Vintage Things That Will NOT Disappear In Your Lifetime

BlueTrain · Jun 27, 2017

Some malls are thriving. It's hard to second guess beforehand. A year or two after the last store has closed everybody knows why, or imagines they do. It is true as someone else said, running a successful business is difficult. The difference between success and failure is sometimes slim. There has to be a dedication to the concept to keep at it. A company doesn't close up shop after the first bad year. There has to be hope that next year will be better. The company I work for went through a few bad years and we're still here and unfortunately, so am I (at age 70). Major events can affect businesses in unexpected ways and they're beyond the control of even the largest corporations or governments.

Essentially, running a business involves taking a risk, at least in theory. Sometimes it seems like the big players don't lose that much when things go bad. They get bailed out. It's the little guys who have the least to lose who lose the most.

LizzieMaine · Jun 27, 2017

Zombie_61 said:
I hope I don't live to see it, but I predict there will come a time when everything humans wear and/or use will be of the "use it once and dispose of it" variety.

It's entirely possible that this will happen within the lifetime of some of us here, but if it does, I suspect the next step beyond will be a return, finally, to truly durable goods like animal skins, flint knives, and stone clubs.

BlueTrain · Jun 27, 2017

If human nature is what it is now, disposable garments will be worn until they are rags, then thrown away, having been washed several times.

Animal skins in the form of leather and fur are in fact already used, as you know. But they tend to be expensive and fur has it's limitations.

Predicting the future is a risky business, not that it stops either the weather bureau or Popular Mechanics. The weather reports gives the chances; Popular Mechanics is always 99% certain. The one prediction about the future that give me the chuckles everything I think about it was the question of what we were going to do with all the leisure time we were going to have in the future. And the subject still comes up. I am 70, I am still working and out of the house for about 65 hours a week and my prospects of ever actually retiring are dim. It's like 1910, right in the middle of a golden era.

GHT · Jun 27, 2017

BlueTrain said:
Predicting the future is a risky business, not that it stops either the weather bureau or Popular Mechanics. The weather reports gives the chances; Popular Mechanics is always 99% certain. The one prediction about the future that give me the chuckles everything I think about it was the question of what we were going to do with all the leisure time we were going to have in the future. And the subject still comes up. I am 70, I am still working and out of the house for about 65 hours a week and my prospects of ever actually retiring are dim. It's like 1910, right in the middle of a golden era.

The only things that are predictable for the future are death & taxes. Like you, I too have been working 60 or more hours a week at the age of 71, but only because I wanted to, not because I needed to. Lately I've cut it back to twenty or so hours, it helps to be around the house occasionally. It brings matrimonial peace and quiet.

BlueTrain · Jun 27, 2017

While death is certain, I wouldn't call it predictable. Pretty much the same with taxes.

I had been joking for years that when my boss left, so would I. Well, people were taking me at his word. I had to make it clear that I was not necessarily going to retire at the same time. My boss actually retired a few weeks ago, although he's still acting as a consultant and not being replaced. My expected time to leave keeps getting pushed further and further ahead and I will probably be here after the end of the year. I might as well stay as long as possible because the longer I wait to retire, the less I have to look forward to. The company is about to change hands, too, and the next few months will be fun but not easy.

2jakes · Jun 27, 2017

EngProf · Jun 28, 2017

BlueTrain said:
Some malls are thriving. It's hard to second guess beforehand. A year or two after the last store has closed everybody knows why, or imagines they do. It is true as someone else said, running a successful business is difficult. The difference between success and failure is sometimes slim. There has to be a dedication to the concept to keep at it. A company doesn't close up shop after the first bad year. There has to be hope that next year will be better. The company I work for went through a few bad years and we're still here and unfortunately, so am I (at age 70). Major events can affect businesses in unexpected ways and they're beyond the control of even the largest corporations or governments.

Essentially, running a business involves taking a risk, at least in theory. Sometimes it seems like the big players don't lose that much when things go bad. They get bailed out. It's the little guys who have the least to lose who lose the most.

Around here (Nashville) the success or failure of malls apparently depends mostly on their location. Those in the more-affluent areas (three really big malls) have people waiting in long lines just to get off the Interstate to get to the malls. (I wouldn't sit in traffic lines that long if they were giving the stuff away...)
In the less affluent areas (two in particular) the malls went from stores to gang shooting-galleries. One was eventually bought by the city for government offices and the other was torn down.

