance

companies, Medicare, Medicaid, paying for the drug. The cost?

$80K per year for one patient.





One friend of mine, has chronic back pain. One pain med

works OK, to help reduce her pain. But, due to federal

guidelines, they are trying to change her over to a more

politically correct med -- which doesn't help, and she's

in pain again. I'm not pleased with neckties in DC telling

a practicing medical doctor in NY what he cannot prescribe.





Another fine example of how healthcare keeps going up is
the FDA now has a bug up it's ass about putting drugs that
have been used for 100+ years through the testing that is
required today. Never mind that we have a 100+ years of
them being widely used safely. So, the way it works is they
find a drug manufacturer that's willing to undertake that
big expense. That drug maker then gets the exclusive right
to sell the drug for many years.

Example of this is colchicine, which has been used forever
to treat gout attacks. It cost ~$20 for a prescription.
It still does in foreign countries. But here in the USA,
it's now illegal and you can only buy Colcrys, which costs
several hundred dollars for the same prescription. And
it's exactly the same drug, colchicine, just that it's
being sold only by Takeda who cut the deal with the FDA
and did the testing. And of course the testing showed
that it was safe and effective, as hundreds of years of
wide usage had already proven.

As I said many times before everything that goes on in this country
is back by wall street "Lobbyist" a Terrorist group back by Wall Street
that runs our country they are the ones that persuade our crooked
Legislators to do what ever they want.

In article ,
wrote:

OTOH, we go out for, usually, three meals a week, have zero carryover
on our cards, a 3600sq.ft. house (and a 2600sq.ft. that we're in the
process of selling) and two new vehicles. Go figure.

Kids? We elected not to have kids, which was a huge savings.

The women in my family have always worked. My grandmother worked
retail, my mother was an office manager, and I am a computer programmer.
I'd hate it if I couldn't pull my weight financially.

We go out together, usually, once a week, but each of us lunches out
separately a few more times. A 1200 sq ft house and two older vehicles.
Definitely not Keeping Up With the Joneses.

Cindy Hamilton
--

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:28:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:14:03 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:59:21 -0400, wrote:

Should we overload the machine with bogus information,
and spam the system?


Already thought of. Like signing up (voters) from the Dallas Cowboys.

Sorta like Barry Soetoro, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC.?


Wrong name, but you have the correct address though!

It must be the correct name. He's registered to vote at that address.


Dang. I didn't know that.

The bad or good news; depending one your point of view, when you go to
federal prison you "get to keep your doctor"

"dadiOH" wrote in message
...
"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in
message

Americans are spending less of their disposible income
on food as time goes by. I looked at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture site. It has that type of information but
it is unavailable due to the "shutdown". There is a
chart he http://tinyurl.com/3yqoses Americans spent
about 23% of their disposable income in 1930. We were
spending about 9.5% of it by 2010.


Of course, that is "at home"expenditure, not total.

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds
have proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food
places even more frequently.

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
You are right about eating out in my area it is cheaper eating out then cook
at home
the only thing is when you eat at home you know what are you eating!!!!

On 10/13/2013 2:41 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:21:12 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/13/13 08:09 am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Lucky you. College grads are having trouble find anything much better than
minimum wage jobs, if that.

Much of the problem is the College Grad themselves. Are they
Mechanical engineers? Biologists? No, many of them took 5th Century
Greek sculpture as a major and wonder why they can't find a job.

But not so many years ago employers were telling young people, "We don't
care what kind of degree you have: the mere fact that you have completed
college makes you a more desirable employee."

Perce

There is probably some truth to that, but it is not working. If you
earned a college degree, you know how to learn, have some ambition,
and I can train you to do my job. I, OTOH, will not hire you for a
minimum wage low skill job if you have not finished high school. The
kids that drop out are also losers in the workplace. Poor attendance,
poor work habits, etc. (exceptions are those older than 40 or so)

Many good jobs do not require a degree but trade school. I know a guy
having a hard time finding a HVAC tech for $22 an hour. I have five
supervisors, only one with a degree. If I ranked them in order, he is
probably #4 of 5. The one ranked #1 has the least education, but the
most talent for what we do. And a $65k income.

I wonder if it is too easy to get a college degree these days and
aside from specialized skills, even needed. Engineers, doctors,
pharmacists all need a lot of education, but a degree does not make
you a better middle manager, warehouse supervisor, trucking terminal
manager, and the like.

