Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Okay, that's kinda amusing
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I guess with the increase in gun ownership, shot- gun weddings must be on the 
increase then.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 1:58 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Just to update my post.  Hey Mike, good news...birth rates for unmarried 
women are actually on the decline!  Don't let that keep you from volunteering 
with the YWCA though!
 

 Products - Data Briefs - Number 162 - August 2014 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm 
 
 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm
 
 Products - Data Briefs - Number 162 - August 2014 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm Print page Download page: PDF 
[624 KB] Contact Us: National Center for Health Statistics 3311 Toledo Rd Room 
5419 Hyattsville, MD 20782-2064 1 (800) 23...


 
 View on www.cdc.gov http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  

   
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Out of wedlock births are definitely on the rise.  Here's an analysis of this: 
I don't get this journal so can't see the original.but here is the brief:
 

 *This Policy Brief was prepared for the Fall 1996 issue of the Brookings 
Review and adapted from "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the 
United States," which appeared in the May 1996 issue of the Quarterly Journal 
of Economics.
 

 http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof 
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof

 

 RE:  "Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, seem to think 
marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to have a family. We 
have all these wonderful social programs to make up the difference. 

 I was questioning your assumption about what you think "feminists" are 
thinking.  That statement about translated to me as something you assume that 
"feminists" think. I figured that you had these "wonderful social programs" in 
mind - the ones that you think the "feminists" are hoping to replace the father 
with, when you said that.  

 

 

 

   

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I think you missed the point. There is *no* social program that can make up 
for not having both parents to successfully raise a child.You wouldn't think 
that with an ever expanding welfare system and ever increasing out of wedlock 
birth rate, considering all of the various birth control  that is easily 
available. 
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 1:35 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   What?!?  I am always wary of those who speak with much judgment about things 
they have no experience with. 
 

 Curiously, what social programs are you thinking of that make up the 
difference for an absent parent?  I'm talking about the ones that would service 
the "feminist" woman, who deceived the poor, hapless, male into donating his 
sperm or having sex with her, and then kicked him to the curb, thinking to 
herself, "I don't need himor his money..I have a "social program" I can 
depend on to make up the difference!"
 

 Kids do need a support network when growing up.  Have you thought about how 
you could help?  If you can't put yourself out there for "those people" on a 
personal level, perhaps you could work with Habitat for Humanity?  
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 9:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Your first point is an idealistic, not a realistic viewpoint.  As long as 
humans procreate and follow their hormonal urges, babies will be born.  That's 
just the way it is.  Planning, higher education and a learned skill prior to 
starting a family is a great idea and I'm all for it, but it's just not going 
to be the case for all.  You can't legislate life, after all.  Should the 
children born of children and the poor not merit the same care and attention 
and value of those

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I guess with the increase in gun ownership, shot- gun weddings must be on the 
increase then.

  From: "emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 1:58 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    Just to update my post.  Hey Mike, good news...birth rates for unmarried 
women are actually on the decline!  Don't let that keep you from volunteering 
with the YWCA though!
Products - Data Briefs - Number 162 - August 2014 
||
||||   Products - Data Briefs - Number 162 - August 2014  
Print page Download page: PDF [624 KB] Contact Us: National Center for Health 
Statistics 3311 Toledo Rd Room 5419 Hyattsville, MD 20782-2064 1 (800) 23...
||
|  View on www.cdc.gov  |Preview by Yahoo|
||

     


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Out of wedlock births are definitely on the rise.  Here's an analysis of this: 
I don't get this journal so can't see the original.but here is the brief:
*This Policy Brief was prepared for the Fall 1996 issue of the Brookings Review 
and adapted from "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United 
States," which appeared in the May 1996 issue of the Quarterly Journal of 
Economics.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof

RE:  "Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, seem to think 
marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to have a family. We 
have all these wonderful social programs to make up the difference.
I was questioning your assumption about what you think "feminists" are 
thinking.  That statement about translated to me as something you assume that 
"feminists" think. I figured that you had these "wonderful social programs" in 
mind - the ones that you think the "feminists" are hoping to replace the father 
with, when you said that.  


  

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

I think you missed the point. There is *no* social program that can make up for 
not having both parents to successfully raise a child.You wouldn't think that 
with an ever expanding welfare system and ever increasing out of wedlock birth 
rate, considering all of the various birth control  that is easily available. 

  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 1:35 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 What?!?  I am always wary of those who speak with much judgment about things 
they have no experience with. 
Curiously, what social programs are you thinking of that make up the difference 
for an absent parent?  I'm talking about the ones that would service the 
"feminist" woman, who deceived the poor, hapless, male into donating his sperm 
or having sex with her, and then kicked him to the curb, thinking to herself, 
"I don't need himor his money..I have a "social program" I can depend 
on to make up the difference!"
Kids do need a support network when growing up.  Have you thought about how you 
could help?  If you can't put yourself out there for "those people" on a 
personal level, perhaps you could work with Habitat for Humanity?  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.

  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 9:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 Your first point is an idealistic, not a realistic viewpoint.  As long as 
humans procreate and follow their hormonal urges, babies will be born.  That's 
just the way it is.  Planning, higher education and a learned skill prior to 
starting a family is a great idea and I'm all for it, but it's just not going 
to be the case for all.  You can't legislate life, after all.  Should the 
children born of children and the poor not merit the same care and attention 
and value of those born to career couples?  Society has a responsibility for 
its members.  Humans are social creatures.  The idea that there is some large 
population "getting by on charity" by choice is a perpetrated myth - no one 
wants to be in that position.  Most people want to contribute, want to work, 
want to be educated, want to be valued.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Just to update my post.  Hey Mike, good news...birth rates for unmarried women 
are actually on the decline!  Don't let that keep you from volunteering with 
the YWCA though! 

 Products - Data Briefs - Number 162 - August 2014 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm 
 
 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm 
 
 Products - Data Briefs - Number 162 - August 2014 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm Print page Download page: PDF 
[624 KB] Contact Us: National Center for Health Statistics 3311 Toledo Rd Room 
5419 Hyattsville, MD 20782-2064 1 (800) 23...
 
 
 
 View on www.cdc.gov http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  

   
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Out of wedlock births are definitely on the rise.  Here's an analysis of this: 
I don't get this journal so can't see the original.but here is the brief:
 

 *This Policy Brief was prepared for the Fall 1996 issue of the Brookings 
Review and adapted from "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the 
United States," which appeared in the May 1996 issue of the Quarterly Journal 
of Economics.
 

 http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof 
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof

 

 RE:  "Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, seem to think 
marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to have a family. We 
have all these wonderful social programs to make up the difference. 

 I was questioning your assumption about what you think "feminists" are 
thinking.  That statement about translated to me as something you assume that 
"feminists" think. I figured that you had these "wonderful social programs" in 
mind - the ones that you think the "feminists" are hoping to replace the father 
with, when you said that.  

 

 

 

   

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I think you missed the point. There is *no* social program that can make up 
for not having both parents to successfully raise a child.You wouldn't think 
that with an ever expanding welfare system and ever increasing out of wedlock 
birth rate, considering all of the various birth control  that is easily 
available. 
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 1:35 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   What?!?  I am always wary of those who speak with much judgment about things 
they have no experience with. 
 

 Curiously, what social programs are you thinking of that make up the 
difference for an absent parent?  I'm talking about the ones that would service 
the "feminist" woman, who deceived the poor, hapless, male into donating his 
sperm or having sex with her, and then kicked him to the curb, thinking to 
herself, "I don't need himor his money..I have a "social program" I can 
depend on to make up the difference!"
 

 Kids do need a support network when growing up.  Have you thought about how 
you could help?  If you can't put yourself out there for "those people" on a 
personal level, perhaps you could work with Habitat for Humanity?  
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 9:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Your first point is an idealistic, not a realistic viewpoint.  As long as 
humans procreate and follow their hormonal urges, babies will be born.  That's 
just the way it is.  Planning, higher education and a learned skill prior to 
starting a family is a great idea and I'm all for it, but it's just not going 
to be the case for all.  You can't legislate life, after all.  Should the 
children born of children and the poor not merit the same care and attention 
and value of those born to career couples?  Society has a responsibility for 
its members.  Humans are social creatures.  The idea that there is some large 
population "getting by on charity" by choice is a perpetrated myth - no one 
wants to be in that position.  Most people want to contribute, want to work, 
want to be educated, want to be valued. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Yes, Ann, that's kind of how I feel.  I see and work with these folks who are 
sort of on the fringes, and I cannot find it in me to judge them.  In fact, 
they are my friends, and I socialize with them, much more than anyone who might 
be more in my income class. 

 When I have extra tickets to a ballgame,or or a sporting event it is they whom 
I invite.
 

 You get a realness, not found in other circles, and what they want out of life 
is the same as everyone else.
 

 Of course there are the so called "bad apples" in any class, but that's not 
who I find in my interactions, except on rare occasions.
 

 What is missing, is what Emily mentioned by way of lack of economic 
opportunity since the manufacturing jobs that once were the mainstay of those 
less educated have gone overseas.
 

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
 
 

 You know, compared to what taxpayers are paying for military expenditures, not 
to mention a whole schwack of other things that I am sure are not only wasteful 
but redundant, social programs and government subsidies to the poor or even 
physically challenged are mere peanuts. I never think about my tax dollars and 
whether some welfare recipient is living off my dime. It doesn't really work 
like that. I mean, I could say I resent paying school taxes because I don't 
have any kids so why should I pay? Stupid thought, stupid question.
 

 Take a look at how much is spent on SS payments. Aren't these a kind of social 
safety net/aid for retired workers, even though workers pay into the system 
during their working lives? I mean, it is still a program instituted and 
subsidized by the Government, it is a social program of sorts. 
 

 Every tax we pay goes toward, presumably, running this country, either through 
the construction of roads or the running of schools and a million other ways. 
Why pick on one sector, the unemployed or poor, who also benefit from 
government money? We're all being "helped" by everyone's tax dollars. 
 

 http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go 
http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

 

 
 

  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Okay, right now I am doing a rather large project, which is somewhat labor 
intensive, so I've needed workers including friends of one of my regular 
workers, and the brother of my assistant.  They are all being paid well, which 
they greatly appreciate, as would anyone, of course. 

 But driving them back and forth to the job, I find the conversation 
fascinating.
 

 The brother of my assistant is around 20, and he is not able to leave for work 
until 9:00 as he is under house arrest for having a firearm while he was on 
probation for something else.  His girlfriend is 20 years old and has three 
kids.  I can't remember what he said when he was asked how many baby daddies 
there were.
 

 My main worker recently left his girlfriend who has five kids, at least three 
of whom are with different daddies. And he has his own kids.  She was recently 
pregnant with his child, but he said something to the effect that she induced 
an abortion.
 

 I admit, none of it bothers me one bit.  I find it rather fascinating.  Yes, I 
know, I am paying (indirectly) for many of these benefits, but they all have a 
lot of street smarts and overall smarts.  They are working hard on this job and 
we are having pretty much fun, as it has gone well so far, and may continue for 
several more weeks.
 

 You know, compared to what taxpayers are paying for military expenditures, not 
to mention a whole schwack of other things that I am sure are not only wasteful 
but redundant, social programs and government subsidies to the poor or even 
physically challenged are mere peanuts. I never think about my tax dollars and 
whether some welfare recipient is living off my dime. It doesn't really work 
like that. I mean, I could say I resent paying school taxes because I don't 
have any kids so why should I pay? Stupid thought, stupid question.
 

 Take a look at how much is spent on SS payments. Aren't these a kind of social 
safety net/aid for retired workers, even though workers pay into the system 
during their working lives? I mean, it is still a program instituted and 
subsidized by the Government, it is a social program of sorts. 
 

 Every tax we pay goes toward, presumably, running this country, either through 
the construction of roads or the running of schools and a million other ways. 
Why pick on one sector, the unemployed or poor, who also benefit from 
government money? We're all being "helped" by everyone's tax dollars. 
 

 http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go 
http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

 

 
 

  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Okay, right now I am doing a rather large project, which is somewhat labor 
intensive, so I've needed workers including friends of one of my regular 
workers, and the brother of my assistant.  They are all being paid well, which 
they greatly appreciate, as would anyone, of course. 

 But driving them back and forth to the job, I find the conversation 
fascinating.
 

 The brother of my assistant is around 20, and he is not able to leave for work 
until 9:00 as he is under house arrest for having a firearm while he was on 
probation for something else.  His girlfriend is 20 years old and has three 
kids.  I can't remember what he said when he was asked how many baby daddies 
there were.
 

 My main worker recently left his girlfriend who has five kids, at least three 
of whom are with different daddies. And he has his own kids.  She was recently 
pregnant with his child, but he said something to the effect that she induced 
an abortion.
 

 I admit, none of it bothers me one bit.  I find it rather fascinating.  Yes, I 
know, I am paying (indirectly) for many of these benefits, but they all have a 
lot of street smarts and overall smarts.  They are working hard on this job and 
we are having pretty much fun, as it has gone well so far, and may continue for 
several more weeks.
 

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Back at that time, there was a stigma attached to having children out of 
wedlock. There was a shame factor to deal with. Now it's just the opposite. Now 
you are the baby daddy or the baby mamma and get all kinds of positive 
attention. We aren't supposed to be *judgmental*but supportive, in order to 
raise the self esteem of the parents and the children. Seems nice enough but 
how's it working? Seems to be having a snowball effect.
 

 From: "steve.sundur@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 10:24 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 This song was released in 1968.  At that time, I guess it was still the 
exception rather than the rule to have a child out of wedlock.  I would say it 
is totally reversed now, and I am in agreement that the outcomes are far less 
favorable. I don't know what the percentage was then, but I know the percentage 
in the black community is about 70% and then lower for other ethnic groups
 

 Diana Ross & The Supremes-Love Child 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rntxzyRt9UQ 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rntxzyRt9UQ
 
 Diana Ross & The Supremes-Love Child 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rntxzyRt9UQ The Supremes sing their 11th #1 
Love Child


 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rntxzyRt9UQ 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 9:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Your first point is an idealistic, not a realistic viewpoint.  As long as 
humans procreate and follow their hormonal urges, babies will be born.  That's 
just the way it is.  Planning, higher education and a learned skill prior to 
starting a family is a great idea and I'm all for it, but it's just not going 
to be the case for all.  You can't legislate life, after all.  Should the 
children born of children and the poor not merit the same care and attention 
and value of those born to career couples?  Society has a responsibility for 
its members.  Humans are social creatures.  The idea that there is some large 
population "getting by on charity" by choice is a perpetrated myth - no one 
wants to be in that position.  Most people want to contribute, want to work, 
want to be educated, want to be valued. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 A better option is, don't start a family until *you* can provide a complete 
and adequate living for all of those that  *you* are responsible for. That 
usually starts with good planning along with a higher education and/or learned 
skill. If people ever developed the attitude that nobody owes them anything, 
everybody would be better off and a lot of problems could be prevented in the 
first place. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam. Avoid the suffering before it comes! If you 
are prepared to go through life depending on charity to get by, then you should 
to be

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Out of wedlock births are definitely on the rise.  Here's an analysis of this: 
I don't get this journal so can't see the original.but here is the brief:
 

 *This Policy Brief was prepared for the Fall 1996 issue of the Brookings 
Review and adapted from "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the 
United States," which appeared in the May 1996 issue of the Quarterly Journal 
of Economics.
 

 http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof 
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof

 

 RE:  "Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, seem to think 
marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to have a family. We 
have all these wonderful social programs to make up the difference. 

 I was questioning your assumption about what you think "feminists" are 
thinking.  That statement about translated to me as something you assume that 
"feminists" think. I figured that you had these "wonderful social programs" in 
mind - the ones that you think the "feminists" are hoping to replace the father 
with, when you said that.  

