[dumbrenter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CDMA ENG]SDDuuuude and me took our respective wives to Searsucker last night…

The cougar crowd looking for men of means was quite entertaining…

CE[/quote]

Seersucker and its predecessor, Burlap, both had/have that reputation. Arterra used to sell T-shirts advertising their “Cougar Night.” I find it odd that there are restaurants like that in Carmel Valley, because there aren’t a lot of singles in Carmel Valley. At least that I’m aware of. If you believe what you see in the school directories, the divorced fathers always end up living somewhere else . . .[/quote]

The “cougar night” could be a reference to the local school nearby.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]
Let’s work through exactly what the Fed did and did not do prior to the financial crisis in 2008.

It does set the federal funds rate, which is the rate that member banks pay and receive for over-night borrowing/lending. The quantity of member bank borrowing is limited by capital requirements set by the Fed. Member banks do NOT have unlimited access to funds.

It does buy and sell US government securities to keep the prices of those securities stable, but it does not, per se, set the rates on US govt securities at auction. This is an open market function.
[/quote]

SK, that was a pretty good tutorial on how Fed works. Thanks for taking time to write it.

The way I understand this is: By buying US government securities, the Fed actions ended up lowering the yields on them (as a stated policy). This low yield forced banks (and others) to look for higher yield elsewhere, i.e. mortgages etc.

Assuming the above to be correct, you are right that the Fed was not a party to mispricing the risk, but their actions definitely contributed to it.
It is not like they did not see this happening; question is what motivated them to keep the yields so low with their actions?

[dumbrenter]

[quote=6packscaredy]I’ll say this. I honestly feel better stronger more optimistic less scared less tired and more kickass at 50 than at any point ever in my sad little life.[/quote]

At least there is something to look forward to 15 years from now.

[dumbrenter]

And happy labor day, all.

Celebrate the fact that over time labor went from serfs and slaves, debt prisons and no property rights, union busting and bad working conditions to pensions, benefits and workers comp.

Many things in this universe are cyclical and we seem to be retreating from the peak of the labor rights age, but there are many things still left to celebrate about.

We do have a transition coming in the future, those in high tech business already know about it. Let’s hope that the transition will not be painful.

BTW where on calendar is the “Capital day” holiday?

[dumbrenter]

[quote=no_such_reality]
Finally, I don’t expect to a rewarded for the work my father did. Labor needs to quit talking about what they did in the past and talk about what they will do in the future.[/quote]

That’s the biggest disconnect I see from posters arguing from the labor-side. They take your trends of looking into future and ask if you can get a robot to do tiles in your home today.

With the relentless pace of mechanization and automation, it is pretty clear that the labor component of any product is trending down and one of the primary drivers for this today is the cost of labor.

So what happens to the extra labor? Where do they go?
Unfortunately, the labor side folks only think of bygone days of the past or look for regulation help (tariffs, visas etc.).

What they don’t get is that when it comes to regulation, they stand no chance against the capital. Its like a lamb picking up a fight with a tiger.

Ask them to frame an argument that does not involve regulation or past and you’ll hear nothing.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=The-Shoveler]How about we all sit on a beach and have robot servants?
Just kidding,
I like the scene in the matrix where the agent was explaining that they tried to create paradise but they found that the people just died if they did not have to struggle to survive.[/quote]

That line was so profound. I always thought that nobody else except me got it.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=bearishgurl] So many of us Piggs tried to coach these posters and assist them though multiple threads and yet they never managed to be able to seal a deal. Or if they did, they never posted here that they finally bought.
[/quote]

Sounds like those coaching methods need an overhaul if not one of them got your ‘students’ to ‘seal a deal’.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter]
I find that your attitude towards ‘these workers’ is reeking of condescension and lacking in empathy. One of the problems that ‘these workers’ have is ‘friends’ like you advocating on their behalf.[/quote]

These might be the most ironic words I’ve ever seen on this board. You suggest that these workers will buy bling and tequila if they got a raise, and are perfectly happy living in conditions that you would never consider, and I’m the one being condescending?[/quote]

You come across as detail oriented in what folks say, but strangely, you seem to hold yourself to a much lower bar.

I did suggest that there are other choices with a raise incl. buying tequila & bling and that they are equally valid choices when compared to upgrading the living space.
I never suggested I am not living (or never lived) in those conditions. Nor have I suggested I would never consider it.

