On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:31:09 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 03:53:13 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
snip
And Id still like to have my Milwaukee 9" grinder back that he has.


Gunner


Hmmmm.

Shrug..I loaned it to him about 3 yrs ago.

I, like most other readers here probably, take him at his word that
the deal was that you were supposed to pick it up. Did you imagine
that you could unilaterally amend your contract with him as you've
done with so many of your creditors?

Still havent gotten it back.

He told you multiple times, in public, that you may pick it up at any
reasonable time. You could have driven there in the time you've wasted
whining about how difficult it is for you to stick to your word. Now I
suppose you think he should do you a favor for free despite your lame
attempts to smear him here. Classic deadbeat strategy.

If you want another favor from him, then you'll have to make a new
deal. You could check the shipping price, send him that plus $10 for
his trouble, and maybe he'll take pity on you again. Although I'd
prefer that you keep whining and smearing. Sure, it hasn't worked yet,
but there's always hope that doing the same pathetically stupid thing
over and over will someday magically achieve a different result, right
gummy?

Wayne

wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:31:09 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 03:53:13 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
snip
And Id still like to have my Milwaukee 9" grinder back that he has.


Gunner


Hmmmm.

Shrug..I loaned it to him about 3 yrs ago.

I, like most other readers here probably, take him at his word that
the deal was that you were supposed to pick it up. Did you imagine
that you could unilaterally amend your contract with him as you've
done with so many of your creditors?

Still havent gotten it back.

He told you multiple times, in public, that you may pick it up at any
reasonable time. You could have driven there in the time you've wasted
whining about how difficult it is for you to stick to your word. Now I
suppose you think he should do you a favor for free despite your lame
attempts to smear him here. Classic deadbeat strategy.

If you want another favor from him, then you'll have to make a new
deal. You could check the shipping price, send him that plus $10 for
his trouble, and maybe he'll take pity on you again. Although I'd
prefer that you keep whining and smearing. Sure, it hasn't worked yet,
but there's always hope that doing the same pathetically stupid thing
over and over will someday magically achieve a different result, right
gummy?



His grinder is right where he left it and I've no interest in wasting the
time it would take to crate it properly.
He can pick it up at his leisure and the only reason it is here at all is
that he left it so I could pay ONE OF MY GUYS to do a job I'd already more
than paid him in full , in advance and on his word that he'd finish up, to
do.

He also said he'd pick it up on one of his many trips through the area.
He'll either do that or I'll throw it out when I move next. I'm not spending
another
nickel on the toothless welfare queen.

He was using it to clean up a piece of junk that I bought from him.
Getting it going was part of the deal if I'd buy brushes for the traction
motor - the only thing he said he'd need.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. $500 dollars worth of parts later and the thing is still a
rusted out piece of useless crap.

As for his "prowess" as an electrical trouble shooter, I picked up a
complete service manual with all of the electrical diagrams and his "Fix"
for the failed components was to bypass the fuses - TO THE CHARGING
CIRCUIT - and baste everything in PB Blaster. There wasn't anything wrong
with the charging circuit. The batteries he had cobbled together were ****.
I picked up a set from Big Joe and, miracle of miracles, the relay's and
solenoids suddenly started working. It was pretty obvious at that point that
his real skill is bull ****ting. A ten year old could have made perfect
sense of the electrical drawings but not Gunner.

What he seemed to have a handle on was smoking my cigarettes and guzzling
energy drinks like a speed freak when he wasn't downing Mountain Dew or
beating his dog.

Frankly, I felt sorry for him so I stuck an extra couple hundred in cash in
his hands and bid him on his way. I needed my helper back to do what I pay
him for and it didn't look to me that Gunner would get his job done
regardless the time or money allowed.
At that point, he offered to leave his POS grinder so my guys could finish
his work. I said no, but he persisted and when he agreed to pick the thing
up on one of his trips through the area, I relented. I just wanted the guy
on his way before he turned my place into a Superfund site.

In the end, I called Big Joe and offered them the lift for nothing if
they'd pick it and the other piece of junk Gunner still hadn't come back to
remove the chain and lock from. That was a couple months ago. It just wasn't
worth screwing with and got the same amount of use in the end as Gunners
rusted out grinder.
Zero.

--
John R. Carroll

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:32:09 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

SNIP
My complaint is
that it doesn't for the vast majority of Americans even when they played
by the rules. When the bulk of the workers in a country have little to
show for it after years of full time work it seems to me that isn't a
system that I would be bragging about.

Hawke

What you are not taking into account is the action of the players in
the system.

I would wager that most of those 98% you speak of made bad choices
early in their lives. Bought new cars, big houses, electronics, etc.
that were beyond their means.

If you want an 18 to 24% return on your money, pay cash, buy used
cars, do without cable TV. No one NEEDS a three door refrigerator or a
$40,000 boat.

And my pet peeve, sending money to TV preachers when they have past
due bills. Grrr.

Don't get me wrong. If you can afford those things, then by all means
enjoy the fruit of your labors. But don't spend your last dollar
thinking that someone will take care of you.

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 03:57:42 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:
snip
Far too many people believe that low paying jobs should be
eliminated.
snip
Another example of micro-optimization.

Most of the people that advocate this are also among the loudest
complainers about high taxes and welfare queens, as well as the
breakdown in "law-n-order."

By eliminating the jobs for the less skilled/motivated, we are
simply creating a permanent under class (and liberal voting
block), and as Grandma observed, "Idle hands are the devil's
workshop." GOOD THINKING....




Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

You said it better than I could. Liberals like to feel that
everybody is trainable to do high-paying jobs but it just isn't so.
Many years ago, I had an old guy that swept the floors and moved
material around. He took great pride in how clean he kept the plant
and enjoyed doing it. He couldn't add and subtract or read and
write but had pride and satisfaction. The floors haven't been as
clean since he died. I can't afford to hire a replacement at
$15/hr. plus bennies. And, the union won't accept a lower pay.

