View Full Version : Simple Living Response To Economy / Jobs ??????
There seems to be good and bad things about the recession.
Good:
People started looking at their values and realizing that money is not the answer. Downsizing and rethinking purchases. Going back to basics. Making due with less. Being more simple.
Bad:
Some people are not even able to afford food, rent, etc. because they have lost their job and cannot find any jobs.
So....is there an opportunity here for the Simple Living Community to provide a unique answer to the situation? How can we keep the public focused on buying less, using less, needing less WHILE ALSO helping everyone to have a job?
Buying less means less jobs for people. How can we address this? Is it actually true?
Should there be less hours per person and therefore more hours to go around? A 30 hour work week? Can people get by on 30 hours pay?
What other ideas are there?
How can we create jobs without having to create "fake demand" for useless products?
There does seem to be pent up demand for things that people just cannot afford. Do they actually need them? If we could just get people back to work, could they skip buying needless things and still keep the economy healthy?
Please do not make this a standard democrat or republican response (which we both know and have heard over and over) but tell me how your SIMPLE LIVING philosphies are influencing your stances? Have you ever thought about it?
Good topic -
Don't leave your diesel pickup running when you are in the grocery store for 1 hour. This may be a regional issue but I just hate it.
Try and plan your trips so that you don't make a daily trek - save energy, cut pollution, develop planning skills.
When looking for a house don't always consider "new only" there are plenty of good homes at reasonable prices in good neighborhoods. And don't forget the people that live there are what determines if a neighborhood is "good or not". Stop the developers from their continuous push for build, build, build. Revitalize the neighborhood.
Value work and enjoy life - the idea of "keeping up with the Joneses" is so 1950,60, 70....11 - if you are working a job that you enjoy and living within your means then you might have time to enjoy life instead of constantly worrying about how to get and spend more. Frugal is in now days!
I actually moved my clothes line into the garden so everyone could see us hanging out our clothes (not underwear :0!) instead of using the dryer. I view it as a statement of my being frugal although I have already heard a few comments through the grapevine.
I've been thinking about approaching my neighbor about splitting the cost of trash pickup (we live country and have private rural garbage pickup). Why not - it would save us each $15 per month? We recycle and that take care of most of our waste.
Turn off the TV - it is all about marketing and will make you want to buy "stuff".
If you are thinking of hiring someone for a job - check around the neighborhood. You never know what skills are available and probably at a cheaper cost and maybe even get to know someone a little better.
Not sure of the answer on jobs but I do think every little thing actually helps and in todays world that is important. That is a tough one.
Peace
ApatheticNoMore
8-10-11, 8:08pm
A 40 hour workweek. WE NEED A 40 HOUR WORK WEEK!!! I have a proposal: anytime after 40 hours should be paid time or preferably time and half, I think we should go for time and half in order to discourage it.
Oh you think that's a joke, do you? You think that was achieved maybe 70 years ago?
No ....... overtime law has been totally subverted for all professional jobs by the "salaried" designation (and it's worse than that, it now seems it is even being subverted for non-salaried contract labor, though I wonder about the legality ...). To the point that I can say without hesitation companies are hiring for a single position for a workload that should be two full time positions. Meanwhile the unemployment rate is through the roof.
By the way, I'd like a 30 hour workweek for all, but that might be considered extreme. The first step toward that should be actually enforcing a 40 hour workweek without exceptions/exemptions.
There are other possible ways to making hiring new employees an alternative to just working the existing ones more and more hours. Things like decoupling healthcare from employment would help. Still it's hard to make even that sound attractive when you are currently able to get all additional hours at a cost of zero.
Maxamillion
8-10-11, 8:19pm
I'm not really sure what the solution is for the job market. It's a catch-22 situation. I think the urban homestead movement, while not a total solution, can help some. Maybe sort of an old-fashioned setup, one person working outside the home and the other staying home to tend the garden, take care of the chickens, can, cook, etc. (Some cities WILL let you have chickens! :D) Maybe a return to multiple generations of family living in the same house (though I would realllllly hope it doesn't come down to that for me). I'm not really sure there's much we as individuals can do, except to become as self-sufficient as possible.
Gardenarian
8-10-11, 9:57pm
I think a big campaign to Buy American (and maybe Look for the Union Label, too) would be a good things. Most of the useless crap people buy comes from China. If people must have crap, they could at least be supporting the community!