 

 

 

   

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I think you missed the point. There is *no* social program that can make up 
for not having both parents to successfully raise a child.You wouldn't think 
that with an ever expanding welfare system and ever increasing out of wedlock 
birth rate, considering all of the various birth control  that is easily 
available. 
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 1:35 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   What?!?  I am always wary of those who speak with much judgment about things 
they have no experience with. 
 

 Curiously, what social programs are you thinking of that make up the 
difference for an absent parent?  I'm talking about the ones that would service 
the "feminist" woman, who deceived the poor, hapless, male into donating his 
sperm or having sex with her, and then kicked him to the curb, thinking to 
herself, "I don't need himor his money..I have a "social program" I can 
depend on to make up the difference!"
 

 Kids do need a support network when growing up.  Have you thought about how 
you could help?  If you can't put yourself out there for "those people" on a 
personal level, perhaps you could work with Habitat for Humanity?  
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 9:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Your first point is an idealistic, not a realistic viewpoint.  As long as 
humans procreate and follow their hormonal urges, babies will be born.  That's 
just the way it is.  Planning, higher education and a learned skill prior to 
starting a family is a great idea and I'm all for it, but it's just not going 
to be the case for all.  You can't legislate life, after all.  Should the 
children born of children and the poor not merit the same care and attention 
and value of those born to career couples?  Society has a responsibility for 
its members.  Humans are social creatures.  The idea that there is some large 
population "getting by on charity" by choice is a perpetrated myth - no one 
wants to be in that position.  Most people want to contribute, want to work, 
want to be educated, want to be valued. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 A better option is, don't start a family until *you* can provide a complete 
and adequate living for all of those that  *you* are responsible for. That 
usually starts with good planning along with a higher education and/or learned 
skill. If people ever developed the attitude that nobody owes them anything, 
everybody would be better off and a lot of problems could be prevented in the 
first place. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam. Avoid the suffering before it comes! If you 
are prepared to go through life depending on charity to get by, then you should 
to be prepared for the worst and hope for the better. Maharishi used to say 
*Deserve then desire*.BTW, that was supposed to be frying *fries* not *fires*.

 From: "emily

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Ann I'll give you that approximately 50% of marriages end up in divorce. 
However, those children are more likely to have a court remedy in child support 
orders and even survivor benefits from SS, should one parent die.And at least 
they can be shuffled from one parent to the other or to grandparents etc. The 
*bastard* child, as you put it, has far less.The sociological studies I've 
seen, give a child raised by a single mother, a far greater chance of ending in 
trouble with the law(jail or prison) and never reaching their potential, than 
one raised by both parents. A mother's love rarely makes up for the discipline 
and guidance a male gets from his father or close male relative. Yes, of course 
a mother can be authoritarian but not usually as effective without the father 
to back her up. I saw a story a while back about young male elephants and how 
once they reached puberty, they began rampaging, bullying and being quite 
destructive around the cows and their very young, as well as other species such 
as Rhinoceros, even killing them. The game wardens took a bunch of these young 
upstarts and moved them away from the cows and in among a group of  mature 
adult male elephants. The older males read the younger ones the riot act very 
quickly and put them in the appropriate pecking order, subduing their hormones 
and consequent actions. The cows couldn't do that. A balanced order was 
achieved. Older males have a powerful affect over younger ones. Now consider 
that 70-80% of African/American males grow up in single mother households. 
White and Hispanics are *trying* to catch up to this stat but are less than 
half that. It's no wonder so many young black males end up in trouble

 with the law. This was not the case in the early or mid sixties when black 
families were much more stable.
 

 That'a interesting about the elephants because in the horse world the alpha 
mare(s) discipline the juveniles, not the stallion. The stallion will fight 
with competing or threatening males but they basically eat, poop and breed.

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 8:30 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.
 

 I think you are assuming too much, Mike. About 50% of marriages, whether the 
children were born before or after the nuptials, end in divorce. This means 
that children are then shuffled between two different parents and/or raised by 
at least one step parent or go to live either exclusively with one parent or 
another. Having "bastard" children is hardly the only reason for kids growing 
up "troubled without the traditional authority figures in a home." Of course, 
this lack of "authority" implies women aren't able to assume an authoritarian 
role as a parent, that you need a man. You can imagine what I think of that! LOL
 

 
 








 
  


 













 













 













 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Ann I'll give you that approximately 50% of marriages end up in divorce. 
However, those children are more likely to have a court remedy in child support 
orders and even survivor benefits from SS, should one parent die.And at least 
they can be shuffled from one parent to the other or to grandparents etc. The 
*bastard* child, as you put it, has far less.The sociological studies I've 
seen, give a child raised by a single mother, a far greater chance of ending in 
trouble with the law(jail or prison) and never reaching their potential, than 
one raised by both parents. A mother's love rarely makes up for the discipline 
and guidance a male gets from his father or close male relative. Yes, of course 
a mother can be authoritarian but not usually as effective without the father 
to back her up. I saw a story a while back about young male elephants and how 
once they reached puberty, they began rampaging, bullying and being quite 
destructive around the cows and their very young, as well as other species such 
as Rhinoceros, even killing them. The game wardens took a bunch of these young 
upstarts and moved them away from the cows and in among a group of  mature 
adult male elephants. The older males read the younger ones the riot act very 
quickly and put them in the appropriate pecking order, subduing their hormones 
and consequent actions. The cows couldn't do that. A balanced order was 
achieved. Older males have a powerful affect over younger ones. Now consider 
that 70-80% of African/American males grow up in single mother households. 
White and Hispanics are *trying* to catch up to this stat but are less than 
half that. It's no wonder so many young black males end up in trouble
with the law. This was not the case in the early or mid sixties when black 
families were much more stable.
  From: "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 8:30 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.
I think you are assuming too much, Mike. About 50% of marriages, whether the 
children were born before or after the nuptials, end in divorce. This means 
that children are then shuffled between two different parents and/or raised by 
at least one step parent or go to live either exclusively with one parent or 
another. Having "bastard" children is hardly the only reason for kids growing 
up "troubled without the traditional authority figures in a home." Of course, 
this lack of "authority" implies women aren't able to assume an authoritarian 
role as a parent, that you need a man. You can imagine what I think of that! LOL



 





  #yiv6536292810 #yiv6536292810 -- #yiv6536292810ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv6536292810 
#yiv6536292810ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv6536292810 
#yiv6536292810ygrp-mkp #yiv6536292810hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv6536292810 #yiv6536292810ygrp-mkp #yiv6536292810ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv6536292810 #yiv6536292810ygrp-mkp .yiv6536292810ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv6536292810 #yiv6536292810ygrp-mkp .yiv6536292810ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv6536292810 #yiv6536292810ygrp-mkp .yiv6536292810ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6536292810 #yiv6536292810ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv6536292810ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv6536292810 
#yiv6536292810ygrp-sponsor #yiv6536292810ygrp-lc #yiv6536292810hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv6536292810 
#yiv6536292810ygrp-sponsor #yiv6536292810ygrp-lc .yiv6536292810ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv6536292810 #yiv6536292810actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv6536292810 
#yiv6536292810activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv6536292810
 #yiv6536292810activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv6536292810 
#yiv6536292810activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv6536292810 #yiv6536292810activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6536292810 #yiv6536292810activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv6536292810 #yiv6536292810activity span 
.yiv6536292810underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6536292810 
.yiv6536292810attach 
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Heyam dukham anagatam. Avert the danger *before* it comes. You can ask me to 
*avert the danger* of criminal youth by helping the single mother raise her 
child and build her a house. I can take it a step further, the mother and 
father need to *avert the danger* by taking precaution not to bring a child 
into the world that they are not prepared to raise, by simply preventing 
pregnancy by any means necessary. Which is easier, cheaper and most effective? 
My solution requires a little personal responsibility on the part of two 
people. Yours... effort and resources I and others may not have, to be 
sacrificed for two other people's thoughtless  mistakes. Maybe I would like to 
be more helpful to a single mother if I new her personally and her 
circumstances.

  From: "emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 1:35 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    What?!?  I am always wary of those who speak with much judgment about 
things they have no experience with. 
Curiously, what social programs are you thinking of that make up the difference 
for an absent parent?  I'm talking about the ones that would service the 
"feminist" woman, who deceived the poor, hapless, male into donating his sperm 
or having sex with her, and then kicked him to the curb, thinking to herself, 
"I don't need himor his money..I have a "social program" I can depend 
on to make up the difference!"
Kids do need a support network when growing up.  Have you thought about how you 
could help?  If you can't put yourself out there for "those people" on a 
personal level, perhaps you could work with Habitat for Humanity?  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.

  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 9:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 Your first point is an idealistic, not a realistic viewpoint.  As long as 
humans procreate and follow their hormonal urges, babies will be born.  That's 
just the way it is.  Planning, higher education and a learned skill prior to 
starting a family is a great idea and I'm all for it, but it's just not going 
to be the case for all.  You can't legislate life, after all.  Should the 
children born of children and the poor not merit the same care and attention 
and value of those born to career couples?  Society has a responsibility for 
its members.  Humans are social creatures.  The idea that there is some large 
population "getting by on charity" by choice is a perpetrated myth - no one 
wants to be in that position.  Most people want to contribute, want to work, 
want to be educated, want to be valued. 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

A better option is, don't start a family until *you* can provide a complete and 
adequate living for all of those that  *you* are responsible for. That usually 
starts with good planning along with a higher education and/or learned skill. 
If people ever developed the attitude that nobody owes them anything, everybody 
would be better off and a lot of problems could be prevented in the first 
place. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam. Avoid the suffering before it comes! If you are 
prepared to go through life depending on charity to get by, then you should to 
be prepared for the worst and hope for the better. Maharishi used to say 
*Deserve then desire*.BTW, that was supposed to be frying *fries* not *fires*.
  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 3:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 Not sure what "fry fires" refers to, but it is true that a single parent who 
is the exclusive provider, making $15/hr, cannot afford the cost of daycare.  
This is why support networks are required—education and opportunity—for the 
good of the all.  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. 
Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires 
eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income.  Their 
income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids.

  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]"

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I think you missed the point. There is *no* social program that can make up for 
not having both parents to successfully raise a child.You wouldn't think that 
with an ever expanding welfare system and ever increasing out of wedlock birth 
rate, considering all of the various birth control  that is easily available. 

  From: "emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 1:35 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    What?!?  I am always wary of those who speak with much judgment about 
things they have no experience with. 
Curiously, what social programs are you thinking of that make up the difference 
for an absent parent?  I'm talking about the ones that would service the 
"feminist" woman, who deceived the poor, hapless, male into donating his sperm 
or having sex with her, and then kicked him to the curb, thinking to herself, 
"I don't need himor his money..I have a "social program" I can depend 
on to make up the difference!"
Kids do need a support network when growing up.  Have you thought about how you 
could help?  If you can't put yourself out there for "those people" on a 
personal level, perhaps you could work with Habitat for Humanity?  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.

  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 9:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 Your first point is an idealistic, not a realistic viewpoint.  As long as 
humans procreate and follow their hormonal urges, babies will be born.  That's 
just the way it is.  Planning, higher education and a learned skill prior to 
starting a family is a great idea and I'm all for it, but it's just not going 
to be the case for all.  You can't legislate life, after all.  Should the 
children born of children and the poor not merit the same care and attention 
and value of those born to career couples?  Society has a responsibility for 
its members.  Humans are social creatures.  The idea that there is some large 
population "getting by on charity" by choice is a perpetrated myth - no one 
wants to be in that position.  Most people want to contribute, want to work, 
want to be educated, want to be valued. 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

A better option is, don't start a family until *you* can provide a complete and 
adequate living for all of those that  *you* are responsible for. That usually 
starts with good planning along with a higher education and/or learned skill. 
If people ever developed the attitude that nobody owes them anything, everybody 
would be better off and a lot of problems could be prevented in the first 
place. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam. Avoid the suffering before it comes! If you are 
prepared to go through life depending on charity to get by, then you should to 
be prepared for the worst and hope for the better. Maharishi used to say 
*Deserve then desire*.BTW, that was supposed to be frying *fries* not *fires*.
  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 3:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 Not sure what "fry fires" refers to, but it is true that a single parent who 
is the exclusive provider, making $15/hr, cannot afford the cost of daycare.  
This is why support networks are required—education and opportunity—for the 
good of the all.  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. 
Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires 
eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income.  Their 
income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids.

  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 

It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage
|  |
|  | |  | It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage To argue that the 
minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is completely 
anachronistic. |  |
| View on thebillfold.com|   Preview by Yahoo  |
|  |

  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.
 

 I think you are assuming too much, Mike. About 50% of marriages, whether the 
children were born before or after the nuptials, end in divorce. This means 
that children are then shuffled between two different parents and/or raised by 
at least one step parent or go to live either exclusively with one parent or 
another. Having "bastard" children is hardly the only reason for kids growing 
up "troubled without the traditional authority figures in a home." Of course, 
this lack of "authority" implies women aren't able to assume an authoritarian 
role as a parent, that you need a man. You can imagine what I think of that! LOL
 

 
 








 
  


 













 













 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

What?!?  I am always wary of those who speak with much judgment about things 
they have no experience with.  

 Curiously, what social programs are you thinking of that make up the 
difference for an absent parent?  I'm talking about the ones that would service 
the "feminist" woman, who deceived the poor, hapless, male into donating his 
sperm or having sex with her, and then kicked him to the curb, thinking to 
herself, "I don't need himor his money..I have a "social program" I can 
depend on to make up the difference!"
 

 Kids do need a support network when growing up.  Have you thought about how 
you could help?  If you can't put yourself out there for "those people" on a 
personal level, perhaps you could work with Habitat for Humanity?  
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 9:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Your first point is an idealistic, not a realistic viewpoint.  As long as 
humans procreate and follow their hormonal urges, babies will be born.  That's 
just the way it is.  Planning, higher education and a learned skill prior to 
starting a family is a great idea and I'm all for it, but it's just not going 
to be the case for all.  You can't legislate life, after all.  Should the 
children born of children and the poor not merit the same care and attention 
and value of those born to career couples?  Society has a responsibility for 
its members.  Humans are social creatures.  The idea that there is some large 
population "getting by on charity" by choice is a perpetrated myth - no one 
wants to be in that position.  Most people want to contribute, want to work, 
want to be educated, want to be valued. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 A better option is, don't start a family until *you* can provide a complete 
and adequate living for all of those that  *you* are responsible for. That 
usually starts with good planning along with a higher education and/or learned 
skill. If people ever developed the attitude that nobody owes them anything, 
everybody would be better off and a lot of problems could be prevented in the 
first place. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam. Avoid the suffering before it comes! If you 
are prepared to go through life depending on charity to get by, then you should 
to be prepared for the worst and hope for the better. Maharishi used to say 
*Deserve then desire*.BTW, that was supposed to be frying *fries* not *fires*.

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 3:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Not sure what "fry fires" refers to, but it is true that a single parent who 
is the exclusive provider, making $15/hr, cannot afford the cost of daycare.  
This is why support networks are required—education and opportunity—for the 
good of the all.  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. 
Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires 
eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income.  Their 
income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ 
 
 http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/
 
 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ To 
argue that the minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is 
completely anachronistic.


 
 View on thebillfold.com 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Geee Emily, neither. These jobs have traditionally been considered entry level 
jobs, where people go to learn skills and get job experience, so they can build 
a resume and move on to bigger and bett

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Back at that time, there was a stigma attached to having children out of 
wedlock. There was a shame factor to deal with. Now it's just the opposite. Now 
you are the baby daddy or the baby mamma and get all kinds of positive 
attention. We aren't supposed to be *judgmental*but supportive, in order to 
raise the self esteem of the parents and the children. Seems nice enough but 
how's it working? Seems to be having a snowball effect.