That's really something Tom. Perhaps you shouldn't abuse your old
guys. It seems they die off on you.
When did minimum wage hit $15.00 per hour? Is that something unique
to Cleveland or is it a State thing?
LMAO
How many sides does your mouth have?
I've seen three so far. Are there more?


--
John R. Carroll



Is it that you can't read or that you can't comprehend? I'll use
smaller word for you next time. Dumbass!

Well, you said initially that a higher minimum wage made it impossible for
you to replace a minimum wage guy.
Then you said that you couldn't afford "$15/hr. plus bennies" so I was
wondering why you are either talking out of both sides of your mouth
again,
or think minimum wage is "$15/hr. plus bennies"?

There are literally thousands of minimum wage manufacturing jobs available
here in California Tom but they pay minimum wage, not "$15/hr. plus
bennies".

--
John R. Carroll



Ok, since you didn't attack me...this time...I'll play nice.

The union won't allow any wages less than contract minimum with a vacation
and sick-days tier, 12 paid holidays and medical coverage. I'm sorry I
wasn't clear.

wrote in message
...
On Apr 25, 1:32 pm, Hawke wrote:


That's one man's experience.

Want to know how it is for most people? When they retire after 40 years
of work or so about 98% can't get by without government benefits.
My complaint is
that it doesn't for the vast majority of Americans even when they played
by the rules. When the bulk of the workers in a country have little to
show for it after years of full time work it seems to me that isn't a
system that I would be bragging about.

Hawke

Actually it is the experience of most of the people that I know. Now
I have to admit most of the people that I know are reasonably
intelligent. And there are a lot of people that don't make out very
well.

But I would sure like to know where you get your statistics that 98%
can not get by without government benefits. It is hard to believe
that I am in the top 2%.

Dan

Me, too. We are talking about getting free stuff that we're "entitled" to,
even though we don't need it.

Steve

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 03:53:13 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
snip
And Id still like to have my Milwaukee 9" grinder back that he has.


Gunner


Hmmmm.

Shrug..I loaned it to him about 3 yrs ago.

Still havent gotten it back.

Gunner

I think after that long, I think it is considered a "contribution", even by
the IRS's logic.

Steve ;-)

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message

I don't think he cares. Tom's here for the excercise.

--
John R. Carroll



Civility is always breached by you first. I only respond in kind.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 00:46:18 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:
snip
Unions would rather shut down plants than show any weakness. Unions sure
are champions of the working class, aren't they?
snip
==========
Like so many human interatctions it all depends on the
people involved, their motives, past experience, and the
scale of things.

It is well to remember that unions exist to promote the
interests of their members, as they are the ones paying the
dues, which is a foreign concept for many people.

An objective reading of industrial history shows that union
"give-backs" and concessions almost always lead to
management demand of more "give-backs" and more concessions,
even as management bonuses, benefits, and salaries increase.

Try explaining why it is in the interest of the unions and
their members to allow employees to be hired and paid less
than scale. From their point of view, if a job is worth
doing [needed], it is worth paying scale wages.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:31:39 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 00:46:18 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:
snip
Unions would rather shut down plants than show any weakness. Unions sure
are champions of the working class, aren't they?
snip
==========
Like so many human interatctions it all depends on the
people involved, their motives, past experience, and the
scale of things.

It is well to remember that unions exist to promote the
interests of their members, as they are the ones paying the
dues, which is a foreign concept for many people.

An objective reading of industrial history shows that union
"give-backs" and concessions almost always lead to
management demand of more "give-backs" and more concessions,
even as management bonuses, benefits, and salaries increase.

Try explaining why it is in the interest of the unions and
their members to allow employees to be hired and paid less
than scale. From their point of view, if a job is worth
doing [needed], it is worth paying scale wages.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).


It also depends a great deal on the union itself..and if they are crime
family thugs who only care about the income they receive, or if they are
actually honest union leaders.

Ive seen a number of unions..owned by crime family thugs, completely
destroy a company that was actually doing ok, and had to fold.

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"Wes" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:20:11 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: and Wes clipped a bunch

Today, all of the equations have been changed. Technology was part of it,
but globalization was most of it. But the education idea was not just
about
better jobs. It was about a better life. The percentage of students going
to
college was going through the roof. The expected outcome was better
citizens
and happier people.

The GI Bill was one government social program I truely believe worked.
I believe it had a lot to do with college enrollment going though the
roof.



Capital would be under pressure except for truly entrepreneurial
opportunities; dividends would be reduced because more profit would
return to workers. The gap between returns on capital invested in
mature industries and the rates of return possible for new
enterprise would keep innovation well-funded and expansive.

I cannot see how this logically follows from anything you said.

I'm with Iggy on this one. It would seem to encourage automation.
Since I repair that stuff, good for me, and more education would even
be better for me.

Automation encourages itself. It's a compelling economic fact that can't be
stopped without violence. You can slow it down by paying people wages they
can't live on, and you can squeeze every turnip in sight to compete with
bowl-of-rice-a-day imports, but it's coming at you anyway. 'Always has,
always will.

Tawwwm's argument is one of the oldest, dumbest, and most self-serving in
all of manufacturing. Luddites come in several flavors, but their arguments
are always losers.


I've also noticed a trend to work people longer as in getting away
from the 40 hour work week. Health bennies and capital cost of
equipment means running Saturdays and Sundays during high demand
periods is the least expensive solution.

That's a good argument for universal health care. The fixed part of labor
costs is a blight upon any economy. When almost all of the costs are
variable, you have maximum labor flexibility. And it can benefit both labor
and ownership, if handled thoughtfully.


Labor laws would wind up reducing mean dividends. The only opportunities
for
breakthrough profits would be with innovative products and services that
caught fire.


It was a vision that was similar to European social democracy. It
went to hell in the US for a variety of reasons, and globalization
has given capital the upper hand, basically undercutting the social
democracy model in the US. (It remains effective in Germany,
however, which beats our pants off to this day in balance of trade.)

I cannot make any meaningful comments about Germany.

It's the most successful social democracy in the world.

