Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Pain of Coping When a Job Is Snatched Away
The New York Times ^ | December 1, 2003 | JILL ANDRESKY FRASER

Posted on 12/01/2003 4:31:00 PM PST by Willie Green

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

THREE years ago, Susan Sullivan, then 34, and her husband, Peter, 44, were thriving. The couple, both marketing professionals, worked hard and enjoyed a combined income of about $250,000 a year.

Then, within two weeks of each other in the spring of 2001, the Sullivans lost their jobs, right about the time that she became pregnant. Unable to find work, they moved from Newton, Mass., a pricey Boston suburb, to Worcester, to cut their living expenses. With job prospects slim, they began entrepreneurial ventures: she, a marketing consulting firm, and he, a computer network security firm. Their daughter is now almost two. With combined yearly earnings of about $20,000, they have cut their spending to the bone and make ends meet with food stamps and credit cards.

"We had about $40,000 in savings, but we spent that a long time ago," Ms. Sullivan said. "Now we owe more money in credit card bills than I ever would have believed possible. We don't spend money on anything at all that isn't a complete necessity. Your whole way of thinking changes. The other day I was so excited: I got a credit card offer for a new card that will give us a long period with zero percent financing."

The Sullivans are scarcely alone. There were, on average, 8.4 million unemployed Americans in 2002. By October, according to the most current statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, their ranks had grown to 8.8 million. One out of every four had been looking for a job for 27 weeks or longer, up from one out of five a year earlier.

And many who are working do so only part time. In October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4.8 million people were involuntarily working part time - either because they could not find full-time jobs or because their employers had put them on part-time schedules. That is up 11.6 percent, from 4.3 million a year earlier.

In recent years, the effect of widespread joblessness on consumption patterns in the United States has been tough to recognize, largely because so many people, employed as well as unemployed, have relied heavily upon credit cards, mortgage refinancings and other loans to sustain spending that might otherwise have been unaffordable.

That spending has helped cushion the economy through some rocky times. "But the big question, moving forward, is whether we'll see enough recovery in the labor market so that income growth will be able to replace all these one-time events, like tax cuts and refinancings," Jared Bernstein, senior economist with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, said.

With recent rosy news about the economy's third quarter, it might be hoped that increased hiring will enable households to recover from the financial difficulties of unemployment. But interviews with men and women in a variety of careers, family situations and cities across the country suggest that even as jobs are filled, the personal economic pain for those who have long been unemployed will be long lasting.

Consider Quay Anderson, a 30-year-old father of three young children, who lost his job as a crane operator in February. His job, which paid $16 an hour, had been the sole source of income for his family in Carlisle, Pa. Now, after going through retraining at the Regional Manufacturing Workforce Transition Center in Steelton, Pa., Mr. Anderson is on the verge of being hired as a commercial driver. But he said that it could take as long as five years of steady employment to get his family back in the financial shape they enjoyed before he lost his job.

"We've completely maxed out on credit cards and any other credit lines we had," he said. "I had a gun collection that I sold in order to raise money for groceries." The family does not spend money on anything that is not necessary. It is upsetting "when your kids want to go to Wendy's or McDonald's and you've got to say no," he said.

"We can't take them to see 'Brother Bear' in the movies," he said, "because we can't afford four movie tickets.''

A close look at household spending suggests the multiplicity of ways, large and small, that the rise in unemployment in the past year or so has affected consumption patterns and the economy.

"We have a 6-year-old son, and, although it's not the end of the world, it would have been nice to give him music lessons, but we can't," said Ellen Ball, 44, of Brookline, Mass. "We don't eat out. We don't travel. I used to make charitable contributions in the past. Now I ask, when people call, 'Can I give you my time instead?' "

Before Ms. Ball and her 42-year-old husband, Bruce Haimowitz, lost their jobs as software engineers in 2002, they earned a combined income well into the six figures. He was out of work for about a year before landing two jobs - one part time, one full time - that between them pay him about $45,000 a year. After looking for more than a year herself, Ms. Ball expects to start work shortly at a part-time $12-an-hour job. "We can't save,'' she said. "We don't entertain at all. We're in a holding pattern."

