*
I just read an article in the paper that Pioneer Log Homes (WIlliam’s Lake, BC, one of the premier log builders in the world) has accepted an order for a 9360 sq M. house (roughly 101,000 square feet) to be erected in Steamboat Springs Co. at a cost of $28M.
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Simple air-sealing measures and spray-applied sealant lower energy bills and increase comfort without the need to tear the house apart.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Fine Homebuilding Magazine
Fine Home Building
Follow
-
Fine Homebuilding
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial Now -
GBA Prime
Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
- Home Group
- Antique Trader
- Arts & Crafts Homes
- Bank Note Reporter
- Cabin Life
- Cuisine at Home
- Fine Gardening
- Fine Woodworking
- Green Building Advisor
- Garden Gate
- Horticulture
- Keep Craft Alive
- Log Home Living
- Military Trader/Vehicles
- Numismatic News
- Numismaster
- Old Cars Weekly
- Old House Journal
- Period Homes
- Popular Woodworking
- Script
- ShopNotes
- Sports Collectors Digest
- Threads
- Timber Home Living
- Traditional Building
- Woodsmith
- World Coin News
- Writer's Digest
Replies
*
And I thought our log home we are building was a monster at 3000 sq ft. Now I don't feel so bad. My cousin builds monster houses in Steamboat on the 10K-20K sq ft range. I wonder if he knows anything about this. There are a lot of large homes there....and of course......these are not full time residences.
*It's going to be "pre-built" in BC and then shipped to Colorado on more than 60 truck. That's a b bighouse.http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20011204/818293.html&qs=log%20pioneer
*That's not a house, that's a forest with a roof.Ed.
*is this house one of thoes "because we can" houses?? Why does someone need 101,000 sq. ft, thats like a mall. It would be hard to re-sell that house too.
*Is this house one of thoes "because we can" houses?? Why does someone need 101,000 sq. ft, thats like a mall. It would be hard to re-sell that house too.
*Good one Ed.
*it's an Ex-ForestDang! It's a small mountain by itself. The Roof can be used for the Olympic ski jumping competition. Have they no shame?The town of Steamboat will need to add onto the city hall to have enough space for all the tax assessors working on this place! That means the cops'll have to work overtime writing parking tickets for the budget to balance.
*http://www.segway.com/consumer/connect/photos.htmlThey'll need a scooter to get around indoors. Not to mention a map or a GPSdevice.Suppose they'll have king size beds?
*No they won't use a scooter, they'll use an .....IT....!
*Well, the IT and the 100K sq. ft. house have one thing in common; they are totally worthless, outside of the sick minds who conceived them. I built a 4200 sq. ft. log home for a couple about five years ago; they hate it; too much cleaning, too much heating, too much space. And they thought they had it all! What a waste of wood. Oh well. I'm sure the 100K house will be quite the site; and will end up as a museum, since as a previous poster pointed out, no one would be able to, or want to, buy it once the original owners get tired of it.
*The article on it says even thekids are prevented from selling it and that the next 50 years of taxes are already funded. I doubt resale is on his mind. He means it as a monument to his.........accomplishments.
*the owner must be president of the "more money than brains" club.what is this a monument for?? what accomplishments??
*That was a figurative monument. His accomplishment is success in business. Maybe he likes a place for a lot of family. He seems to have made the money honestly, so what's the big deal? Let's guess that he's worth $100 million or more. What's the harm in spending only 1/4 of it on a house where all his children and all their families can gather? I know many people who've spent proportionately more than that on their home. And I can think of worse things to do with money.
*Those Taliban aren't completely wrong about us.
*All those lovely cedar logs...at least it's not old growth doug fir (have to bow my head in reverence when I say that).
*And all the people who will feed their families doing craftsman quality work for the next 6 years building it.
*This man's home is roughly 25x bigger than the one I'm building, and I'm sure he has way more than 25x my money, so it doesn't seem too extravagant to me. People ask why I'm building such a big house (for this area) and my reply is, "Well, we decided what rooms we wanted, designed each room for it's intended use, and it just turned out to be the size it did." It's not extravagant, just a little large.I suspect he did the same thing. He didn't get rich being a poor planner -- I bet if you sat down with him and looked at his plan, it would be pretty logical. Maybe he just does things in a big way. Or perhaps he plans to bring a dozen of his best clients (and their families) up a couple of times a year for "sales meetings" (I bet there's a tax angle).He might think some of you who drive gas guzzling, super crew, 4x4's that cost $35,000 are a bit wasteful too. But that's YOUR business, right? Who are we to judge.
*i I bet if you sat down with him and looked at his plan, it would be pretty logical. There is nothing logical about building a 2.7 acre home.
*Today's trophy home. Tomorrow's apartment building.
*Well I am looking forward to when I am 76 when those prepaid taxes are up and I get to visit the 100k square foot Bed and Breakfast. Give me a room with a view.SJ
*Having lived in Colorado the later half of the 80's, and forging friendships with some of the locals while skiing Steamboat, I can only imagine their displeasure with the continuous raping of this once obscure, quaint, history laden town.
*The man is building a house, a magnificent house, outside of town; for 6 years local tradesmen and suppliers will make money from the construction; the town is assured a goodly sum in taxes every year for at least 1/2 century; there will no doubt be ongoing opportunities for wages and goods for maintenence work; and the infrastructure load doesn't seem that great. Why would building this house be a "rape" ?
*If an area doesn't want development, they can buy and set aside the land, or build in deed restrictions, etc. But for people to want no further development--once they've built there, of course--but not put their money or their laws where their mouths are, is pointless. I didn't want my neighbor to build next to me and ruin my view to the west, and I sure wanted him to build a nicer house, but I wasn't willing to buy the lot and he observed all the covenants he used to try to stop ME from building, so my opinion of his place doesn't count for much. Likewise with this guy.
*If I had to explain, you just wouldn't understand Phill.Good Day
*Did anyone complain when George Vanderbilt decided to build the Biltmore Estate? Probably. His house was around 4 acres, getting close to twice the size of this little cabin. http://www.biltmore.com/visit/biltmore_house/biltmore_house_faqs.htmlDo many people still enjoy this grandiose dwelling 106 years after it was first opened to the public? YES! Did he need a house that big? Do you really need a house as big as the one you have? Phill points out all those who will benefit from the construction of this house (just think of the maintenance requirements... How would you like to be the roofer with the 200 square contract for this house in 25 years...)Also, this house probably will still be standing in 100 years, if not 250 years. How many people are purging the old growth resources for vaulted ceilings that will be demolished in 30 years because they are passe? I personally don't have a problem if he wants to build a house that big. Just my thoughts.Jon
*Ahhhh, the Biltmore House--I can see it (with a telescope) from my front window. Biggest employer in the area (along with hospitals and schools). Doubt anyone would complain about it. Of course, it's surrounded by 8000 acres or so of protected land.The log house is using extra large logs and is being "engineered" for a 400 year lifespan.
*At what point do we, as a race, reguardless of economic background, stop our unencumbered consumtion of this portion of space for our selfish moment spent in this dimension? I hope the decline of civilization, whatever that may be, will turn for the better some time soon.
*i Phill points out all those who will benefit from the construction of this house Typical selfish response, ...what's in it for me, me, me, me....
*I agree Cloud, thoughtless beings wouldn't complain.
*Now Dan, don't try to trip me with double negatives--I get practice on that all the time from my 4 yo and she confuses me less than half the time. I'm getting better!! :)Really though, if I don't own the land, and all the rules are followed, do I have a legitimate beef? Opinion's are one thing, but isn't "decline of civilization" a bit over the top?
*Nope
*First of all Cloud, no one owns anything, we just think we do in the petty time of our existance here. Second, you assume laws, by any means, to constitute what? Morality? Conformity? What ought to be? What should be?
*Dangit Jim:You need to add that shot to your website. Intersting story and I love Ed's comment. Are there any floor plans/prints available on the net yet?
*Oh, got it; you can't have it, so nobody else should.
*Yep, I know Steamboat Springs and Dan is right. It is (or was) beautiful and making it like Vail is not an improvement. Not everything is about making money.Mary
*Sorry Phill, you've clearly missed it.On the other hand, haves and wants are clearly two of a kind my friend, not to mention need.
*Dan, So maybe the builder of the log house wants to enjoy his petty time here. Is there a problem with that? What size house do you live in? What kind of car do you drive? Do you ever splurge?Jon
*Phil Giles.......I guess that you see nothing wrong with building this useless "residence".Hell.......the husband & wife probably don't even sleep together anymore. Most of the people I know with that kind of money are misserable as hell anyway. The only way they see any happiness in their lives is to spend money.
*Where are the limits? Please set for us the moral limits on size of and location of house. I'm willing to listen to your definition of what people should be limited to building. I'm also curious who should be appointed to set, arbitrate, and enforce the limits.
*Phill Read this passage from Oscar Wilde ten times slowly, aloud or to ones self, and reflect for a couple of hours if you can.i "We live in the age of the overworked, and the under educated; the age in which people are so industrious that they become absolutely stupid."
*TH,How many people do you know with that kind of money?
*Which seems to have exactly nothing to do with Jim Moore taking his reward and setting aside a large track of land that won't be developed and building what some may consider a work of art on it. Would you have prefered 20 story apartment buildings, or row after row of 1500 sq ft boxes all built to the lowest standard ?
*No Dan, that's "what's in it for everyone". Don't you see, this home could be good for the community at large.
*And it's not just the Biltmore Estate (thanks for bringing us this Jon); magnificent homes are considered a treasured part of the heritage and history of many countries. People weep when one is destroyed; families travel great distances just to see them; they are important.
*Well, I don't know too many people who can spend close to $30M on a house; but, I know several who have spent a few million on one, and most of them are quite happy. I only think it's wrong when some sports star, who has contributed next to zilch, can afford one.
*For all those passing judgment on this project, what do you know other than what you have read in this forum? Are you calairvoyent (sic) or just pollitically correct?
*Is this house going to harm something
*A whole bunch of great big trees.b : )
*It depends on how you define community Phil. I define it with "man" not being the sole species in the community. Right now in Colorado the division of wildlife is trying to reintroduce the Lynx to some areas. Of course some of the so called "okies" don't like the idea of wildlife actually thriving in the area of their summer trophy homes. So they make big stinks and vociferous tirades about the safety of their family pets and kids. What they want to do is move out to the country and yet remove any aspect of the "wilderness".
*I think a lot of Americans need to go down to their local junior college and sign up and take an environmental science, biology, or natural resources class. Contrary to what the all knowing Rush Limbaugh says, having a little science & education under your belt is not a bad thing.
*Much as I hate to, I have to agree with Philllll on this one. To a point.What the man does with his own money is his bidness. What kind of house he decides to build is his bidness. Leave him alone.But.... This sort of person doesn't tend to follow the golden rule. They think that they should be left alone to do whatever the hell they want to do with their own money. But then when someone like me comes along with very little money, fewer resources, and trying my damndest to stay afloat, this same mega-millionaire thinks it's ok for him to turn around and tell me what I can or cannot do with my own meager resources. And s/he will think nothing of devoting several times my own income, to making damned SURE that I cannot make anything of my own resources. They will willingly spend that money to drive me into the ground, but wouldn't even begin to consider just giving me the dang money, and letting me get by a bit better, someplace else.I say, let them do whatever they want to do. But.... only so far as they let the rest of us do what we want to do as well.
*You guys got it all wrong! The're not going to built a house with those logs. They have figure a way around the softwood lumber tariffs. I'll bet there's going to be another 30 homes pop up in Highlands Ranch..... nudge nudge wink wink
*So you're saying the owner of this home is against the reintroduction of the Lynx ?
*Well, we do have all these logs, and all these unemployed loggers, and all these unemployed log-truck drivers, and, ...
*Well Patrick, please enlighten us as to how this new-found knowledge of environmental science will help us form an opinion about a 100,000 sq ft house in the middle of a 7000 acre ranch ?
*Yeah but thats in Canadian currency, same house in U.S- $80,000.00.
*On a more serious note.... in America one can spend any amount of money on anything one wants. Of course others are free to air their dissenting views, HIP HIP HOORAY! My compliments to the owner of this log mansion. Here's to the next successfull multi billionaire who wants to outdo this guy. We enjoy living in the greatest economic society in the history of the world because Americans have unlimited vision and the unencumbered ability to make dreams come true. I hope you guys crying about this never get into politics. By the way I'd like to add about 20 people to my crew and put his floors in, then I could add another Harley to my garage... and a Porsche turbo.. a BMW... new Chevy truck... Ranger bass boat...new bigger garage...new bigger house........
*Very, very, very good point, Lukster. Very good indeed...did
*I don't care who you are. Nobody should get to hog that many trees for their own use. What is this guy's legacy? Leaving a big bare patch of earth where trees used to be and building something of no practical use to anybody. Its bad enough that people are heating and cooling 5000 sq ft of space for their McMansions, and now this. When the resourse are gone and the climate has changed, will we still want to say that it was their money and their business?
*I'm amazed at how our culture ever got to the point where to show a little self control and discipline became some how "un-American". Remember, the Romans had a lot of food, slaves, & wealth, and then one of them came up with the idea of..."Hey, why don't we build a vomitorium so we can eat till we are stuffed, then put our finger down our throat, make our selves puke, and then we can gorge our selves some more." I'm sure that seemed like a good idea to them at the time too. In the end, their hedonistic undisciplined life style led to their demise as a leading power.Thanks,
*I'm amazed at how our culture ever got to the point where to follow your dream became some how "un-American".>In the end, their hedonistic undisciplined life styleWhat does this guy's house have to do with hedonism and lack of discipline. You think his life is only about pleasure? You think his business success came from a lack of discipline????>Nobody should get to hog that many trees for their own useWhat number should be the limit? Give us guidance so we don't violate your rules.>Its bad enough that people are heating and cooling 5000 sq ftOh crap, I'm screwed. BTW, what's the btu/h requirements of your house?
*i What does this guy's house have to do with hedonism and lack of discipline. It's bigger than this guys i house, i rule, and any i American dreamfor that matter Cloud, you just don't get it, I mean youb really just don't GET it!
*You don't believe that gibberish Luka. With all the peaceful, spare time you have to spend in logical thought, I know you can come up with something better than that!