My husband and I both work part-time (have done so for 12 years) and get by very well. So yes, it is possible.
There is a book called "The Green Collar Economy," I believe, in which the author suggests that collectively we could ameliorate two giant problems at once: unemployment and fossil fuel dependency. To do this, the poor, the working poor, and those who have tumbled out of the middle class because of the recession could get involved in various green energy and energy-efficiency lines of work. Fitting a solar panel onto nearly every roof, or wrapping every hot water heater (or replacing it), doing home energy use audits, and delivering energy-efficient appliances and materials, etc, are all things that must be done by hand and cannot be outsourced overseas. There is so much potential work if we really got on board with retrofitting our houses and buildings to reduce energy consumption. The types of work that could be generated by this kind of full-board press would not only be varied initially (i.e. some types of work demanding more skills or training than others), but would also allow advancement opportunities within the field themselves. It would be a way to bring back manufacturing and skilled trades work to this country, which we desperately need. That's about all I can think of!
There is a book called "The Green Collar Economy," I believe, in which the author suggests that collectively we could ameliorate two giant problems at once: unemployment and fossil fuel dependency. To do this, the poor, the working poor, and those who have tumbled out of the middle class because of the recession could get involved in various green energy and energy-efficiency lines of work. Fitting a solar panel onto nearly every roof, or wrapping every hot water heater (or replacing it), doing home energy use audits, and delivering energy-efficient appliances and materials, etc, are all things that must be done by hand and cannot be outsourced overseas. There is so much potential work if we really got on board with retrofitting our houses and buildings to reduce energy consumption. The types of work that could be generated by this kind of full-board press would not only be varied initially (i.e. some types of work demanding more skills or training than others), but would also allow advancement opportunities within the field themselves. It would be a way to bring back manufacturing and skilled trades work to this country, which we desperately need. That's about all I can think of!
+1
Along those same lines, I have wondered what a sustainable world wide life would look like. If everything was divided equally(and I realize that will never happen), what would each of us have? How much living space? Could we eat some meat? What would we use for transportation? etc
well, I'm gonna throw it out there and hope I am not crucified! I will forward this with: I work outside the home. That said, I wonder if more women stayed home to keep the home, raise the children, build community networks, etc. whether there would be more jobs. This would leave more jobs for the men (supposedly the head of the home) It would take living on one paycheck. I realize that now it is really hard to live on one income, especially if we have children. I worked after my kids got into school, so I have been on both side of the fence, I guess.
I realize that there are many homes without 2 parents and that there is little choice in that case, but maybe this would make for a closer knit family unit. I so remember working and coming home to make dinner, do laundry, help kids with homework, etc. I would have been a lot easier to have not worked.
I also know that many women are not domestic divas and not really very maternal, but are fabulous out in the work place. My question here is why women have children if they plan to go back to work. I am now ducking and running.............fast
Sherry
well, I'm gonna throw it out there and hope I am not crucified! I will forward this with: I work outside the home. That said, I wonder if more women stayed home to keep the home, raise the children, build community networks, etc. whether there would be more jobs. This would leave more jobs for the men (supposedly the head of the home) It would take living on one paycheck. I realize that now it is really hard to live on one income, especially if we have children. I worked after my kids got into school, so I have been on both side of the fence, I guess.
I realize that there are many homes without 2 parents and that there is little choice in that case, but maybe this would make for a closer knit family unit. I so remember working and coming home to make dinner, do laundry, help kids with homework, etc. I would have been a lot easier to have not worked.
I also know that many women are not domestic divas and not really very maternal, but are fabulous out in the work place. My question here is why women have children if they plan to go back to work. I am now ducking and running.............fast
Sherry
While I don't personally feel that a man is automaticaly the head of a household - I would consider both spouses as equal - I think the idea of one parent staying home as a great way to open up more jobs for others. However, I don't personally feel it should automaticaly be the female of the household who stays at home. I think that is a personal decision between the spouses as to what works best for each family member. In the same vein, I also think that people who are older and in a financial position to retire comfortably and open up a new job for a younger person should consider doing it. Many people stay in jobs solely for "social" benefits and to feel useful when those needs can be met by volunteer opportunites.
And as for the "why do women have children if they plan to go back to work" question. I suppose they do it for the same reason that men have children when they plan to work - love, desire for a family, etc...
