"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...


Just like cheap oil, over-priced wages will soon be nothing more than
a
fond
memory. As it should be.

snip


How do we address this problem?

Harold

Harold, it's really late here, but you know I have to weigh in on this
issue. g

Just like the "right" price is whatever people will pay, the "right" wage is
whatever employers will pay. The US was in a beautiful position for many
decades, with little real competition for sophisticated manufactured goods,
and with a balance struck between wages and corporate incomes that was
working so well our growth rates, and real incomes, soared like never before
in history. At the same time, our *rate* of accumulating debt was actually
quite low, now that we understand debt and monetary behavior a lot better
than we did, say, in the '50s and '60s, and realize those debt figures that
scared us then were trivial.

You could say we would have produced more cars and they would have been
cheaper if wages had been lower. That's true enough. But the distribution of
income would have been more widely dispersed (more sharply divided between
rich and poor), which means that the market for cars would have been a lot
smaller. This is what Henry Ford figured out back in the early part of the
last century, when he doubled everyone's wages so they could buy more cars.

There is no "right" price or wage except that which allows economic growth
and a high level of employment. In a free market, those "right" prices and
wages work themselves out on the basis of where the forces that determine
them balance out. We had a lot of pressure to increase wages, but it worked
out, balancing at a high equilibrium point from the standpoint of labor. The
economy soared. What happens when you increase wages is that markets
increase tremendously -- that's why Americans bought so much crap, and still
do. g Higher wages may mean (usually do mean) lower *percentage* returns
on investment. But with a captive market for investment (the US), what are
investors going to do to make more money on their investments? Only those
things that are available to do within the economy, at the established
equilibrium of return on investment. This is it, folks, and the money has to
find investment opportunities at any interest rate available. They can't
stuff billions under the mattress.

Once you have a foreign outlet for capital and foreign producers that can
make acceptable goods for the US market, we're in real international
competition. Hello, globalization. Now the markets, prices, and wages revert
to an older state of equilibrium because there are lots of low-wage outlets
for capital, as there were in the early days of the Industrial Revolution.
Now we see again where the greater "natural" power lies, all else being
equal: with the investors. One way to look at the high-wage years in the US
is that the natural power of the investors was constrained by the power of
unions, which produced higher wages across the economy. We had succeeded in
forcing the capitalist system to perform an unnatural act: high growth with
high wages and high levels of employment. And it was sustainable, as long as
we were in our own, hermetically sealed part of the world.

Now we're racing toward a new equilibrium. People like Alan Tonelson say
we're in a race to the bottom. There is some truth in that, but don't get
excited. g The equilibrium we have now, or are racing towards, is more
like the classic one that produced huge disparities in incomes between the
haves and the have-nots. But I'm not saying Tonelson is right or that we're
headed for a Marxian denouement. What is true, however, is that we have a
situation in which GDP is growing and most of the benefit is accruing to the
top income-earners. I do suspect that we'll be able to keep all but the very
bottom income-earners from falling in absolute terms. (But we're doing it
the hard way. That's a story for another day, however.)

Of course, this is a ridiculously simplified account of what's happened, but
it's enough to illustrate the point: we've PROVEN that the equilibrium can
be moved, without destroying capitalism itself. The working people of this
country are in a *qualitatively* higher place than they were 60 years ago.
Most of us now own houses, multiple cars, and nice clothes, and can send our
kids to college one way or another (I'll report more on the reality of this
in another year or two. g). Some might argue that it was *because* wages
rose so high. It may be true. But the more important truth is that we didn't
stall capitalist growth by squeezing the equilibrium upward for labor,
putting additional pressure on capital, and at the same time we grew a
middle class the likes of which the world has never seen.

Your personal sense of value tells you that unskilled workers have been
making too much, but I don't believe it's true. Not in any economic sense.
We've proven it, by the growth we've enjoyed.

The reason we're in trouble now is that our skewed equilibrium has left us
in a very difficult place from which to compete with Chinese workers. for
example, making 80 cents an hour. That's certainly true, too. But the cost
of being "prepared" for such competition would have been years of much lower
wages for workers, smaller markets for goods, and a smaller economy overall
than the one we have now. That's a lousy tradeoff. And all of that sacrifice
would have been no guarantee that we wouldn't face the displacements we're
facing now. At best, it probably would have delayed it.

The most interesting thing to me is our demonstration of how flexible
capitalism can be, to accommodate the severe wage pressures we put upon it
for so long. We've proven that there is no fundamental reason that we can't
have an economy that works well and still produces an enriched middle class,
with a pretty fair set of supports for the lowest wage earners at the same
time.

All it takes is a hermetically sealed corner of the world in which to do it.
Those days are gone, but the experiment is fairly complete. From now on, we
proceed knowing that there is no "natural" and irrevocable equilibrium
imposed by our economic system. We've revoked it successfully. If we fall
now, it won't be because we made too much for too long. It will be because
you can't seal off a corner of the world forever.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

I guess you can say goodby to your social security check. Once all those
wages go away, and nobody is there to tax, to pay into your fund, the
thing's gonna collapse.

One big difference, like it or not. I earned my social security check. I
paid into the fund for years, and I paid both halves (remember, I was self
employed), unlike most people. I do not make, nor am I willing to make,
an apology for recovering money that was taken from me for years without my
consent. DO NOT BLAME ME for SS. I, too, was a victim.

No, you didn't. It's an entitlement program, paid for by taxes I pay.

You paid for your parent's generation.

