Filed under: Retirement Communities
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Yes, they are called MEXICANS! >In california state government, Cal Trans for instance, on >touring their 9 story building, (about half the desks empty >but with coffee cups full of two day old coffee)… I met very >latino’s. >The staff population was close to 100% american, blacks and >whites on the first floor public offices. >The 12 stories above at a guess was close to 100% asian, >philipino, korean and chinese, most not fluent in english, >some couldnt understand my questions at all, Those will >retire after 20 years at around 35,000 dollars a year…in 10 >more years they can retire at 60,000 to 100,000 dollars a >year. >(the current average american retirement after 45 yearsm at >age 65 averages 900 dollars a month…. parking tickets in SF >calif are 85 dollars… the last meter maid that ticketed me >didnt speak english) >I waiting outside of the Marin county corporate offices >yesterday at shift change… about 20 chinese guys passed me >on their way out, they could have been native americans but I >doubt it… a few were speaking mandarin….only two or three >obvious americans passed me, in suits they looked like >attorneys. >Government is going broke… the middle class tax base is >collapsing for 5 years now, but even before that govt was >hiring green card people predominantly it appears. >Phil Scott
Why are you so interested in the language you hear spoken? Thumper – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> I’m surprised to still see these people showing up in >>> Immigration fora >>> claiming the Illegals and other 3rd-World Stormtroopers >>> are here to >>> take jobs Americans don’t want. That is straight-up >>> bullshit for all >>> of us old enough to remember our communities before >>> Illegals and >>> visa-hires showed up, that’s something we personally know >>> not to be >>> the case. Those readers who are younger should engage >>> their >>> imaginations a little bit and realize that Americans have >>> always done >>> every sort of job. The only time they could not afford to >>> do them was >>> during periods of, you guessed it, high immigration. You >>> stop the >>> immigration, wages float back up, and Americans come in to >>> get them. >>> That’s how it’s worked for over 200 years. >>> The only practical effect of supporting Illegals and visa >>> workers is >>> to lower wages and make all of us poorer. There IS no >>> benefit. It’s as >>> simple as that. Persons who come on here talking like >>> libertarian >>> business wonks, making light of other people’s >>> unemployment or reduced >>> incomes, well, they are just bad apples. >>> Here is an interesting report from an APR frontpage link: >>> http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/november/1123_immigration_ad.shtml >>> Foreign Workers Taking Jobs Americans Want, Group’s Ad >>> Says >>> By Melanie Hunter >>> CNSNews.com Senior Editor >>> November 23, 2005 >>> (CNSNews.com) — A coalition of trade groups has launched >>> a television >>> ad campaign to address immigration and the notion that >>> "foreign >>> workers do jobs Americans won’t do." >>> The Coalition for the Future American Worker (CFAW) said >>> its campaign >>> is directed at President Bush and features blue-collar and >>> service >>> employees urging the president to cut the number of >>> foreign workers >>> allowed to enter the country. Bush has praised foreign >>> labor for >>> taking jobs Americans won’t do, but that’s a fallacy, the >>> group said. >>> "This public education campaign is long overdue. Hardly >>> anybody is >>> standing up for American workers and blue-collar families >>> any more," >>> said CFAW spokesman Roy Beck. >>> "Yet, they are the ones disproportionately affected by >>> these >>> uninhibited flows of foreign labor. Americans’ wages are >>> being >>> depressed, their jobs are being taken and they’re helpless >>> to do much >>> about it," Beck added. >>> In the commercial’s opening scene, an unemployed man is >>> sitting on the >>> back steps of a middle-class home, saying "President Bush >>> says foreign >>> workers do jobs Americans won’t do. Mr. President, I’ll do >>> that job." >>> Then the words "12 million Americans can’t find a full >>> time job" are >>> featured on the screen. >>> A hotel worker then tells Bush "if immigration increases, >>> we’ll have >>> more foreign workers who will work for next to nothing. I >>> need to make >>> enough to feed my family." That is followed by a screen >>> saying that >>> foreign workers depress U.S. wages. The ad offers >>> "educational facts >>> throughout." >>> According to Beck, all the jobs that are usually filled in >>> high >>> numbers by foreigners were recently filled by Americans. >>> "The massive influx of foreign workers has collapsed one >>> occupation >>> after another so that they no longer provide middle-class >>> wages and >>> benefits," Beck said. >>> For example, he said the meat packing industry once paid >>> "good middle >>> class wages" but after discovering that there is "an >>> endless supply" >>> of foreigners to fill those jobs, the industry has >>> "dramatically" cut >>> wages and safety conditions. >>> "It’s really a shame. Our misguided immigration policies >>> are causing >>> American workers to lose wages and eventually their jobs," >>> Beck said. >>> "The size of the flow of foreign workers into this country >>> is >>> unprecedented and undermining our entire middle-class >>> society." >>> I suggest emailing this article to your friends. >> Hank
Response:
> Yes, they are called MEXICANS!
In california state government, Cal Trans for instance, on touring their 9 story building, (about half the desks empty but with coffee cups full of two day old coffee)… I met very latino’s. The staff population was close to 100% american, blacks and whites on the first floor public offices. The 12 stories above at a guess was close to 100% asian, philipino, korean and chinese, most not fluent in english, some couldnt understand my questions at all, Those will retire after 20 years at around 35,000 dollars a year…in 10 more years they can retire at 60,000 to 100,000 dollars a year. (the current average american retirement after 45 yearsm at age 65 averages 900 dollars a month…. parking tickets in SF calif are 85 dollars… the last meter maid that ticketed me didnt speak english) I waiting outside of the Marin county corporate offices yesterday at shift change… about 20 chinese guys passed me on their way out, they could have been native americans but I doubt it… a few were speaking mandarin….only two or three obvious americans passed me, in suits they looked like attorneys. Government is going broke… the middle class tax base is collapsing for 5 years now, but even before that govt was hiring green card people predominantly it appears. Phil Scott – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> I’m surprised to still see these people showing up in >> Immigration fora >> claiming the Illegals and other 3rd-World Stormtroopers >> are here to >> take jobs Americans don’t want. That is straight-up >> bullshit for all >> of us old enough to remember our communities before >> Illegals and >> visa-hires showed up, that’s something we personally know >> not to be >> the case. Those readers who are younger should engage >> their >> imaginations a little bit and realize that Americans have >> always done >> every sort of job. The only time they could not afford to >> do them was >> during periods of, you guessed it, high immigration. You >> stop the >> immigration, wages float back up, and Americans come in to >> get them. >> That’s how it’s worked for over 200 years. >> The only practical effect of supporting Illegals and visa >> workers is >> to lower wages and make all of us poorer. There IS no >> benefit. It’s as >> simple as that. Persons who come on here talking like >> libertarian >> business wonks, making light of other people’s >> unemployment or reduced >> incomes, well, they are just bad apples. >> Here is an interesting report from an APR frontpage link: >> http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/november/1123_immigration_ad.shtml >> Foreign Workers Taking Jobs Americans Want, Group’s Ad >> Says >> By Melanie Hunter >> CNSNews.com Senior Editor >> November 23, 2005 >> (CNSNews.com) — A coalition of trade groups has launched >> a television >> ad campaign to address immigration and the notion that >> "foreign >> workers do jobs Americans won’t do." >> The Coalition for the Future American Worker (CFAW) said >> its campaign >> is directed at President Bush and features blue-collar and >> service >> employees urging the president to cut the number of >> foreign workers >> allowed to enter the country. Bush has praised foreign >> labor for >> taking jobs Americans won’t do, but that’s a fallacy, the >> group said. >> "This public education campaign is long overdue. Hardly >> anybody is >> standing up for American workers and blue-collar families >> any more," >> said CFAW spokesman Roy Beck. >> "Yet, they are the ones disproportionately affected by >> these >> uninhibited flows of foreign labor. Americans’ wages are >> being >> depressed, their jobs are being taken and they’re helpless >> to do much >> about it," Beck added. >> In the commercial’s opening scene, an unemployed man is >> sitting on the >> back steps of a middle-class home, saying "President Bush >> says foreign >> workers do jobs Americans won’t do. Mr. President, I’ll do >> that job." >> Then the words "12 million Americans can’t find a full >> time job" are >> featured on the screen. >> A hotel worker then tells Bush "if immigration increases, >> we’ll have >> more foreign workers who will work for next to nothing. I >> need to make >> enough to feed my family." That is followed by a screen >> saying that >> foreign workers depress U.S. wages. The ad offers >> "educational facts >> throughout." >> According to Beck, all the jobs that are usually filled in >> high >> numbers by foreigners were recently filled by Americans. >> "The massive influx of foreign workers has collapsed one >> occupation >> after another so that they no longer provide middle-class >> wages and >> benefits," Beck said. >> For example, he said the meat packing industry once paid >> "good middle >> class wages" but after discovering that there is "an >> endless supply" >> of foreigners to fill those jobs, the industry has >> "dramatically" cut >> wages and safety conditions. >> "It’s really a shame. Our misguided immigration policies >> are causing >> American workers to lose wages and eventually their jobs," >> Beck said. >> "The size of the flow of foreign workers into this country >> is >> unprecedented and undermining our entire middle-class >> society." >> I suggest emailing this article to your friends. > Hank
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m surprised to still see these people showing up in Immigration fora > claiming the Illegals and other 3rd-World Stormtroopers are here to > take jobs Americans don’t want. That is straight-up bullshit for all > of us old enough to remember our communities before Illegals and > visa-hires showed up, that’s something we personally know not to be > the case. Those readers who are younger should engage their > imaginations a little bit and realize that Americans have always done > every sort of job. The only time they could not afford to do them was > during periods of, you guessed it, high immigration. You stop the > immigration, wages float back up, and Americans come in to get them. > That’s how it’s worked for over 200 years. > The only practical effect of supporting Illegals and visa workers is > to lower wages and make all of us poorer. There IS no benefit. It’s as > simple as that. Persons who come on here talking like libertarian > business wonks, making light of other people’s unemployment or reduced > incomes, well, they are just bad apples. > Here is an interesting report from an APR frontpage link: > http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/november/1123_immigration_ad.shtml > Foreign Workers Taking Jobs Americans Want, Group’s Ad Says > By Melanie Hunter > CNSNews.com Senior Editor > November 23, 2005 > (CNSNews.com) — A coalition of trade groups has launched a television > ad campaign to address immigration and the notion that "foreign > workers do jobs Americans won’t do." > The Coalition for the Future American Worker (CFAW) said its campaign > is directed at President Bush and features blue-collar and service > employees urging the president to cut the number of foreign workers > allowed to enter the country. Bush has praised foreign labor for > taking jobs Americans won’t do, but that’s a fallacy, the group said. > "This public education campaign is long overdue. Hardly anybody is > standing up for American workers and blue-collar families any more," > said CFAW spokesman Roy Beck. > "Yet, they are the ones disproportionately affected by these > uninhibited flows of foreign labor. Americans’ wages are being > depressed, their jobs are being taken and they’re helpless to do much > about it," Beck added. > In the commercial’s opening scene, an unemployed man is sitting on the > back steps of a middle-class home, saying "President Bush says foreign > workers do jobs Americans won’t do. Mr. President, I’ll do that job." > Then the words "12 million Americans can’t find a full time job" are > featured on the screen. > A hotel worker then tells Bush "if immigration increases, we’ll have > more foreign workers who will work for next to nothing. I need to make > enough to feed my family." That is followed by a screen saying that > foreign workers depress U.S. wages. The ad offers "educational facts > throughout." > According to Beck, all the jobs that are usually filled in high > numbers by foreigners were recently filled by Americans. > "The massive influx of foreign workers has collapsed one occupation > after another so that they no longer provide middle-class wages and > benefits," Beck said. > For example, he said the meat packing industry once paid "good middle > class wages" but after discovering that there is "an endless supply" > of foreigners to fill those jobs, the industry has "dramatically" cut > wages and safety conditions. > "It’s really a shame. Our misguided immigration policies are causing > American workers to lose wages and eventually their jobs," Beck said. > "The size of the flow of foreign workers into this country is > unprecedented and undermining our entire middle-class society." > I suggest emailing this article to your friends.
Hank
Response:
Yes, they are called MEXICANS!
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m surprised to still see these people showing up in Immigration fora > claiming the Illegals and other 3rd-World Stormtroopers are here to > take jobs Americans don’t want. That is straight-up bullshit for all > of us old enough to remember our communities before Illegals and > visa-hires showed up, that’s something we personally know not to be > the case. Those readers who are younger should engage their > imaginations a little bit and realize that Americans have always done > every sort of job. The only time they could not afford to do them was > during periods of, you guessed it, high immigration. You stop the > immigration, wages float back up, and Americans come in to get them. > That’s how it’s worked for over 200 years. > The only practical effect of supporting Illegals and visa workers is > to lower wages and make all of us poorer. There IS no benefit. It’s as > simple as that. Persons who come on here talking like libertarian > business wonks, making light of other people’s unemployment or reduced > incomes, well, they are just bad apples. > Here is an interesting report from an APR frontpage link: > http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/november/1123_immigration_ad.shtml > Foreign Workers Taking Jobs Americans Want, Group’s Ad Says > By Melanie Hunter > CNSNews.com Senior Editor > November 23, 2005 > (CNSNews.com) — A coalition of trade groups has launched a television > ad campaign to address immigration and the notion that "foreign > workers do jobs Americans won’t do." > The Coalition for the Future American Worker (CFAW) said its campaign > is directed at President Bush and features blue-collar and service > employees urging the president to cut the number of foreign workers > allowed to enter the country. Bush has praised foreign labor for > taking jobs Americans won’t do, but that’s a fallacy, the group said. > "This public education campaign is long overdue. Hardly anybody is > standing up for American workers and blue-collar families any more," > said CFAW spokesman Roy Beck. > "Yet, they are the ones disproportionately affected by these > uninhibited flows of foreign labor. Americans’ wages are being > depressed, their jobs are being taken and they’re helpless to do much > about it," Beck added. > In the commercial’s opening scene, an unemployed man is sitting on the > back steps of a middle-class home, saying "President Bush says foreign > workers do jobs Americans won’t do. Mr. President, I’ll do that job." > Then the words "12 million Americans can’t find a full time job" are > featured on the screen. > A hotel worker then tells Bush "if immigration increases, we’ll have > more foreign workers who will work for next to nothing. I need to make > enough to feed my family." That is followed by a screen saying that > foreign workers depress U.S. wages. The ad offers "educational facts > throughout." > According to Beck, all the jobs that are usually filled in high > numbers by foreigners were recently filled by Americans. > "The massive influx of foreign workers has collapsed one occupation > after another so that they no longer provide middle-class wages and > benefits," Beck said. > For example, he said the meat packing industry once paid "good middle > class wages" but after discovering that there is "an endless supply" > of foreigners to fill those jobs, the industry has "dramatically" cut > wages and safety conditions. > "It’s really a shame. Our misguided immigration policies are causing > American workers to lose wages and eventually their jobs," Beck said. > "The size of the flow of foreign workers into this country is > unprecedented and undermining our entire middle-class society." > I suggest emailing this article to your friends. > Hank
Response:
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Thumper, >Gosh, isn’t this discussion group for old people. >ARE YOU A YOUNGER OLD PERSON, OR AN OLDER YOUNG PERSON? >You can’t have it both ways! >Cameron >I think Thumper was being facetious with truth added. An isolated >retirement community is for old people and some of us like to mingle >with all ages. Frankly, the notion that one should go somewhere special >to retire is an odd one to me. But then I like to be in the swing of things >and looking only at other old folks like me would depress me. There is >a difference between complexes designed for housing seniors only, >with such being in the midst of a town or city, and being stuck out in the >boondocks with no one else around other than more retirees. >The big question is, what will you do with your time in retirement? I >suppose playing golf is entertaining, but what if one wants to get >involved in community life, volunteer work, cultural institutions? Go >back to school? I would no more limit my choices in retirement than in >pre-retirement days.
You’ve hit the nail on the head again Rita. I am more in tune with you. I live a few hours from New York and get to the city once or twice a month mostly for cultural events and shows etc. It used to be business but no longer. I live in a college town now and just can’t see how I could do without the diversity. My friends called me from the villages a few weeks ago to tell me how great they are. I asked him what they do there. He mostly played golf and I have absolutely no desire for that. When I asked him where he was headed he said the pool. I said "let me get this straight, you are going to a pool where the youngest woman will be 55?" I have nothing against 55 year old women but I do enjoy going to the beach with a wider range of females to make me remember my youth. Seriously, I don’t know what I would do without young people around. Of course there’s always my wife who is 17 years younger than me. Thumper
Response:
Bill, Good luck in your search for a retirement haven. Finding a retirement spot is not easy. It’s probably best to rent for a while, and see if your chosen haven is heaven or hell. Summer is the worst season, so rent then. If the Florida summers don’t bother you, then that will be a big plus. You can probably find something very reasonable in the summer, on a short-term basis, when the "snowbirds" return to the frozen Arctic Tundra. The winters ARE great in Florida. DC summers are hot and humid, so the Florida humidity would probably agree with your circulation system A lot of home construction in Florida is sub-standard. Sub-standard home construction is a growing problem nationally too. Warranties are essentially worthless. The HOW 2/10 warranty has little teeth. DO NOT SIGN any document allowing arbitration of construction defects. All arbitration clauses are stacked in the builder’s favor. They rule with an armed fist. While construction defects are under review, mediation arbitrators can charge the homeowner $500 dollars a day and more. What they say is FINAL–THAT’S IT. End of arbitration! End of a future lawsuit. WHEN A PERSON SIGNS AN ARBITRATION CONTRACT, YOU ARE SIGNING ALL OF YOUR HOMEOWNER RIGHTS AWAY FOREVER. When you buy in Florida, make sure you have a RADON TEST. It’s a deadly gas that’s undetectable to your nose hair. And older men can sure vouch for unwanted nose hair. Associations can be a good thing, but they have too much power. THEY DICTATE EVERYTHING. You may have to ask them if you can plant a rose bush by your garage, or have a bird feeder in your backyard. Before you do anything outside or in, you must clear everything with the board. Some associations even forbid for sale signs. Some homeowner associations in Broward County would welcome a JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT political sign, and immediately reject a GEORGE BUSH FOR PRESIDENT political sign. Broward County is truly a progressive county. Two thumbs up!!!!!!! I recently looked up a website about Florida homeowner associations. It was scary. Cameron
Response:
Thumper, Gosh, isn’t this discussion group for old people. ARE YOU A YOUNGER OLD PERSON, OR AN OLDER YOUNG PERSON? You can’t have it both ways! Cameron
Response:
I would like to discuss one of the advantages of living in a retirement community. You are around people your own age. You can’t bs them like you can some of the younger and less-experienced who respect the old. As you age, physical disabilities may occur. They are tolerated in a community of older adults. Whether the problem is hearing or canes, your peers see beyond the disability to the person. Things such as smooth sidewalks and fewer stairs are built into such a community. I happen to like where I live because it is in a metro area so all of the metro activities are available. But, I would be willing to bet that most Senior places arrange bus trips to local sites of interest as well longer trips overseas so the actual location of the community is not important. Here, Seniors would rather have a bus take them to the front entrance of something like "Beach Blanket Babylon" rather than fight traffic and parking to go on their own. -Connie
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Thumper, >Gosh, isn’t this discussion group for old people. >ARE YOU A YOUNGER OLD PERSON, OR AN OLDER YOUNG PERSON? >You can’t have it both ways! >Cameron >I think Thumper was being facetious with truth added. An isolated >retirement community is for old people and some of us like to mingle >with all ages. Frankly, the notion that one should go somewhere special >to retire is an odd one to me. But then I like to be in the swing of things >and looking only at other old folks like me would depress me. There is >a difference between complexes designed for housing seniors only, >with such being in the midst of a town or city, and being stuck out in the >boondocks with no one else around other than more retirees. >The big question is, what will you do with your time in retirement? I >suppose playing golf is entertaining, but what if one wants to get >involved in community life, volunteer work, cultural institutions? Go >back to school? I would no more limit my choices in retirement than in >pre-retirement days.
Playing golf seems to be a requirement for retired people, one might judge from the hypes. I’ve never played golf or had any interest in playing it myself. (Nor would I want to live entirely among old people.) Maybe the situation is something like in Brave New World, where people work hard so they can afford progressively more expensive "entertainments". I’m pretty good at entertaining myself, and don’t need to be told by others what I should find entertaining: golf is not something that ever comes to mind for me. I might like golf, but it would be because of the chit-chat between swings, not because of the game. If I were in a golf game, I might suggest we abandon the game and just go for a walk along the river and talk. I’m also not keen on leaving San Francisco. One of my friends has tried out Temulca, which is not a retirement community per se but a "suburban" community where he made no friends, and he’s now bought a really nice house in Kentucky. He’s been depressed all the time and says it was a big mistake to have left San Francisco. He’s thinking of coming back, and I hope he does. I’ve offered my place until he gets a place of his own, since he’s one of the very few people I’m pretty sure I would enjoy living with. He’s said he’s been depressed, but it would have been pretty obvious even if he hadn’t said it.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Smithes) >Thumper, >Gosh, isn’t this discussion group for old people. >ARE YOU A YOUNGER OLD PERSON, OR AN OLDER YOUNG PERSON? >You can’t have it both ways! >Cameron > I think Thumper was being facetious with truth added. An isolated > retirement community is for old people and some of us like to mingle > with all ages. Frankly, the notion that one should go somewhere special > to retire is an odd one to me. But then I like to be in the swing of things > and looking only at other old folks like me would depress me. There is > a difference between complexes designed for housing seniors only, > with such being in the midst of a town or city, and being stuck out in the > boondocks with no one else around other than more retirees. > The big question is, what will you do with your time in retirement? I > suppose playing golf is entertaining, but what if one wants to get > involved in community life, volunteer work, cultural institutions? Go > back to school? I would no more limit my choices in retirement than in > pre-retirement days.
Rita, Jim, & others, First, I do not now nor have I ever worked for the Villages or any other real estate venture. I’m exactly as advertised, a relatively recently retired person living in the DC area. And, as I said, I have been seeking with little success a significant downside to this development. When I visited there, I actively sought out residents (not employees or realtors) to find major negatives about the place. I was overwhelmed by the almost universal positive feedback and it made me want to find critical flaws even more. As to prior threads and comments by Charles Gallbach, I guess I missed them. I have only fairly recently found this newsgroup and have been lurking with a few posts for 3 months or so, maybe a bit longer. Back on topic, I am very concerned about the limitation of living in any type of "seniors" community. I love being part of a diverse community. Though a bachelor, I adore being around my great nephews and nieces and really enjoy kids in general. I like the fact that the customers at my supermarket include people of all ages and ethnicity. Especially in the last 10 years, I’ve lived in a very diverse society and have profited greatly. I have generally associated with a cross section of society with a lot of younger people around. I have no desire whatsoever to restrict myself to sitting around with a bunch of old farts comparing colonoscopy results. In one sense, I have ultimate freedom to go wherever and do whatever I want in retirement, within financial boundaries. Ideally, I’d love to find a picturesque, isolated small town in the mountains with an ocean view. It would be within commuting distance of a cosmopolitan area. There would be four unique seasons, but it would never get too hot or humid, there would be only periodic sentimental rain, and beautiful snowfalls would avoid all streets and sidewalks. No sleet, hail, or temperatures below 40. Every social amenity imaginable must be at hand, but there would be no taxes at all. The residents would be outgoing and friendly but would respect one’s privacy. There would be a plethora of activities available at all times day or night, but they would not encroach on my actions. There would be ample golf courses around so I could make up for all that I’ve missed over the last years, that I could play whenever and wherever I liked. (Did I mention that the golf would be free?) There would be scores of restaurants of every ethnic vein, but not so many that the area would become crowded. I’d have plenty of land on which I could raise my chilies and maybe some fruit trees and tulips, azaleas, roses and whatever, but someone else would cut the grass and pull the weeds and all that nasty stuff. And, of course, a four bedroom house that cleaned itself would cost half of what I’ll get for my condo. As you can see, there might be some trade-offs required. I need to weigh the importance of the various options and make some decisions, so I’m gathering as much info as I can. I really do appreciate all the input I’ve rec’d, especially what I thought was a very analytical commentary from Cameron. Oh, and did I mention that my retirement town would also host a small liberal arts college where the students (and faculty) were beautiful, super intelligent ladies who were crazy about fat old fogies. Bill "You’re only jealous because the voices aren’t talking to you."
