Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The REAL Reason You're Broke

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Scott en Aztlán - 16 Jan 2007 02:39 GMT
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/TheRealReasonYoure
Broke.aspx


For a huge number of troubled debtors, it all began with a car. Too
much car, financed too long, traded too soon.

By Liz Pulliam Weston

If you're constantly broke and can't figure out why, the answer may be
sitting in your driveway.

Americans are spending more on their vehicles than ever before -- more
than $8,000 a year on average -- and it's driving some to the breaking
point.

Credit counselor Bill Thompson of Jacksonville, Fla., estimates that
one out of every four clients his agency sees has overspent --
sometimes dramatically -- on a car.

"They may be spending 15% to 20% of their (take-home) pay on just the
car payment," said Thompson, who supervises credit counseling for the
nonprofit Family Foundations, "and that doesn't include insurance,
gas, maintenance and all the other costs of owning a vehicle."

And sometimes there's more than one whopping payment. Sandra McGeary,
a counselor at Consumer Credit Counseling Services of Western
Pennsylvania, says she regularly sees middle-class families struggling
with two payments in the $400 to $500 range. The burdens are so big
that it doesn't take a major disaster, like a job loss, to send them
over the edge.

With most other areas of the budget, you can find ways to trim. You
can eat out less and shop more carefully to reduce your food bill. You
can lower utility bills by adjusting the thermostat. You can cut your
entertainment budget by canceling your cable service and borrowing
movies from a library. You can even reduce your shelter costs by
taking in a roommate or moving to cheaper digs.

Once you've committed to a car payment, though, your options are few,
particularly if your loan is greater than the car's value. Whether you
drive it or not, you've got to make the payments, and you've got to
insure it.

We're prolonging the agony
The signs of vehicular overspending are everywhere:

   * Average transportation spending grew more than 12% between 1999
and 2005, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, at a time
when median income growth was basically flat. Even when adjusted for
inflation, we're spending more: 8.3% more in 2005 than in 1995, with
people in the lowest and highest income brackets accelerating their
spending the most.
   * More than 80% of car loans are for terms longer than four years
(which, a couple of decades ago, was considered a long loan). The
average loan term has grown from just under four years and seven
months in 1990 to over five years and four months in 2006. Longer loan
terms mean that people build equity in their car more slowly, which in
turn means that borrowers will be "upside down" on their vehicles --
owing more than they're worth -- for three years or more on the
typical purchase.
   * One out of four -- 25.6% -- of cars that are financed include
debt rolled over from a previous vehicle, according to vehicle
research site Edmunds.com. By the end of last year, the average amount
of negative equity in these deals was more than $4,000.
   * Rolling debt from one car to another is, in case you didn't
know, a terrible idea. You'll pay higher interest rates because so
much of what you owe isn't secured by the car itself.

And being "upside down" can really leave you up a creek if the car is
totaled or stolen. You can protect yourself somewhat with so-called
gap insurance, which covers the difference between what you owe and
what you get from your insurer, but that's another hit on your wallet.
Signature

I hate speediots - especially Carl Troller.

MLOM - 16 Jan 2007 02:45 GMT
Scott en Aztl?n wrote:
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/TheRealReasonYoure
Broke.aspx

>
[quoted text clipped - 69 lines]
> --
> I hate speediots - especially Carl Troller.

Given that new cars are priced at about a quarter of the price of a
house, it's not that surprising.  I'd suspect that Aunt Judy does not
have that situation.
Jonathan Kamens - 16 Jan 2007 03:01 GMT
>Given that new cars are priced at about a quarter of the price of a
>house,

I don't know what part of the country you live in, but in Boston, an
average single-family house in an average neighborhood costs upward of
ten times the price of a pretty darn nice new car.

Signature

Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

Dave Head - 16 Jan 2007 03:17 GMT
>>Given that new cars are priced at about a quarter of the price of a
>>house,
>
>I don't know what part of the country you live in, but in Boston, an
>average single-family house in an average neighborhood costs upward of
>ten times the price of a pretty darn nice new car.

I was going thru Indianapolis a couple months ago and saw a billboard that
said, "Homes from the $90's".

Dave Head
Brent P - 16 Jan 2007 03:39 GMT
>>>Given that new cars are priced at about a quarter of the price of a
>>>house,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I was going thru Indianapolis a couple months ago and saw a billboard that
> said, "Homes from the $90's".

The housing development I pass on my way to work reads from the $700s. Of
course at first glance I thought they were 4-6 unit condo buildings, not
single family homes.
aemeijers@att.net - 16 Jan 2007 03:39 GMT
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:01:58 +0000 (UTC), jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us
> (Jonathan
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I was going thru Indianapolis a couple months ago and saw a billboard that
> said, "Homes from the $90's".

A low-end modular can be had in the '90s, in Indy. I'd sooner have a 1960s
tract house in the same price range. Sure, the plumbing, HVAC, insulation,
etc, will all need upgrading, but it will be a better house overall, and
probably have hardwood floors and trim to boot, once you strip the paint and
cheap w/w carpet.

I have little sympathy for anyone who cries about the cost of housing in the
bubble cities. Vote with your feet and go elsewhere. Enough people do that,
prices will come back down to sane levels. Yeah, having to leave friends and
family for economic reasons sucks, but that it the way of economy-driven
migration patterns. Some companies are starting to recognize that, and
moving from the coasts to flyover country. My employers, the Feds, are among
the worst offenders- probably half the offices and staff that are located in
metro DC or the other large cities, could just as easily be located
elsewhere, especially with the advent of modern technology. I live and work
in a small town, have a seven-minute drive to work on a bad day, and got a
decent house for under 130k. Different strokes for different folks, of
course, but I wouldn't live in a big city for half again the money they pay
me.

aem sends...
necromancer - 16 Jan 2007 13:00 GMT
Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Dave Head said in
rec.autos.driving:

> >>Given that new cars are priced at about a quarter of the price of a
> >>house,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I was going thru Indianapolis a couple months ago and saw a billboard that
> said, "Homes from the $90's".

Location, location, location, Dave.  :)

Signature

--

"There's not a shred of evidence that the jerries murdered anything
close to 7 million jooz.  Another monstrous lie just like the 9-11
official story. "

-- Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 12/01/2004
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9oog5
Message-ID: <780ea958.0411302101.5ef25456@posting.google.com>

Dave Head - 16 Jan 2007 13:14 GMT
>Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Dave Head said in
>rec.autos.driving:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Location, location, location, Dave.  :)

Yeppir!  Its one of the reasons I'm going back there when I retire.  (Was gonna
go to Florida, but then the real estate went thru the roof down there -  All I
want to do is be able to buy an acre or two for maybe $30K and build a
concrete, hurricane proof house (well, more or less hurricane proof).   Guess
I'll have to work on "tornado proof" (no such thing, I know...))