  From: "steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 10:24 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    
This song was released in 1968.  At that time, I guess it was still the 
exception rather than the rule to have a child out of wedlock.  I would say it 
is totally reversed now, and I am in agreement that the outcomes are far less 
favorable. I don't know what the percentage was then, but I know the percentage 
in the black community is about 70% and then lower for other ethnic groups
Diana Ross & The Supremes-Love Child 
||
||||   Diana Ross & The Supremes-Love Child  The Supremes 
sing their 11th #1 Love Child||
|  View on www.youtube.com |Preview by Yahoo|
||

   

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.

  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 9:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 Your first point is an idealistic, not a realistic viewpoint.  As long as 
humans procreate and follow their hormonal urges, babies will be born.  That's 
just the way it is.  Planning, higher education and a learned skill prior to 
starting a family is a great idea and I'm all for it, but it's just not going 
to be the case for all.  You can't legislate life, after all.  Should the 
children born of children and the poor not merit the same care and attention 
and value of those born to career couples?  Society has a responsibility for 
its members.  Humans are social creatures.  The idea that there is some large 
population "getting by on charity" by choice is a perpetrated myth - no one 
wants to be in that position.  Most people want to contribute, want to work, 
want to be educated, want to be valued. 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

A better option is, don't start a family until *you* can provide a complete and 
adequate living for all of those that  *you* are responsible for. That usually 
starts with good planning along with a higher education and/or learned skill. 
If people ever developed the attitude that nobody owes them anything, everybody 
would be better off and a lot of problems could be prevented in the first 
place. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam. Avoid the suffering before it comes! If you are 
prepared to go through life depending on charity to get by, then you should to 
be prepared for the worst and hope for the better. Maharishi used to say 
*Deserve then desire*.BTW, that was supposed to be frying *fries* not *fires*.
  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 3:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 Not sure what "fry fires" refers to, but it is true that a single parent who 
is the exclusive provider, making $15/hr, cannot afford the cost of daycare.  
This is why support networks are required—education and opportunity—for the 
good of the all.  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. 
Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires 
eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income.  Their 
income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids.

  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 

It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage
|  |
|  | |  | It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage To argue that the 
minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is completely 
anachronistic. |  |
| View on thebillfold.com|   Preview by Yahoo  |
|  |

  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Geee Emily, neither. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 This song was released in 1968.  At that time, I guess it was still the 
exception rather than the rule to have a child out of wedlock.  I would say it 
is totally reversed now, and I am in agreement that the outcomes are far less 
favorable. I don't know what the percentage was then, but I know the percentage 
in the black community is about 70% and then lower for other ethnic groups
 

 Diana Ross & The Supremes-Love Child 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rntxzyRt9UQ 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rntxzyRt9UQ 
 
 Diana Ross & The Supremes-Love Child 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rntxzyRt9UQ The Supremes sing their 11th #1 
Love Child
 
 
 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rntxzyRt9UQ 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 9:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Your first point is an idealistic, not a realistic viewpoint.  As long as 
humans procreate and follow their hormonal urges, babies will be born.  That's 
just the way it is.  Planning, higher education and a learned skill prior to 
starting a family is a great idea and I'm all for it, but it's just not going 
to be the case for all.  You can't legislate life, after all.  Should the 
children born of children and the poor not merit the same care and attention 
and value of those born to career couples?  Society has a responsibility for 
its members.  Humans are social creatures.  The idea that there is some large 
population "getting by on charity" by choice is a perpetrated myth - no one 
wants to be in that position.  Most people want to contribute, want to work, 
want to be educated, want to be valued. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 A better option is, don't start a family until *you* can provide a complete 
and adequate living for all of those that  *you* are responsible for. That 
usually starts with good planning along with a higher education and/or learned 
skill. If people ever developed the attitude that nobody owes them anything, 
everybody would be better off and a lot of problems could be prevented in the 
first place. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam. Avoid the suffering before it comes! If you 
are prepared to go through life depending on charity to get by, then you should 
to be prepared for the worst and hope for the better. Maharishi used to say 
*Deserve then desire*.BTW, that was supposed to be frying *fries* not *fires*.

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 3:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Not sure what "fry fires" refers to, but it is true that a single parent who 
is the exclusive provider, making $15/hr, cannot afford the cost of daycare.  
This is why support networks are required—education and opportunity—for the 
good of the all.  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. 
Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires 
eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income.  Their 
income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ 
 
 http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/
 
 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ To 
argue that the minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is 
completely anachronistic.


 
 View on thebillfold.com 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Geee Emily, neither. These jobs have traditionally been considered entry level 
jobs, where people go to learn skills and get job experience, so they can build 
a resume and move on to bigger and better things. They were never intended to 
be a pr

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Most people do and want to contribute and always have.  And Yes, I may be 
somewhat idealistic but it wasn't that long ago that most people had children 
after they married. Now, times have changed, many, especially among feminist, 
seem to think marriage or even having a man in the house isn't necessary to 
have a family. We have all these wonderful social programs to make up the 
difference. Except a high percentage of those kids grow up troubled without the 
traditional authority figures in a home.

  From: "emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 9:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    Your first point is an idealistic, not a realistic viewpoint.  As long as 
humans procreate and follow their hormonal urges, babies will be born.  That's 
just the way it is.  Planning, higher education and a learned skill prior to 
starting a family is a great idea and I'm all for it, but it's just not going 
to be the case for all.  You can't legislate life, after all.  Should the 
children born of children and the poor not merit the same care and attention 
and value of those born to career couples?  Society has a responsibility for 
its members.  Humans are social creatures.  The idea that there is some large 
population "getting by on charity" by choice is a perpetrated myth - no one 
wants to be in that position.  Most people want to contribute, want to work, 
want to be educated, want to be valued. 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

A better option is, don't start a family until *you* can provide a complete and 
adequate living for all of those that  *you* are responsible for. That usually 
starts with good planning along with a higher education and/or learned skill. 
If people ever developed the attitude that nobody owes them anything, everybody 
would be better off and a lot of problems could be prevented in the first 
place. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam. Avoid the suffering before it comes! If you are 
prepared to go through life depending on charity to get by, then you should to 
be prepared for the worst and hope for the better. Maharishi used to say 
*Deserve then desire*.BTW, that was supposed to be frying *fries* not *fires*.
  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 3:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 Not sure what "fry fires" refers to, but it is true that a single parent who 
is the exclusive provider, making $15/hr, cannot afford the cost of daycare.  
This is why support networks are required—education and opportunity—for the 
good of the all.  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. 
Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires 
eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income.  Their 
income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids.

  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 

It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage
|  |
|  | |  | It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage To argue that the 
minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is completely 
anachronistic. |  |
| View on thebillfold.com|   Preview by Yahoo  |
|  |

  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Geee Emily, neither. These jobs have traditionally been considered entry level 
jobs, where people go to learn skills and get job experience, so they can build 
a resume and move on to bigger and better things. They were never intended to 
be a primary source of income to support a family, but maybe a secondary 
supplemental income. If someone sees flipping burgers as a carrier, there's 
something seriously wrong with them and maybe counseling might awaken them to 
seek something better. You set $15 an hour as a minimum wage, and you'll have 
Liberal arts graduates taking those jobs in a heart beat. What's left for the 
person that couldn't even finish high school? Dealing drugs? Maybe it would be 
better for society, in general, if we had a little more faith in people and 
their natural abilities and expect better of them, not settling for a bare 
minimum and owing them more for less.< My *beef* with MickeyD's? I don't 
frequent them as much as Ann might suggest because my personal experience is 
that there is a strong tendency to get the order wrong. Why? I don't know. 
Maybe they don't speak or read English well enough in some cases or maybe 
they're young and immature,not focused or paying attention. I've never been 
rewarded for poor job performance with a raise but have bee

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

It could be something as simple as using protection. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam or 
an ounce of prevention...

  From: "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 9:05 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

A better option is, don't start a family until *you* can provide a complete and 
adequate living for all of those that  *you* are responsible for.
Careful, this might involve having abortions or, at least, using the services 
of Planned Parenthood.
 That usually starts with good planning along with a higher education and/or 
learned skill. If people ever developed the attitude that nobody owes them 
anything, everybody would be better off and a lot of problems could be 
prevented in the first place. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam. Avoid the suffering before 
it comes! If you are prepared to go through life depending on charity to get 
by, then you should to be prepared for the worst and hope for the better. 
Maharishi used to say *Deserve then desire*.BTW, that was supposed to be frying 
*fries* not *fires*.
  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 3:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 Not sure what "fry fires" refers to, but it is true that a single parent who 
is the exclusive provider, making $15/hr, cannot afford the cost of daycare.  
This is why support networks are required—education and opportunity—for the 
good of the all.  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. 
Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires 
eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income.  Their 
income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids.

  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 

It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage
|  |
|  | |  | It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage To argue that the 
minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is completely 
anachronistic. |  |
| View on thebillfold.com|   Preview by Yahoo  |
|  |

  







 



  #yiv8539060227 #yiv8539060227 -- #yiv8539060227ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv8539060227 
#yiv8539060227ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv8539060227 
#yiv8539060227ygrp-mkp #yiv8539060227hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv8539060227 #yiv8539060227ygrp-mkp #yiv8539060227ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv8539060227 #yiv8539060227ygrp-mkp .yiv8539060227ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv8539060227 #yiv8539060227ygrp-mkp .yiv8539060227ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv8539060227 #yiv8539060227ygrp-mkp .yiv8539060227ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8539060227 #yiv8539060227ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv8539060227ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv8539060227 
#yiv8539060227ygrp-sponsor #yiv8539060227ygrp-lc #yiv8539060227hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv8539060227 
#yiv8539060227ygrp-sponsor #yiv8539060227ygrp-lc .yiv8539060227ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv8539060227 #yiv8539060227actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv8539060227 
#yiv8539060227activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv8539060227
 #yiv8539060227activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv8539060227 
#yiv8539060227activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv8539060227 #yiv8539060227activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8539060227 #yiv8539060227activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv8539060227 #yiv8539060227activity span 
.yiv8539060227underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8539060227 
.yiv8539060227attach 
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 
0;width:400px;}#yiv8539060227 .yiv8539060227attach div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv8539060227 .yiv8539060227attach img 
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv8539060227 .yiv8539060227attach label 
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv8539060227 .yiv8539060227attach label a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv8539060227 blockquote {margin:0 0 0 
4px;}#yiv8539060227 .yiv8539060227bold 
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv8539060227 
.yiv8539060227bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv8539060227 dd.yiv8539060227last 
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv8539060227 dd.yiv8539060227last p 
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv8539060227 
dd.yiv8539060227last p span.yiv8539060227yshortcuts 
{margin-right:0;}#yiv8539060227 div.yiv8539060227attach-table div div a 
{text-decoration:

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

LOL! Yep! We still have that here.  About 9-10 dollars for a ticket, another 
9-10 bucks or more for a soda and popcorn and 20 minutes to 30 minutes of 
commercials and previews. I leave the theater exhausted. I used to go to movies 
frequently years ago but hardly ever now.

  From: "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 8:34 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

This is an example of a non right/leftissue.  It's newspaper owners holding on 
to a business model thatwent out of style in the 21st century.  Those with 
vision shiftedto their central distribution to Internet.  It's a problem 
thoughto monetize it.  You can have online subscriptions as we now havea new 
local weekly that does both paper and online.  They charge asubscription for 
both but you can still read the online versionfor the moment free. Their 
website is responsive designed so itworks both well on desktops and mobile.  
That's not hard to doanymore with the frameworks available.

Online advertising is another problem.  Companies like Google pushinterstitials 
(full screen ads) because they can charge more forthem but people just dismiss 
them or if they lock up their mobiledevice (which they can do) they won't visit 
that site again.  Iread recently in Advertising Age that businesses are 
findingtargeted advertising not worth the price either (thank God!). Some sites 
decry ad blockers and I think why not just embed the adanyway since the only 
real use of cookies is for targeted ads.Yahoo embeds ads so you still see some 
even with an ad blocker on.

The other thing Google and ad services were pushing is video ads. Don't you 
just hate those? There comes a point where you annoy apotential customer enough 
they won't buy your product  ever.
There was a trend for a while there where movie goers had to endure car ads and 
all sorts of other commercials before the features. This was about 4-5 years 
ago in Canada, I think, when this started. Now that was enough to piss me off. 
Pay $15 for a movie ticket, $6 for a large popcorn, $4 for Peanut M & M's and 
God only knows what for a soft drink and then they make you sit through 4 or 5 
commercials? Eff that. I haven't noticed commercials like this lately though, 
but maybe that's because I try and go to my small independent little town 
cinema as much as I can and they only show previews before the feature.

On 10/04/2015 08:43 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@...[FairfieldLife] wrote:

  Partof my reasoning is value. I used to buy a HoustonChronicle every morning 
at a local Walgreens. The pricehas gone up from a dollar a day to a dollar 
fifty,Monday thru Friday. I have reluctantly tolerated it eventhough I'm 
guaranteed a heavy dose of liberalism day today. However, the Saturday and 
Sunday paper recentlywent up to three dollars and I decided  that it 
wasn'tworth it. I stopped buying it on those days but I wasn'tthe only one! 
Now, the stack of papers just sit there onthe weekend. Nobody, or at least, 
virtually nobody, buysthe Saturday or Sunday paper anymore. It's over 
priced.Now the delivery person has to remove them and take themback on Mondays 
with no money earned on those days. I'vechecked other stores and found pretty 
much the sameresults. Why pay three bucks when I can read the news online? Why 
pay a dollar fifty? That's just a bad habitI'll probably address soon.Poor news 
paper deliveryperson.

 From:"awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]"
To:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent:Sunday, October 4, 2015 8:52 AM
Subject:Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
  
   


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

Areyou prejudiced towards fast foodworkers in general or justMcDonald's 
employees?  What are yourassumptions about people who work atMickeyD's? 
Idon't quite understand Mike'sreasoning here. Who eats atMcDonalds? Poor 
people, richpeople, people who just want topay less for a burger? If you 
aretruly paying less for a burgerthen how do you think that cancome about? 
Hint: you have to cutcosts. What is the easiest way tocut costs? Pay your 
employeesless. Is your $3 hamburger worthit knowing others don't make aliving 
wage? I don't eat atMcDonalds - never have for a wholelot of reasons but if I 
did Iwould like to think the staff werenot the equivalent of 
indenturedservants. It's a bit the chickenand the egg. If you can't makeenough 
money to live beyond thepoverty level by working atMcDonalds than what person 
wouldchoose to work there? I'll tellyou. Those who either don't havethe 
education or experience orluck to find a better paying job,that's who. So when 
Mike says theydon't know their McNuggets fromtheir milkshakes there is a 
goodreason for that

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

When things get over priced, people stop buying it.

  From: "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 8:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Part of my reasoning is value. I used to buy a Houston Chronicle every morning 
at a local Walgreens. The price has gone up from a dollar a day to a dollar 
fifty, Monday thru Friday. I have reluctantly tolerated it even though I'm 
guaranteed a heavy dose of liberalism day to day. However, the Saturday and 
Sunday paper recently went up to three dollars and I decided  that it wasn't 
worth it. I stopped buying it on those days but I wasn't the only one! Now, the 
stack of papers just sit there on the weekend. Nobody, or at least, virtually 
nobody, buys the Saturday or Sunday paper anymore. It's over priced. Now the 
delivery person has to remove them and take them back on Mondays with no money 
earned on those days. I've checked other stores and found pretty much the same 
results. Why pay three bucks when I can read the news on line? Why pay a dollar 
fifty? That's just a bad habit I'll probably address soon.Poor news paper 
delivery person.

