Craigslist Exec To Soon Catch Bullet With His Forehead

[Amianthus]

If buying gas were a truly mutually agreed upon transaction then I'd be able to stop buying gas and "choose" to buy some other kind of fuel like, I don't know, Soy-based fuel of some kind without even thinking about it.

You can. Go buy a diesel vehicle like XO did, and you can use biodiesel instead of petroleum based products.

Again, it's your choice. There are drawbacks to both options. And you'll have to weigh those drawbacks against your other life choices.

Then again, there are drawbacks to every choice you make in your life.

[Amianthus]

Statistics show, in America, the middle class is shrinking.

Yeah, and a lot of them are moving out of the middle class into the upper class (ie, they're becoming "rich").

[sirs]

Statistics show, in America, the middle class is shrinking.

Yeah, and a lot of them are moving out of the middle class into the upper class (ie, they're becoming "rich").

Isn't it the ideological goal of the left, personified by the likes of Brass & Tee, that we all be "middle class"?  They don't want folks making things better for themselves, since it means there will also be poor.  Can't have that, so we can't have "rich".  Thus the overt hyperbolic attacks on "the rich", when ironically it's the poor & middle class who's goal is to move up to "the rich"

[_JS]

Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries.
Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten,
your gold and silver have corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire. You have stored up treasure for the last days.

I don't think it is an "ideological goal of the left," though it may be the goal of some.

They don't want folks making things better for themselves, since it means there will also be poor.

First, being wealthier is not equivalent to "making things better for themselves" and not wanting there to be people suffering from poverty is not an ignoble goal.

Thus the overt hyperbolic attacks on "the rich", when ironically it's the poor & middle class who's goal is to move up to "the rich"

There are quite a few people who fall into the "poor and middle class" who have no such goal as to "move up to the rich."



 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Left mostly alone, capitalism is an equalizing system because it allows anyone to choose his goals and to pursue them. No, it does not eliminate the roadblocks that happen in life, we still have to do that.
===================================================================================
Choose your goals and pursue them, yeah, sure.

Luck is probably more important than any other single element here.

When I was graduated from high school in NW Missouri, the two most lucrative careers for the HS graduate were (1) to work for the airlines (TWA had a base in the area) and (2) to work in one of three auto assembly plants: Claycomo Ford, Leeds Chevrolet or B.O.P.

I started college, and to pay for my tuition, I got a job first in the cafeteria, then on the assembly line at Claycomo, putting wheels on Falcons and Comets. I didn't mind working in the cafeteria, but it paid half what the assembly line job did.  The plant was extremely noisy, so much so that my ears rang for an hour after I got off my 10-hour shift, and it was pretty grueling work. Also, you had to deal with idiotic management types that never could produce a relief man to cover for you when you had to pee, and co-workers, who thought it was funny to drop a hot rivet down the back of your pants. I learned how to avoid drinking anything until the last break, and how to tuck in my shirt.

With the overtime, I made more money at the  Claycomo job than I would at any other job until my third year of teaching high school. But even if I had stayed on and got promotions, I would be facing a layoff today, because people just aren't buying Fords, even the F-150 that is most of what Claycomo assembles aren't selling. And 50 hours per week was not exactly conducive to having any sort of energy to do much else. I think in the two years I worked at Claycomo, I had three dates or so, because I was also taking 16 semester hours of classes.


My sister, after five or six years working at a mail-order catalog store, went to work for TWA. She worked for years in the ticketing department, then in records, then in the overhaul base. After 30 years working there, TWA went bankrupt due to profiteers like Carl Icahn, and was sold to American. She worked for American for another five years and they moved their KCI operations to Dallas and about 80% of the workers were permanently laid off.

So it turned out that neither the auto nor the airline industry, which certainly looked like the best possible careers in 1960 were all that good, and neither was good for a lifetime.

I went into teaching first HS then college, because it was less grueling than factory work, and Missouri became rather boring.

Right now, it seems to me that college education is going to become more dehumanizing, with computerized classes taking over many of the teaching duties. But this is a ways off, and I am planning on retiring before that will happen.

But the main factor here is LUCK, not good planning, not intelligence.

I am not going to starve, but I am also not competing with singers, guys who play with balls, or even real estate swindlers financially. Mostly, I have learned that financial success without some intellectual stimulation is not much better than assembly line work or being a mega consumer.

Most of the financial "successes", if you read their biographies (usually ghostwritten) turn out to be exceedingly shallow types who seem to have believed every advertisement they have read. And also very lucky. They just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

=============================================================
By the way, biodiesel is not really an option. You need to have a free source of used cooking oil (three to six restaurants, depending on how much you drive) and then you need to buy rather a lot of equipment refine the stuff yourself. There is also a disposal problem for the by products. It's really more of a hobby than a solution.

Diesel does have the advantage that when they announce a hurricane, you can fuel up without waiting long in line. Since the Iraq War, Diesel does not have a price advantage over gasoline, though the motor will go farther on a gallon. The taxes are higher on Diesel.

There was a time when Diesel in the summer sold for half the price of gasoline.

Again, luck.

[domer]

Properly conceived and emotionally modulated, the debate should focus on circumstance rather than the "fungibility" of individuals occupying slots among the "rich" or the "poor." The question is not should there be freedom and upper mobility -- there should -- but whether we can morally, socially and politically tolerate "want" or "serious want" or "severe want" in the richest country in the world, and how we should fashion our legal/economic system to assure that the "burdens of society" are carried equitably, that is, not only by ability to contribute but degree of benefit derived.

[Amianthus]

By the way, biodiesel is not really an option. You need to have a free source of used cooking oil (three to six restaurants, depending on how much you drive) and then you need to buy rather a lot of equipment refine the stuff yourself. There is also a disposal problem for the by products. It's really more of a hobby than a solution.

Then again, he can always just drive down to his local biodiesel retailer and buy some.
http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfuelingsites/

[_JS]

It should also be noted that biodiesel (and ehtanol) are both subsidised and I'm not sure that either would exist in a a laissez faire market of a capitalist economy.

[domer]

Not my day, either.

[Brassmask]

You can. Go buy a diesel vehicle like XO did, and you can use biodiesel instead of petroleum based products.

Again, it's your choice. There are drawbacks to both options. And you'll have to weigh those drawbacks against your other life choices.

Then again, there are drawbacks to every choice you make in your life.

Wow, that would be such a difference.  I would only have to buy gas once a month or so.   As for biodiesel, the closest place to buy it is a half hour's drive into AR.  Does that sound like it would be worth it?

The reality is, AMI, that gas is the most convenient way to go without sustaining a complete lifestyle re-organization.  And that's how the makers of gasoline are going to keep it.  There is no real benefit to them to create choices to gasoline.  With just gas as their product for running vehicles, the customer is kept on the hook.  They must buy gas or undergo complete lifestyle changes that would impact every aspect of their whole life.  No choices.

It is easier to just shrug your shoulders and say, "whattyagonnado?"

[Brassmask]

Statistics show, in America, the middle class is shrinking.

Yeah, and a lot of them are moving out of the middle class into the upper class (ie, they're becoming "rich").

Oh really?  That sounds like some Rush-induced AMBE to me but you believe what you wanna.

[_JS]

Properly conceived and emotionally modulated, the debate should focus on circumstance rather than the "fungibility" of individuals occupying slots among the "rich" or the "poor." The question is not should there be freedom and upper mobility -- there should -- but whether we can morally, socially and politically tolerate "want" or "serious want" or "severe want" in the richest country in the world, and how we should fashion our legal/economic system to assure that the "burdens of society" are carried equitably, that is, not only by ability to contribute but degree of benefit derived.

Actually Domer, I quite agree. I especially liked this phrase: whether we can morally, socially and politically tolerate "want" or "serious want" or "severe want" in the richest country in the world

I believe that Katrina really highlighted this fact for many Americans of various degrees among the political spectrum. I realize there was a game of politics and political relations involved in the aftermath, but the sight of poor Americans absolutely devestated by this natural disaster at least woke some people up to the reality that this isn't just a country of suburban landscapes and SUV's.

I read some horrible (nearly inhumane) articles and letters after that disaster, but I feel that the majority of those were written in a political nature. Most of the people associated with Katrina and who helped in some form or another really saw the good that we can do as a society. I think we can live as a society of Americans free from want, but it will require an effort and a balancing of goals and equality.

[Brassmask]

Yeah, and a lot of them are moving out of the middle class into the upper class (ie, they're becoming "rich").

Factcheck.org says you are guilding the lily at the very least.  Your use of the qualifier "a lot of them" is your crime.

As of 2003 at least.

http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html

On Aug. 26 the Census Bureau released  its annual survey of income in the US. These more up-to-date figures show that Kerry may well have been correct when he said the middle class is shrinking, using present tense.

There's no standard definition of "middle class," so we looked at households with pre-tax income of between $25,000 and $75,000 -- a group occupying roughly the middle half of the Census income distribution tables. As we noted before, that group grew smaller during the economic recession of 2001 and the initially slow recovery of 2002. Now the new Census figures indicate it continued to decline in 2003, and while this time some of the middle group were moving up , a larger portion were moving down.


Shrinking Middle Class
 
 
 
(Income in 2003 dollars, adjusted for inflation)
 
 
 Under $25,000
 $25,000-$75,000
 Over $75,000
 
Change:†
 
 
 
 
2002-2003
 +0.4%
 -0.4%
 +0.2%
 
2000-2003
 +1.5%
 -1.2%
 -0.4%
 
Distribution in 2003
 29.0%
 44.9%
 26.1%
 
Source: Table A-1, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the US: 2003
 
†Rows don't net to zero due to rounding
 
Moving on Down

The table shown here is updated to reflect the latest Census figures, and shows both the one-year change for 2003, and also the three-year change from 2000 to 2003 (covering the period since Bush took office.) The income figures are adjusted for inflation, and shown in 2003 dollars.

Since Bush took office, the middle-income group has declined by 1.2 percentage points , and now constitutes less than 45% of all households.

At the same time, households with less than $25,000 in income have grown by 1.5 percentage points, and now make up 29% of all households. So a large number of households have slipped out of the middle group and into the lower-income range over the past three years.

Furthermore, that process did not stop in 2003 despite the resumption of job growth in September and 4.4% growth in the economy as measured by Gross Domestic Product. The middle-income group lost 0.4 percentage points in 2003.

The upper-income group -- those with income over $75,000 a year -- has also suffered since Bush took office, declining by 0.4 percentage points over three years. However, upper-income households bounced back a bit last year, by two-tenths of a percentage point, and now are back at just over 26% of all households.

So by this measure, the "middle class" continued to shrink in 2003 , and while some "middle class" households moved to the upper-income group, a larger proportion moved down.

(Note: These figures are subject to some rounding error that could make any one of them off by a tenth of a percentage point or so.)

Shrunken, Stagnant Income

Another indicator: the Census Bureau reported that median household income declined by $63 from 2002 to 2003 , to $43,318. "Median" means that half of all households had more income than that, and half less. Census officials characterized the median income figure as "unchanged" in 2003 because the decline was so small as to be well within the margin of error.


Median Household Income
 
2000
 $44,853
 
2003
 $43,318
 
Change Under Bush
 -$1,535
 
-3.4%
 
But even so, median income has declined by $1,535 since Bush took office , or 3.4 percent. And while the decline leveled off last year and may even be climbing again in 2004, most households are clearly worse off economically now than they were when the President was sworn in.


Persons in Poverty
(thousands)
 
2000
 31,581
 
2003
 35,861
 
Change Under Bush
 +4,280
 
+13.6%
 
Falling Into Poverty

Another indication that the middle class continued to shrink in 2003 is the increase in the number and percentage of persons living in poverty. According to the Census Bureau, the number of people living below the official poverty line grew by 1.3 million in 2003, to 35.9 million. That's nearly 4.3 million more poor persons than when Bush took office , an increase of nearly 14%.

Is It Still Shrinking?

We of course can't say what the Census Bureau figures will say next year about what is happening to income and poverty rates in 2004. We do know that employment has been growing all year, so more people have jobs. Average wages are rising, too. But prices have been rising even faster -- especially for food, health care and fuel.

We also don't know what happened to after-tax income in 2003, because the Census Bureau was unable to complete its annual release of "alternative measures" of income in time for release with the poverty and household income figures. The 2003 figures might look better once the Bush tax cuts are factored in and take-home pay is considered. On the other hand, we do know that another 1 million persons were without health insurance in 2003. Since Bush took office, the number without health insurance has grown by 5.2 million, to 45 million.

[Amianthus]

Oh really?  That sounds like some Rush-induced AMBE to me but you believe what you wanna.

How can Rush induce anything in me when I don't listen to him?

Weren't you around a few months ago when I posted that article about the upswing in millionaire creation in this country?

[Amianthus]

As for biodiesel, the closest place to buy it is a half hour's drive into AR.  Does that sound like it would be worth it?

I don't know; it would be your choice, and your call to make. Perhaps you could look at the financial implications of moving closer to the retailer? Maybe you could look at switching careers and become a retailer of biodiesel in your neighborhood? Sounds like the laws of supply and demand would be working your favor.

The reality is, AMI, that gas is the most convenient way to go without sustaining a complete lifestyle re-organization.

Exactly. You chose a lifestyle that requires gasoline to be a convienence. The important part being that you chose that lifestyle. It was not forced upon you.