On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 04:23:46 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 1:45:49 AM UTC-4, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Leon" wrote:

So how do you get the salt to the hand scoop?
-------------------------------------------------------------
A 2 wheeler will get the job done.

Lew

So how do you get the salt to the 2 wheeler?

With a scoop, of course!

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:11:00 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/17/2015 7:23 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 1:45:49 AM UTC-4, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Leon" wrote:

So how do you get the salt to the hand scoop?
-------------------------------------------------------------
A 2 wheeler will get the job done.

Lew

So how do you get the salt to the 2 wheeler?


You get the guy at the store to load it in your car, then you scoop it
out.

In the case of the dog food, train the dog to eat in the back of the
pickup until it gets down to a manageable weight.

Geeze - haven't any of you guys figured out how to get the wife to hump the
heavy stuff out of the truck and into the house/basement? Looks like we
might need some remedial training sessions here...

My doc told her last December that I couldn't lift more than 10lbs so
she was taking out the garbage, etc. She'd get mad at me if I did
pretty much anything. I kept telling her that he meant for the next
month, or maybe two, but she didn't believe me, so... ;-)

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:10:45 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 11:55 PM, Leon wrote:
On 4/16/2015 12:31 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
John McCoy wrote:

I suspect that's part of the reason my local HD replaced an
aisle of hinges, latches, and similar hardware with motor
oil and windshield wipers. Bigger packages, thus less labor
to keep stocked. (that, and random addle-headed thinking by
management - with an auto parts store on the other side of
the intersection, who's going to go to HD for auto parts?)


As bizarre as the reasoning seems - they really do that more in an
effort to
take your money while you are in the store, and not because bigger is
easier
to stock. I absolutely never heard anything like that in any management
meetings in retail. In fact - this is the only place I have ever heard
such
a thing. It just is not a real world, daily consideration. They look to
sell what people buy, and to have that on the aisles to capture your
money
while you're in the store. It's that simple and the other thoughts
about
people, weights, etc. are just rubbish.


Same goes for chewing gum and candy that is sold at HD. If it is
something that the customer buys normally it saves the customer the
extra trip for that item.


THIS customer notices the crewing gum priced a dollar higher than
elsewhere and doesn't buy it there.

Did you notice the 16 oz bottles of water just above for $1.59 each?

It sure makes for some expensive concrete when mixed with those tiny
60# bags.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:19:37 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:10:45 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 11:55 PM, Leon wrote:
On 4/16/2015 12:31 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
John McCoy wrote:

I suspect that's part of the reason my local HD replaced an
aisle of hinges, latches, and similar hardware with motor
oil and windshield wipers. Bigger packages, thus less labor
to keep stocked. (that, and random addle-headed thinking by
management - with an auto parts store on the other side of
the intersection, who's going to go to HD for auto parts?)


As bizarre as the reasoning seems - they really do that more in an
effort to
take your money while you are in the store, and not because bigger is
easier
to stock. I absolutely never heard anything like that in any management
meetings in retail. In fact - this is the only place I have ever heard
such
a thing. It just is not a real world, daily consideration. They look to
sell what people buy, and to have that on the aisles to capture your
money
while you're in the store. It's that simple and the other thoughts
about
people, weights, etc. are just rubbish.


Same goes for chewing gum and candy that is sold at HD. If it is
something that the customer buys normally it saves the customer the
extra trip for that item.


THIS customer notices the crewing gum priced a dollar higher than
elsewhere and doesn't buy it there.

Did you notice the 16 oz bottles of water just above for $1.59 each?

Yep and that is more expensive than any gas prices Lew has posted.

Gas is remarkably cheap, particularly when you consider what it
allows.

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 01:54:27 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:15:32 -0400, dadiOH wrote:

Sure you did. If you paid the max into SS all your life and die before
you hit 80-something. Medicare? Fat chance. Compare what you're
getting and what you're paying, including supplement, against what a
private plan would cost you.

Try doing the arithmetic before you make wild claims like that.

As I said (relative to medicare), " Now, not so much, costs have just
gotten way out of hand". For social security, absolutely. I know
because I DID do the math.

On the SS, I should have said *after* 80-something, not *before*. Sorry.

I figured mine out quite a few years ago. IIRC, retiring at 62 and
living to 80+, I got back what I paid for. If I last till 90, no way.

But the average recipient gets back considerably more than they paid in
and yes, I'm including the employer contribution.

Interest over 40 or 50 years?

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 18:30:55 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote in news:mgu4ek$3d6$2
:

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:58:30 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Then why is it that I put 10% away of gross my working life where my
employer and myself contributed 12.4% to SS, yet I have been taking out
twice out of my savings compared to what SS pays and my savings are
still growing?

What's the fact that you made good investments and were lucky got to do
with the original discussion?