I'm not saying this to be mean, but you should consider what would happen
if the SS check went away - if the government defaulted on the promise
it made to you, and said 'the check comes every two months now, or the
check is half the size. Too bad.'

That's what most private companies are doing now with their pension
plans. "sorry the cost is too big. You don't get what we promised."

Remember, every one of those laid off Ford and GM workers will decide
shortly to not contribute to the H. Vordos entitlement fund. I know
for sure they won't be contributing to mine.



Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

You forgot the part about throwing in the "Made in America" posters
displayed all over the store.

Rex B wrote:
Tony wrote:

I doubt that's how it played out. It was probably more like:

WM buyer: We have an offshore company bidding on your segment. They are
25% lower on the same quality, Asia-sourced. Would you like to revise
your current bid?
RQ: We have our costs cut pretty fine already. We could not match that
with U.S. production.
WM: We have a good relationship and would like to continue that, but my
boss is going to ask some tough questions if I don't give this bid
serious consideration.
RQ: Let me talk to our BOD and get back to you in a week.
---------
RQ: OK, the BOD has voted to acquire manufacturing facilities in Asia.
We will have a new bid to you as soon as we finalize the numbers.
WM: Of course, we prefer to source U.S.-made, but offshore is acceptable
if the quality is maintained.

It has to do with a "living wage". What's the point of taking a job
that doesn't pay enough to live on? You're better off improving your
skills and education, or searching for a job that pays better.

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me
that many American workers would rather have no job, than one with pay in
keeping with one's qualifications.

I wonder where Wal-Mart buys all that "made in the USA" propaganda...Taiwan?
China?

John E.

"Mike Berger" wrote in message
...
You forgot the part about throwing in the "Made in America" posters
displayed all over the store.

"Mike Berger" wrote in message
...
It has to do with a "living wage". What's the point of taking a job
that doesn't pay enough to live on? You're better off improving your
skills and education, or searching for a job that pays better.
..

Agreed. Instead of stepping up to the plate, many unskilled workers take
anything that comes along, then demands wages beyond the value of their
time. That's the way such folks deal with their lack of preparation for
making a living.

Others, the one's in question, would be the guy that's working for $30/hr,
but has no particular skills. The job isn't worth the money, but he's
managed to push it there. His job can be taken from him by anyone off the
street, for a wage in keeping with the lack of skills the job requires, yet
he'd rather not work than work for less money, the real value of the job at
hand. He appears to be willing to lose everything instead of give up the
three boats and RV vehicles that he maybe should have never been able to
afford, anyway. That's what is happening today------jobs are leaving
because they're no longer affordable here in the States. Even highly
skilled positions are being lost (thanks to CNC and other modern
innovations), as you likely know. Regardless of one's views, had we kept
a pace in keeping with the world economy, it may have never happened. The
financial advantages would have been much smaller, so it may not have been
worth the effort. Dunno. One thing sure ----- it's happening now-----and
people are finding they can no longer make the unearned money.

Harold

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

I guess you can say goodby to your social security check. Once all
those
wages go away, and nobody is there to tax, to pay into your fund, the
thing's gonna collapse.

One big difference, like it or not. I earned my social security check.
I
paid into the fund for years, and I paid both halves (remember, I was
self
employed), unlike most people. I do not make, nor am I willing to
make,
an apology for recovering money that was taken from me for years without
my
consent. DO NOT BLAME ME for SS. I, too, was a victim.

No, you didn't. It's an entitlement program, paid for by taxes I pay.

That, in no way, diminishes the fact that money was taken from me for years,
all without my permission. I would have gladly opted out, but I was not
allowed. I was forced to participate in a program that I chose not to
support. The money was stolen from me, with a promise that it would be
returned later, when I was old. They gambled that I would die first, but I
beat the odds. I expect my money to be returned. I earned the right by
being a victim of a program that was not of my choosing.


You paid for your parent's generation.

I understand that as well as it can be understood.


I'm not saying this to be mean, but you should consider what would happen
if the SS check went away - if the government defaulted on the promise
it made to you, and said 'the check comes every two months now, or the
check is half the size. Too bad.'

Government, just like private industry, will fail, and for the same reasons.
It will just take longer for the government. They're bankrupt now, and
have been for years. Luckily, they are the ones that control the
printing presses, and had the foresight to remove precious metals from our
monetary system, making it possible to issue valueless dollars to keep
paying the fiddler, who keeps raising his fee. I'm not going to suggest
that we're where we are because of unreasonable wages paid to workers, but
it sure as hell has had to have had an impact.

My point in this is that no one can get ahead by demanding unearned money.
If you back your boss into a corner with higher wage demands, he'll make an
offset in his product price to cover the raise. It's not long until he
isn't competitive in the market, or prices escalate across the board, to
cover all the unreasonable wages, including management salaries. That's
what's been happening here in the States for years, faster and faster each
year. I can still remember when a Coupe DeVille Cadillac cost only $6,000
(1959).

It's unreasonable to expect anyone to pay more than a job is
worth--------something that far too many of the workers here in the US (and
maybe other countries as well----I don't know) have done for years. The
ride is over. Corporations are in *pay back* mode, getting rid of workers
with unreasonable wage and benefit demands, and poor work ethics. They
finally found a way to accomplish the task. Those that have been caught up
in the fact hate life-----but who's fault is it? Doesn't the worker share
some of the blame?


That's what most private companies are doing now with their pension
plans. "sorry the cost is too big. You don't get what we promised."