For how long? Sounds like they have an exploding debt problem also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt
USA 55.9% of GNP
Germany 77.2% of GNP

They do. Now you can see why the arguments against debt are stupid, too.
Debt is a burden on growth, but debt used well stimulates more growth than
it burdens.

There are intelligent arguments against excessive debt. You just won't hear
them from conservative pundits.




So now we're basically stranded with a neoliberal model that's just
taken it in the shorts. Also known as the Washington Consensus, it's
in ill repute around the world. Several European countries are
taking a fresh look at Germany's flavor of social democracy, which
is going to cause a lot of turmoil in international trade and
finance if major trading countries adopt conflicting models.


I do not think that the remedies that you outlined, would do us any
good and therefore I disagree with the above paragraph.

i

The above paragraph is not something you can agree with or not. It's
something that you either know or not -- straight facts, well documented.
It's in the economics literature. If you have a university account or
other
account that lets you get to the professional econ journals, you'll find
it.
You may also find it in the policy journals.

The exception is the idea that it's going to cause trade conflicts. That's
my conclusion, and I've been working on trade issues for the past five
months or so. I see trade conflicts ahead.

Hmm. There was a brief article by a Germany expert in Harper's a few
months
ago. It's pretty light but you'll see the general idea, without the
numbers.
This may or may not be behind a pay firewall -- I'm a subscriber, but it
seems to be accessible without logging in. Give it a try:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/03/0082859

It is behind a paywall. What I could read indicated that Germany has
a excellent ballance on exports. I can believe it. Many of the
sensors and positioners we use at work are made in Germany. I'm glad
to see it isn't China but would rather see USA content for many
reasons including JIT replacement.

The weakness in Germany's economy is likely to come from an excessive
mercantilism, in which they try to buy their way out of trouble with a
strong balance of trade. This is something that doesn't often work well for
very advanced economies, like theirs. They do have a healthy trade balance,
but a negative one isn't necessarily unhealthy. And bending normal market
forces to effect a better trade balance can do more harm than good.

The strength of Germany's economy is the more interesting part, and the
article points out that it's the relative power of labor and ownership
that's very different from out economy. There are deeper analyses around
than that brief article. The telling point is that getting labor involved in
decision-making at the highest levels hasn't seem to hurt their
international competitiveness. It appears to have strengthened it, in fact,
but I'm not knowledgable enough about Germany's economy to draw any
conclusions -- except that labor involvement obviously has not held them
back.

BTW, I think that John found a link to that article that isn't behind a
paywall. If you can't get it and really want it, I'll download it and e-mail
it to you.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Apr 24, 1:07 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:




I don't believe that they even have the effect of "cutting the bottom
out of the labor market" as you say, because so few actually work for

Pete, if the people making minimum wage are "very few," how could an
increase in the minimum wage trigger inflation?


Easy. The wages of people like backhoe operators is determined by the
wage of a laborer. A backhoe with a frontloader can do as much work
per hour as about seven or eight laborers. And therefore a backhoe
costs about 7 or 8 times as much per hour as a laborer costs.

That may be true (I didn't check), but the numbers don't work in terms of
influencing inflation, Dan. Total construction costs run around 8% of our
economy. Total excavation costs run from 7% (new residential) to 40%
(shopping centers) of that. A typical minimum wage increase is on the order
of 8% - 10%.

So, if you included all excavation in your theory about backhoe operators,
you have something like 1.5% of the US economy. An increase of 10% of the
minimum wage would add maybe 0.15% to inflation, by that means, at the
most -- assuming your theory is correct, of which I'm skeptical.

You don't have enough there to have any measureable influence on the
economy. It's lost in the low-level noise. Next theory? g


We could look at the numbers and show that there is a correlation between
minimum wage and inflation, but you'd see that, at least since 1968, wage
increases have LAGGED inflation by a substantial amount. And, again, the
monetary effects of increasing minimum wage are so low that they
disappear
into the noise.


There is not a lot of correlation because a lot of that time, one
could not hire anyone at the minimum wage.

If you can't hire someone at minimum wage, then the minimum wage has NO
possible effect on inflation.

Next theory? g

It was certainly true in
the Seattle area when I was there. I do not know what the minumum
wage was at the time, but you couldn't hire a high school kid for less
than $10/ hr. And an adult cost a few dollars more.

So what the minimum wage really did was to jack up the labor costs of
the states which had low wages. But did not affect the wages of the
states with high labor costs.

Then what is the net inflationary effect of a 10% increase in the minimum
wage? Not knowing how you're separating states with high versus low labor
costs, we could split the difference, and say that it maybe had a 0.075%
effect.

But I doubt that very much.

Question for you, Ed. How much per hour does one have to pay for yard
work in your area? Mowing grass, raking leaves, trimming hedges?

I have no idea. I don't speak Spanish well enough to ask, and I do all of my
own yard work. d8-)

And
what is the minumum wage?

$7.25. We're one of the low ones.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I cannot see how this logically follows from anything you said.

I'm with Iggy on this one. It would seem to encourage automation.
Since I repair that stuff, good for me, and more education would even
be better for me.

Automation encourages itself. It's a compelling economic fact that can't be
stopped without violence. You can slow it down by paying people wages they
can't live on, and you can squeeze every turnip in sight to compete with
bowl-of-rice-a-day imports, but it's coming at you anyway. 'Always has,
always will.

Tawwwm's argument is one of the oldest, dumbest, and most self-serving in
all of manufacturing. Luddites come in several flavors, but their arguments
are always losers.


I've also noticed a trend to work people longer as in getting away
from the 40 hour work week. Health bennies and capital cost of
equipment means running Saturdays and Sundays during high demand
periods is the least expensive solution.

That's a good argument for universal health care. The fixed part of labor
costs is a blight upon any economy. When almost all of the costs are
variable, you have maximum labor flexibility. And it can benefit both labor
and ownership, if handled thoughtfully.

I'm not a big fan of UHC, NHS but, I can see how the EIC and Medicaid blur things. Some
talk about corporate welfare but our social support systems also allow someone running a
party store to expoit workers and taxpayers.