And then there's the insurance aspect of SS.

Which is completely irrelevant.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:19:24 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:55:51 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
wrote:

"dadiOH" wrote in
:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 22:52:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I wonder how many of the righteous right on this news group get
Social Security and Medicare while they castigate big government?

ME..ME. I do. But what does that have do do with anything? I
bought and paid for those. Against my will though. If I'd had my
druthers, I'd rather have eschewed SS and taken care of myself; I
did anyway but could have done WAY better if I'd been able to use
the SS tax that the feds forced upon me.

Hindsight is 20/20. Foresight not so good.

Nonsense. Anyone with the most basic of math skills could see that it
was a loser, from day 1.

Right. Plus, assuming only a modest rate of return on the capital, one could
withdraw as much or more than SS doles out and leave the capital untouched
or minimally reduced. Enter the inheritance tax for all.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You got that right!

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:42:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 4/16/2015 10:15 PM, krw wrote:


Minimum wage was *never* expected to be a comfortable wage, yet people
thing it should be. It's an entry wage (which should be zero).


We should be talking "fair wage", not a minimum. The job should pay
according to the skills and knowledge required. It has to be higher in
NYC than in Podunk, Ohio too.

No, there is no such thing as "fair".

If some companies offered only minimum wage, no one would show up for
work. If they do, however, they must deem it fair as they do go to work.

It is a contract. It takes two.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:32:25 -0600, graham wrote:

On 17/04/2015 8:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/17/2015 10:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 10:15 PM, krw wrote:


Minimum wage was *never* expected to be a comfortable wage, yet
people thing it should be. It's an entry wage (which should be
zero).

We should be talking "fair wage", not a minimum. The job should pay
according to the skills and knowledge required. It has to be higher
in NYC than in Podunk, Ohio too.

I don't know about you but I do not want the government deciding what
is a
fair wage.




If you show up for work, the wage is fair. No government needed.

and if you are desperate and starving?

Sucks to be you. Why is that my concern?

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:42:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/17/2015 11:03 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:48:57 -0500
Jerry Osage wrote:

I think that the Grizzly's specs, features, and build quality are well
worth the extra $40. Even on sale, the HF dust collector isn't a
bargain compared to what else is available if one wants to filter 1
micron particles, which I do.

what makes a 1 micron particle

and why grizzly

i ask about grizzly since i have a grizzly drill press and it's
grizzly
or in other words based on this grizzly i don't think i'd buy
another one

maybe their quality has improved though

who's in the running for dust collectors
i saw laguna has them and it seems like there are a lot out there


IMHO Laguna DC's are way too much money. Comparison tests don't favor
Laguna because of all the air leaks.
Jet builds a pretty good DC, I recommend the remote controlled and the
pleated filter. Mine is almost 9 years old and works great with the
original filter. I typically change the 45 gallon bags out 4~5 times a
year. 1100 CFM capacity.
DC really don't require a high degree of quality as they are not
precision machines. They simply vacuum and filter the air.

Agreed. I bought a 2HP Penn State DC because it was highly rated for
its suction and was a lot less expensive than the common brands.

Things to consider.
Pleated filter to make cleaning easier.

Mine has 1u bags. They aren't hard to clean for as often as it has to
be done.

Remote control so you don't have to walk over to turn it on and off all
of the time.

Bought an aftermarket switch and a couple of remotes.

A wide path to remove the collection bag. Bags expand when full and can
be difficult to slide out between the support arms.
Being mobile can be handy.

Look at online ratings for such information. Some are dinged pretty
badly for difficult cleaning.

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:42:48 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/18/2015 10:36 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/18/2015 10:42 AM, Leon wrote:

Jet builds a pretty good DC, I recommend the remote controlled and the
pleated filter. Mine is almost 9 years old and works great with the
original filter.

Things to consider.
Pleated filter to make cleaning easier.
Remote control so you don't have to walk over to turn it on and off all
of the time.

I'm happy with my Jet. The remote control is a must for ease of use
with any DC. Fits in my apron pocket and a touch of utton turns it
on and off



I leave my remote, typically, resting on my rip fence. The apron is a
great place except I only only wear my apron about half the time.
Houston heat and humidity being the the reason for that. Also my Jet
remote is IR so I have to aim it.
But seriously I am surprised that I have not sucked the remote up yet. LOL.

I glued some pretty strong magnets to one of mine and keep it on the
left edge of the saw table extension.

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:26:29 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 7:03 PM, Bill wrote:
Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 5:08 PM, Bill wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The point is that the customer shared the wealth of cost reductions.
Lew


Was a change of sentiment required to help achieve 8-digit CEO
salaries?
It seems like things may no longer be running in accordance with "the
book" you mentioned.
Internet technology at our fingertips, such as is facilitating our
conversation, might be an exception.

