"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Wilson said:
"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Wilson wrote: > > <snip occupational counseling> > > "Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Since graduation, the only optional spending I have done is the >> adoption of three orphans: >> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/>. > > <snip personal finance and bible references> > > In the photographs lowracer bike number 6 appears to be light lavender > in color. Here's what I'm wondering: What kind masculinity issues do > you > face when riding that bike? > I call it light purple and have no issues. 🙂
(Looks at picture on monitor, turns head slightly and looks at actual bike) - the color is more towards purple than lavender in real life.
However, the common orange and less common red do seem to be more appropriate colors for a Sunset than light purple, green, blue or silver.
I completely agree with your last sentence. I wouldn't want you to see you doing group rides with roadies on that bike. Recumbents are still weird enough as it is. You just had to have bought that bike from a woman. It's the only plausible explanation. If you won't paint it then you ought to sell it to someone who will.
Actually, both former owners were male, while one of the former owners of the red Sunset was female.
I'll bet all three belonged to the same bike club. We've got one of those clubs here locally. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course.
"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Wilson said:
"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Wilson wrote: >> >> <snip occupational counseling> >> >> "Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >>> Since graduation, the only optional spending I have done is the >>> adoption of three orphans: >>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/>. >> >> <snip personal finance and bible references> >> >> In the photographs lowracer bike number 6 appears to be light >> lavender in color. Here's what I'm wondering: What kind >> masculinity issues do you >> face when riding that bike? >> > I call it light purple and have no issues. 🙂 > > (Looks at picture on monitor, turns head slightly and looks at > actual bike) - the color is more towards purple than lavender in > real life. > > However, the common orange and less common red do seem to be more > appropriate colors for a Sunset than light purple, green, blue or > silver.
I completely agree with your last sentence. I wouldn't want you to see you doing group rides with roadies on that bike. Recumbents are still weird enough as it is. You just had to have bought that bike from a woman. It's the only plausible explanation. If you won't paint it then you ought to sell it to someone who will.
Actually, both former owners were male, while one of the former owners of the red Sunset was female.
I'll bet all three belonged to the same bike club. We've got one of those clubs here locally. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course.
Both Sunsets and Dragonflyer found me - I was not shopping for bicycles when they were offer to me for sale.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
By the way, how much would you take for it?
Not for sale, but about $2K if it was.
Would that include a red Sunset paint job?
Theoretically, the bike could be stripped and powder-coated red, but I already have a red Sunset, so that would be redundant.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Wilson said:
"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Wilson wrote: > > "Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Wilson wrote: >>> >>> "Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>> news:[email hidden]... >>>> Wilson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>>> news:[email hidden]... >>>>>> Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Victor Kan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:[email hidden]... >>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 8:16 pm, Tom Sherman >>>>>>>> <[email hidden]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> The starting wage for a civil engineer with a graduate degree >>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>> larger US city is about $40/year, or less than a third of what >>>>>>>>> a doctor >>>>>>>>> or lawyer would make. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kinda bizarre though--according to this page, Civil Engineers >>>>>>>> with a >>>>>>>> Bachelors have a higher average starting salary than those with >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> Masters degree. Wow, Petroleum engineers too! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know, but if I had to venture a guess I'd say civil >>>>>>> engineers who have hung around in college to get masters degrees >>>>>>> and other advanced degrees probably don't have the reputation of >>>>>>> being the "can do" types entering in the field. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, there is a shortage of civil engineers with graduate >>>>>> degrees. However, the shortage results in more work for the same >>>>>> pay, not higher wages. The level playing field imagined by the >>>>>> libertarian free market advocates only exists in theory; in the >>>>>> real world the system is always gamed to someones advantage. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I'm not getting it. If the shortage of civil engineers with >>>>> graduate degrees isn't driving up their wages, but only resulting >>>>> in a greater work load for them, then I have to wonder if their >>>>> numerical shortage isn't somewhat imagined in some quarters. It >>>>> appears the present work load is getting done with existing >>>>> personnel. What am I missing? >>>> >>>> Engineering is an exempt profession, so an engineer working 70 hours >>>> per week can be paid the same as one working 40 hours per week. When >>>> the cost of benefits are included, there is a great incentive to NOT >>>> hire more engineers. >>>> >>>> Non-exempt employees get paid "time and a half" [1] by the FLSA, so >>>> at some point it becomes financially advantageous for the employer >>>> to hire more workers. >>>> >>>> [1] Unless covered by a collective bargaining agreement that has a >>>> different provision. >>> >>> I take your words to mean that you believe there is a shortage of >>> engineers in your firm, but your employer doesn't necessarily buy >>> into your hypothesis. >> >> No, the shortage is constantly being commented on by personnel >> departments of larger firms and by trade organizations. People leave >> the profession or decide not to go into it in the first place due to >> lower compensation and/or work expectations. >> > > It always seems I'm missing something here. If there is a truly a > shortage and employers who need to hire additional engineers have to > compete for them from a smaller pool of those available, then how come > that doesn't tend to drive wages up? Claiming existing engineers > have to work harder and longer won't answer this question because it > only tends to increase the shortage as you point out above.