Jobs worth doing should pay enough to allow a good worker to support themselves. That
includes heathcare. The health care bit is a tough nut, in some cases health care costs
more than wages.

There are real distortions in our economic system. We as a nation need to decide what a
basic unit of work is worth.

Working 8 hours at a party store, requiring a kickback from the EIC and being on Medicare
means that the owner of the party store is getting welfare that you and I am paying.
Better the employee gets a wage that will sustain them and the business operate on honest
terms.

Our costs at the check out counter will go up but a fair equation is the right path.

I know I'm rambling but I'm a bit low on sleep.



Labor laws would wind up reducing mean dividends. The only opportunities
for
breakthrough profits would be with innovative products and services that
caught fire.


It was a vision that was similar to European social democracy. It
went to hell in the US for a variety of reasons, and globalization
has given capital the upper hand, basically undercutting the social
democracy model in the US. (It remains effective in Germany,
however, which beats our pants off to this day in balance of trade.)

I cannot make any meaningful comments about Germany.

It's the most successful social democracy in the world.

For how long? Sounds like they have an exploding debt problem also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt
USA 55.9% of GNP
Germany 77.2% of GNP

They do. Now you can see why the arguments against debt are stupid, too.
Debt is a burden on growth, but debt used well stimulates more growth than
it burdens.

There are intelligent arguments against excessive debt. You just won't hear
them from conservative pundits.

Okay, where are those excellent arguments?





So now we're basically stranded with a neoliberal model that's just
taken it in the shorts. Also known as the Washington Consensus, it's
in ill repute around the world. Several European countries are
taking a fresh look at Germany's flavor of social democracy, which
is going to cause a lot of turmoil in international trade and
finance if major trading countries adopt conflicting models.


I do not think that the remedies that you outlined, would do us any
good and therefore I disagree with the above paragraph.

i

The above paragraph is not something you can agree with or not. It's
something that you either know or not -- straight facts, well documented.
It's in the economics literature. If you have a university account or
other
account that lets you get to the professional econ journals, you'll find
it.
You may also find it in the policy journals.

The exception is the idea that it's going to cause trade conflicts. That's
my conclusion, and I've been working on trade issues for the past five
months or so. I see trade conflicts ahead.

Hmm. There was a brief article by a Germany expert in Harper's a few
months
ago. It's pretty light but you'll see the general idea, without the
numbers.
This may or may not be behind a pay firewall -- I'm a subscriber, but it
seems to be accessible without logging in. Give it a try:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/03/0082859

It is behind a paywall. What I could read indicated that Germany has
a excellent ballance on exports. I can believe it. Many of the
sensors and positioners we use at work are made in Germany. I'm glad
to see it isn't China but would rather see USA content for many
reasons including JIT replacement.

The weakness in Germany's economy is likely to come from an excessive
mercantilism, in which they try to buy their way out of trouble with a
strong balance of trade. This is something that doesn't often work well for
very advanced economies, like theirs. They do have a healthy trade balance,
but a negative one isn't necessarily unhealthy. And bending normal market
forces to effect a better trade balance can do more harm than good.

The strength of Germany's economy is the more interesting part, and the
article points out that it's the relative power of labor and ownership
that's very different from out economy. There are deeper analyses around
than that brief article. The telling point is that getting labor involved in
decision-making at the highest levels hasn't seem to hurt their
international competitiveness. It appears to have strengthened it, in fact,
but I'm not knowledgable enough about Germany's economy to draw any
conclusions -- except that labor involvement obviously has not held them
back.

BTW, I think that John found a link to that article that isn't behind a
paywall. If you can't get it and really want it, I'll download it and e-mail
it to you.

Please do. I'm interested.


Wes

On Apr 26, 5:10*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

That may be true (I didn't check), but the *numbers don't work in terms of
influencing inflation, Dan. Total construction costs run around 8% of our
economy. Total excavation costs run from 7% (new residential) to 40%
(shopping centers) of that. A typical minimum wage increase is on the order
of 8% - 10%.

So, if you included all excavation in your theory about backhoe operators,
you have something like 1.5% of the US economy. An increase of 10% of the
minimum wage would add maybe 0.15% to inflation, by that means, at the
most -- assuming your theory is correct, of which I'm skeptical.

You don't have enough there to have any measureable influence on the
economy. It's lost in the low-level noise. Next theory? g



Geez, I am not trying to say that excavation has anything to do with
the discussion. Just pointing out that raising the minimum wage
affects how valuable labor saving devices are. Those that benefit
most from raising the minimum wage are those that make higher wages
building equipment that can eliminate minimum wage jobs. Backhoes are
just an example.




There is not a lot of correlation because a lot of that time, one
could not hire anyone at the minimum wage.

If you can't hire someone at minimum wage, then the minimum wage has NO
possible effect on inflation.

Next theory? g


That is what I am saying. You will not find any correlation between
minimum wage and inflation during any time that the minimum wage is
below the level of pay for unskilled labor. So all your statements
about minimum wages correlating with inflation or not correlating with
inflation depend on what the current market wages are. If the minimum
wage were to be raised say to $1000 per hour, it certainly would
affect the inflation rate. If the minimum wage is below the market
level for unskilled labor, it will have no affect.

Dan



Ed Huntress

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 03:05:37 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

The assumptions were that the work week would be shortened to four days;
eventually less. More people would be required to fill a certain number
of man-hours of work.

I read somewhere that in France it is illegal to work overtime, and
people who do are fined. The French reasoning is that overtime means
that someone does extra work, and as a result the state will have to
pay unemployment benefits to other people who didn't get the job.

If true it's a weird system, but at least it's internally consistent.
It reminds me of the movie 'Brazil', describing a future dystopia in
which labor is a precious resource that people have to 'steal'.

"Przemek Klosowski" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 03:05:37 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

The assumptions were that the work week would be shortened to four days;
eventually less. More people would be required to fill a certain number
of man-hours of work.

