Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#62 Feb 16, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been to Roadhouse. Not expensive at all, don't even find it all that great of food. For your edification, here's the menu:
http://ww7.texasroadhouse.com/NMotion/Menus/M... (1212-10-1A).pdf
$50 for dinner for two isn't horrible. Pretty much in line with places like Olive Garden, Smokey Bones, and comparable chains.
This isn't 1960 where a burger sells for 50 cents and you're going to the malt shop with your steady using the money you made as a paperboy...
Yep.$50 today was $15 in 1978. I'm pretty sure nobody with a decent job balked at that price for a dinner date back then.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#63 Feb 16, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. To the tune of increasing 10-15% a year for a few years in my area. A lot of people bought primary residences as investments more than as "homes." And did it ever burn them in the end. The mortgage companies...well we all know what happened there. When I built my first house in 1996, they wanted to lend me two and a half times as much money as I was asking for.
I built this house in 1999 and my mother had already given me the two acres to build on. I was pushed by builders, friends and my bank to build twice the house that I did, but I was single, wanted to pay it off in 15 years, so I stayed under 2500 sq feet. Now if I had sold it, the farmland and mother's house in 2004, I'd own my own island. I put it in preservation instead. I was calling the prices ridiculous then.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#64 Feb 16, 2013
Kemosahbe wrote:
<quoted text>
My dad didn't mind waiting a reasonable amount, be wanted his coffee within about 10 seconds of sitting down, and so hot it would burn most people. If I had a dollar for every time I heard him say "Where's my coffee" and "This coffee's cold", I would be somewhat richer, lol!
That's a good memory. Remember instant coffee? I had forgotten it.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#65 Feb 16, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
I built this house in 1999 and my mother had already given me the two acres to build on. I was pushed by builders, friends and my bank to build twice the house that I did, but I was single, wanted to pay it off in 15 years, so I stayed under 2500 sq feet. Now if I had sold it, the farmland and mother's house in 2004, I'd own my own island. I put it in preservation instead. I was calling the prices ridiculous then.
And in some areas it was just off the charts. I know someone in Las Vegas who bought his house in the mid '90s for $150k. He could have sold for $500k in 2003. He's still in that home today...it's worth about $175k.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#66 Feb 16, 2013
Lost In The Continuum wrote:
<quoted text>
In remote rural areas it's a different world. There's families living on Ramen noodles. The minimum wage isn't keeping up with what it takes to live. It would be different if there's a choice of where to work but there's not.
Seems to me that a true lack of jobs would call for lowering wages, if you think a little less pay is better than none at all.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#67 Feb 16, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>The minimum wage is a job killer. When it goes up, people are let go at any number of small businesses.
As for living in a depressed rural area, the obvious answer is to move if at all possible.
It's all those supposedly caring people who wouldn't hesitate to throw a co-worker under the bus to get a little more in their pocket. Problem is, it might be THEM who gets run over.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#68 Feb 16, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
That's one of the problems with democrats. They don't look into the deep implications of what they intend to do. If it just feels good or elevates their standing, it must be the right thing to do. The problem with them practicing their Keynesian economics is that it defaults to having deep impacts into society that aren't often superficially obvious. There are loads of areas in which half assed solutions have made things worse while the claim of making it better was tossed out. Healthcare since the 1960's is one of them.
Economic stuff is all pretty complex and ticklish stuff. The "deep implications" are frequently based on speculation with regard to how human beings will respond should a given change be enacted.

One of my news shows last night took a fairly deep look--in so far as can be accomplished in half an hour or so.

One thing that we need to keep focus on is that the proposed solution, raising the minimum wage, is a response to a very real problem--that of a widening earnings gap that is perpetuating a largely powerless set of workers on the bottom earning rungs who are not only extremely limited in their ability to bargain for the price of their labor, but also highly reliant on government subsidy for basics such as food, health care, and possibly also housing.

There are real risks associated with a raise in the minimum wage, which include loss of jobs to mechanization or outsources. However, the risks of not responding to a widening economic gap in our society are also great. Such societies tend to be vulnerable to political extremes and revolution. One interesting little factoid to demonstrate the diminsion of this crisis is that 1% of the population absorbed 120% of the economic recovery. In other words, those people returned to their pre-downturn status, but also benefitted from the losses of others--who are still suffering.

