|
Rant
Oct 25, 2007 7:52:56 GMT
Post by Emily on Oct 25, 2007 7:52:56 GMT
Funny Anne should mention not knowing how dollars translate into pounds- neither it seems do my clients.
I finish a piece of work early for a guy, he takes 2 weeks to pay me, and what do I get? Not £50 no no no... £24.10! Every time I told him the price, sent him an invoice et c I wrote £50, sometimes I even added 'GBP' or 'pounds sterling' to clarify!
I am so getting paid in advance from now on.
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 25, 2007 7:57:13 GMT
Post by stokerino on Oct 25, 2007 7:57:13 GMT
On the presumption this guy was American, clearly you should include a conversion on the invoice from now on, e.g. 50.00 GBP (102.39 USD). You may lose a couple of pence either way because of the exchange rate, but eh.
Since your invoice was so clear though, can't you just demand the rest of the money?
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 25, 2007 8:30:00 GMT
Post by Ally on Oct 25, 2007 8:30:00 GMT
OK, that man's a dick - even if it hadn't quite hit him that you lived somewhere with a different currency, you'd think he'd be able to read the difference between "pounds sterling" and "dollars".
Tim's right, he's got half your money - you should definitely ask. If he refuses to pay the rest then there's not really much you can do, but he should at least know that he can't just underpay you without getting picked up on it.
And if he ever wants a commission again, overcharge him. A lot. ;D
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 25, 2007 16:27:12 GMT
Post by Emily on Oct 25, 2007 16:27:12 GMT
Oh yes, don't worry, I've sent him a tersely written email with all the commission forms I've sent him attached and highlighted all the places where I've referred to 'Fifty BRITISH POUNDS'.
My opinion is, if its an honest mistake and he's just dumb, I'll split the difference with him, but if he's wilfully trying to stiff me I'm gonna launch a hate campaign (email his boss and shame him et c, I have his work email, you guys can help.)
Anne, how do you feel about visiting Miami witha big stick for me?
and yes, from now on, I'll include an exchange rate price, shame on me for assuming that people aren't stupid enough not to work it out on their own.
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 26, 2007 15:48:44 GMT
Post by Animae on Oct 26, 2007 15:48:44 GMT
I'm always up for a vacation.
Yeah the dollar sucks these days. Its 2 dollars to the pound or something pretty close to that.
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 26, 2007 19:22:47 GMT
Post by stokerino on Oct 26, 2007 19:22:47 GMT
$2.05. Even the Canadian dollar is worth more than the US one these days.
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 28, 2007 11:39:42 GMT
Post by Ally on Oct 28, 2007 11:39:42 GMT
Yet another thing the US can thank Bush for...
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 28, 2007 14:57:01 GMT
Post by stokerino on Oct 28, 2007 14:57:01 GMT
Yes, because a strong currency is awesome in every way and a weak currency has no benefits at all. And he is, of course, personally responsible for every little economic shift that happens on Wall Street.
Pfft...