Dave Head

Dave Head
Brent P - 16 Jan 2007 13:41 GMT
> go to Florida, but then the real estate went thru the roof down there -  All I
> want to do is be able to buy an acre or two for maybe $30K and build a
> concrete, hurricane proof house (well, more or less hurricane proof).   Guess
> I'll have to work on "tornado proof" (no such thing, I know...))

Build a home that is inside a hill. It's been done. have some way to
protect the windows the enterance side and it will just be another
feature of the land as far the tornado is concerned. Something it will
glide over rather than go through.
Dave Head - 16 Jan 2007 23:28 GMT
>> go to Florida, but then the real estate went thru the roof down there -  All I
>> want to do is be able to buy an acre or two for maybe $30K and build a
>> concrete, hurricane proof house (well, more or less hurricane proof).   Guess
>> I'll have to work on "tornado proof" (no such thing, I know...))
>
>Build a home that is inside a hill.

Find a hill inside Indy.

I've considered it, but just don't think I want to live essentially
underground.

> It's been done. have some way to
>protect the windows the enterance side and it will just be another
>feature of the land as far the tornado is concerned. Something it will
>glide over rather than go through.
Brent P - 16 Jan 2007 23:29 GMT
> Find a hill inside Indy.

Simple really, make one. That's how many an hill in NE IL comes into
being.
Scott en Aztlán - 17 Jan 2007 03:18 GMT
Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving:

>>Build a home that is inside a hill.
>
>Find a hill inside Indy.
>
>I've considered it, but just don't think I want to live essentially
>underground.

Then build a REALLY sturdy surface house. Yes, that means you'll have
to sell your double-wide. :)
Signature

I hate speediots - especially Carl Troller.

Dave Head - 17 Jan 2007 15:20 GMT
Scott en Aztl?n wrote:
> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Then build a REALLY sturdy surface house. Yes, that means you'll have
> to sell your double-wide. :)

Concrete, baby...

DPH
Scott en Aztlán - 18 Jan 2007 02:14 GMT
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving:

>> >>Build a home that is inside a hill.
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Concrete, baby...

...With rebar.
Signature

I'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it!

Scott en Aztlán - 16 Jan 2007 15:39 GMT
Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving:

>>> I was going thru Indianapolis a couple months ago and saw a billboard that
>>> said, "Homes from the $90's".
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Yeppir!  Its one of the reasons I'm going back there when I retire.  (Was gonna
>go to Florida, but then the real estate went thru the roof down there

You still have an opportunity in the Snowbird Capital of the West
(Southern Arizona). Real estate prices in Phoenix and Tucson are
sky-high, but the land in between (Pinal County) is still mostly
wide-open desert - and is selling at desert land prices. By the time
you're ready to retire, however, this area will be booming as the
population sprawls south from Phoenix and north from Tucson, and your
land will be worth a fortune. Then you can sell off a nice chunk of it
to a developer and retire in style.

This is the best free retirement/investment advice you're every going
to get in your life. You're welcome. :)
Signature

I hate speediots - especially Carl Troller.

Brent P - 16 Jan 2007 16:33 GMT
> (Southern Arizona). Real estate prices in Phoenix and Tucson are
> sky-high, but the land in between (Pinal County) is still mostly
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> land will be worth a fortune. Then you can sell off a nice chunk of it
> to a developer and retire in style.

Um, where are they going to get _water_ from?

I know the new world order of corporate profit wants to make water
something that is sold in commodity markets but I don't see great lakes
states and Canada allowing for it any time soon.
Scott en Aztlán - 17 Jan 2007 03:25 GMT
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in
rec.autos.driving:

>> (Southern Arizona). Real estate prices in Phoenix and Tucson are
>> sky-high, but the land in between (Pinal County) is still mostly
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Um, where are they going to get _water_ from?

Same place they do now: the Colorado River.

CAP water is already flowing to the area, plus there is still some
ground water. Believe it or not, there used to be PLENTY of water in
the Tucson area. Tucson is one of the longest continually inhabited
areas in the US. The Santa Cruz river was a surface stream for most of
that time, which was why people settled there. It was only when Tucson
began to sprawl and over-pump the ground water that the Santa Cruz
became ephemeral and went underground. Nowadays they import water from
the Colorado and use it to recharge the ground water basin. For years,
California has been diverting part of Arizona's share of the Colorado
water, since AZ's population was small enough that it didn't need the
full share to which it was legally entitled. Now AZ is forcing CA to
stop diverting more than its share, so there is some additonal supply
that will be available to help support additional population growth in
the area.
Signature

I hate speediots - especially Carl Troller.

Dave Head - 16 Jan 2007 16:35 GMT
Scott en Aztl?n wrote:
> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> This is the best free retirement/investment advice you're every going
> to get in your life. You're welcome. :)

Weeelll... its a thought.  I even do have a few friends in the area.

However, Indy has other attractions that I'm thoroughly looking forward
to enjoying:

1) The Indy 500
2) SCCA Racing at Indianapolis Raceway Park
3) The Brickyard 400
5) The USAC Silver Crown Cars at the State Fairground
6) The Indiana State Fair
7) The Indy 1500 Gun & Knife Show, 3 times a year
8) A 60 mile drive to one instance ot the World of Outlaws Sprint Cars
9) A 90 mile drive to the best World of Outlaws track in the Nation, El
Dora
10) 90 mile drive to the Dayton Hamvention
11) Centrally located amidst a lot of road rallies I want to run
12) Cheap everything.  Everything from hiking boots to haircuts costs
less.

Now, I'm sure _some_ of those things are duplicated in the Phoenix
area, but after that, its a pretty hefty drive to other large towns
that might be able to fill in for other activities.  That is the major
drawback to the southwest - sparse population means big drives to the
next pop center.

So, its not out of the question, but I think Indy is still gonna get my
nod.

Dave Head
MLOM - 16 Jan 2007 03:45 GMT
> >Given that new cars are priced at about a quarter of the price of a
> >house,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
> http://www.genocideintervention.net/

Generally in Missouri a decent house can be had for under $100K, as low
as $60K in the smaller towns.  IIRC houses in Texas run in the $80K
range.
Fred G. Mackey - 16 Jan 2007 09:24 GMT
>>>Given that new cars are priced at about a quarter of the price of a
>>>house,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> as $60K in the smaller towns.  IIRC houses in Texas run in the $80K
> range.

