misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=enmisc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* buying old meat from supermarket - 11 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3fa9fe4b1c206b1a?hl=en
* The Frugal Birth Control method. Bible style - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b9ec4fd4e98c6a51?hl=en
* Lower Wages for American Workers - 9 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/41617a060889d131?hl=en
* Use home carpet cleaner on auto cloth/carpet? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/95e096ffc216949e?hl=en
* Home heating oil price? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/25ab6d7a439ac7f1?hl=en
* Individual frugality is no match for population growth - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ff7513a55a2c0c8e?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: buying old meat from supermarket
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3fa9fe4b1c206b1a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 11:05 am
From: TFM®
"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:g9jujd$p1b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> As we know some people have a greater density of taste buds built into
> their tongues. I have less, but my wife and son have more than i do and
> they can detect subtle food flavours that I cannot.
>
> Tescos in North London U.K. sometime do meat in their 'reduced price'
> section. The other day I got some really good beef and lamb which was
> slightly 'darker' coloured from this section at about 1/4 of the normal
> price. I fried it up and enjoyed it and put the rest in the freezer.
>
> Other members of the family thought this was truly awful. My view is that
> although if you smell it closely, it is different; but that it is
> basically just a bit of *oxizidation* and it does not effect the taste.
> Years ago they used to hang up 'game' outside for weeks.
>
> Views on this really seem to divide people. But I cannot believe that a
> big store like Tesco would continue to sell this very slightly off
> coloured meat, if it represented any health risk.
> Any comments on this please, whether one can safetly consume such meat?
>
>
"Reduced for quick sale" is my favorite cut of meat. I've eaten it for
decades.
If it stinks when you open it, let it breathe a while. If it still stinks
after a few minutes, you be the judge. I've had a lot of 'fresh' cryovaced
meat stink like hell right out of the package but then smell fresh as a
daisy minutes later.
I just finished eating some questionable ground lamb. First time I've ever
had it. I'll update tomorrow if I become ill.
Also, I've had fresh smelling meat emit a stench from Hell once I started
cooking it. It's only happened a couple of times, but it went into the
trash immediately.
TFM®
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 11:11 am
From: STRATEGY
On Sep 2, 11:05 am, TFM® <hillbilly...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "john d hamilton" <blues...@mail.invalid> wrote in messagenews:g9jujd$p1b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > As we know some people have a greater density of taste buds built into
> > their tongues. I have less, but my wife and son have more than i do and
> > they can detect subtle food flavours that I cannot.
>
> > Tescos in North London U.K. sometime do meat in their 'reduced price'
> > section. The other day I got some really good beef and lamb which was
> > slightly 'darker' coloured from this section at about 1/4 of the normal
> > price. I fried it up and enjoyed it and put the rest in the freezer.
>
> > Other members of the family thought this was truly awful. My view is that
> > although if you smell it closely, it is different; but that it is
> > basically just a bit of *oxizidation* and it does not effect the taste.
> > Years ago they used to hang up 'game' outside for weeks.
>
> > Views on this really seem to divide people. But I cannot believe that a
> > big store like Tesco would continue to sell this very slightly off
> > coloured meat, if it represented any health risk.
> > Any comments on this please, whether one can safetly consume such meat?
>
> "Reduced for quick sale" is my favorite cut of meat. I've eaten it for
> decades.
I do the same thing, never had any problems with it or ever had
anything that smelled close to bad.
I've occasionally noticed a bit of discoloration, but no more aso than
if i bought it fresh and it sat in the fridge for a day or two.
STRATEGY
>
> If it stinks when you open it, let it breathe a while. If it still stinks
> after a few minutes, you be the judge. I've had a lot of 'fresh' cryovaced
> meat stink like hell right out of the package but then smell fresh as a
> daisy minutes later.
>
> I just finished eating some questionable ground lamb. First time I've ever
> had it. I'll update tomorrow if I become ill.
>
> Also, I've had fresh smelling meat emit a stench from Hell once I started
> cooking it. It's only happened a couple of times, but it went into the
> trash immediately.
>
> TFM®- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 11:12 am
From: "Rod Speed"
john d hamilton <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote:
> As we know some people have a greater density of taste buds built
> into their tongues. I have less, but my wife and son have more than
> i do and they can detect subtle food flavours that I cannot.
There is a lot more involved in just the density of taste buds.
> Tescos in North London U.K. sometime do meat in their 'reduced price'
> section. The other day I got some really good beef and lamb which was
> slightly 'darker' coloured from this section at about 1/4 of the normal price. I fried it up and enjoyed it and put
> the rest in the freezer.
> Other members of the family thought this was truly awful. My view is that although if you smell it closely, it is
> different; but that it is basically just a bit of *oxizidation*
Its most likely actually from older animals.
> and it does not effect the taste. Years ago they used to hang up 'game' outside for weeks.
Meat is still aged today.
> Views on this really seem to divide people. But I cannot believe that a big store like Tesco would continue to sell
> this very slightly off coloured meat, if it represented any health risk.
Yes, its not a health risk. There is a significant taste difference tho.
> Any comments on this please, whether one can safetly consume such meat?
Corse its safe, if it wasnt they wouldnt be selling it. There is a significant taste difference
tho. And there may well be a significant difference in how tender the meat is too.
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 1:36 pm
From: Nancy2
>
> Corse its safe, if it wasnt they wouldnt be selling it. There is a significant taste difference
> tho. And there may well be a significant difference in how tender the meat is too.
I think you give the sellers more credit than they deserve.
Everybody's tolerance is different; I cannot eat beef older than a
couple days; it makes me sick as a dog.
I never buy old meat, regardless of the purveyor. OTOH, I don't buy
much red meat anymore, anyway.
N.
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 1:36 pm
From: "Dimitri"
"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:g9jujd$p1b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> As we know some people have a greater density of taste buds built into
> their tongues. I have less, but my wife and son have more than i do and
> they can detect subtle food flavours that I cannot.
>
> Tescos in North London U.K. sometime do meat in their 'reduced price'
> section. The other day I got some really good beef and lamb which was
> slightly 'darker' coloured from this section at about 1/4 of the normal
> price. I fried it up and enjoyed it and put the rest in the freezer.
> Other members of the family thought this was truly awful. My view is that
> although if you smell it closely, it is different; but that it is
> basically just a bit of *oxizidation* and it does not effect the taste.
> Years ago they used to hang up 'game' outside for weeks.
Then again people used to die at 30 from natural causes Including parasites.
> Views on this really seem to divide people. But I cannot believe that a
> big store like Tesco would continue to sell this very slightly off
> coloured meat, if it represented any health risk.
> Any comments on this please, whether one can safetly consume such meat?
