...instead of looking like a crackpot when he was talking like this. Hell, I was living in Texas during all this and I thought he was a little bit of a crackpot.
There have been a lot of people making the same rant for a long, long time. The problem is the propaganda power that arrayed against the American people. Just look how many constantly and continuously vote against their own best interest. About half.
Quote from: Hoss on November 15, 2011, 05:31:36 PM
...instead of looking like a crackpot when he was talking like this. Hell, I was living in Texas during all this and I thought he was a little bit of a crackpot.
He, as with many others, is stuck in the 60s. His complaints only make sense in the context of our currency being pegged to gold.
Here's the real agenda as noted before, take from the poor and give to the rich. Literally. Eliminate credits on the poor and give them to the rich.
Come on, Oklahoma, can't let those guys one-up us, can we??
http://news.yahoo.com/study-michigan-among-states-raising-poors-taxes-000348787.html
I'm with Hoss, though. Goldbug or not, you have to give the man credit for laying out the obvious mechanism in play, which is price competition for labor.
I have this theory, see, and bear with me: the 20th century was in part a struggle between two elements of the same system, capital and labor. In the end, Capitalism and its champions won out over Communism/Socialism and its champions. This happened for a variety of reasons, but suffice to say, now that capital has won a decisive and very ideological war, we no longer really talk about labor. Or rather, we talk about it in terms of how it relates to capital -- or to capital's modern form, the corporation.
So we harp on Unions and their "unrealistic" attempts to exert pricing power over their labor. Rather than see them for what they used to be seen as, which is taking a virtuous stand against Management, we now see them as a drag on not only the proper functioning of a company but also as somehow morally offensive, as if them standing up for the value of their work somehow devalues our own. In this case, the underlying value is for the perceived proper functioning of the corporation, not the value of the union guys' work for it.
Or we go round and round about the minimum wage -- last raised in 2007 to $7.25 an hour, but which still doesn't keep pace with the poverty line. For all intents and purposes, it not only establishes minimum pay for workers but establishes a base cost for American labor. . . and since that cost hasn't kept up with inflation, our labor has been getting relatively cheaper for companies that use it. And yet the argument against raising the rate again (as always) is that it will "kill small business," or in other words, impede capital.
Or we harp on the unemployed, and insist that they take jobs that are far far underneath their former paygrade (I've seen it here over and over again: "I don't care what you do, at least you could flip burgers at McDonalds!") and insist that they drastically (and in all probability, permanently) devalue the price of their labor so that we won't have to pony up for extended UE benefits.
Or we harp on illegals that come here to "steal American jobs," knowing full well that they do the jobs that Americans can't/won't/simply believe are too underpaid for what they require. Our consumption economy is based on that cheap labor, and may actually rely on their labor pool's illegality as leverage to keep their wages down.
What this all means is that the labor market is global, and workers everywhere -- skilled and unskilled -- will work for far cheaper than we will. Hence there is tremendous downward pressure on our wages. But, since capital won the ideological struggles of the 20th century, the only answer proferred is to drop the price of our labor to be in line with the rest of the world. What does that mean? It means underneath it all, there is no current solution to a declining standard of living for most workers in our country. This used to be true just for the blue collar workforce but now it's hitting the white collar workforce, too.
FWIW, i don't think that if labor had won the battles of the 20th century we'd be any better off. The folks that were repping the communists and socialists were brutal and corrupt and genocidal and no doubt they'd still be doing that if they hadn't collapsed entirely.
Quote from: we vs us on November 15, 2011, 10:15:10 PM
It means underneath it all, there is no current solution to a declining standard of living for most workers in our country. This used to be true just for the blue collar workforce but now it's hitting the white collar workforce, too.
The only long term path to fixing the declining standard of living is an increase in productivity. Anything else is just inflation.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 15, 2011, 10:28:16 PM
The only long term path to fixing the declining standard of living is an increase in productivity. Anything else is just inflation.
We've been increasing in productivity for decades now and pretty demonstrably seen nothing to show for it in terms of wage increases. How could MORE productivity help us?
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 15, 2011, 10:28:16 PM
The only long term path to fixing the declining standard of living is an increase in productivity. Anything else is just inflation.
