First of all, the stock market is not the economy

12/30/05 6:42:41 PM

You'll have to do better

Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.

Doesn't mention the stock market. It goes on BTW.

Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.

Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd the top 1% and the top .1% \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)

In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats.

The economy is not that great and we are pissing our seed corn away at a tremendous rate on BS wars we don't need to fight. Doesn't look too solid to me. There was also a political cartoon showing a bunch of christmas stockings on a mantle - all large but one tiny one labeled "wages". That about sums it up I think.

"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"   --Mark Twain

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."   --Albert Einstein

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses."   --George W. Bush

Post #239,887

12/30/05 8:16:51 PM

Tom Toles: 12/25/2005. 39 kB .img

[image|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_12252005_520.gif|0|Santa brings and empty bag|440|520]

Sums it up pretty well, I think.

I don't have much faith I have in any of these historical comparisons of how well the economy did under various administrations. There has to be some sort of accounting for inflation and how one does that is a black art (IMO). Even things like the unemployment rate and initial claims for unemployment are affected by changes in the definitions over time.

The thing that concerns me most is that we're not investing for the future the way we were in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. If you believe the savings rate information out there, as a country we're not saving any more. That's a very bad thing. Perhaps increases in interest rates will help turn that around and decrease our net consumption. But I wonder how those who are turning 18 or so now will react to tighter money....

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #239,888

12/30/05 8:45:41 PM

Your first link

was a stock market study that averaged over 75 years. My comment re: the market was very simple...the 90s were an anomaly and need to be removed to make that study realistic. It did not eliminate worst and best Presidents. That comment was directed to that link.

My next comment was that the second link did a much better job of showing better dem performance on >the economy<.

Your second link also shows that 95% are better off on >non election< years and that the 95% number flips during election years to the Republican side.

And while you talk about the economy currently being shitty..it simply is unsupported by ANY indicator. It may be that spending and debt increases are mortgaging a future, a point that Ben is sure to raise and rightly so. But first time home sales have been strong (last month was the first drop in quite a while), overall growth is still over 3% and closer to 4%, unemployment is at 5 and dropping, we're operating at a pretty reasonable strength of the dollar on the world market (though we still need to export something to get our balance numbers back in line).

What you have in common with everyone else is the >feeling< that the economy is shit...but it is unsupportable based on the indicators.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #239,890

12/30/05 9:09:08 PM

One indicator supports it

[link|http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/051226/26wage.htm|http://www.usnews.co...051226/26wage.htm] points out that in the last year wages have not kept pace with inflation.

Which means that, other rosy indicators notwithstanding, the average person is worse off today than they were a year ago.

(This is on top of the debt and deficit figures which indicate that we have a more painful accounting waiting for us.)

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #239,894

by boxley

12/30/05 9:14:21 PM

Dont know too much about that but this year was the

first time since 1998 I have equalled my wages in 1998, knock wood. I have been working for far less. Do those figures indicate only hourly or professional wages?
thanx,
bill

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep

Post #239,897

12/30/05 9:23:09 PM

And this is due to a late

inflation push largely because of the energy increase. Real wage growth was 3.6 and inflation was 4.2.

Next year this is predicted to [link|http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=76719|change] however.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #239,902

by Ashton

12/30/05 10:58:26 PM

Re: And this is due to ---- projections R'us?

As always, your numbers have no {boxes} for what I can see, even in bucolic Sonoma County, where many do ordinary work; many come from The City to play, drink expen$ive or cheap wines, etc.

I can see the changes in bucolic Sonoma County - in faces, the kinds of stuff people are selling-off, how long basic car maintenance is deferred (mechanic-based datum), the crowded thrift shops, etc. etc. No {boxes} for these and dozens others.

Just as there is no {box} for - (as always, in these Q/As)
the massive concentration of National Wealth (accelerating trend - for those who Like projections) into smaller and smaller %numbers,
nor the social, political and practical consequences of the purchased, non-elected political control over representatives - by Corporations (domestic and extra-National).

Is surreal too strong a word for Econ 'calculations'? of 'general prosperity to 3 decimal places'? Regularly missing too, from these periodic vector-graphic Solutions - -

some handy Velocity-of-Deconstruction [?] entry {box}; this re the continuing decline of {all those matters we group under the rubric, crumbling infrastructure} -- let alone the even more innumerate, Quality of Liff thing. These are word-things as supersede number-things. Except when doing numbers in lieu of Looking Around.

But then, such matters as cannot be rendered to 3 or 4 decimal places are not Real in an MBA curriculum, apparently do not exist in The Model, wherein i [sq.root -1: that i] must surely be that missing humanizing factor \ufffd -

applied whenever the homeless, soon-to-be with loss of next paycheck, become Too visible, or the ratio of CIEIO payments / ordinary-people-'wages': needs another decimal-point move to --> the Right. Nope, don't see \ufffdactors for those conditions anywhere in that hoary catechism, still floating, waterlogged on the heroic persona of that real-daid Keynes guy.

Oh, did I mention: pshaw?
OK - pshaw.

(Robert Reich, [Ex-Sec Labor] nowadays occasionally heard live on NPR - is able to meld The Numbers with the consequences ... ever so much more jocularly, even if sobbing all the while.) Maybe you need a humor editor, esp. when spreading the Good News about ~ How Well everything _{is a goin?}

At least, come up with a Laugh-er Curve with a viable Satisfiction Quotient, so that humans can ~relate to Numerologists ..well, a little, since some of these may have actually begun from human stock, before Bizness proved to be their only survivable path to some kind of degree.

I,
who admit to many decades immersed in numbers - too.
(But none of my 'projections' killed people, that I'm aware.)

Post #239,925

12/31/05 9:11:34 AM

And your anectodal

has no numbers whatsoever.

And don't start on the "quality of life" feelings, because those who can't afford that second beemer are suffering.

Yes my bleeding heart friend there is more to be done, but that is hardly the point being discussed.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #239,914

12/31/05 1:13:36 AM

Those indicators indicate a likely net loss of disposable $$

-- Rising pay, with disposable incomes rising by 3.2 percent, after inflation, more than double this year's gain;

So the average Joe might see an extra $2000 per year.

-- Costlier borrowing, with short-term interest rates averaging about 4.5 percent and longer-term rates around 4.9 percent;

Which he is going to shovel into his interest only variable rate mortgage because he can't afford a fixed conventional.

-- Moderate inflation, with the consumer price index rising 3 percent during 2006, down slightly from 2005;

Which seems likely to eat what the mortgage didn't.

-- Healthy corporate profits, with growth around 7.9 percent; and

Seems the corps are seeing double the gains of the peeps.

-- Strong hiring, with unemployment remaining at a historically low 5 percent.

But with attendant low wages to which we are becoming accustomed because if we don't take em our jobs are headed to Mumbai.

The reason people say the economy is shit is because to them the economy feels like shit and we are just barely makin' it month to month with many of us just 2 paychecks from bankruptcy.

Real wage growth here remains solidly negative once cost of living and rising variable rate mortgages are figured in. I'm guessing things would improve a lot if we stopped blowing deficits through the roof for awhile. After all, the common Rep mantra is that the Clinton surplus wasn't his doing - the smokin economy just landed it in his lap. If this is so and the economy is really doing well, I would expect to see deficits begin to shrink fast. Somehow I don't see that happening without regime change.

Post #239,926

12/31/05 9:21:27 AM

????

Can't afford a fixed? Then you can't afford the house you bought. Please don't blame personal financing choices lest we start the same discussion I just tried to avoid with Ashton.

3.2 AFTER inflation. That is real wage growth, another positive indicator. And if you understand that inflation is to be about 3 to 3.5 you'll also see that workers are going to see an improvement at the same level as the corp...about 7-8%.