Bill


Not true, Bill.

Check out the incentives paid on Wall street to productive traders.


Productive traders, sometimes, are a little like a parasite --like
lawyers.


So are some posters...

Didn't wish to offend. It's just that they contribute as much as Poker
players -- Zero sum game.

....except that it's not.

krw wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:26:29 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 7:03 PM, Bill wrote:
Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 5:08 PM, Bill wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The point is that the customer shared the wealth of cost reductions.
Lew

Was a change of sentiment required to help achieve 8-digit CEO
salaries?
It seems like things may no longer be running in accordance with "the
book" you mentioned.
Internet technology at our fingertips, such as is facilitating our
conversation, might be an exception.

Bill

Not true, Bill.

Check out the incentives paid on Wall street to productive traders.


Productive traders, sometimes, are a little like a parasite --like
lawyers.


So are some posters...
Didn't wish to offend. It's just that they contribute as much as Poker
players -- Zero sum game.
...except that it's not.

Maybe not "exactly", but (hopefully) you get my point. Or even better,
let's just drop it. I don't wish to offend any full time traders or
lawyers.

But it seems like the easiest way to trade is to get into congress,
where you are allowed to trade on inside information (I find this
repugnant). I'll stand up against that if you like.

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 21:39:38 -0400, Bill
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:26:29 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 7:03 PM, Bill wrote:
Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 5:08 PM, Bill wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The point is that the customer shared the wealth of cost reductions.
Lew

Was a change of sentiment required to help achieve 8-digit CEO
salaries?
It seems like things may no longer be running in accordance with "the
book" you mentioned.
Internet technology at our fingertips, such as is facilitating our
conversation, might be an exception.

Bill

Not true, Bill.

Check out the incentives paid on Wall street to productive traders.


Productive traders, sometimes, are a little like a parasite --like
lawyers.


So are some posters...
Didn't wish to offend. It's just that they contribute as much as Poker
players -- Zero sum game.
...except that it's not.

Maybe not "exactly", but (hopefully) you get my point. Or even better,
let's just drop it. I don't wish to offend any full time traders or
lawyers.

No, I really don't get your point but it sounds like cluelessness to
me.

But it seems like the easiest way to trade is to get into congress,
where you are allowed to trade on inside information (I find this
repugnant). I'll stand up against that if you like.

I'll stand with you on that one but it is a very different situation.

krw wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 21:39:38 -0400, Bill
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:26:29 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 7:03 PM, Bill wrote:
Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 5:08 PM, Bill wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The point is that the customer shared the wealth of cost reductions.
Lew
Was a change of sentiment required to help achieve 8-digit CEO
salaries?
It seems like things may no longer be running in accordance with "the
book" you mentioned.
Internet technology at our fingertips, such as is facilitating our
conversation, might be an exception.

Bill
Not true, Bill.

Check out the incentives paid on Wall street to productive traders.


Productive traders, sometimes, are a little like a parasite --like
lawyers.


So are some posters...
Didn't wish to offend. It's just that they contribute as much as Poker
players -- Zero sum game.
...except that it's not.
Maybe not "exactly", but (hopefully) you get my point. Or even better,
let's just drop it. I don't wish to offend any full time traders or
lawyers.
No, I really don't get your point but it sounds like cluelessness to
me.

That's me! Clueless... lol %-)


But it seems like the easiest way to trade is to get into congress,
where you are allowed to trade on inside information (I find this
repugnant). I'll stand up against that if you like.
I'll stand with you on that one but it is a very different situation.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On 4/18/2015 7:57 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:42:48 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/18/2015 10:36 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/18/2015 10:42 AM, Leon wrote:

Jet builds a pretty good DC, I recommend the remote controlled and the
pleated filter. Mine is almost 9 years old and works great with the
original filter.

Things to consider.
Pleated filter to make cleaning easier.
Remote control so you don't have to walk over to turn it on and off all
of the time.

I'm happy with my Jet. The remote control is a must for ease of use
with any DC. Fits in my apron pocket and a touch of utton turns it
on and off



I leave my remote, typically, resting on my rip fence. The apron is a
great place except I only only wear my apron about half the time.
Houston heat and humidity being the the reason for that. Also my Jet
remote is IR so I have to aim it.
But seriously I am surprised that I have not sucked the remote up yet. LOL.

I glued some pretty strong magnets to one of mine and keep it on the
left edge of the saw table extension.



I will probably do that with my replacement remote. ;~)

On 4/18/2015 2:35 PM, "Jerry Osage" wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:13:08 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Wait till Swing and/or Leon jump on this one.

There is Festool and everything else that wants to be Festool when
it grows up followed by Fein.