I read somewhere that in France it is illegal to work overtime, and
people who do are fined. The French reasoning is that overtime means
that someone does extra work, and as a result the state will have to
pay unemployment benefits to other people who didn't get the job.

If true it's a weird system, but at least it's internally consistent.
It reminds me of the movie 'Brazil', describing a future dystopia in
which labor is a precious resource that people have to 'steal'.

It sounded pretty reasonable back in the '60s, even though it was never
favored by many in the US. For what little it's worth, my own opinion is
that it's too utopian/ideological to be successful for very long.

But at least they addressed an issue that most of us either ignored or
daydreamed our way around. Welcome to reality running up against our
daydreams.

Employment can level off at several different equilibrium states, and
government labor policy is one thing that can set the equilibrium. But
economic facts and economic history can crush any good ideological idea.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 5:10 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

That may be true (I didn't check), but the numbers don't work in terms of
influencing inflation, Dan. Total construction costs run around 8% of our
economy. Total excavation costs run from 7% (new residential) to 40%
(shopping centers) of that. A typical minimum wage increase is on the
order
of 8% - 10%.

So, if you included all excavation in your theory about backhoe operators,
you have something like 1.5% of the US economy. An increase of 10% of the
minimum wage would add maybe 0.15% to inflation, by that means, at the
most -- assuming your theory is correct, of which I'm skeptical.

You don't have enough there to have any measureable influence on the
economy. It's lost in the low-level noise. Next theory? g



Geez, I am not trying to say that excavation has anything to do with
the discussion.

Oh. The backhoes threw me. d8-)

Just pointing out that raising the minimum wage
affects how valuable labor saving devices are. Those that benefit
most from raising the minimum wage are those that make higher wages
building equipment that can eliminate minimum wage jobs. Backhoes are
just an example.

Interesting thoughts, but I'm sure you realize that the economic effects of
minimum wages have been debated and researched for years. There must be a
library full of expert arguments on the subject.

I can't draw any conclusions except that it's still a "on the one hand, but
on the other hand" kind of argument. It appears that a lot of people making
minimum wage are not entry-level workers, but rather poorly qualified
workers who are stuck there -- especially since unions and seniority
agreements have gotten weaker.

It's a tough one.



There is not a lot of correlation because a lot of that time, one
could not hire anyone at the minimum wage.

If you can't hire someone at minimum wage, then the minimum wage has NO
possible effect on inflation.

Next theory? g


That is what I am saying. You will not find any correlation between
minimum wage and inflation during any time that the minimum wage is
below the level of pay for unskilled labor.

Right.

So all your statements
about minimum wages correlating with inflation or not correlating with
inflation depend on what the current market wages are.

Well, that's probably true. All I was saying is that minimum wage increases
do not lead inflation rates. It's usually the other way around, although
inflation keeps marching despite minimum wage levels. It's just that there
doesn't appear to be a causative relationship.

If the minimum
wage were to be raised say to $1000 per hour, it certainly would
affect the inflation rate. If the minimum wage is below the market
level for unskilled labor, it will have no affect.

All right. But economic effects of small policy changes, like raising the
minimum wage by 8% or 10%, generally are weak, either way.

You can find anecdotal examples to support one side or the other. But
correlating it with inflation or employment generally doesn't work. The
numbers just don't provide clear support.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I cannot see how this logically follows from anything you said.

I'm with Iggy on this one. It would seem to encourage automation.
Since I repair that stuff, good for me, and more education would even
be better for me.

Automation encourages itself. It's a compelling economic fact that can't
be
stopped without violence. You can slow it down by paying people wages they
can't live on, and you can squeeze every turnip in sight to compete with
bowl-of-rice-a-day imports, but it's coming at you anyway. 'Always has,
always will.

Tawwwm's argument is one of the oldest, dumbest, and most self-serving in
all of manufacturing. Luddites come in several flavors, but their
arguments
are always losers.


I've also noticed a trend to work people longer as in getting away
from the 40 hour work week. Health bennies and capital cost of
equipment means running Saturdays and Sundays during high demand
periods is the least expensive solution.

That's a good argument for universal health care. The fixed part of labor
costs is a blight upon any economy. When almost all of the costs are
variable, you have maximum labor flexibility. And it can benefit both
labor
and ownership, if handled thoughtfully.

I'm not a big fan of UHC, NHS but, I can see how the EIC and Medicaid blur
things. Some
talk about corporate welfare but our social support systems also allow
someone running a
party store to expoit workers and taxpayers.

Jobs worth doing should pay enough to allow a good worker to support
themselves. That
includes heathcare. The health care bit is a tough nut, in some cases
health care costs
more than wages.

There are real distortions in our economic system. We as a nation need to
decide what a
basic unit of work is worth.

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest follows.
Economic systems are not natural things. They're determined by human
decisions, with all of the human failings involved.


Working 8 hours at a party store, requiring a kickback from the EIC and
being on Medicare
means that the owner of the party store is getting welfare that you and I
am paying.
Better the employee gets a wage that will sustain them and the business
operate on honest
terms.

Maybe. Then the corollary is that the party store may now be out of
business -- which means that party stores are not viable in the marketplace,
or that we have to pay more for party goods.

In the big picture, this is a key issue. My guess is that, in a truly free
market, anyone making under $40,000 today is going to have a relatively
short lifespan. That would be the new equilibrium. Free markets set social
equilibria that few normal humans today would tolerate: Social Darwinism in
its fullest glory.

Here's a historical example: Look into the lifespan of an iron puddler in
the mid-19th century. They were paid twice as much as other ironworkers but
they seldom lived beyond 45 years. They typically were crippled by age 40.
It's an interesting story. (No, I can't direct you to a URL. I read about it
when I was doing historical research at _AM_.) It's Strabo's idea of utopia.
To me, it's a hell for people who have the human being inside of them beaten
senseless.

Markets are engines, not religions. Remove the throttle and bad things
happen. We just threw two or three rods over the past couple of years. g


Our costs at the check out counter will go up but a fair equation is the
right path.