Had the workers demanded something more reasonable, maybe it wouldn't have
happened. Workers expecting to be taken care of for years after they're
retired is no more unreasonable than you feel is SS. One difference is SS
isn't a lot of money, unlike many of the retirement packages some folks have
(had).


Remember, every one of those laid off Ford and GM workers will decide
shortly to not contribute to the H. Vordos entitlement fund. I know
for sure they won't be contributing to mine.




I hope you're wrong, Jim. You, like I, have been forced to contribute.
Keep a good thought-----and realize that when you reach my age, your needs
are generally smaller, and you'll appreciate the amount you receive.

You want to place blame? Go back to Roosevelt-----the master designer of
this pyramid scheme. He's the guy you should have in your cross hairs, not
people like me.

Harold

"Ignoramus1723" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:50:16 -0800, Harold and Susan Vordos
wrote:
One big difference, like it or not. I earned my social security check.
I
paid into the fund for years, and I paid both halves (remember, I was
self
employed), unlike most people. I do not make, nor am I willing to
make,
an apology for recovering money that was taken from me for years without
my
consent. DO NOT BLAME ME for SS. I, too, was a victim.

Whether retired people (not just you, but also those to follow
soon) would be able to get as many goods and services for their social
security checks, is not so much a question of morality as it is a
question of reality. The issue is, is the society able to deliver as
much as it promised.

i

I agree, and in part, that's what I've been saying right along. We think
there's no bottom to the well----take all you can in taxes (what else would
you call Social Security contributions?) and promise the stars and the moon,
all with a nice fence around them. I got no stars, I got no moon, and I
got no fence. I have to pay for my own health care plan, and I get a check
slightly under $1,200 from Social Security. What I have is austere,
hardly something one could brag about. Society should have set
reasonable goals, not asked for everything, particularly when it was
unearned.

Harold

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
"Ignoramus1723" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:50:16 -0800, Harold and Susan Vordos
wrote:
One big difference, like it or not. I earned my social security check.
I
paid into the fund for years, and I paid both halves (remember, I was
self
employed), unlike most people. I do not make, nor am I willing to
make,
an apology for recovering money that was taken from me for years without
my
consent. DO NOT BLAME ME for SS. I, too, was a victim.
Whether retired people (not just you, but also those to follow
soon) would be able to get as many goods and services for their social
security checks, is not so much a question of morality as it is a
question of reality. The issue is, is the society able to deliver as
much as it promised.

i

I agree, and in part, that's what I've been saying right along. We think
there's no bottom to the well----take all you can in taxes (what else would
you call Social Security contributions?) and promise the stars and the moon,
all with a nice fence around them. I got no stars, I got no moon, and I
got no fence. I have to pay for my own health care plan, and I get a check
slightly under $1,200 from Social Security. What I have is austere,
hardly something one could brag about. Society should have set
reasonable goals, not asked for everything, particularly when it was
unearned.

Society is totally unrestrained in what "it" asks for.
We are supposed to be selecting lawmakers with some commonsense. When we
relax our standards occasionally (OK, a lot) we get the inevitable result.

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

snip

Management allowed wages to get this high because of their own
GREED. Blue collar employees DO NOT run the company.

I agree, but I'm afraid I'd have to say that unions have played a huge role
in where we are today as well. They've encouraged workers to demand more
pay, often for less effort, and have driven wages to the point of no longer
being competitive in a reasonable world market. Couple that with ever
escalating medical costs and the incentive for industry to abandon the
American worker is greater than many can resist. Like it or not, there
will be equilibrium-----it's being driven by us, the people.

I'm not sympathetic towards management. I'm totally revolted by the income
of many of these dudes. When we contribute to any charitable association,
one of the things we research is the pay scale of the CEO. If they're
making a ton of money, our contributions go elsewhere. I don't have a
clue what we can do about the money they receive, but I don't like it any
better than you do.

How do we address this problem?

Harold

You've addressed this already. You want to see workers get their wages
in line with a "living wage" right? Why not expect this from our
leaders? Lead by example - what a joke - "Do as I say, not as I do". You
think corporate & government leaders are going to give up their
outlandish pay, pensions, bonuses, financial loopholes, etc.? Fat
chance. I dare say it will take a revolution to do this.
The top of the food chain in the capitalistic world we live is the
investor. Corporate & fund managers feel driven to report astronomical
yearly growth numbers. It's artificially too high - heard of Enron,
Worldcom, etc.? It seems possible to me that this system could have
limits or at least some functional checks & balances. I feel that no
manager should have his raises/bonuses directly tied to the AMOUNT of a
business's financial growth. Greed makes this a collision course to a
failed endeavor.
Many of us have 401K's to help us think we'll have something for our
retirement. We are all at the top of the food chain in this regard. Sure
I'd like my money to do well but not at the cost of imploding the
system. I'm not greedy & don't want constant double-digit growth reports
from my investments. No system could support itself this way for long.
The entire time I've been in a 401K system (about 13 years now) I have
been amazed at the monumental growth of mutual funds, stocks, etc. It's
no wonder the rich get richer with this system. It seems doomed to fail.

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

That's what most private companies are doing now with their pension
plans. "sorry the cost is too big. You don't get what we promised."

Had the workers demanded something more reasonable, maybe it wouldn't have
happened. Workers expecting to be taken care of for years after they're
retired is no more unreasonable than you feel is SS. One difference is SS
isn't a lot of money, unlike many of the retirement packages some folks have
(had).

All that stuff is gone now, Harold. I don't know if you've been
following the details in the press about a Large Blue Computer
Company has been dealing with the pension issue, but in a nutshell,
this is it:

Whatever you thought you were getting, forget about it.