Lew

If I was a lot younger, and made my living by woodworking, I would be
very interested in Festool. One does not need the best tools to do
the best work. However, when time really is money, I always wanted
the very best tools I could afford because, in the long run, they
saved me both time and money

As an old hobbyist, who is tired of wearing a dust mask for the very
fine wood particles, I'm willing to spend $450 for Grizzly 1 micron
dust filter listed at 1700 CFM at 10" SP. It is a long way from
Festool, but a step up from HF. At least in my opinion, which is all
that counts.

Jerry O


Well actually the money you are willing to spend on a Griz DC is not too
much less than a Festool Dust Extractor.
HOWEVER the Festool Dust Extractor is not intended to be used with large
equipment for which most DC's are intended. The Festool dust extractor
is superior for hand held tools.

If I had neither I would get the DC first amusing I had large equipment.

On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:10:54 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/18/2015 2:35 PM, "Jerry Osage" wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:13:08 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Wait till Swing and/or Leon jump on this one.

There is Festool and everything else that wants to be Festool when
it grows up followed by Fein.

Lew

If I was a lot younger, and made my living by woodworking, I would be
very interested in Festool. One does not need the best tools to do
the best work. However, when time really is money, I always wanted
the very best tools I could afford because, in the long run, they
saved me both time and money

As an old hobbyist, who is tired of wearing a dust mask for the very
fine wood particles, I'm willing to spend $450 for Grizzly 1 micron
dust filter listed at 1700 CFM at 10" SP. It is a long way from
Festool, but a step up from HF. At least in my opinion, which is all
that counts.

Jerry O


Well actually the money you are willing to spend on a Griz DC is not too
much less than a Festool Dust Extractor.
HOWEVER the Festool Dust Extractor is not intended to be used with large
equipment for which most DC's are intended. The Festool dust extractor
is superior for hand held tools.

If I had neither I would get the DC first amusing I had large equipment.

I'm not familiar with what Festool had. I've been using a large
shop-vac - which works OK for a few minutes until it gets full. It
also allows the air to get "foggy" with small particles. I'm tired of
everything getting covered with a layer of wood flour.

The HF DC can be upgraded from 5 micron filter bag to a Wynn 0.5
micron cartridge filter. The Grizzly comes with a 1 micron cartridge
with a built in flapper. I may be sorry that I chose a Grizzly 1
micron over the HF upgraded to 0.5 micron, however, if that is the
case I can always put a Wynn 0.5 on the Grizzly.

Jerry O.

On 4/19/2015 2:36 PM, "Jerry Osage" wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:10:54 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/18/2015 2:35 PM, "Jerry Osage" wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:13:08 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Wait till Swing and/or Leon jump on this one.

There is Festool and everything else that wants to be Festool when
it grows up followed by Fein.

Lew

If I was a lot younger, and made my living by woodworking, I would be
very interested in Festool. One does not need the best tools to do
the best work. However, when time really is money, I always wanted
the very best tools I could afford because, in the long run, they
saved me both time and money

As an old hobbyist, who is tired of wearing a dust mask for the very
fine wood particles, I'm willing to spend $450 for Grizzly 1 micron
dust filter listed at 1700 CFM at 10" SP. It is a long way from
Festool, but a step up from HF. At least in my opinion, which is all
that counts.

Jerry O


Well actually the money you are willing to spend on a Griz DC is not too
much less than a Festool Dust Extractor.
HOWEVER the Festool Dust Extractor is not intended to be used with large
equipment for which most DC's are intended. The Festool dust extractor
is superior for hand held tools.

If I had neither I would get the DC first amusing I had large equipment.

I'm not familiar with what Festool had. I've been using a large
shop-vac - which works OK for a few minutes until it gets full. It
also allows the air to get "foggy" with small particles. I'm tired of
everything getting covered with a layer of wood flour.

You certainly do not want to use a vac for sucking up large equipment
exhaust. ;~)





The HF DC can be upgraded from 5 micron filter bag to a Wynn 0.5
micron cartridge filter. The Grizzly comes with a 1 micron cartridge
with a built in flapper. I may be sorry that I chose a Grizzly 1
micron over the HF upgraded to 0.5 micron, however, if that is the
case I can always put a Wynn 0.5 on the Grizzly.


The Jet pleated filter DC's go down to 2 micron. YOU should be fine. I
don't see anything coming out of my DC and it is 9 years old.

Almost all of the the Festool Dust Extractors, vacs, have HEPA filters.

http://festoolusa.com/power-tools/HEPA-dust-extractors/

Great for sanding...


Jerry O.

Jerry Osage wrote in :

I'm not familiar with what Festool had. I've been using a large
shop-vac - which works OK for a few minutes until it gets full. It
also allows the air to get "foggy" with small particles. I'm tired of
everything getting covered with a layer of wood flour.