I use the "SHORT CODE" ( at the sell by date) marked down meat all the time
& have for years.
Dimitri
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 2:10 pm
From: Sue Bilkens
Old meat is pretty much the only meat I buy..I check the local grocery store
almost every day.
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 18:53:46 +0100, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "john d
hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote:
>As we know some people have a greater density of taste buds built into their
>tongues. I have less, but my wife and son have more than i do and they can
>detect subtle food flavours that I cannot.
>
>Tescos in North London U.K. sometime do meat in their 'reduced price'
>section. The other day I got some really good beef and lamb which was
>slightly 'darker' coloured from this section at about 1/4 of the normal
>price. I fried it up and enjoyed it and put the rest in the freezer.
>
>Other members of the family thought this was truly awful. My view is that
>although if you smell it closely, it is different; but that it is basically
>just a bit of *oxizidation* and it does not effect the taste. Years ago
>they used to hang up 'game' outside for weeks.
>
>Views on this really seem to divide people. But I cannot believe that a big
>store like Tesco would continue to sell this very slightly off coloured
>meat, if it represented any health risk.
>Any comments on this please, whether one can safetly consume such meat?
>
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 2:02 pm
From: Dave Smith
Dimitri wrote:
>>
>> Other members of the family thought this was truly awful. My view is
>> that although if you smell it closely, it is different; but that it
>> is basically just a bit of *oxizidation* and it does not effect the
>> taste. Years ago they used to hang up 'game' outside for weeks.
>
> Then again people used to die at 30 from natural causes Including
> parasites.
Then again, a lot of people used to live very long lives. My mothers
ashes were interred in the cemetery of one of the older local churches
and visiting her grave I usually end up walking around looking at the
old grave markers. There are lots of infants and young people buried
there, but there are a surprising number of people who lived well into
their 80s and 90s. My sister in law is quite convinced that people of
previous generations lived longer and that the average live expectancy
is is skewed by infant mortality, childhood diseases, mothers dying
during childbirth, farm or industrial accidents, but that once someone
got past childhood and reproductive years they were likely to live a
long life.
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 2:32 pm
From: Palindrome
Dave Smith wrote:
> Dimitri wrote:
>>>
>>> Other members of the family thought this was truly awful. My view is
>>> that although if you smell it closely, it is different; but that it
>>> is basically just a bit of *oxizidation* and it does not effect the
>>> taste. Years ago they used to hang up 'game' outside for weeks.
>>
>> Then again people used to die at 30 from natural causes Including
>> parasites.
>
> Then again, a lot of people used to live very long lives. My mothers
> ashes were interred in the cemetery of one of the older local churches
> and visiting her grave I usually end up walking around looking at the
> old grave markers. There are lots of infants and young people buried
> there, but there are a surprising number of people who lived well into
> their 80s and 90s. My sister in law is quite convinced that people of
> previous generations lived longer and that the average live expectancy
> is is skewed by infant mortality, childhood diseases, mothers dying
> during childbirth, farm or industrial accidents, but that once someone
> got past childhood and reproductive years they were likely to live a
> long life.
I suspect rural rather than city churches. Plenty of "five a day" and
plenty of muck to build up a pretty good immune system in childhood.
Which is really the answer to the OP's question. If you have had a
childhood eating stuff full of bacteria and toxins, a few more of the
same aren't even going to be noticed. Even if you do get ill, it is
going to be less ill and for less time, usually.
After a couple of years of living and working in Madagascar, I can
probably cope eating anything that isn't trying to get off the table,
all by itself - as long as it is cooked at high temperature for long
enough. Salads, overseas, OTOH...
--
Sue
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 2:47 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Nancy2 <nancy-dooley@uiowa.edu> wrote:
>>> Any comments on this please, whether one can safetly consume such meat?
>> Corse its safe, if it wasnt they wouldnt be selling it. There
>> is a significant taste difference tho. And there may well be
>> a significant difference in how tender the meat is too.
> I think you give the sellers more credit than they deserve.
More fool you.
> Everybody's tolerance is different; I cannot eat beef
> older than a couple days; it makes me sick as a dog.
Your problem. That wont be a safety issue, its purely psychological.
> I never buy old meat, regardless of the purveyor.
> OTOH, I don't buy much red meat anymore, anyway.
Your problem.
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 2:50 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Dimitri wrote:
>>>
>>> Other members of the family thought this was truly awful. My view
>>> is that although if you smell it closely, it is different; but
>>> that it is basically just a bit of *oxizidation* and it does not
>>> effect the taste. Years ago they used to hang up 'game' outside for
>>> weeks.
>>
>> Then again people used to die at 30 from natural causes Including
>> parasites.
>
> Then again, a lot of people used to live very long lives. My mothers
> ashes were interred in the cemetery of one of the older local churches
> and visiting her grave I usually end up walking around looking at the
> old grave markers. There are lots of infants and young people buried
> there, but there are a surprising number of people who lived well into
> their 80s and 90s. My sister in law is quite convinced that people of
> previous generations lived longer
More fool her. Its trivial to prove that they didnt.
> and that the average live expectancy is is skewed by infant mortality, childhood diseases, mothers dying during
> childbirth, farm or industrial accidents, but that once someone got past childhood and reproductive years they were
> likely to live a long life.
Its completely trivial to prove that they didnt and the
insurance industry has been proving that for centurys now.
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 3:06 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Dimitri wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Other members of the family thought this was truly awful. My view
>>>> is that although if you smell it closely, it is different; but
>>>> that it is basically just a bit of *oxizidation* and it does not
>>>> effect the taste. Years ago they used to hang up 'game' outside
>>>> for weeks.
>>>
>>> Then again people used to die at 30 from natural causes Including
>>> parasites.
>>
>> Then again, a lot of people used to live very long lives. My mothers
>> ashes were interred in the cemetery of one of the older local
>> churches and visiting her grave I usually end up walking around
>> looking at the old grave markers. There are lots of infants and
>> young people buried there, but there are a surprising number of
>> people who lived well into their 80s and 90s. My sister in law is
>> quite convinced that people of previous generations lived longer and
>> that the average live expectancy is is skewed by infant mortality,
>> childhood diseases, mothers dying during childbirth, farm or
>> industrial accidents, but that once someone got past childhood and
>> reproductive years they were likely to live a long life.
> I suspect rural rather than city churches. Plenty of "five a day" and
> plenty of muck to build up a pretty good immune system in childhood.
Doesnt help with the infectious diseases the killed them.
> Which is really the answer to the OP's question.
Nope.
> If you have had a childhood eating stuff full of bacteria and toxins,
Pure fantasy. No one in the first world did anything like that,
even in the worst of the urban slums, let alone rural areas.