I know I'm rambling but I'm a bit low on sleep.

You're doing Ok. Playing with theories is good for helping you sleep. d8-)




Labor laws would wind up reducing mean dividends. The only opportunities
for
breakthrough profits would be with innovative products and services that
caught fire.


It was a vision that was similar to European social democracy. It
went to hell in the US for a variety of reasons, and globalization
has given capital the upper hand, basically undercutting the social
democracy model in the US. (It remains effective in Germany,
however, which beats our pants off to this day in balance of trade.)

I cannot make any meaningful comments about Germany.

It's the most successful social democracy in the world.

For how long? Sounds like they have an exploding debt problem also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt
USA 55.9% of GNP
Germany 77.2% of GNP

They do. Now you can see why the arguments against debt are stupid, too.
Debt is a burden on growth, but debt used well stimulates more growth than
it burdens.

There are intelligent arguments against excessive debt. You just won't
hear
them from conservative pundits.

Okay, where are those excellent arguments?

This is turgid, leaden, and sleep-inducing, but it's one good
(conservative's) view of the current economic orthodoxy on debt. The
arguments include something called "burden of transfer," but it doesn't get
into ratios of growth to debt service, which is the basis of the most
cautious arguments in *favor* of govenment debt.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bucha...hCv2c2.html#Ch. 2, The New
Orthodoxy

It's worth reading. Then you can get into the full-blown conservative
anti-debt position by looking at Buchanan's numerous other arguments. Keep
in mind this is a learned *conservative* talking about it:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Buchanan/buchCv2.html

If I find something that summarizes the arguments in readable terms, I'll
post it. I don't have time to go looking now. But Buchanan, though biased
toward the conservative view, is a good economic historian.

Meantime, all economists seem to have taken a shot at describing the
cautions concerning excessive debt. Most also will explain that it ain't
what it appears to be -- governments are not households, and debt can be
very constructive for an economy, if it's handled well.






So now we're basically stranded with a neoliberal model that's just
taken it in the shorts. Also known as the Washington Consensus, it's
in ill repute around the world. Several European countries are
taking a fresh look at Germany's flavor of social democracy, which
is going to cause a lot of turmoil in international trade and
finance if major trading countries adopt conflicting models.


I do not think that the remedies that you outlined, would do us any
good and therefore I disagree with the above paragraph.

i

The above paragraph is not something you can agree with or not. It's
something that you either know or not -- straight facts, well
documented.
It's in the economics literature. If you have a university account or
other
account that lets you get to the professional econ journals, you'll find
it.
You may also find it in the policy journals.

The exception is the idea that it's going to cause trade conflicts.
That's
my conclusion, and I've been working on trade issues for the past five
months or so. I see trade conflicts ahead.

Hmm. There was a brief article by a Germany expert in Harper's a few
months
ago. It's pretty light but you'll see the general idea, without the
numbers.
This may or may not be behind a pay firewall -- I'm a subscriber, but it
seems to be accessible without logging in. Give it a try:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/03/0082859

It is behind a paywall. What I could read indicated that Germany has
a excellent ballance on exports. I can believe it. Many of the
sensors and positioners we use at work are made in Germany. I'm glad
to see it isn't China but would rather see USA content for many
reasons including JIT replacement.

The weakness in Germany's economy is likely to come from an excessive
mercantilism, in which they try to buy their way out of trouble with a
strong balance of trade. This is something that doesn't often work well
for
very advanced economies, like theirs. They do have a healthy trade
balance,
but a negative one isn't necessarily unhealthy. And bending normal market
forces to effect a better trade balance can do more harm than good.

The strength of Germany's economy is the more interesting part, and the
article points out that it's the relative power of labor and ownership
that's very different from out economy. There are deeper analyses around
than that brief article. The telling point is that getting labor involved
in
decision-making at the highest levels hasn't seem to hurt their
international competitiveness. It appears to have strengthened it, in
fact,
but I'm not knowledgable enough about Germany's economy to draw any
conclusions -- except that labor involvement obviously has not held them
back.

BTW, I think that John found a link to that article that isn't behind a
paywall. If you can't get it and really want it, I'll download it and
e-mail
it to you.

Please do. I'm interested.

Sent.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest follows.
Economic systems are not natural things. They're determined by human
decisions, with all of the human failings involved.
--

Interesting place to start...

I think mine is worth a lot more than other's may think it is.

How do we resolve that?




Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest
follows. Economic systems are not natural things. They're determined by
human decisions, with all of the human failings involved.
--

Interesting place to start...

I think mine is worth a lot more than other's may think it is.

How do we resolve that?

We adjust your thinking to realize that yours is worth just as much as
anyone else's. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest
follows.

It's worth the cost of taking it.

Mine'll be bloody expensive and, I'd imagine, so would yours be.

A lot of others are very cheap.

"RAM³" wrote in message
0...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest
follows.

It's worth the cost of taking it.

Mine'll be bloody expensive and, I'd imagine, so would yours be.

A lot of others are very cheap.

If you're referring to how we go out, I'm planning on the cheapest route
possible: Incineration, with an empty coffee can for an urn. Then my family
is to throw one hell of a party with the savings. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RAM³" wrote in message
0...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest
follows.

It's worth the cost of taking it.

Mine'll be bloody expensive and, I'd imagine, so would yours be.

A lot of others are very cheap.

If you're referring to how we go out, I'm planning on the cheapest route
possible: Incineration, with an empty coffee can for an urn. Then my
family is to throw one hell of a party with the savings. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I have made plans to go to medical school upon my demise so others can
learn from my mistakes.

Best Regards
Tom.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest
follows. Economic systems are not natural things. They're determined by
human decisions, with all of the human failings involved.
--
Interesting place to start...

I think mine is worth a lot more than other's may think it is.

How do we resolve that?

We adjust your thinking to realize that yours is worth just as much as
anyone else's. d8-)


Nice try!

But no.

I'm more attached to mine than I am to yours.