The HF DC can be upgraded from 5 micron filter bag to a Wynn 0.5
micron cartridge filter. The Grizzly comes with a 1 micron cartridge
with a built in flapper. I may be sorry that I chose a Grizzly 1
micron over the HF upgraded to 0.5 micron, however, if that is the
case I can always put a Wynn 0.5 on the Grizzly.

Jerry O.

One of the shop air filters helps, but by the time the dust is airbourne
it's too late to effectively collect it. Regardless of the tool you
choose, it's worth looking around Bill Pentz's site for dust collection
hoods and ideas.

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

This was the 2nd post in this thread.
================================================
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

wrote:


snip
Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs with
the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers that
suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to be
paid a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if any),
skill level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer will
be required to pay almost double what they are paying now for
minimum wage employees.
snip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it
done.

Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for
some
pocket money.

Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support
a family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the
$7.50/hr
federal minimum wage.

If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard
of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be
asked to pay for it.

It's just Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" in reverse.

Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" have proven to be a disaster
unless
you are in the top 1%.

A $15/hr minimum wage will help the economy recover from the TDE
of the last 30 years.

Off the box.

Lew
==============================================
Nowhere in this post it is shown how someone on even a $10/hr minimum
wage has the means to set aside funds for even a modest savings
account.

Thus, trying to save part of an insufficient income is totally moot to
this
discussion.

Lew

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 4/17/2015 9:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/17/2015 10:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 10:15 PM, krw wrote:


Minimum wage was *never* expected to be a comfortable wage, yet
people thing it should be. It's an entry wage (which should be
zero).

We should be talking "fair wage", not a minimum. The job should pay
according to the skills and knowledge required. It has to be higher
in NYC than in Podunk, Ohio too.

I don't know about you but I do not want the government deciding what
is a
fair wage.




If you show up for work, the wage is fair. No government needed.

Exactly


Have you ever read _The Jungle_?

"radical action must be taken to do away with the efforts
of arrogant and selfish greed on the part of the capitalist"

- President Theodore Roosevelt

(Scott Lurndal) wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 4/17/2015 9:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/17/2015 10:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 10:15 PM, krw wrote:

Minimum wage was *never* expected to be a comfortable wage, yet
people thing it should be. It's an entry wage (which should be
zero).
We should be talking "fair wage", not a minimum. The job should pay
according to the skills and knowledge required. It has to be higher
in NYC than in Podunk, Ohio too.
I don't know about you but I do not want the government deciding what
is a
fair wage.



If you show up for work, the wage is fair. No government needed.
Exactly

Have you ever read _The Jungle_?

"radical action must be taken to do away with the efforts
of arrogant and selfish greed on the part of the capitalist"

- President Theodore Roosevelt

It sounds very timely. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 19:52:14 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

This was the 2nd post in this thread.
=============================================== =
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

wrote:


snip
Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs with
the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers that
suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to be
paid a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if any),
skill level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer will
be required to pay almost double what they are paying now for
minimum wage employees.
snip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it
done.

Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for
some
pocket money.

Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support
a family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the
$7.50/hr
federal minimum wage.

If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard
of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be
asked to pay for it.

It's just Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" in reverse.

Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" have proven to be a disaster
unless
you are in the top 1%.

A $15/hr minimum wage will help the economy recover from the TDE
of the last 30 years.

Off the box.

Lew
==============================================
Nowhere in this post it is shown how someone on even a $10/hr minimum
wage has the means to set aside funds for even a modest savings
account.

Irrelevant, yet people do. OTOH, there are many making 10x that who
can't seem to set aside funds for even a modest savings account. Go
figure.

Thus, trying to save part of an insufficient income is totally moot to
this
discussion.

Utter nonsense.

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:55:56 -0400, Bill
wrote:

(Scott Lurndal) wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 4/17/2015 9:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/17/2015 10:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 10:15 PM, krw wrote:

Minimum wage was *never* expected to be a comfortable wage, yet
people thing it should be. It's an entry wage (which should be
zero).
We should be talking "fair wage", not a minimum. The job should pay
according to the skills and knowledge required. It has to be higher
in NYC than in Podunk, Ohio too.
I don't know about you but I do not want the government deciding what
is a
fair wage.



If you show up for work, the wage is fair. No government needed.
Exactly

Have you ever read _The Jungle_?

"radical action must be taken to do away with the efforts
of arrogant and selfish greed on the part of the capitalist"

- President Theodore Roosevelt

It sounds very timely. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

sputter You almost owed me a keyboard!

On 4/20/2015 1:01 PM, krw wrote:

;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
positive return.
How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)

Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
(for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).


Life insurance can have a great payback if you die at the right time.
Not everyone does though. Poor planning, I guess.

