Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

Harry,
I have never known anyone


Reggie, I *don't care* who you have or haven't known, or what you think.

Got it?

So why the need to respond, WAFA?

Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 14, 2:34 pm, Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:41:56 -0500, Boater
wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Harry,
I have never known anyone
Reggie, I *don't care* who you have or haven't known, or what you
think.
Got it?
Harry, for your own good, I will address you.
Reggie is correct.
You *should* care.
Until next time....goodbye.
Since you are dumber than and less relevant than even Reggie, I will
give your suggestions the same consideration I give his: none.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, since you think everyone here is dumb and not worth addressing,
why do you post? Here, let me make it easy for even you. Tell us who
you feel is worth addressing here in rec.boats, that will give a
little insight into where you are coming from?


Please repost the post in which I stated "everyone here is dumb."


Typical WAFA spin. What else would you expect?

Don White wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:12:10 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:03:17 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
Well, that's kind of the point. What data do you trust?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Fine - but what caused the increase? Something has to change - what
was it?

Who should benefit from the obvious productivity increase - the company
or the workers?
Historically, when productivity increases, there may be a lag, but wages
also increase. What's changed?

The answer to that, is far more devastating to this country's long term
economic health, than the middle-class not getting their share.
You raise some important questions and frankly, I don't have an answer
for you - I'll admit it.

Obviously, its far to simplistic to blame the fat cats and corporate
executives. Perhaps there has been a fundamental shift in how money
is distributed, the money supply being managed - there's a whole host
of factors that could explain it, but I'm not an economist although I
do play one on TV. :)

I watch CNBC a lot - in particular the early show Squawk Box or if I'm
out and about, I listen on Sirius. When you watch two opposing sides
take the same sets of data and make them fit their own agendas and
viewpoints, you begin to wonder if anybody really and truly knows
what's going on.

Now for the really oddball opinon. I've often suspected that "real
wages" are being sucked up by government in various ways. I had an
experience Friday that floored me. I was kind of messing around in
the kitchen and I gathered up the bills for the paper pusher to
handle. I just started looking through them - there are more fees,
taxes and "adjustments' on my cable, telephone and wireless bills that
I could shake a stick at - easily adding 3-4% to the cost of the bill
and that's before sales/service taxes which add another - what, 6%?

What are all these fees/taxes/access charges doing to real wages?

What's the measure of productivity he's quoting? Per unit, per hour,
per what? I would think that if a company over 8 years increased it's
productivity by 20% (which is 2.5%/yr by the way) that's not a whole lot
considering inflation, raw material costs, etc. And if your company has
a high labor quotient to the cost of production, that's almost
negligible.
If you want to consider inflation, real wages have decreased.
Well, I think the last time I could buy a decent cigar for .75¢ was
about twenty years ago. :)


You should see my water bill. After all the extras like waste water
management and environmental protection fees aew tacked on, the basic charge
and actual usage fees (per cubic meter) triples.
Unbelievable..



What's "aew", dummy? Is that some Canadian thing?

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:17:37 -0800 (PST),

wrote:


There is no way in the world the American worker of present day works
harder than the guy in my dad's day. I have been victim to being told
to slow down by a union. In all fairness (which we won't expect from
the other side) I was also told to slow down while on piece work at
Standadyne, a non union shop...



Piece work is sort of a special deal. When I pushed pieces I was
aware that I was in my 20's and strong as a horse.
The guy on the next shift might be 50 and not so healthy or strong.
If I was being timed I had to go slower. Still worked hard, but
shortened my break times. Didn't want to screw up the older guys.
They did plenty of work.

--Vic


Many of us have never had the type of work experience where you had to be
conscious of how productive you are compared to your fellow worker. The
closest I ever came to that I guess is 9 years in the military, but nobody
pressured you to hold back in doing a good job, or even a better job than
others. The benefit of doing a good job was learning your job code,
advancing in rank and earning more money. Everyone had the same
opportunity. Some did, some didn't. In the military if someone was noticed
to be purposely holding back, he/she would be in a world of hurt.