*A good friend of mine, Russ Pope, fought at Iwo Jima and Quadacanal, returning home before he was 17. At 74 he still has nightmares. He fought for our culture, which is not socialism, one aspect of which is to do with your own money what you want.I think Moore is kind of a pig to kill trees as his legacy. I'm free to think this of him and he's free to buy those trees.Darrell
*I'm going to add some chrome to my Harley. Maybe upgrade to a 103 c.i. motor. Add a blower while the cases are out. Lower it a few inches. Stretch the tank. Custom paint..... Screw it I'll just have one custom built... maybe by Willy G. himself. I'll have the baddest, fastest, lowest, most chrome laden bitchen' scoot anybody ever saw! Any objections?
*Rich, if your in need of a bike that matches the above criteria to prop your shalow ego upon, I suggest you look up Jesse James.
*Oh Dan, go to the Tavern and have a beer. I know exactly the point you're trying to make. Duh. I'm just trying to explore the limits of your condescension to see if there are real parameters on what flies or not, or if you just decide something's inappropriate by knowing it when you see it. From here it seems pretty arbitrary. Certainly your right to be so.But Luka's totally right about the hypocracy--people all over want the freedom to do as they wish on their own property, but then want to limit the next person from doing likewise, especially if it's gonna be bigger or grander than theirs. And it doesn't have to be on this humongous a scale. It happens at all economic levels. Shoot, I've seen it happen in trailer parks. It usually comes down to--I have a problem with anyone who has more than me or tries to do more than me.My company was in a 100000 sq ft blgd, so I know what that size is, and I don't exactly see the point to a house that size. I also would prefer to see big, beautiful trees allowed to grow. And I also would like to see forest land stay pristine, and water and air stay unpolluted. I love that the Blue Ridge Parkway and Great Smokies around me are federally protected lands. So don't confuse defending this guy with liking the scope of his project. But having been on the receiving end of this crap--where someone tried to retroactively change rules to keep me from building on my property unless it suited his arbitrary tastes--I've become pretty much committed to a live and let live philosophy. So I get it; I just don't agree with you.BTW, do you favor Clinton's having protected millions of acres from development or do you think Bush should undo that?Jim
*Dan Metzcus: You just don't get it do you? I mean you just don't get it! I guess capitalism and democracy isn't your cup of tea. Maybe you would be happier living somewhere where everyone subscribes to your way of thinking. You could set all the rules and regulations. Too bad you weren't around to tell Henry Ford that horses are a fine mode of transportation. You could have instructed Alexander Bell that telephones would be intrusive. I'm sure you disagree with Jonus Salk, that vaccines interrupt natures plan. Do you wear a black turban too?
*i It usually comes down to--I have a problem with anyone who has more than me or tries to do more than me.Jim, Those are probably the times that people notice, because the guy who has more, makes enough of a stink to get more notice. He can afford to.Much more often, the case is that the guy who 'has more' is the one trying to control the guy who doesn't have much. And the ones who don't have much are trying hard just to survive, they do not have enough to fight back, let alone raise enough of a public stink to get notice.It is one thing to sit around and complain about trees being cut down. It is totaly another to devote some of a greater wealth to bankrupting a man, taking everything that he has, and dumping him out on the street with nothing, by bankrolling regulations, etc, that will make him unable to hold onto what little he has, simply because you don't like the looks of what he does have. Or you don't want a neighbor there. Or any number of other assinine, selfish reasons.I was not so much saying, let the guy cut down all the trees he wants, as I was saying let the guy have exactly the same freedoms that he is willing to give to the rest of us. I would be willing to bet that if he found a neighbor within elbows' reach, who did not 'fit' with what he thought a neighbor should be like, he would bring some of that wealth of his to bear, to try to drive the neighbor into compliance with what he thinks they should be like, or just to drive them totaly out of exaistance.
*But you seem reluctant to outline exactly, or even at a concept level what "it" is Dan. We'd all; well, some of us at least, would like to hear your ideas.
*I've been trying to track this guy down (Fortune, Business Week, Financial Post, etc.) and he's got a pretty low profile other than his business accomplishments. Here's what I have (or think I have): - democrat - supports SPCA, WWF (as in World Wildlife, not wrestling), Save the Panda, the Governors' Council on Education (the education initiative started by IBM), Save the Cheetah, and Amnesty International. - vet (Vietnam) - married once (and still), several children.
*Bet he wears a baseball cap funny! Luka, I'm not disagreeing in any way with what you said. I just didn't cover all the bases in my comment (and it was too long as is). In fact, the dude who tried to give me trouble owns lots more stuff than I do and did try to intimidate me. To my great luck, and sight unseen, I hired the area's best atty before he could and he was left with the second best and that kept the battle short. Still cost money better spent on......well, anything. Still frosts me. But it's also made me more aware of cutting other people some slack.>I would be willing to bet that if he found a neighbor within elbows' reachThat's the one step I won't take. If I don't know him, I won't speculate on his behavior.
*And you do well not to take that step. I was wrong to do so.
*I've read some statements on this thread that some of us are un-capitalistic etc. Just for the record, let me tell you where I sit. I am a fiscal conservative, social moderate, and environmental liberal. And Phil, could you give me the links to the information that you dug up on that guy?"- democrat - supports SPCA, WWF (as in World Wildlife, not wrestling), Save the Panda, the Governors' Council on Education (the education initiative started by IBM), Save the Cheetah, and Amnesty International. - vet (Vietnam) - married once (and still), several children. Thanks,
*No, much of the info came through notes from my old buddies in marketing who worked his street (that's why I wrote "think I have").
*OK, Dan... at what point do we "stop the clock" so to speak and say, "No more!" Perhaps you'd like to turn the clock back to Oscar Wilde's era? (Everything that's come along since, get rid of it!)Do you have running water? Indoor plumbing? Central heat? Air conditioning? A car? A retirement fund? Health insurance? A high school education? Well, why? You don't actually NEED any of it. I mean people got along for thousands of years without any of it. Most of the rest of the world's population doesn't have any of it. So why do you need any of it?What you are really saying is, "OK, I now have everything I need. If I don't have it, then YOU don't need it either. If you have more than I have, then you are illogical and irresponsible and raping the earth's natural resources."What gives YOU the right to decide what is "enough?"
*Don't let's turn the discussion of whether we are correct to express outrage at the impact of the personal vanity of an individual into a commie vs patriot discussion. Nobody here has proposed limiting this individual's freedoms in any way. He will build his house, and we will watch it be built without any attempt to undermine the laws of capitalism or democracy. Do you seriously propose that in order to preserve freedom, Dan Metzcus, and any other voice that speaks against what you percieve as related to the foundations of captialism and democracy, should be silent? There is an old law of the internet that states that all flame wars eventually wind up with one person comparing the other to Hitler, at which point all meaningful discussion has come to an end. I guess Hitler has finally been replaced, by Osama bin Laden. Congratulations on reducing the debate to its lowest possible level.
*Roger, where did someone say the voices should be silent? ..(I'll wait while you try to find it.)..(still waiting)..BTW, the first ref to Taliban was post 14. Followed by mentions of "raping," the "decline of civilization," and "morality," all placing the homeowner on the wrong side. No need for you to get all high and mighty.I think most of us have beeen asking for more info from Dan, et al, not less. I can accept as a premise that 101K is too much. But I'd also like some parameters on where the line is. Is 50K ft too much? 10K? 5K? I'm really curious, but no one will answer. Sincerely, when is enough enough, and when does it become too much? When does hunger become gluttony? Or is it just an "eye of the beholder" kind of thing?
*Cloud, In my opinion, you are asking for a rational reason from people who are operating under an irrational premise. Good luck with finding an answer.Jon
*Hi Jon! Like the weather we're having?Just having fun with it, so no harm even if less-than-ideal debate. It'd be a fun conversation--a bulliten board is a little herky-jerky for discussion sometimes. I'm currently installing the bamboo in the room with the computer, so it's easy to spot stuff as it comes up, and I'll take ANY excuse to get a break from the glue! When I move on to the next room, I'll only get to the puter once or twice a day. Have to find other distractions then...Happy Holidays!
*If this guy clears 5 or 6 acres to build his 2 1/2 acre house and leaves the rest of his ranch unspoiled, how is he rapeing the environment? If he built 50 homes on one acre tracks and at 2K sq, ft., would he be doing more or less damage to the ecosystem? Consider the roads, drainage, sanitation, energy consumption, building material, traffic load increases, social services needed to support this new community, and all other infrastucture.Off the top of my head, I would say that although he is leaving a fairly large foot print, it is not as devastating as many of the developments that go up in just about any community in this country.Conspicuous consumption, yes. However, it is most likely less detrimental to the enviroment than a development.Dave
*It has nothing to do withb sides , Cloud. Reflect upon the b meaning of ones existance, whatb calls for our thoughtful, meaningful existance.
*Well, Jon, can't say ya didn't warn me! Ha ha.
*Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.H.G. Wells
*I guess I'm trying to draw some lines around the conversation. Nobody is served by making personal accusations, as tough as it can be to avoid the temptation sometimes. I have regretted the hasty "post" button push many times.Let's start from your premise. 101K is too much. What we need to do then is find out what about it is too much. I am willing to submit there are cases where it is not too much:- If he plans to turn it into a hotel/museum/gallery or other use that would effectively use its size.- If he has, say, about a hundred more kids.Here is a link to a hotel in which I have stayed. The Chateau Montebello is a log building in Quebec that is at least as large as the one proposed here. I for one am glad it exists, for it really is a marvel.http://www.petite-nation.qc.ca/patrimoine/chateau.htmlSo its not size alone that is the issue. I don't think it is a money issue either, as there are lots of homes worth more than $28 million that do not receive the attention that this one has received.Imagine a person who has the money to buy the Mona Lisa, then does so and uses it as a doormat. Its his private property, and he's not doing anything illegal, all the same people would feel that it was a shame for him to do that, and they would be right. The same applies here. Trees are a resource that people cherish, and recognize that it is limited, both for our own use and for our children. To take $6M worth of them and build something that seems unreasonably wasteful is simply a shame. If he had built his house out of, for example, tropical hardwood, it would be even more of a shame. Had he built it using standard studs, I wouldn't care nearly as much. My caring doesn't prevent capitalist markets from working, or make me hate democracy.
*Roger, you're keeping it civil. Thanks. What's the word on Western Red Cedar. Plentiful? Scarce? I don't know. The whole log structure is 6 mil, so the logs might be 2 or 3 of that, with labor, engineering, profit, etc covering remainder. May not change one's conclusions, but at least we'll have good numbers.I don't know where the line in the sand is. His use of resources bothers me less than many others--building golf courses in the desert and using scarce water to keep them green, for example. (My way of protesting this is to go on them and play a bad round of golf.)If I were this guy, I'd worry about those eco-terrorists lighting his place up like they've done to other structures that violate their sense of appropriateness.
*Let's draw some more lines around this discussion. The guy building this house does not plan on turning it into a hotel anytime soon. Although our great grandchildren may stay there in the future if it ever becomes one.He's not going to have about a hundred more kids.He may however have an enormous collection of artifacts and art and furniture that justifies (in his mind) the need or want to build a dwelling to house his treasures. His business and his business only.The Mona Lisa is not a renewable resource, his logs are. Forest management is as much of a concern to modern governments and lumber companies as it is to you and I. Lumber companies are forced to manage their natural resources properly in order to perpetuate their future business.The $6M worth of logs is a commodity that is for sale. They will be sold and used by someone, either one at a time or by the tractor trailer load.
*Just a few words for clarification:1)Phil’s statement (taken from the National Post I think) that Pioneer Log Homes is the premier log builders in the world is misleading. Don’t get me wrong I am not knocking them at all it’s just that Pioneer is only one of several dozen Log builders located in the Cariboo–Chilcotin region of British Columbia. Out of the regional builders they probably rank in the top half dozen when it comes to quality work. We all know it is hard to maintain top notch quality with a large number of employees but even so Pioneer does turn out a very good finished product.2) The term “over-sized logs” is just a matter of perspective. Compared to the typical American-built log home the logs may seem to be rather large at an average 16” – 20” in diameter. Compared to the ‘Scandinavian type’ log construction typical of Canadian log builders they are pretty normal. This particular building does have 3 very spectacular support posts (read that as very large trees!) incorporated into the design. These ornate design elements, some of which include portions of the root balls, are a trademark of Pioneers work.3) Western Red Cedar from here in the interior was viewed as a less than desirable species for many years. It’s qualities are such that it does not make as good a quality shake, shingle or siding product as coastal cedar. Even as recently as 20 years ago it was often bull-dozed out of the way and left to rot. Even today care has to be taken harvesting it as it is subject to butt rot and in fact many of the trees harvested for log home use are close to falling over on their own. The term “Old growth” is simply a matter of perspective. An old growth Cedar here in the interior may well be 100 - 150 years old whereas on the coast old growth cedar may be 400 – 500, or more, years old. The good news is that it makes a very beautiful log home at only a small cost premium over the Spruce typically used. 4)The work generated by this, and other, projects is badly needed in an area that depends on it’s forests for 80 cents out of every dollar circulating in the local economy. The protectionist stand of American forest interests has damn near killed the dimension lumber market at this time and until we win this battle again it will be a tough row to hoe for a lot of families. 5)And finally to put this into perspective one should understand that while 60 truck loads of logs seems like a lot of wood (which it is) it is only a small drop in the bucket compared to the total amounts of fiber that we ship to the states and overseas. In the Cariboo alone there are over 200 truck loggers who will on average pull 2 or more loads a day (every day for 8 months a year) into town to be turned into lumber, plywood, OSB, log homes, and paper products.
*Point of clarification, my statement was "one of the premier ..." not "the premier"; and, with their international customer set, this is certainly true, so there was b no misleading. The fact that this is now a recognized regional skill spread across several companies is, of course, true. As is the point you make that this is a drop in the bucket compared to the normal output of the region.
*well said, Alan.
*Dean, Thank you for putting this into perspective. Now... lets flame over the right to wear fur.
*Hey, the guy is using a renewable resource. The reason that most people object is that they have their timeline set to "my lifetime". Everything is renewable eventually.
*I like what Roger and Dean are saying.I was surprised to see so many of you quick to impose your values on others.Anyone care to tell mister Moore what he should not drive, eat, fly, buy, etc?Trathen logging hauls about 20 loads of hardwood around here (Rochester, NY) and they are a small outfit.-Rob
*Hey Rob! I grew up in Rochester, how is the town holding up these days? I really missed the large quantity of nice towns that surrounded the place when I moved out to Michigan (I guess everything is too 'new' and too flat for me out here), but here is where my work is so here I stay. Always used to dream of owning one of those grand houses on East Avenue between University and Alexander, and growing up in the 60s & '70s, lots of them were available pretty cheap.Nice to hear from someone in Ra-cha-cha.
*Did you hang out at the chicane at the Glen with all the Raunchy Rochies ?
*naw, I was never that cool.But I did go to Watkins Glen once (in the late seventies?) when they hosted their first F1 race after so many years.Used to listen to WAXC AM 1490 when I was little (everyone else listened to WBBF and thought they were cool, but I knew better!). I rember being freaked out about an "album rock" station, WSAY, that only big kids listened to. I rember wondering who the heck would want to buy a whole album when you could get the hit on a 45!
*You know I really dont care if this guy builds a 200,000 sf house if the money thats building it isnt blood money.That is if his business treats employees fairly,with respect and proper benefits.If it treats the enviorment with the proper respect.And this monstrosity doesnt adversly affect his neighbors(7000acres?) and the land.If thats all true then..hey go for it big guy..if Hop Sing is happy in the kitchen then Ben build that thing.To me its just another case of ridiclous over consumption..but hey..Oh and about all them trees.Actually a log home is just a giant timber pile stacked up nice and dry.You can always cut them up later and build 30-40 Jim Walter homes.
*I think it would be cool to sight your rifle in at 300 yards in your own bedroom!Frank
*Well, I guess Dan lost interest in this thread. He never did tell us how much is "enough" or why he has so much when so much of the world has so very little. Why isn't he morally outraged about the amount of precious water that he flushes down his "indoor" toilet every day?I do some work for a forest products mill in south Arkansas, one of hundreds in the south. They easily process 60 loads a day, maybe 2x that. That's not really a lot of lumber.
*Crusty, Are you stirring the pot again? Did you not see Kais' thread about correct behavior and manners and not stepping on toes or offending anyone or hurting other peoples feelings? Go stand in the corner!
*Hey, Rich! You can't be talking to Crusty like that! You might be offending him! You go stand in the opposite corner!Rich Beckman
*Well, I built a round house. You can't make me stand in the corner! Na na na na na!
*I wonder how many people express outrage at the amount of wood that gets fed into fireplaces every winter and into barbeques every summer ?
*I've read quite a few posts about struggling American families and how this huge home will provide jobs to an area that needs a lot more jobs. I don't think some of you are really familiar with Steamboat Springs and the Rocky Mt. ski resort towns in general if you are making statements like that. Over the past 10 years there has actually been a severe labor shortage in those towns and a lot of the labor jobs have been filled by illegal aliens. Once the laborers arrive to work construction, landscaping and service industry jobs, there is then the problem of finding affordable housing for them. They usually can not afford to live in the resort towns so they will usually live in outlying areas like Leadville Colorado, in apartments that are packed beyond the occupancy ratings. This all has a trickle down effect for the local police force, school systems, hospitals & etc. So basically the rest of the tax payers pick up those extra burdens to subsidize someone's trophy home.
*Geeezz! Now we are picking on the Mexicans! I think Arkansas is the chicken capital of the world, except the "locals" don't want to work in the processing plants -- they'd rather draw unemployment or welfare. Well the Mexicans don't mind doing the crappy work that no one else will do, so they come here and work. My mother-in-law rented to them and they were by far the nicest, cleanest, best behaved people that she ever had there -- absolutely no trouble at all. They work shift work and can double up that way -- some are sleeping while others are working, and vice versa. The reason they do that, is so they can save as much money as possible to send home to their families in Mexico, so maybe they don't have to live in poverty there. More power to them! And if we (the taxpayers) have to provide them services, that's fine -- I'd much rather my money go to help someone who will get up off his ass and work! (Oops, did I offend anyone?)
*Well, unless somethings really amiss, providing services to productive workers shouldn't be on a net loss basis. They pay taxes and they spend money in the community. Naturally, as a community grows, its budgets grow with it. Of course, if a community has been running at a loss, or is underserviced, then sooner or later they will "pay the piper"; and the bureaucrats and politicians will go looking for scapegoats.
*Hey Crusty, where in my post did I say Mexicans? I said illegal aliens. And where do you see I'm picking on anyone? That's a big leap my friend. Let's have an intelligent conversation about the issues. If you're to politically correct to have an intelligent dialogue, well then that's a shame.
*Hey Moonlight, is your name Dan Issel by any chance? Ha Ha just kidding :)
*Moonlight, well if the "illegal aliens" (your term)are not from Mexico, where are they from then? You're the one who's being politically correct by not just saying what you mean, or do you just have no direct knowledge of the situation you describe? Are they really in the country illegally? How do you know that? How do you know they are not registered, in the country on temporary work visas?
*Think I found the answer:
*I sure do miss that Calvin and Hobbes.Rich Beckman
*Lemme see. If I do the math right.Assuming an improbable but easily calculated box:Thats a single story house 318 feet sqare. Just about big enough for football with space for the stands!or Two stories 159 feet square.I happen to work on a structure like that. It was at an airport and used to house airplanes.Did you misplace a decimal point? Or is this a joke?Discounting the options above.There is no accounting for taste. A fool and his money....
*...a fool and his money are ......soon ......employers/clients with challenges and needs for craftsmanship all the same?
*A fool is not likely to have $28,000,000 to spend on a house, or anything else. You don't get that kind of money being a fool.I am sick to death of hearing the "have nots" whining about how the "haves" spend their money. Get off your butt, go make your $28M, and then NOT spend it anyway you want!
*Crusty, you`re confusing wealth with intelligence. They really aren`t the same thing at all.
*So you think an unintelligent person can start a company from scratch and grow that to over $30M of tax-paid disposible incomes ?
*Yeah, I've met a ton of stupid self made millionaires. I guess this guy was just lucky....the only dumb multi-millionaires are lottery winners...and they were smart to enough to play.
*Unless I knew more about this guy, I wouldn`t presume to make any kind of judgement about his intelligence.I would presume to say that not all intelligent people are particularly wealthy, and not all wealthy people are particularly intelligent. There is no doubt that intelligence helps, but I think focus, drive, willingness to take a risk and just plain dumb luck are more important.
*I can't believe I read the whole thing, so far.Thanks Phil!!!!! *&%&%^(*&Rick Louquet
*"not all wealthy people are particularly intelligent".... how does one become a multimillionaire without being intelligent? How do you "luck" into being a multimillionaire? (Notice I didn't say a plain old millionaire -- 1000 shares of any of a handful of tech stocks 15 years ago would have done that for you, easily)
*Did we miss something here? I mean as fine as the Biltmore is, it is simply built in the european tradition. as are the breakers and most other fine homes in America. This is after all a magazine about fine home building. Should we applaud an American who chooses to build in our best known style? that of a log home. something much of this countery was founded on i.e. the log cabin myth? Don't we applaud presidents who lived in a log cabin? Now if someone chooses to make a grand statement about the log cabin myth that is at the core of our nation should we really find fault? When you understand that it may have taken 100 to 150 years to grow those trees and the owner intends to have the home last at least that long then he is not depleteing resources. Trees will grow again, in many ways they are like corn, if you don't harvest them in time the crop rots. Do I envy him...., yes of course. Would I do as he's doing..... no, but then I'm not him. I wish him good luck and a happy home.
*Well said Frenchy, and as already pointed out, the logs this house are being made of, would surely rot if not harvested. Think of all the carbon dioxide that would release, adding to the greenhouse effect!
*I'm not clear if that house is a 10,000 square foot or a 100,000 square foot house. In any case, is it any wonder that the rest of the world seems to be getting pissed off at us Americans for being such energy/resource wasting pigs? 2,000 square feet ought to about do it for most any rational person....
*Jon,101,000 sq. ft. Read the original post. Ian.D.Gilham. "Palatial surroundings !" 7/30/01 7:15pmWould you consider this to be rational?Jon
*Jon, Rational? What's rational? Surley it's not rational to have more than the minimum. Since Thoreu managed to live in a converted box of less than a couple of hundred square feet any home of more than 200 sq.ft. is just your (and I repeat your...) opinion of what rational is. America became the envy of the world by allowing, actually encouraging more than the minimum. In this country we can achieve whatever we want. If & when you become a billionare you can choose to do whatever you wish with your wealth. Then the rest of us will critize your choice...... BTW If it's so wrong to build a large home then why do millions of people travel half way around the world to visit such homes as the Buchingham palace, Versile, and the Hopsburg palace? OK you say, they belonged to Kings and that's differant, How about the White house, or Montecello? (I bet that's more than 200 sq.ft.) Face it, where and what you live in makes a statement. If you choose to live in a dull boring small cracker box built just like all the other houses filled with ticky tacky all in a row, that's your choice and you are free to make it. we really shouldn't comment....Honest we shouldn't.....
*Frenchy, I understand your point, but I stand by the rationality of the decision to build this behemoth.Rational- Webster says "Showing reason; not foolish or silly; sensible."Practical- Again, Webster "Designed for use; utilitarian;"The decision is rational but not practical. I believe it was Phill that pointed out that this guy might be worth > $100,000,000. Assuming this is the case, the house represents less than 30% of his net worth. That's pretty tame compared to some middle class people who surrender to a lengthy mortgage just to keep up appearances. I doubt that his family has any significant material needs. All his ducks are in a row, so why not spend the money.I don't believe that any car that costs more the $50,000 is practical, but I wouldn't condemn or call someone irrational because of their purchase. If they are up to their nose in debt, well that's another story. You would be correct to state that the house is not practical. But that is not what Jon Gerlach was contesting. He lambasted the freedom that we enjoy here to spend money how we want and the rationality of the homeowner in his post. I agree with you (if I correctly understand what you are saying) that he should be able to do whatever he feels with his money. Most of the detractors in this thread would do the same if they were blessed with the same material wealth.I think every decision we make should be based on economic principles. Could he possibly do with less the 101k sq. ft.? Probably. Could he derive more enjoyment from the money were it spent elsewhere? Obviously he doesn't think so and we have no business second-guessing him.Jon Blakemore
*Frenchy, i think you're suffering from a delusion that democracy is when we have equal opportunity to become lords. Biltmore? That fortune was founded by a guy whose famous motto was, "The public be damned." Buckingham Palace? Check out some figures of what it costs the English people to support a figurehead monarch and her brats. Versailles? Les Louis managed to plunge the French gov't into bankruptcy...let them eat cake, n'est-ce pas? I don't need to go so far from home for examples of the filthy and rich, though: Missoula has its own scumbag, the billionaire Dennis Washington. Trees are like corn? Think about the consequences for the food, water, dirt, and small farmer when an Archer Daniels Midland or Monsanto takes over. Little people get squished, the land and the local economy get trashed, but someone at the top makes out like a bandit. Enron?
*Weyerhauser?Where did all my trees, salmon, bear, wolves and forests go? Into the trash heap along with thousands of good mill jobs in the form of whole log exports
*As I pretty much expected, my point was completely lost on my detractors, as it would be on most Americans. I'll try to see if another approach works better. To clarify, my point is that Americans are only about 5% of the worlds population, and yet we use about 25% of the total available resources and produce about 25% of the worlds total pollution. Homes like this represent the American attitude that the worlds resources are for Americans to use no matter the consequences. Arguments about whether the guy can afford it or whether it provides jobs are irrelevant. The fact is, we must continue to wage war on the other people of the world (Middle East in particular) so that we can satisfy our greed for the worlds resources. If Americans can tighten up their belts somewhat, maybe we can reduce the resulting global conflicts that arise. Perhaps coming down to a 2,000 square foot level will still neccessitate taking more than our share, but it would be a nice start!
*Jon,If we comsume 25% of the worlds resources wouldn't it make sense that we contribute 25% of the pollution. Honestly, I don't see a problem with that. If we didn't consume them, someone else would. Then they, instead of us, would be contributing an amount of pollution proportional to the amount they consume.What, I ask, are the consquences of his house? As has been stated, trees are a renewable resource. Why not use them? I have just as much respect for old-growth lumber as anyone here. But I fail to see how his decision affects you and society as a whole adversely.When you say that we are waging war out of greed, do you really mean that? Do you completely discount current events? Would you say that Bush knew about the attacks just as FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, both ignoring the information so as to have an excuse to wage war?Jon, tell me a little about your house? Size? Do you have hardwood floors? Solid wood cabinets? I believe cloud was the one trying to find the maximum allowable sq. ft. per capita allowed. Do you have any answers?Jon
*i If we comsume 25% of the worlds resources wouldn't it make sense that we contribute 25% of the pollution. Honestly, I don't see a problem with that. If we didn't consume them, someone else would.Jon B., I think that's precisely the point Jon G. was making, that "someone else" shouldn't be disadvantaged or have wars waged on them to fuel the American ideal of Bigger is Better. It has to do with whether you follow the "Ubermensch" model or the "Greater Good" model. Trees are a renewable resource, but the Q that needs asking is, Are they being sustainably harvested? A logging engineer i know well tells horror stories of what is happening extra-US where environmental concerns are of no concern...and the wood isn't being used to house and shelter the inhabitants of the countries affected, but stolen by Mafia-style organizations which the governments are powerless to oppose. I worked many summers in the '70-80's for the Forest Service doing stand exams and became convinced the road closure idea was less to protect the wildlife than to prevent the public from seeing how the Government ruined your resources by overcutting and losing the sites for you and your children's children. For the record, i live in houses that were ready for demolition before i bought them and restored them, using oodles of salvaged materials. Far from creating hovels, i was given an award by Missoula for an outstanding Victorian restoration (1200 sf).
*What do you think would happen if all American "aid," both governmental & private, were suddenly cut off from all foreign countries? How much do you think we spend a year in aid to foreign countries? What if we stopped buying foreign goods? What would happen to the world economy? You bleeding heart liberals need to remember that "consumption" drives the worlds economy -- we stop consuming, a lot more people go to bed hungry.
*>You bleeding heart liberals need to rememberCrusty, crusty, crusty.....me thinks you've been hanging out in the Tavern a little past closing, if ya know what I mean. This talk doesn't follow political lines (based on other expressed views of some of the respondents), so your making it sound as such just messes with the entire dynamic of the discussion. Keep it "on point" and we'll all be fine.