So what are you saying? That McDonalds is not worth more than what they're 
charging at the moment for their "food"? Or that young or uneducated labor is 
not worth paying more to make and deliver your Happy Meal? What are you saying 
that relates to our discussion. As interesting as the newspaper story I am 
missing how it relates.
  From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 8:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's 
employees?  What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's? 
I don't quite understand Mike's reasoning here. Who eats at McDonalds? Poor 
people, rich people, people who just want to pay less for a burger? If you are 
truly paying less for a burger then how do you think that can come about? Hint: 
you have to cut costs. What is the easiest way to cut costs? Pay your employees 
less. Is your $3 hamburger worth it knowing others don't make a living wage? I 
don't eat at McDonalds - never have for a whole lot of reasons but if I did I 
would like to think the staff were not the equivalent of indentured servants. 
It's a bit the chicken and the egg. If you can't make enough money to live 
beyond the poverty level by working at McDonalds than what person would choose 
to work there? I'll tell you. Those who either don't have the education or 
experience or luck to find a better paying job, that's who. So when Mike says 
they don't know their McNuggets from their milkshakes there is a good reason 
for that if that is, in fact, a true statement.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from 
your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable 
of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more 
efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. 
Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means 
more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, 
wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.

  From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the 
labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that cheap meal will 
cost a bit more 'cause the fast food outlet will have to pay their employees 
more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike. 
  From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM,awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:






  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

I really don't think this is the case.
Most gunowners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at homefor protection.  
Conceal andcarry permits are pretty rare.
When you thinkabout it though, when has society not been in roughshape?
I guess thesemass shootings are a new development, so perhapsthat is thecase.
What I

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Your first point is an idealistic, not a realistic viewpoint.  As long as 
humans procreate and follow their hormonal urges, babies will be born.  That's 
just the way it is.  Planning, higher education and a learned skill prior to 
starting a family is a great idea and I'm all for it, but it's just not going 
to be the case for all.  You can't legislate life, after all.  Should the 
children born of children and the poor not merit the same care and attention 
and value of those born to career couples?  Society has a responsibility for 
its members.  Humans are social creatures.  The idea that there is some large 
population "getting by on charity" by choice is a perpetrated myth - no one 
wants to be in that position.  Most people want to contribute, want to work, 
want to be educated, want to be valued. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 A better option is, don't start a family until *you* can provide a complete 
and adequate living for all of those that  *you* are responsible for. That 
usually starts with good planning along with a higher education and/or learned 
skill. If people ever developed the attitude that nobody owes them anything, 
everybody would be better off and a lot of problems could be prevented in the 
first place. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam. Avoid the suffering before it comes! If you 
are prepared to go through life depending on charity to get by, then you should 
to be prepared for the worst and hope for the better. Maharishi used to say 
*Deserve then desire*.BTW, that was supposed to be frying *fries* not *fires*.

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 3:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Not sure what "fry fires" refers to, but it is true that a single parent who 
is the exclusive provider, making $15/hr, cannot afford the cost of daycare.  
This is why support networks are required—education and opportunity—for the 
good of the all.  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. 
Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires 
eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income.  Their 
income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ 
 
 http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/
 
 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ To 
argue that the minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is 
completely anachronistic.


 
 View on thebillfold.com 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Geee Emily, neither. These jobs have traditionally been considered entry level 
jobs, where people go to learn skills and get job experience, so they can build 
a resume and move on to bigger and better things. They were never intended to 
be a primary source of income to support a family, but maybe a secondary 
supplemental income. If someone sees flipping burgers as a carrier, there's 
something seriously wrong with them and maybe counseling might awaken them to 
seek something better. You set $15 an hour as a minimum wage, and you'll have 
Liberal arts graduates taking those jobs in a heart beat. What's left for the 
person that couldn't even finish high school? Dealing drugs? Maybe it would be 
better for society, in general, if we had a little more faith in people and 
their natural abilities and expect better of them, not settling for a bare 
minimum and owing them more for less.< My *beef* with MickeyD's? I don't 
frequent them as much as Ann might suggest because my personal experience is 
that there is a strong tendency to get the order wrong. Why? I don't know. 
Maybe they don't speak or read English well enough in some cases or maybe 
they're young and immature,not focused or paying attention. I've never been 
rewarded for poor job performance with a raise but have been promoted for 
excellent performance. Sorry to say, but my empathy in this matter is reserved 
for the truly handicapped or those that want to do more and are willing to 
prove it, not those that want more to just get by.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 1:04 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Are you prejudi

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 A better option is, don't start a family until *you* can provide a complete 
and adequate living for all of those that  *you* are responsible for.
 

 Careful, this might involve having abortions or, at least, using the services 
of Planned Parenthood.
 

  That usually starts with good planning along with a higher education and/or 
learned skill. If people ever developed the attitude that nobody owes them 
anything, everybody would be better off and a lot of problems could be 
prevented in the first place. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam. Avoid the suffering before 
it comes! If you are prepared to go through life depending on charity to get 
by, then you should to be prepared for the worst and hope for the better. 
Maharishi used to say *Deserve then desire*.BTW, that was supposed to be frying 
*fries* not *fires*.

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 3:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Not sure what "fry fires" refers to, but it is true that a single parent who 
is the exclusive provider, making $15/hr, cannot afford the cost of daycare.  
This is why support networks are required—education and opportunity—for the 
good of the all.  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. 
Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires 
eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income.  Their 
income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ 
 
 http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/
 
 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ To 
argue that the minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is 
completely anachronistic.


 
 View on thebillfold.com 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  

 

 









 













 
  


 













 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 This is an example of a non right/left issue.  It's newspaper owners holding 
on to a business model that went out of style in the 21st century.  Those with 
vision shifted to their central distribution to Internet.  It's a problem 
though to monetize it.  You can have online subscriptions as we now have a new 
local weekly that does both paper and online.  They charge a subscription for 
both but you can still read the online version for the moment free. Their 
website is responsive designed so it works both well on desktops and mobile.  
That's not hard to do anymore with the frameworks available.
 
 Online advertising is another problem.  Companies like Google push 
interstitials (full screen ads) because they can charge more for them but 
people just dismiss them or if they lock up their mobile device (which they can 
do) they won't visit that site again.  I read recently in Advertising Age that 
businesses are finding targeted advertising not worth the price either (thank 
God!).  Some sites decry ad blockers and I think why not just embed the ad 
anyway since the only real use of cookies is for targeted ads. Yahoo embeds ads 
so you still see some even with an ad blocker on.
 
 The other thing Google and ad services were pushing is video ads.  Don't you 
just hate those? There comes a point where you annoy a potential customer 
enough they won't buy your product  ever.
 

 There was a trend for a while there where movie goers had to endure car ads 
and all sorts of other commercials before the features. This was about 4-5 
years ago in Canada, I think, when this started. Now that was enough to piss me 
off. Pay $15 for a movie ticket, $6 for a large popcorn, $4 for Peanut M & M's 
and God only knows what for a soft drink and then they make you sit through 4 
or 5 commercials? Eff that. I haven't noticed commercials like this lately 
though, but maybe that's because I try and go to my small independent little 
town cinema as much as I can and they only show previews before the feature.
 
 On 10/04/2015 08:43 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... mailto:mdixon.6569@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Part of my reasoning is value. I used to buy a Houston Chronicle every 
morning at a local Walgreens. The price has gone up from a dollar a day to a 
dollar fifty, Monday thru Friday. I have reluctantly tolerated it even though 
I'm guaranteed a heavy dose of liberalism day to day. However, the Saturday and 
Sunday paper recently went up to three dollars and I decided  that it wasn't 
worth it. I stopped buying it on those days but I wasn't the only one! Now, the 
stack of papers just sit there on the weekend. Nobody, or at least, virtually 
nobody, buys the Saturday or Sunday paper anymore. It's over priced. Now the 
delivery person has to remove them and take them back on Mondays with no money 
earned on those days. I've checked other stores and found pretty much the same 
results. Why pay three bucks when I can read the news on line? Why pay a dollar 
fifty? That's just a bad habit I'll probably address soon.Poor news paper 
delivery person.

 
 
 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
mailto:awoelflebater@...[FairfieldLife]  
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 8:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:emily.mae50@... wrote :
 
 Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's 
employees?  What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's? 
 

 I don't quite understand Mike's reasoning here. Who eats at McDonalds? Poor 
people, rich people, people who just want to pay less for a burger? If you are 
truly paying less for a burger then how do you think that can come about? Hint: 
you have to cut costs. What is the easiest way to cut costs? Pay your employees 
less. Is your $3 hamburger worth it knowing others don't make a living wage? I 
don't eat at McDonalds - never have for a whole lot of reasons but if I did I 
would like to think the staff were not the equivalent of indentured servants. 
It's a bit the chicken and the egg. If you can't make enough money to live 
beyond the poverty level by working at McDonalds than what person would choose 
to work there? I'll tell you. Those who either don't have the education or 
experience or luck to find a better paying job, that's who. So when Mike says 
they don't know their McNuggets from their milkshakes there is a good reason 
for that if that is, in fact, a true statement.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:mdixon.6569@... wrote :
 
 If you'r

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Part of my reasoning is value. I used to buy a Houston Chronicle every morning 
at a local Walgreens. The price has gone up from a dollar a day to a dollar 
fifty, Monday thru Friday. I have reluctantly tolerated it even though I'm 
guaranteed a heavy dose of liberalism day to day. However, the Saturday and 
Sunday paper recently went up to three dollars and I decided  that it wasn't 
worth it. I stopped buying it on those days but I wasn't the only one! Now, the 
stack of papers just sit there on the weekend. Nobody, or at least, virtually 
nobody, buys the Saturday or Sunday paper anymore. It's over priced. Now the 
delivery person has to remove them and take them back on Mondays with no money 
earned on those days. I've checked other stores and found pretty much the same 
results. Why pay three bucks when I can read the news on line? Why pay a dollar 
fifty? That's just a bad habit I'll probably address soon.Poor news paper 
delivery person.

 

 So what are you saying? That McDonalds is not worth more than what they're 
charging at the moment for their "food"? Or that young or uneducated labor is 
not worth paying more to make and deliver your Happy Meal? What are you saying 
that relates to our discussion. As interesting as the newspaper story I am 
missing how it relates.
 

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 8:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's 
employees?  What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's? 
 

 I don't quite understand Mike's reasoning here. Who eats at McDonalds? Poor 
people, rich people, people who just want to pay less for a burger? If you are 
truly paying less for a burger then how do you think that can come about? Hint: 
you have to cut costs. What is the easiest way to cut costs? Pay your employees 
less. Is your $3 hamburger worth it knowing others don't make a living wage? I 
don't eat at McDonalds - never have for a whole lot of reasons but if I did I 
would like to think the staff were not the equivalent of indentured servants. 
It's a bit the chicken and the egg. If you can't make enough money to live 
beyond the poverty level by working at McDonalds than what person would choose 
to work there? I'll tell you. Those who either don't have the education or 
experience or luck to find a better paying job, that's who. So when Mike says 
they don't know their McNuggets from their milkshakes there is a good reason 
for that if that is, in fact, a true statement.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from 
your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable 
of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more 
efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. 
Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means 
more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, 
wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.

 

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

 

 So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the 
labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that cheap meal will 
cost a bit more 'cause the fast food outlet will have to pay their employees 
more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike. 
 

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote :
 
 I really don't think this is the case. 
 
 Most gun owners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at home for protection.  
 
 
 Conceal and carry permits are pretty rare.
 
 
 When you think about it though, when has society not been in rough shape?
 
 
 I guess these mass shootings are a new development, so perhaps that is the 
case.
 
 
 What I am saying, Steve, is that the apparent runaway train of gun ownership 
and lethal gun use on fellow hum

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[olliesed...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Yes, that was the theory behind the minimum wage for a few decades, but the US 
is now *last* among industrialized countries, in terms of economic mobility. In 
other words you may find that once you start at McD's, that is it - With any 
"excess" jobs farmed overseas, for tax breaks, there aren't the manufacturing 
jobs now that once absorbed those without a lot of education, and still 
provided skilled, well-paid employment. That has created a big divide between 
low level service jobs and white collar jobs, and there aren't enough white 
collar jobs to go around. So, given the new reality, I think a higher minimum 
wage is good for the country and sound social policy, unless we want the 
government to keep picking up the tab, which they do when people are 'working 
poor'. Chickens coming home to roost. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. 
Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires 
eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income.  Their 
income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ 
 
 http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/
 
 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ To 
argue that the minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is 
completely anachronistic.


 
 View on thebillfold.com 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Geee Emily, neither. These jobs have traditionally been considered entry level 
jobs, where people go to learn skills and get job experience, so they can build 
a resume and move on to bigger and better things. They were never intended to 
be a primary source of income to support a family, but maybe a secondary 
supplemental income. If someone sees flipping burgers as a carrier, there's 
something seriously wrong with them and maybe counseling might awaken them to 
seek something better. You set $15 an hour as a minimum wage, and you'll have 
Liberal arts graduates taking those jobs in a heart beat. What's left for the 
person that couldn't even finish high school? Dealing drugs? Maybe it would be 
better for society, in general, if we had a little more faith in people and 
their natural abilities and expect better of them, not settling for a bare 
minimum and owing them more for less.< My *beef* with MickeyD's? I don't 
frequent them as much as Ann might suggest because my personal experience is 
that there is a strong tendency to get the order wrong. Why? I don't know. 
Maybe they don't speak or read English well enough in some cases or maybe 
they're young and immature,not focused or paying attention. I've never been 
rewarded for poor job performance with a raise but have been promoted for 
excellent performance. Sorry to say, but my empathy in this matter is reserved 
for the truly handicapped or those that want to do more and are willing to 
prove it, not those that want more to just get by.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 1:04 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's 
employees?  What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's? 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from 
your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable 
of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more 
efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. 
Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means 
more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, 
wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.

 

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

 

 So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the 
labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or ma

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

A better option is, don't start a family until *you* can provide a complete and 
adequate living for all of those that  *you* are responsible for. That usually 
starts with good planning along with a higher education and/or learned skill. 
If people ever developed the attitude that nobody owes them anything, everybody 
would be better off and a lot of problems could be prevented in the first 
place. Hayam Dhukam Anagatam. Avoid the suffering before it comes! If you are 
prepared to go through life depending on charity to get by, then you should to 
be prepared for the worst and hope for the better. Maharishi used to say 
*Deserve then desire*.BTW, that was supposed to be frying *fries* not *fires*.
  From: "emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 3:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    Not sure what "fry fires" refers to, but it is true that a single parent 
who is the exclusive provider, making $15/hr, cannot afford the cost of 
daycare.  This is why support networks are required—education and 
opportunity—for the good of the all.  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. 
Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires 
eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income.  Their 
income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids.

  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 

It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage
|  |
|  | |  | It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage To argue that the 
minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is completely 
anachronistic. |  |
| View on thebillfold.com|   Preview by Yahoo  |
|  |

  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Geee Emily, neither. These jobs have traditionally been considered entry level 
jobs, where people go to learn skills and get job experience, so they can build 
a resume and move on to bigger and better things. They were never intended to 
be a primary source of income to support a family, but maybe a secondary 
supplemental income. If someone sees flipping burgers as a carrier, there's 
something seriously wrong with them and maybe counseling might awaken them to 
seek something better. You set $15 an hour as a minimum wage, and you'll have 
Liberal arts graduates taking those jobs in a heart beat. What's left for the 
person that couldn't even finish high school? Dealing drugs? Maybe it would be 
better for society, in general, if we had a little more faith in people and 
their natural abilities and expect better of them, not settling for a bare 
minimum and owing them more for less.< My *beef* with MickeyD's? I don't 
frequent them as much as Ann might suggest because my personal experience is 
that there is a strong tendency to get the order wrong. Why? I don't know. 
Maybe they don't speak or read English well enough in some cases or maybe 
they're young and immature,not focused or paying attention. I've never been 
rewarded for poor job performance with a raise but have been promoted for 
excellent performance. Sorry to say, but my empathy in this matter is reserved 
for the truly handicapped or those that want to do more and are willing to 
prove it, not those that want more to just get by.

  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 1:04 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's 
employees?  What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's? 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from 
your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable 
of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more 
efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. 
Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means 
more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, 
wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.