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

Ed Huntress wrote:
"RAM³" wrote in message
0...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest
follows.
It's worth the cost of taking it.

Mine'll be bloody expensive and, I'd imagine, so would yours be.

A lot of others are very cheap.

If you're referring to how we go out, I'm planning on the cheapest route
possible: Incineration, with an empty coffee can for an urn. Then my family
is to throw one hell of a party with the savings. d8-)


Your idea of "going out" seems kind of "after the fact".



--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

"azotic" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RAM³" wrote in message
0...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest
follows.

It's worth the cost of taking it.

Mine'll be bloody expensive and, I'd imagine, so would yours be.

A lot of others are very cheap.

If you're referring to how we go out, I'm planning on the cheapest route
possible: Incineration, with an empty coffee can for an urn. Then my
family is to throw one hell of a party with the savings. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I have made plans to go to medical school upon my demise so others can
learn from my mistakes.

Best Regards
Tom.

Good thinking! I offered my corpse to medical science, but they just
laughed.

--
Ed Huntress

"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RAM³" wrote in message
0...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest
follows.
It's worth the cost of taking it.

Mine'll be bloody expensive and, I'd imagine, so would yours be.

A lot of others are very cheap.

If you're referring to how we go out, I'm planning on the cheapest route
possible: Incineration, with an empty coffee can for an urn. Then my
family is to throw one hell of a party with the savings. d8-)


Your idea of "going out" seems kind of "after the fact".

I could have said "how we're disposed of," but that sounds like something
you do with old apple cores.

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/27/2010 5:56 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
news

(...)

Your idea of "going out" seems kind of "after the fact".

I could have said "how we're disposed of," but that sounds like something
you do with old apple cores.

Besides, we get thrown away *long* before then.

:|

--Winston


--

Harley was venal, arrogant, despicable and a psychologist.
He was the second most redundant man I ever talked to.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:56:27 -0700, the infamous "azotic"
scrawled the following:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RAM³" wrote in message
0...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest
follows.

It's worth the cost of taking it.

Mine'll be bloody expensive and, I'd imagine, so would yours be.

A lot of others are very cheap.

If you're referring to how we go out, I'm planning on the cheapest route
possible: Incineration, with an empty coffee can for an urn. Then my
family is to throw one hell of a party with the savings. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I have made plans to go to medical school upon my demise so others can
learn from my mistakes.

When I die, I'm donating my body to Science Fiction, not Med School.

--
Losing faith in humanity, one person at a time.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:56:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RAM³" wrote in message
0...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest
follows.
It's worth the cost of taking it.

Mine'll be bloody expensive and, I'd imagine, so would yours be.

A lot of others are very cheap.

If you're referring to how we go out, I'm planning on the cheapest route
possible: Incineration, with an empty coffee can for an urn. Then my
family is to throw one hell of a party with the savings. d8-)


Your idea of "going out" seems kind of "after the fact".

I could have said "how we're disposed of," but that sounds like something
you do with old apple cores.


I have a much younger brother in law that works in a dog/cat food factory :-)


Mark Rand
RTFM

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:56:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


"cavelamb" wrote in message
newsbydnbsQftyiA0vWnZ2dnUVZ_s4AAAAA@earthlink. com...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RAM³" wrote in message
0...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest
follows.
It's worth the cost of taking it.

Mine'll be bloody expensive and, I'd imagine, so would yours be.

A lot of others are very cheap.

If you're referring to how we go out, I'm planning on the cheapest
route
possible: Incineration, with an empty coffee can for an urn. Then my
family is to throw one hell of a party with the savings. d8-)


Your idea of "going out" seems kind of "after the fact".

I could have said "how we're disposed of," but that sounds like something
you do with old apple cores.


I have a much younger brother in law that works in a dog/cat food factory
:-)

Sorry. I don't want to be accused of poisoning dogs.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:26:56 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
snip
It also depends a great deal on the union itself..and if they are crime
family thugs who only care about the income they receive, or if they are
actually honest union leaders.

Ive seen a number of unions..owned by crime family thugs, completely
destroy a company that was actually doing ok, and had to fold.

Gunner
snip
You are indeed correct, however the problem is not "the
union" per se, but rather racketeering that uses "the union"
as a tool. Other examples are the control and use of vital
suppliers to extort such as trash removal and linen.

Even when a union is broken as in the case of the Teamsters,
industry problems continue and in many cases get worse. The
current state of the trucking industry is an illustration.

It is of interest to note that when individual businesses
are destroyed by racketeering unions, the media and
politicians are incensed, and corrective legislation such as
RICO is quickly enacted and enforced, but when racketeering
banks and other financial institutions destroy entire
sectors of the economy and devastate entire cities and
states (and even entire countries, e.g. PIIGS), little is
said and less is done.

Pass the Kool-aid.....


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On 4/25/2010 1:42 PM, wrote:
On Apr 25, 1:32 pm, wrote:


That's one man's experience.

Want to know how it is for most people? When they retire after 40 years
of work or so about 98% can't get by without government benefits.
My complaint is
that it doesn't for the vast majority of Americans even when they played
by the rules. When the bulk of the workers in a country have little to
show for it after years of full time work it seems to me that isn't a
system that I would be bragging about.

Hawke

Actually it is the experience of most of the people that I know. Now
I have to admit most of the people that I know are reasonably
intelligent. And there are a lot of people that don't make out very
well.

But I would sure like to know where you get your statistics that 98%
can not get by without government benefits. It is hard to believe
that I am in the top 2%.

Dan



If you can live well in retirement without the help of government
programs like Social Security and Medicare then you are part of only 2%
of the people who can. Take away the social programs from retirees and
they have virtually nothing. Most people in this country have little to
show for their work life but a home. If they lack that then they really
have nothing. Most people don't throw away their earnings on frivolous
things, they spend it on life's necessities. With wages as low as they
are most people save nothing. It's a real shock for most people to find
out how little most people have after working a lifetime. Just check on
the number of people who leave estates worth over a million dollars.
It's really low. If you don't have even a million dollars in your
portfolio then how can you expect to live very well? That's why I think
like I do. I know the facts. Most Americans work their whole lives and
have jack **** when they die. And here everybody thought you would get
ahead if you just worked hard. But nope, it only works that way for the
lucky ones. Welcome to reality.