What you are missing is that the economic theory of supply and demand does not apply because of external factors "gaming" the system.
--
Sorry, but external factors "gaming" the system (what system?) and overriding the economic law of supply and demand is not understood.
When real life disagrees with theory, do you change theory or believe real life observations?
--
Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Wilson wrote:
[...]
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>> I know. I know. Businesspersons contribute more to the overall >>>> benefit of society by providing goods and services that people want >>>> and need at prices they can afford. Like say food, shelter, medical >>>> services, and recumbent bikes (on topic portion of this post). >>> >>> These thing could be provided without vast corporations that do >>> nothing by buy and sell other corporation, investment banks, etc. 90% >>> of the structure does not benefit society as a whole, but just a >>> small fragment. This is not the free market at work, but the >>> opposite. >> >> I wasn't aware that 90% of the USA market structure was vast >> corporations buying and selling pieces of corporate paper to each >> other. Where do they get the money that they use in these >> transactions? > > The money is skimmed off of the backs of labor that actually creates > the added value in goods and services.
Sorry, but none of this sounds plausible to me.
So the people making hundreds of millions or billions in financial markets and services are really personally providing a similar benefit to society? Hardly sounds plausible to me.
Wilson is batting 100 and Mr. Sherman is batting 0 as usual. The old Soviet Union was anti-capitalist and it failed utterly. Apparently "people making hundreds of millions or billions in financial markets and services" are doing something beneficial for society. But Mr. Sherman would prefer that government bureaucrats make these kind of decisions. He should have lived in the old Soviet Union where he could have enjoyed the "benefits" of that kind of society.
In that kind of society one of the "benefits" not to be enjoyed by Mr. Sherman would be a garage full of recumbent bicycles and tricycles. In that kind of society it's entirely possible that he would have been executed as an "enemy of the people" for such excesses. Hell, in that kind of society he probably wouldn't be able to enjoy the benefit having a garage at all. But hey, in that kind society he would have found a worker's paradise, so all's well that ends well for Mr. Sherman.
Report to the dog food bag production line at 6:00 am Comrade Sherman.
"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Wilson said:
"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Wilson wrote: >> >> "Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >>> Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>> "Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>> news:[email hidden]... >>>>> Wilson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in >>>>>> message news:[email hidden]... >>>>>>> Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Victor Kan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:[email hidden]... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 8:16 pm, Tom Sherman >>>>>>>>> <[email hidden]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The starting wage for a civil engineer with a graduate >>>>>>>>>> degree is a >>>>>>>>>> larger US city is about $40/year, or less than a third of >>>>>>>>>> what a doctor >>>>>>>>>> or lawyer would make. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kinda bizarre though--according to this page, Civil >>>>>>>>> Engineers with a >>>>>>>>> Bachelors have a higher average starting salary than those >>>>>>>>> with a >>>>>>>>> Masters degree. Wow, Petroleum engineers too! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't know, but if I had to venture a guess I'd say civil >>>>>>>> engineers who have hung around in college to get masters >>>>>>>> degrees and other advanced degrees probably don't have the >>>>>>>> reputation of being the "can do" types entering in the field. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, there is a shortage of civil engineers with graduate >>>>>>> degrees. However, the shortage results in more work for the >>>>>>> same pay, not higher wages. The level playing field imagined >>>>>>> by the libertarian free market advocates only exists in >>>>>>> theory; in the real world the system is always gamed to >>>>>>> someones advantage. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not getting it. If the shortage of civil engineers with >>>>>> graduate degrees isn't driving up their wages, but only >>>>>> resulting in a greater work load for them, then I have to >>>>>> wonder if their numerical shortage isn't somewhat imagined in >>>>>> some quarters. It appears the present work load is getting >>>>>> done with existing personnel. What am I missing? >>>>> >>>>> Engineering is an exempt profession, so an engineer working 70 >>>>> hours per week can be paid the same as one working 40 hours per >>>>> week. When the cost of benefits are included, there is a great >>>>> incentive to NOT hire more engineers. >>>>> >>>>> Non-exempt employees get paid "time and a half" [1] by the FLSA, >>>>> so at some point it becomes financially advantageous for the >>>>> employer to hire more workers. >>>>> >>>>> [1] Unless covered by a collective bargaining agreement that has >>>>> a different provision. >>>> >>>> I take your words to mean that you believe there is a shortage of >>>> engineers in your firm, but your employer doesn't necessarily buy >>>> into your hypothesis. >>> >>> No, the shortage is constantly being commented on by personnel >>> departments of larger firms and by trade organizations. People >>> leave the profession or decide not to go into it in the first >>> place due to lower compensation and/or work expectations. >>> >> >> It always seems I'm missing something here. If there is a truly a >> shortage and employers who need to hire additional engineers have >> to compete for them from a smaller pool of those available, then >> how come that doesn't tend to drive wages up? Claiming existing >> engineers have to work harder and longer won't answer this question >> because it only tends to increase the shortage as you point out above. > > What you are missing is that the economic theory of supply and > demand does not apply because of external factors "gaming" the system. > > --
Sorry, but external factors "gaming" the system (what system?) and overriding the economic law of supply and demand is not understood.