I've come to the realization that nobody will be paying for my
retirement, ever. Not my employer, not the government. Yet the
employer is making lots of profit, and the government has me
paying SS tax as well.

From one of the best companies to work for, over ones lifetime, to
one of the worst, in about 20 years. The article in the Week in Review
section of the NY Times made that pretty clear - as a pension plan goes
I had better start saving now, even more so.

There used to be quite an incentive to be loyal to one's employer.
There used to be such things as careers. Now it's basically a job.

There's quite some incentive for folks with skills and talents to
take it on the road and see where else in the world their skills
could be employed. Seems like folks who rely on a productive workforce
(SS recipients?) would be worried if all the corporate changes happening
now are giving the wage earnes a big incentive to move elsewhere.

Eventually there won't be anyone doing any work, and there won't
be any taxes being paid. What happens when the last guy turns out
the light?

Honestly I'm not picking on you personally Harold. I'm more commiserating
than anything else. I just shudder to think what my daughter is going
to face when she enters the workforce.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...
SNIP|
| I agree. Being educated isn't the answer, not in the sense of formal
| education. What I'm talking about is preparing one's self to make a
living.
| It need not be with a college degree, although it would be nice to have
one.
| How about learning a skill, then working for a reasonable fee? Instead,
we
| have, in many instances, fools that have dropped out of high school, no
| qualifications of any kind, taking jobs that can be filled by most anyone
| off the street, then demanding (and often getting) wages far and away
beyond
| value. They want a "living wage", but didn't do anything to prepare
| themselves to earn one. For this, we are now paying the price of
reality.
| Business will stand still for such abuse only so long. Eventually, as I
| stated above, it tips over because it's top heavy. It's safe to say
it's
| tipped over, folks. The Chinese and Indians have taken the jobs. They're
| willing to work for modest pay. We're not. It never ceases to amaze me
| that many American workers would rather have no job, than one with pay in
| keeping with one's qualifications.

Well said! It just came to me that other automotive industries have
gone this route before, and we missed the lesson here in the States. The
British tried to prop up their crummy automotive industry and they're still
trying, but not before a number of the makers failed miserably, which in the
long run was a good thing. For the record, I have a few British cars in the
driveway. The rest of Europe wasn't immune from that, either, but countries
more socialist than ours went to great lengths getting the taxpayers to prop
up a dead horse that should have been buried long before the stench went
away.

"Mike Berger" wrote in message
...
| It has to do with a "living wage". What's the point of taking a job
| that doesn't pay enough to live on? You're better off improving your
| skills and education, or searching for a job that pays better.
|
| Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
| It never ceases to amaze me
| that many American workers would rather have no job, than one with pay
in
| keeping with one's qualifications.

Funny thing, I keep hearing the "living wage" crap from people who are
actually alive, therefore they seem to be earning a "living wage." Only if
they were dying from starvation (starving with a cell phone and big screen
TV is not really starving!) would I tend to believe them, but it hasn't
happened yet.

"Stephen Young" wrote in message
news
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

snip

Management allowed wages to get this high because of their own
GREED. Blue collar employees DO NOT run the company.

I agree, but I'm afraid I'd have to say that unions have played a huge
role
in where we are today as well. They've encouraged workers to demand
more
pay, often for less effort, and have driven wages to the point of no
longer
being competitive in a reasonable world market. Couple that with ever
escalating medical costs and the incentive for industry to abandon the
American worker is greater than many can resist. Like it or not,
there
will be equilibrium-----it's being driven by us, the people.

I'm not sympathetic towards management. I'm totally revolted by the
income
of many of these dudes. When we contribute to any charitable
association,
one of the things we research is the pay scale of the CEO. If they're
making a ton of money, our contributions go elsewhere. I don't have a
clue what we can do about the money they receive, but I don't like it
any
better than you do.

How do we address this problem?

Harold

You've addressed this already. You want to see workers get their wages
in line with a "living wage" right? Why not expect this from our
leaders? Lead by example - what a joke - "Do as I say, not as I do". You
think corporate & government leaders are going to give up their
outlandish pay, pensions, bonuses, financial loopholes, etc.? Fat
chance. I dare say it will take a revolution to do this.
The top of the food chain in the capitalistic world we live is the
investor. Corporate & fund managers feel driven to report astronomical
yearly growth numbers. It's artificially too high - heard of Enron,
Worldcom, etc.? It seems possible to me that this system could have
limits or at least some functional checks & balances. I feel that no
manager should have his raises/bonuses directly tied to the AMOUNT of a
business's financial growth. Greed makes this a collision course to a
failed endeavor.
Many of us have 401K's to help us think we'll have something for our
retirement. We are all at the top of the food chain in this regard. Sure
I'd like my money to do well but not at the cost of imploding the
system. I'm not greedy & don't want constant double-digit growth reports
from my investments. No system could support itself this way for long.
The entire time I've been in a 401K system (about 13 years now) I have
been amazed at the monumental growth of mutual funds, stocks, etc. It's
no wonder the rich get richer with this system. It seems doomed to fail.

We're in lock step, Stephen. Just because I don't single out management
doesn't mean I endorse them. All of us have to take a realistic look at
the scene and make decisions accordingly. If we hope to have jobs in this
country in the future, everyone needs to re-evaluate their position.

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.