Hawke

On Apr 27, 12:59*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Mark Rand" wrote in message

...





On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:56:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

"cavelamb" wrote in message
newsbydnbsQftyiA0vWnZ2dnUVZ_s4AAAAA@earthlink. com...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RAM³" wrote in message
31.10...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. *The rest
follows.
It's worth the cost of taking it.

Mine'll be bloody expensive and, I'd imagine, so would yours be.

A lot of others are very cheap.

If you're referring to how we go out, I'm planning on the cheapest
route
possible: Incineration, with an empty coffee can for an urn. Then my
family is to throw one hell of a party with the savings. d8-)

Your idea of "going out" seems kind of "after the fact".

I could have said "how we're disposed of," but that sounds like something
you do with old apple cores.

I have a much younger brother in law that works in a dog/cat food factory
:-)

Sorry. I don't want to be accused of poisoning dogs.

--
Ed Huntress

The instructions here are to lean my carcass against a tree on garbage
day, perhaps with a $20 bill stuck in my mouth to bribe the trash
collectors.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Apr 27, 12:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Mark Rand" wrote in message

...





On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:56:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

"cavelamb" wrote in message
newsbydnbsQftyiA0vWnZ2dnUVZ_s4AAAAA@earthlink. com...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RAM³" wrote in message
31.10...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

First we need to decide what a basic human life is worth. The rest
follows.
It's worth the cost of taking it.

Mine'll be bloody expensive and, I'd imagine, so would yours be.

A lot of others are very cheap.

If you're referring to how we go out, I'm planning on the cheapest
route
possible: Incineration, with an empty coffee can for an urn. Then my
family is to throw one hell of a party with the savings. d8-)

Your idea of "going out" seems kind of "after the fact".

I could have said "how we're disposed of," but that sounds like
something
you do with old apple cores.

I have a much younger brother in law that works in a dog/cat food
factory
:-)

Sorry. I don't want to be accused of poisoning dogs.

--
Ed Huntress

The instructions here are to lean my carcass against a tree on garbage
day, perhaps with a $20 bill stuck in my mouth to bribe the trash
collectors.

Oh, man, you have no respect for the dead at all. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:06:02 -0700, Hawke
wrote:
snip
Most people don't throw away their earnings on frivolous
things, they spend it on life's necessities. With wages as low as they
are most people save nothing. It's a real shock for most people to find
out how little most people have after working a lifetime. Just check on
the number of people who leave estates worth over a million dollars.
It's really low. If you don't have even a million dollars in your
portfolio then how can you expect to live very well?
snip

This appears to be a world-wide problem.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...etirement.html
Remember that the UK has universal health care [NHS] so
medical costs are not an issue.

While the amount of capital accumulation required for a
secure retirement is indeed at least a million dollars U.S.
[or local equivalent], what never seems to be mentioned is
*HOW* such a huge sum is to be accumulated. When median
income is assumed, this "retirement fund" represents 50% or
more of an individuals gross pay, and considerable more than
that when compared to net disposable income. Falling real
wages/benefits, rising inflation and taxes, excessively low
interest rates, minimal dividend payments, and pension fund
fraud are yet more adverse factors.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On 4/27/2010 8:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Good thinking! I offered my corpse to medical science, but they just
laughed.


They will take it, but only if you deliver (really).

Kevin Gallimore

"axolotl" wrote in message
...
On 4/27/2010 8:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Good thinking! I offered my corpse to medical science, but they just
laughed.


They will take it, but only if you deliver (really).

Kevin Gallimore

You mean, I have to walk in and die on the spot? Or can I arrange for a
U-Haul ahead of time?

They said the only use they'd have for me is as a cautionary tale.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2010-04-27, F George McDuffee wrote:

While the amount of capital accumulation required for a secure
retirement is indeed at least a million dollars U.S. [or local
equivalent], what never seems to be mentioned is *HOW* such a huge
sum is to be accumulated. When median income is assumed, this
"retirement fund" represents 50% or more of an individuals gross
pay, and considerable more than that when compared to net disposable
income. Falling real wages/benefits, rising inflation and taxes,
excessively low interest rates, minimal dividend payments, and
pension fund fraud are yet more adverse factors.

I know a number of people who live on SSI in Section 8 apartments.

They are doing just fine.

i

On 4/27/2010 7:00 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 4/27/2010 8:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Good thinking! I offered my corpse to medical science, but they just
laughed.


They will take it, but only if you deliver (really).

Kevin Gallimore

You mean, I have to walk in and die on the spot? Or can I arrange for a
U-Haul ahead of time?

You have to get someone to sign papers stating they will pay the
transportation costs. Ex Post Facto,(are my declensions right?)they get
a bill.

Think of it as providing entertainment for the medical students. Perhaps
I could get someone to put a frog in my mouth before UMD takes delivery.

Kevin Gallimore

"axolotl" wrote in message
...
On 4/27/2010 7:00 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 4/27/2010 8:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Good thinking! I offered my corpse to medical science, but they just
laughed.


They will take it, but only if you deliver (really).

Kevin Gallimore

You mean, I have to walk in and die on the spot? Or can I arrange for a
U-Haul ahead of time?

You have to get someone to sign papers stating they will pay the
transportation costs. Ex Post Facto,(are my declensions right?)they get a
bill.

Think of it as providing entertainment for the medical students. Perhaps I
could get someone to put a frog in my mouth before UMD takes delivery.

Kevin Gallimore

Well, I don't know how useful these tips are, but it's good to see how many
people have a sense of humor about kicking the bucket. g

When I was young -- in my teens -- I wanted to be stuffed and mounted,
sitting on top of my headstone. Then I realized that would be a terrible
waste of resources, and it wouldn't last very long.

--
Ed Huntress