The path out of long-term unemployment is often a part-time job or full-time work at a lower pay scale, but it is not a promising path.

"The problem is the overarching forces that have resulted in major job losses and downward income mobility are permanent," said Stephen Roach, chief economist of Morgan Stanley. "If anything, they'll intensify, as high-wage jobs in both production and the services continue to move to countries like China and India where costs are lower. That's going to keep consumers under a lot of pressure."

Not surprisingly, families with nest eggs and other savings have been best able to cope with prolonged joblessness and declining household earnings. As soon as Mr. Haimowitz found work, he and Ms. Ball, lifelong savers, were able to refinance their mortgage, which helped lower their monthly expenses.

Andrea, 45, and Will Gill, 50, actually traded up to a $450,000 home in Smithtown, N.Y., even after Mr. Gill, a computer network consultant, had been out of work for two years. Mrs. Gill, an online manager for a travel agency, has had three years of pay cuts. Their household income is now about a third of what it used to be.

"We had built up equity in our old house, have always been savers, and we didn't have any credit card debt," Mr. Gill said. "Since buying the house, we can manage just by taking about $20,000 out of our savings each year. By most people's standards, we're not hurting."

But even the Gills have cut their spending. "When our bedroom set was falling apart, we fixed it rather than buying a new one," Mrs. Gill said. During this holiday season, they expect to cut their gift-buying budget by about two-thirds.

The question for many is whether the national economy will be able to shrug off the impact of the prolonged joblessness of families like these without skipping a beat. Their spending patterns and savings cushions, after all, have remained relatively strong. But the impact on the economy may be more pronounced when it comes to those households that experienced job losses when they had little or no savings, high levels of debt, or both. For those families, financial problems have escalated, and they may pose some collective risks to the economy.

One risk arises from households that have cashed in part or all of their retirement savings to meet day-to-day expenses. "Out here, where home prices are really high, there are a lot of couples with mortgages that only can be supported on two incomes," said Dan Rink, a career coach in Alameda, Calif. "When one spouse loses a job, it's a catastrophe. I see a lot of unemployed people who are drawing down their retirement funds just in order to make their mortgage payments."

A more immediate high-risk decision among the unemployed is whether to give up health insurance. "It's more important for us to stay current with our mortgage payments," said Robert Love, 60, of Houston, who lost his job as a manager of safety and quality control about two years ago. Neither he nor his wife, Ann, 56, who works as a receptionist at a beauty salon, has health insurance. "Quite honestly, you try not to think about it," he said. "Just hope everyone stays healthy."

The need for such survival strategies raises the prospect that large numbers of tapped-out baby boomers will reach retirement unprepared. Jonathan Greentree, 51, of Columbus, Ohio, lost his public relations job in 2001. He is now working in a part-time $8-an-hour retailing job that will last only through the holiday season.

Mr. Greentree has pared his budget to essentials but says he has been unable to make more than a year's worth of child-support payments for his 15-year-old son. He owes real estate taxes on his home, has depleted his savings, spent the proceeds raised from a mortgage refinancing, tapped out a line of credit and accumulated large credit card debts.

"To be real honest, college savings have fallen by the wayside," he said. "I have very little retirement savings. It's scary. If I ever do get a job, I've got to get credit counseling because I don't know how to solve these problems."

Some people do manage to re-enter the work force and regain financial stability, but still feel anxieties. Ian Boardman, 44, of Arlington, Mass., who has a doctorate in cognitive science and experience at some dot-com start-ups, has had two different bouts of unemployment since the spring of 2001. Recently, he was hired by a research laboratory, weeks before his unemployment insurance would have run out.

"My wife is a financial whiz who has renegotiated our mortgage twice to save money," he said. "We've been able to make do on unemployment, with a little help from our parents. We're not big on consumption anyway."

But Mr. Boardman emphasized that he and his family lost their sense of security. "We are middle class," he said. "We're good people. And what does the system say to us? 'Sink or swim.' "

The biggest question for many people is: What will happen if new job opportunities are indeed created during the recovery but do not provide enough pay and benefits to repair the financial damage caused by prolonged unemployment?