*Crusty, What you fail to understand is why we give aid. It is very seldom because we want to be nice guys rather it is given to sell our products. Let me explain. If you have a lot of resources but not a lot of capital America will send you aid, in return we will sell you Caterpillars,Farm equipment, mining equipment and the like. Just consider it a bribe... The reason we intend to forgive some third world countries their debt. is so that they are in a position to buy more of our goods. To buy road pavers to build roads, buy steel to build bridges, etc. No politician is ever gonna say that outright, but believe me Caterpillar and etc. practice it. Why do you think the corporations spend so much to get their guy elected? Since our govenment has to be so large we sometimes blow perfect chances to sell our products which explains some of the inconsistances. In addition we have competition and sometimes one American will sabatoge things for the other American rather than let a competitor get an upperhand. In the end Aid is wonderful for American business, it's how business is conducted in most of the world. If you want the economy to pick up, just give more aid.
*Nathan, you are right, many governments insist that their trees be milled locally. Ameica doesn't do that for political reasons. I'm certain that with a little research you can find out why..
*Jon Gerlich, Yes, we are the richest nation on earth and as such we will consume more than our share. Take heart Rome didn't last forever, nor did Rngland nor will we. These things have a cycle and the more we consume the sooner it will happen.
*Splintergroupie, Are all trees being sustainably harvested? No I don't think anyone would make that claim. Is a more sustainable harvest becoming more accepted? yes! I can honestly say that all the trees for my home are harvested in a sustainable manner, (with the exception of the Tamarck which were harvested because of growth of IBM) So yes, I think globally and act locally. Now the nit pickers would say that those two big burl Oaks that provided me with such nicely figured woood are not sustainable. Since no one seems to know for certain what causes that growth. Yet whatever acorns they dropped may yet yield replacements... tune in in about 300 years or so.....
*Jon Blakemore, Either you misread my post or I wasn't clear enough. I too support his right to build. However I don't feel every decision should be based on economic principles. Many wonderful things would not exist if based only on economics. My home is not based on economic principles, I'm using stainless steel lag bolts for example, not because I'll need them in my lifetime but rather because I intend this home to last longer than it took to grow the trees. That is an emotional decision not an ecomomic one. Having children is an emotional decision, ever since they banned child labor.... and not an emotional one (I mean those little rug rats will eat a lot more than they grow). :<) Perhaps you overstated your claim, don't worry, I do it all of the time!
*Because the growers have tremendous political clout.
*This is the funniest damn thread I have read in ages! It's a knee slapper. I agree with Phil Giles, but I hate the house. Here's my rationale: Zoning laws are ensconced in public arena. The community decides how to zone through its elected officials. Your city or town can look however you want it to except...........Who sits on zoning boards? Developers and general contractors. Or in places like Vail, very rich people or very rich developers. There is a small lake south of Seely Lake Montana with a small island in the lake. One of those picture postcards. Had a cabin on it 40 years ago. In 84 I came by and.......My God! The island was one giant house! No island! Just house, drive in boat dock etc. It was the inventor of the contraceptive sponge, from L.A. He didn't last long. Pissed off all his neighbors and couldn't get a smile anywhere nearby.So, the zoning passed it, but people hated it and him. But the locals got a job. And now they have the legacy of a white elephant. This giant log home is the exact same story. Maybe I am a fool but I would not go up a story to block my neighbors view. Nor would I build something so boring as a future B+B at best. If I had this guy's resources, I would sink my energy into creating a PUBLIC structure. Which would you guys pick, this house or say a Carnegie Library type of structure with your name on it? How about tossing in one's wealth to add to a part of the new WTC? Build a park? Buy nice streetlamps for your city? Create a public fountain? Pay to have the boulevards in your town lined with trees? The ideas are endless, and he is not bound by ANY law to do any such things!
*Absolutely correct Crusty: "foreign aid" and international trade are vital to the American economy. As most foreign aid is in the form of goods or trade credits, rather than cash, it keeps Americans employed. Developing 3rd world economies into producing/trading economies is a sure way to create new wealth in the US. Every time a trade barrier is thrown up, it eventually means that some Americans will have less and some in the 3rd world will starve.
*Clarification please Dave. From the last couple of sentences in your append you seem to be advocating that there be laws compelling to give money to community projects; sort of like self-directed taxes. Is this the correct read ?
*Frenchy, i need some back-up for this statement from you. Which governments insist trees be milled locally? I've been reading some Forest Stewardship council sites and Good Wood Alliance and i can't seem to find that...I did find this, however, which is pertinent to the discussion...here's the short-story version:i "The illegal mahogany industry has for years been driving the destruction of the Amazon," said Paulo Adario, coordinator of the Greenpeace Amazon Campaign, who had received death threats over his role in preparing the report. "Mahogany is responsible for thousands of miles of illegal roads opening areas of pristine forest to degradation."i The trade in mahogany--which today is found only in very remote, old-growth tropical forests--has been the subject of environmental and human rights campaigns for more than a decade in the United States and Europe, especially Britain.i The value of the hardwood--used mostly in the construction of yachts, expensive furniture, musical instruments, and coffins--has long attracted loggers deep into virgin forests. Their construction of logging roads has in turn spurred settlers to move into regions which are home to native peoples.i The result has been not only the destruction of the forests, but also the spread of disease to indigenous populations with little if any resistance, and often violent collisions of very different cultures.Those pesky Greenpeacers...
*Frenchy,I understand your support of his right to build. I was merely clarifying what I consider to be rational (as opposed to practical). I agree with you that we only need a few hundred square feet to survive. I live in a 13 x 20 dorm room for 8 months out of the year. Of course bath and kitchen facilities are not included, but I share the small space I have with two other males. That's 86 sq. ft. for living quarters. It can be done. Still, I don't question the rationality of his choice.In regards to economic principles, I think you are equivocating "economic" with "dollars and cents". I am referring to the concept of utility. Utility is not necessarily monetary, or even tangible. Your decision to have children shows that you will derive more utility from their existence than you would from the foregone options. You could instead buy a boat, or work less, or retire sooner, but you have chosen to procreate. Our log cabin friend seems to feel that this house is the most beneficial use of that portion of his wealth. Carnegie felt that building a library was more beneficial to him than anything else. He won't likely benefit financially, but he wanted to help others which is what's important to him. The log cabin guy could elect to convert the house to a homeless shelter and bus vagrants in and try to get them back on their feet. Then, we could say that he felt that he would derive more utility from helping others than from living in house alone. This is not to say that he is wrong to build a house like this for himself, because who knows how much he has contributed to charitable organizations, churches, etc. It's easy for us to criticize when we don't know the whole story.Jon BlakemoreP.S. I will be away from the net for a few weeks, so if anyone replies to my post and decides that they have been victorious because of my silence, that's not the case.
*Phill,> you seem to be advocating that there be laws compelling to give money to community projectsYou getb thatfrom this???> Pay to have the boulevards in your town lined with trees? The ideas are endless, and he is not bound by ANY law to do any such things!Amazing!Rich Beckman
*i Is a more sustainable harvest becoming more accepted?And who made that possible? Was Weyerhauser leading the charge? A lot of ground in Montana has what we call checkerboard ownership: the US gov., in order to get train tracks laid through the state, gave the R/R every other section of ground. This land passed into lumber company ownership over time. One summer my job was to try to find all the old section corners and lines from the 1889 survey that had been done in the area. In any area where there was a road, my job was simple: the lines contained the clearcut square mile that was US Plywood land.I must have missed the conversation somewhere, Frenchy, but how do you know your trees were sustainably harvested? Were others planted in their stead? Same species or monoculture? I know you salvage the drop-off from the mill near you, but what about their source? And you are at least trying to be cheap! I doubt you could afford to have that house built for you of all-new materials--am i right? This multi--millionaire is not likely shopping for wood at his local sawmill and seeing what he can make out of mill ends. I may be quite wrong--hell, the guy does support pandas!--i'm just saying if my life depended on it, that's what i would guess.
*i It was the inventor of the contraceptive sponge, from L.A. He didn't last long. I believe it - my last experience with a contraceptive sponge just turned 15 last month - -
*Yes, I took his statement to mean that he was incredulous that there was no such law and was askingb himto make a clarification.
*i He didn't last long. Pissed off all his neighbors and couldn't get a smile anywhere nearby.Uh, Dave? The Today sponge guy, Vorhauer, wasn't interested in getting smiles from the locals. He committed suicide near the mansion after his failed run for governor left him in debt and he lost the patent for not payign the $150 maintenance fee. When it was discovered by law enforcement that he'd also torched the yacht he'd bought on his IOU from scumbag Denny Washington for the insurance money, he pulled the plug.
*I clarify: There are no laws and should be none to force people to perform public works projects. My point is the guy has chosen a path he is fully within the law and zoning to pursue. But he didn't have to. Am I moralizing? Perhaps. I don't wish the guy ill, I just think he wasted his money. If he is happy, great! If this overgrown cabin is perceived by anyone to be in the class of the Biltmore, well, I don't think so. Nor will it be anything more than a quaint hotel or dude ranch in the future. I would prefer my name on a very small and discrete plaque on a public work that I had built. I didn't know about the guy in Montana sending himself into the hereafter. Sounds like a sad tale all around.
*i so if anyone replies to my post and decides that they have been victorious because of my silence, that's not the case. Never been the case in any of my posts. I think it's a given. Sometimes you just realize that you are dancing with a pig, and you plain decide to walk away from it. I'm sure there have been lots of times when someone has decided that they have been 'victorious' because of my silence, but if they would rub a couple brain cells together, they might realize they have made a total fool of themself, and been flipped off and walked away from.Yeah, yeah, I know that my rant has little to do with your intent. It just seemed a good place to make a statement that has been on my mind a few times in the last couple years. And now, I'm finished with my mini-rant, and will let the thread get back on it's original course. LOL
*Splinter, The two that come to mind are Mexico and the Phillipines, but I've read about several others, just too tired to do the research to back it up....Sorry. I do like the concept of milling trees where they are grown. the "waste" is minimised as well as providing jobs to those who will be deprived of the trees. The trees were grown on a family farm and only Mature trees were harvested. Some of the trees were 300+ years old which is about the maximum life of an Oak before it starts to rot from the inside. I watched while they were harvested and saw that very little marking was done in cutting them and hauling them to the central point where they were loaded and hauled to the mill. A year later you would have to look very close to find any trace of the harvest. The Tamarck is another story, that was cut because IBM expanded their plant. They could have shoved the trees in a pile and burned them, instead they allowed the mill to harvest. I see new trees planted around the addition so I guess that's sustainable..... (OK a bit iffy....) The Black Walnut was grown on a farm near Rollingstone MN. I spoke to the farmer and he was planting new trees for his grandchildren to harvest. While he did have some forests of monoculture trees, most of his land was a mixed forest. (except farmland). I'm sorry I didn't see the cherry or the hard Maple harvested but knowing Connie Johnson as I do I'm certain that he did it the right way. I've never seen him clear cut land except when the owner wanted it done that way for some other purpose. He knows that for the work involved he can't mill trees less than about 10 inches and still come out. Since he's handing the business down to his son and his grandson already works there, I see him planning for the long haul. If he does clear cut I know him well enough to know that he will find a piece of played out farmland and plant trees with the excess he charges the owner.
*Phill, Many wealthy looking at back at their life have regrets, they know that some of the choices they made may have hurt many. To atone for their owns "sins" they do things for the benefit of their country/city/community etc. I suspect that's what Dave meant. Phill, Once you reach the end of your life and assuming God blesses you with wealth what are your intentions?
*We've already decided that some portion gets split between the Toronto Zoo, the SPCA, and the WWF; the rest goes to my son.
*Every country points with pride to SOME part of the industry harvesting sustainably--even found a website with Malaysia purporting to do so!--but that's not the whole story. For example, see the following:i Mexico has 21 million hectares of native forests with commercial value. Unfortunately, this country has one of the largest deforestation rates in the Region, estimated at around 600 thousand hectares per year, due to the expansion of agricultural land. Fuelwood consumption at 15 million m3 per year, is the 2nd largest in the Region, and there is evidence about its negative impact on forestry resources. Mexico`s 0.2 million hectares of exotic plantation sustain a cellulose and paper production of 2.6 and 0.5 million ton/year, respectively.The point about harvesting locally is a good one, and it sounds like you done good!
*Splinter, Reasonable people will if given enough information come to the realization that sustainable harvesting is the only smart way to do things, However in some cases we're talking about accountants who run things and not the owners/occupiers of the land. Accountants have to be the dumbist people in the world. What they know is fancy ways to add and subtract. Since they have the ear of busy bosses/ owners that's what impacts the forests. The true danger to forests isn't giant corporations, it's their accountants who shuffle numbers to make their new boss look good. Actually clear cutting isn't really as horrible as some claim. Now wait before you jump all over me I can jusify that claim.... From about 1850's to the 1950's here in Minnesota forests were clear cut. (that's the way it was done then) by the mid 1960's according to the DNR there were only about 6 million trees of over 12 inch diameter left standing in Minnesota. According to the most recent estimate we now have close to 20 million trees over 12 inch diameter. In my opinion once Minnesota was logged off, the big players moved on. Then the local mills and loggers took over and harvested trees in a much more sustainable fashion. I know the same thing happened in Wisconsin. We do have a much more diverse tree population now as a result. Previously eastern white pine used to dominate both Minnesota and Wisconsin's tree population. Now there are only small random stands left here and there. (By the way one of the few stands of Chestnut left in America is in Wisconsin with a few chestnut trees scattered here and there in Minnesota) Now granted it's taken close to 100 years for Minnesota to come back and as a state we've learned a lot since then, Hopefully others will too. As for growth taking forests, I have no solution. China used forced abortions and limited growth and the world condemned her for it. I don't believe such draconian methods should be forced on Brazil and Mexico. In fact I don't know what will work, do you have any suggestions?
*Splinter, You commented about the palace at Versailles, if I recall my french history along about the time we fought our revolution the french peasants made a claim on the King for back interest, failing to make good on his debt. they demanded and got a rather heady (heh,heh) penalty. I'm certain that was the reason that palaces built with public funds has fallen out of favor recently.. As for the cost of maintaining her Royal Highness and heirs, the British government est. that for every pound paid to her Magisty there is over 120 pounds recieved from tourism. Besides they just recently started to tax her....
