Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007
The REAL Reason You're Broke
|
|
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.
|
|