What wevsus said... productivity has done NOTHING BUT INCREASE every day of every year for over 70 years. Huge increases relative to overall performance of the economy.
And since the real wages of workers are in real terms declining, and the real returns to stockholders - nominally the owners of a company - have stagnated and in great part declined, and the 'tax take' of the government has declined in percentage of the size of the economy, one should be asking 'where is that money going'?
Well, we know where it is going - into the pockets of the richest of the rich! Deep down inside you know that, but just can't seem to accept it consciously.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 16, 2011, 06:46:01 AM
What wevsus said... productivity has done NOTHING BUT INCREASE every day of every year for over 70 years.
In some areas yes, mostly highly skilled and technical. Not in all. Pushing a broom, for example, is probably about as productive has it has been for a long time. Inflation and the progressive tax have eaten away some of the standard of living for most of us.
I lost all respect for him when he took the Admiral out into the woods and tried to ditch him.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4123/saturday-night-live-joyride-with-perot (http://www.hulu.com/watch/4123/saturday-night-live-joyride-with-perot)
"You don't have to get kicked in the head to understand that"......
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 15, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
Here's the real agenda as noted before, take from the poor and give to the rich. Literally. Eliminate credits on the poor and give them to the rich.
Come on, Oklahoma, can't let those guys one-up us, can we??
http://news.yahoo.com/study-michigan-among-states-raising-poors-taxes-000348787.html
I agree it sounds cruel, but it's not as simple as calling this stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. Understanding context is important. Michigan finds itself in a difficult position with one of the higher unemployment rates in the country. They have crumbling inner cities with many people living on welfare and unemployment benefits with no prospect of finding a good job.
On the one hand, the state has to balance it's budget yet they are not cutting any benefits which are common to low income earners like Medicaid regardless of cost increases to pay for those programs so they are in effect making the people who utilize the programs the most pay in a little more:
QuoteHe said earlier this year that the state needed to make cuts to balance the budget and noted no cuts were being made in Medicaid programs providing health care to low-income working families. He also has said the business tax cuts will create employment opportunities.
Right, wrong, or otherwise, Michigan has got to attract new businesses and industries or else unemployment and under-employment will continue to grow. Unfortunate as it is, tax cuts are the crack that companies seek out when it comes to deciding where to locate. Businesses bring income which will, in turn, decrease unemployment and get more people back to work. I'm not going to go into a whole discussion on how the economy works, if you haven't gotten it yet at your age, then you aren't going to get it.
What is one of the first things companies look at when deciding where to locate or relocate? The tax situation. That's simply the way it is. If there were not 47 other states in the continental U.S. also throwing out tax incentives for businesses to locate there, then Michigan wouldn't need to throw such incentives out there. Personally, I think I would condition any tax breaks to corporations that they need to create "x" amount of jobs in a given amount of time, based on their current sales and profit figures. If they don't produce additional jobs then they don't get credits and they must pay back any given during that time-frame.
I do agree that tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts helps a few at the top. However, specifically tying tax cuts to hiring quotas or incentives, I find perfectly acceptable because it positively ties the cuts to what the desired action of tax cuts is supposed to be: creating jobs.
And no, that's not RWRE logic, that's how you put people to work without bankrupting the government.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 16, 2011, 07:49:01 AM
In some areas yes, mostly highly skilled and technical. Not in all. Pushing a broom, for example, is probably about as productive has it has been for a long time. Inflation and the progressive tax have eaten away some of the standard of living for most of us.
What???...??? WHAT???
You're a mechanical engineer for crying out loud - you've been working in it for how many years??
Even pushing a broom (and/or mop) has had huge increases in productivity! See those cabinet size machines they run around WalMart to sweep/mop at the same time??
And even pushing the shopping carts in from the parking lot has had massive improvements in productivity. Same thing - the little powered carts!!
Come on, Red...listen to some NPR once in a while so you can start to break that cycle of Fox...