  From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the 
labor a barely living wage fo

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Not sure what "fry fires" refers to, but it is true that a single parent who is 
the exclusive provider, making $15/hr, cannot afford the cost of daycare.  This 
is why support networks are required—education and opportunity—for the good of 
the all.  
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. 
Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires 
eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income.  Their 
income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ 
 
 http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/
 
 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ To 
argue that the minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is 
completely anachronistic.


 
 View on thebillfold.com 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Geee Emily, neither. These jobs have traditionally been considered entry level 
jobs, where people go to learn skills and get job experience, so they can build 
a resume and move on to bigger and better things. They were never intended to 
be a primary source of income to support a family, but maybe a secondary 
supplemental income. If someone sees flipping burgers as a carrier, there's 
something seriously wrong with them and maybe counseling might awaken them to 
seek something better. You set $15 an hour as a minimum wage, and you'll have 
Liberal arts graduates taking those jobs in a heart beat. What's left for the 
person that couldn't even finish high school? Dealing drugs? Maybe it would be 
better for society, in general, if we had a little more faith in people and 
their natural abilities and expect better of them, not settling for a bare 
minimum and owing them more for less.< My *beef* with MickeyD's? I don't 
frequent them as much as Ann might suggest because my personal experience is 
that there is a strong tendency to get the order wrong. Why? I don't know. 
Maybe they don't speak or read English well enough in some cases or maybe 
they're young and immature,not focused or paying attention. I've never been 
rewarded for poor job performance with a raise but have been promoted for 
excellent performance. Sorry to say, but my empathy in this matter is reserved 
for the truly handicapped or those that want to do more and are willing to 
prove it, not those that want more to just get by.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 1:04 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's 
employees?  What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's? 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from 
your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable 
of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more 
efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. 
Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means 
more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, 
wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.

 

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

 

 So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the 
labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that cheap meal will 
cost a bit more 'cause the fast food outlet will have to pay their employees 
more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike. 
 

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mail

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Well, actually they are a living wage, but just barely for themselves. 
Definitely not meant to raise a family on. Today, someone wants to fry fires 
eight hours a day and raise three or four kids without a second income.  Their 
income alone, isn't enough to pay day care for one or two kids.

  From: "emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 11:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    

It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
||
||||   It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage  To argue 
that the minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is completely 
anachronistic.||
|  View on thebillfold.com  |Preview by Yahoo|
||

   


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Geee Emily, neither. These jobs have traditionally been considered entry level 
jobs, where people go to learn skills and get job experience, so they can build 
a resume and move on to bigger and better things. They were never intended to 
be a primary source of income to support a family, but maybe a secondary 
supplemental income. If someone sees flipping burgers as a carrier, there's 
something seriously wrong with them and maybe counseling might awaken them to 
seek something better. You set $15 an hour as a minimum wage, and you'll have 
Liberal arts graduates taking those jobs in a heart beat. What's left for the 
person that couldn't even finish high school? Dealing drugs? Maybe it would be 
better for society, in general, if we had a little more faith in people and 
their natural abilities and expect better of them, not settling for a bare 
minimum and owing them more for less.< My *beef* with MickeyD's? I don't 
frequent them as much as Ann might suggest because my personal experience is 
that there is a strong tendency to get the order wrong. Why? I don't know. 
Maybe they don't speak or read English well enough in some cases or maybe 
they're young and immature,not focused or paying attention. I've never been 
rewarded for poor job performance with a raise but have been promoted for 
excellent performance. Sorry to say, but my empathy in this matter is reserved 
for the truly handicapped or those that want to do more and are willing to 
prove it, not those that want more to just get by.

  From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 1:04 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's 
employees?  What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's? 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from 
your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable 
of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more 
efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. 
Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means 
more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, 
wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.

  From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the 
labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that cheap meal will 
cost a bit more 'cause the fast food outlet will have to pay their employees 
more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike. 
  From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM,awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:





  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

I really don't think this is the case.
Most gunowners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at homefor protection.  
Conceal andcarry permits are pretty rare.
When you thinkabout it though, when has society not been in roughshape?
I guess thesemass shootings are a new development, so perhapsthat is thecase.
What Iam saying, Steve, is that the apparent runawaytrain of gun ownership and 
lethal gun use onfellow human beings seems to be tied to the stateof our 
society where absurdly rich existgeographically within spitting distance of 
thosewho can't afford a decent meal (I was listening toNPR tonight driving home 
from work and

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ 
 
 http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ 
 
 It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ To 
argue that the minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage is 
completely anachronistic.
 
 
 
 View on thebillfold.com 
http://thebillfold.com/2015/07/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage/ 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Geee Emily, neither. These jobs have traditionally been considered entry level 
jobs, where people go to learn skills and get job experience, so they can build 
a resume and move on to bigger and better things. They were never intended to 
be a primary source of income to support a family, but maybe a secondary 
supplemental income. If someone sees flipping burgers as a carrier, there's 
something seriously wrong with them and maybe counseling might awaken them to 
seek something better. You set $15 an hour as a minimum wage, and you'll have 
Liberal arts graduates taking those jobs in a heart beat. What's left for the 
person that couldn't even finish high school? Dealing drugs? Maybe it would be 
better for society, in general, if we had a little more faith in people and 
their natural abilities and expect better of them, not settling for a bare 
minimum and owing them more for less.< My *beef* with MickeyD's? I don't 
frequent them as much as Ann might suggest because my personal experience is 
that there is a strong tendency to get the order wrong. Why? I don't know. 
Maybe they don't speak or read English well enough in some cases or maybe 
they're young and immature,not focused or paying attention. I've never been 
rewarded for poor job performance with a raise but have been promoted for 
excellent performance. Sorry to say, but my empathy in this matter is reserved 
for the truly handicapped or those that want to do more and are willing to 
prove it, not those that want more to just get by.
 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 1:04 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's 
employees?  What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's? 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from 
your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable 
of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more 
efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. 
Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means 
more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, 
wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.

 

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

 

 So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the 
labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that cheap meal will 
cost a bit more 'cause the fast food outlet will have to pay their employees 
more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike. 
 

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote :
 
 I really don't think this is the case. 
 
 Most gun owners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at home for protection.  
 
 
 Conceal and carry permits are pretty rare.
 
 
 When you think about it though, when has society not been in rough shape?
 
 
 I guess these mass shootings are a new development, so perhaps that is the 
case.
 
 
 What I am saying, Steve, is that the apparent runaway train of gun ownership 
and lethal gun use on fellow human beings seems to be tied to the state of our 
society where absurdly rich exist geographically within spitting distance of 
those who can't afford a decent meal (I was listening to NPR tonight driving 
home from work and there was an interview where they were talking about the 
wealthy in Manhattan whose net

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

This is an example of a non right/left issue.  It's newspaper owners 
holding on to a business model that went out of style in the 21st 
century.  Those with vision shifted to their central distribution to 
Internet.  It's a problem though to monetize it.  You can have online 
subscriptions as we now have a new local weekly that does both paper and 
online.  They charge a subscription for both but you can still read the 
online version for the moment free. Their website is responsive designed 
so it works both well on desktops and mobile.  That's not hard to do 
anymore with the frameworks available.


Online advertising is another problem.  Companies like Google push 
interstitials (full screen ads) because they can charge more for them 
but people just dismiss them or if they lock up their mobile device 
(which they can do) they won't visit that site again.  I read recently 
in Advertising Age that businesses are finding targeted advertising not 
worth the price either (thank God!). Some sites decry ad blockers and I 
think why not just embed the ad anyway since the only real use of 
cookies is for targeted ads. Yahoo embeds ads so you still see some even 
with an ad blocker on.


The other thing Google and ad services were pushing is video ads. Don't 
you just hate those? There comes a point where you annoy a potential 
customer enough they won't buy your product  ever.


On 10/04/2015 08:43 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
Part of my reasoning is value. I used to buy a Houston Chronicle every 
morning at a local Walgreens. The price has gone up from a dollar a 
day to a dollar fifty, Monday thru Friday. I have reluctantly 
tolerated it even though I'm guaranteed a heavy dose of liberalism day 
to day. However, the Saturday and Sunday paper recently went up to 
three dollars and I decided  that it wasn't worth it. I stopped buying 
it on those days but I wasn't the only one! Now, the stack of papers 
just sit there on the weekend. Nobody, or at least, virtually nobody, 
buys the Saturday or Sunday paper anymore. It's over priced. Now the 
delivery person has to remove them and take them back on Mondays with 
no money earned on those days. I've checked other stores and found 
pretty much the same results. Why pay three bucks when I can read the 
news on line? Why pay a dollar fifty? That's just a bad habit I'll 
probably address soon.Poor news paper delivery person.



*From:* "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 8:52 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
***
**
*
*
**
**
**
*

*
*

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just 
McDonald's employees?  What are your assumptions about people who work 
at MickeyD's?


*
*I don't quite understand Mike's reasoning here. Who eats at 
McDonalds? Poor people, rich people, people who just want to pay less 
for a burger? If you are truly paying less for a burger then how do 
you think that can come about? Hint: you have to cut costs. What is 
the easiest way to cut costs? Pay your employees less. Is your $3 
hamburger worth it knowing others don't make a living wage? I don't 
eat at McDonalds - never have for a whole lot of reasons but if I did 
I would like to think the staff were not the equivalent of indentured 
servants. It's a bit the chicken and the egg. If you can't make enough 
money to live beyond the poverty level by working at McDonalds than 
what person would choose to work there? I'll tell you. Those who 
either don't have the education or experience or luck to find a better 
paying job, that's who. So when Mike says they don't know their 
McNuggets from their milkshakes there is a good reason for that if 
that is, in fact, a true statement.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect 
more from your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds 
employee are capable of giving. Might require some *focused* 
attention. Of course, if you are more efficient and accomplishing 
more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. Which means fewer jobs. 
A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means more from you.If 
someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, wait till 
they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.


--------
*From:* "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

LOL, $15 an hour and they can'

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

We've had it this town since July. Already some of the small restaurants 
and businesses have closed. The weird thing was watching people who I 
thought had brains become ideologues about the issue (and other things 
as well).  I point out the problem isn't wages it's an inflated cost of 
living.


Minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be a career.  There a way for 
someone to make some money while going to college or high school kids 
doing dumb jobs after school for some pocket money. At that some of us 
can recall when people could not only survive on a minimum wage (like in 
the late 1960s) but rent a house (or own one), buy a decent car (I 
bought a brand new Datsun wagon in 1973 for $1800), dine out and go to 
movies.


In this town the price of a sandwich has gone from $5 to $8 and now $10 
at some places. The other thing is we have economic microclimates.  That 
same same sandwich for $10 may go for $7 the next town over or even $6 
in Berkeley.


My mortgage payment on a small 4 bedroom house in a nice part of town is 
less than what it costs to rent a single bedroom studio apartment in 
this town.  And then there is San Francisco where the rent on studio 
apartment can run around $4K a month but food is cheaper than here.


If you as me the economy is really out of whack and it started getting 
really weird after 9/11.  You'd think it was a conspiracy.  These 
conditions can't go on forever without there being an uprising.


On 10/03/2015 08:59 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Well, I can tell you that a $15.00/hr. wage would be pretty disastrous 
for many small businesses.  It would put many of them out of business, 
and you'd be stuck with pretty much only the big guys.


And then there's this wrinkle that where that wage has been 
implemented, workers request fewer hours so they can retain the 
benefits they had by having a lower income.


On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@...  
[FairfieldLife] wrote:



Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a
bit hard to implement. On the other hand, I hear in America
some politicians are gunning for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good.





So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home for
protection." then you agree with what my point was!  This is
what I'm saying. Too many feel they need protection from the
threat from their fellow citizens, their (geographically
speaking) neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would this
be? I think there are a multitude of reasons but the
disparity in economic conditions between Americans is one of
them, for sure.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
, 
 wrote :

But, such high profile mass shootings are bound to create
media hyper ventilation and the resulting outrage and
lamenting is continuously ignited by these relatively common
occurrences in schools, movie theaters and elsewhere. It is a
subject that deserves attention because it also indicates
something deeper - is a barometer for other social disease
rampant in (in this case) the US. Guns seem to accompany fear
and rage and mental illness but not necessarily in all cases
when their use is against a neighbor, a classroom, an
employer.The need to own guns, to have them handy at all
times, is an indicator or a society in rough shape.When you
can't feel safe unless you have a gun in your possession it
points to economic reasons as well. Drug addiction, poverty,
lack of resources can lead citizens to assume they can take
what they need at the point of a gun, for example. Whole city
blocks and blocks of substandard living conditions or
millions of people scraping by all over America are testimony
to the sorry state of our society. Even the vehemence with
which gun lovers defend their (and by default everyone's)
right to own and carry a gun is based in fear and a distorted
idea that to change the Constitution with regard to gun
ownership rights would somehow be un-American or even
sacrilegious. This whole gun issue reveals far more than just
how people feel about arms.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
, 
 wrote :

More than 10,000 Americans are killed every year by gun
violence. By contrast, so few Americans have been killed by
terrorist attacks since 9/11 that when you chart the two
together, the terrorism death count approximates zero for
every year except 2001. This comparison, if anything,
understates the gap: Far more Americans die every year from
(easily preventable

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Part of my reasoning is value. I used to buy a Houston Chronicle every morning 
at a local Walgreens. The price has gone up from a dollar a day to a dollar 
fifty, Monday thru Friday. I have reluctantly tolerated it even though I'm 
guaranteed a heavy dose of liberalism day to day. However, the Saturday and 
Sunday paper recently went up to three dollars and I decided  that it wasn't 
worth it. I stopped buying it on those days but I wasn't the only one! Now, the 
stack of papers just sit there on the weekend. Nobody, or at least, virtually 
nobody, buys the Saturday or Sunday paper anymore. It's over priced. Now the 
delivery person has to remove them and take them back on Mondays with no money 
earned on those days. I've checked other stores and found pretty much the same 
results. Why pay three bucks when I can read the news on line? Why pay a dollar 
fifty? That's just a bad habit I'll probably address soon.Poor news paper 
delivery person.

  From: "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 8:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's 
employees?  What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's? 
I don't quite understand Mike's reasoning here. Who eats at McDonalds? Poor 
people, rich people, people who just want to pay less for a burger? If you are 
truly paying less for a burger then how do you think that can come about? Hint: 
you have to cut costs. What is the easiest way to cut costs? Pay your employees 
less. Is your $3 hamburger worth it knowing others don't make a living wage? I 
don't eat at McDonalds - never have for a whole lot of reasons but if I did I 
would like to think the staff were not the equivalent of indentured servants. 
It's a bit the chicken and the egg. If you can't make enough money to live 
beyond the poverty level by working at McDonalds than what person would choose 
to work there? I'll tell you. Those who either don't have the education or 
experience or luck to find a better paying job, that's who. So when Mike says 
they don't know their McNuggets from their milkshakes there is a good reason 
for that if that is, in fact, a true statement.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from 
your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable 
of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more 
efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. 
Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means 
more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, 
wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.