In my civilian experiences of almost 30 years now, the companies I've worked
for were too small to have a cast of thousands all doing the same kind of
work. The motivation to do a good job was the fact that your performance
contributed to the overall efforts and if you slacked off, it would be very
noticeable. Often, I was the only one doing a particular function, so
screwing up, performing well or being lazy had an immediate impact on the
company and was usually noticed by the management.

So, you people with other experiences have to realize that the concept of
"backing off" in performance is totally foreign to some of us.

Eisboch

Don White wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:12:10 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:03:17 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
Well, that's kind of the point. What data do you trust?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Fine - but what caused the increase? Something has to change - what
was it?

Who should benefit from the obvious productivity increase - the company
or the workers?
Historically, when productivity increases, there may be a lag, but wages
also increase. What's changed?

The answer to that, is far more devastating to this country's long term
economic health, than the middle-class not getting their share.
You raise some important questions and frankly, I don't have an answer
for you - I'll admit it.

Obviously, its far to simplistic to blame the fat cats and corporate
executives. Perhaps there has been a fundamental shift in how money
is distributed, the money supply being managed - there's a whole host
of factors that could explain it, but I'm not an economist although I
do play one on TV. :)

I watch CNBC a lot - in particular the early show Squawk Box or if I'm
out and about, I listen on Sirius. When you watch two opposing sides
take the same sets of data and make them fit their own agendas and
viewpoints, you begin to wonder if anybody really and truly knows
what's going on.

Now for the really oddball opinon. I've often suspected that "real
wages" are being sucked up by government in various ways. I had an
experience Friday that floored me. I was kind of messing around in
the kitchen and I gathered up the bills for the paper pusher to
handle. I just started looking through them - there are more fees,
taxes and "adjustments' on my cable, telephone and wireless bills that
I could shake a stick at - easily adding 3-4% to the cost of the bill
and that's before sales/service taxes which add another - what, 6%?

What are all these fees/taxes/access charges doing to real wages?

What's the measure of productivity he's quoting? Per unit, per hour,
per what? I would think that if a company over 8 years increased it's
productivity by 20% (which is 2.5%/yr by the way) that's not a whole lot
considering inflation, raw material costs, etc. And if your company has
a high labor quotient to the cost of production, that's almost
negligible.
If you want to consider inflation, real wages have decreased.
Well, I think the last time I could buy a decent cigar for .75¢ was
about twenty years ago. :)


You should see my water bill. After all the extras like waste water
management and environmental protection fees aew tacked on, the basic charge
and actual usage fees (per cubic meter) triples.
Unbelievable..

Here in my county you are charged for each gallon of water coming in and
you are charged for that same gallon of water twice going out as
waste. So if you pay .10 cents for the gallon coming in you get charged
for .20 cents for the gallon going out in the sewage line. The next
logical question is why am I charged for sewage for watering my garden
and lawn? The answer is you can pay about $1000 to get a meter placed
on your sewage to meter your outgoing flow. The meter costs about $200
and you have to use the water company's licensed plumbers to install the
meter and that costs about $800. So, the grass turns brown in the summer
and the flowers die.

On Dec 14, 6:21*pm, RLM wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:15:33 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:15*pm, John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:10:09 +0000 (UTC), RLM wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:57:41 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:51:27 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:17:37 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

There is no way in the world the American worker of present day works
harder than the guy in my dad's day. I have been victim to being told
to slow down by a union. In all fairness (which we won't expect from
the other side) I was also told to slow down while on piece work at
Standadyne, a non union shop...

That may, or may not be, but American workers are still the most
productive workers on this planet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/

In all this discussion, you've never answered the questions asked by
myself or Tom.

A lot of side-stepping, but no direct answer.

Do your own research to prove him wrong. Twenty years of welfare and
nothing but questions. Too lazy to use the internet. Still on welfare..

Who holds your hand to cross the street?

There was no research needed. They were simple questions.
--
John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

snerk

Is snerk a remark like snot? It's "snot" in the dictionary and it's "snot"
making any sense. Snot at least is both of those.

Is it just the best the group can muster. My answer to that snerk!

* *snot- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I usually say pffffftttt Seriously, most here are capable of
deciphering the intense code we use here bsed on the content of the
thread...

Eisboch wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:17:37 -0800 (PST),

wrote:

There is no way in the world the American worker of present day works
harder than the guy in my dad's day. I have been victim to being told
to slow down by a union. In all fairness (which we won't expect from
the other side) I was also told to slow down while on piece work at
Standadyne, a non union shop...


Piece work is sort of a special deal. When I pushed pieces I was
aware that I was in my 20's and strong as a horse.
The guy on the next shift might be 50 and not so healthy or strong.
If I was being timed I had to go slower. Still worked hard, but
shortened my break times. Didn't want to screw up the older guys.
They did plenty of work.

--Vic


Many of us have never had the type of work experience where you had to be
conscious of how productive you are compared to your fellow worker. The
closest I ever came to that I guess is 9 years in the military, but nobody
pressured you to hold back in doing a good job, or even a better job than
others. The benefit of doing a good job was learning your job code,
advancing in rank and earning more money. Everyone had the same
opportunity. Some did, some didn't. In the military if someone was noticed
to be purposely holding back, he/she would be in a world of hurt.

In my civilian experiences of almost 30 years now, the companies I've worked
for were too small to have a cast of thousands all doing the same kind of
work. The motivation to do a good job was the fact that your performance
contributed to the overall efforts and if you slacked off, it would be very
noticeable. Often, I was the only one doing a particular function, so
screwing up, performing well or being lazy had an immediate impact on the
company and was usually noticed by the management.

So, you people with other experiences have to realize that the concept of
"backing off" in performance is totally foreign to some of us.

Eisboch




Doing a "good job," and doing a job quickly are not always compatible,
as I am sure you know. When I worked cleaning and rebuilding the innards
of boilers, I was told to work at a slow, careful pace to make sure I
took enough time to do the job properly. All of the guys I worked with,
guys with many years of experience, worked faster than I did, but they
all worked a different speeds. Slacking off was not a problem. Bad work
that caused the boilers to fail when they were tested was. Rushed work
usually resulted in bad work.

On Dec 14, 7:06*pm, John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:56:12 -0500, RLM wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:31:09 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:21:32 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:15:33 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

On Dec 14, 5:15*pm, John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:10:09 +0000 (UTC), RLM wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:57:41 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:51:27 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:17:37 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

There is no way in the world the American worker of present day works
harder than the guy in my dad's day. I have been victim to being told
to slow down by a union. In all fairness (which we won't expect from
the other side) I was also told to slow down while on piece work at
Standadyne, a non union shop...

That may, or may not be, but American workers are still the most
productive workers on this planet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/

In all this discussion, you've never answered the questions asked by
myself or Tom.

A lot of side-stepping, but no direct answer.

Do your own research to prove him wrong. Twenty years of welfare and
nothing but questions. Too lazy to use the internet. Still on welfare.

Who holds your hand to cross the street?

There was no research needed. They were simple questions.
--
John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

snerk

Is snerk a remark like snot? It's "snot" in the dictionary and it's "snot"
making any sense. Snot at least is both of those.

Is it just the best the group can muster. My answer to that snerk!

* snot

You need to do your own research about 'snerk'.
I did. It means nothing. Just as your remark means nothing. As in doesn't exist.
No value. I could go on.
* * * * * snot

Here, I've done it for you.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snerk

Now, be nice.
--
John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, I thought he said he did his research

On Dec 14, 7:54*pm, D K wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:hb2bk4hajnmh2b1j20bp36dtequoggrqt5@4ax .com...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:12:10 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:03:17 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
Well, that's kind of the point. *What data do you trust?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Fine - but what caused the increase? *Something has to change - what
was it?

Who should benefit from the obvious productivity increase - the company
or the workers?
Historically, when productivity increases, there may be a lag, but wages
also increase. *What's changed?

The answer to that, is far more devastating to this country's long term
economic health, than the middle-class not getting their share.
You raise some important questions and frankly, I don't have an answer
for you - I'll admit it.

Obviously, its far to simplistic to blame the fat cats and corporate
executives. *Perhaps there has been a fundamental shift in how money
is distributed, the money supply being managed - there's a whole host
of factors that could explain it, but I'm not an economist although I
do play one on TV. *:)

I watch CNBC a lot - in particular the early show Squawk Box or if I'm
out and about, I listen on Sirius. *When you watch two opposing sides
take the same sets of data and make them fit their own agendas and
viewpoints, you begin to wonder if anybody really and truly knows
what's going on.

Now for the really oddball opinon. *I've often suspected that "real
wages" are being sucked up by government in various ways. *I had an
experience Friday that floored me. *I was kind of messing around in
the kitchen and I gathered up the bills for the paper pusher to
handle. *I just started looking through them - there are more fees,
taxes and "adjustments' on my cable, telephone and wireless bills that
I could shake a stick at - easily adding 3-4% to the cost of the bill
and that's before sales/service taxes which add another - what, 6%?

What are all these fees/taxes/access charges doing to real wages?

What's the measure of productivity he's quoting? *Per unit, per hour,
per what? *I would think that if a company over 8 years increased it's
productivity by 20% (which is 2.5%/yr by the way) that's not a whole lot
considering inflation, raw material costs, etc. *And if your company has
a high labor quotient to the cost of production, that's almost
negligible.
If you want to consider inflation, real wages have decreased.
Well, I think the last time I could buy a decent cigar for .75¢ was
about twenty years ago. *:)

You should see my water bill. *After all the extras like waste water
management and environmental protection fees aew tacked on, the basic charge
and actual usage fees (per cubic meter) triples.
Unbelievable..

What's "aew", dummy? *Is that some Canadian thing?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Must be something, after the dim wit has been the resident spell
checker lately..

BAR wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:12:10 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:03:17 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
Well, that's kind of the point. What data do you trust?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Fine - but what caused the increase? Something has to change - what
was it?

Who should benefit from the obvious productivity increase - the
company
or the workers?
Historically, when productivity increases, there may be a lag, but
wages
also increase. What's changed?

The answer to that, is far more devastating to this country's long term
economic health, than the middle-class not getting their share.
You raise some important questions and frankly, I don't have an answer
for you - I'll admit it.

Obviously, its far to simplistic to blame the fat cats and corporate
executives. Perhaps there has been a fundamental shift in how money
is distributed, the money supply being managed - there's a whole host
of factors that could explain it, but I'm not an economist although I
do play one on TV. :)

I watch CNBC a lot - in particular the early show Squawk Box or if I'm
out and about, I listen on Sirius. When you watch two opposing sides
take the same sets of data and make them fit their own agendas and
viewpoints, you begin to wonder if anybody really and truly knows
what's going on.

Now for the really oddball opinon. I've often suspected that "real
wages" are being sucked up by government in various ways. I had an
experience Friday that floored me. I was kind of messing around in
the kitchen and I gathered up the bills for the paper pusher to
handle. I just started looking through them - there are more fees,
taxes and "adjustments' on my cable, telephone and wireless bills that
I could shake a stick at - easily adding 3-4% to the cost of the bill
and that's before sales/service taxes which add another - what, 6%?

What are all these fees/taxes/access charges doing to real wages?

What's the measure of productivity he's quoting? Per unit, per hour,
per what? I would think that if a company over 8 years increased it's
productivity by 20% (which is 2.5%/yr by the way) that's not a
whole lot
considering inflation, raw material costs, etc. And if your
company has
a high labor quotient to the cost of production, that's almost
negligible.
If you want to consider inflation, real wages have decreased.
Well, I think the last time I could buy a decent cigar for .75¢ was
about twenty years ago. :)


You should see my water bill. After all the extras like waste water
management and environmental protection fees aew tacked on, the basic
charge and actual usage fees (per cubic meter) triples.
Unbelievable..

Here in my county you are charged for each gallon of water coming in and
you are charged for that same gallon of water twice going out as waste.
So if you pay .10 cents for the gallon coming in you get charged for .20
cents for the gallon going out in the sewage line. The next logical
question is why am I charged for sewage for watering my garden and
lawn? The answer is you can pay about $1000 to get a meter placed on
your sewage to meter your outgoing flow. The meter costs about $200 and
you have to use the water company's licensed plumbers to install the
meter and that costs about $800. So, the grass turns brown in the summer
and the flowers die.




Licensed plumbers? Well, no work there for Joe the Plumber.

You probably should move out of Montgomery County and down to South
Carolina, where the living is easy and thousands of tons of chicken ****
flow daily into the aquifers.