That is a question facing Richie Calladio-Nuzzo; his wife, Jenni; and their 13-year-old daughter, Michelle, of Newton, Conn. Mr. Calladio-Nuzzo, 34, an electrician, used to earn at least $30 an hour, with benefits, in union-covered jobs. But he spent nine months during 2002 unemployed and still could not find work in the winter and spring of 2003.

"It was really bad," he recalled. "All last winter, we kept our house heated at 58 degrees. Early on, we maxed out on our credit cards, and we couldn't keep up with the payments we owed. I don't go to the doctor at all. But when it comes to a choice between buying medicine for my wife, who has asthma, and eyeglasses for my daughter, who needs them to see, or paying the electric bill, well, we did what we could. Fortunately, the electric company can't cut you off during the winter."

In May, Mr. Calladio-Nuzzo received permission from his union to take a nonunion job, which pays $20 an hour, and offers no benefits.

"I'm glad to be working, but let's be real," he said. "The only impact this job has had is that I no longer have to call the phone company and electric company to make special payment arrangements. Our heater is broken upstairs, and I can't afford to bring in a plumber to fix it. We still have to screen our phone calls. A collection agency will call and say, 'Make a one-time payment of $800.' And I tell them, 'Are you kidding? If I could pay you $800, wouldn't I have just paid the $100 minimum that's due?' "

From Mr. Calladio-Nuzzo's perspective, it is difficult to see any light at the end of the tunnel. "You think you'd enjoy it to know that you're not going through this alone," he said. "But when I see the guys that I've worked with, it's awful. We look at each other and say, 'It's never going to end.' "

That is just what Pam Shira Fleetman, 55, a technical writer in Acton, Mass., fears. She has been out of work since July 2002, and recently cashed in her retirement account so she could pay enough of her overdue mortgage and property tax bills to avoid losing her house. She has "huge" credit card bills. Her car is nearly nine years old. A divorced parent, she worries that next year, when her son turns 13, she will not have any money to spend on a bar mitzvah.

"When I think about all this," Ms. Fleetman said, "there's just one question I'd like to ask all those titans of industry who are laying people off and outsourcing all those jobs overseas: 'Who do you think you're going to be able to sell your products and services to here in the U.S.?' "


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: globalism; thebusheconomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-206 next last
To: Willie Green
Whine, whine, whine. First, moving to Worcester didn't help. It's still very costly anywhere in Mass with the high taxes.

Also, they obviously are too stupid to MOVE! I'm sorry, I don't buy a couple with a $250K income and their high value jobs going to only $20K a year between the two. A pizza delivery person can make more than $20K a year.

Why didn't they save more? Why don't they move to where they can get jobs in their fields? Only one has to really. One could move and make more money and send it home.

My dad did that in 1971 after we moved to Arkansas from California and my mom got apendicitis. He moved back to Calif and got a good job and sent the money home. Was it hard on us? Sure, we didn't have a car to use and dad was gone. I had to, at age 12, ride my bike 5 miles to buy groceries. I didn't care...at that age riding my bike was my life! lol

But we did just fine.

181 posted on 12/03/2003 12:24:49 AM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cherry
What do you want to do cherry? Use military force to keep third world countries in the third world? What happens if capitalism and democracy takes over in China? Are you worried about competing with 1.2 billion free people? It sounds that way.

I say, bring them on. The more they grow up and become free and make more money and create and compete, the more of our stuff they'll buy. And we create high end goods and services.

So you'll either have to market your apples better or grow something else. Or are the apple growers still stuck on the government teat in subsidies and other bad business practices? Do you think competition is bad?

What happens if the world succeeds in creating more and more viable economic countries in Asia, the former Soviet Union, South America, Africa? You want more protectionism from their willingness to make products for less?

Geez, I've heard this same BS argument for decades. Back in the 60's it was all the cheap electronics from Taiwan and Japan. Then it all sucked. Then it came back in the 1980's when everyone was convinced Japan was going to clean our clocks. Heck, dozens and dozens of movies in the mid 1980's were made on the premise of Japan taking over our industries and jokes in TV and movies about how Japan was so much better.

Well, it's now 2003 and where is Japan? Huh? Huh? Economically dead. They didn't take over anything. England and Canada still own more US property and do more business with us.