And the entir eeconomy is NOT under threat to have programming jobs moved to India. If you want to view the entire economy through the filter of IT, thats fine...I don't. Your glasses are going to be decidedly less rosey for a long time to come, as your comparison point (the 90s) will never be matched.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #239,932

by imric

12/31/05 12:05:32 PM

Not just IT

Microelectronics, too. Even here, my employer has been hiring people at ridiculously reduced wages (and it's an insurance company!) - People take the jobs from desperation.

And - predictions of inflation drops? Inflation will drop all right - but ONLY because most people can't afford the goods AT ALL. That is NOT an indication of a healthy economy. It's an indication that people have been tapped out.

If you want to say that the economy is gonna rise because it's hit rock bottom and has no place else to go, I say "no". We can sink WAY lower. I fear that if more profit-taking is encouraged at the expense of the workers, it WILL get worse. A government that only works for short-term profit taking, and NOT investment in the future, investment in the workers, infrastructure if you will, is the worst thing that can happen to this country - and THAT'S what we've got. Add to that the fact that we are hemmoraging money into an elective war, and we've got trouble. No need to theorize, though. We'll see whch of us is right (God help us!) - the view from the ground, or the vew from the mansion.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #239,935

12/31/05 1:07:40 PM

I think it's going to go something like this...

1) Interest rates will keep rising, slowly, for the next couple of years. Average people with high consumer-debt burdens will be hurt.
2) The housing bubble will stop inflating and "investors" chasing quick profits will move into stocks again. People who have to sell homes bought in the last ~3-5 years will be hurt. The stock market will go through another mini-boom, fed by mergers and acquisitions. "Day trading" might even see a renaissance, but as before small traders will lose their shirts.
3) Heavy manufacturing, airlines, auto manufacturing, home construction, etc., will continue to be under heavy pressure. Union jobs in manufacturing and in government will be under increasing pressure to accept lower wages and greater financial contributions to benefits.
4) Immigration will continue to put pressure on wages in the service and construction sectors, and off-shoring will continue to put pressure on white-collar wages.
5) We're sending huge amounts of money overseas every day. E.g. In September, the average cost of an imported barrel of oil was [link|http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_marketing_monthly/current/txt/tables01.txt|$58.79]. In that month we imported about [link|http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm|10.2 Mbbl/day]. That's $600 M per day. There is no indication that that number will do anything but increase in the next few years.

Many of these changes are probably inevitible, but that doesn't mean we don't have a responsiblity to think about what it means for the future and what we should be doing to preserve our standard of living.

I don't think the next few years are going to be a good time economically for the country. Those who have money to lose and who can afford to be in the stock market may do very well. JQ Public who has 20 years in at John Deere or Ford or Boeing is going to be hurting.

Many areas of the country are hurting very badly now. E.g., Dayton, Ohio is suffering terribly due to problems with General Motors and Delphi and due to problems with the city government. Many parts of the midwest have a terrible problem with methamphetamine addiction and crime. We shouldn't just shrug it off and tell everyone to move to Alabama to get a job at Hyundai or to Mexico to work for VW.

We, as a country, need to be thinking about how we make the transition from manufacturing and services with $50-$75/hr wages (with benefits) to $25-$30/hr wages. We're not going to keep our standard of living by having huge swaths of the workforce have to take 2-3 jobs to have the same income.

We need to be investing in new technologies - and in more than just medicine, better CGI for movies, and music players! We're not going to win by racing China, Afghanistan, Mali and Burma to the bottom of the wage scale. We've got to invest in our strengths - smart people; invention; the world's broadest technology base; innovative capital markets; etc.

Why don't we have an efficient, modern, fast, nationwide rail system? Why don't we have an electrical grid in the nation's capital that doesn't suffer from frequent [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/metro/specials/manholes/|manhole explosions] and a sewer system that doesn't [link|http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=451&sid=608547|dump raw sewage into the rivers when it rains]? Why don't we have traffic lights that adjust for increasing traffic flow during the day? Why do we have to cross our fingers every summer that the electric grid will survive a heat wave or that an ice storm won't cut power to hundreds of thousands of homes for weeks? Why? Because we have been too short-sighted.

I think this time is different than the previous few decades. Just looking at the raw inflation, GDP growth, unemployment, etc., numbers doesn't show the stress that the economy is under. Japan is coming out of its doldrums. Germany is getting back on its feet, and China continues to grow like gangbusters (one has to wonder though, how long will it last?). When our economy slows down again, as it will, the rest of the world won't have to wait for us the way they did in the past. We could easily be left behind unless we invest in our future.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #239,936

by imqwerky

12/31/05 1:23:08 PM

Another Scott for President!

You have my vote! :-)

Peace,
Amy

"It's never too late to be who you might have been." ~ George Eliot

Post #239,955

12/31/05 8:50:40 PM

Microelectronics????

We've NEVER held much in that game. Thats been to China and those areas for years already. How can you export a job that was never here in the first place?

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #239,967

12/31/05 11:25:29 PM

"NEVER"?

TI, Fairchild, Motorola, RCA, GE, IBM, Western Electric, ... all had substantial semiconductor manufacturing operations. There's still a lot of defense-related stuff that is still done in the USA.

The transistor was invented at Bell Labs. The integrated circuit was invented at TI (and Fairchild). DRAM was invented at Intel, as was the general purpose microprocessor. Intel was a memory powerhouse before they were a CPU powerhouse.

NEVER is a bit too strong...

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #239,992

1/1/06 9:52:19 AM

Never is what adults say

when they mean a "very long time".

We used to make TV sets too.

I will certainly not argue that we need to reclaim a manufacturing base in this country, especially in base industry like steel. One thing that will have to be corrected very soon is healthcare. It is one of the main issues really dragging on employment in "good" sectors of the economy.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #239,961

12/31/05 10:46:10 PM

12/31/05 11:12:47 PM

Then I can't afford the job I have

unless I want to jettison wife and kid and return to lifestyle I had in college.

House prices are inversely proportional to employment rates.

I'm not exactly unique in this - Seattle has a severe housing shortage and concurrent job boom (Boeing has a bunch of orders) which means that manufacturing people are getting the same screw job.

Think bay area circa 1999. Greedy on the housing? I looked for over 9 months to find something - eventually you have to just get something. During my search, prices went up 25%. Don't think I'm unique - we're getting our old jobs back at less pay but the expenses aren't getting any lower and its not IT specific.

Edited by tuberculosis Dec. 31, 2005, 11:12:47 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #239,979

1/1/06 2:07:24 AM

Actually our whole economy is under threat

We are engaged in full-scale knowledge transfer. Which is basically giving away our competitive advantage.

Any time anyone talks about our educated and innovative workforce, I just remember where our education system actually ranks in the industrialized world (near the bottom) and wonder whether some latent racism keeps people from realizing that there are plenty of smart people in China and India.

Sure, we have a great history of innovation. But innovation requires smart people with a knowledge base to work from. There are plenty of smart people elsewhere. The knowledge base is moving as well. It is a matter of time until the innovation does as well.

And if you talk about how many people come to use our education system, I'll point out how England was in that situation in the late 1800s, and Germany was in the 1920s. All of those smart people went to the best universities, and over time a lot of them took their brains and skills back home. That is how the USA got going, and it is happening rapidly in China and India right now.

Cheers (not),
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #240,047

1/1/06 9:21:53 PM

I absolutely agree

Combined with our complete willingness to offshore manufacturing...not only are we training them..we're giving them the hardware.

Its a trend that really needs to stop.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,052

by a6l6e6x

1/1/06 9:44:38 PM

Well said.

Heck, I've thought about buying stock in an Indian bank (HDFC Bank Ltd. (ticker HDB)) traded on the NYSE. The bank will do well with the rising professional population in India.