Fading Fast · Jun 28, 2017

BlueTrain said:
... The one prediction about the future that give me the chuckles everything I think about it was the question of what we were going to do with all the leisure time we were going to have in the future. And the subject still comes up. I am 70, I am still working and out of the house for about 65 hours a week and my prospects of ever actually retiring are dim. It's like 1910, right in the middle of a golden era.

I laugh (sadly) about this all the time. Before the internet/cellphones/email/text - the digital revolution - I worked 60 or so hours a week made up of five, eleven+ -hour days. Almost no nights or weekends and almost never a phone call related to work on nights or weekends (except when I was covering those hours as planned).

I didn't know that I was living in heaven. I could leave the office on Friday night and not (other than reading work related material that I chose to do) be bothered by work at all until Monday morning (the same for weekday evenings - again, unless I was covering those times). Now it's basically 24/7 work with texts and emails coming in all the time and the expectation that you will respond. Hence, work never really ends. And the days have been stretched as well as, in my field, finance, the market hours, etc. have all been extended owing to "electronic" trading - so the time spent at the office has increased as well.

Maybe robots (the "new" thing all prognosticators say will sharply reduce work) will really change things, but so far, all this "labor-saving" digital technology has made my (and from what I read, most people's) work days and total work hours longer.

BlueTrain · Jun 28, 2017

T'aint't funny, McGee.

2jakes · Jun 28, 2017

Fading Fast said:
I laugh (sadly) about this all the time. Before the internet/cellphones/email/text - the digital revolution - I worked 60 or so hours a week made up of five, ten-hour days. Almost no nights or weekends and almost never a phone call related to work on nights or weekends (except when I was covering those hours as planned).

I didn't know that I was living in heaven. I could leave the office on Friday night and not (other than reading work related material that I chose to do) be bothered by work at all until Monday morning (the same for weekday evenings - again, unless I was covering those times). Now it's basically 24/7 work with texts and emails coming in all the time and the expectation that you will respond. Hence, work never really ends. And the days have been stretched as well as, in my field, finance, the market hours, etc. have all been extended owing to "electronic" trading - so the time spent at the office has increased as well.

Maybe robots (the "new" thing all prognosticators say will sharply reduce work) will really change things, but so far, all this "labor-saving" digital technology has made my (and from what I read, most people's) work days and total work hours longer.

I've been in the news media long before
internet/cellphones/email/text.

But because of the telephone/answering-machine, my boss knows she can have
me 24/7.

The worse thing is Friday at the end of
the day and she tells me somebody called in sick and she needs me.
We have hot arguments about why she
waits until the last minute.
But she knows how to get to me.
I love my job & she knows that she can
depend in me.

tonyb · Jun 28, 2017

2jakes said:
The worse thing is Friday at the end of
the day and she tells me somebody called in sick and she needs me.
We have hot arguments about why she
waits until the last minute.
But she knows how to get to me.
I love my job & she knows that she can
depend in me.

What's that line? Something like, "if you really gotta get something done, ask the busiest person you know."

2jakes · Jun 28, 2017

tonyb said:
What's that line? Something like, "if you really gotta get something done, ask the busiest person you know."

On the other hand...
My boss let's me get away with many things that she won't allow from others.
When she's hungry, she'll have me order
her something to eat and anything
I want. I always keep the change and
whatever she has left on her plate...
I'll eat it later.

I can be had so easy....
I'd make a cheap prostitute!

Fading Fast · Jun 28, 2017

2jakes said:
Oth:
My boss let's me get away with many things that she won't allow from others.
When she's hungry, she'll have me get
her something to eat and also anything
I want.

I'd make a cheap prostitute!

The best work relationships are those that don't work on paper, "corporate" would hate and that are absolutely perfect for those involved.

2jakes · Jun 28, 2017

Fading Fast said:
The best work relationships are those that don't work on paper, "corporate" would hate and that are absolutely perfect for those involved.

There are times however when my female companions (reporters)
get a little bit of a big head with how gorgeous they are.
But I usually bring them down to reality big time.
I can make you look like a champ or otherwise with my
camera!