Do people really need a new car every year? A 6,000 square foot house?
Several trips to Hawaii annually? Three boats? Is paying more than
$4.00 for a cup of coffee really necessary? Bottled water, when it's been
proven time and again that it is generally no better than that which comes
from one's tap? Cigarettes @ $4+ per pack, only to destroy one's health?
Humans suck. They do most things for the wrong reasons, and have a
dreadful value system. We all need to experience some hard
times-----hard enough to shake us back to reality. Life can be rewarding
and interesting without trying to keep up with the guy next door, or trying
to impress him with our outlandish life style.

I live a humble, frugal life, and I'm content. Trust me, it can be done.

Harold

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

Do people really need a new car every year? A 6,000 square foot house?
Several trips to Hawaii annually? Three boats? Is paying more than
$4.00 for a cup of coffee really necessary? Bottled water, when it's been
proven time and again that it is generally no better than that which comes
from one's tap? Cigarettes @ $4+ per pack, only to destroy one's health?
Humans suck. They do most things for the wrong reasons, and have a
dreadful value system. We all need to experience some hard
times-----hard enough to shake us back to reality. Life can be rewarding
and interesting without trying to keep up with the guy next door, or trying
to impress him with our outlandish life style.

Harold maybe you need to re-calibrate your wage scale a bit.

To put this in persepective, I've never bought a new car in my life.
I'm currently fielding a 1984 toyota camry and a 93 pickup. They
both have over 100K miles on each one.

Granted I do keep a couple of motorbikes on the road, because with
the cost of gas these days it's actually pleasant to pay three bucks
for a fillup. Credit cards? Sure, but they get paid off each
month, there are some things you can't do with 'em, like rent
a car.

Don't smoke, the water is basically free from the croton aqueduct (and
possibly some of the best in the world, g. The house is about 1300
sq feet and the last time I took a vacation was a long-delayed honeymoon
week in a cabin in NH in about 1982. Every spare nickel goes into
savings for my kid to go to college. My one ace up my sleeve is
my wife - who I have not yet sent back to work yet. Wait till the
college bills come due....

And I've been working for the research arm of a major corporation.
Not with a PhD, you understand but for over 20 years. Not in management,
but still one would think that by this time there would be a bit of
daylight in the budget. Not that I'm complaining, but when you put
numbers out there, consider that some of the posters here hail from
the northeast. For now, that is....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ignoramus1723 says...

Whether retired people (not just you, but also those to follow
soon) would be able to get as many goods and services for their social
security checks, is not so much a question of morality as it is a
question of reality. The issue is, is the society able to deliver as
much as it promised.

You are asking the wrong question - the question is, does society
now promise anything? The answer is clearly starting to be 'no,
and we're not delivering on any previous promises either.'

The name of the game in both the private and public sector now is,
'make somebody else pick up the tab so there's more money for
me (us).'

Consider how the airlines, and corporations like Walmart are
so profitable based on the theory of Externalization. Which
is basically, things like pensions and heathcare costs are not
going to be paid out of corporate profits.

Somebody Else's Problem. The SEP factor.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

----snip lots of good stuff (thanks, Ed)

All it takes is a hermetically sealed corner of the world in which to do
it.
Those days are gone, but the experiment is fairly complete. From now on,
we
proceed knowing that there is no "natural" and irrevocable equilibrium
imposed by our economic system. We've revoked it successfully. If we fall
now, it won't be because we made too much for too long. It will be because
you can't seal off a corner of the world forever.

--
Ed Huntress

Chuckle! And we do that how? I think, for the first time, you're
saying pretty much what I've been saying right along, but with lots of
class. Thanks for your time, Ed.

We're screwed. We can't isolate ourselves from the world. Workers will have
less money in their pockets (assuming they can find jobs), but the offset
will come from lower prices on goods. That's assuming we can get upper
level management and investors to tighten their collective belts, too.

Hell yes, that's gonna happen. g

Harold

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

We're in lock step, Stephen. Just because I don't single out management
doesn't mean I endorse them. All of us have to take a realistic look at
the scene and make decisions accordingly. If we hope to have jobs in this
country in the future, everyone needs to re-evaluate their position.

Not pickin' on you but management runs the show. If change doesn't start
at the top level first, do you think the bottom level should change all
on their own? Why? If all involved aren't required to change together,
here comes the part I've said about revolution... kinda brings back the
1700's - something about taxation without representation and so forth.
Basically, unchecked management.

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.

Wow! That's a fabulous wage! I'd be tickled pink with that much money!

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:50:34 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Harold and Susan Vordos" quickly quoth:

We're in lock step, Stephen. Just because I don't single out management
doesn't mean I endorse them. All of us have to take a realistic look at
the scene and make decisions accordingly. If we hope to have jobs in this
country in the future, everyone needs to re-evaluate their position.

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.

And a totally non-religious "Amen" to that.


It's the one thing that prevents us from donating to *any*
charity. If the CEO makes big bucks, we're out.

I find local charities, like the local battered women's shelter, to
donate to at Christmas in lieu of giving presents to everyone. Most
everyone donates time to it and the bigwigs get a reasonably small
salary.


Do people really need a new car every year? A 6,000 square foot house?
Several trips to Hawaii annually? Three boats? Is paying more than
$4.00 for a cup of coffee really necessary? Bottled water, when it's been
proven time and again that it is generally no better than that which comes
from one's tap? Cigarettes @ $4+ per pack, only to destroy one's health?
Humans suck. They do most things for the wrong reasons, and have a
dreadful value system. We all need to experience some hard
times-----hard enough to shake us back to reality. Life can be rewarding
and interesting without trying to keep up with the guy next door, or trying
to impress him with our outlandish life style.

Very well put, Harold. "Keeping up with the Joneses? Hell, I can't
even keep up with the Simpsons."


I live a humble, frugal life, and I'm content. Trust me, it can be done.

Ditto here. My two splurge-weaknesses are tools and books.
A guy's gotta have SOME vices, wot?





---
Annoy a politician: Be trustworthy, faithful, and honest!
---
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

"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. 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!

A side note, the "wealthy" donate far less than the middle class, who
make up the largest bulk of donations of all kinds. I don't have the
statistic handy, but per capita, it's true.

"carl mciver" wrote in message
k.net...
"Mike Berger" wrote in message
...
| It has to do with a "living wage". What's the point of taking a job
| that doesn't pay enough to live on? You're better off improving your
| skills and education, or searching for a job that pays better.
|
| Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
| It never ceases to amaze me
| that many American workers would rather have no job, than one with pay
in
| keeping with one's qualifications.

Funny thing, I keep hearing the "living wage" crap from people who are
actually alive, therefore they seem to be earning a "living wage." Only
if
they were dying from starvation (starving with a cell phone and big screen
TV is not really starving!) would I tend to believe them, but it hasn't
happened yet.


Good point! Some folks seem to think that life demands every possible
luxury in order for quality of life to be acceptable. I don't remember
anyone giving me any guarantees when I was born. I was offered the
opportunity to get an education (which I more or less ignored), and to
better myself through my efforts. Work eight for eight was very much a part
of how I was raised. Nowhere, at any time, did anyone tell me that I'd
be able to own everything my heart desired.

Harold

"Stephen Young" wrote in message
...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

We're in lock step, Stephen. Just because I don't single out management
doesn't mean I endorse them. All of us have to take a realistic look
at
the scene and make decisions accordingly. If we hope to have jobs in
this
country in the future, everyone needs to re-evaluate their position.

Not pickin' on you but management runs the show. If change doesn't start
at the top level first, do you think the bottom level should change all
on their own? Why?

No, of course not, and I hope I didn't imply that they should. I often
don't make a distinction between management and blue collared workers, for
we're all in the same boat. I feel the same way you do. The one
difference is that workers generally have nothing invested in their jobs,
unlike the owner, who has everything to gain, and everything to lose,
depending on the course of his business. An owner has a right to make a
profit, but it, like my wages, should be reasonable. That's where pretty
much all Americans have lost their way----it rarely IS reasonable, be they
management or workers. How can you otherwise explain the fact that
American jobs are gone -------possibly for good. The resistance to
change and accept reasonable pay brings to mind an example that was set for
us about 20 years ago. Anyone recall the air traffic controllers strike?
It ended just as it should have. They lost their jobs because of
unreasonable demands. I don't know when I've been any more proud of a
president aside from the day Kennedy spoke about the Cuban missile crisis.

If all involved aren't required to change together,
here comes the part I've said about revolution... kinda brings back the
1700's - something about taxation without representation and so forth.
Basically, unchecked management.

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.

Wow! That's a fabulous wage! I'd be tickled pink with that much money!

Exactly my point. I never made that much in my life, and I've had it pretty
good, at least by my measure. Of course, I don't smoke, don't drink to
excess, don't consider $60 dinners with $50 bottles of wine as necessary
(nor do I ever pay that for them), have never sucked that white powder up my
nose, and I don't pay for cable television and cell phones. I'm not a
clothes horse and don't give a damn what the neighbor does-----I buy what I
need and can carry money in my pocket endlessly without spending it. I
live a frugal life, but a rich one.

Harold

"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

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:44:32 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Mike Berger" wrote in message
...
It has to do with a "living wage". What's the point of taking a job
that doesn't pay enough to live on? You're better off improving your
skills and education, or searching for a job that pays better.
.

Agreed. Instead of stepping up to the plate, many unskilled workers take
anything that comes along, then demands wages beyond the value of their
time. That's the way such folks deal with their lack of preparation for
making a living.

Others, the one's in question, would be the guy that's working for $30/hr,
but has no particular skills. The job isn't worth the money, but he's
managed to push it there. His job can be taken from him by anyone off the
street, for a wage in keeping with the lack of skills the job requires, yet
he'd rather not work than work for less money, the real value of the job at
hand. He appears to be willing to lose everything instead of give up the
three boats and RV vehicles that he maybe should have never been able to
afford, anyway. That's what is happening today------jobs are leaving
because they're no longer affordable here in the States. Even highly
skilled positions are being lost (thanks to CNC and other modern
innovations), as you likely know. Regardless of one's views, had we kept
a pace in keeping with the world economy, it may have never happened. The
financial advantages would have been much smaller, so it may not have been
worth the effort. Dunno. One thing sure ----- it's happening now-----and
people are finding they can no longer make the unearned money.

Harold

Folks tend to forget that in many places on this planet...$0.50 a day
is a living wage. Which is why there is outsourcing. A ****load of
people are ticked ****less to be making $5 a week. It gets them food,
shelter and change left over to buy stuff.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:59:08 -0500, Stephen Young
wrote:

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

We're in lock step, Stephen. Just because I don't single out management
doesn't mean I endorse them. All of us have to take a realistic look at
the scene and make decisions accordingly. If we hope to have jobs in this
country in the future, everyone needs to re-evaluate their position.

Not pickin' on you but management runs the show. If change doesn't start
at the top level first, do you think the bottom level should change all
on their own? Why? If all involved aren't required to change together,
here comes the part I've said about revolution... kinda brings back the
1700's - something about taxation without representation and so forth.
Basically, unchecked management.

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.

Wow! That's a fabulous wage! I'd be tickled pink with that much money!

Ive been taking care of a wife, son, daughter in law, grand baby,
about 20 cats and a handful of dogs on $27k a year gross, based on
2005 Quickbooks totals. Including paying $325 a month for an RV to
sleep in during the week, and putting a $20 bill in the gas tank
averageing 5 days a week. It took me 18 yrs rather than 15 yrs to pay
off the house. I own the truck (400k miles) and sold some Stuff and
bought the wife a 5 yr old Saturn for $2400 (94k miles) so she could
make her medical tests every week 40 miles away.
Im also making payments on my medical bill of $27,000 for the stent a
couple years ago.

No cable tv, no credit cards, pay cash or do without, no long
distance, no movies, no long distance except for cell phone. No
vacation (1981), no fast food, brown bag it and buy bulk at the cheap
places.

I live in California, ableit a rural area, but work in the urban
areas.

Its doable. Not a hell of a lot of fun..but doable. Which is why Im
such a good scrounger. Necessity.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

In article , Gunner says...

I live in California, ableit a rural area, but work in the urban
areas.

That's the key. Work urban to make urban wages, but live
rural to take advantage of lower housing (and other) costs.

The commute kills ya though. Around here it's folks you
see who get on the train up above poughkeepsie, for a two hour
ride into manhattan. They make a living but they spend four
hours of it riding the train each day. This doesn't count the
time it takes them to *to* the train at each end.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

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!

Around here 250K is called a starter home. Might have two bedrooms,
will be guaranteed to have at least two, probaby three roofs on top
of it. It will have a bad septic system and will need a new well
too.

This is up from when we bought our house - at that time a starter
home like that could be had for slightly less than 100K, if one were
willing to do major structural repairs.

Anyone who thinks there is irony or sarcasm in the comments immediately
above can come to the westchester county area and view some homes
with a realtor. You will find they are pretty much spot on.

And thank you harold, for the kind thoughts. The problem with relocating
within the US is the same issue that the government will shortly be
cranking up the inflation machine. Real jobs are getting scarce
so the tax base is shrinking. This means while savings get eaten up,
the tax rate will have to increase to keep funding whatever entitlement
programs are left.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't get out of the game.

Unless you figure out some way to get out of the game.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen writes:

In article , Gunner says...

I live in California, ableit a rural area, but work in the urban
areas.

That's the key. Work urban to make urban wages, but live
rural to take advantage of lower housing (and other) costs.

The commute kills ya though. Around here it's folks you
see who get on the train up above poughkeepsie, for a two hour
ride into manhattan. They make a living but they spend four
hours of it riding the train each day. This doesn't count the
time it takes them to *to* the train at each end.

Jim

And driving is worse. At least on the train you might have the chance
to chill and read a book or something. If you're into a 1.5 hr drive
each way, it will suck the life out of you.

10 yrs ago I had a gig featuring a 1 hour each way commute through the
worst Washington DC traffic there was. Once as I sat in the endless
traffic I estimated the time and mileage was using up something like
$5,000/year of net pay, not counting the gas money which is probably
where the real money is, or spiritual wear and tear for that matter.

The really bad thing was we had to hit the road at no lather than 5:30am
in a carpool to have a hope of beating traffic. In the winter it was
dark when leaving and dark when getting back to the carpool lot so on at
least one occasion I was so tired I forgot which way I was going; got in
the car, started it to leave, thought I had just got there to go to
work, shut it off and got back out before realizing it. I was glad to
get out of there, they stiffed me the health insurance they never
exactly promised and had real SOB's as clients.

Gregm

On 25 Jan 2006 04:56:24 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

I live in California, ableit a rural area, but work in the urban
areas.

That's the key. Work urban to make urban wages, but live
rural to take advantage of lower housing (and other) costs.

The commute kills ya though. Around here it's folks you
see who get on the train up above poughkeepsie, for a two hour
ride into manhattan. They make a living but they spend four
hours of it riding the train each day. This doesn't count the
time it takes them to *to* the train at each end.

Jim

I commute Monday morning and Friday night. A three hour drive each
way on average.

My property taxes are $310 a Year, as an example of relative savings
in location to location. And the schools here are outstanding.
Supported by Evil Oil Company tax money.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 25 Jan 2006 05:32:39 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

And thank you harold, for the kind thoughts. The problem with relocating
within the US is the same issue that the government will shortly be
cranking up the inflation machine. Real jobs are getting scarce
so the tax base is shrinking. This means while savings get eaten up,
the tax rate will have to increase to keep funding whatever entitlement
programs are left.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't get out of the game.

Unless you figure out some way to get out of the game.

Jim


We have 6 million jobs created in the past 7 yrs. Surely someone as
talented as you can find something thats not outsourcable in a much
more livable area. I note the number of urban folks who have sold
their $x00,000 homes, moved to a more livable area, bought a hell of a
lot nicer house for 1/3 the money and had a very very tidy nest egg to
live on, or start their own business with, etc etc

There are a **** load of jobs out there. Good ones. But most folks
seen to forget that when you leave a place that you have to make $150k
a year to get by on..you move to a place that $50k a year is a
comfortable living. And there are lots of those.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

jim rozen wrote:

Anyone who thinks there is irony or sarcasm in the comments immediately
above can come to the westchester county area and view some homes
with a realtor. You will find they are pretty much spot on.

And thank you harold, for the kind thoughts. The problem with relocating
within the US is the same issue that the government will shortly be
cranking up the inflation machine. Real jobs are getting scarce
so the tax base is shrinking. This means while savings get eaten up,
the tax rate will have to increase to keep funding whatever entitlement
programs are left.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't get out of the game.

Unless you figure out some way to get out of the game.

Jim

I am pretty much out of the game. Although I will be going back to
work on Monday. Just for a bit to help out the company while they
switch to a different computer program.

I have been to Westchester county and the housing prices are terrible.
Not just houses but the general cost of living is high. Relocating is
not quite as bad as Jim says.

jim rozen wrote:


No, you didn't. It's an entitlement program, paid for by taxes I pay.

You paid for your parent's generation.

I'm not saying this to be mean, but you should consider what would happen
if the SS check went away - if the government defaulted on the promise
it made to you, and said 'the check comes every two months now, or the
check is half the size. Too bad.'




Jim

This is exactly why Bush's Social Security reform might be a good
thing. He wanted to let you take some portion of your Social Security
Taxes and put them in a account that you owned. You could invest those
funds in a limited number of ways. I agree that there are risks to
doing this, but there are risks in having it all in one pot too. As it
is now, Congress is spending all the surplus from Social Security and
giving IOM.'s ( I the goverment owe myself ). At least with his plan,
you could stay with the existing system, or as Harold wanted to do, opt
out of at least a portion of the plan.

Meanwhile I am doing my bit to help keep Social Security alive. In 04
I contributed $1881 to Social Security and in turn I will get $2 a
month more benefits. If I were to live another 78 years, I will get
back all that money ( but no interest ). Such a deal.


Dan

best_homer_simpson_voice
Mmmm... God Pie...
/best_homer_simpson_voice

I am hungry right now... Must have breakfast...

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:36:21 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:
snip
Nowhere, at any time, did anyone tell me that I'd
be able to own everything my heart desired.
================
Don't watch many Master Card / Visa ads do you?

Large part of our current socio-economic problems appears to be
that these encourage a subliminal belief in a modern day version
of the "cargo cult." [google cargo cult for more info]

Uncle George

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:54:09 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:
snip
The one
difference is that workers generally have nothing invested in their jobs,
unlike the owner, who has everything to gain, and everything to lose,
depending on the course of his business.
snip
=============
In my not so humble opinion, you have just identified *THE* major
problem, and substantive difference, in our current economic
crisis. [e.g. median annual inflation adjusted income falls three
years in a row while sales and property taxes continue to
increase ....]

By and large, the people making meaningful [in the sense of
impacting the aggregated US economy] business decisions are *NO
LONGER* "owners," but "professional" managers hired by the
[stockholders] owners' representatives [directors] to run the
business for them.

== A major lapse by the stockholders was to ignore the dictum
"never hire someone you can't fire." The result is situation
where the stockholders "eat" the losses while the
officers/executives/directors get the lions' share of any [or
all] gains.== Another bad affect is that the mind set when
gambling with "my money," is considerably different than gambling
with "your money."

Operation of a Fortune 500 [or even Russell 2000] corporation is
qualitatively and quantitatively different than the operation of
a owner operated business, and the same tacit rules and
assumptions do not apply, even though these are chanted at every
opportunity.

In almost all cases these professional managers have invested
nothing more than the typical blue color worker. They may own
stock, but this was not because they put any money in the
company, but because of stock options. [Bill Gates and Steve
Jobs are among the very few exceptions.]

Uncle George

In article , Gunner says...

I commute Monday morning and Friday night. A three hour drive each
way on average.

Right, but imagine doing that *every* day. During the winter.
Hint: winter is when the snow falls and then they have those
special things that plow up the pavement but leave the snow
behind...

My property taxes are $310 a Year, as an example of relative savings
in location to location. And the schools here are outstanding.
Supported by Evil Oil Company tax money.

Sounds like a plan. If you're paying at the pump you might at
least get something for it!

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

There are a **** load of jobs out there. Good ones. But most folks
seen to forget that when you leave a place that you have to make $150k
a year to get by on..you move to a place that $50k a year is a
comfortable living. And there are lots of those.

Part of the problem is, I'm in a bit of gilded cage.

There aren't that many industrial research labs out there doing
what amounts to real scientific research anymore. I happen to
be (purely by accident) at one of those places, doing what I
love to do. I work with top-notch folks and learn new stuff
every day.

It's what keeps me here. That and the tons of cast iron
in the basement in peekskill. g

Sure isn't the company pension (went away) or the medical benefits
(rapidly doing the same).

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

I live in California, ableit a rural area, but work in the urban
areas.

That's the key. Work urban to make urban wages, but live
rural to take advantage of lower housing (and other) costs.

The commute kills ya though. Around here it's folks you
see who get on the train up above poughkeepsie, for a two hour
ride into manhattan. They make a living but they spend four
hours of it riding the train each day. This doesn't count the
time it takes them to *to* the train at each end.

Jim


Wow! That's a tough one. Lots of lost time. That would work much
better for folks that are retired and don't have to commute, or perhaps for
those that can make the commute a part of their actual sleeping time.
I sympathize. I recall all too well having to commute over an hour one way
to my job in the early years. It was one of the reasons why I finally
started working for myself.

Harold

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
snip------

The problem with relocating
within the US is the same issue that the government will shortly be
cranking up the inflation machine.

I've been thinking back to the early 70's, when we went through what was, as
I recall, the first oil crisis. Cost of everything went up pretty much in
keeping with the price of oil.

That thought should stop everyone's blood cold. We ain't seen nothin' yet.

Harold