...in Rochester NY due to the Kodak plant closings
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
snip
Dr. Tooth,
snipped

Just for fun, comment on the crop of reservists returning to the job
market
when the come back from the big sandbox?

snipped

Just to answer one of your comments - you may be interested in the
following excerpt:

Employment and Reemployment Rights


The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
(USERRA), enacted October 13, 1994 (Title 38 U.S. Code, Chapter 43,
Sections 4301-4333, Public Law 103-353), significantly strengthens and
expands the employment and reemployment rights of all uniformed
service members.

Who's eligible for reemployment?

"Service in the uniformed services" and "uniformed services" defined
-- (38 U.S.C. Section 4303 (13 & 16)

Reemployment rights extend to persons who have been absent from a
position of employment because of "service in the uniformed services."
"Service in the uniformed services" means the performance of duty on a
voluntary or involuntary basis in a uniformed service, including:

· Active duty

· Active duty for training

· Initial active duty for training

· Inactive duty training

· Full-time National Guard duty.

· Absence from work for an examination to determine a person's
fitness for any of the above types of duty.


· Funeral honors duty performed by National Guard or reserve
members.

· Duty performed by intermittent disaster response personnel for
the Public Health Service, and approved training to prepare for such
service (added by Pub. L. 107-188, June 2002). See Title 42, U.S.
Code, section 300hh-11(e).

For more info, go to:
http://www.dol.gov/vets/whatsnew/userraguide0903.rtf




John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John,

I was already aware of the right to return to their previous jobs. There is
no question about the right of these people to return to their jobs, if the
job still exists.

A lot of self employed folk will have a hard time re-building their
companies after a years absence. They have been away long enough that their
clients have had to find another source of supply for their services.
Consider how this could affect a news-group regular, such as Dr. Tooth. If
Nobby had to go away for a year of service, it might take a long time to
re-build his practice to the point where it is at now. Those huge loans
might even pose a serious burden for him. Naturally, this is a hypothetical
situation because he was much too smart to sign up for the guard!

Primarily, the question I posed for NYOB is about the folks that will be
bumped when the military guy comes back for his job. These newly unemployed
persons will add to the glut of job seekers. The first wave will be
released back to the market just before the 2004 graduation class hits.

If I were a betting man, I would go for good odds on a rise in the number of
job seekers that can't find meaningful work.

Mark Browne

...in Rochester NY due to the Kodak plant closings
 

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:bHH2c.516919$na.1173373@attbi_s04...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

news:c3dhc2g=.606e7062a1d4900a89f1e2a9d725c4c8@107 8496293.nulluser.com...

the recession ended in
November 2001.*

This bears repeating. The recession ended in November 2001...which
means
the economy has been improving for over 2 years.

Employment stats are a lagging indicator. We've had 8 straight months
of
*GAINS* in employment. 8 months!

I don't care if the number is 1000 or 100000. Either way, more people
are
working today than the month before...and the month before that...and
the
month before that...dating all the way back to June 2003.

You guys were saying "3 million jobs". Then it was 2.5 million. Now
it's
2.35 million. Bush could use the Dem's own ads to show the improvement
in
the job market. By November, he can say: "first they said 3 million,
then
2.5 million, then 2.35...and now they say 1.5 million. We've gained 1.5
million jobs in the last 16 months. Why stop now?"


When Bush puts this trend on a chart and holds it up before the American
people, the message will be "Taxes were too high before I took office,
and
manufacturing started laying off people en masse starting in August
2000...5
months before I took office. My administration led the fight to cut
taxes
in early 2003, and since then, we've had 16 straight months of job
growth.
Why would you want John Kerry to raise your taxes and stop the growth?"

Historical data showing 16 straight months of job growth will completely
destroy the argument that we're on the wrong track economically. Only a
fool would make such an assertion.

Dr. Tooth,

I will add that I have two sons seeking work right now. So far I can't
fault
the effort they are putting into their search. The pickings seem pretty
lean. Tell me again, where are all these jobs you are crowing about?


Florida!


Unemployment rates down in Collier, Lee counties
By Daily News staff
March 6, 2004

Florida's unemployment rate fell to 4.3 percent in January, down from 4.9
percent a month earlier, according to the Florida Agency for Workforce
Innovation.

In January 2003, the state's unemployment rate was 5.3 percent. Florida
continues to outperform the job market nationally.