She-rah (I really like that name) I actually agree with you. I am from the south and that is just the natural way we phrase things. I believe that the most nurturing person should care for children if possible.
I also agree that retired/older people that are financially able should make way for the younger generation. There are many places that need volunteers.
well, I'm gonna throw it out there and hope I am not crucified! I will forward this with: I work outside the home. That said, I wonder if more women stayed home to keep the home, raise the children, build community networks, etc. whether there would be more jobs. This would leave more jobs for the men (supposedly the head of the home) It would take living on one paycheck. I realize that now it is really hard to live on one income, especially if we have children. I worked after my kids got into school, so I have been on both side of the fence, I guess.
I realize that there are many homes without 2 parents and that there is little choice in that case, but maybe this would make for a closer knit family unit. I so remember working and coming home to make dinner, do laundry, help kids with homework, etc. I would have been a lot easier to have not worked.
I also know that many women are not domestic divas and not really very maternal, but are fabulous out in the work place. My question here is why women have children if they plan to go back to work. I am now ducking and running.............fast
Sherry
I think this is a great idea in theory. My good friend just quit her job to stay at home with her one year old. But her sister in law just went back to work after 10 years. So I guess it was a zero-sum game.
But. I like working. I'm plenty domestic. I cook, quilt, am trying my hand at gardening. And we could swing it on one paycheck, though it would be tight. I could pick my son up after kindergarten instead of having him in after school care. I could take him swimming at the Y, take him to the park, etc.
But I'd rather be working. I'd rather work 30 hours/week, true (than full time), but that is not currently an option. And truly, we are having such a hard time filling our 10 positions, that I don't feel like I'd be doing ANYBODY any favors by quitting. Nobody would be getting my job to support a family. My position would be empty for 9 months while they searched. (It's typical.)
Instead, I figure probably 40% of my paycheck is going to taxes when you add up federal, fica, CA state taxes...so it's LIKE someone else is getting paid, right??
I know several college students and recent college grads who can only find unpaid internships. I can't imagine working full time for no money, but there are loads of people doing it! Why should these companies hire real paid employees when they can get interns to do the work for nothing? That shouldn't be legal.
Another trend is for companies to get temps to fill the positions. The pay is lower and there are no benefits. Some people work for years at the same company as a temp.
Sometimes I think there should be a salary cap to spread the wealth a bit. If the president of the company made 10x more money than the janitor, rather than 100x more, the company could hire more workers and pay everyone more.
You do realize that the same options were offered many decades ago with the emphasis on women making all the effort and saccrifice. It was horrible then and will be horrible now.
Simply asking older people to stop working is not recognizing that many older adults have an expertise that is irreplaceable with new grads. It takes time to develop this expertise. As they get older, must they simply donate all their income? Is a labourer not worthy of his/her hire?
Be realistic and accept the fact that there are no simple solutions. Some people want to be free to do less, others thrive in a workahoiic worled regardless of age and would simply lie down and die with little to do.
Make no mistake, volunteering costs money. I find what I can afford and do that but refuse to consider other volunteer efforts as the cost is ridiculous.
rodeosweetheart
8-14-11, 12:48pm
know several college students and recent college grads who can only find unpaid internships. I can't imagine working full time for no money, but there are loads of people doing it! Why should these companies hire real paid employees when they can get interns to do the work for nothing? That shouldn't be legal.
You do realize that the same options were offered many decades ago with the emphasis on women making all the effort and saccrifice. It was horrible then and will be horrible now.
Simply asking older people to stop working is not recognizing that many older adults have an expertise that is irreplaceable with new grads. It takes time to develop this expertise. As they get older, must they simply donate all their income? Is a labourer not worthy of his/her hire?
+1, +1
As a woman who has been exploited and badly paid for many years, and then left impoverished through a divorce, I gotta say, you gotta be kidding if you think the women staying home with the children is an answer to anything. Perhaps a blanket recommendation that the men stay home with the children, or that we get reparations? Social security for stay at home parents?
And then, to be told, as we try to figure out how to take care of aging parents, boomerang children,and our own retirement funds (which are traditionally used by women to pay for houses and college education for children, according to the statistics) that we are to "give back" for free, having been "taken care of" all these year--can you say indentured servitude, anyone?
know several college students and recent college grads who can only find unpaid internships. I can't imagine working full time for no money, but there are loads of people doing it! Why should these companies hire real paid employees when they can get interns to do the work for nothing? That shouldn't be legal.