Response:
Bill, I think it’s going to be difficult to find a retirement town that meets all of your criteria requirements. DC is not far from Charlottesville, Virginia with the U of Virginia. DC would only be a 120 mile drive, and you could enjoy the best of both worlds. You could also maintain the friendships you have established. Charlottesville is a small town, but it has big town amenities. Lots of culture for the culture vultures. I have not personally seen the town, but it gets high marks from what I here. Asheville, North Carolina probably meets most of your requirements. I have been there, and it’s a beautiful town. It even has a university. It’s also a NEW AGE town—- lots of unconventional spirituality. New Agers abound plus antique shops. Prices are escalating. Vanderbilt selected Asheville for a residence, and he made a wise choice.
Response:
Connie, I agree. I think when one considers retirement, depending on your current age and health status, you must take into account future infirmity and deteriorating health. Yes, some retirees enjoy good health until their last breath, but most often that is not the case. Playing golf at 65 years of age is NOT going to last forever. If you buy a home in a golf community and the ONLY TOPIC OF CONVERSATION IS: GOLF, GOLF, GOLF, GOLF— ARNOLD PALMER, THE LATEST GOLF BALL OUT ON THE MARKET, AND THE GOLF CHANNEL, etc.–will you still be talking about golf when you can barely get out your chair? Retirement communities are always in a state of flux and transition, as the older ones die or head off to nursing homes. THE NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK, OR THE NEW RETIRED KIDS ON THE BLOCK will still be interested in golf, when you are neglected and forgotten. Couples, and widows adapt better to retirement. Widowers have a difficult time enjoying their golden years. Their wives often cleaned the house, cooked, etc. Men relied on their wives for domestic chores, and of course companionship, but all too often they find themselves helpless, lonely, and alone. As a rule men do not form the friendship bonds that women experience at a much more intimate and deeper level.
Response:
>Within the SF Bay Area, there is an island called Alameda. It was a naval base >and maintained a 1950s atmosphere and still does. The naval base is now closed >and more housing is being built. A friend of mine has a beautiful 3 br condo >there. Another lives on a houseboat and a third lives in assisted living after >a heart attack. Because it is in the Bay Area, there are multiple colleges and >every type of entertainment. It is on SF Bay with beautiful san beaches and >spectacular views of San Francisco across the Bay. Weather is moderate but >without SF’s fog in the summer. If money were no object, this is probably >where I would live. >-Connie
It was bleedin’ hot today. I heard on the radio that it was 88F in the city. The city was the hottest place in the region for a change. I wonder what this summer will be like, considering how hot it’s been already this year. I put a fan on for the cats, but my cat has never gotten used to the strange whirling beast so I found him in another room when I got back. I drove out to Ocean Beach where it was cooler, and went wading. The water was too cold for anything but wading, of course. The only things I really miss about Massachusetts are having an ocean one can swim in, and thunderstorms. (The only thing I liked about Florida was the warm ocean.) I drove back barefoot to avoid getting sand in my sneakers, and the cats were really interested in smelling my feet when I got back. My friend from Alaska is coming down in a week, so we’ll doubtless head out to Lake Berryessa a couple of times, where one really can swim.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Smithes) > >Thumper, > >Gosh, isn’t this discussion group for old people. > >ARE YOU A YOUNGER OLD PERSON, OR AN OLDER YOUNG PERSON? > >You can’t have it both ways! > >Cameron > I think Thumper was being facetious with truth added. An isolated > retirement community is for old people and some of us like to mingle > with all ages. Frankly, the notion that one should go somewhere special > to retire is an odd one to me. But then I like to be in the swing of >things > and looking only at other old folks like me would depress me. There is > a difference between complexes designed for housing seniors only, > with such being in the midst of a town or city, and being stuck out in >the > boondocks with no one else around other than more retirees. > The big question is, what will you do with your time in retirement? I > suppose playing golf is entertaining, but what if one wants to get > involved in community life, volunteer work, cultural institutions? Go > back to school? I would no more limit my choices in retirement than in > pre-retirement days. >Rita, Jim, & others, >First, I do not now nor have I ever worked for the Villages or any other >real estate venture. I’m exactly as advertised, a relatively recently >retired person living in the DC area. And, as I said, I have been seeking >with little success a significant downside to this development. When I >visited there, I actively sought out residents (not employees or realtors) >to find major negatives about the place. I was overwhelmed by the almost >universal positive feedback and it made me want to find critical flaws even >more. As to prior threads and comments by Charles Gallbach, I guess I >missed them. I have only fairly recently found this newsgroup and have >been lurking with a few posts for 3 months or so, maybe a bit longer. >Back on topic, I am very concerned about the limitation of living in any >type of "seniors" community. I love being part of a diverse community. >Though a bachelor, I adore being around my great nephews and nieces and >really enjoy kids in general. I like the fact that the customers at my >supermarket include people of all ages and ethnicity. Especially in the >last 10 years, I’ve lived in a very diverse society and have profited >greatly. I have generally associated with a cross section of society with >a lot of younger people around. I have no desire whatsoever to restrict >myself to sitting around with a bunch of old farts comparing colonoscopy >results. >In one sense, I have ultimate freedom to go wherever and do whatever I want >in retirement, within financial boundaries. Ideally, I’d love to find a >picturesque, isolated small town in the mountains with an ocean view. It >would be within commuting distance of a cosmopolitan area. There would be >four unique seasons, but it would never get too hot or humid, there would >be only periodic sentimental rain, and beautiful snowfalls would avoid all >streets and sidewalks. No sleet, hail, or temperatures below 40. Every >social amenity imaginable must be at hand, but there would be no taxes at >all. The residents would be outgoing and friendly but would respect one’s >privacy. There would be a plethora of activities available at all times >day or night, but they would not encroach on my actions. There would be >ample golf courses around so I could make up for all that I’ve missed over >the last years, that I could play whenever and wherever I liked. (Did I >mention that the golf would be free?) There would be scores of restaurants >of every ethnic vein, but not so many that the area would become crowded. >I’d have plenty of land on which I could raise my chilies and maybe some >fruit trees and tulips, azaleas, roses and whatever, but someone else would >cut the grass and pull the weeds and all that nasty stuff. And, of course, >a four bedroom house that cleaned itself would cost half of what I’ll get >for my condo. >As you can see, there might be some trade-offs required. I need to weigh >the importance of the various options and make some decisions, so I’m >gathering as much info as I can. I really do appreciate all the input I’ve >rec’d, especially what I thought was a very analytical commentary from >Cameron. >Oh, and did I mention that my retirement town would also host a small >liberal arts college where the students (and faculty) were beautiful, super >intelligent ladies who were crazy about fat old fogies. >Bill >"You’re only jealous because the voices aren’t talking to you."
Come on up to New England. Unfortunately it’s getting expensive. Then again, everywhere people want to live is getting expensive. thumper
Response:
>Thumper, >Gosh, isn’t this discussion group for old people. >ARE YOU A YOUNGER OLD PERSON, OR AN OLDER YOUNG PERSON? >You can’t have it both ways!
Why not? I can’t figure out what I am. Of course my post was half tongue in cheek but on the other hand I really don’t want to be around all older people in my retirement years. I enjoy a good healthy mix. Good friends of mine just bought one of the less expensive houses in the Villages last month. They don’t intend to move there however. They intend to turn it over in a few years and make a few bucks. Thumper – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Cameron
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->And I no more believe you are Bill then the man in the moon. I >suspect you are the same villages marketing person who comes here >every six months and does the same thing. You come here using the >name Adam or Mary or some such with a munged address regularly and >post the same thing. >But, then this last one was the best one yet since I don’t think our >resident spam warrior is onto you yet. >I did find it odd that Bill said he had heard no negative comments >on this Villages place. There have been threads about this place, >as you mention, from time to time, and Charles Gallbach (where IS >Charles, OK, I hope) pointed out all the restrictive covenants and >busy body interference with using one’s property as one wishes in >such places. >Another clue that Bill may be a marketing person is that he mentioned >the website for The Villages and pointed out a videotape and flyers >were available. If he is a marketer for this outfit, he did do a great job >of a soft sell:)
like a guy stealing home and getting just under the catcher’s mitt, he slit by our spam queen.
Response:
Within the SF Bay Area, there is an island called Alameda. It was a naval base and maintained a 1950s atmosphere and still does. The naval base is now closed and more housing is being built. A friend of mine has a beautiful 3 br condo there. Another lives on a houseboat and a third lives in assisted living after a heart attack. Because it is in the Bay Area, there are multiple colleges and every type of entertainment. It is on SF Bay with beautiful san beaches and spectacular views of San Francisco across the Bay. Weather is moderate but without SF’s fog in the summer. If money were no object, this is probably where I would live. -Connie
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->In one sense, I have ultimate freedom to go wherever and do whatever I want >in retirement, within financial boundaries. Ideally, I’d love to find a >picturesque, isolated small town in the mountains with an ocean view. It >would be within commuting distance of a cosmopolitan area. There would be >four unique seasons, but it would never get too hot or humid, there would >be only periodic sentimental rain, and beautiful snowfalls would avoid all >streets and sidewalks. No sleet, hail, or temperatures below 40. Every >social amenity imaginable must be at hand, but there would be no taxes at >all. The residents would be outgoing and friendly but would respect one’s >privacy. There would be a plethora of activities available at all times >day or night, but they would not encroach on my actions. There would be >ample golf courses around so I could make up for all that I’ve missed over >the last years, that I could play whenever and wherever I liked. (Did I >mention that the golf would be free?) There would be scores of restaurants >of every ethnic vein, but not so many that the area would become crowded. >I’d have plenty of land on which I could raise my chilies and maybe some >fruit trees and tulips, azaleas, roses and whatever, but someone else would >cut the grass and pull the weeds and all that nasty stuff. And, of course, >a four bedroom house that cleaned itself would cost half of what I’ll get >for my condo. >As you can see, there might be some trade-offs required. I need to weigh >the importance of the various options and make some decisions, so I’m >gathering as much info as I can. I really do appreciate all the input I’ve >rec’d, especially what I thought was a very analytical commentary from >Cameron. >Oh, and did I mention that my retirement town would also host a small >liberal arts college where the students (and faculty) were beautiful, super >intelligent ladies who were crazy about fat old fogies. > Try Santa Barbara. I lived there for two years and it meets many of your > items on your wish list. Why did I leave? I like living in NYC more than I > liked living there, all told, but I do go back to visit. > You have in SB mountains and ocean, perfect climate, not too hot, not too > cold, a charming downtown, beaches, a university and also city sponsored > adult ed program that is remarkable, tons of local groups offering every > activity under the sun, laid back residents who will accept you but not intrude > on your privacy. Real estate is very expensive, but given enough > time looking you can find a decent apartment and who needs a house when > living in such a climate? SB is at the same time upscale and yet provides > plenty of low cost amusement for those not so well fixed. I furnished my > apartment there for a few hundred bucks at local thrift shops where I found > attractive, like new, offerings donated by SB’s well to do citizens. Lots of > restaurants moderately priced, a couple of interesting local festivals each > year. > All in all, SB beats the hell out of Florida. It has class, which Florida sadly > lacks. And yes, I have spent time in Florida.
Santa Barbara IS nice, probably one of the best places left in CA. Definitely better than FL. I lived in FL for a while and hated it. Too hot an muggy. Too many bugs. Came down with a cold every winter. Too many old people. The winter is very crowded. My wife and I looked all over the west coast before settling in the San Juan Islands. Either Santa Barbara or San Louis Obispo would have been out second choice. Both are college towns and have wonderful weather. Decided against SLO because it is too close to LA. Decided on the San Juans because it is like a trip back to the ’50s. People are great, weather is great, rural environment is not too crowded and a high percentage of people with college education. Not many Republicans tho, so I come to this news group to try to get alternative points of view.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Cameron et al, >Thanx for all the comments. Re your regional preference assessments, >though I am originally a Midwesterner, I lived in Europe for almost 10 >years and then 10 more in Northern VA. Love the DC area, but it is getting >ungodly crowded and I’ll likely not be able to afford the prices for long. >I will definitely miss the somewhat mild four seasons here. >I kinda stumbled upon The Villages. My sister-in-law mentioned it in >passing and I looked at the web site. http://www.thevillages.com/ Found >that interesting, so I sent away for the video and fliers. I was impressed >enough that I visited for a few days late last summer (Heavy thunderstorm >season). Firstly, tho it is close to Ocala, it seems to exist in a world >all its own. The place is huge, now at 30K+ people with massive growth in >process. Secondly, the retiree population seems to come from all over the >eastern 2/3s of the country. As you said, it is very popular with >Midwesterners, but there seem to be even more from the eastern seaboard >from Maine on down. Plus there seems to be a rather large group from >Britain who live there 6 months a year. >In all, I’ve obviously been very impressed with the place. Since I >discovered it, I’ve encountered a number of friends and relatives who know >people who’ve moved there. Everyone speaks so well of it. As a natural >pessimist, I’m searching for the other side. I know the heat and humidity >are bad, but can it be much worse than August in KC? The homes look really >nice and are much cheaper than around here. Thanx to all for the info on >the taxes. After my condo here was yet again reappraised and while the >state is looking at another omnibus tax increase, Florida has got to be >cheaper. >I think I’m looking for somebody to tell me about some deep dark secrets >about the place — maybe they burn chubby retired civil servants at the >stake on alternate Wednesdays or there’s nowhere around to buy fresh bagels >or frozen custard — something to make me give up on the place and let my >old inertia take hold. >Thanx again, >Bill > Bill, > I once lived in Florida, so I am familiar with the state. The interior > of Florida is about five degrees warmer in summer, and about five > degrees cooler in winter, depending on the latitude. > Overall, I think Florida offers the best retirement living for the > dollar. But, you must chose your location wisely. Do assess how you will > fit in with your selected community. > There is no utopia. Every region of the country has > drawbacks–earthquakes, tornadoes, prohibitive cost of living, snow, > etc. > The Florida heat is intense. Many retirees head north during the summer. > The most moderate Florida climate is on the Gold Coast, where the cooler > Gulf Stream waters cool things off a bit. Not much, but a bit. Adapting > to the humidity is difficult, but most of the country experiences high > humidity in the summer. > One Florida summer climatological feature is daily afternoon > thunderstorms. You can set your clock to the thunderstorms. The > temperature can drop as much as 15 degrees in a matter of 15 minutes. > Some of the storms do have lightening. Florida has the highest death > rate from lightening strikes. If you are out on the golf course, by all > means take shelter during a thunderstorm. > Florida is a socially schizophrenic state. Northern Florida is in the > Bible Belt and is very, very conservative, while southern Florida is > generally more liberal. Many hispanic Cubans are Republican, so > Miami-Dade County is conservative. Miami Beach is more liberal. > Seeing Confederate Flags on cars in northern Florida is not an unusual > occurrence. In fact, the Florida Panhandle is known as the "Redneck > Riviera." > From my perspective the Ocala area, and most of central Florida is not > aesthetically pleasing, not terrain-wise, but because of the lack of > uniformity. You will see squatter shacks, single mobile homes in between > strip malls, and many two room small fundamentalist churches with > "Jesus" signs. > I have driven by the Villages, but I have not physically been in the > complex. Central Florida, and the Gulf Coast have more Midwest retirees. > If you are from the Midwest, you would then fit in. If you are a > conservative Republican you will fit in. Being a liberal Democrat would > be somewhat "iffy." Central Florida and the Gulf of Mexico coastal areas > do draw the Midwest retirees. Sarasota and Naples draw well-healed, > WASP, Republican country-club, Midwest retirees. > These Republican areas though are not the Christian Coalition type of > Republicans. Republicans in the Ocala area would be more Christian > Coalition types. > Southeastern Florida draws Northeastern retirees. Brooklyn and Boston > accents are everywhere. Broward County is quite Jewish, and it is the > most LIBERAL county in the state, aside from the city of Key West. Jeb > Bush detests Broward County. Broward County welcomes the ACLU. > My favorite central Florida town is, Mount Dora. It’s a beautiful quaint > town with lots of antique shops. If you are considering central Florida, > do consider Mount Dora. It does not have Del Webb scale retiree > communities though, like the Villages. > Do not consider retiring to Orlando. The traffic is a nightmare. > Retiring NEAR ORLANDO is a much better option. Mount Dora is just a > short drive from Orlando, The Villages are more isolated. > Every part of Florida has advantages and disadvantages. The coastal > areas of Florida ARE SITTING ON A TIME BOMB WITH HURRICANES. Just like > California, """THE BIG ONE"""" is a disaster waiting to happen. > Hurricane Andrew destroyed 50,000 homes. If Andrew had strayed just 50 > miles north, Miami would have resembled Hiroshima. Central Florida, > hurricane-wise, is a better option. > Check to see whether you can obtain home insurance. Many insurance > companies are no longer writing policies. The policies that are written > are not cheap. The closer you live to water, the more you will pay. > Florida is a GREAT state in which to retire. I hope I haven’t given you > the impression not to retire there, but do select where you live > carefully. > Select a city where you will blend in–politics-wise, ethnically, > monetary too. Naples, and Palm Beach would not be very welcoming if you > drive a Yugo. You would receive a much more welcoming nod with a > Mercedes, BMW, or Jaguar with a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker. > There has been white-flight out of Miami into Broward County, and Palm > Beach County. Hispanic clerks in Miami sometimes do ignore whites. > Speaking Spanish is a definite plus. The hispanic culture rules. > Do consider the proximity to medical care. Retirees want good health > care. > One word of caution too. Retirees can be BUSYBODIES. They have lots, and > lots, and lots of free time. It’s very likely you will be a topic of > conversation–again, again, and again. What business should be YOUR > BUSINESS, WILL BE EVERYONE’S BUSINESS. > Opening your mail, if a letter should be inadvertently delivered by > mistake, checking packages at your doorstep, what’s inside your car, > what’s outside your car, what hours you sleep, will be open topics of > conversation. It’s just a roll of the dice, as to how nosy your > neighbors will be. Sometimes you’d swear your retired neighbors work for > the CIA. > Again, it’s in a retirees best interest TO BLEND IN. When you don’t > blend in, YOUR GOLDEN YEARS WILL BE ANYTHING BUT GOLDEN. > SOME MOUTHS NEVER STOP, AND STOPPING THE MOUTHS IS IMPOSSIBLE. > Unfortunately, HOOF MOUTH DISEASE doesn’t hit the geriatiric crowd much. > Bill, this is way too long but I hope it’s been of some value. > Cameron
Too many old people there. Thumper
Response:
>Cameron et al, >Thanx for all the comments. Re your regional preference assessments, >though I am originally a Midwesterner, I lived in Europe for almost 10 >years and then 10 more in Northern VA. Love the DC area, but it is getting >ungodly crowded and I’ll likely not be able to afford the prices for long. >I will definitely miss the somewhat mild four seasons here. >I kinda stumbled upon The Villages. My sister-in-law mentioned it in >passing and I looked at the web site. http://www.thevillages.com/ Found >that interesting, so I sent away for the video and fliers. I was impressed
And I no more believe you are Bill then the man in the moon. I suspect you are the same villages marketing person who comes here every six months and does the same thing. You come here using the name Adam or Mary or some such with a munged address regularly and post the same thing. But, then this last one was the best one yet since I don’t think our resident spam warrior is onto you yet.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dave, > Thanks for the information about the intangibles tax. I thought I had > read somewhere on the internet that it was going to be phased out. > It’s my understanding that a huge, mammoth retirement community is going > to be built at the intersections of Highway 41 and Highway 52. > The project will take around 20 years, and have a population of > something like 30,000 people or so on the completion date. > I have been to Trinity. It’s founder is a born-again dentist. Trinity > Bible College, I think that’s the name??, is part of the complex. I > think they also have a YMCA. Trinity now has their own zip code. > The problem with all of these communities is that they are out in the > boonies. The scenery is not good driving from Tampa/St. Pete or points > in between. Shacks, fruit stands, junk cars are an eye sore.
You’re right about the "Hicky" scenery in places around Florida, depending on the location but in growing areas of north Pinellas/south Pasco counties the phenonon is diminishing. Although it’s not within walking distance of amenities, Trinity isn’t so isolated anymore. There’s a number of nice, newer strip stores a few miles south and a Wal-Mart within a mile or so from the complex to the north. Further north, the same newer amenities are slowly coming in but it’s going to take a few more years for civilization to fully fill in the gaps. The bottom line is that if you don’t mind driving, it’s within an hour or less of just about anything you’d want for needs or entertainment. I’m in a decent north Pinellas county area and am lucky enough to be within a couple of miles of everything I use. If driving became too expensive, walking and bicycling wouldn’t be too great hardship, just inconvenient at times. My parents checked out a retirement community around Ocala, I think. They had the same isolation complaint. I thought for awhile they were set on Trinity but ended up buying into a retirement community near where they already lived up north. There’s more relatives up there and I’m not fun to play with, anyway.
Response:
> I think I’m looking for somebody to tell me about some deep dark secrets > about the place — maybe they burn chubby retired civil servants at the > stake on alternate Wednesdays or there’s nowhere around to buy fresh bagels > or frozen custard — something to make me give up on the place and let my > old inertia take hold.
Rumor has it that Bigfoot is in the area!