> a few more of the same aren't even going to be noticed. Even if you do get ill, it is going to be less ill and for
> less time, usually.
Have fun explaining how the infectious diseases killed so many and
now doesnt anymore once we invented and started to use vaccination.
> After a couple of years of living and working in Madagascar, I can probably cope eating anything that isn't trying to
> get off the table, all by itself - as long as it is cooked at high temperature for long enough.
Pity about what killed the colonialists in huge numbers compared with what we see today.
> Salads, overseas, OTOH...
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Frugal Birth Control method. Bible style
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b9ec4fd4e98c6a51?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 11:42 am
From: former POW
You place a Bible between your knees and keep it there. a.k.a. The
Bristol Stomp.
--
If guns are out-lawed. Only the Out-laws & politicians will have guns.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lower Wages for American Workers
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/41617a060889d131?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 12:12 pm
From: Jeff
jdoe wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:32:55 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Brock wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:30:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
>>> <gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:43:48 -0400, "Joe 'bama" <Schmo@verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
>>>>>>> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
>>>>>> this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your post is
>>>>>> just as ill informed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are correct. This is flat out false. In fact, according to Bureau of
>>>>> Labor Statistics,
>>>>>
>>>>> (For the period from January 2001 - July 2005)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On average, The Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On average, Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's NOT ¼ less jobs under Bush; That's almost 7 TIMES the number of jobs
>>>>> created under Clinton than Bush!
>>>>>
>>>> How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
>>>> government jobs?
>>>>
>>>> Care to give us a break down?
>> I don't have a breakdown under Clinton, certainly a lot of high tech
>> jobs were added amongst others. Certainly wages rose. I do know that
>> under W, the public sector job growth has been greater than the private
>> sector.
> and a lot of high tech jobs vanished, ever heard of the tech bust?
Boom and bust cycles always occur as markets tend to overshoot. The net
benefit of the Internet boom has been positive. Many of those jobs
remain and there remains long term and lasting benefits. It would be
difficult to argue the long term benefits of the loose money goosed
housing market.
> your arguments are simplistic and ill informed ideological rants,
I've backed up every single thing I've ever said. You not only don't
like the conclusions but you have no facts to support your assumptions.
It is your arguments that lack reason and temperment.
For example, this rant of yours:
you
> should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
> idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
Here's some stats for you to choke on:
http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you can
finish up with the discretionary spending increases.
The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
Jeff
> __________________________________________
> Never argue with an idiot.
> They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 12:14 pm
From: Gunner Asch
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:32:55 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>Bob Brock wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:30:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
>> <gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:43:48 -0400, "Joe 'bama" <Schmo@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
>>>>>> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
>>>>> this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your post is
>>>>> just as ill informed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are correct. This is flat out false. In fact, according to Bureau of
>>>> Labor Statistics,
>>>>
>>>> (For the period from January 2001 - July 2005)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On average, The Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On average, Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's NOT ¼ less jobs under Bush; That's almost 7 TIMES the number of jobs
>>>> created under Clinton than Bush!
>>>>
>>> How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
>>> government jobs?
>>>
>>> Care to give us a break down?
>
>I don't have a breakdown under Clinton, certainly a lot of high tech
>jobs were added amongst others. Certainly wages rose. I do know that
>under W, the public sector job growth has been greater than the private
>sector.
You mean like the Border Patrol, TSA, HS and other war related
agencies?
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>
>> Even a fast food job beats no job at all. Well that is unless you are
>> happy on welfare and not paying your hospital bills.
Lots and lots of those folks out there. Look at any inner city, and a
lot of rural areas. Black AND White AND Brown.
>
> Traditional welfare makes up about 1% of the Fed budget. Few people
>make a "living" off welfare. Even AFDC single moms tend to be off in a
>couple years. Arguably "corporate" welfare is a far higher percentage of
>the budget.
True enough. and corporate welfare has been the nastly little secret
of every administration since FDR
>
> This right wing red meat issue has little impact on the economy.
Huh?
>
> As you've stated, even a fast food job beats welfare.
>
> Jeff
One should remember that after the Clinton Recession, The Dot Com
implosion, and the implosion of manufacturing..there were literally
millions of layoffs. Did Clinton actually create jobs, or did those
that got the ax, find work with other companies?
I strongly suggest you check the unemployment figures for 1995-2001
for a timeline and a graph of the numbers laid off, and then
reemployed.
Visa Vis manufacturing...we had a technology shift as a result of the
manufacturing balloon going POP in the late 90s.
Companies that survived, bought trillions of dollars worth of new high
tech machinery, that produced more goods with less than 1/3 the
workers, than before they changed. That 2/3 of the previous workers
either found jobs with new companies, or got out of manufacturing
totally. Those technical jobs, like that of the buggy whip makers, are
never coming back. The new machines displaced them.
And consider the HUGE hit the country took on 9-11-2001. We practially
went into a depresssion after the WTC came down.
We were in the ending stages of the Clinton Recession, but indicators
were showing that we were about to come out of it when the WTC attacks
occured.
You may find this of interest..rather fascinating
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31617.pdf
and this
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=594
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/news/2008/03/dotcom_repeat
"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 12:26 pm
From: Gunner Asch
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:02:25 -0400, jdoe <jdoe@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:32:55 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>>Bob Brock wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:30:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
>>> <gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:43:48 -0400, "Joe 'bama" <Schmo@verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
>>>>>>> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
>>>>>> this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your post is
>>>>>> just as ill informed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are correct. This is flat out false. In fact, according to Bureau of
>>>>> Labor Statistics,
>>>>>
>>>>> (For the period from January 2001 - July 2005)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On average, The Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On average, Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's NOT ¼ less jobs under Bush; That's almost 7 TIMES the number of jobs
>>>>> created under Clinton than Bush!
>>>>>
>>>> How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
>>>> government jobs?
>>>>
>>>> Care to give us a break down?
>>
>>I don't have a breakdown under Clinton, certainly a lot of high tech
>>jobs were added amongst others. Certainly wages rose. I do know that
>>under W, the public sector job growth has been greater than the private
>>sector.
>and a lot of high tech jobs vanished, ever heard of the tech bust?
>your arguments are simplistic and ill informed ideological rants, you
>should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
>idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
http://www.washtech.org/reports/AmericasHighTechBust/AmericasHighTechBust.pdf
Sunday, August 21, 2005
5 years after the bust, a sober, new reality
By Shirleen Holt and Kristi Heim
Seattle Times business reporters
Dot-com 2.0: Jobster, an online recruiting startup founded by Jason
Goldberg, reflects the post-recession realities. Goldberg, 33, says
this isn't a company built "for the pot of gold at the end of the
rainbow."
