Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155734 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 320 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-01 13:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 12:05 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-02 04:41 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 11:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 17:14 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 15:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 11:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 18:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:24 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:12 -0700
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 16:56 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 14:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-03 23:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-04 07:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 16:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 11:41 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:37 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:11 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 16:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 16:23 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-03 17:30 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-04 14:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-06 19:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 21:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-01 22:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 15:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-02 00:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 06:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:34 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-02 14:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:28 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-03 10:00 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-17 08:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 11:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 12:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 18:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 18:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 15:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 19:23 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:58 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 15:53 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 11:26 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:24 +0100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:06 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-08 10:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:42 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 07:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-09 11:55 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:40 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:13 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-09 13:36 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-09 15:30 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-08 10:43 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 22:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 12:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:29 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 10:03 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 21:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:22 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 10:14 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-13 18:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 07:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 13:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:51 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:01 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 13:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-08 20:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-01-08 20:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:31 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-09 12:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:31 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 17:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-09 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 11:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 17:08 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:43 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 08:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 09:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 12:28 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 10:58 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:19 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 18:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 21:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 22:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:58 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 14:01 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-11 17:28 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:29 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:30 +0100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 10:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 19:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 06:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:08 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-04 14:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 17:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 01:27 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 11:18 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-13 19:05 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 20:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-14 14:09 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-15 14:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 09:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 17:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 09:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-15 17:44 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 12:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 12:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-19 15:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 19:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:44 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-15 15:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-16 08:58 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 23:51 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 16:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 17:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 08:03 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 08:29 