Irrespective of living conditions of mine (or yours for that matter the details of which are not material here), its too bad you don’t see the value of tequila after a good hard day of honest labor.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Actually, I AM supportive of US wages not being driven to the ground by (skilled) H-1B workers and the like. HOWEVER, $11.75 – $13.95 IS a bit higher than Colo min wage AND there are likely 2-4 adult workers (full or PT) living in every rental farmhouse we’re talking about here.
[/quote]

Then you are supporting movement of jobs away from US to China/India/Others.
You can’t have it both ways.
I would import doctors in thousands to drive down the medical costs. But that’s just me, nobody seems to want it.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter]Maybe if their employer paid 25% more, they’d buy more Tequila or bling or send some via western union back home. What makes you think they will move out to say 8/farmhouse just because the wages went up?[/quote]

Because I think they’re probably just like you and me. If they’re married with children, they want a home with their spouse and kids, not a farmhouse with 8 other people they didn’t know from adam’s cat when they moved in. If they’re single and over 25, they probably don’t want to live with more than a single roommate or two. If they’re immigrants, I doubt they moved here to live in similar conditions as where they came from, but better. Would you buy bling and tequila with your 25% raise? That would never be on my radar. Why would you even consider that an option for these workers?[/quote]

What is with ‘you and me’ here? I could be living with 10 other workers in my apartment. Are you?

My point was that living in such conditions might not be their first choice, but is definitely not their last or only choice. That would be going back to where they come from. They all know they have that choice. If the conditions are similar, why live in a foreign country where you barely understand the language?
Sending money back home to their families whose only survival is on the Western Union delivery is very high on their list of priorities, not burning bridges and raising brand new family in CO. And with Tequila, I will get my hands on the best of the best with my 25% raise. Because that will make me forget for a few hours that I have a back breaking job and have to share personal space with 10 other people.

I find that your attitude towards ‘these workers’ is reeking of condescension and lacking in empathy. One of the problems that ‘these workers’ have is ‘friends’ like you advocating on their behalf.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV]No SDR, I wasn’t the least bit confused about anything in this thread. You were the one that said employees aren’t entitled to their pay. You were the first to bring up the issue of pay relating to taking care of a family. You are now the one that is arguing that the terms of a contract should not be set by the needs of an employee, when neither I nor anyone else in this thread ever claimed it was an issue.[/quote]

The OP article was interesting and raises some curious questions.

SDR comments that there is no obligation for an employer to pay anything more than the legal, agreed upon rate.

SK attempts to make a snappy comeback:

“Are you entitled to your commission?”

Weak sauce: attempting to equate paying a low, but mutually agreed-upon wage with simply not honoring a contract. Distinctly different things.

SDR calls him on it, SK starts backpedaling. It’s not working for SK.

The honorable thing to do would be to say “I choose a poor analogy, but let me rephrase my argument…” Perhaps SK does have a worthwhile point. Instead he gets pissy, personal, and even dishonest.

There’s no post here that says “employees aren’t entitled to their pay.” SDR never said anything even hinting that employers do not have to honor their contract.

This is why Piggington just is not a worthwhile place to hang out anymore.

SK is a smart and knowledgeable guy, but this is not the first thread where he was an outright dishonest with regard to what others have said. It’s not worthwhile to engage him in debate.

Funny thing, it’s all right there in front of everyone on the screen. Is he really so blind and incompetent? Maybe he should run a slaughterhouse.[/quote]

Welcome back Harvey. Good to hear from you again.
Slaughterhouse requires some specialized skills, like being able to see!

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]
BG, do you think maybe the possibility exists that living in an old farmhouse with 11 other people isn’t their first choice in how to live? Maybe, if their employer paid them 25% more, there would be much less turnover, they’d save recruiting and training costs, and their employees wouldn’t have to live 12 people to a house..[/quote]

Hard to say if that is their first choice, but we know for sure that living with 11 other people in CO farmhouse definitely ranks above the standard of living where they came from.
Nobody force marched them to CO.
It is a set of rational people making rational choices, they are dealt a bad hand in life and by their place of birth and they are making the best of the set of choices available to them.

Maybe if their employer paid 25% more, they’d buy more Tequila or bling or send some via western union back home. What makes you think they will move out to say 8/farmhouse just because the wages went up?

[dumbrenter]

Never been to Temecula, but am learning from this thread that Temecula folks could be so touchy!

Now which year’s survey was that where Temecula was called the ugliest little city in the country?
🙂

[dumbrenter]

They are taking away yer jobs!

[dumbrenter]

[quote=sdsurfer]How much space does a family really need to be happy?[/quote]

Here is my perspective from a family of 4 incl. 2 kids under 10 living in about 1000 square feet space with 2 bedrooms.

We moved in from a much larger home. Every time I give my kids option to move back, the response I get is: we will be far away from parks, rec center & library. This pretty much lines up with other poster’s experiences.

At this age, my kids are pretty vocal about wanting to spend time with me rather than living in a big house. That might change fast though.

Whenever a friend of mine justifies moving up to a bigger home ‘because’ of a new baby needing space, I chuckle to myself. They have been sold this concept by the realtors, and the babies could care less!

[Author]

Posts