Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Icono Clast writes:
    >> They're illustrations in support of the allegation.
    > Is living among retired diplomats a good thing?

That's not the argument. The argument is that retired diplomats have more
perspective than most people on where might be nice to live. And in many
cases have more options.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Then why did Hatunen leave?

He lived in Daly City, which is not even the best place to live in the
greater Daly City/Colma area.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:42:27 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Icono Clast writes:
    >> They're illustrations in support of the allegation.
    >Is living among retired diplomats a good thing?
    >Is paying eleven times one's salary for the cheapest of homes a good
    >thing? My parents' home cost about 1.5 times my father's salary.

You should have stayed there.
--
Martin

Miguel Cruz writes:

    > That's not the argument. The argument is that retired diplomats have more
    > perspective than most people on where might be nice to live.

Why?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Miguel Cruz wrote:

    > > Be sure to do the same for every other disaster that kills a similar
    > > number of people. Just because it's covered on CNN doesn't make it more
    > > important than the disasters that get no media exposure.
    > Disasters that take 130,000 lives in the space of a few days are rarer than
    > you seem to think.

This was indeed an unparalleled catastrophe. It's nice to know that there are
lots of good hearted people donating, and lots of agencies providing equipment and
logistical support to get the relief to those who need it.

That being said..... where are the insurance companies? I don't doubt that a lot
of the people affected do not have coverage, but I am sure that a lot of them do.
The resorts that were hit would have some sort of insurance, though there may be
riders to exclude a tsunami. Most tourists would have some sort of insurance.

I am not suggesting that there is not still a need for international assistance,
but I have not heard a single comment in the news about the role that insurance
companies are playing in this disaster.

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Miguel Cruz writes:
    >> That's not the argument. The argument is that retired diplomats have more
    >> perspective than most people on where might be nice to live.
    > Why?

Beause they have lived in and visited many places, and learned empirically
what they enjoy, rather than trying to guess.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Icono Clast writes:
    > >> They're illustrations in support of the allegation.
    > >
    > > Is living among retired diplomats a good thing?
    >
    > That's not the argument. The argument is that retired diplomats have more
    > perspective than most people on where might be nice to live. And in many
    > cases have more options.

Indeed, and usually quite a bit of money. I'd be more interested in
where people of moderate means choose to retire! :)

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Icono Clast writes:
    >>They're illustrations in support of the allegation.
    >
    > Is living among retired diplomats a good thing?

Not necessarily. Nor bad.

    > Is paying eleven times one's salary for the cheapest of homes a good
    > thing?

Not for the buyers. But they wouldn't cost that were they not in
demand. Quite often places sell for more than the asking price. Were
the buyers to refuse to pay such ridiculous prices, they'd fall.
People want to live here so much that they're willing to, and do, pay
those prices.

    >My parents' home cost about 1.5 times my father's salary.

Must be a terrible place to live or he was paid twice as much as the
average worker. There are others where houses don't sell at all for
the simple reason that they're undesirable places to live.
__________________________________________________ ___________
A San Franciscan who's visited 49 of 50 US states
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:16:08 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Miguel Cruz writes:
    >> That's not the argument. The argument is that retired diplomats have more
    >> perspective than most people on where might be nice to live.
    >Why?

because of their former jobs. The same is true about any job which has
involved wide spread travel. I know that Cannes& Nice are not places,
I'd ever want to retire to, lost of Brit.s, who have only spent brief
holidays there don't and do. I also wouldn't want to retire to
Brittany or Paris.
--
Martin

"Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Miguel Cruz wrote:
    > This was indeed an unparalleled catastrophe. It's nice to know that
    > there are
    > lots of good hearted people donating, and lots of agencies providing
    > equipment and
    > logistical support to get the relief to those who need it.
    > That being said..... where are the insurance companies? I don't doubt
    > that a lot
    > of the people affected do not have coverage, but I am sure that a lot
    > of them do.
    > The resorts that were hit would have some sort of insurance, though
    > there may be
    > riders to exclude a tsunami. Most tourists would have some sort of
    > insurance.
    > I am not suggesting that there is not still a need for international
    > assistance,
    > but I have not heard a single comment in the news about the role that
    > insurance
    > companies are playing in this disaster.
Why would you expect to? The business of insurance companies is
*private*, and neither you nor anyone else is entitled to know any of
the details. They are not publicly "riding to the rescue" like
individual donors, nor like the governments, corporations, and relief
agencies, most of which have to publish their financial statements.