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 03:38 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 02:11 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 14:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:22 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 05:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:00 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-18 03:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 16:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:39 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 04:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 16:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 11:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 18:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-16 17:23 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 13:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 20:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-16 14:53 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 05:43 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:19 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 19:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 22:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 16:12 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 12:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-17 10:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-17 15:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 05:14 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-16 14:09 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 15:19 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-15 19:29 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 14:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 05:17 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-14 13:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-05 04:44 -0400
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 11:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 17:04 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-04 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-02 15:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 15:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:31 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:06 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 07:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:11 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 20:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:43 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:21 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:10 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:26 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:57 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:46 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 13:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:35 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 00:15 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 19:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 12:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 21:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:51 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:35 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 17:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 07:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:39 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:42 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 19:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 12:35 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 20:54 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 23:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:38 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-07 07:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 21:47 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 12:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 08:12 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 13:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 08:15 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:29 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:52 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:34 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:39 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 20:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:37 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:25 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-02 21:35 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-03 15:17 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 05:09 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-01-02 07:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Louis Krupp <lkrupp@nospam.pssw.com.invalid> - 2016-01-02 01:44 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 13:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-02 09:11 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-02 11:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000
Page 3 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 16 Next page →
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 00:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601020028440.5681@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #155759 |
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > >> So maybe 35 years from now, computers will only be a "little" better than they >> are today (that will still be a significant improvement, just not as much as >> further exponential growth would indicate)... but that CISPR stuff might lead >> to cures for nearly all genetic diseases, and basically eternal youth through >> rebuilding telomeres... >> One way or another, the future will be exciting. > > Sorry, but I am not optimistic about the future because the political > system seems to have failed. Young people coming out of school today > will have it much harder than our generation. Our generation will face > unaffordable health care costs while our pensions are stolen from us. > > Then it's up to the young to fix things. I've seen posts by them where they act like they are the fixers, forgetting that a lot of stuff happened fifty years ago that meant the younger generation didn't have to fix those things. A skewed article saying that the younger generation is the ones behind the rise of bicycles, except I remember when a friend and I had a petition to get a bike path in 1970, the same year as "Earth Day", and others pursued the matter for a long time, and we've had bike paths here for 25 years. The kids don't even realize some of the fuss over bike paths, and instead of demanding their right to the road, want more and more bike paths, so they can go anywhere. The result is bike paths that aren't in the right place, or aren't safe, but they get their bike paths. Yes, there seems to be