Alex

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

Post #239,930

by boxley

12/31/05 10:46:33 AM

dittos on the fixed mortgage, you greedy on housing

as far as 2 paychecks away from insolvency I have been supporting myself since 1968 and have never been more than 2 paychecks from bankrupcy.
thanx,
bill

Post #239,893

by boxley

12/30/05 9:12:15 PM

we all know capitalism is selling surplus

unescessary to the dumb in excess of cost of production. That is why politics is so interesting to the rich and the schemers. The american economy has moved from production to sales and service, the money supply is about the same as it has been, so transfers have to be made on blue sky speculation and trending. Enron is a fine example. Selling energy it didnt have to maroons in California far in excess of any poential cost. How did they get away with it? Stupidity and greed. Stupidity of the politicians who couldnt understand how to purchase power and politicians who were greedy. Unfortunately for Lay et al, their greed turned stupid and they ended up caught.
thanx,
bill

Post #239,931

by imric

12/31/05 11:44:45 AM

And the PEOPLE, Bill?

No, NOT the top 1%. Trickle down will never trickle down to the bulk of the people.

The rest of that is prognostication. The same BS we've heard for the last 4 years on how well the economy is doing. 'Job growth' includes the lowest-end jobs, massively lowered incomes, etc. People DON'T have the disposable income they once did - and when people HAVE less disposable cash, they spend less. The top 1% cannot (and will not) spend enough to compensate for the destruction of the wealth of the rest.

Bottom line: That artcle says basically NOTHING that contradicts me, though it claims that a reduction in spending will be due to people saving money. What money?

In short, nonsense.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #239,954

12/31/05 8:48:50 PM

You keep railing on this

and have NOTHING to support it except your >feeling<. If millions were being forced into lower paying jobs, as you say, then the average real wage would be TANKING...not just barely missing the inflation mark.

I am not making light of the plight of some people you know but it is NOT indicative of the economy as a whole, no matter how much you protest.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #239,966

12/31/05 11:23:42 PM

How people feel is the only worthwhile indicator

that's really it, bottom line.

I have money to blow on cool shit and trips or I don't.

I don't.

I did.

I don't anymore.

WTF other indicator do you need?

Spin me a new indicator, pee on my leg and tell me its rain and good for the crops. Bottom line is I have spare cash and the bank account is growing or I don't.

And when I say "I" I mean the average fucking working american.

Post #239,969

12/31/05 11:33:52 PM

Ed Zachary.

I suspect everyone posting here is doing better than most and we'd all do well to remember that. Next year I'm going to try to remember to look down the food chain at least three times as often as I look up the food chain. We Americans don't do that nearly enough. We're encouraged not to (else there'd be damned few Republicans because in point of fact damned few Americans can afford to be Republicans). It's an extension of the reason why the phrase "Poor White Trash" doesn't carry with it the stigma of the "N" word. "Poor White Trash" doesn't have an owner. In the same way that poor whites want to pretend that they aren't poor, anyone making less than 300K/year wants to pretend he can afford to be a Republican. And worse, those that can afford to be Republicans are completely incapable of understanding that anyone is not as well off as they (because they can't look down).

bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell

Post #239,970

by imqwerky

1/1/06 12:34:43 AM

I can't be quiet any longer

It isn't just about how much you make, it's also about how much we have to spend. No one has mentioned how expensive healthcare has become. We have private insurance due to our situation that doesn't cover prescriptions. Our monthly meds tab is horrendous but gotta have 'em. Add in the fact that energy prices (electricity, natural gas, and fuel) have jumped skyward and the picture just becomes more bleak. We are the working poor. Used to be that salaries of 60 to 100K was decent money, but with more employers shoving more of the healthcare premiums to the employees, and the deductible gets raised too, so you pay more out of pocket expenses before the insurance kicks in, there's very little left at the end of the month.

I can't believe that a gallon of milk is now over $3.00. Feeding a family of five has gotten more and more expensive. Frankly, I ought to blow over to Flame Quarantine because it chaps my butt so much. My only consolation is that all my Repo neighbors are actually admitting to me that they are not happy with Georgie because they are suffering economically as well. It may not be much, but I'll take what little I can get. And hopefully, they will vote their pocketbooks in the next election.

Piece o' my mind,
Amy

"It's never too late to be who you might have been." ~ George Eliot

Post #239,973

1/1/06 1:00:22 AM

Salaries of 60-100K are excellent money.

When you consider that the "average salary" in the private sector is 31K. If you make 60K, you're making almost twice the average. I sympathize with your plight, but suggesting that 60K is a less than optimal salary only enforces my point that we simply don't look down as often as we should. Try feeding, clothing, housing, educating and medicating a family of four on 31K.

Post #239,972

by boxley

1/1/06 12:54:50 AM

I have money to blow on cool shit and trips or I don't.

I did.
I don't anymore.

What you do is now worth less, either find something to do that is worth more or quitcher bitchen
I used to blow 5 grand on a weekend in Reno and I dont gamble. I dont anymore. I now have a career field that my wife feels more comfortable with and a regular paycheck. If I had a burning need for a bunch of cash I know how to get it, it involves risk and luck.

You were very lucky to ride a wave that paid very well for a short period of time. That time is over, you have great skills, but the skills are not priced to your wants. Dont end up being the greatest programmer begging for a $7.00 per hour job because thats what you know and the market is paying $6.25. Either accept what you cannot change that your preferred field is now not very renumerative and switch to a better paying field or continue to do what you do now.
thanx,
bill

Post #239,974

1/1/06 1:08:46 AM

But it's not just "his" field, man.

It's everything in this country. First they came for the blue-collars, but I was not a blue-collar, ... This is neo-fascist capitalism at its worst. We don't make anything anymore, we don't program anything anymore, we don't even frickin' service anything anymore. All we do is consume. And to a large extent, we're only able to consume because the US Dollar is over-inflated because (at least today) you can't buy any damned oil with anything other than the US Dollar (Russian oil excepted). And so if you're a country other than the US, you gotta buy dollars because it's a global oil economy - and that props the value of the US Dollar WAAAAYYYY above what it's actually worth. Todd, I, hell, all of us did what we were supposed to do. We got degrees because those blue-collar jobs were the ones the illiterates had and that's why they lost their jobs. It was bs, of course, capitalism wants nothing more than the enslavement of labor - the college educated, white collars were next. It came faster than even I expected, but exactly what advice would you give Todd? Medical school? That'll work for a while, until all those foreign medical students are given H1-B's.

BL: Most of American workers shop at Wal-Mart because they can't afford to shop anywhere else. At the same time, Tiffany's had a >RECORD YEAR< this Xmas. We all clear on this now?

Post #239,993

1/1/06 10:06:50 AM

Very funny

because you cannot see the anomaly in your pown post. Do you think that it was only the top one percent that made Tiffany's have a record year?

I just bought an entire spring and summer wardrobe for the 2 kids and spent a couple hundred on it.

So, you see,

Yes you can support a family in 35k in most of the country, some locations are much more difficult (northeast and west coast for example)...you simply have to understand that there are certain things you cannot afford. It was this way when I was a kid, too. I wanted alot of stuff...but I didn't get it. We couldn't afford it and that was that. When I got old enough, I mowed the neighbors grass, shined shoes at the local golf course and whatever else I could to earn money to get those things that were not on my parents list of "things we could afford".

Now I won't pretend that I am average anymore, because I'm not...I also know I see average all the time, and I see them spending money on things that are NOT necessary and then bitching when they can't make the rent.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,022

1/1/06 7:00:26 PM

1/1/06 7:08:14 PM

Funny numbers

are the cost of housing and energy in those "inflation" numbers you toss out?

'cause if you measure income vs median home price, you'll see that the average joe is more proper fucked every year.

Of course, if you measure income vs available computing power, things look pretty good, but I spend most money on house and energy and those costs are way fuckin out of hand.

We. Are. Not. Gaining. Ground.