The sleeper: Digital.forest survived the tech bust by growing slow and
spending frugally. Now it occupies the "carcass" of a failed
competitor in the Intergate.West technology campus in Tukwila.
Technical operations chief Chuck Goolsbee bought sophisticated
data-storage equipment for cents on the dollar.
When the money flowed: Digital.forest gets to enjoy the "feng-shui"
garden and stream commissioned by the building's failed anchor tenant.
But the real perks are the bands of fiber-optic cable running beneath
the parking lot, giving digital "all the bandwidth we could ever
want," Goolsbee says.
The sleeper: Digital.forest survived the tech bust by growing slow and
spending frugally. Now it occupies the "carcass" of a failed
competitor in the Intergate.West technology campus in Tukwila.
Technical operations chief Chuck Goolsbee bought sophisticated
data-storage equipment for cents on the dollar.
A life outside of work: John McAdam is the CEO of F5 Networks, a
Seattle computer networking company that lets employees take time off
to climb Mount Everest, sail boats, race cars, run marathons or get
involved in the community.
AT FIRST GLANCE, 18-month-old Jobster seems to have re-created the
1999 dot-com office cliché. The online recruiting startup occupies a
loft in Pioneer Square with exposed brick, a wide-open floor plan, a
ping-pong table and a dog running loose.
But the similarities between this young company and the dot-coms that
fell before it end there.
The difference, as founder Jason Goldberg puts it, is: "Web 1.0:
arrogance. Web 2.0: humility."
Five years after the technology bubble burst and two years into its
recovery, the hubris that shaped the 1990s tech startup is noticeably
absent.
So are the five-figure signing bonuses, piles of stock options, lavish
launch parties, $800 Herman Miller office chairs and the flawed
assumption that a New Economy driven by technology was somehow immune
from the old rules of business.
As the tech economy revs up again, a post-recession character emerges:
Drunken optimism is out; sober reality is in.
Job hopping is out; loyalty is in.
Living to work is out; working to live is in.
Greed is out; gratitude is in.
In short, the old-economy workplace is new again.
It's reflected in everything from more cautious hiring to smaller pay
raises and fewer stock grants. It shows up in slower business growth,
saner work schedules, and an almost violent rejection of the jackpot
mentality that dominated tech companies when the economy was in full
boil.
This is apparent even at Jobster's hip offices. While the company's 50
employees stand to benefit nicely from their stock options if the
venture-backed company takes off, money had better not be their top
priority.
Even as the competition for good workers heats up, Goldberg, a
33-year-old, adrenaline-pumped superachiever and former aide to
President Clinton, rejects bribing anyone with a signing bonus, those
up-front payments used by some desperate employers to lure tech
workers back in the 1990s.
"I'm not in the business of buying people," he says, taking a bite of
a taco salad as Scooter, his cocker spaniel, sneaks away with his
napkin. "If dollars are the reason they're coming to Jobster, they're
coming to the wrong place."
Other employers agree. Even though many companies fostered greed
during the boom by promising big salaries and important job titles,
they also resented jobseekers' growing sense of entitlement.
Tamara Rashid, a former recruiter for the computer retailer Zones,
recalled in a 2002 Seattle Times interview: "You'd see them pull up in
their Ferrari and their $5,000 suits, and an air about them that says,
'I'm looking for something that can maintain that car payment.' "
Nor have managers forgotten the bad hires of the past, people who
didn't fit the job or the company's culture. They got hired anyway
because the era's manic sense of urgency — get big fast! — often meant
filling five, 10 or 15 positions in a single week.
Today employers are determined not to repeat past mistakes.
Concur Technologies, a Redmond software company, needs to add up to
100 people this year. But it would rather leave a position open than
fill it with someone not aligned with the company's values, says HR
vice president Susan Webber.
Chief among its values is to create leaders who combine "professional
will and personal humility."
Self-promoters don't fit that model, nor do candidates who hopped from
job to job. "Money jumps," as recruiters call them, are evidence that
the person would bolt the company the minute a more lucrative offer
came up.
"We want to hire people for the long run," Webber says. "Five years
ago that wasn't necessarily the case in the market."
Rapid fall, slow climb back
Sports-car-driving egotists were hardly the majority of employees in
the 1990s, and the rest of the talent pool may still be paying for
their arrogance. But for many tech workers, the job opportunities were
so abundant, and the pay so good, it seemed foolish not to take
advantage of the offers.
Bill Boyde, a veteran software programmer, doubled his income in 1999
when he left a job at Boeing to become an independent contractor.
When the tech bubble burst, contract work dried up and Boyde was among
thousands of programmers without a job. He got one contract gig, but
it was nearly two years before he landed a full-time job, this time at
Nintendo.
But the job hardly involved technology. He earned $9 an hour moving
pallets, stocking shelves and preparing orders for shipping at the
company's distribution warehouse in North Bend.
"The computer system was maintained by their computer people," he
says. His job "was like a grocery clerk without the groceries."
Boyde, 40, has paid for own health insurance since he left Boeing. He
buys the bare minimum to cover emergency care, and he avoided visits
to the doctor for four years. He paid his dentist and optometrist cash
out of pocket.
But his career prospects have gradually improved. In May, he landed a
contract position through a temp agency. He's testing new programming
tools for Microsoft.
"Assuming I do well at this contract," he says, "I think things will
work out."
The recession took its toll on salaries. For the last four years,
annual wage growth among tech workers stayed well below 2 percent
until it inched up to 2.64 percent this past spring, according to
Applied HR Strategies, a Kirkland firm that tracks compensation trends
for about 70 of the state's largest technology companies.
Five years ago, those same salaries were increasing by more than 10
percent a year.
The sluggish pay growth indicates that starting salaries have dropped
for some jobs, says Doug Sayed, owner of HR Strategies.
"The surveys don't measure people who get laid off and have to take a
pay cut to get employed."
Only the pay for the industry's elite — those with lots of experience
and in-demand skills — has continued to rise significantly. A
principal software engineer, for instance, earns about $118,000 a year
compared with $94,000 three years go.
Merit raises are smaller or given less often than in past years,
according to various surveys, the result of explosive health-insurance
costs and a tender economy that still favors employers.
The stock-option gold rush is over, thanks to new accounting rules
requiring companies to list employee options as expenses.
Microsoft, which minted millionaires by the thousands in the 1990s,
stopped granting employee stock options altogether, replacing them
with outright stock grants given more sparingly.
"The vast majority of tech firms still provide options, but the
numbers they're giving have dropped roughly 30 percent," Sayed says.
"I know of at least four public technology companies that have stopped
giving options to new hires. That would have been unheard of a few
years ago."
