Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 09:37 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >Shame you don't have a nationalised health service really, isn't it? > > It is getting there. The reason there aren't local doctor > offices is that they are all collected and put into a big > office building. These centers get fewer and fewer as > the companies who run them consolidate. Over here those 'companies' running the practices of 6 or 8 or more and their support team are owned by the doctors themselves. Graham
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 09:35 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejcef3$8ss_015(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45576B67.2CABAD38(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>You wouldn't get far on ?5263 over here for sure. >>> >> >>> >> I didn't say it was easy and one also has to give up a lot >>> >> of middle class "attitudes" ;-). >>> > >>> >Like housing, food, clothing ... >>> >>> Now stop being stupid. You do have to plan. My folks (2 people) >>> are living on $10K; if you divide by 2, that's $5K. But the >>> division not a correct thing to do. >> >>There are considerable economies living as a couple. > > Yup, in some cases. I think my Mom could live far cheaper. >> >> >>> You grow your own food; >> >>If you have land. > > I said one had to plan. In some areas now, people grow their food on > other property, espcecially where they don't have any dirt acreage. > >> >> >>> you don't buy many clothes and what >>> you do buy, you limit your price to $2 or less. >> >>Not much of a life though is it ? > > Like I said, if you evaluate through middle class glasses, that > would be the attitude. Drop the pretenses, What pretenses? > and you free > up a lot of time to do really interesting stuff. Given the paranoid garbage that it has led you to, no thank you. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 09:38 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >The difficulty you are having stems more from your refusal to accept > >anything which does not bolster your current thinking. > > <snort> Unbelievable. You do seem rather reluctant to take new concepts onboard. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 09:35 In article <ej7mj4$9m2$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ej7bp3$8qk_025(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ej53mo$u2c$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <sq15h.3588$IR4.1362(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>[....] >>>>I would argue that anybody who is still making minimum wage after any time >>>>at all in a job, isn't productive and doesn't deserve to be rewarded. >>> >>>There are some who are working at the limit of their ability. These >>>people still deserve enough of a wage to live on. I have, indirectly, >>>employed such a person in the past. He showed up for work on time and >>>remained for the required time, but instructions to him needed to be made >>>without subordinate clauses because he could not parse them. He is never >>>going to get promoted into management no matter how hard he works. >> >>The grocers hire people who think this way. They are their best >>workers. Now why do you assume that these types have to be >>paid only minimum wage and never get performance raises? > >The "have to" is an interesting part of your comment. That is the tenor of the other people in this discussion. > It suggests that >you think there may be an external force at work that holds them to >minimum wage. I don't think this. Reread what I wrote. I asked why they thought people never got raises. > >This person who can't follow complex instructions is on one side of the >negotiations on the other we have a manager with experience at keeping >their wages low. They aren't going to get the raise by negotiation >skill. These people are very aware about money. They can compare wage rates and are able to go to a competitor. They know about benefits and the advantages and disadvantages of each. All of them are very willing to tell you about all of this stuff :-). > >The company that employs them is not a charity. Their purpose is to make >a profit for their shareholders. They won't be raising the wages >spontaneously. People get raises. >There is very little competition for workers at the very >low end of the scale. There are few jobs that really need to be done that >they are able to do. ARe you kidding? You need to pay attention more. We had a gal who could not think well in our computer group which turned stuff into ASCII for doc writers, spec writers, and programmers and their managers. Her talent was 120 WPM typing speed. She was taught how to "program" doc files with RUNOFF commands and churned out ASCII bits at a phenomenal rate. Would she ever be able to solve a bug? Probably not. As long as the commands didn't change, she was very productive. > >The result is that this person will work for the minimum wage. Unless there is another grocery store who has job slots open and wants to attract new people. /BAH
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 09:39
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejcg0c$8ss_016(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45575902.91D89E23(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <b4l5h.2383$6t.568(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> > >>> >Your argument that we can't switch to a nationalized health care system >>> >because we have problems with the current system is exactly 180 degrees > out >>> >of phase with reality. We need to switch to a nationalized health care >>> >system precisely becuase we have problems with the current system. >>> >>> The current problems are *caused* by having insuranace as the >>> basis of medical service delivery. Forcing >>> everybody to go the insurance route is flat out stupid. >> >>You would appear to be seeing the light ! > > I see the consequences just fine. Forcing, by law, everyone > to have insurance is the latest idiocy. That may be true, but it is completely irrelevant to a UK-style NHS. > Now people are trying > to change our state constitution to make having insurance > a right. Please note that these people never say receiving > medical treatments but merely insurance. Yeah, I'm sure it's all just one big conspiracy to cheat you, since it appears that in your little world, that's all anybody ever wants to do. Eric Lucas |