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 3:33:04 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/20/2015 1:01 PM, krw wrote:

;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
positive return.
How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)

Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
(for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).


Life insurance can have a great payback if you die at the right time.
Not everyone does though. Poor planning, I guess.

Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when the owner sells it, then again when the insured passes away.

See "Life Settlement Contracts", sometimes known as a Viatical settlements.

Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 4/20/2015 1:01 PM, krw wrote:

;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
positive return.
How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)

Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
(for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).


Life insurance can have a great payback if you die at the right time.
Not everyone does though. Poor planning, I guess.

There are also policies that have an investement portion;
where funds in excess of the premium are invested in various
income-generating opportunities. Those funds can be claimed
if the policy is cancelled prior to the death of the covered individual(s).

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:43:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 4/20/2015 1:01 PM, krw wrote:

;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
positive return.
How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)

Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
(for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).


Life insurance can have a great payback if you die at the right time.
Not everyone does though. Poor planning, I guess.

No, your payback is miserable. ;-) I can make *far* more than that
if I could see the future, as you're implying.

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 3:33:04 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/20/2015 1:01 PM, krw wrote:

;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
positive return.
How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)

Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
(for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).


Life insurance can have a great payback if you die at the right time.
Not everyone does though. Poor planning, I guess.

Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when the owner sells it, then again when the insured passes away.

No, once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force. Worse,
the life payout is reduced by the value of the policy. Whole life
insurance is a miserable bet.

See "Life Settlement Contracts", sometimes known as a Viatical settlements.

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:18:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 4/20/2015 1:01 PM, krw wrote:

;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
positive return.
How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)

Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
(for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).


Life insurance can have a great payback if you die at the right time.
Not everyone does though. Poor planning, I guess.

There are also policies that have an investement portion;
where funds in excess of the premium are invested in various
income-generating opportunities. Those funds can be claimed
if the policy is cancelled prior to the death of the covered individual(s).
That was the intent when we bought a policy - but the company has
changed hands/names 3 times and the current company denies the option
exists. Gona rattle some bars.

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 8:36:21 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 3:33:04 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/20/2015 1:01 PM, krw wrote:

;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
positive return.
How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)

Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
(for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).


Life insurance can have a great payback if you die at the right time.
Not everyone does though. Poor planning, I guess.

Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when the owner sells it, then again when the insured passes away.

No, once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force.

Perhaps you are not familiar with Life Settlement transactions. Just to make sure that we are starting on the same page, here are some definitions related to life insurance, stolen without permission from:

http://thismatter.com/money/insuranc...eneficiary.htm

Owner:

"The owner of a life insurance policy is the one who has the rights that are stipulated in the contract. These include the right to name a beneficiary; the right to participating dividends; the right to surrender the policy for its cash value; and the right to transfer ownership."

Insured:

"The insured, who is often the owner of the policy, is the person whose death causes the insurer to pay the death claim to the beneficiary. The beneficiary can be a person, trust, estate, or business."

Note the owner's "right to transfer ownership". If the owner enters into a Life Settlement transaction, he is transferring the ownership of the policy to someone else. Once the ownership has changed, the new owner has the right to name a beneficiary. Of course, the new owner now also has the responsibility to adhere to the terms stipulated in the original insurance contract, which may mean paying premiums and other fees required to keep the policy in force.

Nothing in a Life Settlement transaction causes the policy to no longer be in force.

Worse, the life payout is reduced by the value of the policy.

What "value" are you referring to? The cash-value? If so, that is not actually true.

In most cases, entering into Life Settlement transaction does not impact the current cash-value of the policy because other than the change of ownership (and most likely the beneficiary) the policy itself has not been changed.. The cash value has not been withdrawn, so the death benefit itself has not been reduced. The original owner receives payment with funds that are external to the policy.

Granted, the *total return* to the new owner - assuming the new owner is also the new beneficiary - will be less than the death benefit paid out when the insured eventually passes away. The total return will be the death benefit minus the sum of the cost of the contract (amount paid to the original owner), any commissions and fees paid to the broker, any premiums and fees paid to the Ins Co, etc.

If the new owner does not name him/herself as the beneficiary, then the beneficiary will receive the full death benefit.

Whole life insurance is a miserable bet.

That statement, in and of itself, is worthy of it's own long, drawn out discussion.





See "Life Settlement Contracts", sometimes known as a Viatical settlements.

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 9:37:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:18:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 4/20/2015 1:01 PM, krw wrote:

;-) I can't think of an investment that wasn't intended to have a
positive return.
How about life insurance, Mr. investment expert. ;-)

Only criminals "invest" in insurance. For everyone else, it's an
expense. The return is *expected* to be negative. It *has* to be
(for other than one contemplating insurance fraud).


Life insurance can have a great payback if you die at the right time.
Not everyone does though. Poor planning, I guess.