In Collier County, the unemployment rate in January was 3.2 percent, down
from 4.1 percent a year ago. The labor force grew to 125,501.

In Lee County, the jobless rate dropped to 3.3 percent in January, down from
4.4 percent a year ago. The labor force stood at 219,473, up from 213,221 in
January 2003.

In Florida, there were 357,000 unemployed residents in January. That was the
lowest in the state since April 2001.

Florida's unemployment rate of 4.9 percent in December put the state at the
second lowest among the nation's ten largest cities. The state with the
lowest jobless rate was Georgia, at 4.3 percent in December.

...in Rochester NY due to the Kodak plant closings
 

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:bHH2c.516919$na.1173373@attbi_s04...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

news:c3dhc2g=.606e7062a1d4900a89f1e2a9d725c4c8@107 8496293.nulluser.com...

the recession ended in
November 2001.*

This bears repeating. The recession ended in November 2001...which
means
the economy has been improving for over 2 years.

Employment stats are a lagging indicator. We've had 8 straight months
of
*GAINS* in employment. 8 months!

I don't care if the number is 1000 or 100000. Either way, more people
are
working today than the month before...and the month before that...and
the
month before that...dating all the way back to June 2003.

You guys were saying "3 million jobs". Then it was 2.5 million. Now
it's
2.35 million. Bush could use the Dem's own ads to show the improvement
in
the job market. By November, he can say: "first they said 3 million,
then
2.5 million, then 2.35...and now they say 1.5 million. We've gained 1.5
million jobs in the last 16 months. Why stop now?"


When Bush puts this trend on a chart and holds it up before the American
people, the message will be "Taxes were too high before I took office,
and
manufacturing started laying off people en masse starting in August
2000...5
months before I took office. My administration led the fight to cut
taxes
in early 2003, and since then, we've had 16 straight months of job
growth.
Why would you want John Kerry to raise your taxes and stop the growth?"

Historical data showing 16 straight months of job growth will completely
destroy the argument that we're on the wrong track economically. Only a
fool would make such an assertion.

Dr. Tooth,

I will add that I have two sons seeking work right now. So far I can't
fault
the effort they are putting into their search.

Perhaps it has nothing to do with their effort. What is their work
background/training?

...in Rochester NY due to the Kodak plant closings
 

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:bHH2c.516919$na.1173373@attbi_s04...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

news:c3dhc2g=.606e7062a1d4900a89f1e2a9d725c4c8@107 8496293.nulluser.com...

the recession ended in
November 2001.*

This bears repeating. The recession ended in November 2001...which
means
the economy has been improving for over 2 years.

Employment stats are a lagging indicator. We've had 8 straight months
of
*GAINS* in employment. 8 months!

I don't care if the number is 1000 or 100000. Either way, more people
are
working today than the month before...and the month before that...and
the
month before that...dating all the way back to June 2003.

You guys were saying "3 million jobs". Then it was 2.5 million. Now
it's
2.35 million. Bush could use the Dem's own ads to show the improvement
in
the job market. By November, he can say: "first they said 3 million,
then
2.5 million, then 2.35...and now they say 1.5 million. We've gained 1.5
million jobs in the last 16 months. Why stop now?"


When Bush puts this trend on a chart and holds it up before the American
people, the message will be "Taxes were too high before I took office,
and
manufacturing started laying off people en masse starting in August
2000...5
months before I took office. My administration led the fight to cut
taxes
in early 2003, and since then, we've had 16 straight months of job
growth.
Why would you want John Kerry to raise your taxes and stop the growth?"

Historical data showing 16 straight months of job growth will completely
destroy the argument that we're on the wrong track economically. Only a
fool would make such an assertion.

Dr. Tooth,

I will add that I have two sons seeking work right now. So far I can't
fault
the effort they are putting into their search. The pickings seem pretty
lean. Tell me again, where are all these jobs you are crowing about?

Just for fun, comment on the crop of reservists returning to the job
market
when the come back from the big sandbox?

After you answer that, tell me what will happen when this years crop of
graduates hits the streets and can't find meaningful jobs?

Since you are such a wiz with figures, how much of this spectacular growth
has anything to do with little Bushes tax cuts, and how much is due to the
unusually low interest rates?

I dunno. When corporate tax returns are all submitted and accounted for,
let's see how much businesses spent on their Section 179 expenses...which
was increased to $100,000 in 2003.