Response:
Dave, Thanks for the information about the intangibles tax. I thought I had read somewhere on the internet that it was going to be phased out. It’s my understanding that a huge, mammoth retirement community is going to be built at the intersections of Highway 41 and Highway 52. The project will take around 20 years, and have a population of something like 30,000 people or so on the completion date. I have been to Trinity. It’s founder is a born-again dentist. Trinity Bible College, I think that’s the name??, is part of the complex. I think they also have a YMCA. Trinity now has their own zip code. The problem with all of these communities is that they are out in the boonies. The scenery is not good driving from Tampa/St. Pete or points in between. Shacks, fruit stands, junk cars are an eye sore. Dade City is a nice little town. It’s somewhat comparable to Mount Dora. It’s got a beautiful Square. If I remember correctly, the Court House is a stately, red brick building. For a person who likes small town living, it would be a nice city for Florida retirement. One advantage too, hurricanes wouldn’t be the threat they pose living on the coasts. For retirees on a budget, the costs in Dade City would be reasonable. A very small Catholic college is just west of town. Cameron
Response:
Cameron et al, Thanx for all the comments. Re your regional preference assessments, though I am originally a Midwesterner, I lived in Europe for almost 10 years and then 10 more in Northern VA. Love the DC area, but it is getting ungodly crowded and I’ll likely not be able to afford the prices for long. I will definitely miss the somewhat mild four seasons here. I kinda stumbled upon The Villages. My sister-in-law mentioned it in passing and I looked at the web site. http://www.thevillages.com/ Found that interesting, so I sent away for the video and fliers. I was impressed enough that I visited for a few days late last summer (Heavy thunderstorm season). Firstly, tho it is close to Ocala, it seems to exist in a world all its own. The place is huge, now at 30K+ people with massive growth in process. Secondly, the retiree population seems to come from all over the eastern 2/3s of the country. As you said, it is very popular with Midwesterners, but there seem to be even more from the eastern seaboard from Maine on down. Plus there seems to be a rather large group from Britain who live there 6 months a year. In all, I’ve obviously been very impressed with the place. Since I discovered it, I’ve encountered a number of friends and relatives who know people who’ve moved there. Everyone speaks so well of it. As a natural pessimist, I’m searching for the other side. I know the heat and humidity are bad, but can it be much worse than August in KC? The homes look really nice and are much cheaper than around here. Thanx to all for the info on the taxes. After my condo here was yet again reappraised and while the state is looking at another omnibus tax increase, Florida has got to be cheaper. I think I’m looking for somebody to tell me about some deep dark secrets about the place — maybe they burn chubby retired civil servants at the stake on alternate Wednesdays or there’s nowhere around to buy fresh bagels or frozen custard — something to make me give up on the place and let my old inertia take hold. Thanx again, Bill
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Bill, > I once lived in Florida, so I am familiar with the state. The interior > of Florida is about five degrees warmer in summer, and about five > degrees cooler in winter, depending on the latitude. > Overall, I think Florida offers the best retirement living for the > dollar. But, you must chose your location wisely. Do assess how you will > fit in with your selected community. > There is no utopia. Every region of the country has > drawbacks–earthquakes, tornadoes, prohibitive cost of living, snow, > etc. > The Florida heat is intense. Many retirees head north during the summer. > The most moderate Florida climate is on the Gold Coast, where the cooler > Gulf Stream waters cool things off a bit. Not much, but a bit. Adapting > to the humidity is difficult, but most of the country experiences high > humidity in the summer. > One Florida summer climatological feature is daily afternoon > thunderstorms. You can set your clock to the thunderstorms. The > temperature can drop as much as 15 degrees in a matter of 15 minutes. > Some of the storms do have lightening. Florida has the highest death > rate from lightening strikes. If you are out on the golf course, by all > means take shelter during a thunderstorm. > Florida is a socially schizophrenic state. Northern Florida is in the > Bible Belt and is very, very conservative, while southern Florida is > generally more liberal. Many hispanic Cubans are Republican, so > Miami-Dade County is conservative. Miami Beach is more liberal. > Seeing Confederate Flags on cars in northern Florida is not an unusual > occurrence. In fact, the Florida Panhandle is known as the "Redneck > Riviera." > From my perspective the Ocala area, and most of central Florida is not > aesthetically pleasing, not terrain-wise, but because of the lack of > uniformity. You will see squatter shacks, single mobile homes in between > strip malls, and many two room small fundamentalist churches with > "Jesus" signs. > I have driven by the Villages, but I have not physically been in the > complex. Central Florida, and the Gulf Coast have more Midwest retirees. > If you are from the Midwest, you would then fit in. If you are a > conservative Republican you will fit in. Being a liberal Democrat would > be somewhat "iffy." Central Florida and the Gulf of Mexico coastal areas > do draw the Midwest retirees. Sarasota and Naples draw well-healed, > WASP, Republican country-club, Midwest retirees. > These Republican areas though are not the Christian Coalition type of > Republicans. Republicans in the Ocala area would be more Christian > Coalition types. > Southeastern Florida draws Northeastern retirees. Brooklyn and Boston > accents are everywhere. Broward County is quite Jewish, and it is the > most LIBERAL county in the state, aside from the city of Key West. Jeb > Bush detests Broward County. Broward County welcomes the ACLU. > My favorite central Florida town is, Mount Dora. It’s a beautiful quaint > town with lots of antique shops. If you are considering central Florida, > do consider Mount Dora. It does not have Del Webb scale retiree > communities though, like the Villages. > Do not consider retiring to Orlando. The traffic is a nightmare. > Retiring NEAR ORLANDO is a much better option. Mount Dora is just a > short drive from Orlando, The Villages are more isolated. > Every part of Florida has advantages and disadvantages. The coastal > areas of Florida ARE SITTING ON A TIME BOMB WITH HURRICANES. Just like > California, """THE BIG ONE"""" is a disaster waiting to happen. > Hurricane Andrew destroyed 50,000 homes. If Andrew had strayed just 50 > miles north, Miami would have resembled Hiroshima. Central Florida, > hurricane-wise, is a better option. > Check to see whether you can obtain home insurance. Many insurance > companies are no longer writing policies. The policies that are written > are not cheap. The closer you live to water, the more you will pay. > Florida is a GREAT state in which to retire. I hope I haven’t given you > the impression not to retire there, but do select where you live > carefully. > Select a city where you will blend in–politics-wise, ethnically, > monetary too. Naples, and Palm Beach would not be very welcoming if you > drive a Yugo. You would receive a much more welcoming nod with a > Mercedes, BMW, or Jaguar with a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker. > There has been white-flight out of Miami into Broward County, and Palm > Beach County. Hispanic clerks in Miami sometimes do ignore whites. > Speaking Spanish is a definite plus. The hispanic culture rules. > Do consider the proximity to medical care. Retirees want good health > care. > One word of caution too. Retirees can be BUSYBODIES. They have lots, and > lots, and lots of free time. It’s very likely you will be a topic of > conversation–again, again, and again. What business should be YOUR > BUSINESS, WILL BE EVERYONE’S BUSINESS. > Opening your mail, if a letter should be inadvertently delivered by > mistake, checking packages at your doorstep, what’s inside your car, > what’s outside your car, what hours you sleep, will be open topics of > conversation. It’s just a roll of the dice, as to how nosy your > neighbors will be. Sometimes you’d swear your retired neighbors work for > the CIA. > Again, it’s in a retirees best interest TO BLEND IN. When you don’t > blend in, YOUR GOLDEN YEARS WILL BE ANYTHING BUT GOLDEN. > SOME MOUTHS NEVER STOP, AND STOPPING THE MOUTHS IS IMPOSSIBLE. > Unfortunately, HOOF MOUTH DISEASE doesn’t hit the geriatiric crowd much. > Bill, this is way too long but I hope it’s been of some value. > Cameron
Response:
> Florida has had an intangibles tax, but it’s my understanding that it is > being phased out. There is no state income tax, but some areas of > Florida have fairly high property taxes. Hillsborough County has high > taxes. Sarasota County has the cheapest taxes in the state– roughly 1% > of assessed value.
For general information, I recently picked-up the Florida "Intangible Personal Property Tax" forms from the library. There’s a $250,000 exception for singles, $500,000 for couples on applicable securities. Don’t know if the original inquisitor would be interested but there’s a nice community called "Trinity" just north of Clearwater, on the central west coast, with various communities, including over 55. I’ve looked at it several times when my parents were down and thought it nice.
Response:
James, Thanks for your comments. I think Florida has some redeeming qualities. For a couple on a budget, it’s very affordable. Mobile home parks are numerous. Many mobile homes sell for under $50,000, and there is a trend toward upscale mobile home parks. Mobile homes in Florida are very functional because of the mild climate. I, myself, would not buy a mobile home, but many retirees do. Florida has had an intangibles tax, but it’s my understanding that it is being phased out. There is no state income tax, but some areas of Florida have fairly high property taxes. Hillsborough County has high taxes. Sarasota County has the cheapest taxes in the state– roughly 1% of assessed value. Jekyll Island and St. Simons Island are nice. The marshes are very unique. Homes tend to be fairly expensive. Sea Island rivals homes in Marin County–Belvedere, etc. If you’re looking for a 2 million dollar home, you’ll find it, even if you are choosey. I doubt if 10 days of frost though would kill HOOF AND MOUTH DISEASE. I just hope when all of the retirees are gossiping, bugs fly into their MOTOR MOUTHS.
Response:
> Florida is a socially schizophrenic state. Northern Florida is in the > Bible Belt and is very, very conservative, while southern Florida is > generally more liberal. Many hispanic Cubans are Republican, so > Miami-Dade County is conservative. Miami Beach is more liberal.
Florida has very few socially redeeming values. The schools are notoriously horrible, and public services are poor compared to other States. Floridians can’t even vote fairly and accurately. Florida also has a portfolio tax, which hits retired seniors heavily. In may case, the tax would have been bigger than a State income tax.. We chose Southeast Georgia because Jekyll Island is almost perfect, it has access to an international airport (Jacksonville, 40 miles away), and it has 10 or so days of frost per year, which kills Billions of bugs which survive to torment people further South. > Seeing Confederate Flags on cars in northern Florida is not an unusual > occurrence. In fact, the Florida Panhandle is known as the "Redneck > Riviera." > From my perspective the Ocala area, and most of central Florida is not > aesthetically pleasing, not terrain-wise, but because of the lack of > uniformity. You will see squatter shacks, single mobile homes in between > strip malls, and many two room small fundamentalist churches with > "Jesus" signs. > Florida is a GREAT state in which to retire. I hope I haven’t given you > the impression not to retire there, but do select where you live > carefully.
I saw a Florida Bumper sticker which said: "If you don’t like the way we count (votes), get on I-99 and go to one of the other 40 States"
Response:
Bill, I once lived in Florida, so I am familiar with the state. The interior of Florida is about five degrees warmer in summer, and about five degrees cooler in winter, depending on the latitude. Overall, I think Florida offers the best retirement living for the dollar. But, you must chose your location wisely. Do assess how you will fit in with your selected community. There is no utopia. Every region of the country has drawbacks–earthquakes, tornadoes, prohibitive cost of living, snow, etc. The Florida heat is intense. Many retirees head north during the summer. The most moderate Florida climate is on the Gold Coast, where the cooler Gulf Stream waters cool things off a bit. Not much, but a bit. Adapting to the humidity is difficult, but most of the country experiences high humidity in the summer. One Florida summer climatological feature is daily afternoon thunderstorms. You can set your clock to the thunderstorms. The temperature can drop as much as 15 degrees in a matter of 15 minutes. Some of the storms do have lightening. Florida has the highest death rate from lightening strikes. If you are out on the golf course, by all means take shelter during a thunderstorm. Florida is a socially schizophrenic state. Northern Florida is in the Bible Belt and is very, very conservative, while southern Florida is generally more liberal. Many hispanic Cubans are Republican, so Miami-Dade County is conservative. Miami Beach is more liberal. Seeing Confederate Flags on cars in northern Florida is not an unusual occurrence. In fact, the Florida Panhandle is known as the "Redneck Riviera." From my perspective the Ocala area, and most of central Florida is not aesthetically pleasing, not terrain-wise, but because of the lack of uniformity. You will see squatter shacks, single mobile homes in between strip malls, and many two room small fundamentalist churches with "Jesus" signs. I have driven by the Villages, but I have not physically been in the complex. Central Florida, and the Gulf Coast have more Midwest retirees. If you are from the Midwest, you would then fit in. If you are a conservative Republican you will fit in. Being a liberal Democrat would be somewhat "iffy." Central Florida and the Gulf of Mexico coastal areas do draw the Midwest retirees. Sarasota and Naples draw well-healed, WASP, Republican country-club, Midwest retirees. These Republican areas though are not the Christian Coalition type of Republicans. Republicans in the Ocala area would be more Christian Coalition types. Southeastern Florida draws Northeastern retirees. Brooklyn and Boston accents are everywhere. Broward County is quite Jewish, and it is the most LIBERAL county in the state, aside from the city of Key West. Jeb Bush detests Broward County. Broward County welcomes the ACLU. My favorite central Florida town is, Mount Dora. It’s a beautiful quaint town with lots of antique shops. If you are considering central Florida, do consider Mount Dora. It does not have Del Webb scale retiree communities though, like the Villages. Do not consider retiring to Orlando. The traffic is a nightmare. Retiring NEAR ORLANDO is a much better option. Mount Dora is just a short drive from Orlando, The Villages are more isolated. Every part of Florida has advantages and disadvantages. The coastal areas of Florida ARE SITTING ON A TIME BOMB WITH HURRICANES. Just like California, """THE BIG ONE"""" is a disaster waiting to happen. Hurricane Andrew destroyed 50,000 homes. If Andrew had strayed just 50 miles north, Miami would have resembled Hiroshima. Central Florida, hurricane-wise, is a better option. Check to see whether you can obtain home insurance. Many insurance companies are no longer writing policies. The policies that are written are not cheap. The closer you live to water, the more you will pay. Florida is a GREAT state in which to retire. I hope I haven’t given you the impression not to retire there, but do select where you live carefully. Select a city where you will blend in–politics-wise, ethnically, monetary too. Naples, and Palm Beach would not be very welcoming if you drive a Yugo. You would receive a much more welcoming nod with a Mercedes, BMW, or Jaguar with a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker. There has been white-flight out of Miami into Broward County, and Palm Beach County. Hispanic clerks in Miami sometimes do ignore whites. Speaking Spanish is a definite plus. The hispanic culture rules. Do consider the proximity to medical care. Retirees want good health care. One word of caution too. Retirees can be BUSYBODIES. They have lots, and lots, and lots of free time. It’s very likely you will be a topic of conversation–again, again, and again. What business should be YOUR BUSINESS, WILL BE EVERYONE’S BUSINESS. Opening your mail, if a letter should be inadvertently delivered by mistake, checking packages at your doorstep, what’s inside your car, what’s outside your car, what hours you sleep, will be open topics of conversation. It’s just a roll of the dice, as to how nosy your neighbors will be. Sometimes you’d swear your retired neighbors work for the CIA. Again, it’s in a retirees best interest TO BLEND IN. When you don’t blend in, YOUR GOLDEN YEARS WILL BE ANYTHING BUT GOLDEN. SOME MOUTHS NEVER STOP, AND STOPPING THE MOUTHS IS IMPOSSIBLE. Unfortunately, HOOF MOUTH DISEASE doesn’t hit the geriatiric crowd much. Bill, this is way too long but I hope it’s been of some value. Cameron
Response:
I’m looking at The Villages, a huge development south of Ocala, Florida, as a possible place to retire. Do any of you in this large, diverse group have any experiences with the place. So far, I’ve heard a lot of positives and minor complaints about heat and humidity. Any and all comments appreciated, Bill
Response:
Question:
> It’s debatable whether it’s more expensive > than nuclear. But the lower externalized costs to society for wind power > seem to offset this nicely.
Waste repository & decommissioning costs are tacked onto nuclear in Canada & the US. Wind generation has few such costs, because they’re often ignored. From wind energy advocate Paul Gipe, who doesn’t blind himself to externalized costs of wind power. From http://www.chelseagreen.com/Wind/articles/Removal.htm "Thus, the costs to remove the 1,200 MW of first generation turbines still standing in California could exceed $100 million. WindStats looks at what it will cost, what is entailed, and who will pay." "The excesses found in California–the huge gullies gouged into Tehachapi’s hillsides, the derelict turbines, the oil pouring down the towers, the glaring road cuts in erodible soils, the piles of industrial detritus, the massive jumble of machines scattered willy-nilly across the landscape–will all come back to haunt the wind industry in the years to come unless it learns to clean up after itself. " Paul Gipe, Time to Clean Up the Mess in Kern County http://www.chelseagreen.com/Wind/articles/Cleanup.htm Karl Johanson
Response:
> Nuclear’s getting financing for new capacity as well. Dozens of new nuclear > plants are being built. The latest 2 to go on line in China
No wonder we haven’t seen any of those 50 new plants, they’re in China! I predict many tragic extension cord accidents, so you should get to work on some statistics. Wayne
Response:
>How much governmental > subsidies/guarentees did the investments have in either case.
I think it’s more important to ask what *can* be built now and in the future. If you can’t get a particular type of plant to the application stage even, then who cares what it used to cost, might have cost, should have cost, etc.? If you want to talk about how this or that could be done "if only…..", then you might as well carry that thinking to its logical conclusion – we wouldn’t need any new plants if only we didn’t need any additional plants. :-) Wayne
Response:
> Nuclear’s getting financing for new capacity as well. Dozens of new > nuclear > plants are being built. The latest 2 to go on line in China > No wonder we haven’t seen any of those 50 new plants, they’re in China! > I predict many tragic extension cord accidents, so you should get to > work on some statistics.
Wayne, you said you’d never read any of my posts ever again. How can I trust you now? Karl Johanson It’s 2003 & some people still haven’t figured out that the internet is international. Rather than educating them, perhaps these people should be thought of as a resource to make money from. The poker potential alone is astounding.
Response:
> > Yes, nuclear sucks. However, coal sucks much more. Wind is diffuse, > expensive, unreliable, and with extensive subsidies, impractical. In a > world with anti-nuclear nuts, nuclear is expensive because 90% of the > construction costs can be attributed to lawyers. In a world without > anti-nuclear nuts, nuclear would beat almost everyone on price. > And if pigs had wings they could fly. So what? The fact is that you > *can* get financing for wind. So new capacity is being built. Here’s a
Ah, but how much, and with what subsidies and governmental promises? > two year old article about nuke’s future. At the time it was written, > heady renewkables probably scoffed. So where are the 50 fast tracked > applications? In the bin with the fuel cells perhaps. :-)
Here’s a challenge. For the US, what is the investment over the last 5 years in nuclear power, including plant upgrades. How does it compare to the total investment in wind. How much governmental subsidies/guarentees did the investments have in either case. Now, who’s has more investment? I bet in total investment, you’ll find that its about par, with perhaps nuclear having an edge. However, I bet that you’ll find that of unguarentee’d investment, nuclear has a signifigant edge. Just my gut feeling, so it could be easily wrong. Prove it. Also, do the same analysis, except including the whole world. Scott
Response:
> Yes, nuclear sucks. However, coal sucks much more. Wind is diffuse, > expensive, unreliable, and with extensive subsidies, impractical. In a > world with anti-nuclear nuts, nuclear is expensive because 90% of the > construction costs can be attributed to lawyers. In a world without > anti-nuclear nuts, nuclear would beat almost everyone on price. > And if pigs had wings they could fly. So what?
And if wind wasn’t diffuse & intermittent, then wind energy might be a significant player, instead of a ‘woulda, shoulda coulda’ source. >The fact is that you *can* get financing for wind. So new capacity is being
built. Nuclear’s getting financing for new capacity as well. Dozens of new nuclear plants are being built. The latest 2 to go on line in China produce about twice as much power as all the windmills in the US combined, & will likely last more than twice as long as 21st century design wind generators. In the US many plants are getting financing to add new capacity by upgrading and improving efficiency. The improvements in efficiency in the US’s nuclear plants in the last few years (without building a new plant) add up to more power than all the wind generators in the world combined. Some CANDUs are undergoing upgrades & efficiency boosts & are coming back on line. Nuclear’s moving ahead quickly. Wind is like the driver who just crossed the starting line (in spite of a head start of decades) and claims they’re in the lead because they just doubled their speed (from 1 Km/h to 2 Km/h). Meanwhile nuclear has lapped it several hundred times. Nature of the beast. Wind is diffuse & intermittent. Karl Johanson Think about what the world would be like if all the anti-nukes in the world had put their money where their mouth is (like wmbjk did) and put their effort into actually building wind generators instead of into protesting nuclear energy. Why, wind generation might actually produce a whole 1% of the world’s electricity by now.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> fossil fuel: 71% > hydro: 7% > other: 2% (2000) > That’s why I said "about" and "maybe". One sees different figures for > many of these things. I think the DOE estimates US hydro could probably > be expanded to cover another couple percent of US usage without building > any new dams at all by just upgrading existing generators. > nuclear: 20% > [CIA world factbook] > I also add that one of the two diablo canyon reactors produces twice > the energy than all 13000 wind turbines in california, COMBINED. > So?
So; wind is a trivial energy source (in spite of the modern designs, in spite of higher ‘per watt hour’ subsidies than nuclear and in spite of it benefiting from such things as military research on propeller design). Plus the capacity factors of US wind generators average out to around 23%, making the above comparison even more slanted. The 21st century wind turbines only last around 20 years, compared to better than twice that for many nuclear plants designed in the early 1970s. This isn’t even accounting for the effective losses in the load following shuffle needed to account for the intermittent nature of this energy source. Wind turbines are cool. They’re very useful for some off grid uses, especially. Don’t expect them to be a significant player for grid power any time soon though. Invest now if you want though. It’s hard enough to afford the legal battles against protestors & multiple reregulation when you’re building a 1,000 megawatt 90% capacity factor nuclear plant. Imagine affording it for a 50 meg, 23% capacity factor plant (a plant which you have no control over when it makes the power). Protesting wind energy sites is a growing phenomenon, although you don’t see me among them. Karl Johanson
Response:
> Yes, nuclear sucks. However, coal sucks much more. Wind is diffuse, > expensive, unreliable, and with extensive subsidies, impractical. In a > world with anti-nuclear nuts, nuclear is expensive because 90% of the > construction costs can be attributed to lawyers. In a world without > anti-nuclear nuts, nuclear would beat almost everyone on price.
And if pigs had wings they could fly. So what? The fact is that you *can* get financing for wind. So new capacity is being built. Here’s a two year old article about nuke’s future. At the time it was written, heady renewkables probably scoffed. So where are the 50 fast tracked applications? In the bin with the fuel cells perhaps. :-) http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2001/jun/02/511901163.htm l Wayne
Response:
says… > Yup. But the flaw was that you didn’t apply this discount to estimate > generation from the worldwide installec capacity numbers you > gave. When you do apply it; what did I get, worldwide wind generation > at about 2.8x Diablo Canyon.
I guess I just keep waiting for the punch line. What does the installed wind generator capacity of the world versus Diablo Canyon have to do with anything? Just actually say what you think it means instead of incessantly making comparisons. You seem to be trying to suggest that because nuclear is producing more energy than wind that it is prima facie superior and/or to be preferred in any application or situation. If this is what you’re trying to say then I doubt you can defend it. But I don’t want to put words in your mouth or anything 
. > The stuff is clearly very cheap from "overall pollution" and "total > fuel usage" aspects, but clearly expensive in terms of capital > costs. Wind is cheaper in capital costs (< $1/watt, not sure about > exact costs), and is nearing the price of large gas plants ($.50/watt) > Installed Watt, or actual Watt (IE, corrected for the 20% > utilization.) > Also, is that including or excluding the cost of roads and power lines > to link them to the grid. A nuclear plant generating 1GW in a > centralized location is likely to need less copper than 2500 2MW > capacity turbines. (2500 2MW turbines is 5GW of installed capacity, > discounted for utilization, we’ll get a mean of only 1GW)
Well it depends on the location to be sure, but allocating excess generation capacity and pricing materials is all part of fixed cost per watt which is budgeted for in a given project. It’s certainly possible that one could save on construction materials in a small, centralized nuclear plant as opposed to some other technology like wind farms. However, I think the reality is that nuclear plants often have to be monolithic in order to be cost effective. If you tried to build a nuclear power plant to only generate 100 MW for a small community then the cost of the facilities and manpower would be exorbitant. OTOH, you could stick up several hundred 1 MW turbines and get this level of power relatively less expensively. You also might end up taking less total land out of production, since in fact the towers have a tiny footprint. You might even get some dual use out of a few of these towers as radio/cell repeaters, help insure the local environment was less polluted and use a potentially abundant resource which was otherwise being wasted. > Also, need > to account for beefing up the grid to ship power around from where the > wind is blowing to where it isn’t.
Sure and one needs to account of adding to the grid so nuclear plants can deliver larger amounts of power and so they can service new areas. > >That price was artificially inflated, deliberately, by the harassment > >and tresspass of the ‘protestors’, *then* that 12x inflated price is > >used as an argument for why nuclear power is too expensive. > >Its not. > Except, of course, if one were to build a new plant today, one > might suffer the same kinds of "actions and court cases". (Indeed, > Of course. 
> And next year, another billion tons of coal will be burned for > electricity.
And apologists for the coal industry, just like apologists for the nuclear industry have reams of scientific reports showing that coal plant emissions are not dangerous to anybody or anything. There a book you might be interested in called _Toxic Sludge is Good for You_. > Yes, nuclear sucks. However, coal sucks much more. Wind is diffuse, > expensive
After all is said and done it is still a little bit more expensive than certain fossil fuel options. It’s debatable whether it’s more expensive than nuclear. But the lower externalized costs to society for wind power seem to offset this nicely. >, unreliable,
Fortunately, not all power needs to be available instantly and upon demand. We should be looking at using wind energy for non-peak applications. That’s all part of using wind energy realistically. > and with extensive subsidies, impractical.