  From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the 
labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that cheap meal will 
cost a bit more 'cause the fast food outlet will have to pay their employees 
more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike. 
  From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM,awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:





  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

I really don't think this is the case.
Most gunowners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at homefor protection.  
Conceal andcarry permits are pretty rare.
When you thinkabout it though, when has society not been in roughshape?
I guess thesemass shootings are a new development, so perhapsthat is thecase.
What Iam saying, Steve, is that the apparent runawaytrain of gun ownership and 
lethal gun use onfellow human beings seems to be tied to the stateof our 
society where absurdly rich existgeographically within spitting distance of 
thosewho can't afford a decent meal (I was listening toNPR tonight driving home 
from work and there wasan interview where they were talking about thewealthy in 
Manhattan whose net income per yearwas, on average, 120K and just a 25 minute 
commuteaway in the Bronx were folks who made, on average$20K per annum). This 
creates a problem. Thiscreates the potential for violence. This can makepeople 
crazy with resentment, wi

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Geee Emily, neither. These jobs have traditionally been considered entry level 
jobs, where people go to learn skills and get job experience, so they can build 
a resume and move on to bigger and better things. They were never intended to 
be a primary source of income to support a family, but maybe a secondary 
supplemental income. If someone sees flipping burgers as a carrier, there's 
something seriously wrong with them and maybe counseling might awaken them to 
seek something better. You set $15 an hour as a minimum wage, and you'll have 
Liberal arts graduates taking those jobs in a heart beat. What's left for the 
person that couldn't even finish high school? Dealing drugs? Maybe it would be 
better for society, in general, if we had a little more faith in people and 
their natural abilities and expect better of them, not settling for a bare 
minimum and owing them more for less.< My *beef* with MickeyD's? I don't 
frequent them as much as Ann might suggest because my personal experience is 
that there is a strong tendency to get the order wrong. Why? I don't know. 
Maybe they don't speak or read English well enough in some cases or maybe 
they're young and immature,not focused or paying attention. I've never been 
rewarded for poor job performance with a raise but have been promoted for 
excellent performance. Sorry to say, but my empathy in this matter is reserved 
for the truly handicapped or those that want to do more and are willing to 
prove it, not those that want more to just get by.

  From: "emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 1:04 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's 
employees?  What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's? 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from 
your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable 
of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more 
efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. 
Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means 
more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, 
wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.

  From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the 
labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that cheap meal will 
cost a bit more 'cause the fast food outlet will have to pay their employees 
more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike. 
  From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM,awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:




  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

I really don't think this is the case.
Most gunowners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at homefor protection.  
Conceal andcarry permits are pretty rare.
When you thinkabout it though, when has society not been in roughshape?
I guess thesemass shootings are a new development, so perhapsthat is thecase.
What Iam saying, Steve, is that the apparent runawaytrain of gun ownership and 
lethal gun use onfellow human beings seems to be tied to the stateof our 
society where absurdly rich existgeographically within spitting distance of 
thosewho can't afford a decent meal (I was listening toNPR tonight driving home 
from work and there wasan interview where they were talking about thewealthy in 
Manhattan whose net income per yearwas, on average, 120K and just a 25 minute 
commuteaway in the Bronx were folks who made, on average$20K per annum). This 
creates a problem. Thiscreates the potential for violence. This can makepeople 
crazy with resentment, with need and thenplace a gun in their hands and all 
bets are off.Threatening becomes easy. Killing becomes morelikely than not 
killing. 


Perhaps then we need a maximum wage if we're going to have a minimumwage.  For 
about the last 25 years it's been "see how much money youcan accumulate.  He 
with the most bucks wins."




Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to 
implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning 
for a $15/hr mini

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Seattle has just implemented a path to the highest minimum wage in the 
country—$15/hr.  Different paths and requirements and ways to achieve the rate 
for different size companies, etc.  "Small businesses" have 7 years to step up 
to that rate.  Here's how it's going to work: 

 $15 Minimum Wage http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/#sthash.ZPhr8tBh.dpbs 
 
 http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/#sthash.ZPhr8tBh.dpbs
 
 $15 Minimum Wage http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/#sthash.ZPhr8tBh.dpbs A 
growing number of cities, including Seattle, are examining the costs and 
benefits of implementing citywide minimum wage laws. Citywide minim...


 
 View on murray.seattle.gov 
http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/#sthash.ZPhr8tBh.dpbs
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  
Being a newbie to McDonalds I thought it might be interesting to view the menu 
and prices for their "food".
 http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/ 
http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Well, I can tell you that a $15.00/hr. wage would be pretty disastrous for 
many small businesses.  It would put many of them out of business, and you'd be 
stuck with pretty much only the big guys.
 

 And then there's this wrinkle that where that wage has been implemented, 
workers request fewer hours so they can retain the benefits they had by having 
a lower income.
 

 Being a small business owner myself (or at least until recently) I can 
sympathize. However, the minimum wage in Canada is more than the US and I try 
and make up for my relatively paltry hourly wages by providing extended health 
and dental to my employees who qualify (certain hours worked per week). They 
also get wholesale on any product they wish to order through the company which 
can amount to a hell of a lot per year. They get bonuses and as many other 
perks as I can muster. I value my workers and they know it.
 

 I think the average US minimum wage is around $7.50/hr. Here is the Canadian 
minimum wage:
 Alberta 01-Oct-2015 $11.20 British Columbia 15-Sep-2015 $10.45 Manitoba 
01-Oct-2015 $11.00 New Brunswick 31-Dec-2014 $10.30 Newfoundland and Labrador 
01-Oct-2015 $10.50 Northwest Territories 01-Jun-2015 $12.50 Nova Scotia 
01-Apr-2015 $10.60 On April 1 of each year, this rate is adjusted by the 
percentage change in the projected annual Consumer Price Index for Canada in 
the preceding calendar year, rounded to the nearest $0.05. Nunavut 01-Jan-2011 
$11.00 Ontario 01-Oct-2015 $11.25 Prince Edward Island 01-Jul-2015 $10.50 
Quebec 01-May-2015 $10.55 Saskatchewan 01-Oct-2015 $10.50 On October 1 of each 
year, this rate increases based on the average of the percentage change in the 
Consumer Price Index and the percentage change in average hourly wage for 
Saskatchewan during the previous year. Minimum wage increases are subject to 
Cabinet approval. Yukon 01-Apr-2015 $10.86 On April 1 of each year, this rate 
increases by an amount corresponding to the annual increase for the preceding 
year in the Consumer Price Index for the city of Whitehorse.



 On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to 
implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning 
for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good.


 
 
 
 So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home for protection." then you 
agree with what my point was!  This is what I'm saying. Too many feel they need 
protection from the threat from their fellow citizens, their (geographically 
speaking) neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would this be? I think there 
are a multitude of reasons but the disparity in economic conditions between 
Americans is one of them, for sure.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 But, such high profile mass shootings are bound to create media hyper 
ventilation and the resulting outrage and lamenting is continuously ignited by 
these relatively common occurrences in schools, movie theaters and elsewhere. 
It is a subject that deserves attention because it also indicates something 
deeper - is a barometer for other social disease rampant in (in this case) the 
US. Guns seem to accompany fear and rage and mental illness but not necessarily 
in all cases when their use is against a neighbor, a classroom, an employer. 
The need to own guns, to have them handy at all times, is an indicator or a 
society in rough shape. When you can't feel safe unless you have a gun in your 
possession it points to economic reasons as well. Drug addiction, poverty, lack 
of resources can lead citizens to assume they can take what they need at the 
point of a gun, for example. Whole city blocks and blocks of substandard living 
conditions o

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's 
employees?  What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's? 
 

 I don't quite understand Mike's reasoning here. Who eats at McDonalds? Poor 
people, rich people, people who just want to pay less for a burger? If you are 
truly paying less for a burger then how do you think that can come about? Hint: 
you have to cut costs. What is the easiest way to cut costs? Pay your employees 
less. Is your $3 hamburger worth it knowing others don't make a living wage? I 
don't eat at McDonalds - never have for a whole lot of reasons but if I did I 
would like to think the staff were not the equivalent of indentured servants. 
It's a bit the chicken and the egg. If you can't make enough money to live 
beyond the poverty level by working at McDonalds than what person would choose 
to work there? I'll tell you. Those who either don't have the education or 
experience or luck to find a better paying job, that's who. So when Mike says 
they don't know their McNuggets from their milkshakes there is a good reason 
for that if that is, in fact, a true statement.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from 
your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable 
of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more 
efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. 
Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means 
more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, 
wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.

 

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

 

 So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the 
labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that cheap meal will 
cost a bit more 'cause the fast food outlet will have to pay their employees 
more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike. 
 

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote :
 
 I really don't think this is the case. 
 
 Most gun owners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at home for protection.  
 
 
 Conceal and carry permits are pretty rare.
 
 
 When you think about it though, when has society not been in rough shape?
 
 
 I guess these mass shootings are a new development, so perhaps that is the 
case.
 
 
 What I am saying, Steve, is that the apparent runaway train of gun ownership 
and lethal gun use on fellow human beings seems to be tied to the state of our 
society where absurdly rich exist geographically within spitting distance of 
those who can't afford a decent meal (I was listening to NPR tonight driving 
home from work and there was an interview where they were talking about the 
wealthy in Manhattan whose net income per year was, on average, 120K and just a 
25 minute commute away in the Bronx were folks who made, on average $20K per 
annum). This creates a problem. This creates the potential for violence. This 
can make people crazy with resentment, with need and then place a gun in their 
hands and all bets are off. Threatening becomes easy. Killing becomes more 
likely than not killing. 
 



 
 Perhaps then we need a maximum wage if we're going to have a minimum wage.  
For about the last 25 years it's been "see how much money you can accumulate.  
He with the most bucks wins." 
 Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to 
implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning 
for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good.
 
 
 
 So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home for protection." then you 
agree with what my point was!  This is what I'm saying. Too many feel they need 
protection from the threat from their fellow citizens, their (geographically 
speaking) neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would this be? I think there 
are a multitude of reasons but the disparity in economic conditions between 
Americans is one of them, for sure.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yaho

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Seattle has just implemented a path to the highest minimum wage in the 
country—$15/hr.  Different paths and requirements and ways to achieve the rate 
for different size companies, etc.  "Small businesses" have 7 years to step up 
to that rate.  Here's how it's going to work: 

 $15 Minimum Wage http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/#sthash.ZPhr8tBh.dpbs 
 
 http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/#sthash.ZPhr8tBh.dpbs
 
 $15 Minimum Wage http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/#sthash.ZPhr8tBh.dpbs A 
growing number of cities, including Seattle, are examining the costs and 
benefits of implementing citywide minimum wage laws. Citywide minim...


 
 View on murray.seattle.gov 
http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/#sthash.ZPhr8tBh.dpbs
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  
 I love Seattle (smile).

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Well, I can tell you that a $15.00/hr. wage would be pretty disastrous for 
many small businesses.  It would put many of them out of business, and you'd be 
stuck with pretty much only the big guys.
 

 And then there's this wrinkle that where that wage has been implemented, 
workers request fewer hours so they can retain the benefits they had by having 
a lower income.
 

 Being a small business owner myself (or at least until recently) I can 
sympathize. However, the minimum wage in Canada is more than the US and I try 
and make up for my relatively paltry hourly wages by providing extended health 
and dental to my employees who qualify (certain hours worked per week). They 
also get wholesale on any product they wish to order through the company which 
can amount to a hell of a lot per year. They get bonuses and as many other 
perks as I can muster. I value my workers and they know it.
 

 I think the average US minimum wage is around $7.50/hr. Here is the Canadian 
minimum wage:
 Alberta 01-Oct-2015 $11.20 British Columbia 15-Sep-2015 $10.45 Manitoba 
01-Oct-2015 $11.00 New Brunswick 31-Dec-2014 $10.30 Newfoundland and Labrador 
01-Oct-2015 $10.50 Northwest Territories 01-Jun-2015 $12.50 Nova Scotia 
01-Apr-2015 $10.60 On April 1 of each year, this rate is adjusted by the 
percentage change in the projected annual Consumer Price Index for Canada in 
the preceding calendar year, rounded to the nearest $0.05. Nunavut 01-Jan-2011 
$11.00 Ontario 01-Oct-2015 $11.25 Prince Edward Island 01-Jul-2015 $10.50 
Quebec 01-May-2015 $10.55 Saskatchewan 01-Oct-2015 $10.50 On October 1 of each 
year, this rate increases based on the average of the percentage change in the 
Consumer Price Index and the percentage change in average hourly wage for 
Saskatchewan during the previous year. Minimum wage increases are subject to 
Cabinet approval. Yukon 01-Apr-2015 $10.86 On April 1 of each year, this rate 
increases by an amount corresponding to the annual increase for the preceding 
year in the Consumer Price Index for the city of Whitehorse.



 On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to 
implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning 
for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good.


 
 
 
 So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home for protection." then you 
agree with what my point was!  This is what I'm saying. Too many feel they need 
protection from the threat from their fellow citizens, their (geographically 
speaking) neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would this be? I think there 
are a multitude of reasons but the disparity in economic conditions between 
Americans is one of them, for sure.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 But, such high profile mass shootings are bound to create media hyper 
ventilation and the resulting outrage and lamenting is continuously ignited by 
these relatively common occurrences in schools, movie theaters and elsewhere. 
It is a subject that deserves attention because it also indicates something 
deeper - is a barometer for other social disease rampant in (in this case) the 
US. Guns seem to accompany fear and rage and mental illness but not necessarily 
in all cases when their use is against a neighbor, a classroom, an employer. 
The need to own guns, to have them handy at all times, is an indicator or a 
society in rough shape. When you can't feel safe unless you have a gun in your 
possession it points to economic reasons as well. Drug addiction, poverty, lack 
of resources can lead citizens to assume they can take what they need at the 
point of a gun, for example. Whole city blocks and blocks of substandard living 
conditions or millions of people scraping by all over America are testimony to 
the sorry state of our society. Even the vehemence with which gun lovers defend 
their (and by default everyone's) right 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just McDonald's 
employees?  What are your assumptions about people who work at MickeyD's?  
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from 
your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable 
of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more 
efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. 
Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means 
more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, 
wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.

 

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

 

 So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the 
labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that cheap meal will 
cost a bit more 'cause the fast food outlet will have to pay their employees 
more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike. 
 

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote :
 
 I really don't think this is the case. 
 
 Most gun owners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at home for protection.  
 
 
 Conceal and carry permits are pretty rare.
 
 
 When you think about it though, when has society not been in rough shape?
 
 
 I guess these mass shootings are a new development, so perhaps that is the 
case.
 
 
 What I am saying, Steve, is that the apparent runaway train of gun ownership 
and lethal gun use on fellow human beings seems to be tied to the state of our 
society where absurdly rich exist geographically within spitting distance of 
those who can't afford a decent meal (I was listening to NPR tonight driving 
home from work and there was an interview where they were talking about the 
wealthy in Manhattan whose net income per year was, on average, 120K and just a 
25 minute commute away in the Bronx were folks who made, on average $20K per 
annum). This creates a problem. This creates the potential for violence. This 
can make people crazy with resentment, with need and then place a gun in their 
hands and all bets are off. Threatening becomes easy. Killing becomes more 
likely than not killing. 
 



 
 Perhaps then we need a maximum wage if we're going to have a minimum wage.  
For about the last 25 years it's been "see how much money you can accumulate.  
He with the most bucks wins." 
 Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to 
implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning 
for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good.
 
 
 
 So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home for protection." then you 
agree with what my point was!  This is what I'm saying. Too many feel they need 
protection from the threat from their fellow citizens, their (geographically 
speaking) neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would this be? I think there 
are a multitude of reasons but the disparity in economic conditions between 
Americans is one of them, for sure.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 But, such high profile mass shootings are bound to create media hyper 
ventilation and the resulting outrage and lamenting is continuously ignited by 
these relatively common occurrences in schools, movie theaters and elsewhere. 
It is a subject that deserves attention because it also indicates something 
deeper - is a barometer for other social disease rampant in (in this case) the 
US. Guns seem to accompany fear and rage and mental illness but not necessarily 
in all cases when their use is against a neighbor, a classroom, an employer. 
The need to own guns, to have them handy at all times, is an indicator or a 
society in rough shape. When you can't feel safe unless you have a gun in your 
possession it points to economic reasons as well. Drug addiction, poverty, lack 
of resources can lead citizens to assume they can take what they need at the 
point of a gun, for example. Whole city blocks and blocks of substandard living 
conditions or millions of people scraping by all over America are 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Seattle has just implemented a path to the highest minimum wage in the 
country—$15/hr.  Different paths and requirements and ways to achieve the rate 
for different size companies, etc.  "Small businesses" have 7 years to step up 
to that rate.  Here's how it's going to work: 

 $15 Minimum Wage http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/#sthash.ZPhr8tBh.dpbs 
 
 http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/#sthash.ZPhr8tBh.dpbs 
 
 $15 Minimum Wage http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/#sthash.ZPhr8tBh.dpbs A 
growing number of cities, including Seattle, are examining the costs and 
benefits of implementing citywide minimum wage laws. Citywide minim...
 