I was just reading how the American population is borrowing money to
finance
their purchases at a rate never seen before. Much of this is borrowing on
the inflated values of homes combined with low interest rates; this is a
one-time trick and I don't expect to see it repeated. The rest is massive
credit card debt. At some point this personal debt load will choke
personal
finances to the point where the average consumer simply can't take on
additional debt. When these people stop living beyond their means and
start
to simple survive while they service the debt they have taken on, they
won't
buy as much as they do now. What do you have to say about this potential
blot you your rosy view of the future growth?

I'm in the process of purchasing a new home and a new car. After I close,
you will have just described my personal situation perfectly...except for
the credit cards, which I pay off in full every month. In due time,
however, the short-term debt will be retired, and my income will rise...and
I'll be spending again. That's the normal cycle for most people.


For the 10 point extra credit, what will happen when the interest rates
start to come back up? Address home sales, big ticket sales, and corporate
investments.

The giant jumps in Quarterly GDP growth that we've been seeing will begin to
moderate and level off. The stock market will see yearly returns of
10-15%...instead of the 35-40% returns we've seen in the 12 months.

...in Rochester NY due to the Kodak plant closings
 

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:KzI2c.497548$I06.5339699@attbi_s01...

"John H" wrote in message
...
snip
Dr. Tooth,
snipped

Just for fun, comment on the crop of reservists returning to the job
market
when the come back from the big sandbox?

snipped

Just to answer one of your comments - you may be interested in the
following excerpt:

Employment and Reemployment Rights


The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
(USERRA), enacted October 13, 1994 (Title 38 U.S. Code, Chapter 43,
Sections 4301-4333, Public Law 103-353), significantly strengthens and
expands the employment and reemployment rights of all uniformed
service members.

Who's eligible for reemployment?

"Service in the uniformed services" and "uniformed services" defined
-- (38 U.S.C. Section 4303 (13 & 16)

Reemployment rights extend to persons who have been absent from a
position of employment because of "service in the uniformed services."
"Service in the uniformed services" means the performance of duty on a
voluntary or involuntary basis in a uniformed service, including:

· Active duty

· Active duty for training

· Initial active duty for training

· Inactive duty training

· Full-time National Guard duty.

· Absence from work for an examination to determine a person's
fitness for any of the above types of duty.


· Funeral honors duty performed by National Guard or reserve
members.

· Duty performed by intermittent disaster response personnel for
the Public Health Service, and approved training to prepare for such
service (added by Pub. L. 107-188, June 2002). See Title 42, U.S.
Code, section 300hh-11(e).

For more info, go to:
http://www.dol.gov/vets/whatsnew/userraguide0903.rtf




John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John,

I was already aware of the right to return to their previous jobs. There
is
no question about the right of these people to return to their jobs, if
the
job still exists.

A lot of self employed folk will have a hard time re-building their
companies after a years absence. They have been away long enough that
their
clients have had to find another source of supply for their services.
Consider how this could affect a news-group regular, such as Dr. Tooth. If
Nobby had to go away for a year of service, it might take a long time to
re-build his practice to the point where it is at now. Those huge loans
might even pose a serious burden for him. Naturally, this is a
hypothetical
situation because he was much too smart to sign up for the guard!

Primarily, the question I posed for NYOB is about the folks that will be
bumped when the military guy comes back for his job. These newly
unemployed
persons will add to the glut of job seekers. The first wave will be
released back to the market just before the 2004 graduation class hits.

If I were a betting man, I would go for good odds on a rise in the number
of
job seekers that can't find meaningful work.

How many reservists are you talking about? How many will actually be
reentering the job market and displacing other workers?

We have approximately 146.43 million potential workers in this country. 8.2
million of them are unemployed...giving us an unemployment rate of 5.6%.

If you add 150,000 people to our labor market (although there won't be
150,000 returning all at once), and NONE of them find a job (very unlikely),
then we'd have an increase that wouldn't even be noticed by any of the major
statistics that the BLS uses.

Example:
We'd then have 146.58 million workers
We'd have 8.15 million unemployed
We'd still have an unemployment rate of 5.6%!!!

...in Rochester NY due to the Kodak plant closings
 

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 17:01:30 GMT, "Mark Browne"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
snip
Dr. Tooth,
snipped

Just for fun, comment on the crop of reservists returning to the job
market
when the come back from the big sandbox?

snipped

Just to answer one of your comments - you may be interested in the
following excerpt:

Employment and Reemployment Rights


The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
(USERRA), enacted October 13, 1994 (Title 38 U.S. Code, Chapter 43,
Sections 4301-4333, Public Law 103-353), significantly strengthens and
expands the employment and reemployment rights of all uniformed
service members.