problems with getting jobs, I'm not fully sure why that happened, but until it's actually looked into, it's harder to find results. But I see "the young" dismissing old media and things like CDs and books and magazines (unless they are in "e-form"), yet not grasping that when the local "record stores" disappear, there goes the place where someone into music could get a day job that was somewhat related to their real interest. Maybe they shouldn't have been so fast to accept the new, to dismiss the old. Even if mp3s were better than CDs, there's always fallout when change happens. I see the same kids expecting to be able to make money off the internet, having dismissed the old, yet then try to recreate the old only online. They don't grasp that their generation let commerce and old media onto the internet (figuratively that is), when maybe it would have been better if the internet was in parallel with the outside world, a 'subversive" place rather than a handmaiden to commerce and old media. They want to make their money, but can't grasp that taking barcode readers to used book sales isn't the same thing as knowing books. 20 years ago, some were concerned with getting some income to pay for their websites, now, there are a handful of places that make money from advertising on the internet, and let a tiny bit trickle down to the creators of content. Everything is "free", but someone is paying for it. The young think that after old media collapses, one should be able to recreate that, except online so distribution costs are down. But not only is the money not there, but nobody is analyzing what it was about old media that was successful, and why it may generally fail on the internet. I see a recreation of the sixties, a lesser mass than the baby boomers but the same group mind. The internet used to be about talking to people you didn't know, now it's about keeping in contact with people you already know. So it becomes a much more monotone world, no clashing ideas but a reinforcement. The internet gives them the group mind, when the mass of the sixties gave it back then. But the internet isn't really changing things that need changing, it's changing things because it can. Things dont' change because there's a large mass, it changes because new ideas come along. The kids just follow, it was the older people who defined things (or tried to) because they lived in a world without the internet, while the kids have had it "always". Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 06:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160102064040.d85ae05fbd957f749b1aca4f@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #155759 |
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 20:52:33 -0800 (PST) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > > > So maybe 35 years from now, computers will only be a "little" better > > than they are today (that will still be a significant improvement, just > > not as much as further exponential growth would indicate)... but that > > CISPR stuff might lead to cures for nearly all genetic diseases, and > > basically eternal youth through rebuilding telomeres... > > One way or another, the future will be exciting. > > Sorry, but I am not optimistic about the future because the political > system seems to have failed. Young people coming out of school today > will have it much harder than our generation. Our generation will face > unaffordable health care costs while our pensions are stolen from us. The good old days weren't so good, there was a "youth unemployment crisis" when I left school - partly caused by the baby booms and partly by economic shifts. The economy of the country I grew up in was widely claimed to be collapsing (20% inflation, three day week, collapse of heavy manufacturing, collapse of mining, regular widespread strikes ...) while I was at school - it hasn't collapsed, it is a faint shadow of what it was when my parents were young and it included an empire but since then it has boomed and busted a few times. I have seen sentiments similar to yours expressed about the 1950s and how much better off kids were at the turn of the century. I suspect similar sentiments have been aired in every generation. My kids are coming out of school soon, and the kids I know who've come out of school in recent years don't seem to be having a harder time of it than the kids who came out of school when I did. Heck at least they're not half expecting to be blown to plasma on short notice like we were. AFAICT the world just keeps on getting to be a better place to live in. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 17:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <659eae3f-2cac-499d-b6f1-8072f433f72e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155761 |
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 2:00:06 AM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > The good old days weren't so good, there was a "youth unemployment > crisis" when I left school - partly caused by the baby booms and partly by > economic shifts. The economy of the country I grew up in was widely claimed > to be collapsing (20% inflation, three day week, collapse of heavy > manufacturing, collapse of mining, regular widespread strikes ...) while I > was at school - it hasn't collapsed, it is a faint shadow of what it was > when my parents were young and it included an empire but since then it has > boomed and busted a few times. All I can say is that when my generation graduated, there was a recession, but there were still jobs available. Corporations had management training programs for even liberal arts majors. There was high demand for DP people. IMHO, today, starting salaries have not kept up with inflation, and benefits have been sharply reduced, effectivly reducing compensation. People have to buy their own very expensive health care, for example, previously, the company provided it. Back then, while there was some 'rust' in the rust-belt, the old industrial companies were still functioning; the massive layoffs would come later. Today, young people in the rust belt probably will have to move, at considerable cost, to a better economic area.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 08:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160103081858.a60a632a2b1649b868a31659@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #155788 |