Farmers receive huge subsidies in this country. Is farming also impractical then? The subsidies to the wind industry are not nearly as large as to farmers by a long shot and I don’t see how the presence of subsidies in itself causes the industry to be impractical. They are there to make sure the fledgling industry is not abandoned due to economic shortsightedness and conducting business as usual with fossil fuels. > In a > world with anti-nuclear nuts, nuclear is expensive because 90% of the > construction costs can be attributed to lawyers.
Not hardly. You’re generalizing from one case like diablo canyon. The fact is that the nuclear industry has been spectacularly mismanaged from almost the very beginning and was overrunning on costs even when the public was highly enthusiastic about "the peaceful atom". > In a world without > anti-nuclear nuts, nuclear would beat almost everyone on price.
No, but that could be a world that was just as bad, if the cheap price of power were subsidized by constant, usually unreported, safety mishaps and contamination problems which threatened the health of our citizens. A prudent and third alternative would be to have a citizenry that was not overly paranoid, but recognized that real dangers do exist and need to be properly handled, even if it means having to spend more precious money or have more icky government oversight. BTW, if the industry didn’t take the polar opposite extreme to the activists then they would probably be a lot more trusted by the public at large and nuclear power would be more widespread. The nuke industry did one of the most monumentally bad jobs of PR in history and all they can do is sit around and whine about the fallout [pun not intended literally]. > Interestingly, one of the ways they can and do make money is by > selling wind-turbine output as "premium grade" energy. For instance, > If customers are willing to pay, more power to the producers. Of > course, I think the customers are silly, but thats me.
That’s because nobody "owns" the air, so people don’t usually worry about it until it’s too late and their cities are choked with smog. A 1 MW wind turbine produces 2-3 GW hours of pollution free power in one year’s time. They can and do make a contribution to keeping our environment clean and reducing our dependence on fossil/fissile sources. > >Wind power would require the further capital costs for storage > >plants to turn that unreliable elecricity into reliable electricity. > >Thats really hard to quanitify—depending on the daily and seasonal > >distribution of wind—but probably involves hydroelectric pumped > >storage. > Because wind power is still such a small percentage of overall > energy supplies, its variability simply disappears into existing > load variability today. That situation will not persist: > Yup. However, that does become a relevant cost to Wind when it does > become major.
Of course. But storage or backup capacity is something that we need to have anyway. If nothing else, then the present nuclear resources we have could provide the back up capacity that we might need. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> but if you are correct here: > >That’ll take about a 160x growth in this country before its an issue. > Yup.. Wind is about 1.2% or 1/80′th of california’s generation > (2000). California is about 1/12 of the US’s generation. > Thus *california* wind is about 1/1000 of US consumption. (I don’t have > any immediate numbers for non-california wind). Thus wind would have > to grow to 200 times the current generation in CA to equal 20% of the > US consumption. > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html > http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html > My prior reference of 160 was an estimate. > it will be a while before it does become a problem. > Yup.
That won’t stop some people from freaking out prematurely. — Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com) "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." (Friedrich Nietzsche)
Response:
> >I was partially in error; I did not realize that these figures were 8 >years out of date. > That was the main thing I wanted to emphasize — the situation has > changed drastically in the last eight years, because of per-kWh > costs.
That number, that California is 30% of worldwide wind is 8 years obsolete. THe other numbers, about total wind generation in california and Diablo Canyon are are 2000 and 2001. It is still true that Diablo Canyon accounts for five times more wind energy than all the wind turbines in california combined. >… at least in the case of California in 1994, actual *production* >was about 25% of installed *capacity*. > This is pretty typical of wind-power installations. The windiest
Yup. But the flaw was that you didn’t apply this discount to estimate generation from the worldwide installec capacity numbers you gave. When you do apply it; what did I get, worldwide wind generation at about 2.8x Diablo Canyon. > The stuff is clearly very cheap from "overall pollution" and "total > fuel usage" aspects, but clearly expensive in terms of capital > costs. Wind is cheaper in capital costs (< $1/watt, not sure about > exact costs), and is nearing the price of large gas plants ($.50/watt)
Installed Watt, or actual Watt (IE, corrected for the 20% utilization.) Also, is that including or excluding the cost of roads and power lines to link them to the grid. A nuclear plant generating 1GW in a centralized location is likely to need less copper than 2500 2MW capacity turbines. (2500 2MW turbines is 5GW of installed capacity, discounted for utilization, we’ll get a mean of only 1GW) Also, need to account for beefing up the grid to ship power around from where the wind is blowing to where it isn’t. >That price was artificially inflated, deliberately, by the harassment >and tresspass of the ‘protestors’, *then* that 12x inflated price is >used as an argument for why nuclear power is too expensive. >Its not. > Except, of course, if one were to build a new plant today, one > might suffer the same kinds of "actions and court cases". (Indeed,
Of course. And next year, another billion tons of coal will be burned for electricity. Yes, nuclear sucks. However, coal sucks much more. Wind is diffuse, expensive, unreliable, and with extensive subsidies, impractical. In a world with anti-nuclear nuts, nuclear is expensive because 90% of the construction costs can be attributed to lawyers. In a world without anti-nuclear nuts, nuclear would beat almost everyone on price. > Interestingly, one of the ways they can and do make money is by > selling wind-turbine output as "premium grade" energy. For instance,
If customers are willing to pay, more power to the producers. Of course, I think the customers are silly, but thats me. >Wind power would require the further capital costs for storage >plants to turn that unreliable elecricity into reliable electricity. >Thats really hard to quanitify—depending on the daily and seasonal >distribution of wind—but probably involves hydroelectric pumped >storage. > Because wind power is still such a small percentage of overall > energy supplies, its variability simply disappears into existing > load variability today. That situation will not persist:
Yup. However, that does become a relevant cost to Wind when it does become major. > but if you are correct here: >That’ll take about a 160x growth in this country before its an issue.
Yup.. Wind is about 1.2% or 1/80′th of california’s generation (2000). California is about 1/12 of the US’s generation. Thus *california* wind is about 1/1000 of US consumption. (I don’t have any immediate numbers for non-california wind). Thus wind would have to grow to 200 times the current generation in CA to equal 20% of the US consumption. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html My prior reference of 160 was an estimate. > it will be a while before it does become a problem.
Yup. Scott
Response:
>I was partially in error; I did not realize that these figures were 8 >years out of date.
That was the main thing I wanted to emphasize — the situation has changed drastically in the last eight years, because of per-kWh costs. >… at least in the case of California in 1994, actual *production* >was about 25% of installed *capacity*.
This is pretty typical of wind-power installations. The windiest sites are used, but even then, the turbines only put out full power part of the time, and put out no power at all part of the time. This intermittency is predicted to become a major problem if windpower were to make up 20% of actual generation (10% fluctuations are not so bad; we get those in load today; we might need to have "generation-following load" instead of, or in addition to, today’s "load-following generation" to account for wind intermittency). >Got a reference for [foreign nuke-plant costs]?
Alas, no. It is just something I read somewhere, marked in my head as "suspicious but better than nothing at all". The stuff is clearly very cheap from "overall pollution" and "total fuel usage" aspects, but clearly expensive in terms of capital costs. Wind is cheaper in capital costs (< $1/watt, not sure about exact costs), and is nearing the price of large gas plants ($.50/watt) today; coal is in the middle at anywhere from $.70 to $1+ / watt; and PV is around $5–7/watt installed, today. >Keep in mind stuff like this: > http://www.ecn.cz/temelin/diablo.htm [...] >Especially the last line: > Thanks to the actions and court cases, its construction took > **10 years to finish which made it 12 times more expensive.** >That price was artificially inflated, deliberately, by the harassment >and tresspass of the ‘protestors’, *then* that 12x inflated price is >used as an argument for why nuclear power is too expensive. >Its not.
Except, of course, if one were to build a new plant today, one might suffer the same kinds of "actions and court cases". (Indeed, *every* plant one builds today suffers such things, in part because each merchant generator wants to block the next guy from building a plant that will compete with his. The intervenors lists for the various new plant projects in California invariably consist primarily of other power companies.) As I said: >… these numbers were raised enormously by construction delays >and high interest rates … >And the above.
"Construction delays" includes the legal aspect. It is hard to build something when the lawyers keep serving you with paper forbidding you to build it. The interest rates make the delays much more significant, due to the way power plants are financed: step 1, borrow the money; step 2, construct; step 3, begin operation and use the proceeds from sales to pay for everything. If step 2 takes 10 years at 10%/yr, an initial borrowing of $100 million turns into $220 million owed. If the bonds being used to pay off the $220 million have to be refinanced at 16% over the next five years (I remember collecting 16% on my money market funds — those were the days!), the cost pretty much doubles again. >Perhaps. But one must also keep in mind how to deal with the >unreliability of wind. Unreliable elecricity has a *signifigantly >reduced value* compared to reliable electricity. I have no idea how >reduced. but to me at least, it has essentially no value.
The value is pretty much "what the market will bear", in the wonderful new world of deregulation. As a generator, you can get paid for delivering energy, or you can get paid for being a standby reserve. If you own a wind plant, and do not deliver energy when you have contracted to do so, you will be hit with a penalty — but you can always buy the energy from another plant (typically a peaker) somewhere. The fact that private companies are building wind plants in Texas, which has its own deregulation in progress now, indicates that those companies believe they will make money. (They might not believe that if it were not for tax credits and — I think — accelerated depreciation on windpower; at least as of a year or two ago, the numbers were cutting it pretty close.) Interestingly, one of the ways they can and do make money is by selling wind-turbine output as "premium grade" energy. For instance, Utah Power will sell me 100 kWh blocks of "blue sky" program power for "regular cost + $1.95", i.e., an extra 1.95 cents per kWh. Just last month this was +$2.95 — they have lowered the price recently, perhaps due to additional supply coming on the market (Wyoming has a bunch of new wind installations that should be on line by now). >Wind power would require the further capital costs for storage >plants to turn that unreliable elecricity into reliable electricity. >Thats really hard to quanitify—depending on the daily and seasonal >distribution of wind—but probably involves hydroelectric pumped >storage.
Because wind power is still such a small percentage of overall energy supplies, its variability simply disappears into existing load variability today. That situation will not persist: > Indeed. Perhaps we really *should* start worrying about what > happens when wind power (with its variability) produces 20% of our > grid usage.
but if you are correct here: >That’ll take about a 160x growth in this country before its an issue.
it will be a while before it does become a problem. — In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems (BSD engineering) Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ameijers ruminated: > If it is a good school, and if it doesn’t make traffic in the area go off > the chart, it should make the value go up, at least as far as buyers with > kids are concerned. > But he said it’s replacing a park. Living near a park (but not directly > against a park) makes value go up to. So he’s getting rid of one thing > that increases property values, and adding another thing that increases > property values — so what’s going to have the biggest effect? I dunno., > One thing to think about is how close or how far from the school the > house is. Generally, houses directly adjacent to the school playground > have their property values adversely affected, due to the noise, balls > coming over the fence and kids always scrambling through their yards, > etc. None of that particularly bothers me — I’m not home during the > day, and I have no greenery that would get me upset if kids trampled > on it while getting a ball — but many home buyers are put off by > that. > GnuPG public key at http://badtux.org/eric/eric.gpg > Join The Conspiracy: http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
At least in the towns I’ve lived in, parks are like art museums- everyone is for them, but few actually use them, once out of kid stage. I don’t think many people would pay extra for a nearby park, unless the lots were so tiny that a park was the only place for kids to play. (common in pre 1960s subdivisions) . Schools, on the other hand, are used by virtually all kids. You are right about kids cutting through yards- as a kid, my family moved into a new subdivison, with long blocks, which butted up against a multi-school campus arrangement (elementry/jr high/ high school, all within a 2 block area, with shared athletic fields). Of course the kids going to school saved a couple blocks, and cut through the yards on foot or bike, just like their elder siblings had with the cornfield there previously. It usually wasn’t a big deal- most houses had rear garages, so the turnarounds tended to butt up against each other. But as the area aged, most of the houses put in bushes, fences, etc. Kids quickly learned which homeowners were cranky about serving as a throughway. aem sends…
Response:
>…. How does the building >of a new middle school in close proximity affect property values? >Increase… decrease… not affect.
Are you trying to decide whether to oppose it or not? If so, pity that people cannot be more civic minded; does the community need a new school? The answer to the Q is, it can make them go up, down, or stay the same. If the primary market is to families with children, as it is in many nice suburban towns, it can make values go up since people like their kids to live close to their schools. But since you’re losing the park, if the market was to people who wanted the park, maybe retirees who liked the quiet if that’s what kind of park it was, then value could go down. For that unlucky person whose house turns out to be in a bad spot vis a vis the school driveway, and can’t get out from 8:00 to 8:30 or 2:00 to 2:30, the new school is very bad. But likely it will not effect much at all, except school taxes for the entire town. whatevah, -v.
Response:
Oh, I know I want to oppose it… not a new school in general, but the school replacing the park (which is two lots over from my lot on the same side of the road). I live on a one-lane "veer-off" road from the main road, and I picture all sorts of issues with the short-cutting parents and teachers. We’ve actually had issues with Little League parents using our road (when they park, we can barely pass the cars to get out). The thing is that our School Council has had 14 months to look for the optimal site. Nothing happened, now they’re in a frenzy to put this last-minute plan into action before the next election or else the town loses bond money. I guess we’re caught between the ole ‘rock and a hard place’… The town needs a school… the town needs money to build the school… the town won’t get money unless they have a plan… they can’t devise the optimal plan with out money to survey other sites… it really sucks. Well there are all sorts of DEM issues, not to mention they bought the land under the Green Acres Act which mandates they replace the park in its entirety within 12 months. -A Brown
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->…. How does the building >of a new middle school in close proximity affect property values? >Increase… decrease… not affect. > Are you trying to decide whether to oppose it or not? If so, pity > that people cannot be more civic minded; does the community need a new > school? > The answer to the Q is, it can make them go up, down, or stay the > same. > If the primary market is to families with children, as it is in many > nice suburban towns, it can make values go up since people like their > kids to live close to their schools. But since you’re losing the park, > if the market was to people who wanted the park, maybe retirees who > liked the quiet if that’s what kind of park it was, then value could > go down. For that unlucky person whose house turns out to be in a bad > spot vis a vis the school driveway, and can’t get out from 8:00 to > 8:30 or 2:00 to 2:30, the new school is very bad. But likely it will > not effect much at all, except school taxes for the entire town. > whatevah, > -v.
Response:
Hmm…. Define a ‘good school’ vs a ‘bad one’, being that it is new construction. Plan on massive traffic increases, twice a day. Plan on noisy playgrounds during the day. Including the removal of a park, clearly this is a significant net loss for the property owners and all those located nearby. In the US, as the average size of the family decreases, and the (rapid) growth of households of adults w/o children, in the long run this would not help local property values. If this were my situation, I would not hesitate to move. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > If it is a good school, and if it doesn’t make traffic in the area go off > the chart, it should make the value go up, at least as far as buyers with > kids are concerned. I presume your community is euther expanding, or > replacing a worn-out building? If the latter, prices near the old school > should be going down. > aem sends… > I live in a decent town in RI. Recently, our town council has been mulling > over whether or not to build a three-story school, replacing a town park > that is literally a stone’s throw away from my home. How does the building > of a new middle school in close proximity affect property values? > Increase… decrease… not affect. > TIA, > -A Brown
Response:
>Hmm…. >Define a ‘good school’ vs a ‘bad one’, being that it is new >construction. >Plan on massive traffic increases, twice a day. >Plan on noisy playgrounds during the day. >Including the removal of a park, clearly this is a significant net >loss for the property owners and all those located nearby.
No one has mentioned the effect that the type of "school year" would have – in my part of the country all of the new schools follow a year round schedule and have no "summer break" – the schools are in session all 52 weeks of a year, with ‘track’ assignments to take advantage of the plant facility all year, even when a ‘track’ is on a periodic break!
Response:
> I live in a decent town in RI. Recently, our town council has been mulling > over whether or not to build a three-story school, replacing a town park > that is literally a stone’s throw away from my home. How does the building > of a new middle school in close proximity affect property values? > Increase… decrease… not affect. > TIA, > -A Brown
Personally, I would think living next to an elementary school would be a positive. Living next to a middle school would be a minor negative. Living next to a high school would be awful. I lived a mile down the street from a high school and it was pretty bad with litter, fast cars, boom cars and even breakins (it is considered an academically competitive "good" school). And with high schools, there is something going on from 7:00 a.m. until about 10:00 p.m. Now I’m in a new house out in the country. Guess what they just started building down the road? Oh well. They’ve gotta build it somewhere I suppose.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > ameijers ruminated: > > If it is a good school, and if it doesn’t make traffic in the area go > off > > the chart, it should make the value go up, at least as far as buyers > with > > kids are concerned. > But he said it’s replacing a park. Living near a park (but not directly > against a park) makes value go up to. So he’s getting rid of one thing > that increases property values, and adding another thing that increases > property values — so what’s going to have the biggest effect? I dunno., > At least in the towns I’ve lived in, parks are like art museums- everyone is > for them, but few actually use them, once out of kid stage. I don’t think
Huh. Around here, the parks are packed on weekends. Of course, here in Phoenix we have the world’s largest municipal park . > don’t think many people would pay extra for a nearby park, unless the lots > were so tiny
The issue, anyhow, was effect on property values. There has been a fair amount of research on the topic. In non-age-restricted neighborhoods (i.e., not retirement communities), people seem willing to pay more for a house near (but not directly ajoining) a park. This is especially true if it is a park that has ball fields and such, so that soccer mom doesn’t have to haul her kid to soccer practice. BTW, lots are getting smaller in new subdivisions, due to "anti-sprawl" legislation. The days of new subdivisions with quarter-acre lots are over in much of the country. GnuPG public key at http://badtux.org/eric/eric.gpg Join The Conspiracy: http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
Response:
>Generally, being near a school is a good thing. People like the idea that their >kids can walk to school instead of taking the bus.
This would be an asset to a family with school aged children, if the local school district assigns students based on "neighborhood" schools, this is becoming the exception in many places where assignments are being made based on availability of space in schools and not on the location of the student population that will be attending the school.
Response:
>I live in a decent town in RI. Recently, our town council has been mulling >over whether or not to build a three-story school, replacing a town park >that is literally a stone’s throw away from my home. How does the building >of a new middle school in close proximity affect property values? >Increase… decrease… not affect.
Depends… Does your house face the school or is it the back yard? What will the traffic flow be? Generally, being near a school is a good thing. People like the idea that their kids can walk to school instead of taking the bus. Being too close though may present a problem. Parents dropping of and picking up their kids tend to take shortcuts through the neighborhood and will park nearby to avoid using the school parking facilities and traffic. Kids walking home can cut through lawns & yards and annoy local pets. School grounds tend to be used for community sports like soccer and football at night & on weekends, attracting out of neighborhood residents and possible parking annoyances. If the school has music or sports programs, they may use the grounds early in the morning and after school, extending the time when you become aware of noise.
Response:
I live in a decent town in RI. Recently, our town council has been mulling over whether or not to build a three-story school, replacing a town park that is literally a stone’s throw away from my home. How does the building of a new middle school in close proximity affect property values? Increase… decrease… not affect. TIA, -A Brown
Response:
If it is a good school, and if it doesn’t make traffic in the area go off the chart, it should make the value go up, at least as far as buyers with kids are concerned. I presume your community is euther expanding, or replacing a worn-out building? If the latter, prices near the old school should be going down. aem sends…
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I live in a decent town in RI. Recently, our town council has been mulling > over whether or not to build a three-story school, replacing a town park > that is literally a stone’s throw away from my home. How does the building > of a new middle school in close proximity affect property values? > Increase… decrease… not affect. > TIA, > -A Brown
Response:
> If it is a good school, and if it doesn’t make traffic in the area go off > the chart, it should make the value go up, at least as far as buyers with > kids are concerned.
But he said it’s replacing a park. Living near a park (but not directly against a park) makes value go up to. So he’s getting rid of one thing that increases property values, and adding another thing that increases property values — so what’s going to have the biggest effect? I dunno., One thing to think about is how close or how far from the school the house is. Generally, houses directly adjacent to the school playground have their property values adversely affected, due to the noise, balls coming over the fence and kids always scrambling through their yards, etc. None of that particularly bothers me — I’m not home during the day, and I have no greenery that would get me upset if kids trampled on it while getting a ball — but many home buyers are put off by that. GnuPG public key at http://badtux.org/eric/eric.gpg Join The Conspiracy: http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
Response:
Question:
For about the same price, do you favor an older house (e.g., 30+ years old) with a big lot (e.g., 1.0 acre) or a newer house (e.g., 10+ years old) with a small lot (e.g., 0.3 acre), assuming the older house is in a reasonably good shape?
Response:
> For about the same price, do you favor an older house (e.g., 30+ years old) > with a big lot (e.g., 1.0 acre) or a newer house (e.g., 10+ years old) with > a small lot (e.g., 0.3 acre), assuming the older house is in a reasonably > good shape?
Depends on overall location and what has gone into the house in terms of floors, cabinets, HVAC, windows, etc. 10+ year old homes may be getting to some major repair bills, if they were not cared for well… st
Response:
> Depends on overall location and what has gone into the house in terms of > floors, cabinets, HVAC, windows, etc. 10+ year old homes may be getting to > some major repair bills, if they were not cared for well…
The location is in central NJ (Princeton Junction area). The schools and neighborhood are pretty good. The newer hosues are bigger and look much better than the older ones. I am just looking now, so mostly looking and reading from the pictures and descriptions posted on the www.realtor.com.
Response:
>The location is in central NJ (Princeton Junction area). The schools and >neighborhood are pretty good. The newer hosues are bigger and look much >better than the older ones. I am just looking now, so mostly looking and >reading from the pictures and descriptions posted on the www.realtor.com.
What is land worth in your area? Is land a significant portion of the value of the house? Are the new houses being built in the same area as the old houses? If land is a significant percentage of the cost of a house and the new houses are being built in the same area then it makes sense to buy the house with more land unless your preference is otherwise. Dimitri
Response:
Well, I’m in the process of trying to find land for a new house. In the area I’m looking, I might have to resort to purchasing a plot of land with an old house to knock down to build my new house. Really, undeveloped building lots are so expensive (in some cases nearly twice as much as good lots with existing older homes), I might come out ahead buying an existing house that’s in bad shape but has a good plot of land attached, and then ripping out the existing home and starting fresh. -Dave — On linuxfreemail dot com, I am user "spamfilter".
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> For about the same price, do you favor an older house (e.g., 30+ years old) > with a big lot (e.g., 1.0 acre) or a newer house (e.g., 10+ years old) with > a small lot (e.g., 0.3 acre), assuming the older house is in a reasonably > good shape?
Response:
I will take the LAND any day….. However it really makes no difference if you are comparing a 0.3 acre lot against a 1.0 acre lot…they are both small… I have a full acre and have completely outgrown it… Brother owns 10 acres and honestly that is too much…. Just my opinion…. Bob Griffiths – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > For about the same price, do you favor an older house (e.g., 30+ years old) > with a big lot (e.g., 1.0 acre) or a newer house (e.g., 10+ years old) with > a small lot (e.g., 0.3 acre), assuming the older house is in a reasonably > good shape?
Response:
Another thing to remember is that unless you’re dealing with extremely scarce land situations or natural amenities (view, lake, cliff , etc) there is a certain ratio of land to house cost that you need to keep in mind. That is usually for new construction but it may be helpful in your case; For example you would not put a $200K home on a $100K lot… I.e. think of the relative value of the house versus the land it is on. st
Response:
>… For example you would not put a $200K home on a $100K lot…
Yeah, *typically* you’d put about a $500k or $400k house on a $100k lot. The ratio is referred to as the "land building ratio" and is a common consideration in appraisal. But that said, what is "typical" can vary widely from area to area. For example in a rural area with cheap land, the ratio might be 8:1 as folks build large homes on inexpensive lots. But on a popular lakefront or oceanfront people might end up only at 2:1 or 3:1 because it costs so very much to but the scarce land. But in interchangeable suburbs around the US, the ratio will also tend to be pretty interchangeable IMHO. -v.