 
 
 View on murray.seattle.gov 
http://murray.seattle.gov/minimumwage/#sthash.ZPhr8tBh.dpbs 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Well, I can tell you that a $15.00/hr. wage would be pretty disastrous for 
many small businesses.  It would put many of them out of business, and you'd be 
stuck with pretty much only the big guys.
 

 And then there's this wrinkle that where that wage has been implemented, 
workers request fewer hours so they can retain the benefits they had by having 
a lower income.
 

 Being a small business owner myself (or at least until recently) I can 
sympathize. However, the minimum wage in Canada is more than the US and I try 
and make up for my relatively paltry hourly wages by providing extended health 
and dental to my employees who qualify (certain hours worked per week). They 
also get wholesale on any product they wish to order through the company which 
can amount to a hell of a lot per year. They get bonuses and as many other 
perks as I can muster. I value my workers and they know it.
 

 I think the average US minimum wage is around $7.50/hr. Here is the Canadian 
minimum wage:
 Alberta 01-Oct-2015 $11.20 British Columbia 15-Sep-2015 $10.45 Manitoba 
01-Oct-2015 $11.00 New Brunswick 31-Dec-2014 $10.30 Newfoundland and Labrador 
01-Oct-2015 $10.50 Northwest Territories 01-Jun-2015 $12.50 Nova Scotia 
01-Apr-2015 $10.60 On April 1 of each year, this rate is adjusted by the 
percentage change in the projected annual Consumer Price Index for Canada in 
the preceding calendar year, rounded to the nearest $0.05. Nunavut 01-Jan-2011 
$11.00 Ontario 01-Oct-2015 $11.25 Prince Edward Island 01-Jul-2015 $10.50 
Quebec 01-May-2015 $10.55 Saskatchewan 01-Oct-2015 $10.50 On October 1 of each 
year, this rate increases based on the average of the percentage change in the 
Consumer Price Index and the percentage change in average hourly wage for 
Saskatchewan during the previous year. Minimum wage increases are subject to 
Cabinet approval. Yukon 01-Apr-2015 $10.86 On April 1 of each year, this rate 
increases by an amount corresponding to the annual increase for the preceding 
year in the Consumer Price Index for the city of Whitehorse.



 On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to 
implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning 
for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good.


 
 
 
 So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home for protection." then you 
agree with what my point was!  This is what I'm saying. Too many feel they need 
protection from the threat from their fellow citizens, their (geographically 
speaking) neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would this be? I think there 
are a multitude of reasons but the disparity in economic conditions between 
Americans is one of them, for sure.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 But, such high profile mass shootings are bound to create media hyper 
ventilation and the resulting outrage and lamenting is continuously ignited by 
these relatively common occurrences in schools, movie theaters and elsewhere. 
It is a subject that deserves attention because it also indicates something 
deeper - is a barometer for other social disease rampant in (in this case) the 
US. Guns seem to accompany fear and rage and mental illness but not necessarily 
in all cases when their use is against a neighbor, a classroom, an employer. 
The need to own guns, to have them handy at all times, is an indicator or a 
society in rough shape. When you can't feel safe unless you have a gun in your 
possession it points to economic reasons as well. Drug addiction, poverty, lack 
of resources can lead citizens to assume they can take what they need at the 
point of a gun, for example. Whole city blocks and blocks of substandard living 
conditions or millions of people scraping by all over America are testimony to 
the sorry state of our society. Even the vehemence with which gun lovers defend 
their (and by default everyone's) right to own and carry a gun is based in fear 
and a distorted idea that to ch

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect more from 
your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds employee are capable 
of giving. Might require some *focused* attention. Of course, if you are more 
efficient and accomplishing more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. 
Which means fewer jobs. A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means 
more from you.If someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, 
wait till they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.

  From: "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the 
labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that cheap meal will 
cost a bit more 'cause the fast food outlet will have to pay their employees 
more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike. 
  From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM,awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:



  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

I really don't think this is the case.
Most gunowners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at homefor protection.  
Conceal andcarry permits are pretty rare.
When you thinkabout it though, when has society not been in roughshape?
I guess thesemass shootings are a new development, so perhapsthat is thecase.
What Iam saying, Steve, is that the apparent runawaytrain of gun ownership and 
lethal gun use onfellow human beings seems to be tied to the stateof our 
society where absurdly rich existgeographically within spitting distance of 
thosewho can't afford a decent meal (I was listening toNPR tonight driving home 
from work and there wasan interview where they were talking about thewealthy in 
Manhattan whose net income per yearwas, on average, 120K and just a 25 minute 
commuteaway in the Bronx were folks who made, on average$20K per annum). This 
creates a problem. Thiscreates the potential for violence. This can makepeople 
crazy with resentment, with need and thenplace a gun in their hands and all 
bets are off.Threatening becomes easy. Killing becomes morelikely than not 
killing. 


Perhaps then we need a maximum wage if we're going to have a minimumwage.  For 
about the last 25 years it's been "see how much money youcan accumulate.  He 
with the most bucks wins."




Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to 
implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning 
for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good.



Sowhen you say "the vast majority keep them at homefor protection." then you 
agree with what my pointwas!  This is what I'm saying. Too many feel theyneed 
protection from the threat from their fellowcitizens, their (geographically 
speaking)neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would thisbe? I think there 
are a multitude of reasons butthe disparity in economic conditions 
betweenAmericans is one of them, for sure.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

But, suchhigh profile mass shootings are bound tocreate media hyper ventilation 
and theresulting outrage and lamenting iscontinuously ignited by these 
relativelycommon occurrences in schools, movietheaters and elsewhere. It is a 
subjectthat deserves attention because it alsoindicates something deeper - is 
abarometer for other social diseaserampant in (in this case) the US. Gunsseem 
to accompany fear and rage andmental illness but not necessarily inall cases 
when their use is against aneighbor, a classroom, an employer. Theneed to own 
guns, to have them handyat all times, is an indicator or asociety in rough 
shape. When you can't feel safe unlessyou have a gun in your possession 
itpoints to economic reasons as well.Drug addiction, poverty, lack ofresources 
can lead citizens to assumethey can take what they need at thepoint of a gun, 
for example. Whole cityblocks and blocks of substandard livingconditions or 
millions of peoplescraping by all over America aretestimony to the sorry state 
of oursociety. Even the vehemence with whichgun lovers defend their (and by 
defaulteveryone's) right to own and carry a gunis based in fear and a distorted 
ideathat to change the Constitution withregard to gun ownership rights 
wouldsomehow be un-American or evensacrilegious. This whole gun issuereveals 
far more than just how peoplefeel about arms.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

More than 10,000 Americans arekilled every

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Yes, for those businesses such as mine which would have difficult time with a 
$15.00/hr. min wage, you find other ways to enhance the benefits package, 
including making sure the work environment is as attractive as possible. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Well, I can tell you that a $15.00/hr. wage would be pretty disastrous for 
many small businesses.  It would put many of them out of business, and you'd be 
stuck with pretty much only the big guys.
 

 And then there's this wrinkle that where that wage has been implemented, 
workers request fewer hours so they can retain the benefits they had by having 
a lower income.
 

 Being a small business owner myself (or at least until recently) I can 
sympathize. However, the minimum wage in Canada is more than the US and I try 
and make up for my relatively paltry hourly wages by providing extended health 
and dental to my employees who qualify (certain hours worked per week). They 
also get wholesale on any product they wish to order through the company which 
can amount to a hell of a lot per year. They get bonuses and as many other 
perks as I can muster. I value my workers and they know it.
 

 I think the average US minimum wage is around $7.50/hr. Here is the Canadian 
minimum wage:
 Alberta 01-Oct-2015 $11.20 British Columbia 15-Sep-2015 $10.45 Manitoba 
01-Oct-2015 $11.00 New Brunswick 31-Dec-2014 $10.30 Newfoundland and Labrador 
01-Oct-2015 $10.50 Northwest Territories 01-Jun-2015 $12.50 Nova Scotia 
01-Apr-2015 $10.60 On April 1 of each year, this rate is adjusted by the 
percentage change in the projected annual Consumer Price Index for Canada in 
the preceding calendar year, rounded to the nearest $0.05. Nunavut 01-Jan-2011 
$11.00 Ontario 01-Oct-2015 $11.25 Prince Edward Island 01-Jul-2015 $10.50 
Quebec 01-May-2015 $10.55 Saskatchewan 01-Oct-2015 $10.50 On October 1 of each 
year, this rate increases based on the average of the percentage change in the 
Consumer Price Index and the percentage change in average hourly wage for 
Saskatchewan during the previous year. Minimum wage increases are subject to 
Cabinet approval. Yukon 01-Apr-2015 $10.86 On April 1 of each year, this rate 
increases by an amount corresponding to the annual increase for the preceding 
year in the Consumer Price Index for the city of Whitehorse.



 On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to 
implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning 
for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good.


 
 
 
 So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home for protection." then you 
agree with what my point was!  This is what I'm saying. Too many feel they need 
protection from the threat from their fellow citizens, their (geographically 
speaking) neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would this be? I think there 
are a multitude of reasons but the disparity in economic conditions between 
Americans is one of them, for sure.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 But, such high profile mass shootings are bound to create media hyper 
ventilation and the resulting outrage and lamenting is continuously ignited by 
these relatively common occurrences in schools, movie theaters and elsewhere. 
It is a subject that deserves attention because it also indicates something 
deeper - is a barometer for other social disease rampant in (in this case) the 
US. Guns seem to accompany fear and rage and mental illness but not necessarily 
in all cases when their use is against a neighbor, a classroom, an employer. 
The need to own guns, to have them handy at all times, is an indicator or a 
society in rough shape. When you can't feel safe unless you have a gun in your 
possession it points to economic reasons as well. Drug addiction, poverty, lack 
of resources can lead citizens to assume they can take what they need at the 
point of a gun, for example. Whole city blocks and blocks of substandard living 
conditions or millions of people scraping by all over America are testimony to 
the sorry state of our society. Even the vehemence with which gun lovers defend 
their (and by default everyone's) right to own and carry a gun is based in fear 
and a distorted idea that to change the Constitution with regard to gun 
ownership rights would somehow be un-American or even sacrilegious. This whole 
gun issue reveals far more than just how people feel about arms.

 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 More than 10,000 Americans are killed every year by gun violence. By contrast, 
so few Americans have been killed by terrorist attacks since 9/11 that when you 
chart the two together, the terrorism death count approximates zero for every 
year

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Well, I can tell you that a $15.00/hr. wage would be pretty disastrous for 
many small businesses.  It would put many of them out of business, and you'd be 
stuck with pretty much only the big guys.
 

 And then there's this wrinkle that where that wage has been implemented, 
workers request fewer hours so they can retain the benefits they had by having 
a lower income.
 

 Being a small business owner myself (or at least until recently) I can 
sympathize. However, the minimum wage in Canada is more than the US and I try 
and make up for my relatively paltry hourly wages by providing extended health 
and dental to my employees who qualify (certain hours worked per week). They 
also get wholesale on any product they wish to order through the company which 
can amount to a hell of a lot per year. They get bonuses and as many other 
perks as I can muster. I value my workers and they know it.
 

 I think the average US minimum wage is around $7.50/hr. Here is the Canadian 
minimum wage:
 Alberta 01-Oct-2015 $11.20 British Columbia 15-Sep-2015 $10.45 Manitoba 
01-Oct-2015 $11.00 New Brunswick 31-Dec-2014 $10.30 Newfoundland and Labrador 
01-Oct-2015 $10.50 Northwest Territories 01-Jun-2015 $12.50 Nova Scotia 
01-Apr-2015 $10.60 On April 1 of each year, this rate is adjusted by the 
percentage change in the projected annual Consumer Price Index for Canada in 
the preceding calendar year, rounded to the nearest $0.05. Nunavut 01-Jan-2011 
$11.00 Ontario 01-Oct-2015 $11.25 Prince Edward Island 01-Jul-2015 $10.50 
Quebec 01-May-2015 $10.55 Saskatchewan 01-Oct-2015 $10.50 On October 1 of each 
year, this rate increases based on the average of the percentage change in the 
Consumer Price Index and the percentage change in average hourly wage for 
Saskatchewan during the previous year. Minimum wage increases are subject to 
Cabinet approval. Yukon 01-Apr-2015 $10.86 On April 1 of each year, this rate 
increases by an amount corresponding to the annual increase for the preceding 
year in the Consumer Price Index for the city of Whitehorse.



 On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to 
implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning 
for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good.


 
 
 
 So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home for protection." then you 
agree with what my point was!  This is what I'm saying. Too many feel they need 
protection from the threat from their fellow citizens, their (geographically 
speaking) neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would this be? I think there 
are a multitude of reasons but the disparity in economic conditions between 
Americans is one of them, for sure.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 But, such high profile mass shootings are bound to create media hyper 
ventilation and the resulting outrage and lamenting is continuously ignited by 
these relatively common occurrences in schools, movie theaters and elsewhere. 
It is a subject that deserves attention because it also indicates something 
deeper - is a barometer for other social disease rampant in (in this case) the 
US. Guns seem to accompany fear and rage and mental illness but not necessarily 
in all cases when their use is against a neighbor, a classroom, an employer. 
The need to own guns, to have them handy at all times, is an indicator or a 
society in rough shape. When you can't feel safe unless you have a gun in your 
possession it points to economic reasons as well. Drug addiction, poverty, lack 
of resources can lead citizens to assume they can take what they need at the 
point of a gun, for example. Whole city blocks and blocks of substandard living 
conditions or millions of people scraping by all over America are testimony to 
the sorry state of our society. Even the vehemence with which gun lovers defend 
their (and by default everyone's) right to own and carry a gun is based in fear 
and a distorted idea that to change the Constitution with regard to gun 
ownership rights would somehow be un-American or even sacrilegious. This whole 
gun issue reveals far more than just how people feel about arms.

 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 More than 10,000 Americans are killed every year by gun violence. By contrast, 
so few Americans have been killed by terrorist attacks since 9/11 that when you 
chart the two together, the terrorism death count approximates zero for every 
year except 2001. This comparison, if anything, understates the gap: Far more 
Americans die every year from (easily preventable) gun suicides than gun 
homicides.
 
 The point Obama is making is clear: We spend huge amounts of money every year 
fighting terrorism, yet are unwillin

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

 

 So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to pay the 
labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that cheap meal will 
cost a bit more 'cause the fast food outlet will have to pay their employees 
more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike. 
 

 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote :
 
 I really don't think this is the case. 
 
 Most gun owners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at home for protection.  
 
 
 Conceal and carry permits are pretty rare.
 
 
 When you think about it though, when has society not been in rough shape?
 
 
 I guess these mass shootings are a new development, so perhaps that is the 
case.
 
 
 What I am saying, Steve, is that the apparent runaway train of gun ownership 
and lethal gun use on fellow human beings seems to be tied to the state of our 
society where absurdly rich exist geographically within spitting distance of 
those who can't afford a decent meal (I was listening to NPR tonight driving 
home from work and there was an interview where they were talking about the 
wealthy in Manhattan whose net income per year was, on average, 120K and just a 
25 minute commute away in the Bronx were folks who made, on average $20K per 
annum). This creates a problem. This creates the potential for violence. This 
can make people crazy with resentment, with need and then place a gun in their 
hands and all bets are off. Threatening becomes easy. Killing becomes more 
likely than not killing. 
 



 
 Perhaps then we need a maximum wage if we're going to have a minimum wage.  
For about the last 25 years it's been "see how much money you can accumulate.  
He with the most bucks wins." 
 Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to 
implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning 
for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good.
 