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 17:25:09 -0800 (PST) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 2:00:06 AM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot > wrote: > > > The good old days weren't so good, there was a "youth > > unemployment crisis" when I left school - partly caused by the baby > > booms and partly by economic shifts. The economy of the country I grew > > up in was widely claimed to be collapsing (20% inflation, three day > > week, collapse of heavy manufacturing, collapse of mining, regular > > widespread strikes ...) while I was at school - it hasn't collapsed, it > > is a faint shadow of what it was when my parents were young and it > > included an empire but since then it has boomed and busted a few times. > > > All I can say is that when my generation graduated, there was a > recession, but there were still jobs available. Corporations had > management training programs for even liberal arts majors. There > was high demand for DP people. When my generation graduated (circa 1980) there was certainly a high demand for DP people, but that was mostly driven by a lack of skilled people for a field that had just started rapid growth. The corresponding skills today are biotech skills. Other areas were in severe decline and people having difficulty finding jobs in other engineering roles were retraining as fast as they could (or bluffing their way in). Looking at a historical graph of UK unemployment figures is insrtuctive - the figures only go back to around 1970. Up to 1980 it is below 6%, from 1980 to 1984 there is a sharp rise to around 12%, with a dip around 1990, followed by a rise to just over 11% in 1992, a steady decline to 2008 (back to 1970s figures), a jump to around 8% around 2010 and finally a drop to just under 6%. Certainly for the UK the contention that employment prospects are significantly worse now than at the start of my career (~1980) does not hold water - employment prospects in general seem to be better than they were then. Of course this shows nothing about renumeration, but I don't hear stories of people starving in the UK. Ah a little digging finds a graph of wages from around 2000 to now, it's one of the best straight lines I have ever seen from real data. It dips a little in the last five years - the inflation graph also drops in the same period. > IMHO, today, starting salaries have not kept up with inflation, > and benefits have been sharply reduced, effectivly reducing > compensation. People have to buy their own very expensive health > care, for example, previously, the company provided it. That last a very US specific problem - it does not apply elsewhere. Many countries have single payer health systems where this is irrelevant, others (such as here) have reasonably priced health insurance which is often provided by the employer. I see no fall off in other benefits being offered either, certainly my own have not been reduced. > Back then, while there was some 'rust' in the rust-belt, the old > industrial companies were still functioning; the massive layoffs > would come later. Today, young people in the rust belt probably > will have to move, at considerable cost, to a better economic area. This happened in the 1960s and 1970s in the UK - the solutions involved either moving around or the rise of new businesses of different types, there was high unemployment and a lot of union action in that period and there were doomsayers then. It got better. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1065039170.473515116.630825.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155788 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 2:00:06 AM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > >> The good old days weren't so good, there was a "youth unemployment >> crisis" when I left school - partly caused by the baby booms and partly by >> economic shifts. The economy of the country I grew up in was widely claimed >> to be collapsing (20% inflation, three day week, collapse of heavy >> manufacturing, collapse of mining, regular widespread strikes ...) while I >> was at school - it hasn't collapsed, it is a faint shadow of what it was >> when my parents were young and it included an empire but since then it has >> boomed and busted a few times. > > > All I can say is that when my generation graduated, there was a > recession, but there were still jobs available. Corporations had > management training programs for even liberal arts majors. There > was high demand for DP people. > > IMHO, today, starting salaries have not kept up with inflation, > and benefits have been sharply reduced, effectivly reducing > compensation. People have to buy their own very expensive health > care, for example, previously, the company provided it. > > Back then, while there was some 'rust' in the rust-belt, the old > industrial companies were still functioning; the massive layoffs > would come later. Today, young people in the rust belt probably > will have to move, at considerable cost, to a better economic area. > Luckily most of the moves happen when the person graduates from college, and all their belongings will fit in the back seat of their car. Many people might also start out somewhere and move a few years later, when it's still relatively painless. It gets a lot harder when you get married and both husband and wife have jobs, you have kids in school and other roots in the community. I don't have anything other than a hunch on this, but the Great Recession seems to have shown that people will do almost anything to avoid moving at this stage of their lives, taking two or three part-time jobs for which they're over-qualified, for example, or becoming willing to accept handouts. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 07:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8d488582-b804-4842-8cf2-70e826d7106e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155805 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:26:56 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > Luckily most of the moves happen when the person graduates from college, > and all their belongings will fit in the back seat of their car. Many > people might also start out somewhere and move a few years later, when it's > still relatively painless. It gets a lot harder when you get married and > both husband and wife have jobs, you have kids in school and other roots in > the community. > > I don't have anything other than a hunch on this, but the Great Recession > seems to have shown that people will do almost anything to avoid moving at > this stage of their lives, taking two or three part-time jobs for which > they're over-qualified, for example, or becoming willing to accept > handouts. I've seen lots of families with roots forced to move due to major closures and nothing else on the horizon in the area. This has been covered in the news. Some rust belt areas (and some 'good' areas) got hit hard by corporate consolidations and even part-time jobs are scarce because of high unemployment and very low economic activity. Hurting those people is that when they sell their house, they get a pittance for it, and are thus in a weaker position in the new community.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 14:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8fnho.1vp.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #155759 |