But I guess some fat, beer swilling, Democratic, union member living in Ohio or PA still needs to be coddled with a $40 hour job plus benefits while they never save a dime for the future (read the part about the guy that was forced to "sell his gun collection"...poor baby. On $16 an hour he thought it was a priority to have a gun collection). My heart bleeds.

Most "poor" people I know have two cars, several TV's, VCR's, DVD players, spend money going out to eat, movies, rentals, have computers, cellphones, etc.

Poor babies.

It reminds me of this mentality in the movies again. Did you see "Spider-man"? Peter Parker's uncle Ben, at the beginning of the movie, was laid off as the CHIEF ELECTRICIAN at some plant after 25 years (they might have said 40 years). And he's worried about how they'll get by. Did the man, with only one kid to worry about, ever save a dime? He drove an older car so he didn't waste it there. Maybe all the money went to repainting the kitchen for no other reason than Aunt May obviously wanted a new color.

After all those years did he not buy his house and have it almost paid off? I'd think so.

Rush Limbaugh once decided to have use a full show (he did many eventually) talking to people that weren't the whiners and the "can't change" folks like is portrayed by the media. He wanted to hear from those that moved on, started a business, changed jobs, etc. Those stories are something to write about, not the whining.

I'd also bet that most of those in this worthless article never bothered to really curb their spending. People resist that more than anything. Heck, most don't even know where the money goes. They don't keep track of spending habits (I do, I have degrees in Economics and Accounting and I'm anal retentive...I can tell you exactly how much I've spent on toilet paper over the last 15 years) and don't break old ideals of having to get your hair done and colored or poker night with the boys.

It's all relative. You just have to know where that relevancy lies.
182 posted on 12/03/2003 12:47:08 AM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
166 - What does your husband do to support you and youall's family while you play around?

The point I was trying to make - "154 - " Got to stay at least 12 months ahead of the organization AND the industry."

is that few/nobody can be reasonably expected to be so prescient, just to maintain a job, if they could do all that, then they could rule the world.

There are a whole lot of honest, hard working people out there, who 'played the game', supported their wives and families, paid their taxes, and who were tossed on the trash heap when 'things' changed. They aren't layabouts, big spenders, wastrels, liars, thieves, cheats, or stupid. Just honest, hard working people who have gotten screwed.

I know, my uncle was one - a steel worker, a chemist who analyzed/tested/quality controlled the steel output in a big steel factory.

I was another, caught in Houston in the midst of the oil crash of the 80's. As One who got layed off in the petro-chem business with college degrees and plenty of experience, I got fired at one job (stocking shelves at K-Mart), because I refused to sign a form that I was being 're-trained' from a $25/hour procurement manager to a $3.50 shelf stocker) just so they could qualify for a government program which paid my 'retraining salary ($3.50/hr)' for 180 days.

The past few years, there have been the dot.commer's, the techies.

Many good people getting screwed, undeservedly. And a few fools, like those in the story at the beginning of the post, who played the 'grasshopper' to our 'ant'.

Many Americans don't understand what is going on right now,but it is not a race to bring other countries up to our standards, it is a race to bring our living standards down to the level of a third world country.

And all these idiots here on this thread who delight in the abolition of the middle class, because they think they are going to remain in the 'top class', and get their 'creme broulet' cheaper as their neighbors starve, will find out, you can't drive to work when you earn $1.00 per hour - Henry Ford knew that, even 100 years ago.
183 posted on 12/03/2003 4:39:33 AM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
And wealth is the sign of virtue and eternal election.

No. Wealth is a sign of someone having worked hard/smart (Bill Gates), or having robbed cleverly (Enron Barons), or having had the luck to be the son or daughter of one who worked hard/smart or robbed cleverly (Korrupt Kennedy Klan).

So what does the fall of the wealthy during the revolutions mean - the loss of divine grace?

The fall of the wealthy during revolutions is a sign that they were either too clever by half, or that they p*ssed off a lot of the peasantry.

How it can be reconciled with the predestination?

I don't know what you're talking about. The only thing that is predestined for man is the grave.

