"Richard C. August" <raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
news:fiu19.1797$Fl.179579 at nnrp1.ptd.net...
> Dear Parse Tree,
>> I am already attending College via Correspondence to attain an Associate
> Degree in Religious Education, which I shall further via correspondence to
a
> Bachelor Degree in Pastoral Ministry. Then, I will attend Concordia
> Theological Seminary.
I meant a degree that is useful and will make you an educated and skilled
worker.
> As for being lazy, incompetent, and inefficient, in an effort to keep a
job
> and keep food on the table, I have held a security guard job, a job as a
> Residential Aide for handicapped persons, two telemarketing jobs, and a
> store manager job for an electronic parts store within the past 5 years.
> The security guard job quit me because the company went out of business.
> The residential aide job fired me because they knew I wasn't part of their
> "bitch factory" and I wouldn't be one of their dogs, even though I was at
> work on time every time and nearly was crippled due to all the heavy
lifting
> required, after I fractured my back. I left the store manager job for
> higher pay to go where I am working now, where I have worked for over two
> years and where the management LOVE the work I do, for about $8-$9 an
hour,
> which is about the highest pay that SKILLED labour earn around here.
These things aren't skilled labour. They're not even skilled manual labour.
And I know for a fact that even in a two-bit town, you can make more working
as a Doctor. THAT is skilled labour.
> If you call driving 45 minutes each way to work and working an 8 hour day
> listening to people screaming and cursing at you whilst you take THEIR
> applications on the phone for home improvements THEY said THEY wanted
being
> lazy, incompetent, and inefficient, then I challenge you to tell that to
my
> supervisor. I challenge you to do the work I do day in and day out, on
top
> of driving my mother where she needs to go when I can do so, taking a
> morning exercise routine, doing my college courses, driving to church,
> driving home, shopping, and trying to find some time to rest and relax. I
> get about 5 hours of sleep every night. The rest of my day is taken up
with
> the commute to work, working, exercising, preparing all three of my meals
> for every day, and on days off, going to the recycling center to drop off
> the recycling, taking the car to the garage for work, going to doctors'
> appointments (usually very far away), doing housework and yard work,
washing
> the car, washing the house, and ironing my clothes. Add to all of this
that
> I get up at about 5 AM to start to pray the Liturgical Hours, and you see
> that laziness simply doesn't exist here.
There is a serious difference between a job that is hard, and a job someone
is mentally unable to do. You are UNABLE to practice law. You are UNABLE
to practice medicine. There are more people that are able to listen to a
little screaming and whining than are able to do these things.
You're not lazy, you're merely VERY inefficient. It's a wonder you can
survive, being so unproductive.
> I challenge you to follow me around some day. If your legs aren't tired
and
> your eyes aren't drooping whilst I am still wide awake, then I'd have to
ask
> what brand of coffee you drink and how much.
I'm sure I could do much of your work in a third of the time.
> Consider this, Parse Tree. YOU said, "It really makes little sense to pay
> someone $8 an hour to do some repetitive task that could be easily done by
a
> machine, or a lower paid worker in Mexico." YOU and that kind of thinking
> are the reason many US Workers are now OUT of work, draining an already
> overburdened Welfare/Unemployment/Social Security system. Even if I had a
> college degree, which I had to drop out of college before because I
couldn't
> afford it and so joined Active Duty US ARMY to get a JOB, I may end up
> working some store in this service economy, making the $8-$10 an hour YOU
> say I don't deserve. I know this. I saw this happen to many people in my
> area who deserved better, and ended up leaving my area to find it, never
to
> return. Once I graduate Seminary, I'll never return. Right now, my aging
> mother and her failing health need me more badly.
That kind of thinking rules the world. It's a good thing for the US because
it results in a larger number of college and university students.
Regardless, college is relatively inexpensive. If you can't afford a an
American public college, then take out a student loan.
> Can you pay a machine $8 an hour to feed the man who operates it? You
have
> to HIRE and PAY a HUMAN for that.
If one human can operate 10 machines, then it's generally much more
efficient than hiring 10 people.
> Sincerely,
>>> Richard C. August
>> "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:E9d19.1545$tY5.405370 at news20.bellglobal.com...> > Sorry to tell you this, but you really don't have a right to a job. It
is
> > not the government's fault that you are lazy, incompetent and
inefficient.
> > It really makes little sense to pay someone $8 an hour to do some
> repetitive
> > task that could be easily done by a machine, or a lower paid worker in
> > Mexico.
> >
> > You know what the secret to being employed is? A valuble skill set and
> > productive work habits. I suggest you go to University and get a degree
> of
> > some sort, so that you're no longer unskilled labour.
> >
> > Now social welfare for the elderly, the handicapped, etc. is partially
the
> > responsibility of the government. Perhaps you should have asked Bush to
> > increase social spending rather than give out tax cuts that the nation
> could
> > not afford.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Richard C. August" <raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
> > news:XSa19.1395$Fl.162231 at nnrp1.ptd.net...> > > Dear Parse Tree,
> > >
> > > The actual percentages of the rise of the cost of homes vs. the rise
in
> > > median incomes doesn't matter a stitch. The fact is that an
increasing
> > > number of working class poor are rendered UNABLE to own a home, new or
> > not,
> > > because of their INCOMES, DEBT-TO-INCOME RATIO, and CREDIT SCORES.