Who's eligible for reemployment?

"Service in the uniformed services" and "uniformed services" defined
-- (38 U.S.C. Section 4303 (13 & 16)

Reemployment rights extend to persons who have been absent from a
position of employment because of "service in the uniformed services."
"Service in the uniformed services" means the performance of duty on a
voluntary or involuntary basis in a uniformed service, including:

· Active duty

· Active duty for training

· Initial active duty for training

· Inactive duty training

· Full-time National Guard duty.

· Absence from work for an examination to determine a person's
fitness for any of the above types of duty.


· Funeral honors duty performed by National Guard or reserve
members.

· Duty performed by intermittent disaster response personnel for
the Public Health Service, and approved training to prepare for such
service (added by Pub. L. 107-188, June 2002). See Title 42, U.S.
Code, section 300hh-11(e).

For more info, go to:
http://www.dol.gov/vets/whatsnew/userraguide0903.rtf




John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John,

I was already aware of the right to return to their previous jobs. There is
no question about the right of these people to return to their jobs, if the
job still exists.

A lot of self employed folk will have a hard time re-building their
companies after a years absence. They have been away long enough that their
clients have had to find another source of supply for their services.
Consider how this could affect a news-group regular, such as Dr. Tooth. If
Nobby had to go away for a year of service, it might take a long time to
re-build his practice to the point where it is at now. Those huge loans
might even pose a serious burden for him. Naturally, this is a hypothetical
situation because he was much too smart to sign up for the guard!

Primarily, the question I posed for NYOB is about the folks that will be
bumped when the military guy comes back for his job. These newly unemployed
persons will add to the glut of job seekers. The first wave will be
released back to the market just before the 2004 graduation class hits.

If I were a betting man, I would go for good odds on a rise in the number of
job seekers that can't find meaningful work.

Mark Browne

Your comment, "Just for fun, comment on the crop of reservists
returning to the job market when the come back from the big sandbox?"
indicated no such knowledge. Sorry.

Unless you are a believer in the Household Survey, self-employed
people don't count anyway, right?

Most of the troops in Iraq are active duty, and won't be flooding the
job market. As of September, 2003, there were 122,000 Army personnel
in Iraq, including 3,000 National Guard soldiers and 5,000 reservists,
Army officials told the Post. Another 5,000 Guard soldiers and 7,000
reservists are serving in Kuwait. That would mean a "flood" of about
20,000. Maybe some percent of those will not have jobs waiting. Most
companies do not want the negative publicity associated with *not*
having a job for returning military.

Also, most companies don't hire someone knowing they will have to fire
them upon the return of the soldier. The growth in the economy over
the past year will more than compensate for the *at most* flood of
20,000 reservists.

As for NOYB, he, like other dentists with whom I'm familiar, would
probably have on tap someone to handle his patients while he was
mobilized. Would you immediately switch dentists if you knew your
regular would return in a year? I wouldn't. Many dental procedures can
be postponed. If a patient *had* to go to a different dentist, and
liked that dentist better, well, that's life in the big city.

If I had a dental practice, I surely wouldn't join the reserves. The
country is not suffering for people to join the military, so
patriotism is not an issue. Joining the Navy, during the Vietnam war,
was a good way to avoid going to Vietnam. Usually! For many, joining
any of the services other than the Army was a way to avoid the draft
and almost certain service in Vietnam.

(Don't know what prompted that tangent, but since you're surely
anti-Kerry you shouldn't care much.)

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

...in Rochester NY due to the Kodak plant closings
 

I'd have an associate come in to handle my patient load...and I'd have them
sign a non-compete clause so that when I came back, they couldn't open up
shop across the street and take any of the patients with them.


"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 17:01:30 GMT, "Mark Browne"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
snip
Dr. Tooth,
snipped

Just for fun, comment on the crop of reservists returning to the job
market
when the come back from the big sandbox?

snipped

Just to answer one of your comments - you may be interested in the
following excerpt:

Employment and Reemployment Rights


The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
(USERRA), enacted October 13, 1994 (Title 38 U.S. Code, Chapter 43,
Sections 4301-4333, Public Law 103-353), significantly strengthens and
expands the employment and reemployment rights of all uniformed
service members.