While you're measuring prosperity, try a graph of minimum wage or average vs median home price over the past 50 years. This is why people feel like the economy sucks. Because while it looks dandy for corporations with falling labor costs and rising profits, the profits are not making it to the employees.

The "people's" economy continues to suck. [link|http://news.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=us/2-0&fp=43b88ad53e5ab286&ei=AW64Q7eiCs2MFsev9aoE&url=http%3A//www.wvnstv.com/story.cfm%3Ffunc%3Dviewstory%26storyid%3D7688&cid=1103248252|How] [link|http://www.thedailynews.cc/articles/2005/12/31/news/news02.txt|can] [link|http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=66052&version=1&template_id=48&parent_id=28|I] [link|http://news.google.com/news?q=layoffs|tell]?

Edited by tuberculosis Jan. 1, 2006, 07:02:37 PM EST

Edited by tuberculosis Jan. 1, 2006, 07:08:14 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #240,049

1/1/06 9:37:32 PM

And in the same amount of time

it took you to google "layoffs", I found 3 company's with a combined job opening slate to hire all the Electrolux folks. Lockheed Martin, Comcast, and Amex all have 400+ openings that span from Admin Asst to Vice President level.

Jobs are there.

Theres a reason I have a 2 hour commute and made telecommuting part of my hiring package. Because I was NOT going to accept a position in the NY area that required me to live there.

I can't afford it.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #239,995

by boxley

1/1/06 10:57:50 AM

at $60 a barrel the oil sector looks promising

again capitalism is selling unneeded surplus to people with available income. Todd proves this by claiming he must buy a house he cannot afford to make payments on. Thats called a choice. Ben lives in an area he cannot afford to buy a home in, thats a choice also. I could have chosen the same path but prefered not to. All the choices are equally valid.
thanx,
bill

Post #239,998

1/1/06 11:34:55 AM

Sometimes choices are limited.

Yes, we all can make the choice to move to Idaho and live in a lean-to in the mountains. That's not a practical choice for most of us.

Quite often, one choice leads down a path where the next choice is very limited. For instance, marriage and children often place extreme limits on one's next job (e.g. can't move because one needs to keep health insurance or because one needs to stay close to elderly relatives or because one's children attend a special school). Having a good paying job in 1999 might make one less attractive in 2006 - "He's over-qualified." "Her salary history indicates that she'll be dissatisfied with our best offer. If she took it, she's leave for something better soon, so let's not bother." "He's very good, but we can probably get someone good-enough for 1/2 the price." When an industry is expanding, the path to a better salary is to be in a specialized slot near the top of the pyramid. When it's contracting, that person is then competing for fewer slots with all of those other people at the top, but also competing against the masses of people who are no longer needed. That makes it hard for everyone who remains - the lower status people are looking for anything where they can use their skills, and the upper status people are competing against the stars and against their own salary history.

Sometimes events conspire against one's better judgement. If the choice is between an interest-only mortgage on a place within a reasonable commuting time and an inexpensive place that one could afford but was a 2 hour drive away, I think I know which I would choose. If the choice was between a an expensive house in an area with good schools and an affordable one with poor schools, I think I know which I would choose. If the choice is between buying something now, and having a reasonably stable housing cost, and renting and being subjected to 10%+ per hear housing cost increases, I think I know which one I would choose.

At the moment, there is an affordable housing shortage in areas with a growing economic base. If one is just looking for cheap housing, I know a block in Dayton where you can buy your choice of about 9 ~ 80 years old, 2-3 bedroom, 1-2 bath houses for a song. Some of them have been for sale for ~ 3 years, so you know the sellers are motivated. :-(

Sometimes you have to make a choice that you wouldn't make under more normal circumstances. You have to hope you can get through the tight time before you have to sell.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #240,024

1/1/06 7:10:16 PM

Yeea, it was move and work or stay and wait for bank repo

fine choice

Post #240,030

by boxley

1/1/06 7:59:50 PM

So? I have done that 3 times in 5 years

you go where the work is or change what kind of work you do. My father left the UK and moved several times when I was young. America was built on moving to where the work is. Hyundai plant opening in Alabama, drove by it Friday, ate dinner there, nice community. Should there be a social compact that sez if you work for 2 years you can never be fired except for gross venality and always given raises? They have such a compact in Peru, how is their economy doing. Not good and 99% of the work force is fired every 23 months.

Should todays system be changed? Sure, I will be in on the revolution and be ready to loot as fast as the next guy. In the mean time I will be making a buck and feeding my kids best I know how.
thanx,
bill

Post #240,032

1/1/06 8:05:30 PM

And there should be something in between.

I don't want it to get to the point of revolution; I think the system is fixable without it. It doesn't need major overhaul, just some tweaks - one of which is a somewhat more equitable distribution of wealth than the current system.

When somebody asks you to trade your freedom for security, it isn't your security they're talking about.

Post #240,036

by boxley

1/1/06 8:18:37 PM

forced equity distribution is stealing ya should know better

either revolution or taxation does that. In the taxation model the money doesnt get into your pocket. The government model just puts off the day of the revolution. If you want more money you have to be in a position to demand it. If you are not in that position, then you are attempting to rely on charity and the goodness of your fellow man's heart. Good luck with that one
thanx,
Bill

Post #240,070

1/2/06 12:22:10 AM

And if we are to escape the bonds of our past...

...we must find a way to escape the patterns of our past.

Box, I respect you for being true to who you are. You are very honest about the way our species has been from the beginning of time, and you don't see the hope for our species to ever change - and so you continue to act as if we never will.

I think that if we are to change as a species, to move beyond petty struggles towards true cooperation, that some of us have to take a stand. I do believe that if enough people were willing to make a stand, to say that this is not the way things are going to be any more, that we could change the way the entire world works. I used to believe that it wouldn't happen in my lifetime because it would take too long for us to change; now I believe that if it doesn't happen in my lifetime it will be because my lifetime will be cut short by some stupid mistake made by the missing link between apes and civilized beings.

We are too close to creating the Children of Humanity; they will learn the lessons that we teach them in our own actions. How we will be treated by them depends on how we treat each other.

When somebody asks you to trade your freedom for security, it isn't your security they're talking about.

Post #240,073

by boxley

1/2/06 1:02:22 AM

I know you have some training

and spent some time in Nippon (think so anyway if Im confused sorry) the next time you are at work look clearly at your co-workers as beings, what are they thinking doing acting then consult your chi. Do people change? I too was once a believer in people then I realized they are part of the problem, not the solution. All one can do is be true to your own nature, given the recent hardship you have experienced it is hard, all you can acheive is to be yourself, and let the rest of humanity deal with you as opposed with you attempting to react to humanity.
thanx,
bill

Post #240,076

1/2/06 1:17:23 AM

Bwah?

My training and my time in Nippon had nothing to do with each other. ^_^ I do look at other people, and I do see that mostly we are still 99% animal and 1% aware. I realize that I am probably not a whole lot better than the average.

You ride the waves, I stand against them. That IS who I am; and yes, it is hard. For me, without the challenge I would have no reason to live.

David Gerrold has this great part in one of his books about how to really screw up a fish: you grab the fish by the tail, haul it out of the water, and hold it just above the surface until it realizes it's been swimming in water all along. Whatever you do, though, don't put that fish back in a tank with fish that haven't had the same experience - all the other fish will ostracize it. "Oh, poor Frank, he's never been the same since that day - always babbling on about this 'water' thing he says we're all in."

So we have a choice, pretend nothing changed, or act with our new understanding. I choose to act.

When somebody asks you to trade your freedom for security, it isn't your security they're talking about.

Post #240,160

by Ashton

1/2/06 7:28:45 PM

{chortle}

Welcome aboard, Grasshopper -

I've always thought that, the ontological proof of Cosmic Humor.. has to be:

(If ever you manage to uncover a tiny bit of the Good Stuff ...) you can't even give it away!