> > >
> > > Point blank, many people can barely afford an old trailer. Usually,
an
> > old
> > > trailer is what they end up buying, especially when they live in my
> area.
> > > My area is known for depleted savings, paltry incomes, no retirement
> > > pensions, and a tax base supported by elderly, handicapped, and
retarded
> > who
> > > have no place else to go or stay.
> > >
> > > I am working for a living, and living with my 64-year old mother,
whose
> > > income can barely feed a canary let alone pay a mortgage. She cannot
> > afford
> > > to pay her homeowners' insurance or her taxes this year. She could
not
> > > refinance her mortgage despite the fact that she put a new roof,
siding,
> > and
> > > windows on the house, because property values plummetted. Median
> incomes
> > in
> > > my area range between $7 and $8 an hour for semi-skilled labour.
> Doctors,
> > > lawyers, plumbers and electricians and contractors earn more, but
their
> > > incomes are swallowed up in insurance bills and lawsuits. What's left
> are
> > > retirees from local businesses and also NY and NJ, who have built
their
> > > homes and are waiting to die.
> > >
> > > If you honestly think that you can buy a new home in an area where
jobs
> > are
> > > scarce, the commute to work is at least one hour and at most 4 hours,
> and
> > > incomes are pitiful, do the math again. That, by the bye, is
happening
> > more
> > > and more often in more and more places nationwide, as jobs dry up due
to
> > the
> > > "giant sucking sound" from Mexico, about which H. Ross Perot warned us
> in
> > > 1992 if NAFTA/GATT were signed. NAFTA/GATT were signed, and the
vacuum
> > > cleaner just got running.
> > >
> > > In order to remain competitive, and keep jobs in the USA, Union Labour
> > will
> > > now be FORCED to take pay and benefits cuts or else lose their jobs
> > > entirely. Pay and benefits cuts to keep jobs already happened in the
> Auto
> > > Industry. Where will it happen next? Will it be your job, and will
it
> > > happen to you?
> > >
> > > Parse Tree, remember this FACT. The American News Media are
CONTROLLED
> BY
> > > JEWS!!! They have taken their lesson well from their Doctor of Style
> > Josef
> > > Goebbels, former Nazi Minister of Propaganda. Soothe the Public.
Lull
> > them
> > > to sleep. Tell them the good news first. Make it all glossy and
shiny
> > and
> > > pretty looking. Lie to them, because Jew Hitler said that the people
> will
> > > never swallow the Big Lie unless you break it down in little pieces
and
> > feed
> > > it to them in spoonfuls. Can't you figure out that that is EXACTLY
what
> > the
> > > American News Media have done to you? Or will it take a hit in YOUR
> > wallet,
> > > a loss of YOUR house, or YOUR JOB, before it cracks your skull? I
think
> > > you'll lose your job first.
> > >
> > > Concerning the negative productivity of women, the loss due to them is
> > > really incalculable. Everything from lack of female physical strength
> to
> > > lengthened employee break times to equalization of gender in the work
> > force
> > > to sexual harrassment complaints/suits attest to this.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > >
> > > Richard C. August
> > > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:6x219.346$sI2.279017 at news20.bellglobal.com...> > > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:a3T09.34142$Fq6.3318011 at news2.west.cox.net...> > > > >
> > > > > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7mJ09.26204
> > > > > > > Sorry, all requests for free research (which we now understand
> to
> > be
> > > > so
> > > > > > > neccessary when ONE THIRD ...) must be funneled through The
> > > Christian
> > > > > > Party.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But you're in luck--the urls at
> > > > > > http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm> > > > > > > are direct references to the original FEDERAL data (which
> because
> > of
> > > > CYA
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > not be the most accurate, but it
> > > > > > > will put you in the ballpark).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That doesn't demonstrate, in any way, that women workers are
> > > negatively
> > > > > > productive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Try again.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, parsetree, we do know the problem now, which is that you're
> > > > literally
> > > > > incapable of doing the math yourself, so you'd just as soon insist
> > that
> > > it
> > > > > was done incorrectly.
> > > >
> > > > Do you have a degree in mathematics?
> > > >
> > > > Your complete ignorance of statistics, linear algebra and calculus
> > > > demonstrates that you do not.
> > > >
> > > > > Find someone who can do it for you and tell me HONESTLY if they
get
> a
> > > > > different NEGATIVE figure for the "productivity" of American women
> > > workers
> > > > > than the one below!
> > > >
> > > > Your assumptions are wrong, yet again. See below.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Home Prices Increase 4X More Than Incomes
> > > > >
> > > > > Median household incomes
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>http://www.census.gov/income/cdrom/cdrom00/Historical%20Tables/Income/cpi-u-
> > > > > rs/household/h11.lst
> > > >
> > > > This link refutes most of what you say below.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You can quite clearly see that the median rose from $31,397 in 1967,
> to
> > > > $42,151 in 2000. This is properly adjustted for inflation, unlike
> your
> > > > stats below.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Median home prices
> > > > > http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/ushmc/winter2001/histdat08.htm> > > > >
> > > > > Labor force participation rates
> > > > > http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet> > > >
> > > > This link is broken.