You do realize that the same options were offered many decades ago with the emphasis on women making all the effort and saccrifice. It was horrible then and will be horrible now.
Simply asking older people to stop working is not recognizing that many older adults have an expertise that is irreplaceable with new grads. It takes time to develop this expertise. As they get older, must they simply donate all their income? Is a labourer not worthy of his/her hire?
+1, +1
As a woman who has been exploited and badly paid for many years, and then left impoverished through a divorce, I gotta say, you gotta be kidding if you think the women staying home with the children is an answer to anything. Perhaps a blanket recommendation that the men stay home with the children, or that we get reparations? Social security for stay at home parents?
And then, to be told, as we try to figure out how to take care of aging parents, boomerang children,and our own retirement funds (which are traditionally used by women to pay for houses and college education for children, according to the statistics) that we are to "give back" for free, having been "taken care of" all these year--can you say indentured servitude, anyone?
Interesting topic - spouse and I were talking about a lot of this today already. What both my spouse and I think would be nice - if we could both work 30 hours per week. Instead of us both working 40-50 hours per week (me on the low end, him on the high end). Then, nobody is giving up a career, or seniority, or 401k, or social security, or anything really to stay at home (if they don't want to). The problem comes in, of course, in benefits. While my company considers 30 hrs/week to be enough to get benefits (and his does also), they won't let us work 30 hrs/week in our jobs.
Boomerang children and again parents...also something we discussed. What do we "owe" our parents? I have a mother that provides economic outpatient care to two adult children, then complains about it and what they spend the money on. I have a FIL who complains about being broke, but retired 3 years ago and just bought himself a fancy new smart phone. All of his friends (some retired, some still working, he's 68) tell him to get a job. He's a home-town lawyer, and even his lawyer friends have offered to send some business his way - he could work very part time for a decent amount of money. But he absolutely doesn't want to work. What do we owe him? (seeing how he cheated on my MIL and left her after 43 years of marriage, I'm feeling - not much).
I like the idea of volunteering, but maybe after I retire. Which will probably happen in my 70's. I hope I can still work then. I have worked with many people in their late 50's, 60's (you know...boomers) who aren't ready to quit working. We've hired a number of them lately and their expertise is much-needed.
She-rah (I really like that name) I actually agree with you. I am from the south and that is just the natural way we phrase things. I believe that the most nurturing person should care for children if possible.
I also agree that retired/older people that are financially able should make way for the younger generation. There are many places that need volunteers.
A few years ago (maybe 10) there was a show on PBS as well as a book called "Affluenza" which had several women saying they really desperately wanted to stay at home with their kids but HAD to work because they couldn't afford to be a SAHM. Then they would show the kinds of homes they lived in (huge McMansions), the cars they drove (very expensive luxury vehicles), and just the general upscale lifestyle they lead. These were things that they felt they absolutely needed in life and didn't seem to see a connection between their lifestyle and the fact that they couldn't afford to stay home with the kids. It was easier to whine and bemoan their fate rather than do something to change it - to even see that it could be changed. I sat their silently ranting at the TV "sell the freakin' McMansion and cars , drop the country club life and trendy shopping sprees, and get a small house, a couple of used Ford Pintos, and eat some rice and beans at home and be with your kids!" Which of course was the purpose of the show and book - a show that I wish more people would see and understand.
From Wikipedia:
affluenza, n. a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more.[1]
affluenza, n. 1. The bloated, sluggish and unfulfilled feeling that results from efforts to keep up with the Joneses. 2. An epidemic of stress, overwork, waste and indebtedness caused by the pursuit of the American Dream. 3. An unsustainable addiction to economic growth.[2
I sat their silently ranting at the TV "sell the freakin' McMansion and cars , drop the country club life and trendy shopping sprees, and get a small house, a couple of used Ford Pintos, and eat some rice and beans at home and be with your kids!"
I thought it was a great book & show and pretty much had the same reaction. For what its worth we did a little reorganizing when our kids were young and DW was able to be a SAHM for many years. It might not be for everyone, but there is no doubt in my mind that our kids are better off for that. Far better off than if we would have had a newer car to run them to day care in.
poetry_writer
8-19-11, 10:45am
I know several college students and recent college grads who can only find unpaid internships. I can't imagine working full time for no money, but there are loads of people doing it! Why should these companies hire real paid employees when they can get interns to do the work for nothing? That shouldn't be legal.
