Subject:
|
Re: Lucky Americans
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Jan 2000 04:05:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
492 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> > At this point in the discussion, I'd just like to say "You lucky
> > American bastards!".
>
> <snip>
>
> 1 - I just got all three of my kids portable CD players for christmas. I
> was shocked at how little these cost now, I turned my nose up at units
> that cost 19 bucks a piece in order to get the more expensive(!) 29
> dollars a piece ones... in other words, I had to work for about 30
> minutes or so in order to earn a whole CD player! Is that cool or what?
>
> <more snip>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
> - - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
> fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
>
> NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
Larry,
Anyone making $60 an hour is indeed a lucky person. Considering that minimum
wage is only around $5.25 and most people consider a $10 an hour job doing
well. No hard feelings intended here....but some of us have to work 3 hours
for that same CD player, and it isn't behind a desk either.
No hard feelings, just think about the blue collar guys huh?
Pat
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Lucky Americans
|
| (...) Heh, I hear you. I'm still (for the time being) very "blue collar" pay-wise at my current FTJ (full-time job). But on my last consulting job I think I would have had to work about 17.14 minutes for that CD player. Can't (or at least haven't (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Lucky Americans
|
| (...) Your point is well taken, although I'd go farther and say that 10 an hour isn't considered by everyone as 'doing well', if that's the wage that a single wage earner is making. It is HARD to get by on 400 a week pretax (that's about 20K a (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Lucky Americans
|
| First, no offense was intended in my original statement and none was taken by me with regard to Pat's response. Nor should any be taken by the below. One point I forgot to make though. (...) I'm not sure (and this IS .debate, after all) that luck (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LEGO Direct Questions
|
| (...) We're not lucky, just more market oriented. Not to mention smarter and handsomer. Seriously, you can't have it both ways. Of COURSE stuff is generally cheaper here (not just in dollar to dollar terms, but in terms of the time it takes to earn (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