> > > >
> > > > > While feminazis, jews, niggers, muds, sodomites, and other
> "liberals"
> > > are
> > > > > jumping for joy over our recent putative "economic boom", most
> > Americans
> > > > who
> > > > > can read and add and subtract are wondering why median home prices
> > > > increased
> > > > > by four times more than median incomes increased. And why the
> > percent
> > > of
> > > > > men who are working decreased 7% while the percent of women who
are
> > > > working
> > > > > increased 19%. Median prices of homes increased from $22,700 in
> 1967
> > to
> > > > > $169,000 in 2000, a $146,300 increase, while median incomes lagged
> WAY
> > > > > behind, increasing by only $35,008 (from $7,143 to 42,151).
> > > >
> > > > It is the percentage increase that is relevant.
> > > > You should have said that house prices increasd by almost 7.5 times,
> and
> > > > that income only increased by just under 6 times. When you're
trying
> to
> > > > illustrate a point, at least use pertinent infomation. Increases in
> > > > absolute terms are essentially meaningless in this situation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Incidentally, Japan, the country you're complimenting excessively,
had
> a
> > > > Comparative Cost Index of 145.62 as compared to 97.22 for the United
> > > States,
> > > > according to the World Competitiveness Yearbook, June 2000. It's
> > cheaper
> > > to
> > > > live in the US.
> > > >
> > > > > If living in a house wasn't important to you, as it must be for
> > > > "liberals",
> > > > > this might be neutral or even good news, but if you're a normal
> > person,
> > > > it's
> > > > > not a good sign.
> > > >
> > > > The number of houses sold is increasing. So evidently more people
are
> > > > beginning to live in them.
> > > >
> > > > > The real fun is when you point out that the problem was caused the
> > > > > unprecedented entry into the labor force of the American girls who
> > > scored
> > > > > lower on TIMSS than if they'd just guessed.
> > > >
> > > > Firstly, you can demonstrate no causal connection between female
entry
> > > into
> > > > the workplace and this supposed 'decrease'.
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, I have already demonstrated that you really mean that they
> > > > PROBABLY scored lower than if they had guessed. One is certain, one
> is
> > > not.
> > > >
> > > > > When the mostly single-worker
> > > > > families of 4 decades ago had four times the purchasing power, and
> > when
> > > > the
> > > > > almost exclusively single-worker families in Japan have two to
three
> > > times
> > > > > the incomes, of the mostly two-working parent families of today,
> > > > feminaziism
> > > > > appears as a huge festering boil all over everything.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, the purchasing power seems to be properly adjusted in the
> > stats
> > > > above, and it seems to be increasing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This four fold plunge in family purchasing power occurred as the
> > percent
> > > > of
> > > > > men in the labor force decreased 7% aand the percent of women
> > increased
> > > > 19%.
> > > > > Put simply, purchsing power of American families in 1967 [P(1967)]
> > when
> > > > our
> > > > > labor force consisted of 81.5% of men working and 39.3% of women
> > working
> > > > was
> > > > > four times higher than in 2000 [P(2000)] when only 74.1% of men
and
> > > 58.7%
> > > > of
> > > > > women were in the labor force.
> > > >
> > > > Many other things happened during this time that could be equally to
> > > blame.
> > > > The fact that you are blaming it on women seems to illustrate that
you
> > > don't
> > > > truly believe prayer increases productivity, or that the education
> > system
> > > is
> > > > getting worse at all. Nice backpedalling.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > X = productivity of men
> > > > >
> > > > > Y = productivity of women
> > > > >
> > > > > P(1967) = 1967 Purchasing Power = X x 81.5% + Y x 39.3% = 1
> > > > >
> > > > > P(2000) = 2000 Purchasing Power = X x 74.1% + Y x 58.7% = 0.25
> > > > >
> > > > > X = (1 - 39.3%Y)/.815
> > > > >
> > > > > 74.1% x (1 - 39.3%Y)/81.5% + 58.7%Y = 0.25
> > > > >
> > > > > 0.9092 - 0.3573Y +.587Y = 0.25
> > > > >
> > > > > .2297Y = -0.6592
> > > > >
> > > > > Y = -2.87
> > > > >
> > > > > X = (1 - 39.3%Y)/0.815 = (1 + 1.1279)/0.815 = 2.61
> > > >
> > > > Nice try, but you're wrong again. Purchasing power was lower in
1967.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, your math applied to the correct figures would demonstrate
> > that
> > > > women are MORE productive. Something to think about, isn't it?
> Perhaps
> > > > your math is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > > As it is, the US median household income in 1996 of $35,172 is ONE
> > THIRD
> > > > of
> > > > > that of Japan, which was $9,819 in December 1999.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, Japan is one third of the US, if you take your figures
> above.
> > > > Isn't that impressive?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <Snipped unreadable stats, since most of it seems to be available on
> the
> > > > links above.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>>