Where in Texas?

Are you talking about Round Rock or River Oaks?

Ferris or The Woodlands?

It's hard to make generalizations about such a big state. - No, I take
that back - it's easy to make generalizations, but it's stupid to do so.
MLOM - 16 Jan 2007 13:35 GMT
> >>>Given that new cars are priced at about a quarter of the price of a
> >>>house,
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> It's hard to make generalizations about such a big state. - No, I take
> that back - it's easy to make generalizations, but it's stupid to do so.

I just double-checked; there are plenty of ads for houses under $80K in
Arlington   Same with San Antonio.  It all depends on the purpose of
the house.  Granted, it won't be a new one.  No new house goes for less
than 1/4M in most areas, especially Overland Park, Kansas.  Contractors
generally refuse to build less than a 1/4M house these days.
John A. Weeks III - 16 Jan 2007 03:47 GMT
> >Given that new cars are priced at about a quarter of the price of a
> >house,
>
> I don't know what part of the country you live in, but in Boston, an
> average single-family house in an average neighborhood costs upward of
> ten times the price of a pretty darn nice new car.

No sensible person would pay that much for a house.  After all,
a house is just a box to keep your stuff in.

-john-

Signature

======================================================================
John A. Weeks III           952-432-2708            john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications                         http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================

Mortimer Schnerd, RN - 16 Jan 2007 14:43 GMT
>> Given that new cars are priced at about a quarter of the price of a
>> house,
>
> I don't know what part of the country you live in, but in Boston, an
> average single-family house in an average neighborhood costs upward of
> ten times the price of a pretty darn nice new car.

Here in North Carolina, you can easily find a 2000 sf house in average condition
for $150,000.  I rent the owner's part of a triplex, and have two bedrooms (one
of them in a loft), 1.5 baths, 2 car attached garage, big yard, and I have a hot
tub built into an alcove off my master bedroom.  I pay $650 a month.

I imagine this would run a bit higher in New England (or CA or VA or NY).  The
Carolinas are a quite affordable place to live.

Signature

Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

zzbunker@netscape.net - 21 Jan 2007 17:15 GMT
> >Given that new cars are priced at about a quarter of the price of a
> >house,
>
> I don't know what part of the country you live in, but in Boston, an
> average single-family house in an average neighborhood costs upward of
> ten times the price of a pretty darn nice new car.

 That's because the only they make in Boston is morons
 and Submarines.  Which is coincidentally the only
 thing they make in Honolulu.

> --
> Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
> http://www.genocideintervention.net/
Scott en Aztlán - 16 Jan 2007 04:11 GMT
"MLOM" <grvan@netzero.net> said in rec.autos.driving:

>I'd suspect that Aunt Judy does not have that situation.

Yep, that's the *one* thing Aunt Judy did right! :)
Signature

I hate speediots - especially Carl Troller.

Brent P - 16 Jan 2007 06:27 GMT
> "MLOM" <grvan@netzero.net> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>I'd suspect that Aunt Judy does not have that situation.

> Yep, that's the *one* thing Aunt Judy did right! :)

'it' could be so upside down, that beater is the only car 'it' could
afford after crashing a couple newer ones.
Scott en Aztlán - 16 Jan 2007 15:46 GMT
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in
rec.autos.driving:

>> "MLOM" <grvan@netzero.net> said in rec.autos.driving:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>'it' could be so upside down, that beater is the only car 'it' could
>afford after crashing a couple newer ones.

Could 'it' even be upside-down in a beater?!?!?!
Signature

I hate speediots - especially Carl Troller.

Brent P - 16 Jan 2007 16:33 GMT
>>'it' could be so upside down, that beater is the only car 'it' could
>>afford after crashing a couple newer ones.

> Could 'it' even be upside-down in a beater?!?!?!

'it' makes less money than Al Bundy apparently.
Scott en Aztlán - 17 Jan 2007 04:43 GMT
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in misc.consumers:

>>>'it' could be so upside down, that beater is the only car 'it' could
>>>afford after crashing a couple newer ones.
>
>> Could 'it' even be upside-down in a beater?!?!?!
>
>'it' makes less money than Al Bundy apparently.

Perhaps after trading in multiple vehicles in which it was
upside-down, adding a few thousand dollars in negative equity each
time, eventually it came to a point where all it could afford was a
1973 Plymouth Gold Duster, even though its car payments are
$1500/month for 9 years?
necromancer - 16 Jan 2007 13:02 GMT
Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), MLOM said in
rec.autos.driving:
> Given that new cars are priced at about a quarter of the price of a
> house, it's not that surprising.  I'd suspect that Aunt Judy does not
> have that situation.

Off hand, I'd say that Aunt Judy doesn't have that situation because no
loan officer or finance company in their right mind would loan Aunt Judy
bus fare, much less enough to buy a car.

Signature

"My tars have been bald for two years.  
Every month i glue some sandpaper to them and
everythings cool."

--Laura Buch murdered her boyfriend
/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE 10/25/05

Message ID: s2ttl1tgnpq5pr6p48lr111p3lnvr4blch@4ax.com
http://tinyurl.com/7p7xq

nospam@sbcglobal.net - 16 Jan 2007 02:56 GMT
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/TheRealReasonYoure
Broke.aspx

>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> movies from a library. You can even reduce your shelter costs by
> taking in a roommate or moving to cheaper digs.

And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
while corporations ship your jobs overseas, leaving you to find
other jobs that pay 1/2 to 1/3 your old wages.  And you can
vote into office people who will do what's best for America
instead of what's best for Rupert Murdoch.
Dave Head - 16 Jan 2007 03:16 GMT
>> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/TheRealReasonYoure
Broke.aspx

>>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>while corporations ship your jobs overseas, leaving you to find
>other jobs that pay 1/2 to 1/3 your old wages.

Yep, you can do that.

>And you can
>vote into office people who will do what's best for America
>instead of what's best for Rupert Murdoch.

You can try that, but that won't include not shipping your job overseas.  Those
people that promise that ultimately don't lift a finger, and additionally
support the importation of illegal aliens and foreigners on H1B visas to take
your jobs here as well.  There ain't a nickle of difference between the bunch
you'd be voting out and the bunch you'd want to vote in, except the bunch
you're trying to vote in will lie to you and tell you they're going to do
something for the middle class... then turn around and stroke big business
anyway.