Overwork revolt
If the economy is recovering, so are the people who fueled it.
On average, tech workers are putting in fewer hours than they were
five years ago — about six hours less per week for software workers,
according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Labor economists don't know if this is because technology has improved
productivity or if attitudes have simply changed.
To be sure, some techies still work insane hours, but there is a
growing backlash against the overwork ethic of the late 1990s. Back
then 10-hour workdays were the minimum. In one storied company-wide
e-mail, a dot-com executive scolded his staff for leaving the office
before 6 p.m.
People were willing to log 50- to 80-hour weeks, however, in exchange
for future stock riches and the chance to build a product, or
sometimes an entire company, from the ground up.
But the bust left legions of workers burned out, bitter and fighting
back.
After three tech workers were laid off from Redmond's Advanced Digital
Information in 2003, they decided they should have been paid for the
extra hours they'd put in during the busy years. They sued their
former employer for violating overtime laws, and won a settlement for
an undisclosed sum.
A larger wage case that could permanently alter the industry's
workaholism involves Electronic Arts in Silicon Valley. Game
developers want to end or at least get paid for "crunches," a final
push before a game is released, which sometimes requires them to work
around the clock.
California software engineer Evan Robinson explained how worker output
declines after 40 hours a week, and that working 20 hours straight "is
the equivalent of being legally drunk." Crunch mode, he concluded, is
"not just abusive, it's stupid."
Robinson posted his analysis last year in his blog, Engines of
Mischief. It drew dozens of responses, including one from a developer
who said he now insists on 40-hour work weeks in his employment
contracts.
Other tech workers took more extreme measures: They left the industry
altogether. By 2002, a quarter of the state's 126,207 tech workers had
scattered to other industries, according to a state report. Some were
pushed out by the sector's decline; but others went willingly.
Susan Boling, 29, once had dreams of rising to a top job in a
technology company. But working 60-hour weeks as a tester for
Microsoft soured that ambition. She quit in 2002 and became an artist
and yoga instructor.
"I don't shake, I don't faint, I don't ever cry anymore," she says.
"Career is important, but life outside of that is much more
important."
Shifting priorities
Back in the late '90s, Lisa Morris-Wolff used to keep a notepad on her
nightstand so she could jot down reminders about work, evidence of a
job so consuming it intruded on her sleep.
She spent 12 or more hours a day as a business-development executive
for Aptimus, an online direct-marketing company in Seattle. When she
wasn't working, she was hanging out with co-workers and talking about
work.
But like a lot of people in the industry, Morris-Wolff got older, got
married, bought a home, had a daughter.
And even though she joined another Internet company, the profitable
and stable 9-year-old onlineshoes.com, her job is no longer her only
focus.
Now when she wakes up, her first thought is, "I wonder if Kate's
awake."
Such shifting priorities are reflected in surveys, which increasingly
show that employees want more time off and more time with their
families.
Last fall, a poll on salary.com found that 39 percent of workers would
choose time off over a $5,000 raise — up 20 percent from a similar
poll three years earlier.
Of all the changes occurring in the tech workplace, this one may be
the most profound. Workers learned through gritty experience that no
amount of money can compensate for not having a personal life.
The catharsis for the Electronic Arts revolt, in fact, came from a Web
posting by a disgruntled spouse.
"When you keep our husbands and wives and children in the office for
90 hours a week sending them home exhausted and numb and frustrated
with their lives," she wrote, "it's not just them you're hurting, but
everyone around them."
For companies worried about retaining their workers once the economy
improves, "work-life balance" has replaced "work hard, get rich" as
the new mantra.
At F5 Networks, a Seattle computer networking company, employees can
take time off to climb Mount Everest, sail boats, race cars, run
marathons or get involved in the community.
"Balancing work and personal life is one of the top goals," says Bryan
Skene, a senior product development manager. "Having a good life means
working hard but also playing hard."
Such corporate spin may sound hollow coming from anyone else. But
Skene, a seven-year veteran, knows what he's talking about.
In 1998, he once worked an 18-hour shift, then headed straight to the
hospital to help his wife deliver their second son.
That was before the bottom fell out of the tech economy and before
F5's growth slowed to a manageable pace.
Today, when employees end up having to work nights or weekends to get
a project done, Skene says, "it's a sign that their manager has done a
poor job of organization."
Frugality regains its charm
If there's a model for the post-bust technology company it might be
digital.forest: patient, measured and lean. Some might even say cheap.
The 11-year-old company hosts Web sites and handles traffic for
companies such as Car Toys. In a good year, its 23 employees might get
a $100 bonus. They've never had an onsite gym, pool table or in-house
massages, but they did get to play Asteroids, a video game the company
bought used on eBay.
When the company napping couch wore out, CEO Kris Bourne decided to
upgrade — to a better couch.
And the table in its reception area? A metal box from Sun
Microsystems.
"Server furniture," says Chuck Goolsbee, who heads the company's
technical operations. "And it even matches."
There were days during the startup frenzy that digital.forest worried
it might be too small, too slow, that it might just get elbowed out of
business. Unlike the venture-backed firms, digital.forest financed its
growth mostly through revenues, and later a handful of private
investors.
Its penny-pinching has brought the ultimate reward, of course: Five
years after the bust, the company is still in business, while many of
its competitors — would-be titans of telecom, networking and data
storage — are gone.
In January, digital.forest moved into a state-of-the-art technology
campus in Tukwila designed for those rivals, some of whom crashed so
suddenly they left behind coffee cups, office papers and blueprints
for growth that never happened.
"We're living in their carcass right now," Goolsbee says, "little
mammals amongst the dinosaur bones."
Goolsbee walks through digital.forest's cavernous server warehouse,
pointing out the relics scavenged from extinct competitors: rows of
skeletal server racks, switches, $250,000 routers bought for under
$20,000 each.
The concave stone slab that was supposed to hold the sign for anchor
tenant Zama Networks still stands in the lobby, just to the left of a
dramatic cast-glass wall. Outside sits a generator the size of a
truck, a mother lode of emergency power. Above, a brook burbles in a
feng-shui garden tucked between two parking lots.
Zama went bankrupt in 2001. Another tenant, a California-based
Internet service provider, backed out of its lease. So tiny
digital.forest gets the benefit of that ISP's data warehouse. It also
gets use of the garden, the giant generator and the river of
fiber-optic cable running through the pavement below.
"We had what they didn't," Goolsbee says of the companies that
disappeared. "We had customers and we had revenue."
"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 12:38 pm
From: Gunner Asch
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 11:02:46 -0700, " Frank" <x> wrote:
>
>"Gunner Asch" <gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:bjfpb41cctdds12imu1uu8brpm46d4nkts@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:19:19 -0700, " Frank" <x> wrote:
>>
>>>>>High-immigration cheerleaders claim that we need immigration for our
>>>>>economy. But they ignore the detrimental effect that importing workers
>>>>>has on American workers, particularly low-skilled natives. In a supply
>>>>>and demand economy like ours, the more there is of something, the less
>>>>>value it has.
>>>
>>>Except for over priced lawyers, which we have an over abundance with. What
>>>does one expect from a country that doesn't manufacture much of anything
>>>except for entertainment, corporate takeovers and lawsuits?
>>
>>
>> Odd...I hope you are not talking about the USA, as its the most
>> productive country on the planet, manufacturing wise.
>>
>
>Sure, most efficient in terms of manufacturing, but we don't manufacture
>much of anything anymore (except for food) relative to 20 or 50 years ago.
I didnt say anything about efficency. I said Productive. We still
produce more hard goods than any other nation on the planet. And
yes..we do it efficently.
Btw..I work in Manufacturing..as a business owner.
>Look at GM and Ford, its in the gutter going broke. GM used to be number 1,
>now no one is buying it except the Chinese. Just go back to the 50s, we had
>a huge manufacturing base; TVs, radios, bikes, test equipment, all kind of
>consumer and industrial products. No more, manufacturing shifted to Asia,
Some did, yes indeed. Low dollar items went to the lowest bidder.
The Big 3 automakers have screwed themselves, unions and entitlements
drove most of the screwing..and turning out products that were utter
crap drove the stake through their hearts.
>Europe and even South America. Just cannot compete against low foreign wages
>based on American technology..Just look at the stuff around your house or
>office. How many are still made in America? Up till the 1960s almost all,
>sad isn't it? Fortunately we are still the land of opportunity.
U.S. Still a Manufacturing Super Power
Shrinking Workforce Amid Soaring Productivity Reveals a Deep
Contradiction
By Charles R. Morris 5/19/08 11:00 PM
Bloggers from the left and the right are attacking both of the likely
presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz,) and Barack Obama
(D-Ill.), for their complacency in the face of American
"deindustrialization."
The anger is fueled, in part, by the absurd expansion of "Wall Street"
over the past decade – the investment banks and hedge funds that have
pulled down mega-profits by pumping up the credit bubble, now gooily
imploding all around us. According to the government's Bureau of
Economic, the financial sector accounted for more than 40 percent of
all corporate profits in 2007. A disproportionate share of those
profits accrued to the upper one-hundredth of 1 percent of the
nation's taxpayers, accentuating a degree of financial inequality not
seen since the Gilded Age.
There is plenty there to stir righteous fury. But first some facts, so
we can throw the hand grenades in the right direction.
To start with, the United States is the world leader in manufacturing
output by a huge margin. The American share of world manufacturing
peaked immediately after World War II, when it was the only game in
town. But it has never fallen lower than 30 percent, and has grown
significantly since 1980, with some very small share slippage in the
2000s.
When a country's manufacturing productivity grows rapidly its
manufacturing employment invariably shrinks.
The so-called "emerging" countries — like China, Brazil and India —
have enormously expanded their shares of output over the past decade,
but the big share losers have been the European Union, Russia and
Japan. China is now the world's third largest manufacturer, while
Japan is still No. 2. U.S. manufacturing output is about five times
that of China.
How can that be? Look at the trade numbers! Look at jobs!
Start with trade. Manufacturing output is usually measured by a method
called "value-add;" and it's especially important in understanding the
China phenomenon. Assume A is a car manufacturer who sells nearly
finished cars to B, who paints them and ships them to dealers. While
B's gross revenue is the dealer price of the car, his value-add is
only what he's earned for the painting and shipping, since all the
rest is remitted back to A.
Much of China's exports are like B's – goods for which Chinese workers
provide the last processing and finishing steps, while other countries
supply most of the value-add.
China assembles and ships iPods, for example, but almost all of an
iPod's value-add, and profits, go to Apple for the software, and to
other international companies for chip sets, disk drives and
additional high-tech components. But trade data is drawn from prices
at customs. So China gets credit for $150 in exports for each iPod it
ships, even though 99 percent of the revenue goes to other countries.
What about workers? By one recent estimate, China has 80 million
manufacturing production workers, or nearly six times as many as in
America. But that is a measure of Chinese backwardness.
When a country's manufacturing productivity grows rapidly its
manufacturing employment invariably shrinks. U.S. manufacturing
employment peaked at about 19.4 million workers in 1979; but was down
to 13.9 million workers at the end of 2007, the lowest level in more
than 50 years, even as its output was steadily expanding.
The same trends are already evident in China, which has been shedding
manufacturing jobs even faster than the United States has, as it
struggles to move up the technology curve. Low-wage hand assembly
isn't the road to world dominance.
Shrinking work forces and soaring production are hardly new phenomena.
America is also the the world leader in agricultural production, but
fewer than half of 1 percent of its workers are employed in
agriculture.
So why all the focus on manufacturing jobs?
The main reason jobs, and especially manufacturing jobs, are such an
issue in the United States, is that the productivity drive has meant
downsizing millions of workers, and treating most of them badly. That
exposes a deep contradiction at the heart of the American system.
Of all the advanced countries, U.S. companies are by far the most
flexible in responding to change. Employers have immense freedom to
dismiss workers, or to restaff with different skills, to keep pace
with competitive challenges. But perversely, of all the advanced
countries, it has chosen to be the roughest on dismissed workers, and
to provide the least reliable social safety net. Investors, private
equity companies, CEOs, can therefore happily reap the profit and
incomes from improved productivity, while leaving their former workers
to reap mostly fear and insecurity.
Health care is the most striking example, since for working-age
Americans, health insurance is available almost exclusively through
employment. The rapid "human-resources adjustments" of
market-responsive companies therefore entail near-absolute cutoffs of
health insurance. Unemployment benefits and retraining opportunities
are, similarly, miserly in the extreme.
But the inequities are now too palpable to ignore. If America is to
retain its admirable economic flexibility, the social contract
requires major revisions and soon.
Charles R. Morris, a lawyer and former banker, is the author of "The
Trillion Dollar Meltdown: Easy Money, High Rollers and the Great
Credit Crash." His other books include "The Tycoons: How Andrew
Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Jay Gould and J.P. Morgan Invented the
American Supereconomy" and "Money, Greed, and Risk: Why Financial
Crises and Crashes Happen."
>
>
>>
>> "Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
>> or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
>> caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
>> isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
>> Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
>> results." - John Tucci,
>>
>
>Sure agree with that. Grew up in the inner city with some tough blue collar
>and ghetto kids. School wasn't the best but could still get a good
>education. So many of my schoolmates just don't give a shit, prefer raising
>hell to reading books. Street wise tough kids with straight F's and doing
>time in juvenile jail were look up on like rock stars while kids with
>straight A's had the shit kicked out of them. Where are some those juve kids
>now? On welfare, death row, or six feet under?
>
>
"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 1:02 pm
From: Gunner Asch
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:12:42 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>jdoe wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:32:55 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Brock wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:30:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
>>>> <gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:43:48 -0400, "Joe 'bama" <Schmo@verizon.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
>>>>>>>> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
>>>>>>> this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your post is
>>>>>>> just as ill informed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are correct. This is flat out false. In fact, according to Bureau of
>>>>>> Labor Statistics,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (For the period from January 2001 - July 2005)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On average, The Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On average, Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's NOT ¼ less jobs under Bush; That's almost 7 TIMES the number of jobs
>>>>>> created under Clinton than Bush!
>>>>>>
>>>>> How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
>>>>> government jobs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Care to give us a break down?
>>> I don't have a breakdown under Clinton, certainly a lot of high tech
>>> jobs were added amongst others. Certainly wages rose. I do know that
>>> under W, the public sector job growth has been greater than the private
>>> sector.
>> and a lot of high tech jobs vanished, ever heard of the tech bust?
>
>
>Boom and bust cycles always occur as markets tend to overshoot. The net
>benefit of the Internet boom has been positive. Many of those jobs
>remain and there remains long term and lasting benefits. It would be
>difficult to argue the long term benefits of the loose money goosed
>housing market.
>
>> your arguments are simplistic and ill informed ideological rants,
>
>I've backed up every single thing I've ever said. You not only don't
>like the conclusions but you have no facts to support your assumptions.
>
> It is your arguments that lack reason and temperment.
>
>For example, this rant of yours:
>
> you
>> should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
>> idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
>
> Here's some stats for you to choke on:
>
>http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
>
> Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
>commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you can
>finish up with the discretionary spending increases.
>
> The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
>
> Jeff
Do those charts reflect the War on Terrorism, 911 and the Clinton
Recession?
>
>
>> __________________________________________
>> Never argue with an idiot.
>> They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not
making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of
it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different
countries, that the more public provisions were made for the
poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became
poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the
more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin
Franklin, /The Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 1:07 pm
From: Gunner Asch
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:12:42 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> you
>> should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
>> idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
>
> Here's some stats for you to choke on:
>
>http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
>
> Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
>commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you can
>finish up with the discretionary spending increases.
>
> The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
Based on the time lines shown..it does indeed reflect that Clinton
rode into office in the Reagan economy uplift, then left it on a down
note with the Clinton Recssion, and the Dot.Com Implosion
Bush came into office on the down turn of the Clinton recession,
followed by 911 and the financial (housing) bust) and the War on
Terror.
Seems that given the handicaps he inherited....he as done pretty well
for a war president.
Gunner
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not
making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of
it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different
countries, that the more public provisions were made for the
poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became
poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the
more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin
Franklin, /The Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 1:21 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> jdoe wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:32:55 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Bob Brock wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:30:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
>>>> <gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:43:48 -0400, "Joe 'bama" <Schmo@verizon.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he
>>>>>>>> proceeded to: Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then
>>>>>>>> under Clinton.
>>>>>>> this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your
>>>>>>> post is just as ill informed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are correct. This is flat out false. In fact, according to
>>>>>> Bureau of Labor Statistics,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (For the period from January 2001 - July 2005)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On average, The Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per
>>>>>> year. On average, Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's NOT ¼ less jobs under Bush; That's almost 7 TIMES the
>>>>>> number of jobs created under Clinton than Bush!
>>>>>>
>>>>> How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?"
>>>>> and government jobs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Care to give us a break down?
>>> I don't have a breakdown under Clinton, certainly a lot of high tech
>>> jobs were added amongst others. Certainly wages rose. I do know that
>>> under W, the public sector job growth has been greater than the
>>> private sector.
>> and a lot of high tech jobs vanished, ever heard of the tech bust?
> Boom and bust cycles always occur as markets tend to overshoot. The net benefit of the Internet boom has been
> positive. Many of those jobs remain and there remains long term and lasting benefits.
Indeed.
> It would be difficult to argue the long term benefits of the loose money goosed housing market.
Nope, completely trivial. All that available housing which should be good for renters if no one else.
>> your arguments are simplistic and ill informed ideological rants,
> I've backed up every single thing I've ever said.
No you havent, and didnt with the one just above either.
> You not only don't like the conclusions but you have no facts to support your assumptions.
Just as true of you.
> It is your arguments that lack reason and temperment.
Just as true of you.
> For example, this rant of yours:
>> you should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap idiotic rants like this and not have to deal
>> with facts
> Here's some stats for you to choke on:
> http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
> Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
> commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you can finish up with the discretionary spending
> increases.
Doesnt prove a damned thing about your stupid claim that thats got anything to do with who was Prez at the time.
> The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
Not a shred of evidence that its got a damned thing to do with who happened to be Prez at the time.
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 1:37 pm
From: clams_casino
Gunner Asch wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:12:42 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> you
>>
>>
>>>should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
>>>idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
>>>
>>>
>> Here's some stats for you to choke on:
>>
>>http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
>>
>> Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
>>commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you can
>>finish up with the discretionary spending increases.
>>
>> The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
>>
>>
>
>
>Based on the time lines shown..it does indeed reflect that Clinton
>rode into office in the Reagan economy uplift,
>
Are you totally nuts? Or just in that Bush denial?
Did you conveniently forget all about the G H W Bush recession that most
reference as to why he lost to Clinton? The one where unemployment
surged to nearly 8% - the highest since 1984?
> then left it on a down
>note with the Clinton Recssion
>
Huh? the recession started and ended after GW took office when
investors & business flocked to the side lines (CDs, binds, curtailing
business expansion, etc) in fear of GW policies.-
> and the Dot.Com Implosion
>
>Bush came into office on the down turn of the Clinton recession,
>followed by 911 and the financial (housing) bust) and the War on
>Terror.
>
>
The stock market & business rebounded rather quickly after 911.
>Seems that given the handicaps he inherited....he as done pretty well
>for a war president.
>
>Gunner
>
>
>
What are you smoking?
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 1:44 pm
From: Jeff
clams_casino wrote:
> Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:12:42 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> you
>>>
>>>> should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
>>>> idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
>>>>
>>> Here's some stats for you to choke on:
>>>
>>> http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
>>>
>>> Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
>>> commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you can
>>> finish up with the discretionary spending increases.