*It's not just the monetary cost of the Royal Family that hurts England, it's the perpetuation of a class system that places some people above others according to which bed they were born in -- what Donald Trump called 'the lucky sperm club'I would infinitely prefer a system that promoted people for their ability.
*If anyone thinks the class system will croak in England or anywhere else in Europe, guess again. Even in France, sans the head of the king, I will bet people will defer to say the Queen of Monaco. Class and socialist government support of the locals helps keep everyone in check. Bread for the masses so they keep their station. Titles for the upper class to keep them happy. In a small pond you don't want big fights. Imagine if Europeans were as clawing and grasping as Americans. I doubt the "me first" system would work as well.
*There will always be a class system. No matter if the criterion is blood-lines, wealth, land, looks, musical ability, athletic prowess, or just the best hunter; there will always be those who are on top and those at the bottom and their children are usually first in line for a piece of the rock. While the only way into the Royals is through marriage, in Britain the mercantile class is open to all as are sports, entertainment, knighthood, and the House of Lords. Think there are any systems where everyone sits forever on a level playing field ? Even under Stalin, those who rose through the ranks got a better life and their offspring had a big head-start.
*Monaco is a Principality: no Queen. On the other hand, the US has as pronounced a class structure as anywhere in Europe.
*Evidenced by many of the east coast schools,academies, colleges. Kennedy's, Bush's etc.
*Frenchy, some of the more egregious cases i've read about re deforestation have to do with the ruling junta selling off the raw materials as fast as they can, or internationals running over the top of the local government. That's why your example of the Phillipines puzzles me...Marcos doesn't strike me as a hero of sustainablity.We had some figures released by the Forest Service about how much more basal area or some such measure the present day forests had over the turn of the century ones. (Of course, with the mining industry, it could be true that we have more now, but how much...?)Anyway, some people from the U of MT Forestry School got to looking into it and found out the FS had cooked the books themselves to hide the shortfall. The lawsuits are probably still flying!My solution would be very like one i've seen proposed to rein in the gross disparity between what the top executives in a company take in and what the guy on the assembly line gets, which is to make the top salary a multiple of the lowest salary. If the guy on the line get 20 bucks and hur, the only way the guys at the top can make more is to raise the underling's standard of living too. If i wee king i would say that a person can live in a certain size house tax-free, and if it increases over a certain amount, tax the bejejepers out of the owner. This paradigm exists for some places' utility bills, where you pay a small amount for subsistence, but if you want to squander the kilowatts, you'll get an opportunity to fund the next hydro dam a lot sooner.
*i which is to make the top salary a multiple of the lowest salary. Ifi the guy on the line get 20 bucks and hur, the only way the guys at i the top can make more is to raise the underling's standard ofi living too. The obvious absurdity is that the CEO/president of a small accounting company (or doctor's group, or architects, or engineering consultants, or, .... you pick) would make 5x to 10x what the CEO of GM would make. The big companies would be talent-starved and either tank or under-perform because of it. The boards of directors would not have any leverage to improve the return on their investment (and without investment, there would beb NOnew jobs). And if that lesser talent decided to raise salaries in order to get a raise themselves, then they'd lower their company's productivity in addition to raising the price of their commodity. Double whammy ! As for the "tax-free" house; how do you propose to provide services if everyone moves to these tax-free buildings ?
*Bullshit, PhillNot all executives would say "Waaaaah, if I can't have more money than god, I'm taking my ball and going home".The pendulum would swing back and forth a bit, and eventualy it would level out and everyone would get on with their lives. Because you see, everyone does have to get on with their lives. Companies would survive, the economy would survive, because what is the alternative ?Now if you'd made the obvious point instead, that those exacutives would simply find other ways to pad thier wallets at the company's expense...
*i The obvious absurdity is that the CEO/president...Okey-dokey, have a variable for numbers of persons supervised, or have the salary be based on the next lowest salary, which is based on the next lowest salary...whatever, i have a firm belief that a person with a degree in statistics can figure out a more equitable way of we have at present. Or do you like the way things are, where a nitwit can run his company into the ground and be immune from liability for the fallout? (I've been reading about Air Canada's Chief Eejit Officer...)i ...then they'd lower their company's productivity...You haven't considered the plausibility that a share of the pie would be incentive to work smarter, better, and provide more pleasant customer service, that turnover, retraining, and accident costs would be minimalized. Here's a link to doing it with the carrot instead of the stick: http://www.business-ethics.com/i As for the "tax-free" house; how do you propose to provide services if everyone moves to these tax-free buildings ?If everyone jumped off a cliff...Do you honestly believe the log-cabin guy would be swayed by the tax break into living in a double-wide?
*No, they don't go home, they go to the biggest paycheck, and that would be the information and hi-tech sectors, not core manufacturing. Offshore companies, already strong in this sector, would eventually completely engulf that sector. And your second and third paragraphs boil down to the fact that everyone will realize that you need higher remuneration and the whole silly scheme would crash.
*That's the way it works now Spliter, most senior managers, and a growing number of middle employees are given stock options, which is how you pay for productivity. Sales folks are rewarded with commissioins There, of course, is a significant problem when you get to the "line". In order to earn more pay, they would have to produce more; which is a red-flag to the union movement. And if a company ups production by investing in equipment, how do you determine how much, if any, benefit the workers should get. The other problem with introducing variable pay to a unionized manufacturing environment is that the unions want this at zero risk (i.e. they won't convert a portion of their salary to variable and take home less if things aren't going well, they only want more). And yes, if you swing more and more of the tax burden onto fewer and fewer people (and you did indicate significant tax burdens), they will take the option of less taxes. Throughout the OECD, there is a trend for executives to have their prime residences in low-tax areas, sometimes offshore, while living in more modest spaces near to their offices. In NY, London, Paris, etc., many of the better hotels have more than 50% of their rooms under long-term lease.
*Okay, stock options: as i understand this, it's the thing whose value you artificially bolster by misreporting the value of the company right before you sell out and leave the bottom rung of shareholders twisting in the wind...? Nope, not the outscome i had in mind.Phill, as surprising as it might seem, i'm no fan of unions except that they are an equally bad force to oppose the companies--kind of like one Mafia family keeping another in check. I prefer the Ayn Rand model of the employer making damn sure the employee has what he or she needs to survive, because that employee's welfare is directly tied to company profits. In my little business, i work on the principle that we are in a symbiotic relationship, not merely a hierarchy and it seems to work well, but this orientation of management to worker is missing in most companies, it appears.If the tax burden became too unbearable for those hogging most of the wealth and they decided to downsize their egos, then i would say, Mission Accomplished. If the better hotels in London, NY, and Paris are your idea of modest spaces, i think we need Luka's translation skills!(And for someone who puts up such a stink about others correctly spelling his name...)
*Phil, You lose on this one, only in America does the differance between the guy sweeping up and the CEO amount to the huge differance that it does. In much of the rest of the world the differance is seldom more than 20 times A few years back Newsweek had a chart of the differance and the best run Japanise companies were 12 to 14 times French and British were around 15 times & German less than 10 times. there were other nations listed but I forget the numbers involved. I understand the need to reward the creator with additional compensation to motivate creativety and risk taking. My main objection is to the CEO who makes no added value to the underlying net worth of the company by playing the wall street game. Wall street rewards companies who reduce work force. The stock goes up and yet the company isn't doing anything better, just with less people on the payroll. In the short term the company will show extra profit and then customer complaints will start to add up, the market will relize that this is a company that doesn't take care of it's customers and sales will drop. In the end the damage done by downsizing far exceeds any short term gain. Yet few managers are in place long enough for the long term to catch up. They are using the company as a stepping stone to the big time or they are close to retirement. The net effect is a few benefit and most suffer... This isn't jelousy, rather concern for the long term health of the company. If their paycheck was based on a 10 year average well then I wouldn't have a beef, when it's based on one year or evan one quarter, there is too much chance of fowl play.
*You're confusing two points: 1) execs having modest homes/apts in town 2) execs living in hotels while in town "having what he or she needs to survive" is a long way from your original argument for locking CEO salaries to entry-level employee's salaries. And no-one is "hogging wealth"; particularly those who are spending it.
*i Throughout the OECD, there is a trend for executives to have their prime residences in low-tax areas, sometimes offshore, while living in more modest spaces near to their offices. In NY, London, Paris, etc., many of the better hotels have more than 50% of their rooms under long-term lease.Looks to me like you made the connection between modest spaces and better hotels as homes-away-from-home, Phill. If you mean something else, you have to be clear about it.As to the rest, we must agree to disagree on what a living wage or job security means, and whether the employer enters into a reciprocal arrangement with the employee or if might makes right. On hogging wealth, you are simply wrong, wrong, wrong.
*CEO's add very little to the value of a company. They simply cut deals to satisfy Wall Street. Or fire people to satisfy Wall Street. Heard of mission statements? "We agree to pay the stockholders in the next fiscal quarter" that is the only mission statement a ceo has. United Airlines is an ESOP where the union had to come to terms with the life of the company. It can be done. As for taxes, they are the only force in society to level income. Problem is the government will likely waste it.
*The reciprocal arrangement is: 'the company will pay you this amount of money for this amount of work' and, 'you agree to those terms'.I have lived out of hotels for protracted periods and it certainly doesn't qualify as a "home away from home". And who's hogging this wealth ? How many people become millionaires every day in the US ? Hundreds ? How can that happen if there's some sort of conspiracy to hog wealth ?
*No, that's not what a mission statement looks like, but that's probably on his TOE contract as part of his performance plan. If he's being paid in options, then the only way he can earn his pay is to increase the value of the shares. As to value of a company: for most large corporations, their face value is reflected in their market capitalizations. The stockholders own the company and expect to see their investment grow and/or to derive an income stream. Why would anyone invest in stocks if there was no return on the investment ?
*How about "The company agrees for a lifetime of service not to can you when you're almost eligible for retirement, if indeed we haven't spent your fund already."You've a long-term lease in a better hotel? Flowers and chocolate are almost sure to get you back in the house... i And who's hogging this wealth?If you google on "wealth disparity" you 49,800 listings. Pick one.
*No-one is happy about early retirement, I know I wasn't; but, a guarantee of life-time employment wasn't part of the offer, nor did I contract to work at the same company for life. There are laws in the US protecting older workers.No, I don't have a lease, I have lived in hotels for long periods (at company expense) and it wasn't a thrill.Sure, there are wealthy people, but they no more hog wealth than poor people hog poverty: the majority of people born in the US have the potential to become either. And with the death taxes in the US the way they are, it's not as if wealth can effectively be passed on.
*Wealthy people hogging wealth? What sort of specious argument is that?! Did you bother to check out what percent of people owns what percent of the goods???Yeah, all those poor people keeping all that poverty for themselves--there ought to be a law...i it's not as if wealth can effectively be passed onPhill, are you a party to a trust fund?
*Not everyone has the potential to move up the ladder. As a matter of fact, some people are just stupid. And some are brilliant. The brilliant man may squander his brilliance, but the stupid man can not be smart overnight. It's not PC to point out differences in potential but I know well that those on the bottom of the pile often lack the wits of the others on the top. Life is a bell curve. Disenfranchise those on the bottom or laugh at their inability to do calculus and society now has a problem. Let the top of the pile ignore the bottom and you will have an even larger bottom. The CEO can protect his money, the man at the bottom cannot. That is why social security exists. So if canning a guy at 52 years of age is ok, make sure his pension is safe and secure and far away from the CEO. If CEO's have a different mission than the mission of their company, and they do if they bow to Wall Street, then employees should be majority stockholders in their company to reap the benefits of the CEO's brilliance. Publicly held companies are the most unaccountable legal entities ever created. They seperate the man from the mission.
*This link might be helpful in settling the argument about disparity ofwealth, etc http://www.sharedcapitalism.org/scfacts.html
*What argument ? There are rich and poor, that's a fact. And for a huge chunk of the European and North American populations, they're a heck of a lot better off than they would have been 150 years ago. These are a bunch of facts presented in a socialist-friendly manner with no analysis. For example, it states that in Malaysia, 15 families own almost 2/3 of the stocks in their stock market. It doesn't say if this adds up to 10's of people or 10's of 1000's of people, but it's 15 families. Does it say anywhere: "gee, look at that, 15 families supplied the funding for 2/3's of Malaysia's public corporations, are responsible for employing so many people, and are carrying most of the risks by themselves" ? And the universal left-wing agenda: let's steal, er tax, yes tax their savings away.It's like the argument of giving everyone a 10% raise. You know the impact of that ? Do you think that would raise everyone's standard of living ? No, it would just fuel a spike of inflation and the bottom of the heap would be worse off again.
*Employees can be majority owners if they so choose, just put up the money and buy the shares. In Canada, the public unions (public employees/teachers) are the largest holders of corporate shares followed closely by the autoworkers and trade unions, ironically in their pension plans. Let's not forget that stock is a means of raising capital to start or expand companies; it's a loan with a fragment of the company as collateral. Without stock markets, the American economy would be a fraction of its current size.If your laws don't provide adequate protection of pension assets, then that's a problem with your law-makers.
*As a separate item, I carefully said "majority", which means "not all". It seems you're hinting at some sort of entitlement for those you call "the bottom of the pile"; but you haven't said what. Accepted wisdom says that if a significant portion of those who turned their backs on greater success (includes drop-outs, teen mothers, drug-addicts, or the just plain lazy) had made a better effort, then they would all have much better jobs in skilled/knowledge jobs leaving lots of decent service jobs and traditional manufacturing jobs for the rest.
*It's a well-known fact that everyone in Malaysia is very well off, esp. the Penan people. Timber resources in good hands too...
*No, I'm not party to a trust fund, the proceeds of which become taxable income to the beneficiaries.i Wealthy people hogging wealth? What sort of specious argument is that?!I don't know, it's your specious argument. How do people "hog wealth" ? Are you trying to make it a crime to be successful; or just trying to make a case for stealing, er taxing their earnings away ?
*The facts support the contention that the wealth gap is greater than it has ever been and is growing.socialist-friendly mannerThe facts are taken from the following sources, among others;Forbes 400Federal Reserve BulletinWall Street JournalBureau of Economic AnalysisBureau of Labor StatisticsBusiness WeekGovernment CensusI doubt they could be described as 'Socialist-friendly' by any stretch of the imagination.You appear to think that the size of the wealth gap doesn't matter, is perhaps beneficial but I prefer to take the situation in Argentina as a warning that it does matter a great deal.