Dave Head
nospam@sbcglobal.net - 16 Jan 2007 03:23 GMT
> >> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/TheRealReasonYoure
Broke.aspx

> >>
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
> something for the middle class... then turn around and stroke big business
> anyway.

Sorry, "ultimately don't lift a finger" doesn't apply here.  Just in
the first week of taking control of Congress we've already seen
an increase in the minimum wage, and also proposals to lower
interest rates on college loans, etc etc.

And in any case, mostly empty promises are still much preferable
to utter contempt, which is all Republicans have had for America's
middle class for the past 25 years.
Brent P - 16 Jan 2007 03:43 GMT
> Sorry, "ultimately don't lift a finger" doesn't apply here.  Just in
> the first week of taking control of Congress we've already seen
> an increase in the minimum wage, and also proposals to lower
> interest rates on college loans, etc etc.

Smoke and mirrors. And the new speaker already got caught with her first
hyprocrisy of supporting 'big business' that's close to her while saying
she's for the little guy as speaker. I knew she had a history of such
things, but I figured she would at least lay low awhile as speaker.  

> And in any case, mostly empty promises are still much preferable
> to utter contempt, which is all Republicans have had for America's
> middle class for the past 25 years.

What do you think elitiest democrats have? The same exact utter contempt.
Actually it's far worse because they try to pretend to be our friends.
SpammersDie - 18 Jan 2007 01:04 GMT
>> >And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
>> >whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> the first week of taking control of Congress we've already seen
> an increase in the minimum wage,

So the way to reduce the market share growth of foreign labor is to make
domestic labor artificially more expensive?

The mind boggles.
nospam@sbcglobal.net - 18 Jan 2007 01:33 GMT
> >> >And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
> >> >whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> So the way to reduce the market share growth of foreign labor is to make
> domestic labor artificially more expensive?

Who said that?  What you do, and what nearly all industrialized
countries do (other than the U.S.) is simply tax income from
foreign production.  Remove (or at least minimize) the incentive
for corporations to export jobs.  This is what was proposed
back in 1981, and this proposal is what was dropped at the
insistence of then-president Reagan.  The exodus of U.S.
manufacturing jobs began shortly thereafter.

> The mind boggles.

Try cracking it open a bit.
SpammersDie - 18 Jan 2007 01:42 GMT
>> >> >And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
>> >> >whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Who said that?

The one that responded to a line like "who've refused to lift a finger while
corporationjs ship your jobs overseas" with "Sorry, [that] doesn't apply
here. [Congress has just increased minimum wage]".

>  What you do, and what nearly all industrialized
> countries do (other than the U.S.) is simply tax income from
> foreign production.  Remove (or at least minimize) the incentive
> for corporations to export jobs.

Don't tell it to me - tell it to those who are praising the increase in
minimum wage as a bone to those suffering from offshoring.
nospam@sbcglobal.net - 18 Jan 2007 03:48 GMT
> >> >> >And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
> >> >> >whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Don't tell it to me - tell it to those who are praising the increase in
> minimum wage as a bone to those suffering from offshoring.

In absence of treating the disease, treating the symptom is
preferable to no treatment at all.
Dave Head - 18 Jan 2007 01:25 GMT
>> >> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/TheRealReasonYoure
Broke.aspx

>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>the first week of taking control of Congress we've already seen
>an increase in the minimum wage,

Er, yeah it does.  I said "middle class".  The minimum wage doesn't have a
thing to do with the middle class.  Minimum wage stuff is poor people.  _Both_
parties want a lotta poor people, so that they can have them looking to
government to make their lives better.  Then the politicians can buy their way
into office by providing help.

Middle class people are making $20 - $40 an hour - factory workers, etc.
Politicians of both parties don't like these people, in spite of what they say,
because they can fend for themselves, and don't need a  handout from Uncle Sam,
so therefore can't be manipulated as easily.

>and also proposals to lower
>interest rates on college loans, etc etc.

OK, maybe there's something for the middle class there...  but not a helluva
lot.

>And in any case, mostly empty promises are still much preferable
>to utter contempt,

No, they aren't.  At least the Republicans don't lie about it - they're for
business - always have been, always will be.  They're both a little misguided
when they thing that _anything_ that is good for business is good for the
people, and are also willing to ignore any evidence to the contrary.

>which is all Republicans have had for America's
>middle class for the past 25 years.

Longer...

Dave Head
Brent P - 18 Jan 2007 01:45 GMT
> Middle class people are making $20 - $40 an hour - factory workers, etc.
> Politicians of both parties don't like these people, in spite of what they say,
> because they can fend for themselves, and don't need a  handout from Uncle Sam,
> so therefore can't be manipulated as easily.

People in the middle class can be manipulated easily in terms of what
they think and so forth, but they cannot be controlled as easily as the
poor and are more apt to fight back. A slim and insignifcant differences
for the purpose of your point, one which I share.

The policies of both parties have consistantly been to keep poor people poor
and make middle class people poor. I don't see this trend ending until
the Ds and Rs are kicked out on their a.s wholesale.

The minimum wage indeed does little or nothing for the middle class. It
used to help labor unions by making inexperienced workers too expensive
for their productivity. However, now companies just close the doors and
go to China instead. And that's what the minimum wage really does, it
acts to diminish hiring on the first rung of the job ladder. A great way
to keep people poor.

I cannot believe people forget their first job experiences. With mine, when
wages went up (either by law or union contract) the company would find
ways to tweak the schedual so that the same work got done for the same
amount of money. Less people, more done in the same amount of time,
whatever it took.
DTJ - 18 Jan 2007 04:08 GMT
>Sorry, "ultimately don't lift a finger" doesn't apply here.  Just in
>the first week of taking control of Congress we've already seen
>an increase in the minimum wage, and also proposals to lower
>interest rates on college loans, etc etc.

I don't know why I insist on replying to you morons.

I have not heard about any increase in the minimum wage, but if there
is, that hurts people.  See, companies budget only so much, so an
increase leads to layoffs - of those least able to afford it.  The
president of the company still gets his bonus.

Further, unless the minimum is raised to a living wage, not the
"living wage" bullshit the dimocrats try to push off on you, it won't
matter.  As people I used to work with used to say - 10% of nothing is
still nothing.

>And in any case, mostly empty promises are still much preferable
>to utter contempt, which is all Republicans have had for America's
>middle class for the past 25 years.