>>>
>>> The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Based on the time lines shown..it does indeed reflect that Clinton
>> rode into office in the Reagan economy uplift,
>>
>
> Are you totally nuts? Or just in that Bush denial?
I vote for totally nuts. Or completely delusional.
>
> Did you conveniently forget all about the G H W Bush recession that most
> reference as to why he lost to Clinton? The one where unemployment
> surged to nearly 8% - the highest since 1984?
Every president has his own set of problems to overcome, few have done
as poor a job as George W Bush.
Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> then left it on a down
>> note with the Clinton Recssion
>>
>
> Huh? the recession started and ended after GW took office when
> investors & business flocked to the side lines (CDs, binds, curtailing
> business expansion, etc) in fear of GW policies.-
>
>
>> and the Dot.Com Implosion
>>
>> Bush came into office on the down turn of the Clinton recession,
>> followed by 911 and the financial (housing) bust) and the War on
>> Terror.
>>
>>
>
> The stock market & business rebounded rather quickly after 911.
>
>
>> Seems that given the handicaps he inherited....he as done pretty well
>> for a war president.
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>>
>>
> What are you smoking?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Use home carpet cleaner on auto cloth/carpet?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/95e096ffc216949e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 12:40 pm
From: Wally
Just wondering if there's any problem with using an indoor [home]
carpet cleaner on an older car's upholstery and/or carpet to clean and
remove stains?
Are the automotive carpet/upholstery cleaners any different (just more
expensive), stronger than home cleaners? Will using a home cleaner
damage the cloth upholstery?
Thanks,
Walter
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Home heating oil price?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/25ab6d7a439ac7f1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 12:42 pm
From: Jim Elbrecht
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:53:18 -0400, Jim Elbrecht <elbrecht@email.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:02:33 -0400, "h" <tmclone@searchmachine.com>
>wrote:
-snip-
>>Not in upstate NY it's not. Some places are charging over $5/gallon.
>>
I think I'll change my comment to "Who? Where?". You keep saying
that NY has the highest taxes in the union- and it doesn't. Then you
say that upstate costs are higher than downstate, which is ridiculous.
You must live in a little bubble where everyone picks on you. I
challenge you to find me some >$5.00 oil in *your* upstate NY.
>
>And some are charging less. The average for my area- Capital
>District- is $4.55 for July according to
>http://www.nyserda.org/energy_information/nyepc.asp
>
>I'll call a few places tomorrow to see if I'm going to stick with my
>old dealer or go on a will call basis.
Looks like I'm going to 'will call'. My dealer is getting $4.25.
The lowest I found [4 calls] is $3.95. The others were $4.04 & $4.17.
All in the Albany/Schenectady, NY area.
Jim
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Individual frugality is no match for population growth
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ff7513a55a2c0c8e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 1:32 pm
From: Enough Already
How many of you detect a general, growing scarcity as human population
growth collides with physical limits? Not just any one thing, like the
price of oil.
Frugality is being overrun by 210,000 more people each day. An
additional 77 million per year cannot be added to a finite world
without consequences. There are too many people feeding at the trough
and fighting for space. There is not "plenty of land" when you look at
how it's being used already. A global balance of births and deaths is
vital, and only requires existing drugstore technology.
What is economic growth really, except the endless accommodation of
more people and the loss of wilderness? Economies of scale for
manufacturing were achieved decades ago. The market is just getting
more bloated with consumers. The rich are skimming off the top as
they've always done, but the ratio of poor to rich is growing. That's
the thing to watch for.
If you live in a fast-growing area the feeling is palpable. Why must
all these people be here? What's the point of all these new homes,
destroying the last remnants of open space, and farmland that was
supposed to feed the future? Why is it assumed that traffic must keep
getting worse? Apathy and mindless consumption are driving our
destiny, not logic.
If every speech-maker replaced the words "economic growth" with
"population growth," real change might happen. You have to define what
a thing really is before you can tackle it. But society is stuck on
"growth" as theoretical concept of self-improvement, ignoring physical
limits in a finite world. There is an urgent need to discern between
growth of quantity and _quality_.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
"How crowded can we make this planet?" is not much of a legacy.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 2:44 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Enough Already <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote:
> How many of you detect a general, growing scarcity as
> human population growth collides with physical limits?
No such animal to 'notice'
> Not just any one thing, like the price of oil.
> Frugality is being overrun by 210,000 more people each day.
Just tossing the word frugality in cuts no mustard.
> An additional 77 million per year cannot be added to a finite world without consequences.
Correct, but there have always been fools mindlessly hyperventilating about
the purported consequences ever since that fool Malthus started doing that.
> There are too many people feeding at the trough and fighting for space.
You're always welcome to do the decent thing and fix your contribution to that problem.
> There is not "plenty of land" when you look at how it's being used already.
Wrong, as always. Have a look at the density of HK sometime.
Hardly anywhere else is anything like that.
> A global balance of births and deaths is vital,
> and only requires existing drugstore technology.
Doesnt even require that. Every single modern first and second world country
isnt even self sustaining population wise now if you take out migration.
> What is economic growth really, except the endless
> accommodation of more people and the loss of wilderness?
Economic growth is what has produced the fact that every single modern first and second
world country isnt even self sustaining population wise now if you take out migration.
> Economies of scale for manufacturing were achieved decades ago.
> The market is just getting more bloated with consumers.
You're always welcome to do the decent thing and fix your contribution to that problem.
> The rich are skimming off the top as they've always
> done, but the ratio of poor to rich is growing.
Pig ignorant lie.
> That's the thing to watch for.
Nope.
> If you live in a fast-growing area the feeling is palpable.
> Why must all these people be here? What's the point of
> all these new homes, destroying the last remnants of open
> space, and farmland that was supposed to feed the future?
We worked out how to make farmland much more productive
so we can feed much more than ourselves with it fine.
> Why is it assumed that traffic must keep getting worse?
It isnt.
> Apathy and mindless consumption are driving our destiny, not logic.
You wouldnt know what real logic was if it bit you on your lard arse.
> If every speech-maker replaced the words "economic growth"
> with "population growth," real change might happen.
Nope, because their speeches are completely irrelevant.
> You have to define what a thing really is before you can tackle it.
Clearly you are hopeless at that.
> But society is stuck on "growth" as theoretical concept of
> self-improvement, ignoring physical limits in a finite world.
Wrong, as always.
> There is an urgent need to discern between growth of quantity and _quality_.
And you're claiming that you are the first to realise that, eh ?
> E.A.
Unlikely that your 'parents' called you that. If they did, sue their arses.
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
> "How crowded can we make this planet?" is not much of a legacy.
Every single modern first and second world country isnt even
self sustaining population wise now if you take out migration.
So run along and work out why that hasnt happened in the third world yet.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