I was taught in Econ 101 (University of Tulsa - Dr. Steib) that inflation has two sources; too many dollars chasing too few goods - which we really don't experience much anymore. And deficit spending by the government. So, since we don't have too many dollars chasing, it has to be a whole lot of deficits. Like we have enjoyed for the last 30 years - to get to the many trillions of debt we enjoy today!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 16, 2011, 11:53:17 AM
Even pushing a broom (and/or mop) has had huge increases in productivity! See those cabinet size machines they run around WalMart to sweep/mop at the same time??
Not everyone gets to use them
QuoteAnd even pushing the shopping carts in from the parking lot has had massive improvements in productivity. Same thing - the little powered carts!!
I've seen them but the last time I saw someone rounding up carts, there was no powered cart. Must have been broken
QuoteCome on, Red...listen to some NPR once in a while so you can start to break that cycle of Fox...
I listen to things other than Fox.
QuoteI was taught in Econ 101 (University of Tulsa - Dr. Steib) that inflation has two sources;
You call yourself an engineer and believe everything an econ professor said? Either that or you skipped class. I didn't go to TU for my Bachelors so I do not know of Dr Steib. I guess you believe that if we could magically double (intentional exaggeration) the salary of everyone for no reason other than to be nice, that prices would not rise because of it. Higher prices buying the same thing as lower prices. Maybe economists don't call that inflation. What do they call it?
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 16, 2011, 12:23:21 PM
Not everyone gets to use them
I've seen them but the last time I saw someone rounding up carts, there was no powered cart. Must have been broken
I listen to things other than Fox.
You call yourself an engineer and believe everything an econ professor said? Either that or you skipped class. I didn't go to TU for my Bachelors so I do not know of Dr Steib. I guess you believe that if we could magically double (intentional exaggeration) the salary of everyone for no reason other than to be nice, that prices would not rise because of it. Higher prices buying the same thing as lower prices. Maybe economists don't call that inflation. What do they call it?
Not everyone gets to use the biggest 100 ton hydraulic press for metal work either, but the small manual stuff makes sense in certain circumstances. Same with carts. Come on....
Grad school. This was late 70's, early 80's so he either may have gone or retired by now. As for raising wages, well we have proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that sending all the manufacturing to China to get "cheaper labor" did NOTHING to reduce prices here. It is the old Harvard MBA pogrom of "whatever the market will bear".
You raise salaries because of other increases due to inflation AND increases in productivity. The goal is to keep people employed and financially improving so that they can continue to buy the stuff the business makes. Peter Drucker explains it well...try a diet of Drucker instead of Fox for a while. That is one of the obligations of a corporation and capitalism - it is one of the reasons that particular entity was CREATED by Man, rather than just miraculously appearing out of the mud one day. It is an artifice designed to advance and leverage the effort of human beings to make improvements to the general welfare and the human condition. If it is not going to do that, then there is absolutely NO reason for its existence.
If what you say is true, then what is the rationale for raising all the CEO pay? By the orders of magnitude they have increased it in recent history! Certainly not justified by ANY concept of increased productivity by same CEOs. See how all that Fox stuff falls apart when it encounters the real world...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 16, 2011, 02:07:13 PM
As for raising wages, well we have proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that sending all the manufacturing to China to get "cheaper labor" did NOTHING to reduce prices here.
Actually, in real money terms it has when you can buy the same product which used to be made in America and sold 20 years ago for $100 and that product, now made in China or Mexico can still be bought for $100.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 16, 2011, 02:21:21 PM
Actually, in real money terms it has when you can buy the same product which used to be made in America and sold 20 years ago for $100 and that product, now made in China or Mexico can still be bought for $100.
I try to buy American, however it's becoming increasingly difficult to source quality american finger traps.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 16, 2011, 02:07:13 PM
Grad school. This was late 70's, early 80's so he either may have gone or retired by now.
All my classes were on north campus.
QuoteAs for raising wages, well we have proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that sending all the manufacturing to China to get "cheaper labor" did NOTHING to reduce prices here.
I'll use Obama's defense for the stimulus, it could have been worse. Actually, I agree that outsourcing to China has not necessarily worked for most of us. ESPECIALLY exporting skilled jobs that Americans do want to do.
QuoteYou raise salaries because of other increases due to inflation AND increases in productivity. The goal is to keep people employed and financially improving so that they can continue to buy the stuff the business makes. Peter Drucker explains it well...try a diet of Drucker instead of Fox for a while.
You need to stop listening MSNBC. I'm not about to turn down a raise in pay to compensate for inflation but it does nothing to stop inflation. I remember Nate saying that inflation is a good thing. Remember that when you start living on a mostly fixed income. It will keep your spirits up while you cannot afford a hamburger.
QuoteIf what you say is true, then what is the rationale for raising all the CEO pay? By the orders of magnitude they have increased it in recent history!
CEO pay has increased beyond any increase in productivity in my mind. It's kind of like a Union for the 1%ers.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 16, 2011, 06:19:25 PM
I'm not about to turn down a raise in pay to compensate for inflation but it does nothing to stop inflation.
No, but it does make it easier to service any debt you may have, which is an excellent thing when the whole economy is being weighed down by debt.
Quote from: nathanm on November 16, 2011, 07:30:37 PM
No, but it does make it easier to service any debt you may have, which is an excellent thing when the whole economy is being weighed down by debt.
Circular argument. A raise makes it easier to pay for things that increased in price because most of us got a raise to pay for things that increased in price. I am one of a dozen or so Americans with no credit card debt so inflation does not really help me. For the most part pay raises don't really keep pace with inflation. Maybe I have just worked for the wrong companies. Inflation is eating up any gains my 401K and other savings are eeking out.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 16, 2011, 08:02:36 PM
Circular argument. A raise makes it easier to pay for things that increased in price because most of us got a raise to pay for things that increased in price. I am one of a dozen or so Americans with no credit card debt so inflation does not really help me. For the most part pay raises don't really keep pace with inflation. Maybe I have just worked for the wrong companies. Inflation is eating up any gains my 401K and other savings are eeking out.
You just stated exactly what we have been saying for a long, long, time.
Your pay has been going down in real terms for decades. 401k plans as a replacement for a defined benefit retirement have been and always will be an unmitigated, losing catastrophe for the retired in this country - even the Wall Street Journal shows reservations.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137714796462913.html
Which means it has long ago crashed and burned.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2011, 08:22:56 AM
Your pay has been going down in real terms for decades.
And you expect to fix that with more inflation?
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 17, 2011, 09:00:31 AM
And you expect to fix that with more inflation?
No. You know better. It is the thing that has been talked about to death here...quit taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2011, 11:17:50 AM
No. You know better. It is the thing that has been talked about to death here...quit taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
Any you know better than to keep spouting off about your reverse Robin Hood thing. You are almost as obsessed with that as you are with Fox and Murdoch.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 17, 2011, 12:34:58 PM
Any you know better than to keep spouting off about your reverse Robin Hood thing. You are almost as obsessed with that as you are with Fox and Murdoch.
I guess so...reality is big for me.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 17, 2011, 09:00:31 AM
And you expect to fix that with more inflation?
If we fix whatever is causing workers to not share in the productivity gains, then yes.
Quote from: nathanm on November 17, 2011, 02:34:17 PM
If we fix whatever is causing workers to not share in the productivity gains, then yes.
Exactly. Well said.
Quote from: nathanm on November 17, 2011, 02:34:17 PM
If we fix whatever is causing workers to not share in the productivity gains, then yes.
New envy talking point? I kind of like that one, rolls off the tongue well.
And what would that fix be? A "medium wage" law?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 17, 2011, 02:42:38 PM
And what would that fix be? A "medium wage" law?
No, probably fixing our broken corporate governance.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2011, 02:24:07 PM
I guess so...reality is big for me.
I hope some day you find it (reality).
Quote from: nathanm on November 17, 2011, 02:34:17 PM
If we fix whatever is causing workers to not share in the productivity gains, then yes.
If workers share in productivity gains, it's not inflation because the end product will not cost more to the producer. In fact, it could cost less. The sale price of a product would not
need to be raised to cover the cost of production.
I realize that the sale price may go up anyway to increase company profits. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I also realize that too is not always possible.
Quote from: nathanm on November 17, 2011, 02:44:43 PM
No, probably fixing our broken corporate governance.
Via government intervention into private enterprise? Stock holder revolt? How exactly does that work? I really don't see how you can have it both ways. Put a cap on profits? Don't leave us hanging!
Quote from: Conan71 on November 17, 2011, 03:07:34 PM
Via government intervention into private enterprise? Stock holder revolt? How exactly does that work? I really don't see how you can have it both ways. Put a cap on profits? Don't leave us hanging!
Sometimes I identify problems prior to identifying solutions. I would think strengthening shareholder rights would help, but other countries do things like have one board member be elected by a vote of the employees. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I am fairly certain that corporate governance is (in the main, I'm sure there are exceptions) just as screwed up as Washington.
Quote from: nathanm on November 17, 2011, 03:16:51 PM
Sometimes I identify problems prior to identifying solutions. I would think strengthening shareholder rights would help, but other countries do things like have one board member be elected by a vote of the employees. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I am fairly certain that corporate governance is (in the main, I'm sure there are exceptions) just as screwed up as Washington.
Of course, share holder rights are likely going to work inverse to increasing employee pay as raising employee pay rates as an increased percent of profits would dig into potential dividends. There are quite a few investors who don't give two craps about dividends though- and they are the same ones who don't care what anyone is paid in the company as long as that piece of their portfolio continues to grow. As long as the company shows profit and has a great PR firm touting all their latest developments to the financial news outlets, the rise in share value is all shareholders care about. I suspect precious few really care how much the executives are making as it really doesn't affect their ability to profit off ownership of the company in the near or long-term unless executive compensation is really dragging down compensation.
IMO, some sort of "shareholder bill of rights" does nothing to increase the wage of the average American worker.
That's one of the basic tenets of free enterprise. Companies can determine what their employees are worth to them and reward employees based on their perceived contribution to the overall success and profitability of the company.
Personally, I love being paid primarily on bonus or commission. I will make twice my base salary on bonus alone this year as our industry sector is going along quite well right now. I don't think anyone in my company will tell you I'm over-paid either. My contribution assures the continued employment of 10 to 12 other people and has allowed us to upgrade capital equipment and bolster inventory as well.
I've actually out-earned my boss a couple of years. Rather than cut me back out of envy or thinking I need to be capped at some point, he realizes the incentive it presents to me to keep doing what I'm doing. His solution has been to give himself a raise and to provide everyone else with profit sharing.
So long as I've been compensated largely by commission or bonus, I've never felt over or underpaid. I feel like I'm paid commensurate to what my contribution has been. I'm going on 21 years now of that sort of compensation arrangement: anywhere from full commission to base plus bonus on sales.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 17, 2011, 03:00:28 PM
If workers share in productivity gains, it's not inflation because the end product will not cost more to the producer. In fact, it could cost less. The sale price of a product would not need to be raised to cover the cost of production.
And that is exactly what has been happening for the last 30+ years. Oh, except for the sharing the productivity gains with workers. THAT is the reality. You show that you understand that it's not inflation, but can't seem to get the part about sharing the gains...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2011, 04:02:53 PM
And that is exactly what has been happening for the last 30+ years. Oh, except for the sharing the productivity gains with workers. THAT is the reality. You show that you understand that it's not inflation, but can't seem to get the part about sharing the gains...
Wow! 30 years. How do you live on a 1980 salary? No raises in 30 years? Your middle name must be "Frugal".
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 17, 2011, 05:58:34 PM
Wow! 30 years. How do you live on a 1980 salary? No raises in 30 years? Your middle name must be "Frugal".
No, it's just when you are as obstinate as he obviously is, you will constantly get passed over for raises. God forbid that his RWRE bosses would reward people based on merit and creative thinking.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 17, 2011, 10:33:41 PM
No, it's just when you are as obstinate as he obviously is, you will constantly get passed over for raises. God forbid that his RWRE bosses would reward people based on merit and creative thinking.
I won't stay with a job for more than a year if my income is not increasing. I let my employers know that on day one!
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 17, 2011, 05:58:34 PM
Wow! 30 years. How do you live on a 1980 salary? No raises in 30 years? Your middle name must be "Frugal".
You and I both are living on real salaries that are less than the equivalent 1980 salary. In real terms that means a reduced standard of living from your 1980 status. (Unless you were still in school then, and experienced a significant increase from your school years job salary through the first 5 years at an engineering job.)
The numbers get bigger and stay the same.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 18, 2011, 07:42:26 AM
I won't stay with a job for more than a year if my income is not increasing. I let my employers know that on day one!
You must be in SUPER high demand if you're rocking that kind of leverage.
Quote from: we vs us on November 18, 2011, 08:23:36 AM
You must be in SUPER high demand if you're rocking that kind of leverage.
QuoteHey, I started out mopping the floor just like you guys. But now... now I'm washing lettuce. Soon I'll be on fries; then the grill. And pretty soon, I'll make assistant manager, and that's when the big bucks start rolling in.
Quote from: we vs us on November 18, 2011, 08:23:36 AM
You must be in SUPER high demand if you're rocking that kind of leverage.
It's not real. Just another sound bite talking point.
Quote from: we vs us on November 18, 2011, 08:23:36 AM
You must be in SUPER high demand if you're rocking that kind of leverage.
Why?
I wouldn't hire anyone who told me they would be happy with a static salary level. That indicates a person willing to "park" at a job.
The first offer is never the final offer. I love it when employees tell me they want to make far more money than I'm offering them. That's the kind of ambition I want to hire. That's also the kind of ambition that my boss appreciates.
Would you ever tell an employer that you wouldn't be back in her/his office in 12 months asking for a raise?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 18, 2011, 07:54:41 AM
You and I both are living on real salaries that are less than the equivalent 1980 salary.
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
According to the calculator, I'm ahead a bit.
I used my 1981 salary, just
after I got a BIG raise to keep me up with starting salaries.
My present salary is a bigger number than the number required now for the same purchasing power as my 1981 salary in 1981. I started my first engineering job in Dec of 1979 after the Navy and Grad School at TU.
I think I was working 20 hours a week for $3.35 an hour in 1980 so I really cannot make a comparison. But let's say for comparison's sake that you were earning $40K in 1980 and you earn $110K now, what difference does it make? You have the same buying power and would have been able to maintain the same lifestyle all along.
If you haven't kept up with inflation or have not exceeded that rate and are unhappy about being stuck in the middle class because someone didn't see fit to pay you vastly more- it's not "the man" holding you down, but rather your own lack of creativity and ambition if you are sitting around wondering why you aren't well ahead of the curve, Heir.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 18, 2011, 10:45:36 AM
Why?
I wouldn't hire anyone who told me they would be happy with a static salary level. That indicates a person willing to "park" at a job.
The first offer is never the final offer. I love it when employees tell me they want to make far more money than I'm offering them. That's the kind of ambition I want to hire. That's also the kind of ambition that my boss appreciates.
Would you ever tell an employer that you wouldn't be back in her/his office in 12 months asking for a raise?
I always tell my prospective employers that I'm ambitious and am looking to advance in my career. But that doesn't mean that I'll have the flexibility to leave after a year if I don't see an increase. In my industry, employees beneath Director or General Manager grade have been on a wage freeze since about 2007. That's pretty much industrywide. In fact, employment in our industry is down by slightly less than a 1/3 since the downturn began. In other words, not only are no increases coming but you should feel lucky that your job wasn't eliminated. As valuable as you may be, as ambitious as you may be, as good looking as I may be, that doesn't guarantee any sort of advancement whatsoever.
You should feel lucky that you've been insulated from the late unpleasantness. It's been a bloodbath for several years.
Quote from: we vs us on November 18, 2011, 11:15:12 AM
As valuable as you may be, as ambitious as you may be, as good looking as I may be, that doesn't guarantee any sort of advancement whatsoever.
You just channelled Stewart Smally, didn't you?
(http://cdn1.hark.com/images/000/004/100/4100/original.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on November 18, 2011, 11:25:47 AM
You just channelled Stewart Smally, didn't you?
(http://cdn1.hark.com/images/000/004/100/4100/original.jpg)
You'll note that I concede he could be valuable or ambitious, but make clear that I'm the good looking one.