184 posted on 12/03/2003 6:08:12 AM PST by Jim Cane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: cherry
Conservative by US standard yes...by Russian standard I liberal economist...tag not translate so well. Socially I conservative both way...that tag fit. As for trade, now US could have normal trade with Russia or EU or even Mexico but that smaller population and not that much move for price over all and in other nation things change quickly...because population small. Now of course we not talk actual trade, we talk export of factory when in West spoken mantra of "free trade". This not excess capacity to trade but industry built only service other nation not own peoples. That not trade, exactly. Also, unlike Russia or Mexico for example, most other nation hold giant tarrif in "free" trade...not quite free. And with populations of very poor and in hundreds millions, you never out compete...some time cheaper to throw few slaves...er working class...into meat grinder then automate...missing fingers? That ok, your village full of others to take job...the Chinese way...nation who never once have respect human life.
185 posted on 12/03/2003 6:14:58 AM PST by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: bert
They were overpaid for jobs that were not real. (probably)

More than likely.

I worked for a dotcom back in the late 90's/early 00's, right before they went belly-up.

There was a woman there who was employed as a "CPO", or "Chief People Officer". She had some kind of therapist/psychologst degree, and her sole job with the company was to "mediate disputes" between co-workers.

She made $85,000/year.

Just another useless position...

186 posted on 12/03/2003 6:16:33 AM PST by ItsOurTimeNow (Criswell - "And remember, my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: XBob
What is interesting is history, in history where aristocracy had absolute power of peasants, they may have played and lived for moment but much because any day could bring peasant revolts...those nations far from stable and revolts and massacre were yearly thing...just look at Latin America and Africa.
187 posted on 12/03/2003 6:19:44 AM PST by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: baltodog
You are correct. Credit should only be used sparingly. For example, homes that appreciate, cars at near zero percent interest, emergencies that you know can be quickly repaid. Everything else should be pay as you go. Do not be seduced by the fat years. Prepare for the lean ones.
188 posted on 12/03/2003 6:22:07 AM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: XBob
Being the ultimate anti-feminist, I won't react to your sexist question that; a) assumes I bring nothing to the financial equation in my household as the hubby does all the 'work' and; b) what I do is all play and not work. Instead, I will answer your question by saying my husband does work full-time - one of those dot.commers who was able to see the handwriting on the wall, in addition to preparing for a reasonable financial future for his family.

Of course, there are two pieces to that equation that most would never see - or acknowledge. The first is that the primary duties of a wife and mother represent work and added economic value. The second is that I worked full-time for many years prior to the marriage, bringing 90% of the assets to the union.

Having said all that, I accept your indirect compliment that Mr. Gun must be the brains behind the operation, as that leaves me to contribute the beauty!

189 posted on 12/03/2003 7:00:11 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Jim Cane
The fall of the wealthy during revolutions is a sign that they were either too clever by half, or that they p*ssed off a lot of the peasantry.

Exactly.

How it can be reconciled with the predestination?

I don't know what you're talking about. The only thing that is predestined for man is the grave.

Some Calvinists associate material blessings as a sign of belonging to the "elect".

190 posted on 12/03/2003 8:09:36 AM PST by A. Pole (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain , the hand of free market must be invisible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Calvinism is antithetical to my beliefs.
191 posted on 12/03/2003 8:13:27 AM PST by Jim Cane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: RussianConservative
187 - "What is interesting is history, in history where aristocracy had absolute power of peasants, they may have played and lived for moment but much because any day could bring peasant revolts...those nations far from stable and revolts and massacre were yearly thing...just look at Latin America and Africa."

Very good observation. I agree. And your idea is also very relavent as to why the US and North Europe have succeeded so well compared to other countries. - Their Religion.

For example - Russia had the religion of czarism then communism (dictatorship of the proletariat) - supporting dictatorships and not thinking. Muslims have a religion of obedience and not thinking and non-responsibility - it is Allah's will. Catholic countries have a religion of not thinking and irresresponsibility - 'say 3 hail Mary's and you are forgiven' (all of Latin America is Catholic). African tribalism, not thinking, just follow your leader.

Only Protestantism, 'you better do it right, or fix it, or believe, etc or you will burn in Hell' seems to have promoted individual responsibility, promoting innovation etc.