Something them Evangels n'such can never quite grok, at even kiddiegarten level. Perhaps fortunately for all, in every Age.

Coming to your nearest Theatre of War:

The Dance of Siva
Title role performed this evening, by _____
Please.. No Tips!

Post #240,072

1/2/06 12:42:18 AM

Me too - sick of being migrant worker

Anyhow, its labor organization that needs fixing. We can thank Bonzo Reagan for fucking the unions and giving the ball to the corps. Labor needs more clout, to do that we'll need legislation. The party most likely to do that is the dems.

It may be too late as corps are now bigger than governments. Tricky situation, but needs fixing fast. This is the source of my discontent and figures into the basis of my original assertion that dems will be better for business as it can be shown that business does better when their workers do better, even when it costs them in the short term.

Post #240,074

by boxley

1/2/06 1:12:12 AM

you are trying to fix yesterdays problem

Would unionization of IT create and keep more IT jobs for the next 20 years? Ask the Delta Pilots. Is IT going away? No is it changing dramatically, yes, maybe. Who in your org makes the most bucks in IT? In mine (I am guessing) CIO, Directors, Other folks whose titles I am not sure of.

Am I qualified to join them? I think so but need to prove my worth, not only on technical ability but accountability. I must find myself technically qualified but understand the value of a buck.

Or I could give it up, steal a backhoe and lowboy and make double my current salary in Katrina hit areas. With my knowledge about grants, a Hoe driver at $16 an hour 4 thieves stealing 2 hoes a week from the midwest and a piece to a local I could be a millionaire by 2007. Its a matter of priorities and pride.
Work is what you do to finance your leasure. Luckily IT is a hobby to me and Im getting paid to play.
thanx,
bill

Post #240,101

1/2/06 12:51:48 PM

Deregulation fsked Delta Pilots. Not their union.

Post #240,138

1/2/06 5:15:55 PM

Keep telling yourself that.

And US Airways folded (was bought by AmWest, same thing) because their pilots would not allow them to buy and use regional jets in large numbers. There were rules in the contracts that basically allowed the pilots to veto the first restructuring plan that relied heavily on the new 100 passenger Embraer

They had a great biz model, built a completely state of the art regional terminal in Philly and were never able to take advantage of it.

Now their schedule has been cut by 40% and a boatload of pilots are out of work (and being qualified to fly regional jets at more competitive wage levels to the Southwest's/JetBlues of the world.

Unions have a place...but they need to adapt themselves to keep their constituents employed/employable.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,221

1/3/06 12:28:35 PM

Right.

You get *all* your information from BOD's? Sheesh. That's the first time I've ever heard that pilots were responsible for the airlines failing because they wouldn't fly smaller jets. (BTW, those new RJ First Officers make 15-18K and the captains make 35-40). The real problem is that deregulation yielded less competition, fewer flights, a completely screwed up flight schedule and a host of other problems. The great Murican peeple and Big Oil have a non-trivial share of the blame here as well. Everybody wants to fly from New York to Orlando for $39 a seat and no one wants to fly at 2am. Considering the outright piracy of jet fuel and avgas prices, no one can make any serious money anymore.

Post #240,225

by drewk

1/3/06 12:41:56 PM

I might be missing something

Let me take two statements out of order:

Everybody wants to fly from New York to Orlando for $39 a seat and no one wants to fly at 2am.

The real problem is that deregulation yielded less competition, fewer flights, a completely screwed up flight schedule and a host of other problems.

Sorry to get all capitalist on you, but how do you reconcile these two statements? If I have a business model that can't be profitable at a price point that people are willing to pay, I don't have a business model. There's an argument to be made that freedom of movement about the country is important, and that air travel is therefore a public good, but that doesn't seem to be the argument you're making.

The great Murican peeple and Big Oil have a non-trivial share of the blame here as well.

Blaming Big Oil for the price of jet fuel I can understand. But it's the Murican peeple's "fault" for not wanting to pay several hundred dollars to fly to Orlando? Those rotten bastards. Don't they understand it's their patriotic duty to shell out hundreds of dollars on travel in order to support the airline industry? WTF?

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #240,227

1/3/06 1:09:09 PM

Less competition?

For decades now the received wisdom in the airline industry is that after the other guy goes out of business the remainder will recover their losses and make money.

Unfortunately every time one is about to go down it goes Chapter 11, and then gets a competitive advantage and so survives.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #240,247

1/3/06 4:04:55 PM

Really?

Pan Am, Eastern, Western Pacific, Braniff, etc. They're all in operation are they?

Post #240,250

1/3/06 4:18:08 PM

There have been some casualties but...

not enough to justify the accepted industry wisdom.

Airlines have consistently lost money for decades, and show no signs that they will improve soon.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #240,267

1/3/06 9:43:25 PM

In their place is

Southwest, JetBlue, EasyJet, RyanAir, America West, Alaska, Frontier, AirTran, Virgin Atlantic, USA3000, Spirit, Independence (till Thursday), MidWest Express, ATA, COMAIR...and I could list EASILY another dozen that have come and gone over the past 10 years.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,502

1/5/06 4:57:08 PM

Independence and ATA? You're kidding, right?

Post #240,574

1/6/06 10:20:42 AM

Why would i be kidding?

and that list is nowhere near complete. Because some other airlines that came and went during that time were not even included...like Midway, the "new" Pan Am, RenoAir, Eastwind Airlines and others.

The list also doesn't include the verious and sundry "regional" players like Mesa Airlines that operate as feed/regional carriers for the major networks.

You made a blanket statement that accused the industry of being less competitive, tried to justify that by using a few bankrupt carriers (why not throw People's Express in there too)...to say "SEE, I told you" and I, off the top of my head listed a dozen new US based airlines that have formed in the last decade.

So unless you can come up with a >valid< justification for that statement (which will be hard because it is simply wrong on its face), I will certainly NOT be kidding about ATA (using midway as its hub) and Independence (until yesterday that used DCA as its hub..and now is simply another casualty of an oversupplied industry that can't control its price points because, mostly, of oversupply of available seat miles, poor expense management (including things like MFN union contracts made by UA and others that made SURE that their labor was more expensive than everyone elses) and overtaxation/overregulation.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,577

1/6/06 10:32:13 AM

Don't forget crappy service.

:-(

In the 1960s, flying was a treat. Now, it's just short of torture. Who in their right mind likes to fly these days? Those in the top 5% who can fly first class everywhere? Maybe, but I doubt that they like it as much as they did in the 1960s (increased security delays, etc.).

The airlines have become flying buslines. Since the service is so poor these days, people aren't willing to pay a dime more than they have to. (Chicken and egg, to some extent - sure.)

Maybe some airline will eventually be smart and have planes with reasonable seating space, quiet cabins, efficient luggage service, etc., and have enough of a bankroll to build a loyal customer base who enjoys the experience enough to pay more for it. But probably not. Instead, we'll probably continue to suffer with flying conditions that approach cattle-cars.

Grr.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who avoids flying if at all possible, even if it means driving over 1900 miles in 5 days.)

Post #240,588

1/6/06 11:51:37 AM

Those things exist

My overlarge posterior fits in coach seats on all the majors. Why should I be guaranteed an aisle for $99 round trip? I should be expected to pay for better service. First class is now $50 more than coach. If I want it, I can now get it. Cheap round trip air travel is not a right. Those longing for the "better days" should do a quick analysis of the "real" price of tickets in current dollars that were paid in "the good old days".

Your key statement is "people aren't willing to pay a dime more than they have to.".

They should have to pay more. Airline management is not willing to do this as part of a game they call "yield management" (the reason there are 140 seats and 140 fares on any one flight". They hope the average of all that mess will break even or better on any given flight. Most of the time they are wrong.

You want mileage on your ticket? Pay a higher fare. Seats, same. Meals, same. Movies, same. If you want cheap, you >can< take the bus.