Response:
>For about the same price, do you favor an older house (e.g., 30+ years old) >with a big lot (e.g., 1.0 acre) or a newer house (e.g., 10+ years old) with >a small lot (e.g., 0.3 acre), assuming the older house is in a reasonably >good shape?
Me personally or what you personally should do? What use do you have for land? In some of these upscale retirement communities in FL, etc. land seems to be viewed as a liability, something to pay the gardener to keep up, the people never go outside their screened in pool. The only people actually in the yard are the gardeners. My father in law goes out in his yard maybe once a week to check the gardeners’ work and seems to view his 1/4 acre as ample. But if you live in a temperate climate and want the kids to be able to play in their own yard…… I take neither of the choices given, presently have 12 acres here at the house. Could use more but then we ride dirtbikes and snowmobiles at our house, and have a shooting range…. So I like the neighbor houses to be at least 500 feet away. -v.
Response:
>>… For example you would not put a $200K home on a $100K lot… >Yeah, *typically* you’d put about a $500k or $400k house on a $100k >lot. The ratio is referred to as the "land building ratio" and is a >common consideration in appraisal. But that said, what is "typical" >can vary widely from area to area.
In many areas of California, the ratio is about 2:1 for new construction and much lower for existing construction. In fact, my current house’s property is worth more than the house itself. This is typical. Dimitri
Response:
: Well, I’m in the process of trying to find land for a new house. In the : area I’m looking, I might have to resort to purchasing a plot of land with : an old house to knock down to build my new house. Really, undeveloped : building lots are so expensive (in some cases nearly twice as much as good : lots with existing older homes), I might come out ahead buying an existing : house that’s in bad shape but has a good plot of land attached, and then : ripping out the existing home and starting fresh. -Dave : — Be sure to checkout all the local quirks in the law. I’ve seen some cases where you were better off tearing down all but one wall and then remodleing that wall into a complete house rather than tearing down the entire house. John Eaton
Response:
Thanks for the heads up! -Dave — On linuxfreemail dot com, I am user "spamfilter". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : — > Be sure to checkout all the local quirks in the law. I’ve seen some cases where > you were better off tearing down all but one wall and then remodleing that wall > into a complete house rather than tearing down the entire house. > John Eaton
Response:
Question:
nothing zero worthless hopeless actually it’s not quite so bad today J
Response:
Hi Caddy, I think I am back, but only on "light duty" <grin> Smiles and hugs to all. Ralph
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi Rick, > I have noticed, you are a + for the ng. > We really are needing more people like you. And we need Ralph back too. Take > Care, Caddy
Response:
how comes so few words but such distance actually it’s not quite so bad today moves me deeply thx pie Small Phoenix a *crit : – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> nothing > zero > worthless > hopeless > actually it’s not quite so bad today > J
Response:
Hi Pie, How goes it? > how comes so few words but such distance > actually it’s not quite so bad today > moves me deeply
Welcome to ADSM. We are gald you have posted here :) Peace, — I am NOT a Doctor!
Response:
Thanks for your kind words of encouragement. Just hope I can give back to the group a small portion of what I receive.
Response:
Ah, that’s good. Been reading your postings, last couple of days, and feeling for you, but not too good at knowing what to say. Sure you will progress from "not quite so bad" geoff hands across the ocean – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> nothing > zero > worthless > hopeless > actually it’s not quite so bad today > J
Response:
Hi Rick, I have noticed, you are a + for the ng. We really are needing more people like you. And we need Ralph back too. Take Care, Caddy
Response:
> > hopeless > > actually it’s not quite so bad today
Hi Tim, How are you doing? Glad to see you posting. We missed you. > > Nothing is something is nothing.The invisible is that which is too > clear to see.
Damn…that’s good. Can I save this for future reference? I will always attribute the authorship to you Yours, Just a plain ole’ person
Response:
> nothing > zero > worthless > hopeless > actually it’s not quite so bad today > J
((((Jackie*)))) — Jim & Laurie Ann http://www.netcom.com/~jimwelsh/welcome/welcome.html *** Bob Seger & Silver Bullet Band Links *** http://www.altoreed.com/home.html http://cis.bentley.edu/students/WALSH1_KEVI/seger.html
Response:
>nothing >zero >worthless >hopeless >actually it’s not quite so bad today
I know how ya feel. I’m not doing good at all today. Someone stole a LOT of my Klonopins and it’s just a thing like this that just makes me want to cut out the whole world. I’m retreating to my bed for now…. Moe~ "aka "HrtsDneTme"….
Response:
> nothing > zero > worthless > hopeless > actually it’s not quite so bad today > J > Nothing is something is nothing.The invisible is that which is too clear
to see. Tim
Response:
Hi Jackie. You seem to be really struggling and have been for awhile. It takes great strength and will to carry on in this struggle against something none of us deserves. Although you may feel alone right now, believe that my thoughts are with you and know that you will persevere. While I am new to this, at least in terms of treatment, I think it might be a good time for you to really access your treatment. Do this with someone you trust. Examine if there might be alternative treatment;(i.e. different drugs, different therapy or therapist, additional therapist, ect.). Don’t resign yourself to what is. Fight for what can be. rick
Response:
>Sometimes NOTHING (which is a thing in itself, by definition of the mere act >of giving it a name) is the best thing going. >period >eggs calm-ation point
Except for less than nothing – even more important sometimes. Less certainly can be more, as can last sometimes really be first. Zero1
Response:
Hmmmm. I’ll have to think about that one for awhile. Don’t want to make any snap judgements on this. rr
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Sometimes NOTHING (which is a thing in itself, by definition of the mere act >of giving it a name) is the best thing going. >period >eggs calm-ation point > Except for less than nothing – even more important sometimes. > Less certainly can be more, as can last sometimes really be first. > Zero1
Response:
> Sometimes NOTHING (which is a thing in itself, by definition of the mere act > of giving it a name) is the best thing going.
You mean the absence of something Squiggles
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > A pessimistic, yet stabilizing thought? Read only if you are up, and beware > that it might drag you down. > If one is down, avoid this post at all costs. > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > Sometimes life contains nothing. > This bothers me. But what really ticks me off is that sometimes life > contains less than nothing.
Life neither contains nor does not contain anything. That is meaningless. Life is what you are confronted with as a series of experiences – partly, depending on your emotional state those experiences can be pleasant or not. You sound depressed to me, that’s all – hope you can fix it – then everything will acquire a different appearance – honest. Squiggles
Response:
> Sometimes life contains nothing. > This bothers me. But what really ticks me off is that sometimes life > contains less than nothing.
Since I do not consider myself as "nothing" I do not believe in that sentiment. Peace, Lynda "You create your opportunities by asking for them." - Patty Hansen "Reflect upon your blessings, of which every man has plenty, not on your past misfortunes, of which all men have some." - Charles Dickens "If you want a quality, act as if you already had it. Try the ‘as if’ technique." — William James
Response:
Sometimes NOTHING (which is a thing in itself, by definition of the mere act of giving it a name) is the best thing going. period eggs calm-ation point rmg – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > A pessimistic, yet stabilizing thought? Read only if you are up, and beware > that it might drag you down. > If one is down, avoid this post at all costs. > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > / > Sometimes life contains nothing. > This bothers me. But what really ticks me off is that sometimes life > contains less than nothing.
Response:
*hugs* -judy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Downstairs the TV is on > Upstairs it’s too hot > I sit halfway up the stairs > Head in hands > Too hot > Thoughts run down > Nothing to turn the key > Suddenly numb > * > My pnurse said > Something is stopping me from getting better > But what? > A round and round thought > My life’s run down > As much as it is able > Not much left > To pare away > I’ve been off work five months > And yet, and yet > And yet > Maybe it’s nothing > Nothing > Maybe there is no reason > Or maybe I am all the reason > Only me > Too dangerous a thought > Run down > Run on > Nothing to turn the key > Too hot > Nothing > Web page at http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/xhq10/mem.htm > I’ve been Jay H, Canarybird, Empty Cage, Serin, Phoenix, even Crow. > Let’s see if I can stick with this one for a while.
Response:
Downstairs the TV is on Upstairs it’s too hot I sit halfway up the stairs Head in hands Too hot Thoughts run down Nothing to turn the key Suddenly numb * My pnurse said Something is stopping me from getting better But what? A round and round thought My life’s run down As much as it is able Not much left To pare away I’ve been off work five months And yet, and yet And yet Maybe it’s nothing Nothing Maybe there is no reason Or maybe I am all the reason Only me Too dangerous a thought Run down Run on Nothing to turn the key Too hot Nothing Web page at http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/xhq10/mem.htm I’ve been Jay H, Canarybird, Empty Cage, Serin, Phoenix, even Crow. Let’s see if I can stick with this one for a while.
Response:
|||| ||||(thoroughly edited, cleansed and censored) ||||. ||||> Larry |||| ||||Nothing. Indeed !How long have you been here? ||||You think this one is bad? Go try a few others! You’ll be glad ||||to get back on here! Stick around for a while. There are more ||||rational and intelligent people on this n.g. than you can shake ||||a stick at. I’ve found that many are whimsical, foolish, weird, ||||quaint, etc., which of course doesn’t sit too well with me, but ||||I’ve learned to put up with it. |||| |||| ||||Dave ||||– ||||Never reveal ultimate goals; keep ‘em confused. |||| |||| As well you should David. We put up with you and you are all of the above, plus some. Humbug to your Xmas Cheerios.
Response:
Okay, here goes: Andy said: > But , just for the hell of it, jump in and GENERATE > something. We may be interested in what YOU have to say > even if OUR discussions sometimes lack vigor. But be > prepared to be challenged. No room for a thin skin here…
How about a discussion of what the perfect retirement would be. The scope could include minimal resource scenario, optimal resource scenario, and wildly unrealistic ones too. My fantasy is to have a condo in the city, my cottage in the north woods for summer and fall, and a place to escape to somewhere warm, like Mexico. The condo in the city will probably turn out to be too expensive when my turn comes (within 10 years.) I’d also like to hear real impressions and opinions about retiring to places like Mexico, or Costa Rica, or …? Wendy Harrison
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Okay, here goes: > Andy said: > But , just for the hell of it, jump in and GENERATE > something. We may be interested in what YOU have to say > even if OUR discussions sometimes lack vigor. But be > prepared to be challenged. No room for a thin skin here… > How about a discussion of what the perfect retirement > would be. The scope could include minimal resource scenario, > optimal resource scenario, and wildly unrealistic ones too. > My fantasy is to have a condo in the city, my cottage > in the north woods for summer and fall, and a place to > escape to somewhere warm, like Mexico. The condo in > the city will probably turn out to be too expensive when > my turn comes (within 10 years.) > I’d also like to hear real impressions and opinions about > retiring to places like Mexico, or Costa Rica, or …? > Wendy Harrison
I will be accused of flogging my favorite city, but I entirely agree that the home base ought to be in a major city. This is for very pratical reasons: Good medical care, no need for automobile (and the time will come …. ), plenty to do, plenty to walk around and see, and most of all, plenty of people to talk to. Also plenty of things you can volunteer for. Many years ago I bought a house and two acres in Ct for eleven thousand five hundred bucks, and ever since I have treasured it at as a change of scenery and a place to let the kids air their meaness on weekends. Now it is a place to raise a tomato and let the children bring their children up to see how long grampa is going to last. My personal choice would be not to have another house in some foreign clime, but to spend somewhat less money taking a place for a few weeks in other countries that I enjoy — northern Italy or Burgundy or Greece or wherever. And as the pot empties and the achilles tendons shorten and the cataracks grow, I would tend to cut back on the trips, and then I suppose the Ct house, until they come get me, here in the city … of which I never tire. As Johnson … or maybe Wordsworth said. "A man who is tired of London is tired of life. I think we’ve had discussions about favorite large cities, but no reason not to do it again — it’s more fun than global warming. Mine in order of preference, based on which I would want to spend the most time (or time remaining) in are: New York City London Boston Washington Rome Paris San Francisco — EAH Otium cum dignitate
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > How about a discussion of what the perfect retirement > would be. The scope could include minimal resource scenario, > optimal resource scenario, and wildly unrealistic ones too. > My fantasy is to have a condo in the city, my cottage > in the north woods for summer and fall, and a place to > escape to somewhere warm, like Mexico. The condo in > the city will probably turn out to be too expensive when > my turn comes (within 10 years.) > I’d also like to hear real impressions and opinions about > retiring to places like Mexico, or Costa Rica, or …? > Wendy Harrison
Andy writes:
Well, I’ve been trying to learn all I could about Mexico for several years now – even to the extent of taking Spanish courses in night school. And watching old Cheech and Chong movies….. Seems there are about 500,000 Americans living in Mexico, a large number of those are retired, and have communities around Guadalajare, Lake Chapalla, and San Miguel de Alliende. And others…. Climate at Chapala is reputed to be a lot like Hawaii, with a cost of living just a bit lower than in North Texas. Medical care has good reputation, and is a lot less expensive than the states. So, I guess if Joanie and I had to list the things we are looking for , it would be: 1) Climate must have variation , but not extreme 2) Reasonable travel to our relatives, in Tex and Fla. 3) People our age, with few or no children 4) Cost of living no higher than Dallas 5) Language tolerance, neither of us have a flair for learning new languages. 6) Must have ability to leave and go somewhere else if we get tired of it. I’m sure many other places have these qualities and we would sure like to learn of them. Recently a poster talked about Malaysia and about the Phillipines as possibilities. I’ve also heard that Cyprus has a lot of retirees . Shoot, if we live long enough, we could try them all.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I thought there would be something of interest in this group for some > one thinking of retirement. I have decided it is misnamed? I don’t see > anything of value. > Larry > Nope. Just a lot of different people, much like yourself, > trying to find various ways to pass the time. > Nothing from the Dali LLama (sp?) here, unless you count > BB’s treatises on SS. > But , just for the hell of it, jump in and GENERATE > something. We may be interested in what YOU have to say > even if OUR discussions sometimes lack vigor. But be > prepared to be challenged. No room for a thin skin here… > —– Andy
You say there is no room for thin skin here but as you probably know this is one of the mildest newsgroups around. Some groups really get mean spirited and down right scary. Maybe its got something to do with being over 38. I know I noticed a big change when I went past that marker last year. (Or was that the top speed I hit on the freeway.)
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Okay, here goes: > Andy said: > But , just for the hell of it, jump in and GENERATE > something. We may be interested in what YOU have to say > even if OUR discussions sometimes lack vigor. But be > prepared to be challenged. No room for a thin skin here… > How about a discussion of what the perfect retirement > would be. The scope could include minimal resource scenario, > optimal resource scenario, and wildly unrealistic ones too. > My fantasy is to have a condo in the city, my cottage > in the north woods for summer and fall, and a place to > escape to somewhere warm, like Mexico. The condo in > the city will probably turn out to be too expensive when > my turn comes (within 10 years.) > I’d also like to hear real impressions and opinions about > retiring to places like Mexico, or Costa Rica, or …? > Wendy Harrison
When I was in Minnesota, we used to say: Tie the snowblower to the roof of the car and drive south until someone asks what that thing is. Then you’re there.
Response:
> Larry, [snip] > We are the perfect retirement community. As a matter of fact we’re > all thinking of relocating to Arizona to clean up that state. We’ll > have a little dude ranch outside of Tucson and whenever any local > politicians, cops or city workers get out-of-line they’ll have to deal > with us.
Wasn’t that ranch called the OK Corral? Merry Christmas everybody.
Response:
||||> |||| ||||> —– Andy |||| ||||You say there is no room for thin skin here but as you probably know ||||this is one of the mildest newsgroups around. Some groups really get ||||mean spirited and down right scary. Maybe its got something to do with ||||being over 38. I know I noticed a big change when I went past that ||||marker last year. (Or was that the top speed I hit on the freeway.) No that was the mile post marker where you had your second coming. That is why you are a Too and not a once.
Response:
EDITED: > As well you should David. We put up with you and you are all of the > above, plus some. > Humbug to your Xmas Cheerios.
Yes, I was trying to be nice to a newcomer into the group.That’s always a mistake I suppose. Should of known it would trigger a burst of invective from someone. Dave — Never reveal ultimate goals; keep ‘em confused.
Response:
Interesting that many people are saying "in a city". I have alwaysed looked at the city as a necessary evil associated with a good paying job. Now it is time for moving on out. My wife plans on working about 2 more years but we are looking very seriously at Shepardstown West VA. Small town sort of artsy aging hippy population and a small College so that there is small town atmosphere but also intellectual events, and only 1 hour from family in the DC area. We definitely will not settle too close to the town, far enough out that 5 to 10 acres will not be too expensive. Our 4 weel drive vehicle is due for delivery later this month. The other half of the ideal retirement would be a condo in Colorado for a month or so of skiing in the winter and a month of western exploring in the summer. My financial wizzard however is telling me it would be better just to rent for those couple of months each year. Anybody have thoughts on this? Dave
Response:
Ed Hatcher > Mine in order > of preference, based on which I would want to spend the most time (or > time remaining) in are: > New York City > London > Boston > Washington > Rome > Paris > San Francisco
Looks like a good list to me; although I might quibble about the order. I would add Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. to the list. A major factor has to be the location of kids and grandkids. Mine are all in Md. and Va., close to Washington, so I guess I’ll always have a place close to D.C. Another factor has to be affordability and livability of places close to the city. In the case of N.Y.C., for example, the area around Monmouth, N.J. seems reasonable. With the new bullet train planned for the Boston-NYC run, more of CT and Rhode Island becomes accesible to NYC. North of San Fran, on the coast up around Pt. Arena or Ft. Bragg also seems to be very desirable. In defense of cities, and since 80 percent of the U.S. population lives in Metro areas, Lewis Mumford has written that cities exist for one or more of three reasons: 1. As a crossroads for trade, 2. As a center of culture or religion, 3. As a logical place for a fortification. When a city has two or three of these reasons, then it becomes a potentially interesting place. Jim Georgia
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Interesting that many people are saying "in a city". >I have alwaysed looked at the city as a necessary evil >associated with a good paying job. Now it is time for > moving on out. My wife plans on working about 2 more >years but we are looking very seriously at Shepardstown West VA. Small town >sort of artsy aging hippy population and a small College so that there is small >town atmosphere but also intellectual events, and only 1 hour from family in >the DC area. >We definitely will not settle too close to the town, far enough out that 5 to >10 acres will not be too expensive. Our 4 weel drive vehicle is due for >delivery later this month. > The other half of the ideal retirement would be a condo in Colorado for a >month or so of skiing in the winter and >a month of western exploring in the summer. My >financial wizzard however is telling me it would be better just to rent for >those couple of months each year. Anybody have thoughts on this? >Dave
Have you considered any ‘time-share’ condos instead of renting at popular vacation sites? I have no first hand experience, but understand that you can swap them around and spend one term in say Colorado, and your next term somewhere else. Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), Florida To reply by e-mail, delete three x’s from address
Response:
> The other half of the ideal retirement would be a condo in Colorado for a > month or so of skiing in the winter and > a month of western exploring in the summer. My > financial wizzard however is telling me it would be better just to rent for > those couple of months each year. Anybody have thoughts on this?
Believe your advisor. An unseen factor in the equation is the myriad of ways that municipalities have found to fleece absentee condo owners. Since they don’t vote locally, they become an unrepresented tax base supplement. Also, condos in recreational areas can be very difficult to sell; and often DEpreciate over time. Jim Georgia
Response:
> Have you considered any ‘time-share’ condos instead of renting > at popular vacation sites? I have no first hand experience, but > understand that you can swap them around and spend one term in say > Colorado, and your next term somewhere else.
But time-shares are almost impossible to sell. Not just difficult, IMPOSSIBLE! Jim Georgia
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Interesting that many people are saying "in a city". > I have alwaysed looked at the city as a necessary evil > associated with a good paying job. Now it is time for > moving on out. My wife plans on working about 2 more > years but we are looking very seriously at Shepardstown West VA. Small town > sort of artsy aging hippy population and a small College so that there is small > town atmosphere but also intellectual events, and only 1 hour from family in > the DC area. > We definitely will not settle too close to the town, far enough out that 5 to > 10 acres will not be too expensive. Our 4 weel drive vehicle is due for > delivery later this month. > The other half of the ideal retirement would be a condo in Colorado for a > month or so of skiing in the winter and > a month of western exploring in the summer. My > financial wizzard however is telling me it would be better just to rent for > those couple of months each year. Anybody have thoughts on this? > Dave
I always liked WVa but had no reason to stlle there. Why Colorado for the second place? They got mountains all over the west and New Mexico is hard to beat. Cheap dirt so its stupid to rent. Good skiing and the summers in the mountains are gorgeous. BiNM
Response:
> I haven’t had a second coming since R&R in Kobe (vintage 1953). :)
Shhh! My mother and some of my exes read this group. They think all I did in Japan and the PI and Hong Kong and Thailand was go to chapel and buy a few trinkets to send home. BiNM
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > ||||> > |||| > ||||> —– Andy > |||| > ||||You say there is no room for thin skin here but as you probably know > ||||this is one of the mildest newsgroups around. Some groups really get > ||||mean spirited and down right scary. Maybe its got something to do with > ||||being over 38. I know I noticed a big change when I went past that > ||||marker last year. (Or was that the top speed I hit on the freeway.) > No that was the mile post marker where you had your second coming. > That is why you are a Too and not a once.
I haven’t had a second coming since R&R in Kobe (vintage 1953). :)
Response:
>Why Colorado for the second place? They got mountains >all over the west and
New Mexico is hard to beat. We aren’t 100% set on Colorado. Actually I think the skiing is better in Utah. I have never skied New Mexico but have been there in the summer and it is very pretty. We would be looking for similar environment in our Colorado/Western place. Small town atmosphere with some source of intellectual stimulation. We plan on doing a lot of exploring before making any decision. Dave
Response:
I thought there would be something of interest in this group for some one thinking of retirement. I have decided it is misnamed? I don’t see anything of value. Larry
Response:
(thoroughly edited, cleansed and censored) > I thought there would be something of interest in this group for > some > one thinking of retirement. I have decided it is misnamed? I don’t > see > anything of value. > Larry
Nothing. Indeed !How long have you been here? You think this one is bad? Go try a few others! You’ll be glad to get back on here! Stick around for a while. There are more rational and intelligent people on this n.g. than you can shake a stick at. I’ve found that many are whimsical, foolish, weird, quaint, etc., which of course doesn’t sit too well with me, but I’ve learned to put up with it. What do you want to know? How do you want it presented? When would you like it? Let us know. Christmas Cheer, Dave — Never reveal ultimate goals; keep ‘em confused.