When real life disagrees with theory, do you change theory or believe real life observations?
--
Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?
That question holds a false premise, and therefore will not be answered.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Wilson wrote:
[...]
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>> I know. I know. Businesspersons contribute more to the overall >>>> benefit of society by providing goods and services that people want >>>> and need at prices they can afford. Like say food, shelter, medical >>>> services, and recumbent bikes (on topic portion of this post). >>> These thing could be provided without vast corporations that do >>> nothing by buy and sell other corporation, investment banks, etc. 90% >>> of the structure does not benefit society as a whole, but just a small >>> fragment. This is not the free market at work, but the opposite. >> I wasn't aware that 90% of the USA market structure was vast >> corporations buying and selling pieces of corporate paper to each >> other. Where do they get the money that they use in these >> transactions? > The money is skimmed off of the backs of labor that actually creates the > added value in goods and services. Sorry, but none of this sounds plausible to me.
So the people making hundreds of millions or billions in financial markets and services are really personally providing a similar benefit to society? Hardly sounds plausible to me.
Wilson is batting 100 and Mr. Sherman is batting 0 as usual. The old Soviet Union was anti-capitalist and it failed utterly. Apparently "people making hundreds of millions or billions in financial markets and services" are doing something beneficial for society. But Mr. Sherman would prefer that government bureaucrats make these kind of decisions. He should have lived in the old Soviet Union where he could have enjoyed the "benefits" of that kind of society.
In the meantime[...]
In the meantime, the "capitalist" western society is leading human civilization into a collapse that the species (and many other innocent species) may not survive. A non-sustainable system is NOT successful.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Wilson wrote:
[...]
Quoted message said:
>>>>> I know. I know. Businesspersons contribute more to the overall >>>>> benefit of society by providing goods and services that people >>>>> want and need at prices they can afford. Like say food, >>>>> shelter, medical services, and recumbent bikes (on topic portion >>>>> of this post). >>>> >>>> These thing could be provided without vast corporations that do >>>> nothing by buy and sell other corporation, investment banks, etc. >>>> 90% of the structure does not benefit society as a whole, but >>>> just a small fragment. This is not the free market at work, but >>>> the opposite. >>> >>> I wasn't aware that 90% of the USA market structure was vast >>> corporations buying and selling pieces of corporate paper to each >>> other. Where do they get the money that they use in these >>> transactions? >> >> The money is skimmed off of the backs of labor that actually >> creates the added value in goods and services. > > Sorry, but none of this sounds plausible to me.
So the people making hundreds of millions or billions in financial markets and services are really personally providing a similar benefit to society? Hardly sounds plausible to me.
Wilson is batting 100 and Mr. Sherman is batting 0 as usual. The old Soviet Union was anti-capitalist and it failed utterly. Apparently "people making hundreds of millions or billions in financial markets and services" are doing something beneficial for society. But Mr. Sherman would prefer that government bureaucrats make these kind of decisions. He should have lived in the old Soviet Union where he could have enjoyed the "benefits" of that kind of society.
In that kind of society one of the "benefits" not to be enjoyed by Mr. Sherman would be a garage full of recumbent bicycles and tricycles. In that kind of society it's entirely possible that he would have been executed as an "enemy of the people" for such excesses. Hell, in that kind of society he probably wouldn't be able to enjoy the benefit having a garage at all. But hey, in that kind society he would have found a worker's paradise, so all's well that ends well for Mr. Sherman.
Report to the dog food bag production line at 6:00 am Comrade Sherman.
Will you all be so smug when the inevitable collapse occurs? Cancer cells are the most successful one in a body for a time, until death occurs from their excessive growth. The current western system depends on constant growth, which is not possible in a world with finite resources.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