LizzieMaine · Jun 28, 2017

Fading Fast said:
The best work relationships are those that don't work on paper, "corporate" would hate and that are absolutely perfect for those involved.

Many, many workplaces have been destroyed by "corporate" attitudes, especially those far too small to ever actually *be* "corporate." Corporate can ess drek und shtarbn.

sheeplady · Jun 29, 2017

Fading Fast said:
I laugh (sadly) about this all the time. Before the internet/cellphones/email/text - the digital revolution - I worked 60 or so hours a week made up of five, eleven+ -hour days. Almost no nights or weekends and almost never a phone call related to work on nights or weekends (except when I was covering those hours as planned).

I didn't know that I was living in heaven. I could leave the office on Friday night and not (other than reading work related material that I chose to do) be bothered by work at all until Monday morning (the same for weekday evenings - again, unless I was covering those times). Now it's basically 24/7 work with texts and emails coming in all the time and the expectation that you will respond. Hence, work never really ends. And the days have been stretched as well as, in my field, finance, the market hours, etc. have all been extended owing to "electronic" trading - so the time spent at the office has increased as well.

Maybe robots (the "new" thing all prognosticators say will sharply reduce work) will really change things, but so far, all this "labor-saving" digital technology has made my (and from what I read, most people's) work days and total work hours longer.

The term in the literature for this is the "productivity paradox."

Which has had researchers scratching their heads as to why since computers were introduced into many corporations in the 1960s and 1970s, companies and workers haven't been more productive, in fact, we are now less.

And the whole line of research makes me laugh because it's an example of how a significant portion of the academy has no idea of life beyond simulations on a screen.

And, if any of these (mostly male) researchers went home and watched their (mostly female) spouses do housework, they'd understand why: labor saving devices don't save us labor, they simply move the bar. We're expected to keep pur houses a lot cleaner since the vacuum and wash our clothes more frequently since the automatic washer and dryer. The bar moves.

Inkstainedwretch · Jun 29, 2017

As an old G.I., I'm always amused when some new piece of soldier's gear is lauded for its light weight, "reducing the soldier's burden." All that happens is that he (or she these days) is simply given more to carry. When we went from the old M-14 rifle to the then-futuristic M-16, which was half its weight, we were told that this would significantly reduce our combat load. We were then promptly made to carry three times as much ammo for it, making up the weight difference. We've all seen the huge packs carried by our troops in Afghanistan and the ME. Plus they now carry night-vision and communications equipment that were undreamed of during my service. The fact is, from "Marius's Mules" to a Marine in Mosul, soldiers will always be burdened with as much as they can carry, which will run from 60-80 lbs, sometimes more, almost never less. Medieval knights weren't more heavily burdened than modern soldiers, and at least they had horses to take part of the weight.

Harp · Jun 29, 2017

Inkstainedwretch said:
As an old G.I., I'm always amused when some new piece of soldier's gear is lauded for its light weight,. the then-futuristic M-16, which was half its weight, we were told that this would significantly reduce our combat load. We were then promptly made to carry three times as much ammo for it, making up the weight difference...which will run from 60-80 lbs, sometimes more, almost never less..

My ammo load was usually 210 5.56m; 16 .45; and a 7.62 belt for the M60; demolitions, grenades, knife etc, but two canteens always.

BlueTrain · Jun 29, 2017

A new M-4 carbine (used ones, too, I guess) weigh more than the original M16s because of all the accessories that are now considered essential, although they are very useful, especially optics. I got out of the army in 1968 having never seen an M16, which had been around for ten years by then. Finally got to have one when I was in the National Guard.

The soldier's load has been a serious problem since before WWI. But I don't think anyone has ever seriously tried to reduce it. But it may be that we're overstating the problem by finding the most overloaded soldier to talk about. Once in the field, intelligent troops will find a way to reduce their load and to increase their mobility. The enemy never overloads themselves.

Think rifles will ever be replaced by ray guns?

2jakes · Jun 29, 2017

My 501’s.

Vintage Things That Will NOT Disappear In Your Lifetime

Call Me a Cab

Call Me a Cab

I'll Lock Up

Call Me a Cab

I'll Lock Up

Practically Family

Call Me a Cab

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

One Too Many

I'll Lock Up

Call Me a Cab

I'll Lock Up

Similar threads

Log in

Forum statistics