And now socialism is destroying that beautiful, creative, rewarding culture.


192 posted on 12/03/2003 10:10:20 AM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
189 - "I won't react to your sexist question that; a) assumes I bring nothing to the financial equation in my household as the hubby does all the 'work' and; b) what I do is all play and not work."
===
Not sexist at all - merely an observation. We still live in a society where sex roles are pretty much defined for us.
===
166 - "May explain why I haven't HAD to work for the last decade. I dabble in those things that interest me. "
===

I bet your husband doesn't 'dabble' at his job (unless he is very rich and spoiled, which I seriously doubt). Men are still responsible for being the 'bread winners' in our society, even if the women do bring home some 'cake'. Being out of work is a serious blow to a man's self esteme. If your family cannot afford a roof over your head, it is the man who is blamed, not the woman.

I bet you don't 'dabble' at raising your kids. Women are responsible for doing the 'mothering'. If little 'Johnny' comes to school with a dirty face and isn't fed, it's not your husband who is blamed.

It's like the real answer to the question 'Why are most great chef's men?'

The real answer is that men don't 'have to' cook, every day, day in, day out. They can 'dabble' at cooking, or if they really enjoy it and are really good, they can become chefs, because they 'don't have to' do it, every day, 3 meals a day, they have the option not to do it.

So, it sounds to me like youall are lucky, and have a great marriage and are a good match.

Congratulations.

193 posted on 12/03/2003 10:28:57 AM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: XBob
Thanks. We are suited, we do have a good marriage - though I don't chalk that up to "luck."
194 posted on 12/03/2003 10:43:18 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
But I guess some fat, beer swilling, Democratic, union member living in Ohio or PA still needs to be coddled with a $40 hour job plus benefits while they never save a dime for the future (read the part about the guy that was forced to "sell his gun collection"...poor baby. On $16 an hour he thought it was a priority to have a gun collection). My heart bleeds

You remind me of foolish spending that I see here in Philly quite a bit. That being Eagles football fans flying to places like Dallas to see the Eagles play the Cowboys. Most of these people are not wealthy and are predominately blue collar.

I don't like to tell people how to spend their money or raise their kids, but blowing retirement money on a needless sports excursion (especially when you can watch the game on TV for free) seems foolish, don't you think?

195 posted on 12/03/2003 10:59:14 AM PST by Ronaldus Magnus Reagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
194 - good Luck is when good preparation meets up with opportunity and the capability to recognize and take advantage of the opportunity.

We make much of our own luck, not all, though.

I trace meeting my wife halfway around the world years later, to the decision to wear a fancy pair of alligotor boots to a job interview, where we went to a jobsite, instead of the office.
196 posted on 12/03/2003 11:44:13 AM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
194 - make that 'a MUDDY jobsite'.
197 posted on 12/03/2003 11:45:41 AM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow
I used to visit a company that had Kids Friday.

The place was bedlam and as far as I could tell nothing was getting done. I would take me hours to accomplish munutes of work. Communication came to a standstill.

Alas, they are now gone.
198 posted on 12/03/2003 12:10:36 PM PST by bert (Don't Panic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: XBob
Orthodoxy does not breed blind obedience and for that matter it was not like Western propaganda under Tsars. In 1923 communists do survey of who in Russia read and write from age 15 - 25...it was 70% literacy rate, so obviously most peoples knew to read and write under Tsar (government fall 1917). Education was very high agenda and even under Catherine the Great labor laws passed (note that translation of Russian laws forbidden as sedition in England and France) and under Alexander II unions legal...that mean unions legal in 1860 or so....when legal in West?

Problem for Russia is that one: US, British and French business leaders (read Oligarchs) worry of Russian massive industrialization on going at period (10% growth rate for last 4 years before WW1) and work hard to discredit Tsar and support rebellion and then Kaiser give 50 gold mark credit to Bolshaviks.

199 posted on 12/03/2003 12:18:44 PM PST by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: XBob
Oh don't forget utopian and murderous anabaptists, autocratic Calvinists and also England under Protestants and all N. Europe under Lutherins.
200 posted on 12/03/2003 12:19:47 PM PST by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-206 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson