On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:46:30 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:46:03 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 05:39:12 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 20:53:33 -0800, wrote:

There is no such thing as a permanent job any more. Name one.

Retirement.

It's very steady work with a reliable pay check and I enjoy it.

LOL! Well, until Social Security ends in a ball of flames...

There is no member of congress brave enough to face an army of ticked
off retirees. The theft will be done in stealthier fashion via
inflation and manipulation of consumer price indices. It's already
happening and will soon begin to hurt those who are not well hedged.

It is true, the baby boom generation is the selfish generation.

I guess when you believe what the government tells you, you get stuck
with what the government gives you.

Glad I am funding my own retirement.

I'm glad you are also, so that we don't have to listen to you whine
about everyone else... oh wait.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:57:22 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 14:45:20 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:46:03 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 05:39:12 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 20:53:33 -0800, wrote:

There is no such thing as a permanent job any more. Name one.

Retirement.

It's very steady work with a reliable pay check and I enjoy it.

LOL! Well, until Social Security ends in a ball of flames...

There is no member of congress brave enough to face an army of ticked
off retirees. The theft will be done in stealthier fashion via
inflation and manipulation of consumer price indices. It's already
happening and will soon begin to hurt those who are not well hedged.

Gas prices, and the resulting taxes, are a great example.

Gas prices?? This has nothing to do with Social Security. Where are
you getting that notion?

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 09:30:46 -0500, W1TEF
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 00:05:58 -0800, wrote:

Wow... you're just a downer for everything. I guess creating 8000 jobs
and pumping $8B into the economy is the wrong thing. But, of course,
San Francisco is Pelosi country, so it must be a terrible idea.

Newport ran a huge loss for every American's Cup they ran for many
many years - that's why they only ran it every four years - fund
raising to keep the city and state solvent. The America's Cup just
isn't very interesting to the average sports fan - at least not the
way it is constituted now as far as tourism goes. It just isn't going
to attract the huge numbers needed to support the multi-million dollar
yachts. I was there when Australia II won over Liberty - we watched
most of the race off shore, then ran in to the pier to watch them come
in. The Mrs and I could walk around, no crowds other than sailors and
support staff - maybe 1,000 people total in the general area? Maybe.

And it was even worse in previous races - nobody other than the
sailing community cared. When Courageous took on Southern Cross, I bet
there weren't 500 people watching in total. Or at least it didn't
seem that way.

Having said that, if Ellison succeeds in downsizing the boats to
something more reasonable and races that can be viewed from shore,
then maybe, just maybe. As it is? No - ain't gonna happen. Other
than folks like you and me who might be interested in sailing races of
the size and scope of the current America's Cup, there isn't much
there - the average sports fan doesn't care about billionares building
half billion dollar boats to race in one race.

8 Billion to the economy? No way - just ain't gonna happen and I
highly doubt you will see 8,000 PERMANENT jobs out of this. Temp
maybe - a big maybe.

Here's an awesome, but short promo...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xivNKFulYhU

On Jan 3, 11:04*am, John H wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 08:41:49 -0500, W1TEF wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 05:39:12 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 20:53:33 -0800, wrote:

There is no such thing as a permanent job any more. Name one.

Retirement. *

It's very steady work with a reliable pay check and I enjoy it.

Me too. :)

Ditto.

Retirement? What's that??? eve3n if and when I decide to, I'll sell
out and sit around a while,t hen decide I can't stand it and do
something else.

On Jan 3, 2:46*pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...





On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:46:03 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 05:39:12 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 20:53:33 -0800, wrote:

There is no such thing as a permanent job any more. Name one.

Retirement. *

It's very steady work with a reliable pay check and I enjoy it.

LOL! Well, until Social Security ends in a ball of flames...

There is no member of congress brave enough to face an army of ticked
off retirees. * The theft will be done in stealthier fashion via
inflation and manipulation of consumer price indices. * It's already
happening and will soon begin to hurt those who are not well hedged.

It is true, the baby boom generation is the selfish generation.

I guess when you believe what the government tells you, you get stuck
with what the government gives you.

Glad I am funding my own retirement.

Me too. I believe in putting stock in yourself.

On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:42:18 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Jan 3, 2:46*pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...





On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:46:03 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 05:39:12 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 20:53:33 -0800, wrote:

There is no such thing as a permanent job any more. Name one.

Retirement. *

It's very steady work with a reliable pay check and I enjoy it.

LOL! Well, until Social Security ends in a ball of flames...

There is no member of congress brave enough to face an army of ticked
off retirees. * The theft will be done in stealthier fashion via
inflation and manipulation of consumer price indices. * It's already
happening and will soon begin to hurt those who are not well hedged.

It is true, the baby boom generation is the selfish generation.

I guess when you believe what the government tells you, you get stuck
with what the government gives you.

Glad I am funding my own retirement.

Me too. I believe in putting stock in yourself.

So, you don't get Social Security or Medicare?

On 1/4/11 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:25:06 -0500,
wrote:

In truth, nothing is permanent in life - including life itself, but
the definition has to exist so that some order can be made out of
hiring, firing, replacing labor or workers.


A federal Civil Service worker is about as hard to get rid of as a
tenured professor. There has not been a real RIF (layoff) since the
50s. There have been some reorganizations that eliminated jobs but the
workers simply moved across the street, or in some cases just stayed
where they were and GSA changed the sign on the building. (The Carter
administration was probably the best example of that). A GSA guy I
knew said they were thinking about using thumb screws to mount the
signs because they changed so often.

It is possible to fire a government worker for stealing or not showing
up but if they are there every day, you can't fire them for
incompetence or goofing off..They just get shuffled off to another
agency if anything happens at all. Usually they just get put back in a
corner and ignored.


Of course, in the private sector, you get promoted for stealing. :)

On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:25:06 -0500, W1TEF
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 14:07:48 -0500, Harryk
wrote:

On 1/3/11 1:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 08:46:01 -0500,
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 20:53:33 -0800, wrote:


There is no such thing as a permanent job any more. Name one.

Incumbent politicians, judges, career military, Priests, Ministers,
tenured university professors and educators...that's seven - want some
more?

I guess you missed the last election, judges can be removed, never
heard of DOTD?, religious leaders can be removed, tenured educators -
maybe. That's what you're basing your jobs recovery on... that list?

You can define it personally anyway you want, the plain truth is that
the classic legal definition of permanent and temporary jobs exists,
has for a hundred or so years - the fact that you don't like it isn't
relevant.

There are no currently relevant "permanent" jobs. The fact that you
don't know squat about legal definitions isn't my fault.

You two are arguing semantics. Therefore, no winner is possible.

No, I'm stating the legal definition describing permanent and
temporary employment as found in contract and administrative law not
to mention Economics 101.

Show me an example of such a legal definition in the US. The point is
that that term and hiring under such a term is frowned upon and has
been for a long time.

Something, by the way, you are probably very familiar with being, in
part, a contract worker occasionally.

Ms. Plum is arguing her own definition of same as being reality which
it isn't.

In truth, nothing is permanent in life - including life itself, but
the definition has to exist so that some order can be made out of
hiring, firing, replacing labor or workers.

QED - so basically, you're admitting you're wrong and claiming I'm
wrong in two small paragraphs.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 12:49:02 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:25:06 -0500, W1TEF
wrote:

In truth, nothing is permanent in life - including life itself, but
the definition has to exist so that some order can be made out of
hiring, firing, replacing labor or workers.


A federal Civil Service worker is about as hard to get rid of as a
tenured professor. There has not been a real RIF (layoff) since the
50s. There have been some reorganizations that eliminated jobs but the
workers simply moved across the street, or in some cases just stayed
where they were and GSA changed the sign on the building. (The Carter
administration was probably the best example of that). A GSA guy I
knew said they were thinking about using thumb screws to mount the
signs because they changed so often.

Completely untrue.

It is possible to fire a government worker for stealing or not showing
up but if they are there every day, you can't fire them for
incompetence or goofing off..They just get shuffled off to another
agency if anything happens at all. Usually they just get put back in a
corner and ignored.

Completely untrue.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:19:21 -0500, W1TEF
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:49:10 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 08:46:01 -0500, W1TEF
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 20:53:33 -0800, wrote:


There is no such thing as a permanent job any more. Name one.

Incumbent politicians, judges, career military, Priests, Ministers,
tenured university professors and educators...that's seven - want some
more?

I guess you missed the last election, judges can be removed, never
heard of DOTD?, religious leaders can be removed, tenured educators -
maybe. That's what you're basing your jobs recovery on... that list?

I'm not baseing my opinion on anything - permanent jobs exist. That
you want to redefine it as temporary is your problem - not mine.

You're correct. You're not basing your opinion on anything. There are
very few "permanent" positions, and even those you listed aren't truly
so.


You can define it personally anyway you want, the plain truth is that
the classic legal definition of permanent and temporary jobs exists,
has for a hundred or so years - the fact that you don't like it isn't
relevant.

There are no currently relevant "permanent" jobs. The fact that you
don't know squat about legal definitions isn't my fault.

As I said above, redefining it to suit your ideology is all well and
good - the fact is that LEGALLY (as in a employment contract or an
agreement to hire - take your pick) the definition exists, you can't
change it and that puts paid to any further discussion.

Show us.