Headlines

On 02/13/2015 01:38 PM, lal_truckee wrote:
On 2/13/15 8:27 AM, The Real Bev wrote:

Those hours disappeared when I was terminated.

My accumulated sick leave was payed to me at full salary equivalent when
I retired. You should have worked at a honest company.

No ****. Unfortunately, losing sick leave at termination was common
back in the 1978-90 era. Yeah, CSC was a ****ty company, but I blame
myself for being just too ****ing conscientious.

It was a fun memo war, though. Upon reflection, losing was a good
thing. It didn't take long before I realized just how badly I'd hated
that job for the last two years.

When I got laid off at Magellan ("We don't need a QA department any
more, we're going to do things differently") they gave me 3 months
severance pay along with accrued personal leave after only 5 years.
That was decent.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ==================
"We thought about one of those discount store caskets, but, frankly,
we were worried about the quality." -- mortuary commercial

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:58:03 -0500, Walt wrote
this crap:

On 2/12/2015 1:03 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:58:23 -0500, Walt wrote
this crap:


You need to have $2,38,5036 in net worth to be in the 1%. Not even
Horvath has amassed that much.

How do you know?

You get a sense of these things when you are a skier and a sailor.
Trust me. I'm usually right about these things.


I've heard that 45% of Americans can sell everything they own and they
would still be in debt.

I've heard that the moon is made out of green cheese and that Vail is
the best place to ski in the world.

Anyway, the percentage of American households with zero net worth is
about 25%.
(http://www.epi.org/press/news_from_e...isparities_in/
)


I guess I know where I'm at. Think I should buy another Rolex?

You can buy a Rolex in Toledo?

You can buy a Rolex on Amazon.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:07:02 -0800, The Real Bev
wrote this crap:

You need to have $2,38,5036 in net worth to be in the 1%. Not even
Horvath has amassed that much.

How do you know? How many people do you know with a grand piano in
the living room of their mansion?

One. His house is on a bluff overlooking the ocean. He is 89 and skis
with me whenever he isn't flying around the country for the consulting
company he incorporated on his 85th birthday.

Then you know two. I have a grand piano in the living room of my
mansion and I am looking for another.

And you haven't even seen my comic
book collection.

A friend had Superman #1 and his mom made him throw away all his comic
books because they were untidy. This story may be apocryphal or it may not.

I have a copy of Action Comics #1 where Superman makes his debut.

To be in the upper 70%, you need to have $7500 to your name. Say, a
used 2008 Chevy Impala with 100,000 miles on it and no other debts.
I'd say someone with less than that is poor.

I've heard that 45% of Americans can sell everything they own and they
would still be in debt.

That's shameful.

The bottom 20% has a median net worth of -$32,000.

So, if we say that "poor" is bottom 30% and rich is top 10%, we get the
following cutoffs:

poor: $7,500 net worth
middle class: between $7500 and $650,000 net worth
rich: over $650,000

I guess I know where I'm at. Think I should buy another Rolex?

That would be stupid under any circumstances. Stupid people buy flash.

We're Americans. We can buy whatever we want. And it's always
important to look good.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:42:23 -0800, lal_truckee
wrote this crap:

On 2/12/15 10:03 AM, wrote:
Think I should buy another Rolex?
The little signs to wear around your neck that say "I have money and
should be robbed" are cheaper - even the ones with blinking LEDs.

Robbed? I only carry enough cash to buy drinks at the VFW. There's
nothing to rob.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On 02/13/2015 06:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:07:02 -0800, The Real Bev
wrote this crap:
Horvie wrote:
I guess I know where I'm at. Think I should buy another Rolex?

That would be stupid under any circumstances. Stupid people buy flash.

We're Americans. We can buy whatever we want. And it's always
important to look good.

There are many different definitions of "looking good" and the
difference between a Rolex and a Rolax in terms of looks would seem to
be minimal.

--
Cheers, Bev
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to
spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and
begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, The Real Bev wrote:

There are many different definitions of "looking good" and the
difference between a Rolex and a Rolax in terms of looks would seem to
be minimal.

That's very true. But YOU know what you are wearing. It makes you feel good.. And if you can afford it, why not.

I wouldn't eat ramen for a year, or resort to skipping other responsibilities for one (like so many entitlement folk do these days). But if you can go buy one, and like it, and wear it? Why not? I wore $20 watches most of my life. They worked for decades with little attention. But they didn't feel great when you put them on. That's a nice perk.

All I'm saying is: It's a luxury. Don't begrudge someone that treats themselves.

On 2015-02-14 16:28:09 +0000, pigo said:

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, The Real Bev wrote:
There are many different definitions of "looking good" and the
difference between a Rolex and a Rolax in terms of looks would seem to
be minimal.

That's very true. But YOU know what you are wearing. It makes you feel
good. And if you can afford it, why not.
I wouldn't eat ramen for a year, or resort to skipping other
responsibilities for one (like so many entitlement folk do these days).
But if you can go buy one, and like it, and wear it? Why not? I wore
$20 watches most of my life. They worked for decades with little
attention. But they didn't feel great when you put them on. That's a
nice perk.
All I'm saying is: It's a luxury. Don't begrudge someone that treats
themselves.

I think in the case of a Rolex, what matters is WHY it makes you feel
good over something else.

If I can afford to buy a Ferrari, it genuinely does things that cars
that cost less do not do. Absent everyone else in the world existing, a
Ferrari is still more fun than a Subaru for me.

But what makes a Rolex make someone feel good. I'll bet you it depends
mostly on other people KNOWING they have a real Rolex.

On 2015-02-14 02:13:32 +0000, said:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:18:04 -0500, wrote this
crap:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:08:01 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote this crap:


You forgot to mention the entire population of the US is up, (and that
doesn't count the illegals.) While the total of employed is up, the
percentage of employed is down.

Incorrect.

prove it.

Happily... ...but remember this for when you're asked to do the same:

All figures in millions (except for the percentages.

January 2009: Labor force 154.21, employed 142.152, for
((154.21-142.152)/154.21*100) 7.82% unemployment.

December 2014: Labor force 156.129, employed 147.442, for
((156.129-147.442)/156.129*100) 5.56% unemployment.

These figures are nonsense. You're saying that in five years the
workforce only increased by 2 million? That's hardly anything. We
need to add 300,000 jobs every month. (Last month we only had
150,000.) That's 3.6 mill jobs a year. That's 18mill for five years
and we only had 2 mill? Absolutely pitiful. The number of unemployed
is growing at an astounding rate.

Sorry. Slight mistake. Last month 250,000 were added to the work
force. The newspaper called it an astonishing success. (Another
problem, why do they have to put editorials in with the news?)

You still have yet to prove...

....anything you've claimed.

Prove you need to add 300,000 jobs every month.

On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 4:03:01 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:

Prove you need to add 300,000 jobs every month.

You don't even live here. He doesn't need to (IMHO).

On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 3:31:03 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:

But what makes a Rolex make someone feel good. I'll bet you it depends
mostly on other people KNOWING they have a real Rolex.

My impression is that would be true for you. But as I said, you'd have to know my watch specifically to know it was more than $20. That's the reason I bought it. It was actually hard to find one that was "understated" like that. As for feel. It fits very well and does feel different than a non fitted band. Again, IMHO.