On 2016-01-02, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > >> So maybe 35 years from now, computers will only be a "little" better than they >> are today (that will still be a significant improvement, just not as much as >> further exponential growth would indicate)... but that CISPR stuff might lead >> to cures for nearly all genetic diseases, and basically eternal youth through >> rebuilding telomeres... >> One way or another, the future will be exciting. > > Sorry, but I am not optimistic about the future because the political > system seems to have failed. Young people coming out of school today > will have it much harder than our generation. Our generation will face > unaffordable health care costs while our pensions are stolen from us. > > There is a pot of propoganda from the pension industry re: more old folk, less young folk. I think that is incorrect, when I semi-retired some years ago, younger people working in my area were getting paid a lot more than I was in, say, 1973. Its hard to calculate how much, varying property values, etc. The falling relative earnings for the lesswell paid are a problem. I got a letter from one pension crowd before Christmas, with a example of what a pension fund, reinvested now, would be worth in twenty years time. I nearly died laughing. I suggest that anyone talking about extended life, visit a retirement home now. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 17:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e4d0760e-aa04-40a6-961f-3d54904f2cff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155766 |
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 9:27:08 AM UTC-5, ma...@mail.com wrote: > There is a pot of propoganda from the pension industry re: more old folk, > less young folk. I think that is incorrect, when I semi-retired some years > ago, younger people working in my area were getting paid a lot more than I was > in, say, 1973. Its hard to calculate how much, varying property values, etc. > The falling relative earnings for the lesswell paid are a problem. > I got a letter from one pension crowd before Christmas, with a example of > what a pension fund, reinvested now, would be worth in twenty years time. > I nearly died laughing. I suggest that anyone talking about extended life, > visit a retirement home now. Most companies in the U.S. have eliminated or sharply reduced their traditional pension plans. Many workers approaching retirement have discovered they won't have income and have to keep working.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 19:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n69v01$p4i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155789 |
On 02-Jan-16 19:28, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > ma...@mail.com wrote: >> There is a pot of propoganda from the pension industry re: more >> old folk, less young folk. ... I got a letter from one pension >> crowd before Christmas, with a example of what a pension fund, >> reinvested now, would be worth in twenty years time. I nearly died >> laughing. I suggest that anyone talking about extended life, visit >> a retirement home now. > > Most companies in the U.S. have eliminated or sharply reduced their > traditional pension plans. Most US companies that had pension plans went bankrupt long ago, often in large part due to those very pension plans because they were either underfunded or the target of corporate raiders. Most of the few remaining ones offer pensions only to union employees or those over a certain age; younger or non-union employees have only a 401(k) or similar plan available. Newer companies, in particular those in the services and information sectors that have all but replaced the manufacturing sector over the last few decades, never had pension plans at all. > Many workers approaching retirement have discovered they won't have > income and have to keep working. That's not uncommon. Most people don't plan ahead, so by the time they realize there's a problem, it's too late to do anything about it. That was part of the point of Social Security. OTOH, public sector workers can retire after 20-30 years and then live off the taxpayers' largesse for another 40+ years. Ditto for many union workers, at least until it bankrupts their former employer. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1591228429.473515575.144139.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155792 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 02-Jan-16 19:28, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> ma...@mail.com wrote: >>> There is a pot of propoganda from the pension industry re: more >>> old folk, less young folk. ... I got a letter from one pension >>> crowd before Christmas, with a example of what a pension fund, >>> reinvested now, would be worth in twenty years time. I nearly died >>> laughing. I suggest that anyone talking about extended life, visit >>> a retirement home now. >> >> Most companies in the U.S. have eliminated or sharply reduced their >> traditional pension plans. > > Most US companies that had pension plans went bankrupt long ago, often > in large part due to those very pension plans because they were either > underfunded or the target of corporate raiders. > > Most of the few remaining ones offer pensions only to union employees or > those over a certain age; younger or non-union employees have only a > 401(k) or similar plan available. > > Newer companies, in particular those in the services and information > sectors that have all but replaced the manufacturing sector over the > last few decades, never had pension plans at all. > >> Many workers approaching retirement have discovered they won't have >> income and have to keep working. > > That's not uncommon. Most people don't plan ahead, so by the time they > realize there's a problem, it's too late to do anything about it. That > was part of the point of Social Security. > > OTOH, public sector workers can retire after 20-30 years and then live > off the taxpayers' largesse for another 40+ years. Going after those jobs also requires forethought. They tend to pay less than the private sector and don't offer stock options. You have to include the value of the pension in your calculations when deciding to take the job. Here in the (NY) Capital District the two major employers used to be state government and a company I'll call Generous Electric; from my recollection the benefits used to be equivalent: health care, pension, job security, etc. Over the years GE has had numerous layoffs and I believe have reduced benefits. The State has stayed about the same, with a few minor layoffs here and there. In my case they changed what had been a contributory pension plan to non-contributory, although other "tiers" (based on employment date) got worse. Rather than a layoff the State tends to shed employees by giving old-timers some time credited toward their retirement if they leave right away. Ditto for many union > workers, at least until it bankrupts their former employer. > > S > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 10:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87twmuh7bh.