*Wealthy people hogging wealth was YOUR construct. Like lame people limping or hungry people salivating--a tautology that doesn't further an argument. That's why my parody was poor people hogging all the poverty. Irony...not just a good idea...Hogging wealth: i dunno, but where do you think an ordinary guy would be if he drove his gal pal off into the drink (!) and failed to report it? Not on Capitol Hill...
*This has all been settled already. The United States established anti- trust, because a very few wealthy individuals controlled too much of this nations wealth. At that time less than 10% of the population controlled over 50% of the nations wealth. That number is now about3% of the population control 50% of the nations wealth. Why don't we do something about it? because the very wealthy know that the cost of doing business includes the cost of buying politicians (through legal methods) as part of the cost of business. Since they can pass those costs on to the consumer, they don't care what it costs. The wealthy distract us by providing issues that are complex and can't be easily solved, things like guns/abortion/civil liberties/or the personel lives of various politicos..... All the time getting "access" to politicians to bend the laws in their favor. Actually most of those "problems" could be solved, a little reasoned compromise, a little statesmanship. Solution. Eliminate the 10% fringe element (on both sides of each issue) and there are few problems that can't be solved. I have no issue with success or wealth. however certain acctions are fundamentally unfair yet legal. If you understand why those laws can be passed then you will see the true nature of the problem.
*Drop out, teen mothers, drug abusers, are all at the bottom. Likely because they are not too smart. But as an economic fact, about 5% of the populace is unemployable. Schizophrenics, mentally ill, just plain dumb, medical conditions, etc. Now, "Are there no institutions?" It seems to me that these are not the working poor I think of. The "dole" is not a pension. I am thinking of the guy at minimum wage cleaning the building at night at Enron. Anyone looking out for his retirement? Enron CEO make sure his pension was safe in nice bonds or securities somewhere? No, it was in Enron stock.
*Frenchy,according to the link I put up, the top 1% has as much wealth as the bottom 95% combined.How true that is I don't know but I think there is a great danger of unrest in a society that becomes too unbalanced -- look at what's happening in Argentina now.
*i look at what's happening in Argentina now. Wass happening ?(In my defense, I haven't looked at telly for many months, and cannot get a paper where I am.)On second thought, make it a separate thread.
*> I prefer the Ayn Rand model of the employer making damn sure the employee has what he or she needs to survive, because that employee's welfare is directly tied to company profits. In my little business, i work on the principle that we are in a symbiotic relationship, not merely a hierarchy and it seems to work well, but this orientation of management to worker is missing in most companies, it appears.LOL! Missing in most companies?!?!?!?b I guess!!!This Ayn Rand model is exactly why Rand is such BS. Splinter, I don't doubt that you run your company as you describe, but to think that might happen on a large scale....well, you may as well hope that it is discovered that hobbits have been living in the European countryside all these centuries.People that run large companies do so to make money. They got there because they value money. It's a subtle thing, nothing overtly immoral, and yet every decision is evaluated economically.Most of us constantly make decisions without considering the economic aspects. Most of us will never be in a position to run large companies.I know. In theory, enlightened management (as Rand presents it) yields greater success. (Also note that Rand presents all of the employees so treated as responsive to the atmosphere which ignores the reality that imcompetence is everywhere.) But the people who value money don't see that. They are looking at a short term solution that is "win-win", which invariably means "I win, and you think you win," which translates to "I make more money, and you get 'satisfaction'"Rich Beckman
*But what does that particular non-sequitar have to do with the question - why do you believe the world would be a better place if executive salaries were tied to entry-level salaries ?
*Are you pointing out that Argentina, once one of the wealthiest nations in the world (depending on your scorecard, the most wealthy nation in the world just prior to WWII) never recovered from the nationalization and free-wheeling socialist handouts of the Perons and that the recent defaults are coincident with the election of another Peronist government ?
*I see you left out the wordsb "presented in".It's the context and presentation that guides the perception. As above, Argentina never recovered from a binge of nationalization (i.e. taking corporations out of public hands) and massive handouts to the poor.The wealth gap does matter; what we're debating is the cause and the correction. The Asian Tigers have proved that any country can create significant wealth and dramatically raise their living standards if they want to. This was all done by raising capital in stock markets, producing goods, trading, and giving the risk-takers their rewards. Further proof would be the rebound of the GDR, France, Italy, and the UK after the two great wars.
*Earth to Splintergroupie: "hogging wealth" was your phrase, "hogging poverty" was not. No wonder you're so confused about all of this.
*i why do you believe the world would be a better place if executive salaries were tied to entry-level salariesBecause i think the resultant equity (nice word; look up the formal meaning) would make for more worker satisfaction, which, although you don't think it can be measured, matters. The Air Canada debacle is a prime example: The CEO heavy-handedly tried to merge Air Canada and (acquired) Canadian pilots forcibly into the cockpits after a very wierd decision by an arbitrator stripped the Canadian pilots of their seniority, which raised eyes at the national level where a moratorium on the merger was called. In the meantime, researchers who did a study of the mental attitudes of pilots contemplating being forced to work in this acrimonious situation have decided it is dangerous to fly Air Canada--and this hit the papers. Good for business?No measurable effects? Air Canada, with 85% of the market, was already on the ropes pre-9/11 and the feds were talking takeover. The CEO made no friends to call in favors because his business strategy was to eviscerate other companies by matching their routes and undercutting them into oblivion, rather than create new markets. The CEO is still in place while 6000 people are losing their jobs. (In the spin, they originally planned to sack 9000, but now they're saying they "saved" 3000 workers. Who put them in danger to start?)
*Sheesh, Phill...that was important enough to post?Got anything else?
*It's the context and presentation that guides the perceptionFacts are facts -- just that and no more. These were collated from various sources, each source unrelated and uninfluenced by the others and they present an accurate picture of a disparity of wealth greater than at any time in history.http://www.sharedcapitalism.org/scfacts.htmlThe Asian Tigers??? Indonesia -- nepotism, corruption, economic collapse and rioting over the increase in the price of basic food and fuel, plus religious massacres. Not to mention their behaviour in East Timor, West Timor and Irian Jaya.Malaysia -- the corruption and quasi-dictatorship of Mahatir, who has used his tame courts to quash all opposition, even to the extent of having someone he perceived to be a rival jailed on a false charge of sodomy --- not so hot economically either.Singapore -- one of the most repressive regimes going, the government using the laws of libel and tame judges to stamp on any dissension.It turns out -- in Indonesia certainly -- that the wealth creation was illusory as illustrated by all the non-performing bank loans that have had to be written off and the banks that have had to be closed once the bubble burst. Sure, wealth was created -- for the Suharto family and all their hangers-on but the working and lower-middle classes are far worse off now than they ever were.The rebound of England and Germany after the 2nd world war was in planned economies, not under this voodoo, dog-eat-dog, rational economics.I don't see any point in debating this further with you since you obviously approve of the present 'The Market knows best' paradigm and I think it the most dangerous situation for the stability of society since the Great Depression.
*What I object to is your heavy "you can make money, but we won't let you keep it" socialist mentality. The same mentality that brought the UK very close to ruin, only saved by the election of the Thatcher government. Now that Blair's in charge, it may turn out to have been a brief repreave.There's no "voodoo" Ian; people invest their money with a good manager; the manager uses the money to build a business; the manager pays the investors for the use of their money and for the risk they took in lending it.
*I have a print that says, "The person who says it can't be done should not get in the way of the person doing it."
*You left out the part about Canadian Airlines being virtually bankrupt and weeks away from folding when Air Canada took it over; if AC hadn't taken over, then all those $200K/year whinning pilots would have been on the street looking for a job. The seniority issue, of course, was driven by the unions, not the airline; the AC pilots had a 'no cut/guaranteed seniority' contract and the power to cancel the deal if they didn't get what they wanted; the arbitrator decided that the CPA pilots were no further behind accepting the merger than they would have been when CPA failed and they had to apply to AC as new hires. If you'll recall Gerry Schwarz tried earlier to put together a deal where Canadian would swallow AC; however, the Liberal government stopped it because that would have moved the HQ from Montreal to the West (with control in Toronto and a big chunk of the stock held in the US) which was all unacceptable to a government run by Quebecers. You left out that AC is not really a public company; it's a former crown corporation and still operates under special rules. And, of course, you also left out the part about virtually all of the world's airlines being in trouble financially (perhaps you forgot the massive bailout the US airlines got ?).
*Oh sorry, if you state it incorrectly and throw in an insult (and thus avoided the question once again too) it's important enough to post; if I correct it, it's not important enough to post. I'll make a note.
*What can i say, Phill? Milton's a genius at labor relations and Maggie was a friend to the working man...
*You get enough fiber, Phill?
*Oh he's getting plenty of fiber.If he gets any more, I'm going to have to get me a higher set of waders.
*Phill, why is it that when someone wants a just and fair division of assests it's considered socialism? Yet when one or two benefit from the efforts of the many it's called capitalism? We've tried the kind if capitolism that you seem to advocate, during the dark ages. It was called feudilism. It didn't work very well then, it didn't work very well in 1929 and it won't work now. The world in general will do a lot better if everyone has some of the pie than if one person eats the whole pie and the rest get the crumbs. A classic example of what I spoke about earlier is Roger Smith at General Motors. Here's an empty suit getting bonuses for putting people out of work. Prior to Roger Smith GM had something like a 45% market share. After his efforts they had considerably less. Thousands of families lost everything. Their jobs, their identity, evan in some cases their lives. Communities were destroyed, families were destroyed, and people were destroyed. Roger got bonuses. I heard him respond once to the question about what those families should do (to be fair I think it was a spokesman for him) and he suggested they get another job. Well,Mcdonalds won't pay enough to pay the mortgage, won't pay for your daughters braces, won't let you save for retirement. You can work at Mc Donalds, get a job as a security guard, put your wife to work and evan send the kids out to mow lawns. you can't make it no matter how much belt tightening you do. There is justice though, look at what happened to French Royalty a couple of hundred years ago. Perhaps Roosevelt was smarter than you give him credit for. If he hadn't created all of those socialistic ideas like social security and welfare maybe America would have gone communist during the 30's?
*ah, phillllllllllllll.... u didn't like evita , huh ?argentina was wealthy before peron only for the wealthy... just another example of extreme oligarchy..kind of like the phillipines and malaysia... but..if you're on the other side of the fence you probably can't see over..and don't tell me about the poverty background of your wife....you know which side your bread is buttered on...
*What's a "fair division of assets" Frenchy ? That's the question here. Why is it fair to steal, er tax, a father's life-saving away rather then let him give it to the children he was working for ? Why is it unfair for a man to be able to spend what he earns on himself and his family ? And don't you expect to make a return on your investments ? And to compare modern employment to feifdom is ridiculous.
*Well the Philippines was an American oligarchy, but now it's a full 1 vote/person democracy Mike. And this "only for the wealthy" crap is just another shovel of your "proletariat overthrowing the ruling class" pile.
*You can do anything with your money you want to and may give it to your children at any time in many ways to avoid taxes. Waiting until one is dead to transfer wealth, yet complaining of estate taxation is rather absurd. Taxation is line on the charts that can move. Perhaps a per child amount and a total estate value lower limit could be raised to be reasonable. Does it makes sense for the government to let pass Bill Gates' fortune entirely untaxed? Paul Allen purchased an election in Washington State. If the earned wealth he aquired has so morally corrupted him, what will the unearned wealth do for his heirs? Money, like power or equal to power is quite corrupting of democracy. This is not an oligarchy as Theodore Roosevelt understood 100 years ago.
*i Does it makes sense for the government to let pass Bill Gates' i fortune entirely untaxedBut that's all previously taxed money, that's what makes death levies so unfair. Let's generate a simplistic example: you work hard all your adult life and you put away $10/week in your mattress out of your after-tax income; when you die and they read your will, it says that you want the $24K to go to your children; but wait, Dave Riggs comes along and says that it's only fair that half of that money be collected as taxes. Why ? Why is that somehow fair ? You claim that Paul Allen purchased an election. Purchased it from whom ?
*While I think this discussion belongs firmly in Tavern territory, I'm going to throw some fuel on the fire with this: estate taxes have lead to crummy subdivisions. How? In areas of positive growth when the farmer dies, his heirs owe taxes on the value of his estate. Since all that farmland has appreciated in value beyond their cash available, they sell to developers. While some laws have been instituted to protect against this somewhat, it's always too little, too late, and we now have lots of beautiful farmland crowded with a bunch of ugly little houses (or McMansions, depending on the developer who ponied up the dough).
*Amy,Consider an alternative. The heirs are sick and tired of the farming life. Hard life and they've become soft people. The farmer's death is an excuse to sell be/c, while the farm wasn't large enough to require the payment of estate/death taxes/levies, it's value to developers was far in excess of what it'd bring them as tillable soil.You have numbers to back you up? I don't either. :) The only case of which I have first-hand knowledge is where a friend was forced to sell her farm be/c it was annexed by a voracious city (Charlotte) and she couldn't afford the new and improved taxes. Also, encroaching developments started complaining about the horse smell from here place, even though she predated them by more than a decade.All this talk here is just so much gas, because everyone's talking about the edge conditions, and to practically every example, one could find an equal and opposite counterexample. It's like arguing which political party is worse while citing Falwell and Sharpton as the standard-bearers of their respective parties. Frankly, the extremes on each side of the argument suck. But that doesn't make the case for either side.
*It is entirely within the realm of the government to tax, like it or not. Again, if citizens feel that the line be moved on how low the death taxes go, they may ask their elected officials to change that. While dependent children and family are one economic unit(taxable unit) when you hit 21 you are now a new and unique and taxable unit. If the logic holds, I should be able to will my estate to anyone tax free. Paul Allen paid the bill for an election to occur so he could get public money to fund a stadium for his football team. Thats an oligarchy if I ever heard of one. The rest of us have to use the initiative process.
*Phill, You make a valid point Phill, Who get's to decide on that fair division. As things stand now those who control the wealth do (The golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules). You refer to taxes as stealing. Is it also stealing when the wealthy have their assests protected by the working class? Face it the cops that protect you from crooks, the fireman that protect you from fire, etc. all come from the working class. The soldier who goes to war to protect your way of life isn't the blueblooded son of the ultra wealthy, rather the son of that cop/fireman, etc. Remember in this country our sons still must register for the draft and should things become bad enough you can bet your assests that they will draft those poor kids. Someone has to pay for all of that protedtion as well as other things that society wants/needs. Your highest priority may be protection of your assets, while another person has their highest priority protection of those who can't feed themselves. While I consider it rediculas to spend billions of dollars on a submarine that has no opponant, you might consider defence spending money well spent. You might consider welfare foolish while I see it as important. You have one vote and I have another. To satisfy both of us the government will spend our money. You (and I) owe taxes on the income we earn because we have a complex society that is interdependant. It would be no more fair to excuse me from paying my fair share of taxes than it would be to excuse you. Just because you personally don't like a program or part of a program doesn't mean that it's wrong. As far as my comparision goes, It's actually fairly valid. If you have a mortgage, a job to pay for that mortgage and ties to the community, you are no more free to move about than those peasants from the middle ages. I noticed you chose to ignore the comment about FDR, does that mean you understand the need for those programs?
*While no-one will ever know if FDR's efforts to break the depression were the best; he did something and he did help. I'm not against welfare or taxation. I am against welfare being an entitlement to a middleclass life-style but am against envy-taxes and retaxing someone's savings. The genesis of this sub-debate was the statement that CEO's salaries should just be multiple of entry-level salaries. And there were some attacks on corporations where the thousands of corporations who have good labour relations and good community relations are tarred black because of the actions of a couple. Those same people who blindly attack corporations on ideological grounds are almost always the same folks who want to take money away from the rich just because.
*i just becauseJust because what? Because they have 95% of the wealth? Well, duh!! It'd be pretty stupid to go looking for the poor people to fund social equity, now wouldn't it? And how does one blindly attack corporations on ideological grounds? Doesn't having "grounds" sort of obviate the "blind" remark?You ever go out for coffee with anyone on welfare, Phill? Name two, and giving your gardener a soda doesn't count. I'm especially interested in your accounts of the middle-class ones. Does that mean they're movin' on up from the single- to the double-wide?
*as in most of the previous spanish colonies, the phillipines are ruled and controlled by an oligarchy of the wealthy ruling class.. they live in gated fortresses.. they have armed body guards.... the elected government is a shadow government controlled by these families... if you choose to think differently , phill, that's your option...but it doesn't alter the state of affairs in the phillipines..
*It is often the case that a large amount of an estate is previously untaxed. Gates is a good example. As long as he doesn't sell his MS stock, he pays no taxes on its increase in value.Rich Beckman
*"And there were some attacks on corporations where the thousands of corporations who have good labour relations and good community relations are tarred black because of the actions of a couple. Those same people who blindly attack corporations on ideological grounds are almost always the same folks who want to take money away from the rich just because."And could the same sentiment be attached to your condemnation of the poor Phill?
*No, but when he dies his estate will first be assesed for capital gains and then the remainder will be taxed again for death levies.
*The government of the Philippines was elected byb allthe people. While it's true that anywhere the Spanish ruled, they left behind corruption; the days of the oligarchy were, in this case, a result of being an American colony and have now passed. Yes, the wealthy there live in fear of robbery and kidnapping (the greatist threat is from Islamic terrorists headed by Osama's brother-in-law) and must live in self-imposed prisons and hire bodyguards; that's the cost of living/doing business there.
*And what condemnation of the poor are you refering to Dick ? What's your solution ? Are you another one who wants to live in an end-to-end planned economy where every job has a government defined salary ?
*Yes, we spent an afternoon last week with Feili Zheong and her husband Tan in their government supplied apartment. We, of course, do not have a gardener, so there's no-one to give soda to. But at last we're poking at your motives; you who so proudly announced the other day that you contribute virtually no taxes even though you have property, multiple houses, and a business with employees; you're upset at the people who have made more money than you and you want it.
*Sorry Phill, I can't track down the specific post. Its in the thread where you mentioned your wife's background and compared Asian poverty with North American. Essentially, you blamed the poor for the ills of society and claimed that based on your experiences, the poor were lazy and incompetent and were the authors of their own misfortune because of choices they made.My point is that you were drawing conclusions about the many because of the actions of a few, but are condeming that same practice here with your statement that I quoted.I think you are also making incorrect assumptions when you attribute displeasure with the actions of the wealthy to jealousy and a desire to have that wealth. There are many paths to happiness and suprisingly few require excessive amounts of money. The particular set of blinders that you wear might not allow you to see it, but some people have compassion for the less fortunate, concern for the state of politics and fear for where rampant consumerism is taking us. Some people look at the world as a ship to somewhere that we all have to ride together instead of as a contest to see who can accumulate the most before we get there.
*No, I stated that some people at the lower rung were there because of their own poor choices, not all. If they drop out of school, then they have no right to demand the life-style of a graduate; if they can't get a good job right away because they got caught joy-riding in a stolen car, then they'll just have to work their back into the mainstream from the bottom; and if they have 3 children by the time they're 18, why should they be entitled to colour TVs and a car for the rest of their lives.And all of these people hurt the economy, cost the taxpayers, and reduce opportunity for those who work. They also divert wellfare resources from the truely deserving. The US has to import highly paid skilled labour from all over the world, and when they can't, they have to export the jobs while millions of otherwise capable Americans work at minimum wage because they just couldn't be bothered when they were teenagers.So, if you have all this compassion for these people, what, besides getting other people to pay more to support them, do you propose should be done about it ? How do you get these people to pull more of their own weight ?
*i you're upset at the people who have made more money than you and you want it.Wrong again, Phill; that statement says a lot more about your values than mine.It's true i pay little to no income tax because i hang on to the coattails of the laws the big guys made for themselves, not the wage earners. Not the most righteous method i can think of, but the alternative of letting the government waste most of it appeals even less. I pay about a quarter of what i live on per year in property taxes, however, which doesn't bother me a great deal because i like the snow-plow keeping the roads open, the clerks keeping the records straight, and i would pay almost anything if they would keep children in school 24 hours a day. My needs are not great, so in that context i live pretty OK and don't give a rat's ass about your money, so sleep tight. Lots of folks worse off than i am though...i wish they could sleep as soundly as you. I've had lots of surgeries and i tend to think life would have gone a little better if i weren't always digging out from under medical bills, hence i like the idea of national health care...i guess i DO want your money, natch!My houses are my retirement policy (in additon to the "Die Young" one) because i'm self-employed. Every earthly thing i have will go to charity when i die except for the personal items i give to friends. Any more astute ramblings on my money ethos? Can you see my hat from way up on your high horse?Oh, i forgot, i also tithe. I think i've also mentioned that, but you must have just forgotten because the concept of giving money away when you aren't forced to do so is a foreign concept.Aummmmmmmmm..............
*In other words, tax everyone but you: what a bloody hypocrit.
*The dunce cap suits you.
*No Phill, tax the people who can afford the tax, not the ones who can't.After the first $20,000,000 or so, what difference to someone's quality of life is more money going to make. How many houses can you live in at once, how many cars can you drive. At a certain point, money becomes no more than a scorecard. It has far better use in providing the essential needs to those at the lower end of society's ladder. Success of those people is critical to the success of society.I quote you here (but will continue to trace the original post; as I remember, you stated that ALL the poor fell into this group and were responsible for the ills of society):"No, I stated that some people at the lower rung were there because of their own poor choices, not all. If they drop out of school, then they have no right to demand the life-style of a graduate; if they can't get a good job right away because they got caught joy-riding in a stolen car, then they'll just have to work their back into the mainstream from the bottom; and if they have 3 children by the time they're 18, why should they be entitled to colour TVs and a car for the rest of their lives."That illustrates my point. You are making massive assumptions about the poor based on what I assume is your exposure to them. I don't have a particularly broad exposure, but I can tell you that your experience as quoted doesn't match my experience. I have met some who fit your description and don't deny they exist, but they represent a small proportion of the total and in no way are they definitive of the group. Personally, I'd rather not write of the ninety percent based on the attitudes and actions of the ten percent.
*there's an old classic tome.. by studs terkel.. called "Working"... you could learn a lot about the other inhabitants of this planet just reading that , phill..did you ever work a factory shift , phill ?did you ever work a restaurant shift , phill ?the working poor have a lot more dignity than you give them credit for...
*Does working 7+ years in the IBM plant in Toronto count ? And I did my time in the 'food and beverage' business while in school. How about you ? It sound like these complete diversions to the topic you throw in come from books and not from experience. And what's this lie you've just generated about how much dignity I credit people with ? You don't deal with the issue because you can't without admitting to yourself that your extreme left-wing agenda is a sham.
*Deal with the issues Dick: these are not assumptions, but very specific points. So, do you think that in a country where a high-school diploma is free to everyone that those who drop out should expect the same life-style as those who graduate ? Your "small proportion" just doesn't match the facts.
*Your $20K figure just demonstrates how very little you understand this issue: NYC firemen and police make 3 to 5 times that amount and they still consider themselves solidly blue-collar.
*Pill's gonna reach China soon, if he don't put down that shovel.
*Phill, they are very specific points, but your assumption that they apply to all people in the category is not any more correct because of that. It's not a question of whether high school dropouts are entitled to the same lifestyle as graduates, it's a question of ensuring support for a disadvantaged group. You keep falling into that trap of saying poverty is a personal choice and that all poor people are freeloaders.As I see it, the issue is ensuring people don't get left behind. The reason they are falling behind is less important than the fact that they are. Current economic and government models propogate rather than address the problem. I don't advocate socialism and I believe everyone has a duty to look after themselves, but sometimes people need help. I believe that as humans beings, we have a duty to help.If that 20K remark was addressed at me, reread the post, count the zeros and check for a decimal point. Obviously, 20k doesn't fit the context of what I said. Is that an indication of how much consideration you gave to my reply?
*phill... only your labels declare me to be a left-wing socialist...actually, i'm not..nor am i in favor of unfettered capitalism......i do believe we have a social contract to take care of all of our citizens..and that anyone left behind becomes part of the overall problem of society...some societies have decided that the way to deal with the poor is to let them fend for themselves... let them starve.. let them eat cake..those socities failed just as communism failed..just as pure socialist economies failed.. just as unchecked capitalism failed...in the '60's our society witnessed our cities in flames and decided that was unacceptable...so they started a process to change our society.. that process is still ongoing..if you think we can return to laissez faire... then you are still an educated idiot...
* Round's over. Poor: unable to achieve higher standard of living or unwilling to?Rich: Achieve wealth by busting their balls and putting all they own on the line, or opportunist who milks a company for all it's worth at the expense of any and all else?Some of you seem to refer to one kind of poor and the others to the other. Same with rich. Each kind of poor and each kind of rich exist, plus the continuum in-between. But your arguments typically refer to the opposite type of what the other person is hearing. No wonder y'all can't agree on anything....R. W. Emerson (or someone else): "Define your terms when you speak to me." Have back at it.
*hey cloud... r u psyched for tomorrow nite's show ?.....i am... 830... right ?and who died and left u the referee.. me and phill defined our terms of engagement long ago...hah, hah, hah......
*>r u psychedI m...and nervous. 8:30, with bells on.>and who died and left u the refereereferee, schmeferee. I'm the ring girl...err...guy....err...dope.
*Sorry, $20KM - typo. But there you go again, I some "some", and you read "all": there was no assumption stated or implied that it applies to "all"; in fact, the point I have made over and over again is that the group who are in the lower chunk because of their own lack of get up and go are diverting resources from the needy. When I've worked at our mission down-town it seemed that half of the people who show up regularly for a free meal are able-bodied young men and women who claim they couldn't get a job. When you took them to the door and pointed out the "help wanted" signs or opened the newspaper to the pages and pages of want-ads, they'd just shrug.Just like you just shrug and say that the solution is to raise taxes to provide more hand-outs.
*I have not proposed laissez faire, and as long as you can fabricate motives, actions, life-style, words, and thoughts and ascribe them to me, then I can label you exactly what you appear to be. And I'll take your dodge of all of the questions and issues to be proof that the label is correct.
*Found it Phill: Phill Giles "BIGGER IS BETTER?" 12/16/01 3:09pm)"Like most extreme socialists, you think that people on the lower rung are there because they are somehow oppressed by the middle class. They are there because they walked away from a free high-school education and never even tried to go to college: they'd rather hang-out, do drugs, play pool, join a gang, skip school, and when they hit 25 stand there mystified as to why they can't get a job as a computer programmer. Well it was their choice, and their's alone." Phill Giles "BIGGER IS BETTER?" 12/16/01 4:02pm"And yes, there are lots of people who are now sitting on the outside looking in; why, because they never tried when it counted, and that's the point." Phill Giles "BIGGER IS BETTER?" 12/16/01 4:51pm"My head's not stuck in the sand, I enumerated many of the problems that the large and growing numbers of have-nots in the west bring to the rest of us; but, it should be obvious by now that only thing that's going to break the cycle is a swift kick in the butt. We've all reached down to give a hand up, as individuals and as a society, only to have that hand spat on. That's the real tragedy here, the dispossed will come assulting the walls when they could have been cheerfully admitted if only they wanted to come in."
*People, Yes both you Phill and you Splinter as well as the rest who have posted here. Is it possible that you may be closer together than your comments indicate? I forget who made the statement about tarring the corporations with the same brush. Let me give you an example of a "GOOD" corporation. Daytons which owns target and a number of other stores. Donates 5% of it's pretax income to local communites where they are in. The Dayton family intends to donate all of it's assests prior to the death of the the owners. They donate money very carefully and make certain that it's well used. They don't seek publicity, they just do the very best with the millions they have. Let me give you an example of a bad corporation. Cargill,... don't bother to look it up, it's just the largest privately held company in the world. Unless you hear the crummy things they do you wouldn't believe it, In my opinion they are responsible in a very major way for the plight of the family farm. In addition it's very hard for you to eat a meal without it enriching their pockets. They use the Government to fund projects that benefit only themselves and the taxpayers pick up the tab. So not all corporations are good nor are they all bad. sometimes one part of a corporation is decent and the other part is robbing us blind. The one truth is that they have far more access to government then you or I do. That simply is not how our founding fathers intended it to be. The poor who drain so much from our society according to Phill hold less than 1% of the nations wealth and yet contribute over 10%of the charitable giving. While we can point out second and third generation wellfare recepitants, the fact is that poverty is very fluid. I can equally find middle and upper class people who have come from abject poverty. Want an example? OK how about Oprah or Whoopee Goldberg. Phill may not feel secure enough to donate very much, Splinter obviously does. However to be more accurite we should speak about trends rather than absolutes.
*Frenchy and Dick..class acts...thanks.
*Very skillful selection Dick, we know now why it took you days to find something, it took that long to pull something out of the context of the conversation. Now go back farther and see that those comments were about working people in lower-level jobs, not the poor. In this thread, early on, the group was defined as a much smaller group than "all the poor" Phill Giles 1/3/02 7:15pm And Frenchy, we all expect Mike and Splintergroupie to lie; but not you - why are you perpetuating this lie that I don't give to charity ? I just narrow it down to the needy.
*i we all expect Mike and Splintergroupie to lieEditorial "we"?Royal "WE"?Franglais "oui-oui"?
*Phill, Please, the word lie is very offensive, could you have made your point without attacking? Let me try to make your point for you... Frenchy, I do contribute to charity but I'm selective about who I contribute to. I choose to give to those I truly consider needy. Anyway Phill, I made that assumution based on the tone of your previous posts. If I made an error I'm very sorry and you have my apologee. In the future it would help if when you make comments about the poor you were more generous in spirit then your posts tend to be. FWIW
*Phill, although I didn't see anything in those posts I quoted to indicate you were talking in anything but absolutes, I will willingly concede the point you don't mean all if you say that is the case. Out of curiosity, should we be helping those poor that aren't part of the group you have been slagging? Also, what would you estimate are the relative sizes of the two groups?
*Just when I swear to never post on a board again.... The Economist notes this week that despite 9/11 it's business as usual in DC. Law, of any reasonable sort just is not being made. There is a cultural divide that these previous posts point out. No high school certificate for airport screener because it would disqualify 25% of the currently employed. So, are these federal jobs helping those who have not an education move up? Yes, and as Phil might note, it is wrong to give incentive to those who choose not to be educated. As long as such jobs are seen as "workfare" we will have bad security and no incentive to be educated. Why no better pay or higher standards for these jobs? Because airlines pay the wages and its free market. Go as low as you can. Why are airlines in this business at all? Has the free market served the public? Go to Manhattan and answer for yourselves. So we federalize the job with no new requirements for education or competance. Because the political right sees a war in a foreign land as cheaper than giving anyone of any caliber a federal job. How about a different path: Have all airport security be a one year entry level job, cert or diploma required, that is required before entering the FBI, CIA, US Marshals, etc. Just like a beat cop being a beat cop before he can be a detective. Dollars to doughnuts liberals would have none of this as it requires personal choices of education and the drive to enter a career. Again, the liberals could go to Manhattan and still find fault with any meritocracy anywhere. Does no one have the integrity to reach across the aisle any more? Penurial Republicans and No Personal Accountability Democrats. That's why these posts will go on forever. If DC was filled with less axe-grinders, normal laws might get made. What a sorry state.
*My first choice would be to include 4 hours of paid instruction time along with 4 hours of unpaid instruction time to these employees in order to upgrade to a high-school equivalency. They have a set amount of time to complete the course, get a raise if they pass or leave if they fail. Those who already have a diploma must use their 4 hours taking college/university courses that are part of a degree or certificate program. Incentives, such as giving the folks with the highest achievement a paid semester at college or entry into a police college, officer training in the army, ... pick something.
*I don't know the size of the under-performer group other than recalling seeing newspaper articles noting the very large and growing number of people who cannot perform at the expected level of a high-school graduate throughout the G7. Germans just got the shock of their lives as the results of the latest OECD survey are surfacing. And yes, those who truely can't compete should be helped. I've said this before many times. Just making room for some of them in the MacJob segment as the under-performers move up would be a big start. With more people working in higher paid jobs; assisted housing would be more targetted to those who need it. As the productivity of the country rose, the tax revenue would rise without raising indivdual burdens: more money to build assisted housing (which in itself feeds the economy) and more money for government-sponsored medical care and education (you already know I highly favour universal medicare, but that's not really about the poor). Who and how charities help would shift, likely with more going to medical research, hospitals, and the environment. It's a chain-reaction where more and more money becomes available to directly help fewer and fewer people, but benefit everyone.
*Hello Dave, In case you haven't been paying attention I'm this boards certified liberal, well maybe a few others could make that claim but I'm certainly one of them. Having said that let me state for the record I don't see anything wrong with your proposal. Your misunderstanding of a liberals position clearly establishes your bias but in the spirit of cooperation I won't make an issue of it. I think you misunderstand the position incumbants take with the position of one particular side of the aisle or the other. If you've been around as long as I have you'll remember when many of the claims you make about the liberals were the same ones made about the conservative side. Incumbants tend to want to save federal jobs for their supporters, kind of a pay back if you will. It's one of the many things wrong with career politians. ( of coarse he's only a career politician if he's on the opposite side .....) The interesting thing about your post is that you seem to want the federal government to take over a job that private enterprise has been doing.... Somewhat at odds with the traditional views held by your party....
*Phill, I like the tone of your last post. several points seem to make sense and merit further discussion. The one point I'd like to refine is about assisted housing. here in America that hasn't been too successful. It too ofen is used as a dumping ground for the poor, what I would rather see is some sort of program kinda like Habitat for humanity, where those with ambition could get a hand getting a home of their own. It's well documented that home ownership is one of the real keys to a good neighborhood/ good citizenship/etc. I don't want just a blanket I-get-it-because-I'm-alive kinda deal. Something where there is a performance requirement/ participation level.
*Except the very poor, the ones who never stood a chance, need a safe place to live. We need to strike a better balance between civil liberties and intervening in some peoples' lives. But you're right, building ghettos hasn't delivered the desired outcomes.
*Frenchy you dad-burned liberal! Well your point is well taken. Incumbency draws other lines in thinking. I float both ways. I am really no good at being a full time Republican. The Teddy Roosevelt type of Republican probably existed in only one man: TR himself. And Democrats distress me because they never seem to acknowlegde the ill side of human behaviour or recognize that the private sector is more efficient. I would fail as a party loyalist on either side. I'm pro business, but I hate it when I see the average guy screwed over by corporations like Enron. Ask any guy in a small business how much "pro business" legislation trickles down to him and my bet is it is very little. Joe Repair Man can't go to the local tax board and say, GEE! I plan on hiring a few folks here in the community. Give me a big tax break! But every major business can. On the other hand, look at how perverted the accommodation of people with disabilities has gotten. I'm sure I could convince some beaurocrat that I got wanker's cramp from visiting porn sites and get a check or a secure job. I doubt that few of the guys who post here would invent the types of laws that the far left or right come up with. I am in a neighborhood that has been yuppified in the past 10 years. It was never real bad, just sort of mixed in a way that kept out people who like big shiny shopping malls with no minorities in sight. But we have a remnant subsidized home in the hood too. And its pretty damn bad. Garbage in the yard. Dead Caddys in the driveway. Noise all night long. And the privately owned place a little way down the street is just as bad! So who knows.... But government sponsored slums/housing etc don't appeal to me. Low interest loans do. Let the working poor have a choice on where and what to buy. Habitat for Humanity sounds good to me. Zoning laws to promote townhouse/duplexes as an entry level choice. There is no end to incentives you can create. But no free lunch!
*Then there's red-lining...wonder what Phill's take on this would be...
*Splinter, that's another tough one. I lived in Oakland CA. as a student at (gasp)Berkeley. In 1984 my car insurance was 1600 a year on a five year old car because I lived in a high crime area. Down the road 10 miles and a zip code or two away it was half that. But, guess what? My car was vandalized twice and one attempted theft, all which resulted in major damage to the car. So was my neighborhood redlined on rates, or was I simply "actuarilized" by statistics? I think I paid the rate consistent with conditions in my community. Is that red lining? Is not getting a loan on your business because it is in East LA redlining or actuarial? Frankly, the only answer that may be good for society and shift costs is to make the pool for insurance the whole state you live in. Yes, the good guy in the good neighborhood will pay more and piss and moan about it. The bad risk guy gets a cheaper ride. But here is the point: The 90% good guys, the working poor, get a break. And whats more, people on the lower end may be more able to afford the rates. So when there is an accident, more parties may be insured. I honestly believe the insurance industry needs to accept larger more inclusive pools. The larger the pool the more level the rates. What does Canada have? I thought it was similar to this with province wide pools. Redlining as it pertains to banking is a little different. Remember, when you have a loan, the lender has to have a reasonable chance of recovering the loan, or collecting collateral if need be. I don't own my home. It is "on loan" from my bank until I pay them back.
*Don't know the term; explain.
*In my end of the Canada (BC) we have gov't monopoly auto insurance; it's all fault rather than no fault because they allocate responsibility for accidents in a way that ensures as few people as possible get rate breaks for safe records. Rates do vary according to region within the province but the pooling principle is used to reduce the rates for new drivers. Unfortunately, the monopoly position allows insurance to be used as a political tool and a revenue raiser, so rates aren't always developed in response to costs.
*Car insurance varies per province from government run insurance to private insurance heavily regulated. In the area I live, there is one rate for the city, one rate for the near sticks, and a rate for the far sticks: they're driven by losses. Also, bad drivers pay higher rates than poor drivers. A high loss record will get higher rates or move you into the pool. Really high risks go into an industry-wide pool. Driving without insurance is a b big no-nohere. An under-21 with an accident and more than 3 tickets over 3 years can pay $3K-$5K in basic insurance; I pay about $900 (about US$550) on a loaded Suburban with $100 deductables. I've never heard of anyone being denied a mortgage because of where they live: if you can pay it back, then you qualify; high-ratio mortgages (I think the current cut-off is in the 75% neighbourhood - not sure) require mortgage insurance from the government - easy to get.
*Wasn't it Saskatchawan that discovered that NFP Government run insurance cost more than private sector insurance ?
*Interesting. Red-lining refers to not giving loans based on your zip code or address. Live in bad neighborhood and you don't get a loan. A very vile way of discriminating. It's very problematic as good and bad risks alike are tarred with the brush. In health care its called cherry picking. Got a young dot.com work force of all guys? Cheap health care! Got an office full of grannies? Too bad, you lose. It's actuarial but it perverts the industry as a whole. Sounds like insurance on autos is a rip worldwide. Pay the insurer or the province. Think about it guys. If insurers(private companies) were told they could operate in all states west of the Missisippi. All they had to do was take everyone who applied. IF there was true competition, the rates would fall or flatten out. Service would be the determining sell point if price was close. Of course, I suppose bad drivers like good service too so they would choose the "better company". Gotta wait for the paint to dry so I can walk out of this corner........
*Insurance here is government regulated: they can't turn down a driver, but they can put the worse risks into an industry-wide pool where all the companies equally share the risk; they have to justify rates with losses; and they have to mitigate (here in Ontario) young driver rates. We have no-fault payouts for damages, but fault is assigned for future risk. But we also set limits on damage law-suits. We have universal healthcare, so that's much less of a problem either; however, supplemental rates (glasses, dental, etc.) can vary per experience. As an aside, one of the reasons that my father now takes his winter holiday in Portugal rather than the US is that he can no longer afford the health insurance to go to the US. As far as I know, we have no "red-lining" on mortgage loans in this area.
*I always thought red-lining referred to real estate agents not showing homes in white neighborhoods to black buyers (and maybe banks making it harder for blacks to get a mortgage for a home in a white neighborhood??). Substitute other ethnicities as applicable.Rich Beckman
*Redlining is related to profiling like you say, Rich, but as it relates to a geographical area, and not necessarily based on color lines. For instance, where i live, the local pizza company wouldn't deliver for a time, though there are no non-whites here, but a driver got a gun shoved in her face when she tried to deliver a pie and had the wrong house. (Lots of houses aren't numbered.)The obvious solution was to make sure the pizza drivers were packin'--no idea why this wasn't tried.I was just reading a story in Business Ethics magazine about a dealership that profiled buyers and blacks ended up paying a higher percentage than whites. Hard to tell if that's simple redlining or blatant discrimination--it would depend on how it mapped out, i suppose.
*"The obvious solution was to make sure the pizza drivers were packin'--no idea why this wasn't tried."LOL
*Redlining is illegal but still quietly done. If you want a home improvement loan in a poor neighborhood you need much better credit than in a normal neighborhood. The fun part about the concept is that some really funny stories occur because of it. I had one contractor with a very spotty credit record not able to get a $50,000 home improvement loan to fix up his house but he was able to get a mortage to buy a $440,000 Mc Mansion.... Then based on his prior approval for the $440,000 house he was able to get a loan to buy the $75,000 forklift that he'd been turned down before! Turned down for a $36,000 used one he got approval for $75,000 new one! Go figure?
*I am actually reminded of a very interesting show I saw/heard years ago about India. Someone figured Indian women could better themselves with small amounts of credit. Not credit for decorating. For the very poor who needed a sewing machine to start a home repair shop. Or who needed a small cookstove to serve for-pay meals to the nearby factory. We are talking 50 to 100 buck loans. It was a smashing success and many of the women have down quite well. When I went to get a small loan for home improvements, I was surprised that in the 1000 to 15000 range, there are very poor loan services. It seems to me that unlike credit cards, sitting down and filling out a few papers and justifying what you are borrowing for would be a good process for the working poor to go through. It also gives those same people contact with the world of "money" and banks. Credit cards are all fine print with no face to answer too until you are in over your head. Anyone got any small loan stories?
*> The obvious solution was to make sure the pizza drivers were packin'--no idea why this wasn't tried.The thinking is, if the drivers (or the store clerks) are armed, then the robbers (eventually figuring this out) are a lot quicker to pull the trigger. When the drivers are not armed, a huge majority of the time, if you just do what the robber asks, no one gets hurt.In my many years with Domino's, I only had one driver get hurt in a robbery. The robber wasn't armed. The driver was a big guy. The robber figured he wasn't going to be able to intimidate the driver so he lunged at him and pushed him off the porch. The driver ended up with a broken wrist. The robber got the pizza.Rich Beckman
*I was hoping you were going to say the robber got the "box".
*Robble robble
*
I just read an article in the paper that Pioneer Log Homes (WIlliam's Lake, BC, one of the premier log builders in the world) has accepted an order for a 9360 sq M. house (roughly 101,000 square feet) to be erected in Steamboat Springs Co. at a cost of $28M.