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 28, 2007 21:03:16 GMT
Post by Ally on Oct 28, 2007 21:03:16 GMT
OK, I KNEW you were gonna bitch me out on that, so I looked up some info on the US economy since Bush became President, and here are a few of the things I found:
"As of May, 2005, there have been 893,000 jobs created over the first 52 months of the Bush presidency - a gain that is due solely to the 917,000 jobs created in the government sector that offset the 24,000 jobs lost in the private sector. Since the Great Depression, no other president who served at least 52 months has overseen a net loss in private sector jobs through this point. In addition to lack of job growth, real weekly and hourly wages have declined since the start of the recession. At a time when middle-class Americans are experiencing stagnant wages and vanishing benefits, CEO pay continues to rise. Source: Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Weekly, Jenna Churchman, June 6, 2005"
"In the 2005 State of the Union address, Bush said that more Americans are going back to work and that the economy is growing and healthy. The numbers don't necessarily support this assumption. Job growth over the last 18 months has fallen short of administration predictions by 1,703,000—more than one-third fewer jobs than the president's Council of Economic Advisers said would be created. Present employment levels show only 119,000 more individuals working than when Bush took office in 2001, which is effectively a decrease in employment rates, as the total civilian labor force grew by more than two million workers in 2004 alone, according to the Department of Labor. Additionally, the most recent data from the Census Bureau show that the average income for middle-class households has dropped by $1,525 since its peak in 2000. The labor force participation rate—the percentage of people either working or looking for work—fell in Jan. 2005 to a seasonally adjusted 65.8 percent, the lowest rate since 1988. Sources: USA Today, "Fewer Americans participating in labor force or seeking jobs," Barbara Hagenbaugh, Feb. 6, 2005; Department of Labor, "Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age," Feb. 2005; Center for American Progress, "American Progress Report: Talking Points," Feb. 2, 2005; Center for American Progress, "On the January Employment Situation," Scott Lily, Feb. 4, 2005; "State of the Union," President Bush, Feb. 2, 2005; Economic Policy Institute, Feb. 4, 2005."
"For the third time in three years, Congress will have to raise the federal debt ceiling, thus increasing the government's borrowing authority by as much as $800 billion. According to the Washington Post editorial board, "the Treasury Department has been doing the governmental equivalent of scrounging for spare change in the couch cushions to pay its obligations." This latest hike in the debt limit will amount to a grand total of more than $2 trillion during Bush's first term. "The deficits [the government] racks up year after year impede economic growth, burden future generations and force the United States to rely on foreign governments and investors," the Post reports. "Meanwhile, as the government has to pay more interest on its debt, it has less for health care, education and other programs." In his first State of the Union address, Bush spoke of his plan to pay off over the next decade the entire $2 trillion debt held by the public at that time. He said, "We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now." As it stands today, the debt is on track to reach the $6.5 trillion mark by 2011. Source: Washington Post, "Soaring Ceilings," Editorial Board, Nov. 17, 2004."
"According to the Associated Press, a non-partisan Congressional Budget Office study found that "the tax cuts and other policies President Bush proposed in his $2.4 trillion budget would probably have a minimal impact on the economy." While the agency stated that Bush's proposal "could either increase or reduce economic output through 2009, and improve it in the following five years," the study concluded that "the differences are likely to be small, affecting output by less than one-half of one percentage point." The effect of Bush's tax cuts and proposed budget are still unclear, and many leaders are demanding immediate and effective action. AP quoted Sen. Kent Conrad, the top Democrat on the budget panel, who described Bush's policies as "truly dangerous to the economic security of our country ... we have a responsibility to alter that course." Sources: Alan Fram (Associated Press), "Office: Bush Budget Won't Jolt Economy," The Las Vegas Sun, March 8, 2004."
"During the first three years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the unemployment rate increased by one-third and 2.2 million jobs were lost, and the country has gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. Debt has increased 23% from $5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion. Bush recently restated his pledge to create 2.6 million jobs, stating "5.6% unemployment is a good national number." However, the New York Times recently uncovered a White House report indicating that the president is considering reclassifying low-paid fast-food jobs as higher-paid manufacturing jobs to make it appear like the unemployment rate is going down. Sources: MSNBC Transcript, Feb. 8; The New York Times"
"When speaking with a group of women small business owners on Jan. 9, Bush said that "unemployment dropped today to 5.7 percent," claiming that this "is a positive sign that the economy is getting better." Unfortunately, according to the Baltimore Sun, that is not the case. The Sun reported that underlying that positive number was "grim economic news—only a handful of new jobs were created and hundreds of thousands of discouraged people dropped out of the workforce." Although unemployment fell from 5.9 percent to 5.7 percent in December, only 1,000 new jobs were created. Furthermore, the work force typically grows when the economy advances, but in this instance it shrank due to the 309,000 people who stopped looking for work. The withdrawal of these workers from the work force, not new jobs, pushed the unemployment rate down, as no significant number of jobs were created in December. The Sun went on to say that "the December numbers are a continuation of a long period of inadequate job creation." The economy has lost more than 2 million jobs since employment peaked in Feb. 2001, and gains in recent months have been "miniscule." Sources: White House Office of the Press Secretary, "President Speaks with Women Small Business Owners on the Economy," Jan. 9, 2004; Baltimore Sun, "Falling Jobless Figure Deceptive," Jan. 9, 2004."
"While George W. Bush has been touting good news on the economy, the picture is not quite so rosy, especially in the long term. The Boston Globe reports that recent economic growth is not "merely a lucky accident." According to the Globe, Bush's enormous military and security spending, and two of the largest tax cuts in the nation's history are likely to result in "short-term growth and long-term damage." The Globe describes the economic policies of the Bush administration as a "crude and destructive cocktail of stimulants." Even if the recent positive economic signals temporarily take hold, "the administration's policies will weaken the economy over time, fall particularly harshly on its working middle- and low- income citizens, and fail to prepare the nation for a century of far more intense global competition." Source: Boston Globe, "Boom and Bust," Nov. 9, 2003."
"George W. Bush's 2001 assurance that his tax cuts "could happen without fear of budget deficit, even if the economy softens" have proven to be false, as the estimated $480 billion budget deficit this fiscal year will be the highest in U.S. history. In a Sept. 5 speech, Bush admitted his tax cuts account for one quarter of the deficit. According to the New York Times, each dollar of tax cuts, federal borrowing to finance the tax cuts, the war and routine government operations will total $3.60 over six years. Citizens for Tax Justice estimate that the 26 million taxpayers making $28,000 to $45,000 are especially hard hit by federal borrowing—each dollar of tax cuts for this group is accompanied by $6.55 of increased federal debt. MSNBC reports that even if the government limited itself to paying only for retirement benefits, health benefits and interest on the national debt, federal taxes would still have to be raised by 70 percent—permanently—to meet those obligations. This is an unfortunate irony, as Bush said during his first year in office that "we owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now" to pay down the national debt. Sources: Washington Post, "A Sound Bite So Good, the President Wishes He Had Said It," July 7, 2002; George W. Bush, Presidential Speech, Sept. 5, 2003; New York Times, "Studies Say Tax Cuts Now Will Bring Bigger Bill Later," Sept. 23, 2003; MSNBC, "What Do Record Deficits Mean For You?," July 18, 2003; George W. Bush, Presidential Address to Joint Session of Congress, Feb. 27, 2001"
I don't deny that my original comment was very flippant, and obviously there are other factors that have had an adverse effect on the US economy - but the Bush administration's policies have exacerbated the situation.
Just out of curiosity, what ARE the advantages of a weak currency, and the drawbacks of a strong one? I honestly can't see any. If you look at Africa, the countries that have the most stability are the ex-French colonies, whose economy is still backed up by France, therefore making it stronger than those of other countries (where people tend to rely on dollars and sterling rather than their own currencies).
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 28, 2007 22:56:14 GMT
Post by stokerino on Oct 28, 2007 22:56:14 GMT
The drawbacks of a strong currency is that exports are stifled because your stuff is too expensive for others to purchase. Greater scope for exports equals increases in supply and demand. The terms 'strong' and 'weak' are very much misleading, since it's not so much the specific value of the denomination (I mean really, does it matter if you have one zero or two zeros on the end of a price?), but rather that it is relatively stable at whatever level it's at. The Japanese Yen may be worth a whole lot less than the Cypriot Dollar, but I think I know which economy I'd bank on any day of the week.
And you can copy and paste all the paragraphs you want about Bush screwing up the economy, just like someone else could come in here and post another set of paragraphs 'demonstrating' something entirely different. Whatever role Bush has in the economy, it is still grossly simplistic to say "weak dollar, lol Bush" and completely smudge over how other factors like the bubble bursting on the US banks' foolish sub-prime lending and the consequent knock on the housing market probably have a hell of a lot more to do with damaging confidence in the market and undermining dollar investment than whatever piece of archetypal political nonsense the White House has cooked up this week.
And in any case, some of those figures...good grief. Take the one about the US national debt increasing for the third time in three years, and is on course to reach $6.5 trillion by 2011. The entire point of that statement is to make the reader think "oh my god, those are big numbers, this government must be awful". DESPITE the fact that the national debt has been accruing for decades and it goes up under 95% of all administrations anyway. Does it provide comparison for these figures as to how the national debt increased under, say, the Reagan or Truman administrations? No? These figures may well be completely true - and they almost certainly are - but they're just being used to misrepresent whatever image the writer desires - in this case, "lol Bush".
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 29, 2007 8:09:49 GMT
Post by Ally on Oct 29, 2007 8:09:49 GMT
And you can copy and paste all the paragraphs you want about Bush screwing up the economy, just like someone else could come in here and post another set of paragraphs 'demonstrating' something entirely different. Whatever role Bush has in the economy, it is still grossly simplistic to say "weak dollar, lol Bush" and completely smudge over how other factors like the bubble bursting on the US banks' foolish sub-prime lending and the consequent knock on the housing market probably have a hell of a lot more to do with damaging confidence in the market and undermining dollar investment than whatever piece of archetypal political nonsense the White House has cooked up this week. I did say there were other factors, and I did say my original comment was flippant, so be nice. The point I was trying to make was that you can't rule out the effects government policies have had on the US economy...not "lol Bush" (which I find pretty damn insulting, I'm not a highschooler on Facebook) I've been thinking about it more carefully since this debate started, and first of all, I am learning a lot from the points you're making (although they don't need to be so belittling - the usual healthy dose of Tim sarcasm is fine ;D ). I want to modify what I've said, because I agree that I started from a poorly thought out and very throwaway point (OK, it was a little "lol Bush", although I prefer the term "Bush-bashing") Obviously all economies fluctuate, and this is due to many factors other than government policy. However, I believe that while governments are not necessarily responsible for what happens in their country, they ARE responsible for how it is dealt with. One example could be that the Bush administration wasn't responsible for the tsunami in New Orleans (suggesting that is as ludicrous as Fred Phelps' suggestion that the tsunami was caused by the gay community). However, they WERE responsible for the fact that there was no effective evacuation plan. That responsibility primarily falls to local government, but it falls to the main government to see that the local governments are doing their job. Similarly, the US government is not wholly responsible for the problems with the economy (I say not wholly because I'm still very sceptical that the huge amount spent on the war, the tax cuts for the rich and the very dodgy Republican view on whether the poor actually deserve welfare have had a positive effect), but they are responsible for rectifying the problems that have arisen. As far as I can see, nothing has yet been done (if anyone has any examples of what has been done to sort out the US economy, please post them, I'd be really interested to read about it).
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 29, 2007 17:53:52 GMT
Post by Emily on Oct 29, 2007 17:53:52 GMT
(I'm lost... Anne, are you lost too? economics=fear...)
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 29, 2007 20:32:58 GMT
Post by Animae on Oct 29, 2007 20:32:58 GMT
all I know is that its REALLY FUCKING EXPENSIVE to come visit you all.
and I'm lost too.
You can come wander around here with me em, there are shiny things over there!
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 29, 2007 22:56:47 GMT
Post by Ally on Oct 29, 2007 22:56:47 GMT
I hope you can still come over one day, that'd be so cool!
|
|
|
Rant
Oct 31, 2007 9:40:39 GMT
Post by Emily on Oct 31, 2007 9:40:39 GMT
Anne! Lol Bush!
|
|