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #155806 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Here in the (NY) Capital District the two major employers used to be state > government and a company I'll call Generous Electric; from my recollection > the benefits used to be equivalent: health care, pension, job security, > etc. Over the years GE has had numerous layoffs and I believe have reduced > benefits. The State has stayed about the same, with a few minor layoffs > here and there. In my case they changed what had been a contributory > pension plan to non-contributory, although other "tiers" (based on > employment date) got worse. Rather than a layoff the State tends to shed > employees by giving old-timers some time credited toward their retirement > if they leave right away. piece of recent "IBM Retirees" discussion on facebook ... GE basically depreciating its traditional manufacturing ... and all growth was in financial services ... which was largely computerized and required much fewer employees (per dollar earned): Welch pushes GE Capital into one of the major institutions responsible for the financial mess ... and the growth in GE's bottom line.. "Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present", pg200/loc3925-30: The CNNMoney writers got it slightly wrong. GE was not exactly like the American economy. It was even more dependent on financial services. In the early 2000s, GE was again riding a financial wave, the subprime mortgage lending boom; it had even bought a subprime mortgage broker. GE borrowed still more against equity to exploit the remarkable opportunities, its triple-A rating giving it a major competitive advantage. By 2008, the central weakness of the Welch business strategy, its dependence on financial overspeculation, became ominously clear. GE’s profits plunged during the credit crisis and its stock price fell by 60 percent. GE Capital, the main source of its success for twenty-five years, now reported enormous losses. pg324/loc6382-85: General Electric’s persistent earnings increases were a leading example of how earnings were manipulated to produce consistent gains. Fortune analyzed how Jack Welch used both pension fund reserves and reserves at GE Capital to supplement quarterly earnings in order to make them rise consistently. As noted, they rose every quarter for almost thirteen years. GE stock roughly tripled between 1990 and 1995 and then quintupled between 1995 and early 2000. ... snip ... Lots of financial engineering ... like what goes on with current stock buyback craze .... past posts mentioning "GE Capital", Welch, etc http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005n.html#13 Why? (Was: US Military Dead during Iraq War http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005s.html#48 Gartner: Stop Outsourcing Now http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008c.html#12 Toyota Sales for 2007 May Surpass GM http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008r.html#26 realtors (and GM, too!) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#9 Bletchley Park fires up replica Turing Bombe http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#9 The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#45 You may ask yourself, well, how did I get here? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#77 Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012c.html#62 Why Is Finance So Big? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#66 Predator GE: We Bring Bad Things to Life http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#77 Interesting News Article http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#10 The Knowledge Economy Two Classes of Workers http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013k.html#33 Management Secrets From Inside GE http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013k.html#50 IBM Furloughs U.S. Hardware Employees to Reduce Costs http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013k.html#51 What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014.html#84 Royal Pardon For Turing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#147 LEO http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015.html#59 IBM Data Processing Center and Pi -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 08:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87oackywwi.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #155828 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes: > Welch pushes GE Capital into one of the major institutions responsible > for the financial mess ... and the growth in GE's bottom line.. "Age > of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to > the Present", pg200/loc3925-30: > > The CNNMoney writers got it slightly wrong. GE was not exactly like > the American economy. It was even more dependent on financial > services. In the early 2000s, GE was again riding a financial wave, > the subprime mortgage lending boom; it had even bought a subprime > mortgage broker. GE borrowed still more against equity to exploit the > remarkable opportunities, its triple-A rating giving it a major > competitive advantage. By 2008, the central weakness of the Welch > business strategy, its dependence on financial overspeculation, became > ominously clear. GE’s profits plunged during the credit crisis and its > stock price fell by 60 percent. GE Capital, the main source of its > success for twenty-five years, now reported enormous losses. > > pg324/loc6382-85: > > General Electric’s persistent earnings increases were a leading > example of how earnings were manipulated to produce consistent > gains. Fortune analyzed how Jack Welch used both pension fund reserves > and reserves at GE Capital to supplement quarterly earnings in order > to make them rise consistently. As noted, they rose every quarter for > almost thirteen years. GE stock roughly tripled between 1990 and 1995 > and then quintupled between 1995 and early 2000. > > ... snip ... more recent on GE: Haier scoops up GE's appliances business for $5.4B http://seekingalpha.com/news/3033326-haier-scoops-up-ges-appliances-business-for-5_4b China's Haier Nears Deal to Buy GE Appliance Business http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-haier-nears-deal-to-buy-ge-appliance-business-1452826607 -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 07:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cc361563-00e3-46a7-a638-4067d26cc80a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155806 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:26:57 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <> wrote: > > OTOH, public sector workers can retire after 20-30 years and then live > > off the taxpayers' largesse for another 40+ years. > > Going after those jobs also requires forethought. They tend to pay less > than the private sector and don't offer stock options. You have to include > the value of the pension in your calculations when deciding to take the > job. As mentioned, pensions have been reduced in many public sector jobs for all employees and retirees. Somehow, the courts have found that what was supposedly a binding contract was actually not a binding contract. In addition, many public sector pensions have always required a mandatory employee contribution, and these have been increased. > Here in the (NY) Capital District the two major employers used to be state > government and a company I'll call Generous Electric; from my recollection > the benefits used to be equivalent: health care, pension, job security, > etc. Over the years GE has had numerous layoffs and I believe have reduced > benefits. The State has stayed about the same, with a few minor layoffs > here and there. In my case they changed what had been a contributory > pension plan to non-contributory, although other "tiers" (based on > employment date) got worse. Rather than a layoff the State tends to shed > employees by giving old-timers some time credited toward their retirement > if they leave right away. Once the economy truly recovers public service employment will no longer be attractive--the pay is lousy, benefits have been slashed, and layoffs occur. Then they'll be forced to pay big bucks to consultants and outside contractors to get work done. Law Enforcement personnel have tended to be exempt from some of the cutbacks, though not always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 13:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6ehq7$bg9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155880 |
On 04-Jan-16 09:44, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:26:57 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk <> wrote: >>> OTOH, public sector workers can retire after 20-30 years and then >>> live off the taxpayers' largesse for another 40+ years. >> >> Going after those jobs also requires forethought. They tend to pay >> less than the private sector and don't offer stock options. You >> have to include the value of the pension in your calculations when >> deciding to take the job. > > As mentioned, pensions have been reduced in many public sector jobs > for all employees and retirees. ... > In addition, many public sector pensions have always required a > mandatory employee contribution, and these have been increased. I don't know how it works in other states, but neither of those has happened in mine; the contribution rate has been fixed for decades and nobody has ever lost benefits after retiring. What _does_ change from year to year is how many "points" are required to qualify, so you can't reliably predict _when_ you'll retire until that day actually arrives. > Somehow, the courts have found that what was supposedly a binding > contract was actually not a binding contract. Not all contracts are binding, but the exceptions are well-known and rarely an issue in practice (other than bankruptcy) thanks to the Contract Clause. However, I suspect what you'll find, if you dig deep enough, is that pension benefit promises didn't actually meet the definition of a contract in the first place. That is usually the case when someone complains a "contract" isn't being honored, other than a bankruptcy. > Once the economy truly recovers public service employment will no > longer be attractive--the pay is lousy, benefits have been slashed, > and layoffs occur. Then they'll be forced to pay big bucks to > consultants and outside contractors to get work done. Contractors are a mixed bag, but overall, they usually cost less for the same work, in large part because they don't have the same benefits (e.g. pensions) or job security. That's good for the taxpayers, but I don't think it's good for society as a whole. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 11:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5cd73e34-f06f-47a5-8309-ef8edf01d459@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155899 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:42:32 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > However, I suspect what you'll find, if you dig deep enough, is that > pension benefit promises didn't actually meet the definition of a > contract in the first place. That is usually the case when someone > complains a "contract" isn't being honored, other than a bankruptcy. Unfortunately, for decades workers assumed it was indeed a legit contract, and the company honored its terms. Then the company got greedy and found ways to circumvent the 'contract'. Also, a company does not have to formally enter bankruptcy to abrogate contracts. A company can agree to a "restructuring" to avoid bankruptcy, forcing a squeeze on pensions. This is accepted by creditors since a formal bankruptcy proceeding will likely yield less than a negotiated restructuring. > Contractors are a mixed bag, but overall, they usually cost less for the > same work, in large part because they don't have the same benefits (e.g. > pensions) or job security. That's good for the taxpayers, but I don't > think it's good for society as a whole. Contractors (or consultants) can charge surprisingly high rates, some of which trickles down to the actual worker, but most is profit for the company. Many companies lobby very hard for consulting contracts because they are very profitable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 11:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6jik6$uq0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155992 |
On 05-Jan-16 13:15, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> However, I suspect what you'll find, if you dig deep enough, is >> that pension benefit promises didn't actually meet the definition >> of a contract in the first place. That is usually the case when >> someone complains a "contract" isn't being honored, other than a >> bankruptcy. > > Unfortunately, for decades workers assumed it was indeed a legit > contract, and the company honored its terms. Then the company got > greedy and found ways to circumvent the 'contract'. Indeed, and that's why it's such a horrible idea to let the employer hold those funds instead of them being held in trust by a third party. > Also, a company does not have to formally enter bankruptcy to > abrogate contracts. There are a few other exceptions, but in general, yes, it does. > A company can agree to a "restructuring" to avoid bankruptcy, > forcing a squeeze on pensions. This is accepted by creditors since > a formal bankruptcy proceeding will likely yield less than a > negotiated restructuring. A "restructuring" refers to Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In some cases, the creditors (including pensioners) can be convinced to _renegotiate_ the terms of their debts (e.g. lower interest rates, longer payments), but if not, the debtor generally has no choice but to file for bankruptcy, and then a federal court restructures the debt--often leading to worse outcomes for creditors than previously offered, such as dumping all pensions on the PBGC, which pays pennies on the dollar. One of the problems with the 2007 crash was many creditors _wanted_ debtors to file for bankruptcy because their bonds were insured; the sheer number, though, caused the insurer itself (AIG) to file for bankruptcy, which created a slew of other problems. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 12:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <df5355FfdqaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156129 |
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > A "restructuring" refers to Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In some cases, the > creditors (including pensioners) can be convinced to _renegotiate_ the > terms of their debts (e.g. lower interest rates, longer payments), but > if not, the debtor generally has no choice but to file for bankruptcy, > and then a federal court restructures the debt--often leading to worse > outcomes for creditors than previously offered, such as dumping all > pensions on the PBGC, which pays pennies on the dollar. As I understand it, except for a tiny minority of people who have lavish pensions the rest of can only dream of, the pension guarantee program pays 100 pennies on the dollar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <%ndjy.144514$rj1.133696@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #156132 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: >"Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > >> A "restructuring" refers to Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In some cases, the >> creditors (including pensioners) can be convinced to _renegotiate_ the >> terms of their debts (e.g. lower interest rates, longer payments), but >> if not, the debtor generally has no choice but to file for bankruptcy, >> and then a federal court restructures the debt--often leading to worse >> outcomes for creditors than previously offered, such as dumping all >> pensions on the PBGC, which pays pennies on the dollar. > >As I understand it, except for a tiny minority of people who have lavish >pensions the rest of can only dream of, the pension guarantee program pays >100 pennies on the dollar. > Where lavish exceeds 57k p.a.? That's the PBGC limit. Most teacher pensions around here end up higher than that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 18:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6ka1q$vjt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156132 |
On 06-Jan-16 12:02, Osmium wrote: > "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >> A "restructuring" refers to Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In some cases, >> the creditors (including pensioners) can be convinced to >> _renegotiate_ the terms of their debts (e.g. lower interest rates, >> longer payments), but if not, the debtor generally has no choice >> but to file for bankruptcy, and then a federal court restructures >> the debt--often leading to worse outcomes for creditors than >> previously offered, such as dumping all pensions on the PBGC, which >> pays pennies on the dollar. > > As I understand it, except for a tiny minority of people who have > lavish pensions the rest of can only dream of, the pension guarantee > program pays 100 pennies on the dollar. The max is ~$55k/yr for single-employer plans, which isn't "lavish", though it doesn't look that bad on the surface. For multi-employer plans (common at union jobs), PBGC guarantees 100% of the first $11/mo and 75% of the next $33/mo per year of service. For instance, if you worked 30 years and were supposed to get $3,000/mo, then PGBC pays only $495/mo (16.5%). That certainly isn't "lavish". Also, PGBC does _not_ guarantee "supplemental" benefits, e.g. health, disability or long term care, which are often far more valuable than the cash payment itself--and certainly more valuable than the pittance that PBGC pays. For some perspective, only 43.9M private-sector workers and retirees even _have_ a pension, or ~18% of US adults--and most of those people are already retired or will be soon. Pensions are nearly extinct, in large part because nearly every company that had one went bankrupt. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <709999594.473877370.082621.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156165 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 06-Jan-16 12:02, Osmium wrote: >> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>> A "restructuring" refers to Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In some cases, >>> the creditors (including pensioners) can be convinced to >>> _renegotiate_ the terms of their debts (e.g. lower interest rates, >>> longer payments), but if not, the debtor generally has no choice >>> but to file for bankruptcy, and then a federal court restructures >>> the debt--often leading to worse outcomes for creditors than >>> previously offered, such as dumping all pensions on the PBGC, which >>> pays pennies on the dollar. >> >> As I understand it, except for a tiny minority of people who have >> lavish pensions the rest of can only dream of, the pension guarantee >> program pays 100 pennies on the dollar. > > The max is ~$55k/yr for single-employer plans, which isn't "lavish", > though it doesn't look that bad on the surface. > > For multi-employer plans (common at union jobs), PBGC guarantees 100% of > the first $11/mo and 75% of the next $33/mo per year of service. For > instance, if you worked 30 years and were supposed to get $3,000/mo, > then PGBC pays only $495/mo (16.5%). That certainly isn't "lavish". > > Also, PGBC does _not_ guarantee "supplemental" benefits, e.g. health, > disability or long term care, which are often far more valuable than the > cash payment itself--and certainly more valuable than the pittance that > PBGC pays. > > For some perspective, only 43.9M private-sector workers and retirees > even _have_ a pension, or ~18% of US adults--and most of those people > are already retired or will be soon. Pensions are nearly extinct, in > large part because nearly every company that had one went bankrupt. > > S > "Lavish" doesn't matter as much as other factors. People who retired expecting a certain pension and then discover they're only going to get 50% of it or so are in deep doodoo no matter what. People hopefully get themselves set up for retirement - perhaps with savings and investments, moving and buying a new house, etc. Suddenly they can't afford it and don't have as much flexibility to make changes as someone who's 40. I remember reading about some pilots who retired on a pension north of $100,000 and suddenly found themselves getting only the $55,000 max. It's a lot harder to shift gears than for someone who had planned for $55,000 and got it. While it might have been hard to feel sorry for someone with a $55,000 pension, I did in this case. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web