I would guess that less than 1% of the inhabitants affected would carry
any kind of insurance, and only a portion of the tourists. In any
event, most "travel insurance" pays only approved amounts, and usually
only after the insured is back home. In this extreme case they might
pay for medical treatment and supply plane tickets.

As for the destroyed resorts, they probably have exclusionary clauses
for certain causes; those owners with coverage would likely have to
choose between "rebuilding" or "cash settlement", and I'm sure that none
of them is in any fit state to make such an election just yet.

Icono Clast writes:

    > Must be a terrible place to live or he was paid twice as much as the
    > average worker.

No, they just bought it years ago, when everyone could afford to own his
own home.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...
    > Icono Clast writes:
    >> Must be a terrible place to live or he was paid twice as much as the
    >> average worker.
    > No, they just bought it years ago, when everyone could afford to own his
    > own home.
So it's an old price not reflecting the inflation.
More correct is to use today's market price whatever it could be.
You said : "My parents' home cost about 1.5 times my father's salary"
Correct could be to say "The home did cost x.x times the salary
And b.t.w you didn't mention whether the salary was a week,monthly or a year
?

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:59:10 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> Icono Clast writes:
    >>> Must be a terrible place to live or he was paid twice as much as the
    >>> average worker.
    >> No, they just bought it years ago, when everyone could afford to own his
    >> own home.
    >So it's an old price not reflecting the inflation.
    >More correct is to use today's market price whatever it could be.
    >You said : "My parents' home cost about 1.5 times my father's salary"
    >Correct could be to say "The home did cost x.x times the salary
    >And b.t.w you didn't mention whether the salary was a week,monthly or a year
    >?

It's fairly normal to discuss house prices in terms of years of
salary.
--
Martin

"nitram" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:59:10 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    >>news:[email protected]. ..
    >>> Icono Clast writes:
    >>>> Must be a terrible place to live or he was paid twice as much as the
    >>>> average worker.
    >>> No, they just bought it years ago, when everyone could afford to own his
    >>> own home.
    >>So it's an old price not reflecting the inflation.
    >>More correct is to use today's market price whatever it could be.
    >>You said : "My parents' home cost about 1.5 times my father's salary"
    >>Correct could be to say "The home did cost x.x times the salary
    >>And b.t.w you didn't mention whether the salary was a week,monthly or a
    >>year
    >>?
    > It's fairly normal to discuss house prices in terms of years of
    > salary.
    > Martin
Normal, yes .
But who knows about family Mixmanic ?
Perhaps it's a tiny log cabin reflecting fathers work in the forest over a
month ?
Anything is possible.

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:48:26 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"nitram" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:59:10 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    >>>news:[email protected] ...
    >>>> Icono Clast writes:
    >>>>> Must be a terrible place to live or he was paid twice as much as the
    >>>>> average worker.
    >>>> No, they just bought it years ago, when everyone could afford to own his
    >>>> own home.
    >>>So it's an old price not reflecting the inflation.
    >>>More correct is to use today's market price whatever it could be.
    >>>You said : "My parents' home cost about 1.5 times my father's salary"
    >>>Correct could be to say "The home did cost x.x times the salary
    >>>And b.t.w you didn't mention whether the salary was a week,monthly or a
    >>>year
    >>>?
    >> It's fairly normal to discuss house prices in terms of years of
    >> salary.
    >> Martin
    >Normal, yes .
    >But who knows about family Mixmanic ?
    >Perhaps it's a tiny log cabin reflecting fathers work in the forest over a
    >month ?

or a miniature repro of Hearst Castle made out of 10 zillion match
sticks reflecting his output at the local match factory.

    >Anything is possible.

In the sixties two years average national salary was the norm for an
average family dwelling in UK. I think it's 5 or 6 at the moment hence
forecasts of calamity.

Dunno what the going rate for a cupboard under the stairs is, but
there is a recorded case of somebody buying what was a former hotel
broom cupboard as a one room apartment for a very silly price in
London in the 1980s housing boom

--
Martin