True but we all know Joe Blow would want his check too.
Sure they do. If my guys run into a problem on a job now they can e-mail me pictures/video and we can talk issues through without me ever leaving my desk. Just ten years ago they would call me, I would get in my truck, they would sit around while I drove there, we would resolve the problem, then they would finally get back to work as I drove back to the office. Huge time saver for me and well worth a $300 phone bill every month.
OK, fess up now...you got the Princess, didn't you?
You're not understanding the point CC. Would your standard of living be higher if you paid an extra 200 dollars for the same phones? You're completely missing what EN was saying to WC.
I'm just tickled that we are now using the inverse of the bailout logic, tbh. We must shed jobs to become super-efficient!Sure Teysha, but then the question is: does government needs to avoid long term efficiency improvements and cost cutting in order to avoid those other temporary associated costs?
Then again, we're discussing government efficiency and cost cutting, which is largely an oxymoron, tbh
Those companies just don't have the work to support the workers. The health care cost is just an excuse. If they had the work they would employ the workers because they would not be turning away work.
You're not understanding the point CC. Would your standard of living be higher if you paid an extra 200 dollars for the same phones? You're completely missing what EN was saying to WC.exactly
Well, efficiency improvements will happen. And jobs will be lost as a result. That's the norm.
The stimulus was supposed to be an exceptional act. Just like the QE, etc. That is, specific distortions with specific goals in mind.
I really hope CC gets it this time.
Cheap cell phones don't do high quality photos/video. They are worth it to me.
I paid $1200 for my first portable cell phone and $.30 a minute to talk.
A Motorola brick with an extended antenna plus a truck mounted (higher transmitting power) one that honked my horn when the phone rang....
You're still not quite getting it, are you?Cheap cell phones don't do high quality photos/video. They are worth it to me.
I paid $1200 for my first portable cell phone and $.30 a minute to talk.
A Motorola brick with an extended antenna plus a truck mounted (higher transmitting power) one that honked my horn when the phone rang....
Pretend the SAME...EXACT... PHONE costs $100 in Universe A, and $500 in Universe B. Which person has the increased standard of living? The man in Universe A who bought his phone for $100 and still has $400 to spend, or the person in Universe B who spent $500 and has no more money to spend?
Except that EN twisted the point I was making. I never said such a thing.
You're not understanding the point CC. Would your standard of living be higher if you paid an extra 200 dollars for the same phones? You're completely missing what EN was saying to WC.
You are twisting things too.
I give you guys enough cord to hang yourselves with, and you don't disappoint.
Not at all WC. We're off on a slight tangent. And given your propensity to be misunderstood, I don't think I'd brag about it. "Look, I said something which people didn't get, so I'm the winner!"
Don't you guys get it?
Our manufacturing jobs are going away, more and more all the time, as we buy cheap technology elsewhere. Our effective incomes are decreasing with these cheap toys. It now requires both parents working and it never used to.
Why is this so freaking hard to follow:
Yes WC, I got what you meant. However, we had gone off on a bit of a tangent.
What you're saying has to do with wage stagnation and class mobility, not standard of living. Buying cheaper *DOES* matter, even more so when wages are stagnant.
The US has a compe iveness problem because it has an incredibly high standard of living compared to other producer nations.
What happened since the good old days is globalization: other countries catching up with technology and US companies shipping jobs abroad, where salaries are cheaper because their standards of living are cheaper. You could easily argue that the US is victim of it's own success at this point.
I read from your answer, you approve of the least common denominator aspect.
Actually, nevermind. Already wasted too much time explaining what you seemingly can't even grasp, but everyone else understood quite clearly.
Or basically they expect something so they act on it instead of waiting to see how much money they lose. Being an expert is hard, but you make it look so easy.
The simplicity of your math causes piloerections to occur all over my body. Were I to meet you I would surely lay down my pen, Dr Nash.
Actually no. You don't hold the prerequisites to qualify for further explanation.
Ok, whose troll is this?
Another "I'm misunderstood" fest brought to you by WC.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