Also, why on earth would you operate 13 daily flights from NYC to Chicago (to be matched by 2 other airlines offering the same and 3 more operating at half of that) and all of them being only 1/3 full (so they all lose money?). Shortsighted management possibly? Oversupply definitely.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,597

1/6/06 12:56:22 PM

You missed my point.

IMO. :-)

Your key statement is "people aren't willing to pay a dime more than they have to.".

No, my key statement was Since the service is so poor these days, people aren't willing to pay a dime more than they have to.

I know (or believe I know) most of airline travel is business travel. Thus, cost and convenience are the overriding concerns. But, airlines need every additional revenue mile they can get. One way to increase revenue miles is to get more people onto the planes. Since they (the industry as a whole) are not going to get more business travelers by cutting prices (one either needs to fly for business or one doesn't - cutting prices may simply cut revenue without boosting demand), one should do one's best to make things more appealing for discretionary travelers. By doing things like giving people enough space so that they don't think that an aisle seat or an emergency exit row is Nirvana. Giving me enough space so that the person in front can recline 3 inches without their head being in my chest. Stuff like that.

I should be expected to pay for better service. First class is now $50 more than coach. If I want it, I can now get it.

Must be nice. Let's take an example of something I might do. Travelocity tells me the lowest total cost for a round trip coach ticket from DCA to DAY on February 1, returning February 8 is $143 (nonstop). The cheapest First Class fare is $825 (going through Atlanta). Doesn't look like much of a choice to me.

You want mileage on your ticket? Pay a higher fare. Seats, same. Meals, same. Movies, same. If you want cheap, you >can< take the bus.

I don't care about miles, movies, etc. I don't travel enough for them to be worthwhile. With the restrictions on using them for travel, I think my wife's miles are almost useless. I, and everyone else I know of who's expressed an opinion, does care about space and about reasonable fares and reasonable layovers. Airlines aren't losing billions because they were giving out too many bags of pretzels...

Also, why on earth would you operate 13 daily flights from NYC to Chicago (to be matched by 2 other airlines offering the same and 3 more operating at half of that) and all of them being only 1/3 full (so they all lose money?). Shortsighted management possibly? Oversupply definitely.

I think this has more to do with the way airport slots are operated. Since it's a finite resource, an airport must have some way of divvying up slots, but it seems to me that it often ends up just being a monopoly-play by the companies rather than a reasonable attempt to meet demand. (If demand and scheduling were the issues, I would expect things like the northeast [link|http://www.delta.com/planning_reservations/deals_offers/fare_sales/shuttle_062405/index.jsp|shuttles] to be more common. You want to fly from DCA to LGA? Show up and get a seat.)

Yes, oversupply is a problem. But the demand is out there - it's a big country and lots of people need or want to go long distances quickly. The airlines need to rethink how they provide their service and be smarter about making it appealing again rather than just trying to squeeze every cent out of their expense column.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #240,612

1/6/06 3:16:42 PM

I more "bypassed" it that missed it.

Or even possible addressed it tangentally.

Let me go head on.

Southwest has built the low fare model. You get a bus. No assigned seat, cramped planes, zoo at checkin, etc. BUT, you get a cheap fare.

The stup/** (err...other) guys have decided that they want to be able to match that PRICE...but want to pretend that they can do it and offer other amenities, such as 3 inches more seat pitch (taking 3 rows of seats out to do it), maintaining a first class (at the cost of 1 to 2 more rows of available seats per plane) and at the cost of maintaining the galley for another row of seats gone. Plus, all the infrastructure to support these things cost money...computer system to maintain seat inventory, procurement of galley services, coffee, blah blah.

So, Soutwest can charge lower, all other things equal, because they have more seats on the plane to sell and less overhead to operate.

But you go on travelocity and assume that $148 is a fair price to pay to go to Dayton (for whatever freakin reason:-). It may very well be you consider it fair, but you probably would pay that in gas for your own car. It is very likely that the airline cannot operate that flight for less that $200 per passenger. In my mind, the minimum price they should charge would then be that $200...but they don't. They charge you and 5 friends 143, the 2 business guys 400, 2 others 500 and hope the average comes out over cost.

Yes the airlines have to figure out how to make the service better. But the passengers have to figure out that those things come at a cost they will eventually have to pay...and $143 round trip to Dayton is probably not enough.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,613

1/6/06 3:23:41 PM

My TDI wagon gets 50-51 mpg highway. $25-$30 each way. ;-)

Post #240,619

1/6/06 4:29:14 PM

Would I complain of seat pitch...

..if I had to sit behind you??? ;-)

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,623

1/6/06 5:20:44 PM

Yeah, the backseat is tight.

I've had a couple of ~ 200-250 pound people sit in the back for ~ 50 mile rides, but it's pretty tight. Using it as a 2-seater is fine. When the backseats are down, the cargo compartment is pretty flat and conceivably one could lie down in a fetal position if one were so inclined.

Not that my driving would inspire such thoughts, mind you...

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #240,919

1/10/06 4:39:02 PM

1/10/06 4:39:57 PM

WHAT?

First class is now $50 more than coach.

For example...
ORD-LAX Roundtrip. Depart 2/18/2006 Return 2/25/2006
Departing flight: American Airlines Flight 313
Coach: $231
First Class: $1,423.59

That's a little more than $50 bucks. You're got a set on you telling anyone they don't know what they're talking about wrt flying.

[Edit} Added "Departing" to Flight number so you can look it up.

Edited by mmoffitt Jan. 10, 2006, 04:39:57 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #240,921

1/10/06 4:45:49 PM

I suspect it's something like this.

Business X buys ticket for Joe Manager to travel. 2 day advance purchase. Ticket is $600 round trip. Upgrade to first class is $50.

Just a guess though.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #240,922

1/10/06 4:51:04 PM

You may want to check with a real person

because you are comparing restricted coach to first class, not unrestricted coach.

It goes back to what you EXPECT to pay being lower than what the airline should be charging you (should they have management that could manage their way out of a wet paper sack).

Check DL fare announcement from last year regarding their "simplifares" initiative..and how that was worked before you try and throw this one back at me.

Its my job to know this.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,924

1/10/06 6:20:57 PM

Mea Culpa

The Delta announcements had 1st class at $100 more capped than the unrestricted coach. It was Continental that had it at 50 each way, or 100 on the round trip in markets where they compete head to head with DL.

Must stress, though, that we are talking Y versus F fares and not Q fare levels and below.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,925

1/10/06 7:28:40 PM

I am talking fares The People pay.

Not the vaunted Bizness Class.

Post #240,933

1/10/06 8:24:11 PM

But business class pays for the people

Or would if the airlines got their accounting right.

The problem that they have is simple. Different passengers can afford different amounts. Most passengers cannot (or will not, same difference) afford their true per seat cost. A small minority (business and first class) can afford far more than that. And the cost of operating a plane tends to have a large fixed cost (things like fuel and depreciation for the plane) and small variable costs per passenger (extra fuel for the extra weight, salary for service people).

So airlines do their best to force those who can pay to pay more, hoping to recoup most of their fixed costs there. Then, once the airplane is going anyways, they fill the remainder of the seats at closer to their variable cost.

So if you get a $65 fare and someone else gets a $1000 fare, the truth is that that other person actually paid most of the real cost of flying you (and several others besides).

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #240,935

1/10/06 8:35:14 PM

Business Class is C or J or D or Z

Coach is Y or B
First is F
Restricted Coach is K, H, M, Q, V, R yadda

Each one of these can have several subclassifications depending on rules and restrictions.

Don't think I was kidding when I said there are 100 different fares available on a hundred seat flight, I wasn't.

Besides, there's no business class to Fort Wayne.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #241,000

1/11/06 12:25:01 PM

There's no "class" at all in Fort Wayne. ;0)

Post #240,661

by pwhysall

1/7/06 12:58:44 AM

Driving > Flying

At least in the car I get to choose the music.

Post #240,662

by admin

1/7/06 1:03:43 AM

Got iPod?

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #240,663

by pwhysall

1/7/06 1:08:08 AM

Ar, and an iTrip.

Actually, it's not really the flying that I dislike. It's all the fucking about at each end.

Although the flying is pretty sucky. I'm too tall to be comfortable in airline seats.

Post #240,665

1/7/06 2:04:26 AM

++fsckinga

Post #240,920

1/10/06 4:41:32 PM

ATA's bankrupt, for instance.

And killed *all* flights out of Fort Wayne, leaving, as it should not need to be pointed out, LESS competition in a Class C airport.

Post #240,923

1/10/06 4:54:38 PM

So?

UA, US, DL are all bankrupt too. CO was for a few years. AA is very likely to go soon. Alitalia and at least a dozen other foreign flag carriers are gone too.

Not like that ever changes anything.

If you are going to base the entire air industry on Fort Wayne Airport we might as well stop now.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,930

1/10/06 7:41:56 PM

Heh.

No, FWA is (I hope) atypical. But then, I still hold out hope that all of Indiana is atypical ;0).

But FWA is typical of the problems brought on by deregulation. Sure, you don't feel it if you're in a large urban area (read: near a Class B airport). But us folks out in the sticks (may be read: living in or near the second largest city in Indiana - Fort Wayne) really got the shaft from deregulation. Fewer flights, fewer carriers, higher fairs, and sometimes - honestly - "you can't get there from here anymore." Deregulation has slaughtered smaller market airports. Hell, if it wasn't for the Air National Guard, I doubt seriously that FWA would even be a Class C airport (despite the fact that it has the longest runway in the state and is the only airport in Indiana where the Concorde landed).

The coolest thing about regulation was that since the schedules and fairs were regulated, airline carriers had to distinguish themselves by customer service. Deregulation was the co-opting of aviation by the bean counters. The real reason air travel sucks is that deregulation made running an airline a strictly bottom-line bizness. It is infrastructure and should be publicly funded (at least publicly subsidized) just as the nation's highway system is. Mass transportation should be regulated - otherwise you carry oxygen tanks as cargo and some passengers end up as alligator food (but hey, it was more cost effective to do that, so it's okay, right?)

Post #240,936

1/10/06 8:42:31 PM

So are you officially changing your point now?

Regulation forced service into some markets. Markets that don't necessarily deserve service because it can't be made profitable.

I grew up flying to Europe from Wood County Regional in WV. The next nearest airport with any service at all was Charleston WV...and the nearest B was Cleveland or Columbus.

In the "regulated" days, there was one airline that serviced the airport. After deregulation, there was one airline that serviced that airport. 30 years later there's one airport that services that airport.

Not much difference for WV.

I would imagine it wasn't much different for Fort Wayne except for that brief stint of having a couple of options available.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,938

by boxley

1/10/06 9:33:53 PM

he officially changed his point by not offering $39

beep tickets on the peoples airplane :-) all you hear in that subthread is crickets
thanx,
bill

Post #240,999

1/11/06 12:23:32 PM

:0)

I only take Foster's Lager in payment. But with AVgas just now returning down to around $3.30/gallon, my nose gear problem, my annual, etc. I don't know if I can afford to fly it anymore. (But, of course, I will). :0)

Post #241,004

by drewk

1/11/06 12:36:39 PM

AvGas is cheaper

In fact, next time you want to complain about the oil companies screwing us with the prices they charge, consider that gas (even AvGas) is cheaper than: [link|http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=842|beer], [link|http://www.ams.usda.gov/dyfmos/mib/rtl_mon_whl_05.pdf|milk], [link|http://www.bizrate.com/buy/products__cat_id--16030500,keyword--Olive%20Oil.html|olive oil], [link|http://www.shoplocal.com/ohio/default.aspx?action=searchbroadreach&ID=533436&adref=kr_ghp&r=632725761039023184949111782&WT.srch=1&ef_id=1053%3a3%3a2a80bb6937e904c75e3fa4414d7dd8f9%3apvjqBENIYXsAAEnRVd8AAAAP%3a20060111093503&Ntk=ALL&Ntt=corn%20oil&Nty=1&D=corn%20oil&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Dx=mode+matchallpartial&N=0&searchwithin=|corn oil] ...

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #241,006

1/11/06 12:39:04 PM

Show me the brewery, dairy, olive oil or corn oil company

that made $10 Billion in Profit in three months.

Post #241,009

by drewk

1/11/06 1:00:03 PM

There's this saying I like

Get people asking the wrong question, and it doesn't really matter what the answer is.

Do you agree that we heavily subsidize the oil and autombile industries? I'm talking about highway funding, international adventures, all the real costs of keeping oil cheap. This allows people to live a lifestyle that doesn't make sense, and that they wouldn't do if directly exposed to the real cost of that lifestyle.

It won't stop until we have about $3-$4 per gallon of taxes on gas. Go ahead. Run for office on that platform. When you can get people to vote for you, I'll listen to your argument that it's the oil industry's fault for gouging us.

If you set out to sea in a boat with a gaping hole in the hull, does it make sense to blame the guy charging you $100 for a spot on the life boat?

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #241,018

1/11/06 3:26:45 PM

Let me see if I'm hearing you right.

"We deserve to be screwed because we're stupid enough to still be driving automobiles." Okay, I'll buy that. ;0)

Post #241,026

by drewk

1/11/06 3:41:12 PM

More like we're screwing ourselves, but close enough

Given the choice, I take a train or bus. Where I live, that's not practical. And yes, I consider transportation when considering job offers.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #241,071

by Silverlock

1/11/06 9:45:29 PM

I do my part. I don't even own a car.

If I ever buy another car it'll be a hybrid. Or a 67 Mustang. Convertible.

-----------------------------------------
If I have any beliefs about immortality, it is that certain dogs I have known will go to heaven, and very, very few persons.

-James Thurber

Post #241,079

by Ashton

1/11/06 10:29:16 PM

.oO0 Brevity Award 0Oo. ___with 3 K-Y packets.

Rarely have I seen it expressed so succinctly :-)

It ain't the "cost of living" that is burdensome in '05 Murica; it's the limitless price of lifestyles - imagined to signify one's fashion-sense of Success? ... AKA Affluenza\ufffd

It's all in our Minds. (Or in the Joneses'..)

Post #241,005

1/11/06 12:37:04 PM

1/11/06 12:41:23 PM

FWA's available destinations and carriers have been hit.

And hit *hard* since deregulation. I wasn't here before deregulation, but I know a ton of folks who were and FWA had a lot more carriers and a lot more flights back in the bad old days of regulation. Deregulation was a bad idea or, at the very least, was poorly executed. Tune into some of the App/Dep control towers. They're busy - too busy - for a couple of hours in the morning and then dead silence until approach gets busy - too busy - for the arrivals for a couple of hours. Even Dallas has long periods of dead silence. Why? Because schedules are no longer regulated and everyone wants to fly and arrive at the same time. You don't get to pick when the buses run, so why expect to pick when the aircraft (commercial mind) fly? It's idiotic.

And no, I'm not changing my tune. The fact is that there are far fewer major carriers today than there were in the days of regulation. I think that's beyond dispute. Now, you can argue (and I'm not deaf to the argument) that there never should have been as many major carriers as there once was - but that's a different argument entirely. You simply cannot compare what Pan Am was to ATA or any other low-end short hop carrier. Deregulation caused the collapse of many major carriers and left an industry in tatters. And not just the airlines. Lockhead Martin, Boeing and the now defunct McDonnell Douglas were all severely impacted. Fewer majors == fewer airliner orders == fewer commercial aircraft builders == fewer employed people == ... etc. It was a bad deal all the way around. So now we fly aircraft only a bean counter could love and many of them are sitting idle in the desert. It's spam in a 35 year old can these days, just the way the bean counters like it.

[Edit: tpyo]

Edited by mmoffitt Jan. 11, 2006, 12:41:23 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #240,266

1/3/06 9:38:18 PM

You are so wrong here I don't know how to respond

HOw can a completely regulated and non-competitive industry be deregulated and give >less< competitiveness. (less than NONE???)

The issue was TOO MUCH competition and TOO MANY flights. The market has been for years in an absolute oversupply position (and price points tank because of this).

The pilots union had % flight numbers in their [link|http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2003/07/09-usairways-jets.htm|contract] at US and would not allow them to be changed. US could not add more regional jets and could not hire more pilots to fly them because the big-jet boys wanted those routes flown in "real" jets that not only require the higher priced pilots but also require, by regulation, larger flight crews...making the flights more expensive to operate and making the airline lose more money.

The price of jet fuel is driven by oil plus the crack-spread. Now with oil supply tight, car gas demand high and heating oil production being necessary (you don't make all of these at the same time)..the crack spread for jet fuel was indeed very high. To change that would have required the "big oil" to screw homeowners and charge the spread to home heating oil. Which one do you want?

Finally, just because everyone wants to fly NYC to MCO for $39 is no reason for any airline to actually >do< it for that price. Even Southwest averages over 120 EACH WAY on most flights in their short-haul route network. Sure some folks get the "fun" fares that are 49-79 each way (plus tax)...but the majority of the plane does NOT pay that...and Southwest is betting on the >average< fare paid...which they will call "yield".

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,271

by boxley

1/3/06 10:45:28 PM

easy response, the next bash Mikey is the taxi driver

he picks everyone up in the peoples plane and we all kick in $39.00 for gas, see how many bashes he can do and remain solvent.
thanx,
bill

Post #240,286

1/4/06 8:12:13 AM

Make sure..

I get pretzels, a coke, a pillow, a blanket and advanced seats and 1/10th credit towards a free trip sometime in the future.

I mean, I can get a ride from anybody!

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,297

by imric

1/4/06 9:40:12 AM

OTOH

it'll be a really short trip for you to the next bash...

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #240,298

1/4/06 9:46:04 AM

Thats true, BUT

Its my party and I'll fly if I want to, fly if I want to, fly if I want to.

You would fly too if it happened to you :-)

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #240,330

by jbrabeck

1/4/06 12:45:08 PM

Don't give up your day job.... :-)

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"

Post #240,648

by Ashton

1/6/06 10:56:56 PM

1/6/06 11:10:03 PM

OK.. That___earns you a challenge -

[Forgot: your Maim that Tune award!]

Got the lyrics to Levi Lullaby on that playlist?
And an mp3 to mail me? -- nostalgia ain't what it used to be..

(We'll see just how encyclopathological is that tune-storing jelloware...)

And.. I Win! - a search that produces One Hit on Google, cha cha ;-)

Edited by Ashton Jan. 6, 2006, 11:10:03 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #240,657

by drewk

1/7/06 12:34:43 AM

ICpartialLRPD

encyclopathological

Hey, that starts with "e".

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #239,978

1/1/06 2:00:47 AM

Which kind of average?

Arithmetic average or median? (I don't actually know the answer to that, but I believe it is arithmetic.) This has been an era of growing wage disparities. During growing disparities there is no contradiction between the average wages remaining constant while most people's situation gets worse.

A second, more cynical, note. As Karsten pointed out a few years ago, he stopped trusting employment statistics out of this administration when they had to revise published unemployment figures for the Bay area during the crash. Think me paranoid if you wish, but I'm with Karsten - I'll quote official government statistics, but I don't fully trust them.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #239,988

by imric

1/1/06 3:16:15 AM

I know that one buddy has been looking constantly

for a job, any job, that pays more than 17.50/hr. He made 75k doing the same thing two years ago. His case isn't isolated, either. Two other of my other buddies are in the same straights.

I have 2 friends looking for work that would take a big pay cut, but still can't find jobs.

A friend's wife NEEDS the money her job provides, and will do anything her job says, bad or not, stupid or not, abusive or not - because she hasn't seen anything that she's qualified for that pays more than 1/2 what she earns now.

Let's see - I'm way better than I was 2 years ago, I'm paying off some longstanding debts, but I had to leave my family and friends to get work (granted, I'm probably over-specialized) but - let's just say I did not enjoy being uprooted. The datapoints that I've seen directly, those do NOT point to economic good news.

I haven't heard anything from anybody down here that things are getting better.

No Bill, I'll stick with what I actually see and hear. Am I a statistical sample that an economist can use? Of course not. From where I sit, things are NOT getting better, so quoting reports that say they are better is like quoting from the MS 'Linux Reference Center' to me.

*note - of the people I talk about above, only 1 has an IT-related job.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #239,989

by imric

1/1/06 3:18:46 AM

*grin* OT

Happy New Year!

Went to see a friend's band at a VFW. Lots of fun! A little loud though - my good ear s ringing...

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #240,025

1/1/06 7:13:17 PM

Lots of us moved against our wishes

Post #240,051

by Ashton

1/1/06 9:43:59 PM

Ah, the Logical Positivism of Econ catechism.

Well Beep, you remain a Faithful acolyte. But are you merely a stubborn one?
Premise I see, re Econ catechism:

We. measure. all. the. right. stuff.
If we can't assign a numerical ranking - the topic is obviously only figmentary; our Numbers cha are Real cha.

That your fellow acolytes would call that formulaic conclusion sufficient to describing Our Plight\ufffd; concluding that present conditions resemble anything remotely like, a state of "health" -!?- demonstrates once again, the poverty of embellishing fanciful-data with a few decimal points, while ritualistically tuning out all one's perceptions as, merely 'anecdotal' Awk! anecdotal.

Context is ALL; extirpated numbers bereft of larger context are worse than unhelpful; they are seductive to the mentally lazy. Our Base.
And this culture sneers at 'astrologers' ???
I'm with Karsten, too; as with the 'I' in 'IT':

All that Information.
So little of it you can trust.
aka gigo

No, 'Econ' cant is not solely responsible for the continuing fantasy that the exponential aim of more-More-MORE is sustainable, nor for the (corollary) National ignorance of the word adequacy, etc. Not solely. But oracular pronouncements as diseased as the above one .. appear designed solely for the preserving of this terminal delusion / 'American Dream' though it shakily remains. That IS a Dream; unlimited growth == cancer. Calculus can evaluate an 'infinity' - people can't live one.

But massively choreographed CPR can't resuscitate illusion.. forever.
At some bloody stage, it will be realized that 'GDP' and many other hoary icons of Econ are a collective farce, masking the rapine by the few, on a human scale, which is today only intensifying. Typically, we are apt to wait for that blood, before having the guts to lance this boil. Waiting for Economists to self-reform . . . . .

Wonder why.. such Other Graphs, as these -
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=238180|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=238180]
are omitted from all those Rosy Cruci-fiction tales from the Spinmeisters.
'Real Estate' - now the piggy bank for yet more deficit stuff-collecting: _Equity|^Appetite.

So as not to spread panic amidst the Happy Talk m[a/e]ssage?
(Prompting a few to "put off purchases", even ?) :-0 Scary thought, that. Dominoes.

At least the Titanic had the common courtesy to settle bow-first; had it gone down level.. there would have been no handy spot for the band to play those cheery hymns to a gleefully awaiting Neptune. Fresh Meat. Like the bottom 30?% is for the top 10. Can we make it 35-40 for the 5? Oooh - maybe Then it will trickle-down. Ya think?

For a while more. Maybe the US cannot survive without that Grand Illusion driving voracious, perpetual consumption. Should it, as the oceans rise?

(Or should we just go ahead and take the planet with US - by sheer firepower. That would be the Popular course today, I wot.)

Post #240,056