Another trend is for companies to get temps to fill the positions. The pay is lower and there are no benefits. Some people work for years at the same company as a temp.
Sometimes I think there should be a salary cap to spread the wealth a bit. If the president of the company made 10x more money than the janitor, rather than 100x more, the company could hire more workers and pay everyone more.
Many companies are using temps and I think it is little more than a scam
. From my own experience with temp agencies, and also my daughters experience with them, most of the jobs are terrible and often with a boss who is impossible to work with. Her last job as a temp, the boss yelled at her from day 1 on the job and demanded impossible performance. It was degrading. I will not work through these agencies anymore.
A middle-aged acquaintance of my SO finally landed a job after a long period of unemployment. He's starting out as a bag boy at Safeway, and will be able to work his way up. He's very happy, as it's a union store (I guess some of them aren't now). Good grief.
Remember when living-wage jobs were the rule, rather than the exception?
Maybe the gubmint (as someone here calls it) could advertise a giant contest for innovative ideas to provide jobs and rescue the economy. It could be sponsored by corporations if they agreed to put back some of the profits generated by winning solutions. It would be good PR for them to "save our economy." Humans could do so much good if they would just agree on moving forward with a plan that benefits all.
Remember when living-wage jobs were the rule, rather than the exception?
I think living-wage should be a goal for everyone. Minimum wage jobs and below (mostly farm and ranch) are one of our greatest problems in Texas. That means family poverty for most and they immediately qualify for government support usually. That is my biggest beef (no pun intended since a lot of it is on ranches) with small business. A wealthy businessman paying minimum wages and touting his contribution to society.
Peace
poetry_writer
8-19-11, 2:00pm
I think living-wage should be a goal for everyone. Minimum wage jobs and below (mostly farm and ranch) are one of our greatest problems in Texas. That means family poverty for most and they immediately qualify for government support usually. That is my biggest beef (no pun intended since a lot of it is on ranches) with small business. A wealthy businessman paying minimum wages and touting his contribution to society.
Peace
You make it sound like all of Texas is run by JR Ewings with big ranches who pay people minimum wage to shovel cow ****. The problem is that all of our jobs have gone overseas. I dont think they will come back. I really dont have an answer other than we must find new ways to adapt to making little (if any) money. This is true not only in Texas, but across the nation. You really hate Texas. Dont you live here? Why dont you move? Not a sarcastic question, just asking. I would move if I could...this hideous heat, the lack of jobs...all of it. But my children are here. My family is here. Its home you know. I would have to have job to move to, and they are sadly lacking in other states too.
ButterflyBreath
8-20-11, 11:48pm
Another thing that is up and coming is business co-ops. In short, it’s owned and controlled by the people who work there. Everyone gets a vote and all are equal.
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/cir7/cir7rpt.htm#Cooperative%20Business
About temp workers, I was one this past year for 6 months and it got me through a hard time when I didn’t feel ready to commit to another permanent job. I was debating whether to go back into nursing, which for me has been a stressful career, or move on to something else, probably ending up being a minimum wage job. Turns out that I considered nursing once more and have found a great job with a great home health client with great hours and great pay. I don’t know if I would have gone back to it if I didn’t get that time to mellow as a temp worker. I felt that I was being deceitful if I had been accepted to a permanent job knowing that I was just most likely going to leave. I will say though, that the temp job was pretty much horrible. I got treated badly and it felt SOOOOO good to quit. Believe it or not I was working at Blue Cross Blue Shield, which I had previously thought was a good company to work for.
Zigzagman
8-21-11, 12:04am
You make it sound like all of Texas is run by JR Ewings with big ranches who pay people minimum wage to shovel cow ****. The problem is that all of our jobs have gone overseas. I dont think they will come back. I really dont have an answer other than we must find new ways to adapt to making little (if any) money. This is true not only in Texas, but across the nation. You really hate Texas. Dont you live here? Why dont you move? Not a sarcastic question, just asking. I would move if I could...this hideous heat, the lack of jobs...all of it. But my children are here. My family is here. Its home you know. I would have to have job to move to, and they are sadly lacking in other states too.