Response:
> I thought there would be something of interest in this group for some > one thinking of retirement. I have decided it is misnamed? I don’t see > anything of value. > Larry
Well, that’s what a broker told me a few years back when I expressed interest in a little bit of Microsoft: "I don’t see any value there". He is no longer my broker, of course. Sometimes you need more than a superficial look at something to properly discern value. The size of the return also largely depends on the size of the investment. Furthermore, what might one expect in the way of "value" from a "social retirement discussion group"? The value I personally expect is some social discussion. So far, the news group has exceeded my modest expectations, considering my modest investment. Good luck in your search for something of interest and have a nice day, Chuck
Response:
Larry, Stick around, you sound just like the rest of us – able to become opinionated very quickly. :) I’ll have you know that we have some of the nimblest fingers, quickest minds and differing viewpoints of any ng in usenet. Now if you are looking for specific retirement information, like "what do I do with my 401(k) at age 62?" or something like that, hell man, just ask. You will be buried under so much knowledge that you’ll be yelling for Maureen to come help you out. We are the perfect retirement community. As a matter of fact we’re all thinking of relocating to Arizona to clean up that state. We’ll have a little dude ranch outside of Tucson and whenever any local politicians, cops or city workers get out-of-line they’ll have to deal with us. When we finish with Arizona we might pick up and move to Bosnia or Massachusetts – not sure which needs us more yet. In Bosnia we could have the Croats and Muslims eating Pizza Hut pizza and hot wings together in 48 hours. In Massachusetts we’d find a way to teach them to say Harva r d instead of Hahvad. And if anybody and I do mean anybody gave us any guff we’d turn B. Burkart, Jim Chamblee, madee, and Bill Too loose on ‘em. (And that’s just a few of our starting team – we’d have to hold some back in reserve or the devastation would be just too great.) They’d be singing a different tune in about 30, maybe 40, minutes tops. We could Save The World!, Bob > I thought there would be something of interest in this group for some > one thinking of retirement. I have decided it is misnamed? I don’t see > anything of value. > Larry
– "Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." — Mark Twain
Response:
> I thought there would be something of interest in this group for some > one thinking of retirement. I have decided it is misnamed? I don’t see > anything of value. > Larry
Well just don’t sit there Larry. Put in something, that in your estimation, is of value. And apart from that, if your have gone through life and haven’t prepared for retirement you have left it a bit late. I’ll tell you one thing however, when you do retire and get over the shock, you will wonder, like the rest of us, how you ever found time to go to work. Ho Ho Ho <{:-}}} — Cheers Danny Tue,23 Dec 1997.07:46:09
Response:
> I thought there would be something of interest in this group for some > one thinking of retirement. I have decided it is misnamed? I don’t see > anything of value. > Larry
Nope. Just a lot of different people, much like yourself, trying to find various ways to pass the time. Nothing from the Dali LLama (sp?) here, unless you count BB’s treatises on SS. But , just for the hell of it, jump in and GENERATE something. We may be interested in what YOU have to say even if OUR discussions sometimes lack vigor. But be prepared to be challenged. No room for a thin skin here… —– Andy
Response:
Larry, So, you are there in the Land of the Great Osage? I had the privilege of spending the first 19 years of my life in, and around, the Wichita Mountains of S.W. Oklahoma. The good thing about the soc.retirement n.g. is that there are people participating here that know a little something about almost everything that has to do with people in their retirement years. And, if someone in the group cannot answer a question, someone will almost always be able to tell you where to go to get the answer. Much foolish trash is exchanged. Many insults are put forth. But, in general, you will find decent stuff posted here. More so than in many other n.g.’s I have lurked around for the past five years. Usually, the more disgusting and obscene subjects are couched in words that only old, and experienced, folks know how to use. Most of the discussions are about medicare, Soc.Sec., politics, war, crime, punishment, sex, money, religion, etc., all the things that us old Geezers (and Lady Larks) like to write about. I’m sure that you have some candid opinions that you would like to share with the whole wide world. Don’t expect us to agree with you. About all you can expect is that someone will read them !! (chuckle) Since, as you say, you are new to this newsgroup repeat-ANYTHING, on any newsgroup that you would not want to see as headlines in your morning paper; all postings are retained indefinitely and can be researched/reviewed very easily by anyone who has your net-address, name, or other particulars. Outta’ Here. Merry Christmas and see you Dave
Response:
Question:
says… >Consider all the IT jobs in Vancouver that were lost because they were CP >employees outsourced to Sabre.
They were all Sabre employees and not a single one has been laid off. Many still working for Sabre, (on AC systems/platforms). The rest merged/absorbed by another Vancouver IT company. CP computer staff, now AC staff.
Response:
> And incidentally, if the unions start reacting a la Sabena, result will > only be to precipitate the end.
Very well said.
Response:
> BLIND.. your all either blind or have a very short memory…. Lets go back > to AC’s last profitable quarter…Which was just before Mr. Cullenette > <nothing honorable with him> was called by long time Liberal fund raiser > Jerry Shwartz.
Actually you’re completely wrong. AC’s last profitable quarter was the 3rd quarter of 2000 which was after the integration of the two airlines and long after Onex. Air Canada also made money in the second quarter of 2000. The fact is Air Canada was on the way to becoming a very profitable airline after the integration when the high tech sector led by Nortel (AC’s largest corporate customer) went into the tank. Trying to blame AC’s current situation on the merger is a hard thing to do because every other major airline in the world has also been losing money. The events of September 11th have exacerbated the situation with a complete shutdown and a sharp decline in traffic. However the government has recently compensated AC for the shutdown and AC’s loss of traffic is not nearly as bad as that in the U.S. although it is probably 15-20%. Swissair has ceased operations and Sabena may be close behind. The U.S. airlines have received almost $20 billion in bailout cash, AMR alone recieved $900 millione. So if your suggesting that AC’s current situation is soley because it took over Canadian then quite simply you are dead wrong. The problem that the takeover of Canadian does pose for Air Canada in the current situation is that traffic is way down, yields are way down and the purchase of Canadian increase the size of AC by 35-40%. When you have such a sharp downturn in the market you don’t want to grow by 40% you want to shrink. The agreements AC has signed of it’s on fluition has prevented them from doing so. Spending $1 billion to buy back shares also hurt AC’s liquidity. But the fact remains that AC is still a very liquid company which had $555 million in cash at the end of the 2nd quarter plus several hundred million more in available credit not to mention over $1 billion worth of unencumbered assets which they could sell and lease back. Air Canada is in no danger of going bankrupt despite what the media suggests. Unfortunately Air Canada has decided to take this "opportunity" to try and break agreements it has signed and obtain some free money from the taxpayer. r. Dave was asked if the Liberals wanted to unload the debt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> ridden Goose <aka Canadi<n and "BETTER DEAD THEN RED">. Jerry then > explained that if the Liberals would suspended the competition laws, he <Mr. > Jerry> would buy enough AC stock for controlling interest and then merge the > 2 airlines together. What Mr. Jerry neglected to tell was that all his > "funding" was being supplied by the vultures of aviation American Airlines > with whom Mr. Jerry had already agreed to sell of all the money making > routes, planes, maintenance <all overhaul, line and major components>. A > few weeks after suspending the competition laws Mr. Dave and the rest of his > narrow minded Liberals realized that Mr. Jerry was effectively going to > "rape" Air Canada to the bones and sell the pieces to American, Mr. Dave and > his loyal boss Jean decided to hold the preverbal shot gun to Air Canada’s > sole. Mr. Milton was told that either he buy the debt ridden bankrupt CAIL > and assume all its debts or AC was going to be called Air Canada Eagle. > After Mr. Milton bowed down to the damn bleeding hearted sellout Liberals he > was told of the conditions to the sale… No increase in fares, even if fuel > cost doubled, no seat sales at lower prices then poor West Jet <another > western based cry baby> and No laying off of any CAIL employee for any > reason.
1) The only way a government can FORCE anyone to do anything is through legislation. The government did not legislate Air Canada to take over Canadian. Robert Milton and Air Canada made a business decision to take over Canadian Airlines just as Rhys Eyton and Canadian Airlines made a business decision to take over Wardair. 2) The government did not force Robert Milton and Air Canada to spend $1,000,000,000 buying back shares. 3) The only thing the government could have done to INFLUENCE a merger outcome was to lift the 10% ownership limit on AC. However lifting the ownership limit would NOT have guaranteed an Onex takeover because the Caise-Depot was more than willing to offer Air Canada shareholders more than Onex could and AC’s own polling of shareholders showed that they backed an Air Canada offer anyway. 4)The only thing the government could have done if Air Canada had not purchased CP was lift the foreign ownership limits and allow AA and BA to completely takeover CP. Up to that point CP was at the 25% ownership limit and BA and AA were not willing to put in more that $100 million each in return for nothing. The $200 million they offered Kevin Benson was not enough to restructure the company properly so he accepted the AC merger proposal. 5)Apparently Air Canada saw value in merging the two companies just as Onex did. However Air Canada made employment promises they could not keep. Onex made it very clear that 5000-10,000 jobs would have to be cut in any merger yet Robert Milton claimed no jobs would have to be cut and agreed to the government legislation. 6) The government did not force Air Canada to sign labour contracts with no layoff guarantees in them. AC signed no layoff agreements to 2004 with several ex-CP union components. 7) The government did not force Air Canada to increase ex-CP employees wages to AC levels. 
The government did not force Air Canada to give out $10,000 bonuses to ex-AC employees to work along side ex-CP employees. > Bringing us to present day events.. AC is in heavy financial problems > since it had to pay off $3 billion plus in CAIL debt, plus the fact Mr. > Milton was forced to pay CAIL employees for past years of hardships <caused > by the Goverment> by giving them a raise and other perks.
CP did not have $3 billion in debt. At the end of 1998 (last year as an independant) CP had $922.8 million in long term debt. At the end of 1999 after restructuring as a numbered Alberta company CP had $709 million in long term debt. AC says in it’s 2000 annual report that it reduced CP’s long term debt and lease obligations by $500 million. Which means that AC reduced the debt by $213.8 million and the lease obligations by $286.2 million. At the end of 1999 (AC did not include CP info in 1999) AC had $3,182 million in long term debt, $3,296 million including the current portion due in 1999. At the end of 2000 (first time AC includes CP info) AC had $3,611 million in long term debt, $4,140 million including the current portion due in 2000. So AC’s debt increased by $429 million (not including current portion due) in 2000 when CP’s debt was included. What happened to the other $280 million CP had at the end of 1999? Well in 1999 Air Canada expected the current portion of the long term debt due in 2000 to be $114 million, however Air Canada actually paid back $529 million in debt in 2000 which is $415 million more than expected. Some of that $415 would be that $280 million. So of the total debt due, including the current portion in 2000 ($4,140 million), $709 million was from Canadian or 17% of the total debt. Which means of course that 83% of that debt was of AC’s own making. Now the press also likes to include lease payments as debt (even thought it isn’t). Leased aircraft can be returned to lessors, although if it is before the term is up obviously there would be penalty payments. At the end of 1999 AC had $3,789 million in operating lease obligations. At the end of 2000 (the year CP info was included) AC had $5,761 million in operating lease obligations. So it can be seen that the lease obligations increased by approx. $1,972 million between 1999 and 2000. Much of that would have been due to CP’s leases being included into AC’s financials. The $1,972 makes up 34% which makes sense since CP leased a larger portion of it’s fleet than Air Canada did. > So before bashing AC and Mr. Milton, why dont you people look at and blame > the spineless Liberals for screwing up and forcing AC to buy CAIL. CAil was > days away from closing shop for good. The spineless Liberals knew if this > airline with a logo of "a blind, neck slit goose" was to close shop, then > the Liberals would certainly loose votes in the west and that Mr. Day might > win the up coming election…
Unfortunately you are incorrect again. The AC merger proposal was just one of two options available to Kevin Benson. If AC had never made an offer for CP then Kevin Benson would have accepted the AA/BA offer of $200 million. While the $200 million was nothing but a bandaid solution that have allowed CP to limp along for another year or so the fact is CP was never a few days away from shutting down operations. > So hopefully even a blind as you apear to be, you can see that Jean and his > followers are to blame for some of AC’s cash problems <Osama being the other > problem>.
AC doesn’t have a cash problem. They have plenty of cash and availablity to cash. They are using this moment in time to try and tear up agreements they signed in good faith. Mike
Response:
> BLIND.. your all either blind or have a very short memory…. Lets go back > to AC’s last profitable quarter…Which was just before Mr. Cullenette > <nothing honorable with him> was called by long time Liberal fund raiser > Jerry Shwartz.
Jerry Shwartz got in the game at the very last minute. Air Canada had been at it for a decade trying to weaken CP to get it to go belly up. And CP had many episodes of "As CP just barely avoids bankrupcy" since the mid 1990s. And if Air Canada didn’t feel comfortable matching all the fancy promises that Onex had made, then Air Canada shouldn’t have made those promises that either matched or went further that what Onex had promised, especially the last batch of Onex promises that were made at a time when Onex knew it wouldn’t get AC (yet, AC still matched them). > 2 airlines together. What Mr. Jerry neglected to tell was that all his > "funding" was being supplied by the vultures of aviation American Airlines > with whom Mr. Jerry had already agreed to sell of all the money making > routes, planes, maintenance <all overhaul, line and major components>.
You forgot the Royal Bank which financed Onex. The whole thing was a battle between Royal Bank and CIBC for both the paying off of the CP debts as well as fighting for the credit card customers. If Onex had won, Royal bank would have gotten all of the CIBC GOLD VISA cardholders. CIBC fought back, gave AC a wad of money to ward off Onex and in the end, CIBC now has the only credit card that gicves out AC Aeroplan points. Royal doesn’t have an equivelent card anymore. > A > few weeks after suspending the competition laws Mr. Dave and the rest of his > narrow minded Liberals realized that Mr. Jerry was effectively going to > "rape" Air Canada
But CP had approached AC and begun negotiations well before (at least 6 months before) the government publicly announced the lifting of the competition law. And during the previous episode of "As CP nears bankrupcy", the government had agreed to study way to prevent abuses by AC (overcapacity etc) but never came through. > After Mr. Milton bowed down to the damn bleeding hearted sellout Liberals he > was told of the conditions to the sale… No increase in fares, even if fuel > cost doubled, no seat sales at lower prices then poor West Jet <another > western based cry baby> and No laying off of any CAIL employee for any > reason.
Plenty of folks involved with Canadian airlines lost their jobs. Consider the 900 employees of Inter Canadien who were ingnored by all parties. Consider all the IT jobs in Vancouver that were lost because they were CP employees outsourced to Sabre. Consider contractors such as Hudson General that saw their contracts with CP vanish. Unions can be shortsighted at times because their responsabilities are limited to their members. > Bringing us to present day events.. AC is in heavy financial problems > since it had to pay off $3 billion plus in CAIL debt, plus the fact Mr. > Milton was forced to pay CAIL employees for past years of hardships <caused > by the Goverment> by giving them a raise and other perks.
But AC had wanted CP’s skin for over a decade. Sorry, they AC got what they wanted. AC may have made all sorts of rosy promises, but it is a known fact that airlines are cyclical companies with ups and downs. AC got CP during a big "up" so AC should have factored in the fact that a down was coming eventually. > So before bashing AC and Mr. Milton, why dont you people look at and blame > the spineless Liberals for screwing up and forcing AC to buy CAIL.
The spineless Liberals didn’t force AC to buy CAIL. AC didn’t HAVE to buy CP once the courts had decided that the Onex bid was illegal. But AC and its partners wanted CP out of business. This includes the CIBC who wanted to hurt the Royal Bank, Star Alliance that wanted to hurt OneWorld. Even Cara catering who wanted to hurt SkyChefs. The CIBC gave AC $100 million to get AC to buy CP (technically, it was a akin to a cash advance for CIBC’s exclusive Aeroplan partnership). The CIBC saw the potential to kill off the Royal bank C-PLUS VISA product and move all those customers to the Aerogold VISA card. Cara signed a 10 year exclusive contract with Air Canada with purposefully high > CAil was > days away from closing shop for good. The spineless Liberals knew if this > airline with a logo of "a blind, neck slit goose" was to close shop,
Yep, and the liberals said that Canada wasn’t big enough for 2 airlines and didn’t want to get involved to save CP. Had headless-chicken Collenette gotten involved 2 years before when he was needed to prevent Air Canada from abusing the other airlines, CP might have survived and we wouldn’t be discussing this. Note that AC didn’t stop when it got CP, it also tried to undermine Westjet and especially the newcomers such as Go-Air and Canjet. It was especially easy to do with all the surplus equipment and employees that AC bought. It was AC’s fault and nobody else’s for buying all of CP and making all those promises. AC should have just said to the government that AC only needs half of CP’s employees and planes and stand its ground. It not only didn’t do that, but also made fancy promises of no rate hikes, garanteing all union jobs etc etc. > So hopefully even a blind as you apear to be, you can see that Jean and his > followers are to blame for some of AC’s cash problems <Osama being the other > problem>.
I blame the headless chicken Collenette for very bad leadership and decisions. He allowed the mess, AC caused it. One last thing. When CP had its first serious episode of "As CP nears bankrupcy", it was its employees who stepped in and offered pay cuts in exchange for shares in the company. At that time, the AC unions said something akin to "why should we do that, AC is making tons of money, we shouldn’ take pay cuts". Had AC employees done a similar deal and have gotten a seat on the AC board, perhaps they would have had a say to prevent AC from buying CP. AC are reaping the rewards of not taking pro-active actions. It wasn’t as if CP’s demise was a big surprise.
Response:
> says… >> Air Canada crisis. >Hey Mr Captain, funny that you would use the word "crisis" to describe Air >Canada. > How else do you want me to describe it? > Air Canada, is in deep shit, 10.7 bil. (now it’s more clear)
That’s not quite true though. Some funny accounting going on here: I believe this figure includes the value of leased planes. Which does not make any sense to me. In other words, there is the debt, but there are the planes; better accounting would (1) not include leased planes as assets, nor (2) include their value as debt. And in any event, who cares about debt; this is for the share- and debtholders. As far as not going bankrupt, cash flow is the only thing that matters. And AC still owns quite a few planes that can be used as collateral. Including I believe some A340s, some 767s and a bunch of A320s. And they have quite a bit of cash/credit reserves. Sure they’ll lose their shirt while using these reserves. But they aren’t going to go bankrupt all that soon. Meanwhile, Milton will need a good knife. If he doesn’t have the stomach, he should consider resigning. And yes, I do feel sorry for the people who will lose their jobs. But airlines are not supposed to be in the welfare business, for that we have provinces. And traffic will progressively (albeit slowly) pick up. Still, AC should be trimmed to a level consistent with the volume of business. I don’t see a rationale for either taxpayers or customers to pay welfare to AC employees. At least in the guise of no longer existing jobs. And employment insurance (and welfare programs) are there for these very circumstances. The one real issue is: can Milton cut enough quick enough for the ongoing cash loss not to kill them before they run out of cash? And incidentally, if the unions start reacting a la Sabena, result will only be to precipitate the end.
Response:
says… > Air Canada crisis. >Hey Mr Captain, funny that you would use the word "crisis" to describe Air >Canada.
How else do you want me to describe it? Air Canada, is in deep shit, 10.7 bil. (now it’s more clear) Two articles from National Post, you might want(enjoy)to read: (If it wasn’t you who wrote them) Search for: Air Canada.- Results = #10 and #14 October 2, 2001 Air Canada doesn’t need Ottawa National Post October 2, 2001 Coddling won’t help airline Don Martin Calgary Herald (but found at National Post web site)
Response:
BLIND.. your all either blind or have a very short memory…. Lets go back to AC’s last profitable quarter…Which was just before Mr. Cullenette <nothing honorable with him> was called by long time Liberal fund raiser Jerry Shwartz. Mr. Dave was asked if the Liberals wanted to unload the debt ridden Goose <aka Canadi<n and "BETTER DEAD THEN RED">. Jerry then explained that if the Liberals would suspended the competition laws, he <Mr. Jerry> would buy enough AC stock for controlling interest and then merge the 2 airlines together. What Mr. Jerry neglected to tell was that all his "funding" was being supplied by the vultures of aviation American Airlines with whom Mr. Jerry had already agreed to sell of all the money making routes, planes, maintenance <all overhaul, line and major components>. A few weeks after suspending the competition laws Mr. Dave and the rest of his narrow minded Liberals realized that Mr. Jerry was effectively going to "rape" Air Canada to the bones and sell the pieces to American, Mr. Dave and his loyal boss Jean decided to hold the preverbal shot gun to Air Canada’s sole. Mr. Milton was told that either he buy the debt ridden bankrupt CAIL and assume all its debts or AC was going to be called Air Canada Eagle. After Mr. Milton bowed down to the damn bleeding hearted sellout Liberals he was told of the conditions to the sale… No increase in fares, even if fuel cost doubled, no seat sales at lower prices then poor West Jet <another western based cry baby> and No laying off of any CAIL employee for any reason. Bringing us to present day events.. AC is in heavy financial problems since it had to pay off $3 billion plus in CAIL debt, plus the fact Mr. Milton was forced to pay CAIL employees for past years of hardships <caused by the Goverment> by giving them a raise and other perks. So before bashing AC and Mr. Milton, why dont you people look at and blame the spineless Liberals for screwing up and forcing AC to buy CAIL. CAil was days away from closing shop for good. The spineless Liberals knew if this airline with a logo of "a blind, neck slit goose" was to close shop, then the Liberals would certainly loose votes in the west and that Mr. Day might win the up coming election… End result… Liberals win election, handcuffs AC and rewards poor management at CAIL and continue to embarass Canadian citizens by its bumbling and fumbling of world and domestic events. <i.e. recent trips to NYC 3 weeks after every other world leader had already cancelled plans and summits to travel to NYC and to show respect. Jean and the red bleeding hearts of the Liberal party should be impeached for bad Goverment <dont forget Jane lost billions of tax payer money> and poor respect for Canadians in general.. So hopefully even a blind as you apear to be, you can see that Jean and his followers are to blame for some of AC’s cash problems <Osama being the other problem>.
Response:
> Air Canada crisis.
Hey Mr Captain, funny that you would use the word "crisis" to describe Air Canada. Air Canada has no credibility. It is obviously fat with the CP baggage it asked for. And AC is just taking this opportunity to drop all that fart much faster than it would have originally planned. Sorry, but those layoffs were going to happen no matter what. AC’s purchase of CP only delayed the inevitable. I find it interesting that Collenette still says that the airline industry needs restructuring. They used that same terminology when they decided to allow CP to go under. The government should allow the indigestion of CP to end before retsructuring again. I have no objection to the govt giving compensation for the gornment mandated shutdown of airlines right after sept 11, but it should not favour Air Canada since AC got tons of help and was handed CP on a platter, something which AC had worked so hard for 10 years to get. AC got what it wanted, and AC should deal with it. Had AC concentrated on flying instead of concentrating on killing off CP (and later killing off Royal and Canjet, Go Air etc).
Response:
> The last profitable quarter for Air Canada was the second quarter of 2000. The > four quarters after that produced accumulated losses of $550 million.
And when Air Canada made the counter offer to buy CP, it was talking about all sorts of synergies and improvement in efficiencies that would generate 400 million in additional revenus. Air Canada was saying that it would grow and buy heaps of new planes and that there wouldn’t need to be any layoffs because Air canada would grow so much. Yeah, the government was naive to believe this, but it should not turn around and feel sorry for Air Canada. > The airline will have accumulated by the end of this year well over $1 billion > in net losses since July 2000.
How much of that is due to AC’s dumping of capacity to drive competitors out of business ? > This would pretty well exhaust Air Canada’s lines of credit as well as the > equity it owns in its fleet of 362 aircraft, including 84 it announced it was > taking temporarily out of service.
AC only owns the pesky F28s and DC-9s, neither of which have any significant resale value. (Not sure about the BAe146 though). The 737s are all leased. > Meanwhile, with an enormous $10.7-billion in long-term debt (3.2 b.transfered > from CP) (including aircraft leases) to service, Air Canada needed economic > conditions to remain virtually perfect for its business plan to work.
If you remove aircraft leases, what is the real debt ? When Air Canada returns the 737s to the lessors, how much will the debt be reduced by ? I’d like to see real numbers on how much it costs to cancel a lease, and by how much each aircraft returned to the lessor reduces the debt. It is very easy for Air Canada to make things look very bad by including leasing payments in its debt and go begging the government for funds. > If Air Canada’s embattled president and chief executive Robert Milton is shown > the door as a result of worsening conditions at the country’s dominant airline, > he will join an ignominious list of Canadian CEOs paid handsomely to leave.
But if he is replaced by another of Hollis Harris’s friends, will that make a difference ? How about getting Air New Zealand or Cathay’s managing directors to head AC ? That might give AC a bigger focus on quality of service. > So what’s the alternative? Well, bankruptcy protection does have a bright side. > It would eliminate the billion-dollar debt Air Canada inherited from the > Canadian Airlines merger, which benefited the banks and nobody else.
Sorry, but AC should have allowed the Royal Bank to swallow its pride and eat the losses. AC wouldn’t have had to deal with the pesky F28s and the 737s. AC could have just negotiated to take over the 747-400s, the 767s and A320s. Oops, remember that AC got CP for essentially $1, and with it, tax breaks worth $1 billion dollars.
Response:
Some facts for the debate. The last profitable quarter for Air Canada was the second quarter of 2000. The four quarters after that produced accumulated losses of $550 million. The airline will have accumulated by the end of this year well over $1 billion in net losses since July 2000. This would pretty well exhaust Air Canada’s lines of credit as well as the equity it owns in its fleet of 362 aircraft, including 84 it announced it was taking temporarily out of service. One analyst said Monday that as of last week Air Canada had $700 million in unused lines of credit as well as equity of between $750 million to $1.5 billion in unencumbered aircraft. Air Canada spokesperson Laura Cooke confirmed that prior to Sept. 11 the airline had shown up at Ottawa’s door asking for a break on airport rents, a break on fuel tax and, most significantly, loan guarantees toward the purchase of Bombardier aircraft. Air Canada completed a deal that will save 160 jobs, at least temporarily, by leasing three Boeing 767s, with crews, to Qantas Airways Ltd. The Australian carrier has been struggling to keep up with demand since last month’s collapse of smaller rival Ansett Australia. Meanwhile, with an enormous $10.7-billion in long-term debt (3.2 b.transfered from CP) (including aircraft leases) to service, Air Canada needed economic conditions to remain virtually perfect for its business plan to work. By late last year, it was evident the economy was not going to co-operate. October 2, 2001 Milton could get up to $3M if he’s asked to leave Air Canada executive Paul Brent Financial Post If Air Canada’s embattled president and chief executive Robert Milton is shown the door as a result of worsening conditions at the country’s dominant airline, he will join an ignominious list of Canadian CEOs paid handsomely to leave. Mr. Milton, is entitled to a payout of three times his annual salary, or as much as $3-million, if he is terminated for reasons other than cause. Mr. Milton’s $1-million salary, an increase of 85% over what he received in 1999, has been a controversial subject for the company’s employees and industry observers. Mr. Milton’s salary increase was justified at the time because of the successful takeover of Canadian Airlines. Now Mr. Milton and other Air Canada executives are drawing fire for not reducing their salaries as they eliminate 9,000 jobs in a series of layoffs including 5,000 last week. (Mr. Milton did reduce his salary by 10% in August when the carrier announced a second wave of layoffs). Critics say the response suffers in comparison to Don Carty, chief executive of American Airlines parent AMR, who will stop drawing his US$772,000 salary this year. Senior executives at Continental Airlines, which is firing 12,000 workers, are following AMR’s lead. Tony Hine, a former advisor to Onex during the Toronto company’s unsuccessful campaign to buy Air Canada and Canadian Airlines in 1999, said the airline could turn to its Star Alliance partners Deutsche Lufthansa AG and United Airlines to release it from obligations on planes leased to Air Canada, swapping cash for equity in the company. Mr. Hine, now a partner with Capital Canada Ltd., an independent investment and merchant bank, also said that asking United for a capital infusion — an unlikely proposition given the precarious situation facing U.S. airlines — would be reasonable because "it’s costing Air Canada money not to develop Vancouver as a hub. If they’re doing that in deference to United [which has hubs in Denver and San Francisco], United should pay for that deference." He added the two airlines would be interested in helping their alliance partner "if there was a danger of Air Canada falling into the hands of their perceived enemies." Analysts say Air Canada could consider several other options, including getting out of the online travel business, selling off its repair and overhaul facilities in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Calgary (a move Air Canada had been considering prior to Sept. 11 and which could yield between $300 million and $500 million), and mothballing its planned discount carrier. So what’s the alternative? Well, bankruptcy protection does have a bright side. It would eliminate the billion-dollar debt Air Canada inherited from the Canadian Airlines merger, which benefited the banks and nobody else. A restructuring under new ownership would shock the corporate mentality out of its lethargy. And it would undoubtedly force Air Canada into a less dominant position, allowing competition to prosper.
Response:
Air Canada crisis. Some facts on the federal government aid package for the airline industry: Finances: $160 million in emergency aid for Canada’s airline industry, hurt by the terrorist attacks in the U.S. Who’s eligible: The main Canadian carriers such as Air Canada, Canada 3000, Air Transat, WestJet Airlines and regional carriers. Restructuring: Part of broader plan by Ottawa to restructure the industry, which faces mounting losses, overcapacity and a revenue squeeze. Options: Collenette is looking at ways Ottawa can help Air Canada get back on its feet. Options include direct financial aid and changing airline laws that set ownership limits, both foreign and within Canada. Quote: "The $160 million will help the majority of Canada’s air carriers and specialty air operators begin to address their financial concerns." Transport Minister Collenette told a news conference. Then read this: As crisis looms overhead for Air Canada, others predict winds of takeover. Updated: Tue, Oct 02 7:11 PM EDT MONTREAL (CP) – at: http://home-news.excite.ca/news/cp/011002/19/as-crisis-looms And what’s your opinion? What would you do? Which one do you think is the best plan to follow? Already reduce operations, fleet and capacity. Increase domestic ownership to 25% Increase foreign ownership to 49% Help unions to provide pckges for retiring employees. Reduce hours of work. Share work. Freeze AND reduce mgmt. salaries. Regulate the industry. And finally, if all that is not enough. No bailouts or direct financial aid to private companies. Let AC go bankrupt, renegotiate debt, and restructure itself. This is something needed. Will come out stronger, lean, younger and focused. After helping the unions or employees to leave, the impact of a restructure won’t be so hard on the rest of the employees. It will be more related to leases/contracts, and sale of some assets. There is been talks of some buildings and certain maintenance depts. About the gov. helping with money, the minister said they prefer to help the company directly, instead of people that is leaving the industry. But, by helping retire some employees, that reduces the number of employees, which in turn helps the airline, and keeps the younger ones, less senior, which earns less; helping that way too. And no lay off, what it’s better for everybody. If they help "the sick", the employer (AC), it’s going to be the same old story as with CP. Cash infusion, into a no bottom pocket. It’s like giving pain killer to a man with a broken leg. The industry needs fixing, readjustment, reposition. As per setting a precedent, if employees can not get early retirement, the less seniors will be laid off, and the gov. will have to spend money to pay UI benefits, anyway. Cash only (for AC), is not going to solve the airline’s problems. Cash to the airline, directly, will also set a precedent for other companies, in other industries. I can see the gov. trying to help with money and get something in exchange, (shares); o getting some saying in the future of AC, by taking a minority (BoD) o majority stake; but "gov. been there done that" and is better if they stay out of running the business. Should AC go into low cost subsdidiary = NO, many other major airlines have failed. Should they expand cargo = Yes, but now is bad timing. Should they keep the regionals = No. In a virtual monopoly they get the feeding from the regionals, anyway. In a regulated industry, let somebody else run that side of the industry, fly to unprofitable smaller communities, and keep gov. happy, and if they want to help and subsidide that service, it’s their choice. Air Canada should concentrate in the main-line.
Response:
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I’m 37, and I didn’t experience any of what you described, maybe a wooden > spoon on my butt once or twice…for lying. > > > Thats why I replied to myself. :) And I also should have said > "Modern" > > > parenting. Then again, I didnt think that so many wouldnt understand > that > > > thats what I meant. I thought it was quite obvious. > > Since most people tend to parent much as they themselves were > > parented, I’m not sure why "modern" should be so obvious. I don’t > > things a whole lot differently than my parents did. > I don’t really agree. I know I do things *very* differently than my > parents > did. For one, I don’t spank my kids, and my father was known to get our > backsides with his belt on occasion. I don’t force my kids to eat foods > they don’t like, and I was a picky eater growing up, to the point where I > had to sit at the kitchen table after everyone else was done with dinner, > until I managed to finish my food, or successfully slip it under the table > to the dog. Both of those examples were pretty common parenting > techniques > while I was growing up. My parent’s generation put babies on schedules, > forced potty training and weaning, etc. Nothing was "child-led". But > then > again, I’m 38, and when I was growing up seems to be an entirely different > time warp compared to today. > —
Well, I grew up in the 50s… early 60s. No one ever spanked me tho my father threatened to once! No one ever forced me to eat things I didn’t like or to clean my plate. I doubt I was forced to be potty trained. Don’t know about a fixed schedule. Anyone who’d know is dead or has Alzheimer’s. But when I had children no one ever mentioned it might be a good idea. Few of my friends were spanked. I was in a class with the same children from 1st thru 12th grade so I got to know these people very well (and am still in contact with most of them). Our lives and lifestyles were pretty similar. One family that spanked stands out in memory. And the opinion among others was harsh.
Response:
Adding something to my own post… If you are familiar with Peter Gabriel, he has a song called "Fear is the Mother of Violence", and I believe this is true. In the "old days" , people feared disease, catastrophes, nuclear war, Communists, stuff like that. Scary, real things that might not have been very likely to happen, but that fear bonded people together in a mission to conquer . Now, we fear our neighbors, and sometimes even ourselves. Becky
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> One thing about today’s society is that we are all so separated from each > other. When I was small, we lived in a town where all my other relatives > lived, grandmom was a couple of blocks away, everyone knew everyone else’s > business, and if you were misbehaving on another street, word got back to > your mom before you even made it home LOL. Your friend’s mom was just as > likely to scold you as your own. (I’m talking late 60’s-early 70’s here). > Now, people live in developments, huge McMansions with no yards or trees, > where no one is home during the day, everyone works, old people are cloisted > away in retirement communities, and kids are in day care. You never get to > know anyone. People are afraid of crime, their kids being kidnapped, and > they think you’re a nut if you say "hi" or look at them too long. I think we > are living in a society of fear and anxiety. Maybe an anti-new-age backlash? > Trust noone? > I think I got off topic LOL. My parents were pretty traditional, but they > had lots of friends who were I guess what you would call "new age" , > whatever it was back in the 70’s. Their kids were wild, not bad or criminal, > but just had no manners and people tended to avoid them. I’m not sure how > they turned out, but the few I know of are divorced or still have no > direction in life. > Becky > sorry this was rambly > > > We all know about "new age" parenting and "old school" parenting. > > > Well, on the subject of violent and abusive kids. Does anyone feel > this > > > could have to do with new age parenting to some degree? > > > I myself am guilty of this "new age" parenting techniques. But think > about > when it > > > comes to kid violence as it is now. Kids didnt pull the crap they do > > > nowadays. And that was the "old school" parenting techniques. But > > > nowadays, we have so much more going on with kids and most of us > parent > > > according to the "new age" parenting techniques. > > I think that’s a red herring. First off, I remain somewhat > > unconvinced that kids are more violent today than previously. > > I think it is more likely that society has changed than that > > children have changed. We put them in different environments > > and have different expectations of them. I do suspect there > > are things about our society that expose children to more or > > different kinds of violence than previously, and that may well > > be an issue, but I’m not sure that’s totally it. > > Second, what do you mean by "new age" parenting? Most of > > the things I can think of that might fall into that category are, > > in my opinion, unlikely to lead to serial killers. Now, *inadequate* > > parenting, on the other hand, may well be leading to problems. > > There was inadequate parenting then, and there’s inadequate > > parenting now. Both are likely to have caused problems. Are > > there things about our society today that increase the likelihood > > of a child experiencing inadequate parenting? Perhaps. > > Honestly, I think it’s very *tempting* for us to say it’s > > all this bad parenting that causes these problems because > > we can thereby absolve ourselves from any complicity and > > feel good that this won’t happen to *our* kids. I think > > that’s an easy out. I think the problem is much more > > complicated than "new age" parenting techniques, whatever > > that might actually mean. > > Best wishes, > > Ericka > Thats why I replied to myself. :) And I also should have said "Modern" > parenting. Then again, I didnt think that so many wouldnt understand that > thats what I meant. I thought it was quite obvious. > Mrs. P
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > . > > > > > Thats why I replied to myself. :) And I also should have > said > > > "Modern" > > > > > parenting. Then again, I didnt think that so many wouldnt > > understand > > > that > > > > > thats what I meant. I thought it was quite obvious. > > > > Since most people tend to parent much as they themselves were > > > > parented, I’m not sure why "modern" should be so obvious. I > don’t > > > > things a whole lot differently than my parents did. > > > I don’t really agree. I know I do things *very* differently > than my > > parents > > > did. For one, I don’t spank my kids, and my father was known to > get > > our > > > backsides with his belt on occasion. I don’t force my kids to > eat > > foods > > > they don’t like, and I was a picky eater growing up, to the > point > > where I > > > had to sit at the kitchen table after everyone else was done > with > > dinner, > > > until I managed to finish my food, or successfully slip it under > the > > table > > > to the dog. Both of those examples were pretty common parenting > > techniques > > > while I was growing up. My parent’s generation put babies on > > schedules, > > > forced potty training and weaning, etc. Nothing was > "child-led". > > But then > > > again, I’m 38, and when I was growing up seems to be an entirely > > different > > > time warp compared to today. > > > ~Nan~ > > > Mom to Wally (1/13/84) > > > and Emily (2/14/00) > > I’m curious, how did you turn out. Are you nice? Honorable? > > Dependable? Ethical? Loyal to family, friends, & causes? > > Judy > I like to think so So far nobody has accused me of the > opposite. Other > than Elaine 
But, how I turned out has nothing to do with how I > choose > to parent my children. I can parent them in what I see as a better > way, and > still have them turn out nice, honorable, dependable, ethical, > loyal, etc. > I remember how my folks parenting techniques made me *feel*, and I > never > wanted to subject my children to those same bad feelings. > ~Nan~ > Mom to Wally (1/13/84) > and Emily (2/14/00) > I was just wondering if, while those that comment on how their parents > "punished them & they will never punish their kids that way, they > realize that their parent’s way turned out a pretty terrific & > dependable individual. Do your parents get any credit for that? > Maybe their parents weren’t so far off base. As a new young mother > 30+ yrs ago, I thought I knew "new age" techniques my mom didn’t know. > As time has progressed I realize it is a cycle that is repeated with > each generation. > I was punished also & went through a great deal that life dealt me > with a lot of drama & one day my eldest DD said to me, "How did you > turn out so well, Mom (with all I went through)?" I gave her a hug, > thanked her for the compliment & told her I had a pretty terrific Mom. > Her Grandma & she had that blood running in "her" veins too – lucky > her. Mom was on my back all the time. She was determined I mind my > manners, & knew where I was at all times (left work to look for me if > I didn’t answer the phone), refused to let me follow the crowd, attend > Sr. class sleepovers, etc. She was a big over protector & smothering. > However, I look back on it all now many years later & realize although > I suffered (I thought) she kept me safe & made me a stronger > individual. I was pretty head strong & could have easily gotten into > a lot of trouble. It was tough, but she was my biggest alley and > served with total unconditional love and is still there for me & our > family from the other side. <<Looking up – "Thanks Mom">>
Of course, most people do gain something from the way they were raised. But in alot of cases, those like her, and I, turn out the way we did by NOT being our parents. Im sure she wouldnt be the person she is today if she didnt have the attitude that she "wasnt" going to be like that. Do ya know what Im trying to say? Mrs. P
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > . > > > Thats why I replied to myself. :) And I also should have said > "Modern" > > > parenting. Then again, I didnt think that so many wouldnt > understand > that > > > thats what I meant. I thought it was quite obvious. > > Since most people tend to parent much as they themselves were > > parented, I’m not sure why "modern" should be so obvious. I don’t > > things a whole lot differently than my parents did. > I don’t really agree. I know I do things *very* differently than my > parents > did. For one, I don’t spank my kids, and my father was known to get > our > backsides with his belt on occasion. I don’t force my kids to eat > foods > they don’t like, and I was a picky eater growing up, to the point > where I > had to sit at the kitchen table after everyone else was done with > dinner, > until I managed to finish my food, or successfully slip it under the > table > to the dog. Both of those examples were pretty common parenting > techniques > while I was growing up. My parent’s generation put babies on > schedules, > forced potty training and weaning, etc. Nothing was "child-led". > But then > again, I’m 38, and when I was growing up seems to be an entirely > different > time warp compared to today. > ~Nan~ > Mom to Wally (1/13/84) > and Emily (2/14/00) > I’m curious, how did you turn out. Are you nice? Honorable? > Dependable? Ethical? Loyal to family, friends, & causes? > Judy
I like to think so So far nobody has accused me of the opposite. Other than Elaine But, how I turned out has nothing to do with how I choose to parent my children. I can parent them in what I see as a better way, and still have them turn out nice, honorable, dependable, ethical, loyal, etc. I remember how my folks parenting techniques made me *feel*, and I never wanted to subject my children to those same bad feelings. — ~Nan~ Mom to Wally (1/13/84) and Emily (2/14/00)
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> . > > > > Thats why I replied to myself. :) And I also should have said > > "Modern" > > > > parenting. Then again, I didnt think that so many wouldnt > understand > > that > > > > thats what I meant. I thought it was quite obvious. > > > Since most people tend to parent much as they themselves were > > > parented, I’m not sure why "modern" should be so obvious. I don’t > > > things a whole lot differently than my parents did. > > I don’t really agree. I know I do things *very* differently than my > parents > > did. For one, I don’t spank my kids, and my father was known to get > our > > backsides with his belt on occasion. I don’t force my kids to eat > foods > > they don’t like, and I was a picky eater growing up, to the point > where I > > had to sit at the kitchen table after everyone else was done with > dinner, > > until I managed to finish my food, or successfully slip it under the > table > > to the dog. Both of those examples were pretty common parenting > techniques > > while I was growing up. My parent’s generation put babies on > schedules, > > forced potty training and weaning, etc. Nothing was "child-led". > But then > > again, I’m 38, and when I was growing up seems to be an entirely > different > > time warp compared to today. > > ~Nan~ > > Mom to Wally (1/13/84) > > and Emily (2/14/00) > I’m curious, how did you turn out. Are you nice? Honorable? > Dependable? Ethical? Loyal to family, friends, & causes? > Judy > I like to think so So far nobody has accused me of the opposite. Other > than Elaine But, how I turned out has nothing to do with how I choose > to parent my children. I can parent them in what I see as a better way, and > still have them turn out nice, honorable, dependable, ethical, loyal, etc. > I remember how my folks parenting techniques made me *feel*, and I never > wanted to subject my children to those same bad feelings. > ~Nan~ > Mom to Wally (1/13/84) > and Emily (2/14/00)
I was just wondering if, while those that comment on how their parents "punished them & they will never punish their kids that way, they realize that their parent’s way turned out a pretty terrific & dependable individual. Do your parents get any credit for that? Maybe their parents weren’t so far off base. As a new young mother 30+ yrs ago, I thought I knew "new age" techniques my mom didn’t know. As time has progressed I realize it is a cycle that is repeated with each generation. I was punished also & went through a great deal that life dealt me with a lot of drama & one day my eldest DD said to me, "How did you turn out so well, Mom (with all I went through)?" I gave her a hug, thanked her for the compliment & told her I had a pretty terrific Mom. Her Grandma & she had that blood running in "her" veins too – lucky her. Mom was on my back all the time. She was determined I mind my manners, & knew where I was at all times (left work to look for me if I didn’t answer the phone), refused to let me follow the crowd, attend Sr. class sleepovers, etc. She was a big over protector & smothering. However, I look back on it all now many years later & realize although I suffered (I thought) she kept me safe & made me a stronger individual. I was pretty head strong & could have easily gotten into a lot of trouble. It was tough, but she was my biggest alley and served with total unconditional love and is still there for me & our family from the other side. <<Looking up – "Thanks Mom">> Judy (Mom to 2 girls, 1 boy & Grammy to 3 perfect/bright/beautiful girls)
Response:
I’m 37, and I didn’t experience any of what you described, maybe a wooden spoon on my butt once or twice…for lying.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Thats why I replied to myself. :) And I also should have said > "Modern" > > parenting. Then again, I didnt think that so many wouldnt understand > that > > thats what I meant. I thought it was quite obvious. > Since most people tend to parent much as they themselves were > parented, I’m not sure why "modern" should be so obvious. I don’t > things a whole lot differently than my parents did. > I don’t really agree. I know I do things *very* differently than my parents > did. For one, I don’t spank my kids, and my father was known to get our > backsides with his belt on occasion. I don’t force my kids to eat foods > they don’t like, and I was a picky eater growing up, to the point where I > had to sit at the kitchen table after everyone else was done with dinner, > until I managed to finish my food, or successfully slip it under the table > to the dog. Both of those examples were pretty common parenting techniques > while I was growing up. My parent’s generation put babies on schedules, > forced potty training and weaning, etc. Nothing was "child-led". But then > again, I’m 38, and when I was growing up seems to be an entirely different > time warp compared to today. > — > ~Nan~ > Mom to Wally (1/13/84) > and Emily (2/14/00)
Response:
. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Thats why I replied to myself. :) And I also should have said > "Modern" > > parenting. Then again, I didnt think that so many wouldnt understand > that > > thats what I meant. I thought it was quite obvious. > Since most people tend to parent much as they themselves were > parented, I’m not sure why "modern" should be so obvious. I don’t > things a whole lot differently than my parents did. > I don’t really agree. I know I do things *very* differently than my parents > did. For one, I don’t spank my kids, and my father was known to get our > backsides with his belt on occasion. I don’t force my kids to eat foods > they don’t like, and I was a picky eater growing up, to the point where I > had to sit at the kitchen table after everyone else was done with dinner, > until I managed to finish my food, or successfully slip it under the table > to the dog. Both of those examples were pretty common parenting techniques > while I was growing up. My parent’s generation put babies on schedules, > forced potty training and weaning, etc. Nothing was "child-led". But then > again, I’m 38, and when I was growing up seems to be an entirely different > time warp compared to today. > ~Nan~ > Mom to Wally (1/13/84) > and Emily (2/14/00)
I’m curious, how did you turn out. Are you nice? Honorable? Dependable? Ethical? Loyal to family, friends, & causes? Judy
Response:
One thing about today’s society is that we are all so separated from each other. When I was small, we lived in a town where all my other relatives lived, grandmom was a couple of blocks away, everyone knew everyone else’s business, and if you were misbehaving on another street, word got back to your mom before you even made it home LOL. Your friend’s mom was just as likely to scold you as your own. (I’m talking late 60’s-early 70’s here). Now, people live in developments, huge McMansions with no yards or trees, where no one is home during the day, everyone works, old people are cloisted away in retirement communities, and kids are in day care. You never get to know anyone. People are afraid of crime, their kids being kidnapped, and they think you’re a nut if you say "hi" or look at them too long. I think we are living in a society of fear and anxiety. Maybe an anti-new-age backlash? Trust noone? I think I got off topic LOL. My parents were pretty traditional, but they had lots of friends who were I guess what you would call "new age" , whatever it was back in the 70’s. Their kids were wild, not bad or criminal, but just had no manners and people tended to avoid them. I’m not sure how they turned out, but the few I know of are divorced or still have no direction in life. Becky sorry this was rambly
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > We all know about "new age" parenting and "old school" parenting. > > Well, on the subject of violent and abusive kids. Does anyone feel this > > could have to do with new age parenting to some degree? > > I myself am guilty of this "new age" parenting techniques. But think > about > when it > > comes to kid violence as it is now. Kids didnt pull the crap they do > > nowadays. And that was the "old school" parenting techniques. But > > nowadays, we have so much more going on with kids and most of us parent > > according to the "new age" parenting techniques. > I think that’s a red herring. First off, I remain somewhat > unconvinced that kids are more violent today than previously. > I think it is more likely that society has changed than that > children have changed. We put them in different environments > and have different expectations of them. I do suspect there > are things about our society that expose children to more or > different kinds of violence than previously, and that may well > be an issue, but I’m not sure that’s totally it. > Second, what do you mean by "new age" parenting? Most of > the things I can think of that might fall into that category are, > in my opinion, unlikely to lead to serial killers. Now, *inadequate* > parenting, on the other hand, may well be leading to problems. > There was inadequate parenting then, and there’s inadequate > parenting now. Both are likely to have caused problems. Are > there things about our society today that increase the likelihood > of a child experiencing inadequate parenting? Perhaps. > Honestly, I think it’s very *tempting* for us to say it’s > all this bad parenting that causes these problems because > we can thereby absolve ourselves from any complicity and > feel good that this won’t happen to *our* kids. I think > that’s an easy out. I think the problem is much more > complicated than "new age" parenting techniques, whatever > that might actually mean. > Best wishes, > Ericka > Thats why I replied to myself. :) And I also should have said "Modern" > parenting. Then again, I didnt think that so many wouldnt understand that > thats what I meant. I thought it was quite obvious. > Mrs. P
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Thats why I replied to myself. :) And I also should have said > "Modern" > > parenting. Then again, I didnt think that so many wouldnt understand > that > > thats what I meant. I thought it was quite obvious. > Since most people tend to parent much as they themselves were > parented, I’m not sure why "modern" should be so obvious. I don’t > things a whole lot differently than my parents did. > I don’t really agree. I know I do things *very* differently than my parents > did. For one, I don’t spank my kids, and my father was known to get our > backsides with his belt on occasion. I don’t force my kids to eat foods > they don’t like, and I was a picky eater growing up, to the point where I > had to sit at the kitchen table after everyone else was done with dinner, > until I managed to finish my food, or successfully slip it under the table > to the dog. Both of those examples were pretty common parenting techniques > while I was growing up. My parent’s generation put babies on schedules, > forced potty training and weaning, etc. Nothing was "child-led". But then > again, I’m 38, and when I was growing up seems to be an entirely different > time warp compared to today.