Who's eligible for reemployment?

"Service in the uniformed services" and "uniformed services" defined
-- (38 U.S.C. Section 4303 (13 & 16)

Reemployment rights extend to persons who have been absent from a
position of employment because of "service in the uniformed services."
"Service in the uniformed services" means the performance of duty on a
voluntary or involuntary basis in a uniformed service, including:

· Active duty

· Active duty for training

· Initial active duty for training

· Inactive duty training

· Full-time National Guard duty.

· Absence from work for an examination to determine a person's
fitness for any of the above types of duty.


· Funeral honors duty performed by National Guard or reserve
members.

· Duty performed by intermittent disaster response personnel for
the Public Health Service, and approved training to prepare for such
service (added by Pub. L. 107-188, June 2002). See Title 42, U.S.
Code, section 300hh-11(e).

For more info, go to:
http://www.dol.gov/vets/whatsnew/userraguide0903.rtf




John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John,

I was already aware of the right to return to their previous jobs. There
is
no question about the right of these people to return to their jobs, if
the
job still exists.

A lot of self employed folk will have a hard time re-building their
companies after a years absence. They have been away long enough that
their
clients have had to find another source of supply for their services.
Consider how this could affect a news-group regular, such as Dr. Tooth.
If
Nobby had to go away for a year of service, it might take a long time to
re-build his practice to the point where it is at now. Those huge loans
might even pose a serious burden for him. Naturally, this is a
hypothetical
situation because he was much too smart to sign up for the guard!

Primarily, the question I posed for NYOB is about the folks that will be
bumped when the military guy comes back for his job. These newly
unemployed
persons will add to the glut of job seekers. The first wave will be
released back to the market just before the 2004 graduation class hits.

If I were a betting man, I would go for good odds on a rise in the number
of
job seekers that can't find meaningful work.

Mark Browne

Your comment, "Just for fun, comment on the crop of reservists
returning to the job market when the come back from the big sandbox?"
indicated no such knowledge. Sorry.

Unless you are a believer in the Household Survey, self-employed
people don't count anyway, right?

Most of the troops in Iraq are active duty, and won't be flooding the
job market. As of September, 2003, there were 122,000 Army personnel
in Iraq, including 3,000 National Guard soldiers and 5,000 reservists,
Army officials told the Post. Another 5,000 Guard soldiers and 7,000
reservists are serving in Kuwait. That would mean a "flood" of about
20,000. Maybe some percent of those will not have jobs waiting. Most
companies do not want the negative publicity associated with *not*
having a job for returning military.

Also, most companies don't hire someone knowing they will have to fire
them upon the return of the soldier. The growth in the economy over
the past year will more than compensate for the *at most* flood of
20,000 reservists.

As for NOYB, he, like other dentists with whom I'm familiar, would
probably have on tap someone to handle his patients while he was
mobilized. Would you immediately switch dentists if you knew your
regular would return in a year? I wouldn't. Many dental procedures can
be postponed. If a patient *had* to go to a different dentist, and
liked that dentist better, well, that's life in the big city.

If I had a dental practice, I surely wouldn't join the reserves. The
country is not suffering for people to join the military, so
patriotism is not an issue. Joining the Navy, during the Vietnam war,
was a good way to avoid going to Vietnam. Usually! For many, joining
any of the services other than the Army was a way to avoid the draft
and almost certain service in Vietnam.

(Don't know what prompted that tangent, but since you're surely
anti-Kerry you shouldn't care much.)

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

...in Rochester NY due to the Kodak plant closings
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
m...
snip
Dr. Tooth,

I will add that I have two sons seeking work right now. So far I can't
fault
the effort they are putting into their search.

Perhaps it has nothing to do with their effort. What is their work
background/training?


One is a Unix sys-admin with the right credentials; the other one has a high
school diploma. Oddly enough, they are both getting about the same response
in the job market - nothing.

Now, lets move on to your fascinating implied statement.

You seem to be validating Kerry's (and Deans) assertion about two Americas!

One for well to do folks like yourself, and one for the left behind. You are
implying that because they did to choose to be part of the minority that
made the right (or lucky) moves and is doing OK right now, that they are not
going to be part of the good times.