There are also policies that have an investement portion;
where funds in excess of the premium are invested in various
income-generating opportunities. Those funds can be claimed
if the policy is cancelled prior to the death of the covered individual(s).
That was the intent when we bought a policy - but the company has
changed hands/names 3 times and the current company denies the option
exists. Gona rattle some bars.

It's possible that the terms of the contract changed somewhere along the line and you weren't aware of it/don't remember/didn't understand/etc. (Nothing personal!)

In many cases, an insurance company can petition the state in which the policy was sold requesting permission to change the terms of the contract as long as they change the terms for an entire class of people. For example, one such class might be everyone that bought that specific product, e.g. Generic Ins Co Ventura III Premier Variable Life.

For example, NYS recently allowed an Ins Co to change the terms of a specific Long Term Care policy such that the original 5% inflation adjustment was reduced to 3% for the same premium payment. Owners were given the option to retain the 5% by paying a substantially higher premium.

Is it possible that with all the change of carriers in your case, the notice of the change in terms got lost in the shuffle?

krw wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when the
owner sells it, then again when the insured passes away.

No, once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force.

Incorrect.

Worse, the life payout is reduced by the value of the policy.

?? When the insured dies the owner of the policy receives the full amount
of the policy's death benefit.

If you are thinking of a policy that earns and therefore has an ever
increasing cash value, that cash value may get very close to the death
benefit value of the policy but that has nothing to do with the death
benefit. If the owner of the policy has borrowed from the cash value, THEN
the death benefit is reduced by the amount borrowed plus interest.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

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

wrote:
A house has a much better chance of being a "good investment" than a
vehicle, for sure||
You need to look at what it would cost to rent "the same"
accomodation, buying too much house is seldom a good investment.
Buying good basic shelter USUALLY is.

I've been in this house 34 years this June. Paid $65K-ish for it.
It's worth $350K-ish today. Spent another 3\$35,000 more or less on
renovations and repairs and $50,000 more or less on taxes. Renting a 3
bedroom family home when I bought was over $800 per month here - over
$2500 today.
Utility costs would have been similar

Rent would have amounted to well over $500,000 for the duration and I
would not have an assett at the end.

Comes out about 4 times the cost to rent. Can't beat that as an
"investment" - even IF the house had not appreciated one cent over the
34 years

General "words of wisdom" in real estate are, "Rent where you live, own what
you rent".

That seems contradictory but it means rent where you live so you have
capital to buy rentals...let the rental income pay the mortgage, taxes, etc.
Suppose you buy a rental house worth 150,000 with, say, 15K down and a few
years later you sell it for $180,000. ROI is 200%.

But there are better deals. House next to me sits on 12 acres purchased for
60K or so in 1996. The buyer put a prefab garage (modified into a 1 bedroom
house) on it and added a 28K prefab barn elsewhere on the property. He sold
all 6-7 years later for $287,000. That buyer was foreclosed upon in the
fall of 2013 for 51K. An investor bought it from the bank for 40K and sold
it a few months later for 133K. THAT's making money

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 12:26:57 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
krw wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when the
owner sells it, then again when the insured passes away.

No, once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force.

Incorrect.

Worse, the life payout is reduced by the value of the policy.

?? When the insured dies the owner of the policy receives the full amount
of the policy's death benefit.

Let's be clear here.

When the insured dies the *beneficiary* (or beneficiaries) of the policy receives the full amount of the policy's death benefit.

I can be the owner, you can be the insured and the crazy cat lady down the street can be the beneficiary.

or

I could be the owner and the insured and you can be the beneficiary (ain't gonna happen!)

or

I could be the owner and the insured and my trust could be the beneficiary. BTW...the trust is written such that you get half if and only if you help the crazy cat lady take care of her cats. That's my way of making you suffer even after I'm gone. ;-)


If you are thinking of a policy that earns and therefore has an ever
increasing cash value, that cash value may get very close to the death
benefit value of the policy but that has nothing to do with the death
benefit. If the owner of the policy has borrowed from the cash value, THEN
the death benefit is reduced by the amount borrowed plus interest.

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:26:38 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when the
owner sells it, then again when the insured passes away.

No, once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force.

Incorrect.

Not.

Worse, the life payout is reduced by the value of the policy.

?? When the insured dies the owner of the policy receives the full amount
of the policy's death benefit.

The *insurance* value is reduced by the "cash value". The beneficiary
only gets the face value. The cash value is gone. This crappy
insurance is sold as if it were an investment and an insurance policy.
It's **** for both.

If you are thinking of a policy that earns and therefore has an ever
increasing cash value, that cash value may get very close to the death
benefit value of the policy but that has nothing to do with the death
benefit. If the owner of the policy has borrowed from the cash value, THEN
the death benefit is reduced by the amount borrowed plus interest.