Wow.  You mean how I lost my job under clinton, but found one under
Bush?  How my income increased under republican leadership, and fell
under clinton?  Or do you mean how I now pay no taxes under Bush, but
was getting f.cked by clinton?  Any way you slice it, the economy
failed due to clinton, and did much better every other year in the
last 25 when he was NOT in office.

Did I mention I hate replying to morons?
Brent P - 18 Jan 2007 04:22 GMT
> I have not heard about any increase in the minimum wage, but if there
> is, that hurts people.  See, companies budget only so much, so an
> increase leads to layoffs - of those least able to afford it.  The
> president of the company still gets his bonus.


> Further, unless the minimum is raised to a living wage, not the
> "living wage" bullshit the dimocrats try to push off on you, it won't
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> failed due to clinton, and did much better every other year in the
> last 25 when he was NOT in office.

I'll cancel out your metric with my experience... Clinton was still in
office the year I made the most money. In 2007, I might just have worked
my way back up that figure. Since shrub took office I've lost two jobs
because of companies that were doing poorly. As you know, I have no love
for democrats, just pointing out it is a flawed metric.

As to taxes, one of the kill-the-middle-class things that Bush did was to
cause a ton of people to not pay taxes. Creating a voting block that
doesn't pay taxes is very dangerous. That voting block doesn't have a
problem raising taxes on those who still do.

And lastly, the AMT still hasn't been fixed. As inflation marches us all
towards what would have been a very high income in the 1960s.

Of course then there are all the flaws with the whole income tax system
as whole and how it should have never been.
nospam@sbcglobal.net - 18 Jan 2007 05:51 GMT
> >Sorry, "ultimately don't lift a finger" doesn't apply here.  Just in
> >the first week of taking control of Congress we've already seen
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> I have not heard about any increase in the minimum wage

Where on earth do you live, a f.cking cave?
Fred G. Mackey - 19 Jan 2007 06:32 GMT
>>>Sorry, "ultimately don't lift a finger" doesn't apply here.  Just in
>>>the first week of taking control of Congress we've already seen
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Where on earth do you live, a f.cking cave?

No sh.t.  How much attention should anyone pay to someone with their
head so far up their a.s that they haven't heard anything about a
minimum wage increase.

As further proof of his head-up-his-assedness, he offers an anecdote
about his personal situation.

I don't believe we should increase the minimum wage, and I don't credit
Clinton for the '90s being a boom for me personally.  People like DTJ
should buy a f.cking clue.

Hey, there's an interesting business proposition. I'm gonna open a
Clue-Mart.  Nah, it probably wouldn't work - people like him are too
clueless to try to educate themselves.
Fred G. Mackey - 16 Jan 2007 09:27 GMT
> And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
> whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
> while corporations ship your jobs overseas,

They're not shipping my job overseas.  They're just hiring contractors
from half-way around the world, expecting us to teach them how to do our
jobs for 1/3 the money and will fire us (or lay us off) once we've done
it - and it's all "legal".

Those of you who say you don't have a problem with "legal" immigrants
should really like your next job which will entail asking if the
customer wants fries with that.

> leaving you to find
> other jobs that pay 1/2 to 1/3 your old wages.  And you can
> vote into office people who will do what's best for America
> instead of what's best for Rupert Murdoch.
Dave Head - 16 Jan 2007 12:07 GMT
>> And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
>> whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>jobs for 1/3 the money and will fire us (or lay us off) once we've done
>it - and it's all "legal".

No its not.  They're doing this because they can pay them less than the
American wage, and that's the illegal part.  Its just not enforced - neither
the Republicans nor the Democrats are 'into' enforcing this law because they're
_both_ in bed with the big businesses that get away with this.

>Those of you who say you don't have a problem with "legal" immigrants
>should really like your next job which will entail asking if the
>customer wants fries with that.

Our only real path to any kind of $$$ is to _own_ a company such as a plumbing
business, and neither will that get shipped overseas nor will there be anyone
coming from anywhere else to take it over.  IOW, business _owners_ are the only
ones protected any more.  Well, of course there's the unions... they work too.

Dave Head
Scott en Aztlán - 16 Jan 2007 15:52 GMT
Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving:

>Our only real path to any kind of $$$ is to _own_ a company such as a plumbing
>business, and neither will that get shipped overseas nor will there be anyone
>coming from anywhere else to take it over.  IOW, business _owners_ are the only
>ones protected any more.

Holy sh.t, Dave - that's some profound insight. I'm gonna have to take
back all those nasty things I said about you!! :)
Signature

I hate speediots - especially Carl Troller.

Dave Head - 18 Jan 2007 01:27 GMT
>Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Holy sh.t, Dave - that's some profound insight. I'm gonna have to take
>back all those nasty things I said about you!! :)

<GGG>

Hey, you being a car guy, you gonna come down to Tucson and run any of the SCCA
National Road Rallies the 1st weekend in March?

Dave Head
Scott en Aztlán - 18 Jan 2007 02:16 GMT
Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving:

>Hey, you being a car guy, you gonna come down to Tucson and run any of the SCCA
>National Road Rallies the 1st weekend in March?

Not bloody likely - I hate Tucson, even in March (when the weather is
actually pretty decent). :)
Signature

I'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it!

Dave Head - 18 Jan 2007 02:24 GMT
>Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Not bloody likely - I hate Tucson, even in March (when the weather is
>actually pretty decent). :)

Aw, its run out in the countryside anyway... pretty scenery, and I think one of
the rallies may be going to Tombstone, maybe...  fun, something to do.  I'm
running all 3 days - Fri, Sat, Sun.

Dave Head
nospam@sbcglobal.net - 16 Jan 2007 17:57 GMT
> >> And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
> >> whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> the Republicans nor the Democrats are 'into' enforcing this law because they're
> _both_ in bed with the big businesses that get away with this.

What law are you referring to?  Since 1981 our federal
tax policy has rewarded corporations for shipping as many
jobs as possible overseas.
Dave Head - 16 Jan 2007 23:34 GMT
>> >> And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
>> >> whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>tax policy has rewarded corporations for shipping as many
>jobs as possible overseas.

Yes, that's outsourcing, but the mechanism for the H1B visa that allows the
foreigners to come here and take American jobs on American soil specifies that
they not get paid less than the Americans.  But this law is not enforced by
either party.  This nonsense was rampant even in the Clinton years, and just
got worse since then.

People don't believe that the software jobs market is hosed, but they should
attempt to find some of the old software books - books on the Java langauge,
and others - go to Amazon and you get shuttled off to associate sellers that
are selling used books - can't get a new copy.  Go to your local bookstore and
they can't get it at all.   If the software development jobs are out there,
you'd think that throngs of people would want to be buying software books, but
they're not.  The only good thing about it is that virtually all software books
have big discounts associated with them now if they are software development
oriented.