Thats exactly how I was raised, and exactly how I DO NOT raise my own. Which is cleary what I meant by "old school" and "modern" parenting. Thank god someone understood what I meant by that. Mrs. P
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We all know about "new age" parenting and "old school" parenting. > Well, on the subject of violent and abusive kids. Does anyone feel this > could have to do with new age parenting to some degree? > I myself am guilty of this "new age" parenting techniques. But think about when it > comes to kid violence as it is now. Kids didnt pull the crap they do > nowadays. And that was the "old school" parenting techniques. But > nowadays, we have so much more going on with kids and most of us parent > according to the "new age" parenting techniques. > Just a thought. > Did you ever think that kid violence increases in proportion > to the increase in kids?
Very well could be a major factor. Good point. Mrs. P
Response:
tend to parent much as they themselves were > parented, I’m not sure why "modern" should be so obvious. I don’t > things a whole lot differently than my parents did.
Oooooh, I sure parent differently than my parents did. Sue B. You never know if you don’t go.. You’ll never shine if you don’t glow.. Smash Mouth
Response:
people > tend to parent much as they themselves were > parented, I’m not sure why "modern" should be so obvious. I don’t > things a whole lot differently than my parents did. > Oooooh, I sure parent differently than my parents did.
I swore I would never parent as my parents did, and so far I have succeeded. Mrs. P
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Thats why I replied to myself. :) And I also should have said "Modern" > parenting. Then again, I didnt think that so many wouldnt understand that > thats what I meant. I thought it was quite obvious. > Since most people tend to parent much as they themselves were > parented, I’m not sure why "modern" should be so obvious. I don’t > things a whole lot differently than my parents did.
I don’t really agree. I know I do things *very* differently than my parents did. For one, I don’t spank my kids, and my father was known to get our backsides with his belt on occasion. I don’t force my kids to eat foods they don’t like, and I was a picky eater growing up, to the point where I had to sit at the kitchen table after everyone else was done with dinner, until I managed to finish my food, or successfully slip it under the table to the dog. Both of those examples were pretty common parenting techniques while I was growing up. My parent’s generation put babies on schedules, forced potty training and weaning, etc. Nothing was "child-led". But then again, I’m 38, and when I was growing up seems to be an entirely different time warp compared to today. — ~Nan~ Mom to Wally (1/13/84) and Emily (2/14/00)
Response:
VERY well considered post.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We all know about "new age" parenting and "old school" parenting. > Well, on the subject of violent and abusive kids. Does anyone feel this > could have to do with new age parenting to some degree? > I myself am guilty of this "new age" parenting techniques. But think about when it > comes to kid violence as it is now. Kids didnt pull the crap they do > nowadays. And that was the "old school" parenting techniques. But > nowadays, we have so much more going on with kids and most of us parent > according to the "new age" parenting techniques. > I think that’s a red herring. First off, I remain somewhat > unconvinced that kids are more violent today than previously. > I think it is more likely that society has changed than that > children have changed. We put them in different environments > and have different expectations of them. I do suspect there > are things about our society that expose children to more or > different kinds of violence than previously, and that may well > be an issue, but I’m not sure that’s totally it. > Second, what do you mean by "new age" parenting? Most of > the things I can think of that might fall into that category are, > in my opinion, unlikely to lead to serial killers. Now, *inadequate* > parenting, on the other hand, may well be leading to problems. > There was inadequate parenting then, and there’s inadequate > parenting now. Both are likely to have caused problems. Are > there things about our society today that increase the likelihood > of a child experiencing inadequate parenting? Perhaps. > Honestly, I think it’s very *tempting* for us to say it’s > all this bad parenting that causes these problems because > we can thereby absolve ourselves from any complicity and > feel good that this won’t happen to *our* kids. I think > that’s an easy out. I think the problem is much more > complicated than "new age" parenting techniques, whatever > that might actually mean. > Best wishes, > Ericka > — > The return address on this message works, but it goes to an > account I weed out only on occasion. To send me email, send to > my first name dot my last name at home dot com > and watch the spelling
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We all know about "new age" parenting and "old school" parenting. > Well, on the subject of violent and abusive kids. Does anyone feel this > could have to do with new age parenting to some degree? > I myself am guilty of this "new age" parenting techniques. But think about when it > comes to kid violence as it is now. Kids didnt pull the crap they do > nowadays. And that was the "old school" parenting techniques. But > nowadays, we have so much more going on with kids and most of us parent > according to the "new age" parenting techniques. > I think that’s a red herring. First off, I remain somewhat > unconvinced that kids are more violent today than previously. > I think it is more likely that society has changed than that > children have changed. We put them in different environments > and have different expectations of them. I do suspect there > are things about our society that expose children to more or > different kinds of violence than previously, and that may well > be an issue, but I’m not sure that’s totally it. > Second, what do you mean by "new age" parenting? Most of > the things I can think of that might fall into that category are, > in my opinion, unlikely to lead to serial killers. Now, *inadequate* > parenting, on the other hand, may well be leading to problems. > There was inadequate parenting then, and there’s inadequate > parenting now. Both are likely to have caused problems. Are > there things about our society today that increase the likelihood > of a child experiencing inadequate parenting? Perhaps. > Honestly, I think it’s very *tempting* for us to say it’s > all this bad parenting that causes these problems because > we can thereby absolve ourselves from any complicity and > feel good that this won’t happen to *our* kids. I think > that’s an easy out. I think the problem is much more > complicated than "new age" parenting techniques, whatever > that might actually mean. > Best wishes, > Ericka
Thats why I replied to myself. :) And I also should have said "Modern" parenting. Then again, I didnt think that so many wouldnt understand that thats what I meant. I thought it was quite obvious. Mrs. P
Response:
> Thats why I replied to myself. :) And I also should have said "Modern" > parenting. Then again, I didnt think that so many wouldnt understand that > thats what I meant. I thought it was quite obvious.
Since most people tend to parent much as they themselves were parented, I’m not sure why "modern" should be so obvious. I don’t things a whole lot differently than my parents did.
Response:
> Thats why I replied to myself. :) And I also should have said "Modern" > parenting. Then again, I didnt think that so many wouldnt understand that > thats what I meant. I thought it was quite obvious.
You might enjoy reading "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap" by Coontz. Things aren’t always as they seem!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > We all know about "new age" parenting and "old school" parenting. > > Well, on the subject of violent and abusive kids. Does anyone feel this > > could have to do with new age parenting to some degree? > > I myself am guilty of this "new age" parenting techniques. But think > about > when > it > > comes to kid violence as it is now. Kids didnt pull the crap they do > > nowadays. And that was the "old school" parenting techniques. But > > nowadays, we have so much more going on with kids and most of us parent > > according to the "new age" parenting techniques. > > Just a thought. > > Mrs. P > > trying to get a pair of shorts on Barbie that just dont fit her. > Now that I think of it myself, maybe its not the "new age" parenting only > makes it easier and easier for both parents to work, rather than making it > easier and easier for at least one parent to be at home taking care of > thier > children as they "used to do in the old days." > Mrs. P > I think parents have just had to adapt their parenting techniques to fit > today’s society. I can’t say for certain that there really is more violence > out there, but we certainly are much more aware of it now, thanks to the > media. If my mother had seen what we see, and had a computer for internet > access, goodness sakes, my brother and I would have had to live in a cave! > She was over-protective as it was! But, she grew up in the country, and > moved to the "city" when she married my dad. There’s a big difference > there, too. > As for your comment about working, I tend to agree. Although I don’t > think that working has been made "easier", but has been made more necessary. > With rising costs of living (prices at the gas pump, and utility costs are > just a few I can think of) it’s becoming more necessary for both parents to > work just to keep the family’s heads above water
Thats what I meant to say. Mrs. P
Response:
"Modern" parenting changes are not all bad. There is a lot more communication now. I can remember stories of taciturn grandfathers. "None of your business" or "You should know better" were common phrases. Even with very young kids who would have no way of knowing better.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We all know about "new age" parenting and "old school" parenting. > Well, on the subject of violent and abusive kids. Does anyone feel this > could have to do with new age parenting to some degree? > I myself am guilty of this "new age" parenting techniques. But think about it > comes to kid violence as it is now. Kids didnt pull the crap they do > nowadays. And that was the "old school" parenting techniques. But > nowadays, we have so much more going on with kids and most of us parent > according to the "new age" parenting techniques. > Just a thought. > Mrs. P > trying to get a pair of shorts on Barbie that just dont fit her.
Response:
> We all know about "new age" parenting and "old school" parenting. > Well, on the subject of violent and abusive kids. Does anyone feel this > could have to do with new age parenting to some degree? > I myself am guilty of this "new age" parenting techniques. But think about > comes to kid violence as it is now. Kids didnt pull the crap they do > nowadays. And that was the "old school" parenting techniques. But > nowadays, we have so much more going on with kids and most of us parent > according to the "new age" parenting techniques.
I think that’s a red herring. First off, I remain somewhat unconvinced that kids are more violent today than previously. I think it is more likely that society has changed than that children have changed. We put them in different environments and have different expectations of them. I do suspect there are things about our society that expose children to more or different kinds of violence than previously, and that may well be an issue, but I’m not sure that’s totally it. Second, what do you mean by "new age" parenting? Most of the things I can think of that might fall into that category are, in my opinion, unlikely to lead to serial killers. Now, *inadequate* parenting, on the other hand, may well be leading to problems. There was inadequate parenting then, and there’s inadequate parenting now. Both are likely to have caused problems. Are there things about our society today that increase the likelihood of a child experiencing inadequate parenting? Perhaps. Honestly, I think it’s very *tempting* for us to say it’s all this bad parenting that causes these problems because we can thereby absolve ourselves from any complicity and feel good that this won’t happen to *our* kids. I think that’s an easy out. I think the problem is much more complicated than "new age" parenting techniques, whatever that might actually mean. Best wishes, Ericka — The return address on this message works, but it goes to an account I weed out only on occasion. To send me email, send to my first name dot my last name at home dot com and watch the spelling
Response:
> We all know about "new age" parenting and "old school" parenting. > Well, on the subject of violent and abusive kids. Does anyone feel this > could have to do with new age parenting to some degree? > I myself am guilty of this "new age" parenting techniques. But think about > comes to kid violence as it is now. Kids didnt pull the crap they do > nowadays. And that was the "old school" parenting techniques. But > nowadays, we have so much more going on with kids and most of us parent > according to the "new age" parenting techniques.
For starters, I have no idea as to what "new age" parenting is.
Response:
. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We all know about "new age" parenting and "old school" parenting. > Well, on the subject of violent and abusive kids. Does anyone feel this > could have to do with new age parenting to some degree? > I myself am guilty of this "new age" parenting techniques. But think about bad when it > comes to kid violence as it is now. Kids didnt pull the crap they do > nowadays. And that was the "old school" parenting techniques. But > nowadays, we have so much more going on with kids and most of us parent > according to the "new age" parenting techniques. > For starters, I have no idea as to what "new age" parenting is.
I’m, also, sitting here trying to think of just what area of parenting one could call "new age".
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We all know about "new age" parenting and "old school" parenting. > Well, on the subject of violent and abusive kids. Does anyone feel this > could have to do with new age parenting to some degree? > I myself am guilty of this "new age" parenting techniques. But think > about when > it > comes to kid violence as it is now. Kids didnt pull the crap they do > nowadays. And that was the "old school" parenting techniques. But > nowadays, we have so much more going on with kids and most of us parent > according to the "new age" parenting techniques. > Just a thought. > Mrs. P > trying to get a pair of shorts on Barbie that just dont fit her. > Now that I think of it myself, maybe its not the "new age" parenting > makes it easier and easier for both parents to work, rather than making it > easier and easier for at least one parent to be at home taking care of thier > children as they "used to do in the old days." > Mrs. P
I think parents have just had to adapt their parenting techniques to fit today’s society. I can’t say for certain that there really is more violence out there, but we certainly are much more aware of it now, thanks to the media. If my mother had seen what we see, and had a computer for internet access, goodness sakes, my brother and I would have had to live in a cave! She was over-protective as it was! But, she grew up in the country, and moved to the "city" when she married my dad. There’s a big difference there, too. As for your comment about working, I tend to agree. Although I don’t think that working has been made "easier", but has been made more necessary. With rising costs of living (prices at the gas pump, and utility costs are just a few I can think of) it’s becoming more necessary for both parents to work just to keep the family’s heads above water — ~Nan~ Mom to Wally (1/13/84) and Emily (2/14/00)
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We all know about "new age" parenting and "old school" parenting. > Well, on the subject of violent and abusive kids. Does anyone feel this > could have to do with new age parenting to some degree? > I myself am guilty of this "new age" parenting techniques. But think about it > comes to kid violence as it is now. Kids didnt pull the crap they do > nowadays. And that was the "old school" parenting techniques. But > nowadays, we have so much more going on with kids and most of us parent > according to the "new age" parenting techniques. > Just a thought. > Mrs. P > trying to get a pair of shorts on Barbie that just dont fit her.
Now that I think of it myself, maybe its not the "new age" parenting makes it easier and easier for both parents to work, rather than making it easier and easier for at least one parent to be at home taking care of thier children as they "used to do in the old days." Mrs. P
Response:
We all know about "new age" parenting and "old school" parenting. Well, on the subject of violent and abusive kids. Does anyone feel this could have to do with new age parenting to some degree? I myself am guilty of this "new age" parenting techniques. But think about comes to kid violence as it is now. Kids didnt pull the crap they do nowadays. And that was the "old school" parenting techniques. But nowadays, we have so much more going on with kids and most of us parent according to the "new age" parenting techniques. Just a thought. Mrs. P trying to get a pair of shorts on Barbie that just dont fit her.
Response:
Question:
Republicans should treat them like they treat everyone else. The Democrats condemn blacks to inferior schools & perpetuate their misery. There can be no doubt that the Democrats conspire to keep blacks in perpetual servitude. Democrats dominate public education in America. They KNOW exactly what they are doing. It is the Democrat party in America who are the real racists. Keep ‘em dumb & voting Democratic. Cajun
Question:
>> I got my latest love, my 83 LeSabre Limited, for $900 and it’s in > excellent shape. The one problem with the full-size RWD GMs is the > tranny. The TH200 tranny is a little weak for those cars. In the > two > cars I’ve owned they’ve gone through five transmissions. 150K > miles is > about the upper limit of trannys. Also, go for the 5.0 liter > (307ci) V8 > engines. That’s definitely the best engine that was put in those > cars. >How much does it cost to replace the tranny on these cars? Seems like a >pretty big drawback
I’ve never had mine replaced. The first Buick had the tranny rebuilt about 30k before I bought it and I put 80k on it. It would have lasted longer but when I let Q Lube change the tranny fluid for me they messed up the torque lockup and I didn’t notice it until my car started stalling when I’d get off the freeway and stop at the end of the ramp. I had the car towed to my grandparents’ farm and grandpa got bored one day and went to the junkyard and got a $150 tranny from an old Pontiac and put it in. That transmission still runs just fine. The tranny in the new Buick was replaced just before I bought it and runs beautifully. The U-joints, however, need to be replaced. > My suggestion would be the 83-85 Delta 88, Parisienne, or LeSabre. >Yes I do like those, but they sure are hard to find … at least in >these parts (Raleigh NC)
Start canvasing the trailer parks and retirement communities for old people with large cars. They’ve generally had gentle lives and good care and are reasonably priced. — -Toby Hanson http://members.aa.net/~jthanson Copyright infringement is the sincerest form of flattery. Remove ".TREET" (Armour’s immitation Spam) to make address edible.
Response:
> I got my latest love, my 83 LeSabre Limited, for $900 and it’s in > excellent shape. The one problem with the full-size RWD GMs is the > tranny. The TH200 tranny is a little weak for those cars. In the > two > cars I’ve owned they’ve gone through five transmissions. 150K > miles is > about the upper limit of trannys. Also, go for the 5.0 liter > (307ci) V8 > engines. That’s definitely the best engine that was put in those > cars.
How much does it cost to replace the tranny on these cars? Seems like a pretty big drawback > My suggestion would be the 83-85 Delta 88, Parisienne, or LeSabre.
Yes I do like those, but they sure are hard to find … at least in these parts (Raleigh NC) * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
I had a 84 Delta 88, strong running car close to 200,000 when I got rid of it. The trans on the other had was very weak and could barily shift between first and second gear. Also on the 307 mine had an oil leak coming from both valve covers since it is a 60 degree V8. the triple coil pack is what GM used well on a V6 anyways to replace the disbutor and is commly known as disbutorous ignion. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
What’s a "butorous"?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I had a 84 Delta 88, strong running car close to 200,000 when I got rid > of it. The trans on the other had was very weak and could barily shift > between first and second gear. Also on the 307 mine had an oil leak > coming from both valve covers since it is a 60 degree V8. the triple > coil pack is what GM used well on a V6 anyways to replace the disbutor > and is commly known as disbutorous ignion. > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
I was trying to say(distributor less)ignion. I am not a very good speller. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
> > 80-84 RWD full size (delta 88, 98, caprice) > Trans problems, strong engines in them
they seem like such strong cars all around, I am surprised they have trans problems. > 86-89 FWD full size? (delta 88, ciera, pont 6000) > Ok cars you might have trans problems and the triple coil > pack > is probly due to go.
whats a triple coil pack? > 87-90 lumina, cutlass supreme > Sounds like you best bet out of the bunch. Make sure you > don’t > get a cutlass with the Quad 4 in it.
3.1L v6 ok? thanks! * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
>Hello, >looking for an older GM and wondering what your suggestions might be. >For example, what vehicles have you found to be reliable? And equally >important, what cars have you found to be easily repaired when >something does go wrong? >Some that I am considering: > 80-84 RWD full size (delta 88, 98, caprice)
Think about the Buicks of those body styles also (LeSabre, Park Ave). I’ve owned two LeSabres of those vintages (82, 83) and they’ve both been exceptional cars. Strong, solid, reliable, almost unstoppable. >these are all cars seem to be available for ~$2000 with approx 120k >miles and well maintained. Any notorious for trans problems? Engine >troubles?
I got my latest love, my 83 LeSabre Limited, for $900 and it’s in excellent shape. The one problem with the full-size RWD GMs is the tranny. The TH200 tranny is a little weak for those cars. In the two cars I’ve owned they’ve gone through five transmissions. 150K miles is about the upper limit of trannys. Also, go for the 5.0 liter (307ci) V8 engines. That’s definitely the best engine that was put in those cars. Both my big Buicks went comfortably over 200k with the engines still strong. >how about chrysler products? Fifth Ave?
Aaaaaah! Run! >I have to say that an ‘83 or ‘84 delta 88 would be my preference, but >they seem hard to come by.
My suggestion would be the 83-85 Delta 88, Parisienne, or LeSabre. They all have the right mix of value, comfort, quality, and longevity. Plus, if you’re a musician like I am, you can haul your instruments and PA gear in the trunk with plenty of room left for bandmembers in the cabin. — -Toby Hanson http://members.aa.net/~jthanson Copyright infringement is the sincerest form of flattery. Remove ".TREET" (Armour’s immitation Spam) to make address edible.
Response:
> Hello, > looking for an older GM and wondering what your suggestions might be. > For example, what vehicles have you found to be reliable? And equally > important, what cars have you found to be easily repaired when > something does go wrong? > Some that I am considering: > 80-84 RWD full size (delta 88, 98, caprice)
I put about 70,000 miles on a pair of Delta 88’s, both starting after 100,000 miles. They’re very reliable, and parts are dirt cheap if you have a junkyard nearby. The biggest thing you need to look for is a leaking intake gasket. This was a common problem on the 307, and many of them were fixed under warranty, but not all. If your’re mechanically inclined, you can fix this cheaply in a day, if not pass on the car. I drove a well maintained 83′ and a sorely abused 85′, and the 85 always started and idled better, so that may be something to consider. You’ll want to do minor repairs if you decide to buy one. I replaced the vacuum lines( very cheap and very easy to do, just time consuming). I was also irritated by the foam surrounds on the back of the gauge lights. They tend to slide down the back of the gauges by 100,000 miles and partially block the turn signal and high beam indicators. You’ll probably want to slide the speedo out and reglue them. This is really a minor irritation on an otherwise solid car though. If you have anymore questions, email me! 80’s Kid
Response:
Hello, looking for an older GM and wondering what your suggestions might be. For example, what vehicles have you found to be reliable? And equally important, what cars have you found to be easily repaired when something does go wrong? Some that I am considering: 80-84 RWD full size (delta 88, 98, caprice) 86-89 FWD full size? (delta 88, ciera, pont 6000) 87-90 lumina, cutlass supreme these are all cars seem to be available for ~$2000 with approx 120k miles and well maintained. Any notorious for trans problems? Engine troubles? how about chrysler products? Fifth Ave? I have to say that an ‘83 or ‘84 delta 88 would be my preference, but they seem hard to come by. thanks! * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
> Hello, > looking for an older GM and wondering what your suggestions might > be. > For example, what vehicles have you found to be reliable? And > equally > important, what cars have you found to be easily repaired when > something does go wrong? > Some that I am considering: > 80-84 RWD full size (delta 88, 98, caprice)
Trans problems, strong engines in them > 86-89 FWD full size? (delta 88, ciera, pont 6000)
Ok cars you might have trans problems and the triple coil pack is probly due to go. > 87-90 lumina, cutlass supreme
Sounds like you best bet out of the bunch. Make sure you don’t get a cutlass with the Quad 4 in it. > these are all cars seem to be available for ~$2000 with approx 120k > miles and well maintained. Any notorious for trans problems? Engine > troubles? > how about chrysler products? Fifth Ave?
STAY AWAY from any Chrysler products unless you won’t problems do the road. > I have to say that an ‘83 or ‘84 delta 88 would be my preference, > but > they seem hard to come by. > thanks! > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion > Network * > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – > Free!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
Previous page