Tue, Mar 3, 2015, 12:48 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 8 hrs 42 mins


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Ford Motor Co. Message Board

  • whatanerdyguy whatanerdyguy Apr 16, 2007 1:56 PM Flag

    The Rising Cost of Living

    Remember when you could get a hair cut for less than $10 dollars?

    "Well, John Edwards' campaign for president spent $400 on February 20, and another $400 on March 7, at a top Beverly Hills men's stylist, Torrenueva Hair Designs."


    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I think that's what TJoe was saying. Let employers pay you what you need to get by, not what you can negotiate. Form a modern day slavery system that will oppress everyone equally. This is exactly what I'm against.

    • The last haircut I had in a barbershop was $6.00, King's Barbershop(King retired and the barbershop closed). That should give you some idea how long my wife's been cutting my hair.

      If it doesn't, its been since about 1985 or so.

      I figure in another 10 years or so, she'll rate a tip.

      The $8 dollar cuts were mentioned, by someone who seemed to be upset by the high price, so I took it that that's what his community barbers charge.

    • weewillie08@sbcglobal.net weewillie08 Apr 17, 2007 6:20 PM Flag

      Barbers in the Chicago area charge around $12 plus tips on average. Been years since I've seen an $8 haircut.

    • Look dork, if I know the cost was about $2500, it certainly implies that the reason I know was because it was published. And, why would it be published if Proxmire just slipped off to have a hair implant and paid for it?

      The reason it was news was because the taxpayers were paying for it in the form a tax write-off, which was justified due to his public appearance requirements.

      There is absolutely nothing unusual about that. Do you think a movie star doesn't deduct cosmetic surgery as a professional expense?

      Why don't you just ride off and tilt a few windmills? But, you don't have gallantry to do that, do you?

    • <Don't you find it a little odd that every link on Proxmire has a tidbit about his hair implant? >

      And you can't post a link to a single one that says the tax payers paid for it. How strange. How pathetic, that you must make stuff up to be relevant.

    • You're absolutely right. Capitalist slavery views labor as but one more replaceable cog in the machine. Why take care of "property" that you do not own? Disposable labor is so much more efficient. But I'll bet we're the only "slave society" that has managed to brainwash some of the slaves into thinking this is the best of all possible worlds. What better way to do that than to convince them that someday they too will be on top, and have slaves of their own? Hope springs eternal, doesn't it? Every time I hear Nerdy defend the abolition of the estate tax, it cracks me up. It's like THE STING, where they say that you must never let the "mark" know he's been taken. That part of it is its own little reward.

    • By comparison of where the final outcome is headed, classic slavery was a better system.

      Classic slavery required the owners of slaves to feed and house them - they were personal assets to be cared for. A guy isn't going to pay $250 for a strong, healthy, male and not want to maintain him.

      In capitalist slavery, the slaves are owned by society - not the capitalists. The capitalists merely borrow the slaves and profit from them, they're not required to train, feed, or maintain them.

    • Let's be clear here - everybody breaks laws. Everybody. Don't pretend you don't, because you do. If you tell me you've never broken a law, I will not believe you.

      Now, let's deal in facts. Nearly 1/2 of all "illegal immigrants" were perfectly legal when they got here. They just didn't go home once their visa expired. So let's not get all panicky about hordes of unwashed besieging our shores and entering illegally. That's not the whole story.

      Other fact - illegal immigrants have always been here. They've been picking our produce for decades and decades. That's part of the reason the U.S. has about the cheapest food in the entire world. But recent "crackdowns" on illegal immigrants have made the problem even worse, because migrant farm workers who routinely came up from Mexico for the harvest, and then went home, now find that they can't easily go back and forth anymore. So instead of risking it, once they get in they stay in. And send their money home to their families. We were better off letting them come up during harvest, and go home afterward.

      Also, as far as "illegal immigrants" go, we've got about the best on earth. We're bitching and moaning because Mexicans come here to make a better life for themselves and their families? Imagine what life would be like if our border neighbor was Syria, Pakistan, Iran, or even Colombia. Like it or not we've got some damn good "illegal immigrants" here. Not totally without problems, but if you had a choice from among the entire world, they're about the best you could want.

      And the best thing we can possibly do is help Mexico economically. As that country becomes further burdened by economic straits, by free-trade that sends all their work over to China, by farmers who are driven out of the land by U.S. Government-subsidized corn crops, by migrant farm workers who cannot come to the U.S. during harvest season, etc., they will be forced right into the hands of the Colombia drug lords. Let's face it, if your choice is watching your family starve, or moving drugs, which one will you do? Then we'll look back on the "migrant farm worker" days as the good ol' days, and wonder why we were bitching and moaning about it.

    • No, I don't. You are simply manipulating the word "best." In your opinion, they are "better off" going on welfare. That is not the opinion I share. In my counselor's opinion, I was "better off" not taking college entrance exams. In both instances the counselor was substituting his judgment for objective reality.

      The welfare rolls ARE a lot smaller. Tiny, in fact. Since Clinton signed welfare reform into law, the rolls have shrunk incredibly.

      If we wish to engage in the race to the bottom, and pay people what they are "worth" instead of what they "require," we'll all be out of work. You will always require more than your worth, if your worth is being measured by what a starving child in China will work for. Left unregulated capitalism will eventually slide down into slavery, for that is the ultimate goal of maximizing profits.

    • TJ- As the indian said to the white man, you speak from both sides of mouth. You question my expertise as a counselor for providing a client with all the information necessary for him to make the best decision for himself by comparing me to your counselors that did not provide you with proper information.
      Your statement "I don't think anyone is better off on welfare than working for his pay." if this were true the welfare rolls would be a lot smaller.
      My first new car cost me exactly $300 more than I earned that year and it was way below the average car. You still want people to earn what they need rather than what they are worth.

    • View More Messages
16.57+0.23(+1.41%)Mar 2 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.