My son has some schooling, but not a degree. He has some talent in the
medical field (where he makes his living) and was asked if he'd like
to be a doctor or surgeon. His reply, "I don't want to take a pay
cut"


I gave up on corporate America in the early 1980's due to Affirmative
Action where women and minorities were promoted all around me and they
couldn't do the job but I could. They didn't want to pay for my skills
so I went out on my own and they had to call me when the morons couldn't
make anything work. I did take an overseas job for The SDI program but
that wasn't permanent. I do a lot of contract labor when I can but I
don't have to tolerate ANY male bovine droppings. I can fire customers
and have done so when they become troublesome and start to believe I'm
their employee. Me and JH will often be the last people called in to
fix a problem and when we ask, "Why didn't you call us first?" the
answer is often, "You charge too much." I suppose the lack of math
comprehension is due to government school education where management
will pay three different companies $65/hr for a service call who can't
fix it right rather than call us for $85/hr to fix it right the first
trip. I know a guy who spent $100.00, $10.00 at a time trying to get an
inkjet cartridge refilled rather than pay $30.00 for a remanufactured
cartridge. The lack of understanding of simple math among the citizenry
drives me nuts. o_O

TDD

On 10/13/2013 6:25 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ed Pawlowski:
I've been trying to hire a person for a trainee type maintenance
position. I get two types of applicants. One is the 60+ year old
guy that was making $25 or more an hour. The other is the young
guy that did not finish high school and has a difficult time
spelling the name of the street he lives on. .

My son-in-law recently had to hire somebody to help test financial
planning software. He decided that one litmus test was whether the
applicant could demonstrate an understanding of compound interest.

He had to interview twenty-seven *college graduates* before he found
somebody who could.


But pre-employment tests are racist. o_O

TDD

On 10/13/2013 6:52 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 19:25:44 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ed Pawlowski:
I've been trying to hire a person for a trainee type maintenance
position. I get two types of applicants. One is the 60+ year old guy
that was making $25 or more an hour. The other is the young guy that
did not finish high school and has a difficult time spelling the name
of the street he lives on. .

My son-in-law recently had to hire somebody to help test financial
planning software. He decided that one litmus test was whether the
applicant could demonstrate an understanding of compound interest.

He had to interview twenty-seven *college graduates* before he found
somebody who could.

Perhaps now you understand why we elect the people we do.


The ultimate consequence of Affirmative Action is sitting in The White
House. o_O

TDD

On 10/13/2013 7:48 PM, wrote:

********************Trim Da Phat********************


My boss gives points to "60-year-old guys" when hiring. Finding a
graduate who knows which end of a soldering iron to pick up is
nearly impossible anymore. He did hire a kid (45) recently, though.


Back in the 1970's me and a several guys I knew decided to take a
refresher course so we could obtain our First Class FCC license required
for a job as a broadcast engineer. We already knew our electronics and
had experience in the field but needed a little
help to guarantee we passed our test. There was one gal in the class.
She was nice and we all liked her but she didn't know one end of a
soldering iron from the other but did know a screwdriver was for
screwing. Everyone in the class passed the test and obtained our First
Class FCC license. Guess who was immediately hired by a radio station?
That was my first real brush with Affirmative Action. o_O

TDD

On 10/14/13 01:33 pm, wrote:

Americans are spending less of their disposible income
on food as time goes by. I looked at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture site. It has that type of information but
it is unavailable due to the "shutdown". There is a
chart he http://tinyurl.com/3yqoses Americans spent
about 23% of their disposable income in 1930. We were
spending about 9.5% of it by 2010.


Of course, that is "at home"expenditure, not total.

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food places
even more frequently.

That shows just how much more money people have, after the basics.

About 30 years ago friends in California told me that they had been
asked, "How can you afford to eat at home? Everything is so expensive."

Perce

On 10/13/2013 11:06 AM, Tony944 wrote:

********************Trim Da Phat*******************


Looking and reading your post, 50% you are full of xxxx and other 50%
if you where dragging you bare ass on icy road I would not believe you.
when farmer find half bushel of ratting apples the whole bushel is consider
bad
I hope and people reading this understand what I meant


I realize English may not be your first language but WTF are "ratting
apples"? Are they be used for hunting rats or what? o_O

TDD

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 18:47:50 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote in Re Household
goods affordability:

Definitely not Keeping Up With the Joneses.

That is to be commended and admired IMO.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 10/13/2013 9:46 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 10/13/13 12:11 AM, Bob F wrote:
Dean Hoffman" wrote:
According to the Carpe Diem site one had to work 885 hours in 1959
to earn the same goods as one can earn working 170 hours in 2013.

More he http://tinyurl.com/lrq8suo

One would work about 28 hours to buy a gas stove in 2013 compared to
almost 91 hours in 1959. He has ten other examples of decreasing
work hours needed to buy given items.

If only one could find a job. What did we export then? What do we
export now?
Why don't we have decent jobs - because we exported all the
manufacturing.

And how many hours did we have to work then and now to buy our current
largest
manufactured export - gasoline and diesel fuel?

When nobody can get a middle class job, who benefits by low prices?


Some information here
http://tinyurl.com/6xo3y6 for gas prices.
Gas was the equivalent of $3.87 in 1918, $3.51 in 2013. The lowest
equivalent price was $1.46 in 1998.



When I was in college I was paying 22 cents a gallon for regular but the
dollar was worth more back then. Minimum wage was $1.60/hr too. o_O

TDD