You do realize that with your income, you are definably part of the
minority, the top few percent of the economy. You might not think that there
was any luck in your achieving the position you are in but reflect on this;
there are doctors that have spent as much time as yourself in medical
training (maybe more) and are working for an HMO pulling down crappy wages.
When they started their training many years ago, the HMO thing was not even
on the radar screen.

Since this is almost at one-person, one-vote country, the coming elections
may well sample the number of people that think they are doing well under
the current administration, and the number of people that think that they
are not and want a change. They both get the same right to vote.

Mark Browne

...in Rochester NY due to the Kodak plant closings
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
snip
How many reservists are you talking about? How many will actually be
reentering the job market and displacing other workers?

We have approximately 146.43 million potential workers in this country.
8.2
million of them are unemployed...giving us an unemployment rate of 5.6%.

If you add 150,000 people to our labor market (although there won't be
150,000 returning all at once), and NONE of them find a job (very
unlikely),
then we'd have an increase that wouldn't even be noticed by any of the
major
statistics that the BLS uses.

Example:
We'd then have 146.58 million workers
We'd have 8.15 million unemployed
We'd still have an unemployment rate of 5.6%!!!

The monthly job creation figures are in the 100,000 to 200,000 range.
Current estimates are 20,000 returning from the big sand box. Each of these
people, directly or indirectly, will be competing for these new jobs. Twenty
thousand is a fair sized number when balanced against the number of new jobs
created.

It may not make a difference in your constant Pollyanna posts of how
wonderful things are, but if these folk experience the same kind of problems
getting work that my sons are going through, that's a lot of pain.

Mark Browne

...in Rochester NY due to the Kodak plant closings
 

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:coK2c.517748$na.1175331@attbi_s04...

"NOYB" wrote in message
m...
snip
Dr. Tooth,

I will add that I have two sons seeking work right now. So far I can't
fault
the effort they are putting into their search.

Perhaps it has nothing to do with their effort. What is their work
background/training?


One is a Unix sys-admin with the right credentials; the other one has a
high
school diploma. Oddly enough, they are both getting about the same
response
in the job market - nothing.

I don't know anything about Unix, other than it's an operating system. My
knowledge of operating systems, as limited as it is, is Windows-based. I
remember that the operating system at my engineering school was Unix...but
that was more than 10 years ago. Is it still used a lot? Perhaps that's
part of the problem? A change in technology?

As for your other son with a high school diploma...
What kind of jobs is he applying to? I find it hard to believe he can't
find "any" job. I can't blame him for not wanting a job at minimum wage,
but what skills does he have and what makes him more "employable" than
somebody else that is earning minimum wage?





Now, lets move on to your fascinating implied statement.

You seem to be validating Kerry's (and Deans) assertion about two
Americas!

One for well to do folks like yourself, and one for the left behind. You
are
implying that because they did to choose to be part of the minority that
made the right (or lucky) moves and is doing OK right now, that they are
not
going to be part of the good times.

There is some "luck" to choosing the right career path that will be
lucrative for a lifetime. I don't fault someone for choosing the wrong one.
However, there's a point where that person has to accept the fact that they
may have chosen the wrong path, and then pursue another one. Perhaps your
sons could attend community college or a vo-tech school and get trained in
something that will make them more marketable to an employer.



You do realize that with your income, you are definably part of the
minority, the top few percent of the economy. You might not think that
there
was any luck in your achieving the position you are in but reflect on
this;
there are doctors that have spent as much time as yourself in medical
training (maybe more) and are working for an HMO pulling down crappy
wages.
When they started their training many years ago, the HMO thing was not
even
on the radar screen.

A degree doesn't guarantee success...no matter what degree one obtains. For
the longest time, that wasn't true for doctors. Unfortunately, the
med/dental schools don't teach enough business classes, and doctors, as a
group, make poor business people.

There are doctors that have found ways to work with the HMO gorilla and
still make a lot of money. Most of those doctors are seeing more patients
than ever, and usuing more licensed nurse practioners and doctor's
assistants, however...so patient care suffers. Some doctors have privatized
their practices and now let the patients fight it out with the insurnace
company for reimbursement. That model obviously can work in a more affluent
area, but not in less affluent areas where there might be one or two
principal employers that provides coverage for 2/3's of the town people.




Since this is almost at one-person, one-vote country, the coming elections
may well sample the number of people that think they are doing well under
the current administration, and the number of people that think that they
are not and want a change. They both get the same right to vote.

Can't argue with you there.