Dave Head
SpammersDie - 18 Jan 2007 01:11 GMT
>> >> And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
>> >> whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> tax policy has rewarded corporations for shipping as many
> jobs as possible overseas.

The fact no mentions is that the ultimate reward comes from you - the
consumers who are always looking to separate merchants from their wares at
the lowest price possible - and the merchants who'll have the easiest time
accepting the lowest price are those who in turn buy their labor at the
cheapest possible price.

Everyone's opposed to outsourcing - until it comes time to spend their own
money at the store - then it's screw the workers who make a living selling
whatever you're buying - you'll look out for your bottom line first, last
and only.
Fred G. Mackey - 19 Jan 2007 04:58 GMT
>>>And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
>>>whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> No its not.  They're doing this because they can pay them less than the
> American wage, and that's the illegal part.

It would be illegal if they hired them as H1-B visa holders, BUT the
loophole is that now they hire contractors.

>  Its just not enforced - neither
> the Republicans nor the Democrats are 'into' enforcing this law because they're
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> coming from anywhere else to take it over.  IOW, business _owners_ are the only
> ones protected any more.  Well, of course there's the unions... they work too.

Yeah - unions work great at destroying businesses and keeping people in
low-paying jobs with no hope for advancement.

> Dave Head
Scott en Aztlán - 16 Jan 2007 15:49 GMT
"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> said in rec.autos.driving:

>They're not shipping my job overseas.  They're just hiring contractors
>from half-way around the world, expecting us to teach them how to do our
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>should really like your next job which will entail asking if the
>customer wants fries with that.

Real wealth has always come not from HAVING a job but from CREATING
jobs. As long as you are just an employee, you are vulnerable. Once
you take the risks and become the boss, no one can outsource your job.
Signature

I hate speediots - especially Carl Troller.

Brent P - 16 Jan 2007 16:37 GMT
> Real wealth has always come not from HAVING a job but from CREATING
> jobs. As long as you are just an employee, you are vulnerable. Once
> you take the risks and become the boss, no one can outsource your job.

So when competition that uses slave labor comes into your marketplace and
sells product below their cost and drives you out of business that's
what exactly?

Contractors in various knowledge industries? Why pay them when you can
hire some guys from India for less than half?

Even as the boss you're very vulnerable, it is just different risk.
nospam@sbcglobal.net - 16 Jan 2007 17:50 GMT
> > Real wealth has always come not from HAVING a job but from CREATING
> > jobs. As long as you are just an employee, you are vulnerable. Once
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> sells product below their cost and drives you out of business that's
> what exactly?

The "free" market.

Just remember, Tuesday is Soylent Green day.

> Contractors in various knowledge industries? Why pay them when you can
> hire some guys from India for less than half?
>
> Even as the boss you're very vulnerable, it is just different risk.

Exactly.
zeez - 18 Jan 2007 19:00 GMT
> > > Real wealth has always come not from HAVING a job but from CREATING
> > > jobs. As long as you are just an employee, you are vulnerable. Once
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> The "free" market.

Yep, the "free" market that uses slaves. >:( Examples abound all over
the world, esp. In the garment, chocolate and sugar industries. I hope
for those at the top that know, condone and participate in these
practices that selling their soul was worth their 30 peices of silver.
Ed Pirrero - 18 Jan 2007 20:40 GMT
> > > > Real wealth has always come not from HAVING a job but from CREATING
> > > > jobs. As long as you are just an employee, you are vulnerable. Once
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>  Yep, the "free" market that uses slaves.

There is no such thing as a "free market".  No matter what, there will
always be some sort of restriction on the market, imposed from above or
below.  All the wishing in the world will not establish a free market.

E.P.
Matthew T. Russotto - 16 Jan 2007 20:44 GMT
>Real wealth has always come not from HAVING a job but from CREATING
>jobs. As long as you are just an employee, you are vulnerable. Once
>you take the risks and become the boss, no one can outsource your job.

Ah, but not everyone can be the boss -- and most of those who take the
risks end up broke.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN - 16 Jan 2007 20:51 GMT
>> Real wealth has always come not from HAVING a job but from CREATING
>> jobs. As long as you are just an employee, you are vulnerable. Once
>> you take the risks and become the boss, no one can outsource your job.
>
> Ah, but not everyone can be the boss -- and most of those who take the
> risks end up broke.

I've run my own retail business.  I did it mostly for the benefit of the power
company, my landlord, the yellow pages, and my employees.  They always got paid
first.  If there was something left then it was mine.  There wasn't always.

Now I work for a huge corporation.  They have to pay me.  They can't outsource
me.  I don't get rich but I do get paid.

Signature

Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Dave Head - 16 Jan 2007 23:40 GMT
>>> Real wealth has always come not from HAVING a job but from CREATING
>>> jobs. As long as you are just an employee, you are vulnerable. Once
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Now I work for a huge corporation.  They have to pay me.  They can't outsource
>me.  I don't get rich but I do get paid.

They can't outsource you, but can they hire an H1B visa holder from India and
pay 'em 1/3rd your salary?

DPH
Mortimer Schnerd, RN - 17 Jan 2007 05:10 GMT
>> Now I work for a huge corporation.  They have to pay me.  They can't
>> outsource me.  I don't get rich but I do get paid.
>
> They can't outsource you, but can they hire an H1B visa holder from India and
> pay 'em 1/3rd your salary?

Heh... they hired a few Indian nurses for our hospital and we seemed to end up
with most of them on my unit.  Just this weekend, I had to listen to a man bitch
for a good 15 minutes about his treatment on the night shift, when the Indians
work.  He said, "You'd tell them something and they'd just smile.  Then nothing
would happen.  They obviously didn't know what the hell I had just said."

That's it in a nutshell.  Sure, the hospital can bring them in.  The hospital
can also lose most of its patients to the several hospitals in the area that
hire actual English speaking nurses.

The hospital hates to spend money.  They hate complaints too.  They especially
hate lawsuits based on an inability of the staff to understand what's being said
to them.... kind of hard to defend, if you know what I mean.

I don't feel too threatened.

Signature

Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Dave Head - 16 Jan 2007 23:39 GMT
>"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>jobs. As long as you are just an employee, you are vulnerable. Once
>you take the risks and become the boss, no one can outsource your job.

The boss's job is pretty secure, alright, but that doesn't make it desirable.
The bosses of these companies are essentially indespensible, and tend to work
12, 14 hrs a day, usually 6 days a week if not 7, and can't just take off for a
vacation while he's got 20 employees depending on his day-to-day presence.
Yeah, I've seen some businesses just close for a week or 2 while the boss takes
the kids to see Yellowstone, but that was 30 years ago.  I suspect that the
environment is too competitive nowadays for that.

Dave Head
Ed Pirrero - 18 Jan 2007 20:38 GMT
> >"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> said in rec.autos.driving:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> the kids to see Yellowstone, but that was 30 years ago.  I suspect that the
> environment is too competitive nowadays for that.

Absolutely correct.

My boss did that for the first 5 years he owned the company.  12-14
hour days, 6 days a week.  Broke his marriage.

He is FINALLY to a point where he isn't required for the day-to-day
operations of the company.  He plans on getting out, taking a $3M
payout, and being done with work.  He's 45, looks 60, and has nothing
but his toys.

I wouldn't trade him places for $30M.

E.P.
Fred G. Mackey - 19 Jan 2007 05:11 GMT
> "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> jobs. As long as you are just an employee, you are vulnerable. Once
> you take the risks and become the boss, no one can outsource your job.

I work with someone who did that.  We have pretty much exactly the same
skills, the same salary and the same responsibilities.

The big difference is that I never suffered through the financial
hardship of having started a failed business.

Granted, if things had been different, I'd still be doing what I'm doing
and he'd be sitting pretty with more money than he knew what to do with.

My point is that it's a bit more complicated than just starting a
business - you have to start a successful business, which is a bit more
difficult.

As for me, I think there are more important things than wealth.  I'd
rather be poor and happy than rich and miserable.  As it is, I'm doing
allright financially and am reasonably content.  There are plenty of
material things I wish I could afford, but then again, I'm not really
lacking.

I can look back to the days when I shared a $300 a month apartment with
a roommate and had no car and was pretty happy with that situation at
the time.  I've come a long way since then and I wouldn't be satisfied
with doing it again, but I'm not heartbroken that I'm not living in a
$500,000 (or more) house with 3 vehicles in the garage and a condo in
Tahoe either.
Matthew T. Russotto - 21 Jan 2007 03:04 GMT
>My point is that it's a bit more complicated than just starting a
>business - you have to start a successful business, which is a bit more
>difficult.
>
>As for me, I think there are more important things than wealth.  I'd
>rather be poor and happy than rich and miserable.

It's easier to be rich and happy than poor and happy.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

nospam@sbcglobal.net - 21 Jan 2007 03:33 GMT
> >My point is that it's a bit more complicated than just starting a
> >business - you have to start a successful business, which is a bit more
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> It's easier to be rich and happy than poor and happy.

Like hell it is.  Read any biography or autobiography of a
rich person and you'll find the exact same stories of misery,
substance abuse, spousal abuse, self-abuse etc etc.
Absolute hell.
Matthew T. Russotto - 21 Jan 2007 04:31 GMT
>> >My point is that it's a bit more complicated than just starting a
>> >business - you have to start a successful business, which is a bit more
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>substance abuse, spousal abuse, self-abuse etc etc.
>Absolute hell.

Watch any of the courtroom shows in the "Judge Mathis" or "Jerry
Springer" vein and you'll find all the same, only with poor people.
They just don't write books about it... or no one buys them, anyway.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

nospam@sbcglobal.net - 21 Jan 2007 04:40 GMT
> >> >My point is that it's a bit more complicated than just starting a
> >> >business - you have to start a successful business, which is a bit more
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Springer" vein and you'll find all the same, only with poor people.
> They just don't write books about it... or no one buys them, anyway.

I wouldn't dispute that point, but it has nothing to do with
your first claim.  Money has got zilch to do with happiness.
aemeijers@att.net - 21 Jan 2007 05:23 GMT
>> >> >My point is that it's a bit more complicated than just starting a
>> >> >business - you have to start a successful business, which is a bit
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> I wouldn't dispute that point, but it has nothing to do with
> your first claim.  Money has got zilch to do with happiness.

No, money can't buy happiness, but properly handled, it can buy freedom-
freedom from most of the pissant daily PITAs that can make life for us
normal folk almost too much to bear, on a bad day.

I've been poor- didn't care for it, and I'm gonna try like hell to not do
THAT again. I'll probably never be rich- I'm not that good at playing the
game. But now that I am in that fuzzy in-between stage of 'comfortable', my
average stress level is a lot lower than it used to be. (Of course, it helps
that my tastes are simple, and I don't have any others depending on me on a
regular basis.)

aem sends...
nospam@sbcglobal.net - 21 Jan 2007 05:34 GMT
> >> >> >My point is that it's a bit more complicated than just starting a
> >> >> >business - you have to start a successful business, which is a bit
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> that my tastes are simple, and I don't have any others depending on me on a
> regular basis.)

Comfort is relative.  E.g. rich people, regardless of how much
they insist otherwise, cannot begin to appreciate a good meal
as much as a poor person.  Nor can they appreciate nice
housing, decent clothing, transportation etc as much as poor
people.  Simply put, and within practical limits, wealth and
power are misery, while poverty is happiness.
Brent P - 21 Jan 2007 06:14 GMT
> Comfort is relative.  E.g. rich people, regardless of how much
> they insist otherwise, cannot begin to appreciate a good meal
> as much as a poor person.  Nor can they appreciate nice
> housing, decent clothing, transportation etc as much as poor
> people.  Simply put, and within practical limits, wealth and
> power are misery, while poverty is happiness.

Poverty means being subject to other people's whims and power games all
the time. It means being weak and a target.

Poverty can be happy if one is a monk living behind walls and never
needing to deal with the outside world while in the pursuit of whatever
intellectual or spirital interests he has. It is not happy if one is doing
back breaking labor 12 hours a day and barely making enough money to
live. It is not happy if one is spending their entire day surving.
nospam@sbcglobal.net - 21 Jan 2007 08:46 GMT
> > Comfort is relative.  E.g. rich people, regardless of how much
> > they insist otherwise, cannot begin to appreciate a good meal
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> back breaking labor 12 hours a day and barely making enough money to
> live. It is not happy if one is spending their entire day surving.

That's why I included the term "within practical limits".  I'm
not claiming happiness is working 12 hours a day.  I'm saying
a person can instead choose to work 8 or 9 hours a day, do
without payments for a brand new car, a f.cking cell phone
etc, and he'll wind up a lot happier.
Scott en Aztlán - 21 Jan 2007 16:06 GMT
<nospam@sbcglobal.net> said in rec.autos.driving:

>Simply put, and within practical limits, wealth and
>power are misery, while poverty is happiness.

Please allow me to take that miserable burden of wealth off your
shoulders. Give me all your money and your possessions, and enjoy the
resulting happiness with my compliments.
Signature

I'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it!

Matthew T. Russotto - 21 Jan 2007 19:16 GMT
>Comfort is relative.  E.g. rich people, regardless of how much
>they insist otherwise, cannot begin to appreciate a good meal
>as much as a poor person.

On the contrary, a rich person will appreciate a good meal more than a
poor person; the poor person is less likely to appreciate the
distinction between an average meal and a good one.  And the poor
person is a lot less likely to GET a good meal.

>Nor can they appreciate nice
>housing, decent clothing, transportation etc as much as poor
>people.  Simply put, and within practical limits, wealth and
>power are misery, while poverty is happiness.

I take it you're posting from a public library, then?
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Brent P - 21 Jan 2007 06:07 GMT
> I wouldn't dispute that point, but it has nothing to do with
> your first claim.  Money has got zilch to do with happiness.

My happiness is proportional how much I am left alone and not bothered.
This society has been moving such that only money can buy the ability to
simply be left alone. It shouldn't be that way, but that's the way things
have been moving for a long time.
Bob Ward - 21 Jan 2007 06:50 GMT
>> >> >My point is that it's a bit more complicated than just starting a
>> >> >business - you have to start a successful business, which is a bit more
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>I wouldn't dispute that point, but it has nothing to do with
>your first claim.  Money has got zilch to do with happiness.

Oh, yeah?  All the happiness in the world can't buy happiness.  So
there!
jdoe - 21 Jan 2007 13:17 GMT
>I wouldn't dispute that point, but it has nothing to do with
>your first claim.  Money has got zilch to do with happiness.

what none of you are grasping is the fact that money is only a tool,
it can be used to fund happiness or sadness, like any tool it can used
properly or improperly, it all depends on how and who is using the
tool.
nospam@sbcglobal.net - 21 Jan 2007 20:11 GMT
> >I wouldn't dispute that point, but it has nothing to do with
> >your first claim.  Money has got zilch to do with happiness.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> properly or improperly, it all depends on how and who is using the
> tool.

I used to believe that.  But after 45 years of being both very
poor and very rich, and seeing the experiences of others I've
reached the conclusion money makes people miserable of its
own accord.  When Jesus said it's easier for a camel to pass
through an eye of a needle, than for a rich person to enter
heaven, do you think he was exaggerating?

To Matthew, "sufficient" (like "comfortable") is also a relative
term.  Again, I'm not advocating dire poverty for anyone, only
honest separation between needs and wants.
Matthew T. Russotto - 21 Jan 2007 18:58 GMT
>I wouldn't dispute that point, but it has nothing to do with
>your first claim.  Money has got zilch to do with happiness.

You only think that because you have sufficient money.

Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew T. Russotto - 16 Jan 2007 20:36 GMT
>They're not shipping my job overseas.  They're just hiring contractors
>from half-way around the world, expecting us to teach them how to do our
>jobs for 1/3 the money and will fire us (or lay us off) once we've done
>it - and it's all "legal".

Then the game is to figure out exactly how many ways you can subtlely
sabatoge them.  Bonus points if they screw up in a way which gets your
former employer jailed.

>Those of you who say you don't have a problem with "legal" immigrants
>should really like your next job which will entail asking if the
>customer wants fries with that.

I'm pretty sure some fast food places have actually started
out-sourcing the order-taking.  The person you can't understand on the
other end of the microphone might actually BE a half a world way,
rather than just sound it.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 16 Jan 2007 04:14 GMT
Scott en Aztl?n wrote:
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/TheRealReasonYoure
Broke.aspx

>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> than $8,000 a year on average -- and it's driving some to the breaking
> point.

Americans are such idiots. They've been brainwashed into buying a new
$40,000 car every couple years, instead of just buying a $1000 beater
every 10 years.
aemeijers@att.net - 16 Jan 2007 04:41 GMT
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/TheRealReasonYoure
Broke.aspx

>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> than $8,000 a year on average -- and it's driving some to the breaking
> point.

Americans are such idiots. They've been brainwashed into buying a new
$40,000 car every couple years, instead of just buying a $1000 beater
every 10 years.

Around here, the days of the reliable $1000 beater are long over. I have to
pay at least 5k for reliable now. Being in salt  country is a large part of
the problem. That, and I'm getting frigging OLD. Breakdowns seem to always
be on the side of a dark country 2-laner at 0200, with wet stuff falling out
of the sky. It used to be an adventure- now it is just a PITA. I want
reliable- just get in and drive, and not have to think about it.

Of course, being a cheap SOB, the most expensive car I ever bought was $8200
for a 99 Accord, about 4 years ago. It should last another 4-5 years for me,
easy, as little as I use it. I do have to start thinking about replacing
that $5k 95 dodge caravan hauling vehicle- it is starting to make death
sounds. Only got 5 1/2 years out of that, so far. I've never had a car
payment, and never plan to. The used junk I buy lasts 4-5 years, and then I
buy something else.

aem sends....
Brent P - 16 Jan 2007 06:31 GMT
>> Americans are such idiots. They've been brainwashed into buying a new
>> $40,000 car every couple years, instead of just buying a $1000 beater
>> every 10 years.

> Around here, the days of the reliable $1000 beater are long over. I have to
> pay at least 5k for reliable now. Being in salt  country is a large part of
> the problem. That, and I'm getting frigging OLD. Breakdowns seem to always
> be on the side of a dark country 2-laner at 0200, with wet stuff falling out
> of the sky. It used to be an adventure- now it is just a PITA. I want
> reliable- just get in and drive, and not have to think about it.

The best thing to do IMO is buy a new car, take care of it, and keep it
for a very long time.

> payment, and never plan to. The used junk I buy lasts 4-5 years, and then I
> buy something else.

I'd rather have a car I know.... the torqueless wonder was a car I
learned how to work on cars with since my parents bought it new. I was
having a problem that I thought was ignition. I had to replace the spark
plugs in the dark as my flashlight died on me. I did it. I simply knew my
way around that car that well.
rick++ - 16 Jan 2007 14:46 GMT
I calculation I spend 7% of take home pay.

The nice thing about a new car is that you dont have to worry
about repairs for 4-5 years.