I don't hate Texas at all. I was living here long before the loonies took over in the 90's. I remember fondly Ann Richards, Jim Hightower, John Sharp, Barbara Jordon, and the list goes on and on. I am not from Texas but got transferred here from Atlanta in '74 after returning from Vietnam. Went to U of H, lived in Montrose when it was still cool, and now live in a liberal oasis near Austin. I have no plans on moving but will never understand or agree with the redneck ****kickers. They do not represent most of the Texans I know.
Peace
<snip>I will say though, that the temp job was pretty much horrible. I got treated badly and it felt SOOOOO good to quit. Believe it or not I was working at Blue Cross Blue Shield, which I had previously thought was a good company to work for.<snip>
Blue Cross Blue Shield is a group of different companies all selling various versions of the same insurance. As such, the BCBS in each area is a separate entity. As an employee, you need to consider them on an individual basis. I used to work for a Blue Shield in northern California, and it was good to work for - but by the time I left, they were cutting back on retiree benefits, scaling back the workforce, etc., due to the economy in California.
A middle-aged acquaintance of my SO finally landed a job after a long period of unemployment. He's starting out as a bag boy at Safeway, and will be able to work his way up. He's very happy, as it's a union store (I guess some of them aren't now). Good grief.
Remember when living-wage jobs were the rule, rather than the exception?
No, actually, I don't.
I'm 41, and I'm not sure my parents ever really had a "living-wage" job. We were always poor. But what was considered a normal way of life then vs. now is different.
Stuff then:
one TV, no cable, no cell phones, listened to the radio, no VCR's/DVD players
Stuff now:
TV's, cable, smart phones, computers, Ipods
Health care then:
No health insurance, paid out of pocket, went to the dentist every couple of years, and if you got sick - I mean, really sick, well, you died. Maybe not for a couple of years, and often your church would have spaghetti dinners to raise money for your care. When I had surgery at age 12, my parents paid that bill at $100 a month for years to pay it off.
Health care now:
Seems like much of the same, but now we "deserve" health insurance. Which, I am not arguing (I am for national health care) - but I never had it as a kid, so I just don't see that it's too very different, except for costs are crazy because now we have a middle man.
I'm not saying that it's not a big mess in this country. But when I was a kid, there were SOME jobs that offered a pension and health care (grocery stores, government jobs, some larger employers), but by all means it wasn't all of them. I don't see it being too different today.
I used to work at a grocery store, and now they are talking about striking again over health benefits. I did not cross the picket line during the last strike. But I guess the cost of health benefits is being proposed to go from $7/week to $9/week for singles, and $15/week to $23/week for families. Which is still WAY below what *most* people pay right now in California.
Maybe the gubmint (as someone here calls it)....
Lately I prefer The Goobermnt which I lifted form someone here, liking it better.
I think in addition to the vital financial and labor statistics, we should have a natioanal happiness index (NHI) that gets updated and published along with the others.
It might take the focus away from the dollar and perennial economic growth that seems impossible to happen forever, and on somethiing that is more important. Imagine a government program directed at improving the NHI !
As we used to say in my working days, if you don't measure it, it won't improve.
As unlikely as this might sound, I was listening to the radio recenly when they actually said this was being considered in Great Britain. "The UK government is poised to start measuring people's psychological and environmental wellbeing, bidding to be among the first countries to officially monitor happiness."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/nov/14/happiness-index-britain-national-mood
I think the idea behind reducing the hours in the standard work week is that everyone works "part-time" (or what is currently considered as such), therefore creating more job opportunities and somehow reducing costs/overheads (I do not claim to be an economist!) and ultimately reducing the cost of living. Think of all the glorious free time we'd have to pursue our other interests!
One thing that baffles me is how some companies are so intent on saving money, that they remove local services/jobs and export them elsewhere, no doubt to the detriment of the local economy. I'm inclined to think that this has significantly contributed to the current poor state of our economy and lack of employment. For example, I work in a college where there is a push from upper management to start buying all our supplies from large companies in England, rather than from small businesses right here in Scotland (where the prices actually work out cheaper and the service is better!). Why not just support the local economy by feeding into it and taking from it?
On a recent visit to Germany, I was impressed to see that so many products in shops and in my friend's house were German-made. It was very rare to see "Made in China" stamped on things, unlike here! They're smart cookies, those Germans :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.