Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thursday, October 2, 2014 4:14:59 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Too bad no one was even talking to you, lardass. |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/2/14 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:59:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 4:42 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:14:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 3:56 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical differences. Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in the same area. A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed money. It does not take long to get caught in the debt trap and then you are carrying the bank around on your back. A broker gave me some great advice around the bicentennial. He said, if you can't afford to pay cash, how in the hell can you ever afford to pay the same amount plus interest? (or words to that effect) If you put off buying something and start paying for it right away, you can pay cash. That is particularly true if you were going to use a credit card. I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Yes but if you are talking middle class you are implying quality of life. A stupid person can be poor making $100k and his next door neighbor can be rich making 80. The problem is defining the quality of life implicit in the term "middle class." It is impossible to quantify with consensus. For something you can't define, you certainly have no problem talking about how badly they are doing. You can't have it both ways. You're the one using obsolete terms. I'm the one saying we need different measuring sticks and descriptors. I went to college and paid attention in stats 101 and 102. |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thursday, October 2, 2014 6:53:29 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
I went to college and paid attention in stats 101 and 102. I thought (and so did you ) that you went to Yale. |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 18:53:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/2/14 6:44 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:59:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 4:42 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:14:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 3:56 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical differences. Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in the same area. A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed money. It does not take long to get caught in the debt trap and then you are carrying the bank around on your back. A broker gave me some great advice around the bicentennial. He said, if you can't afford to pay cash, how in the hell can you ever afford to pay the same amount plus interest? (or words to that effect) If you put off buying something and start paying for it right away, you can pay cash. That is particularly true if you were going to use a credit card. I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Yes but if you are talking middle class you are implying quality of life. A stupid person can be poor making $100k and his next door neighbor can be rich making 80. The problem is defining the quality of life implicit in the term "middle class." It is impossible to quantify with consensus. For something you can't define, you certainly have no problem talking about how badly they are doing. You can't have it both ways. You're the one using obsolete terms. I'm the one saying we need different measuring sticks and descriptors. I went to college and paid attention in stats 101 and 102. === Really? Say something in "Statistics" for us and then tell us what it means. |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:42:36 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:14:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 3:56 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical differences. Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in the same area. A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed money. It does not take long to get caught in the debt trap and then you are carrying the bank around on your back. A broker gave me some great advice around the bicentennial. He said, if you can't afford to pay cash, how in the hell can you ever afford to pay the same amount plus interest? (or words to that effect) If you put off buying something and start paying for it right away, you can pay cash. That is particularly true if you were going to use a credit card. I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Yes but if you are talking middle class you are implying quality of life. A stupid person can be poor making $100k and his next door neighbor can be rich making 80. Harry is always decrying the destruction of the middle class, so he should know the correct definition. |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:42:36 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:14:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 3:56 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical differences. Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in the same area. A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed money. It does not take long to get caught in the debt trap and then you are carrying the bank around on your back. A broker gave me some great advice around the bicentennial. He said, if you can't afford to pay cash, how in the hell can you ever afford to pay the same amount plus interest? (or words to that effect) If you put off buying something and start paying for it right away, you can pay cash. That is particularly true if you were going to use a credit card. I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Yes but if you are talking middle class you are implying quality of life. A stupid person can be poor making $100k and his next door neighbor can be rich making 80. Harry is always decrying the destruction of the middle class, so he should know the correct definition. Yup. You're an intellectual cipher. |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/2/2014 5:28 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:42:36 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:14:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/2/14 3:56 PM, wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:00:40 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I think "middle class" is a tired-out descriptor with little accurate meaning these days. Lower, middle, and upper income are more easily definable and more easily adjustable for regional or geographical differences. Income is not really a very good measure of quality of life, even in the same area. A person who makes wise buying decisions and avoids a lot of unnecessary debt will live a lot better than a person who pays too much for things they don't really need and does it with borrowed money. It does not take long to get caught in the debt trap and then you are carrying the bank around on your back. A broker gave me some great advice around the bicentennial. He said, if you can't afford to pay cash, how in the hell can you ever afford to pay the same amount plus interest? (or words to that effect) If you put off buying something and start paying for it right away, you can pay cash. That is particularly true if you were going to use a credit card. I thought we were discussing demographics and psychographics, and the definition of the "middle class." Yes but if you are talking middle class you are implying quality of life. A stupid person can be poor making $100k and his next door neighbor can be rich making 80. Harry is always decrying the destruction of the middle class, so he should know the correct definition. Yup. You're an intellectual cipher. If you are so smart why aren't you rich? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Murdering the Middle Class | General | |||
how the rich have screwed the middle class | General | |||
Tax increase for the middle class | ASA | |||
Speaking of boats for the middle class. | General | |||
Boats for the middle class..... | General |