 
 
 So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home for protection." then you 
agree with what my point was!  This is what I'm saying. Too many feel they need 
protection from the threat from their fellow citizens, their (geographically 
speaking) neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would this be? I think there 
are a multitude of reasons but the disparity in economic conditions between 
Americans is one of them, for sure.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 But, such high profile mass shootings are bound to create media hyper 
ventilation and the resulting outrage and lamenting is continuously ignited by 
these relatively common occurrences in schools, movie theaters and elsewhere. 
It is a subject that deserves attention because it also indicates something 
deeper - is a barometer for other social disease rampant in (in this case) the 
US. Guns seem to accompany fear and rage and mental illness but not necessarily 
in all cases when their use is against a neighbor, a classroom, an employer. 
The need to own guns, to have them handy at all times, is an indicator or a 
society in rough shape. When you can't feel safe unless you have a gun in your 
possession it points to economic reasons as well. Drug addiction, poverty, lack 
of resources can lead citizens to assume they can take what they need at the 
point of a gun, for example. Whole city blocks and blocks of substandard living 
conditions or millions of people scraping by all over America are testimony to 
the sorry state of our society. Even the vehemence with which gun lovers defend 
their (and by default everyone's) right to own and carry a gun is based in fear 
and a distorted idea that to change the Constitution with regard to gun 
ownership rights would somehow be un-American or even sacrilegious. This whole 
gun issue reveals far more than just how people feel about arms.

 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 More than 10,000 Americans are killed every year by gun violence. By contrast, 
so few Americans have been killed by terrorist attacks since 9/11 that when you 
chart the two together, the terrorism death count approximates zero for every 
year except 2001. This comparison, if anything, understates the gap: Far more 
Americans die every year from (easily preventable) gun suicides than gun 
homicides.
 
 The point Ob

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Well, I can tell you that a $15.00/hr. wage would be pretty disastrous for many 
small businesses.  It would put many of them out of business, and you'd be 
stuck with pretty much only the big guys.
 

 And then there's this wrinkle that where that wage has been implemented, 
workers request fewer hours so they can retain the benefits they had by having 
a lower income.

 On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to 
implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning 
for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good.


 
 
 
 So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home for protection." then you 
agree with what my point was!  This is what I'm saying. Too many feel they need 
protection from the threat from their fellow citizens, their (geographically 
speaking) neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would this be? I think there 
are a multitude of reasons but the disparity in economic conditions between 
Americans is one of them, for sure.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 But, such high profile mass shootings are bound to create media hyper 
ventilation and the resulting outrage and lamenting is continuously ignited by 
these relatively common occurrences in schools, movie theaters and elsewhere. 
It is a subject that deserves attention because it also indicates something 
deeper - is a barometer for other social disease rampant in (in this case) the 
US. Guns seem to accompany fear and rage and mental illness but not necessarily 
in all cases when their use is against a neighbor, a classroom, an employer. 
The need to own guns, to have them handy at all times, is an indicator or a 
society in rough shape. When you can't feel safe unless you have a gun in your 
possession it points to economic reasons as well. Drug addiction, poverty, lack 
of resources can lead citizens to assume they can take what they need at the 
point of a gun, for example. Whole city blocks and blocks of substandard living 
conditions or millions of people scraping by all over America are testimony to 
the sorry state of our society. Even the vehemence with which gun lovers defend 
their (and by default everyone's) right to own and carry a gun is based in fear 
and a distorted idea that to change the Constitution with regard to gun 
ownership rights would somehow be un-American or even sacrilegious. This whole 
gun issue reveals far more than just how people feel about arms.

 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 More than 10,000 Americans are killed every year by gun violence. By contrast, 
so few Americans have been killed by terrorist attacks since 9/11 that when you 
chart the two together, the terrorism death count approximates zero for every 
year except 2001. This comparison, if anything, understates the gap: Far more 
Americans die every year from (easily preventable) gun suicides than gun 
homicides.
 
 The point Obama is making is clear: We spend huge amounts of money every year 
fighting terrorism, yet are unwilling, at the national level, to take even 
minor steps (like requiring background checks on all gun sales nationally) to 
stop gun violence.
 
 












 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg McMuffin or a 
sausage McMuffin.

  From: "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
   
    


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM,awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:


  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

I really don't think this is the case.
Most gunowners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at homefor protection.  
Conceal andcarry permits are pretty rare.
When you thinkabout it though, when has society not been in roughshape?
I guess thesemass shootings are a new development, so perhapsthat is thecase.
What Iam saying, Steve, is that the apparent runawaytrain of gun ownership and 
lethal gun use onfellow human beings seems to be tied to the stateof our 
society where absurdly rich existgeographically within spitting distance of 
thosewho can't afford a decent meal (I was listening toNPR tonight driving home 
from work and there wasan interview where they were talking about thewealthy in 
Manhattan whose net income per yearwas, on average, 120K and just a 25 minute 
commuteaway in the Bronx were folks who made, on average$20K per annum). This 
creates a problem. Thiscreates the potential for violence. This can makepeople 
crazy with resentment, with need and thenplace a gun in their hands and all 
bets are off.Threatening becomes easy. Killing becomes morelikely than not 
killing. 


Perhaps then we need a maximum wage if we're going to have a minimumwage.  For 
about the last 25 years it's been "see how much money youcan accumulate.  He 
with the most bucks wins."




Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to 
implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning 
for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good.



Sowhen you say "the vast majority keep them at homefor protection." then you 
agree with what my pointwas!  This is what I'm saying. Too many feel theyneed 
protection from the threat from their fellowcitizens, their (geographically 
speaking)neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would thisbe? I think there 
are a multitude of reasons butthe disparity in economic conditions 
betweenAmericans is one of them, for sure.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

But, suchhigh profile mass shootings are bound tocreate media hyper ventilation 
and theresulting outrage and lamenting iscontinuously ignited by these 
relativelycommon occurrences in schools, movietheaters and elsewhere. It is a 
subjectthat deserves attention because it alsoindicates something deeper - is 
abarometer for other social diseaserampant in (in this case) the US. Gunsseem 
to accompany fear and rage andmental illness but not necessarily inall cases 
when their use is against aneighbor, a classroom, an employer. Theneed to own 
guns, to have them handyat all times, is an indicator or asociety in rough 
shape. When you can't feel safe unlessyou have a gun in your possession 
itpoints to economic reasons as well.Drug addiction, poverty, lack ofresources 
can lead citizens to assumethey can take what they need at thepoint of a gun, 
for example. Whole cityblocks and blocks of substandard livingconditions or 
millions of peoplescraping by all over America aretestimony to the sorry state 
of oursociety. Even the vehemence with whichgun lovers defend their (and by 
defaulteveryone's) right to own and carry a gunis based in fear and a distorted 
ideathat to change the Constitution withregard to gun ownership rights 
wouldsomehow be un-American or evensacrilegious. This whole gun issuereveals 
far more than just how peoplefeel about arms.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

More than 10,000 Americans arekilled every year by gun violence. Bycontrast, so 
few Americans have beenkilled by terrorist attacks since 9/11that when you 
chart the two together,the terrorism death count approximateszero for every 
year except 2001. Thiscomparison, if anything, understatesthe gap: Far more 
Americans die everyyear from (easilypreventable) gun suicides thangun 
homicides.The point Obama is making isclear: We spend huge amounts of 
moneyevery year fighting terrorism, yet areunwilling, at the national level, 
totake even minor steps (like requiringbackground checks on all gun 
salesnationally) to stop gun violence.



  #yiv6806114403 #yiv6806114403 -- #yiv6806114403ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv6806114403 
#yiv6806114403ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv6806114403 
#yiv6806114403ygrp-mkp #yiv6806114403hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv6806114403 #yiv6806114403ygrp-mkp #yiv6806114403ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv6806114403 #yiv6806114403ygrp-mkp

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote :
 
 I really don't think this is the case. 
 
 Most gun owners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at home for protection.  
 
 
 Conceal and carry permits are pretty rare.
 
 
 When you think about it though, when has society not been in rough shape?
 
 
 I guess these mass shootings are a new development, so perhaps that is the 
case.
 
 
 What I am saying, Steve, is that the apparent runaway train of gun ownership 
and lethal gun use on fellow human beings seems to be tied to the state of our 
society where absurdly rich exist geographically within spitting distance of 
those who can't afford a decent meal (I was listening to NPR tonight driving 
home from work and there was an interview where they were talking about the 
wealthy in Manhattan whose net income per year was, on average, 120K and just a 
25 minute commute away in the Bronx were folks who made, on average $20K per 
annum). This creates a problem. This creates the potential for violence. This 
can make people crazy with resentment, with need and then place a gun in their 
hands and all bets are off. Threatening becomes easy. Killing becomes more 
likely than not killing. 
 



 
 Perhaps then we need a maximum wage if we're going to have a minimum wage.  
For about the last 25 years it's been "see how much money you can accumulate.  
He with the most bucks wins." 
 Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that might be a bit hard to 
implement. On the other hand, I hear in America some politicians are gunning 
for a $15/hr minimum wage. Good.
 
 
 
 So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home for protection." then you 
agree with what my point was!  This is what I'm saying. Too many feel they need 
protection from the threat from their fellow citizens, their (geographically 
speaking) neighbors, for crying out loud! And why would this be? I think there 
are a multitude of reasons but the disparity in economic conditions between 
Americans is one of them, for sure.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 But, such high profile mass shootings are bound to create media hyper 
ventilation and the resulting outrage and lamenting is continuously ignited by 
these relatively common occurrences in schools, movie theaters and elsewhere. 
It is a subject that deserves attention because it also indicates something 
deeper - is a barometer for other social disease rampant in (in this case) the 
US. Guns seem to accompany fear and rage and mental illness but not necessarily 
in all cases when their use is against a neighbor, a classroom, an employer. 
The need to own guns, to have them handy at all times, is an indicator or a 
society in rough shape. When you can't feel safe unless you have a gun in your 
possession it points to economic reasons as well. Drug addiction, poverty, lack 
of resources can lead citizens to assume they can take what they need at the 
point of a gun, for example. Whole city blocks and blocks of substandard living 
conditions or millions of people scraping by all over America are testimony to 
the sorry state of our society. Even the vehemence with which gun lovers defend 
their (and by default everyone's) right to own and carry a gun is based in fear 
and a distorted idea that to change the Constitution with regard to gun 
ownership rights would somehow be un-American or even sacrilegious. This whole 
gun issue reveals far more than just how people feel about arms.

 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote :
 
 More than 10,000 Americans are killed every year by gun violence. By contrast, 
so few Americans have been killed by terrorist attacks since 9/11 that when you 
chart the two together, the terrorism death count approximates zero for every 
year except 2001. This comparison, if anything, understates the gap: Far more 
Americans die every year from (easily preventable) gun suicides than gun 
homicides.
 
 The point Obama is making is clear: We spend huge amounts of money every year 
fighting terrorism, yet are unwilling, at the national level, to take even 
minor steps (like requiring background checks on all gun sales nationally) to 
stop gun violence.
 
 












 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:





---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

I really don't think this is the case.

Most gun owners, I mean the vast majority, keep them at home for 
protection.


Conceal and carry permits are pretty rare.

When you think about it though, when has society not been in rough shape?

I guess these mass shootings are a new development, so perhaps thatis 
the case.


What I am saying, Steve, is that the apparent runaway train of gun 
ownership and lethal gun use on fellow human beings seems to be tied 
to the state of our society where absurdly rich exist geographically 
within spitting distance of those who can't afford a decent meal (I 
was listening to NPR tonight driving home from work and there was an 
interview where they were talking about the wealthy in Manhattan whose 
net income per year was, on average, 120K and just a 25 minute commute 
away in the Bronx were folks who made, on average $20K per annum). 
This creates a problem. This creates the potential for violence. This 
can make people crazy with resentment, with need and then place a gun 
in their hands and all bets are off. Threatening becomes easy. Killing 
becomes more likely than not killing.


Perhaps then we need a maximum wage if we're going to have a minimum 
wage.  For about the last 25 years it's been "see how much money you can 
accumulate.  He with the most bucks wins."




So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home for protection." 
then you agree with what my point was!  This is what I'm saying. Too 
many feel they need protection from the threat from their fellow 
citizens, their (geographically speaking) neighbors, for crying out 
loud! And why would this be? I think there are a multitude of reasons 
but the disparity in economic conditions between Americans is one of 
them, for sure.



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

But, such high profile mass shootings are bound to create media hyper 
ventilation and the resulting outrage and lamenting is continuously 
ignited by these relatively common occurrences in schools, movie 
theaters and elsewhere. It is a subject that deserves attention 
because it also indicates something deeper - is a barometer for other 
social disease rampant in (in this case) the US. Guns seem to 
accompany fear and rage and mental illness but not necessarily in all 
cases when their use is against a neighbor, a classroom, an 
employer.The need to own guns, to have them handy at all times, is an 
indicator or a society in rough shape.When you can't feel safe unless 
you have a gun in your possession it points to economic reasons as 
well. Drug addiction, poverty, lack of resources can lead citizens to 
assume they can take what they need at the point of a gun, for 
example. Whole city blocks and blocks of substandard living conditions 
or millions of people scraping by all over America are testimony to 
the sorry state of our society. Even the vehemence with which gun 
lovers defend their (and by default everyone's) right to own and carry 
a gun is based in fear and a distorted idea that to change the 
Constitution with regard to gun ownership rights would somehow be 
un-American or even sacrilegious. This whole gun issue reveals far 
more than just how people feel about arms.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

More than 10,000 Americans are killed every year by gun violence. By 
contrast, so few Americans have been killed by terrorist attacks since 
9/11 that when you chart the two together, the terrorism death count 
approximates zero for every year except 2001. This comparison, if 
anything, understates the gap: Far more Americans die every year from 
(easily preventable 
) gun suicides 
than gun homicides.


The point Obama is making is clear: We spend huge amounts of money 
every year fighting terrorism, yet are unwilling, at the national 
level, to take even minor steps (like requiring background checks on 
all gun sales nationally) to stop gun violence.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just for the record - Paul Mason is not anti-TM or anti-MMY

[Vaj]

What a nice post Marek, thanks! :-)))<-rishi/devata/chhandas smile

On Feb 27, 2007, at 7:45 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:


Comment below:

>
**end**

Though Paul certainly has no need for outside support, I feel
compelled to respond to this thread and offer mine. What is so
disappointing in following this particular thread is that, despite
Paul's attempt to clarify his position re Maharishi (at least 2 or 3
times within this thread), he is (not surprisingly) unable to
extricate himself from mindsets already firmly set in their own
concrete.

Although I do not share some of Paul's opinions re Maharishi, I can
understand why he might hold them. Maharishi has acted in such a way
that his motivations and actions can be (and have been) viewed with
suspicion and subject to criticism, even if they may have been
misunderstood. Maharishi has been an intensely public figure with a
very public personna that many people have found to be at odds with
some other aspects of his personality. Paul's criticisms of
Maharishi are grounded in what Maharishi has done and not done.

In my global opinion of Maharishi, his contributions far exceed his
failures, whether they be real or imagined, personal or
institutional. The fact that someone, and particularly someone like
Paul who has done so much hands on research on the subject, could
come to a different conclusion is entirely reasonable.

My own exposure to Paul has convinced me that he is an honorable,
well-intentioned man who is trying to convey the truth as he
understands it to be. If, in that pursuit, he attempts to clarify
his position or rectify any of his conclusions then why not just
accept that at face value?

However, this is not an attempt to change other's opinions of Paul.
Those who are chronically critical of him will continue along that
path. That, too, is a way to be, though it would seem a rather bleak
and bitter psychology to have to shoulder. My intention in writing
this was merely to offer my support of Paul's good intentions and to
vouchsafe, to the degree I know him, of his good character.

I am deeply grateful to Paul for his contributions re Guru Dev and
Maharishi and appreciate his scholarship.

Marek