Apparently tax reform is a less risky means of adjustment. However, Congress has been unwilling to do this on a scale required. Minimum wage increases, however, have generally been politically popular. So, this could be seen as a fall-back position in an effort to solve a real problem.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#69 Feb 16, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
The economy got hit pretty hard here. Just in this county (small) GM, Crysler, Avon and a 600 employee oil refinery shut their doors in 2008, let alone all the other closings.
New, or even repair of existing, construction came to a stand still.
The big McMansion housing developments stopped and the houses went underwater fast. Small wonder since most had 110% mortgages.
I'd like to tell you there's been a recovery, but no. It is coming back very slowly. If my job depended on the economy, I'd be in the same miserable boat as many in this tri-state area.
Depends on where you are in Ohio to see a bad economy. SE part of the state always has, always will be, bad. Applachia and few industries down there. Toledo/Cleveland never really shook off the auto industry, Toledo is worse and can't figure out how to attract non-industrial jobs. Sad because it has an outstanding university with engineering, law, and pharmacy colleges and a top notch medical school, some great other things to attract folks there like the arts community and the waterfronts (river and lake). Unfortunately, the city looks like a dump. No one wants to live there.

Columbus has been shielded from a number of economic problems, not to say it hasn't been hit, just not hit as hard. The SW part of the state is the same, the I75 corridor between Dayton and Cinci is doing quite well, lots of money down there--horse farms and newer businesses. Cincinnati is sort of a mixed bag.

I've been pretty lucky -- I got out from under a house as part of my divorce, and due to a move here and a few other things (I didn't plan to remain here permanently, came here to help out with mom before she died), I don't own right now.

But my job isn't tied too tight to the economy; but who knows right now with sequestration. With what I do, even if our contract is chopped, pretty confident that I'll employed again within weeks. So I don't sweat it too badly. Ever see a company that can go on for long without understanding and managing it's IT infrastructure? Thought so... ;) Analysts, project managers, and communications folks are usually in demand in key markets. Columbus is one of those markets. Have been hoping for a couple of things to happen--1) kids settle down permanently (underway) and 2) find a market nearer the kids and move. I never planned to retire here. Unfortunately, one of the kids has settled in Vegas. Not sure if that's what I want. Not a key technology market unfortunately.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#70 Feb 16, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on where you are in Ohio to see a bad economy. SE part of the state always has, always will be, bad. Applachia and few industries down there. Toledo/Cleveland never really shook off the auto industry, Toledo is worse and can't figure out how to attract non-industrial jobs. Sad because it has an outstanding university with engineering, law, and pharmacy colleges and a top notch medical school, some great other things to attract folks there like the arts community and the waterfronts (river and lake). Unfortunately, the city looks like a dump. No one wants to live there.
Columbus has been shielded from a number of economic problems, not to say it hasn't been hit, just not hit as hard. The SW part of the state is the same, the I75 corridor between Dayton and Cinci is doing quite well, lots of money down there--horse farms and newer businesses. Cincinnati is sort of a mixed bag.
I've been pretty lucky -- I got out from under a house as part of my divorce, and due to a move here and a few other things (I didn't plan to remain here permanently, came here to help out with mom before she died), I don't own right now.
But my job isn't tied too tight to the economy; but who knows right now with sequestration. With what I do, even if our contract is chopped, pretty confident that I'll employed again within weeks. So I don't sweat it too badly. Ever see a company that can go on for long without understanding and managing it's IT infrastructure? Thought so... ;) Analysts, project managers, and communications folks are usually in demand in key markets. Columbus is one of those markets. Have been hoping for a couple of things to happen--1) kids settle down permanently (underway) and 2) find a market nearer the kids and move. I never planned to retire here. Unfortunately, one of the kids has settled in Vegas. Not sure if that's what I want. Not a key technology market unfortunately.
Not as bad as you might think. Nellis is right up the road. Lockheed, Boeing and Raytheon all have a presence in the valley associated with the base.
Then there's Bigelow, with some big new government contracts and hardware already in orbit:
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#71 Feb 16, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible says 'The poor will always be among us.'
When the economy dove under Carter I was worried because the family business was horse racing, and, I was scared. My much older brother told me, "Don't worry, the tracks will never close. Whenever there was a depression, people still gambled, because it gave them hope, and spent money on things that made them feel good." He was right.
There is a chaplaincy on every racetrack in North America with clergy present 24 X 7. And now that I think of it, very little violence.
My Dad's men got paid once a month and usually they had 'borrowed' most or all of it from him. He still had a rule: "No one gets an empty pay envelope." The man that had nothing coming, or owed him, still got a $10.00 bill. Quite a man, my Dad. I follow that rule today.
I think it is wrong to suppose that the Bible recommended that we do nothing in response to the lives of those who are poor. I believe that you are referring to was Jesus admonishing his disciples who criticized Mary Magdalene for anointing his feet with oil and spices rather than selling these expensive items and giving the procedes to the poor.

We always have such a problem with balance.

But as regards your dad--I'm sure he was a wonderful person. But, your story brought to mind employers who used to purposely keep their employees indebted to them through a variety of devices, such as payment in scrip, requirements to pay rent to live in company housing (price set by the company) or purchase goods from the company store. It was in fact a form of slavery and is no longer legal.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#72 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
Apparently tax reform is a less risky means of adjustment. However, Congress has been unwilling to do this on a scale required.
Probably because they've done the math, and realize that even if they taxed every millionaire at 100% of their income, they'd only have enough money to run the government for a few weeks. The bulk of their revenue has to come from the middle class. There's no mathematical way around it.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#73 Feb 16, 2013
Kemosahbe wrote:
<quoted text>
If Roadhouse attracts a cheap crowd, why is/was it expensive to eat there? And the economy was supposedly bad here, lots of foreclosures, people getting laid off left and right, yet everybody was still eating out! Had to wait a long time to get into Outback then also.
I look for acceptable places to eat for a reasonable amount. I'm not paying $50-60 for a steak anywhere.
Restaurants are a pretty volatile market--open and close at the drop of a hat.

Places like Roadhouse probably have a marketing strategy such that when they are turning people away they open up down the road--likewise close down some places if things get sparse.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#74 Feb 16, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems to me that a true lack of jobs would call for lowering wages, if you think a little less pay is better than none at all.
Well that's absolutely the case in construction, I assure you. And not only lower pay, smaller crews, which is dangerous, and less and older equipment. All equals one thing: Less quality in the output and more accidents.

And since the payscale has dropped and crews cut back, it's attracting less skilled individuals, so they are taking longer to complete the job, it begs the question:........is there any true savings?

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#75 Feb 16, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Not as bad as you might think. Nellis is right up the road. Lockheed, Boeing and Raytheon all have a presence in the valley associated with the base.
Then there's Bigelow, with some big new government contracts and hardware already in orbit:
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/
True that. Thanks.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#76 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is wrong to suppose that the Bible recommended that we do nothing in response to the lives of those who are poor.
But then you're not about "recommending", are you? You're more about FORCING.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#77 Feb 16, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's absolutely the case in construction, I assure you. And not only lower pay, smaller crews, which is dangerous, and less and older equipment. All equals one thing: Less quality in the output and more accidents.
And since the payscale has dropped and crews cut back, it's attracting less skilled individuals, so they are taking longer to complete the job, it begs the question:........is there any true savings?
What I'm predicting will happen in the defense industry: lower wages.

Have seen a few contracts renewed, but negotiated downward at WPAFB.

Which seems to make sense in that the federal government has frozen its employees' wages for the past 3 years. What doesn't make sense is the redundancy and stovepiping that happens in the federal government, particularly DoD. The cuts don't address that waste. They just state "everyone gets X number of dollars cut across the board...lose a few people and do more with less." Well, if there are redundant programs, no savings in actuality. Just less spending with the same rate of waste.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#78 Feb 16, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably because they've done the math, and realize that even if they taxed every millionaire at 100% of their income, they'd only have enough money to run the government for a few weeks. The bulk of their revenue has to come from the middle class. There's no mathematical way around it.
More to it than just running the government.

When capital gets pooled among a very small percentage at the top, it isn't doing anyone any good. Taxation can be used to redirect resources in ways that are ultimately supportive of a strong middle class. Think about the impact of such post WWII programs as the GI bill and federal mortgage insurance. Consider the impact if we were actually able to act on Obama's suggested universal preschool.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#79 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
More to it than just running the government.
When capital gets pooled among a very small percentage at the top, it isn't doing anyone any good. Taxation can be used to redirect resources in ways that are ultimately supportive of a strong middle class. Think about the impact of such post WWII programs as the GI bill and federal mortgage insurance. Consider the impact if we were actually able to act on Obama's suggested universal preschool.
So you people can start the indoctrination even earlier?
Forget it.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#80 Feb 16, 2013
Lost In The Continuum wrote:
<quoted text>
In remote rural areas it's a different world. There's families living on Ramen noodles. The minimum wage isn't keeping up with what it takes to live. It would be different if there's a choice of where to work but there's not.
If they cannot survive in those areas economically, then they should move.

That's what my grandparents did.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#81 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
More to it than just running the government.
When capital gets pooled among a very small percentage at the top, it isn't doing anyone any good. Taxation can be used to redirect resources in ways that are ultimately supportive of a strong middle class. Think about the impact of such post WWII programs as the GI bill and federal mortgage insurance. Consider the impact if we were actually able to act on Obama's suggested universal preschool.
Sounds like expanding the size of the federal government to me. Socialist.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Wasserman Schultz to step down amid uproar over... 32 min They cannot kill ... 6
News Issue 1 37 min They cannot kill ... 1
Wikileaks: Cruz asked the DNC for money? 1 hr They cannot kill ... 2
News Manure expo coming to London - 5:14 pm updated: 2 hr They cannot kill ... 12
I (was a lifer) am a Dem and I’m Voting for Tru... 2 hr They cannot kill ... 25
Crooked Hillarybilly 4 hr Seriouslady 8
Wikileaks Shows DNC Colluding With CBS News 4 hr Male 12

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages