L B wrote:
> > Hey folks, we've got one more socialist on the list!
> I suppose, although I hate to pigeonhole myself into
> any category. I guess it comes partially from watching
> my father spend more time with his projects at work
> than at home (by necessity--he would have rather been
> with us), then having his projects canned just before
> completion. What was it all for, designing automation
> machinery then having it all thrown out so the company
> could purchase the same thing elsewhere for *more*
Hey, that's not something to complain about. He got paid by the man to
have absolutely no impact on the company's performance? I'd say he got
> He worked for Chrysler. I can't look at the cars from
> 1975 to 1985 and see what it was all for. They took
> his life in exchange for the smallest wage the UAW
> would let them get away with, and gave his family
> nothing but a small discount on a substandard,
> overpriced vehicle with lousy (okay, antagonistic and
> downright mean) customer service. Transhumanists, I
> ask you--what price for a huge section of the sweet
> pie of one's life?
I've learned that choosing to have dependents when one is not
financially independent is just asking for trouble.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:42 MDT