I thought you said it had nothing to do with the death benefit! The
fact is that this sort of **** product is really two pieces of ****.
First, there is an overly0expensive insurance policy that gets reduced
by the cash value each year. Then there is the cash value that grows
at a horrid rate. The sum of these is the face value of the policy.
You don't get both! Whole life is probably the worst investment and
the worst insurance on the market. It makes a whole lot of money for
the salesmen and the insurance companies, though.

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:46:49 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

wrote:
A house has a much better chance of being a "good investment" than a
vehicle, for sure||
You need to look at what it would cost to rent "the same"
accomodation, buying too much house is seldom a good investment.
Buying good basic shelter USUALLY is.

I've been in this house 34 years this June. Paid $65K-ish for it.
It's worth $350K-ish today. Spent another 3\$35,000 more or less on
renovations and repairs and $50,000 more or less on taxes. Renting a 3
bedroom family home when I bought was over $800 per month here - over
$2500 today.
Utility costs would have been similar

Rent would have amounted to well over $500,000 for the duration and I
would not have an assett at the end.

Comes out about 4 times the cost to rent. Can't beat that as an
"investment" - even IF the house had not appreciated one cent over the
34 years

General "words of wisdom" in real estate are, "Rent where you live, own what
you rent".

That seems contradictory but it means rent where you live so you have
capital to buy rentals...let the rental income pay the mortgage, taxes, etc.
Suppose you buy a rental house worth 150,000 with, say, 15K down and a few
years later you sell it for $180,000. ROI is 200%.

....and if you live in it (two years out of five) that ROI is tax free.
There once was a time when this was a foolproof plan. Not so much
anymore.

But there are better deals. House next to me sits on 12 acres purchased for
60K or so in 1996. The buyer put a prefab garage (modified into a 1 bedroom
house) on it and added a 28K prefab barn elsewhere on the property. He sold
all 6-7 years later for $287,000. That buyer was foreclosed upon in the
fall of 2013 for 51K. An investor bought it from the bank for 40K and sold
it a few months later for 133K. THAT's making money

Sure, sometimes you just can't lose. ...until you do.

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:02:41 -0400, krw wrote:

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:46:49 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

wrote:
A house has a much better chance of being a "good investment" than a
vehicle, for sure||
You need to look at what it would cost to rent "the same"
accomodation, buying too much house is seldom a good investment.
Buying good basic shelter USUALLY is.

I've been in this house 34 years this June. Paid $65K-ish for it.
It's worth $350K-ish today. Spent another 3\$35,000 more or less on
renovations and repairs and $50,000 more or less on taxes. Renting a 3
bedroom family home when I bought was over $800 per month here - over
$2500 today.
Utility costs would have been similar

Rent would have amounted to well over $500,000 for the duration and I
would not have an assett at the end.

Comes out about 4 times the cost to rent. Can't beat that as an
"investment" - even IF the house had not appreciated one cent over the
34 years

General "words of wisdom" in real estate are, "Rent where you live, own what
you rent".

That seems contradictory but it means rent where you live so you have
capital to buy rentals...let the rental income pay the mortgage, taxes, etc.
Suppose you buy a rental house worth 150,000 with, say, 15K down and a few
years later you sell it for $180,000. ROI is 200%.

...and if you live in it (two years out of five) that ROI is tax free.
There once was a time when this was a foolproof plan. Not so much
anymore.

But there are better deals. House next to me sits on 12 acres purchased for
60K or so in 1996. The buyer put a prefab garage (modified into a 1 bedroom
house) on it and added a 28K prefab barn elsewhere on the property. He sold
all 6-7 years later for $287,000. That buyer was foreclosed upon in the
fall of 2013 for 51K. An investor bought it from the bank for 40K and sold
it a few months later for 133K. THAT's making money

Sure, sometimes you just can't lose. ...until you do.
In the USA you have the added benefit that your mortgage interest is
tax deductible (on your primary residence? or any?)

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 8:46:04 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:26:38 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Sometimes life insurance policies can "pay off" twice. Once when the
owner sells it, then again when the insured passes away.

No, once you sell an insurance policy it's no longer in force.

Incorrect.

Not.


I've already tried to explain Life Settlements to you once. I really thought that should have been enough, but I guess not.

If you won't listen to me, try listening to FINRA:

http://www.finra.org/investors/alert...fe-settlements

What Is a Life Settlement?

In the past, if you owned a life insurance policy that you no longer wanted or needed, you generally had two choices: surrender the policy for its cash value or allow it to lapse. Life settlements present a third option: selling your policy (or the right to receive the death benefit) to an entity other than the insurance company that issued the policy. That transaction is known as a life settlement.