"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
?? How can where you live be anything other than a lifestyle choice ?

At the risk of swapping aphorisms, that view is much like "let them eat
cake - because they have that choice".

We are not living in revolutionary France. Even if you are unemployed and
without savings you can choose where you live.
The homeless on the street are generally those with drug or mental health
problems.

I agree that people may feel constrained by family and career restrictions,
but it is a choice to allow those restrictions.

Like most things there are several parameters to consider and fixing one
reduces the choice on others. Even the mega rich like Bill Gates have
restrictions
like having to live in Seattle because his employer is there and no one else
will match the salary (Yes I know he has retired now)~

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:38:39 -0000, "Buddenbrooks"
wrote:

The lack of service is not acceptable. Having a job involving a lot of
international travel and living a long distance from Heathrow is a
lifestyle
choice.
Probably a perfectly valid one.

Indeed - Thiefrow is a poor choice of airport for any travel if there
is a decent alternative.


No, I was assuming that he has other aspects of his life that are more
important than having to be near his airport of choice.

"Buddenbrooks" wrote in message



Like most things there are several parameters to consider and fixing
one reduces the choice on others. Even the mega rich like Bill Gates
have restrictions
like having to live in Seattle because his employer is there and no
one else will match the salary (Yes I know he has retired now)~

And he doesn't live in Seattle, either. Microsoft is in Redmond and he
lives in nearby Bellevue on Lake Washington (Seattle is on the other
side of the lake, across a congested floating bridge). Of course, he
chose to re-locate Microsoft to Redmond from Albuquerque, New Mexico in
the first place, 30 years ago.

I suppose that was a lifestyle choice, as he came from Seattle. He had
the unusual luxury of moving the company near to his home-town, rather
than the other way round.

Funnily enough, his new charitable foundation actually is located in
Seattle, not far from the famous Space Needle. It's probably a longer
commute for him than Microsoft was.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:25:01 -0000, "Buddenbrooks"
wrote:

No, I was assuming that he has other aspects of his life that are more
important than having to be near his airport of choice.

I was more making the slightly different point that LHR most
definitely is *not* my airport of choice.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

In message , at 18:22:48 on Mon, 26
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
I agree that people may feel constrained by family and career
restrictions, but it is a choice to allow those restrictions.

That's one of the most selfish comments I've seen in a long time.
--
Roland Perry

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:25:01 -0000, "Buddenbrooks"

I was more making the slightly different point that LHR most
definitely is *not* my airport of choice.



Great Western Aerodrome, an excellent choice!

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:22:48 on Mon, 26
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
I agree that people may feel constrained by family and career
restrictions, but it is a choice to allow those restrictions.

That's one of the most selfish comments I've seen in a long time.

Nonsense, a specific choice may be selfish, the fact of choices is neutral.
It is the well referred to Career/Family balance. Farmers live and work
close to their families, long haul pilots spend the majority of their lives
at work.
Most of us have skills that give us the choice. I have spent quite a lot of
my life living away during the week, I have colleagues who 'refuse' to stay
overnight away from home.
When they have looked for an Engineer to go to the states for 6 weeks my
hand goes up and his doesn't. It does not matter to the company who goes and
it is a free choice.
If you travel a lot for work then it is your choice. Your skills seem to be
sought after so I expect you could find work that does not require regular
overseas travel.

In message , at 06:35:42 on Tue, 27 Oct
2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:

I agree that people may feel constrained by family and career
restrictions, but it is a choice to allow those restrictions.

That's one of the most selfish comments I've seen in a long time.

Nonsense, a specific choice may be selfish, the fact of choices is neutral.

The only reason for you mentioning a choice in this context is to
indicate that it's possible to make a choice for one's own convenience,
that disadvantages the other family members.

It is the well referred to Career/Family balance. Farmers live and work
close to their families, long haul pilots spend the majority of their
lives at work.
Most of us have skills that give us the choice.

You are making a big assumption that it is employment prospects that
mainly govern "choices" about where someone lives. As almost all my work
is telecommuting or attending distant conferences, my "choice" of client
is therefore completely disjoint from my home location (with the
pedantic exception that I would be in difficulty living somewhere
without broadband availability).

If you travel a lot for work then it is your choice. Your skills seem
to be sought after so I expect you could find work that does not
require regular overseas travel.

In fact, the travel I was complaining about, which started the
discussion of "choices", was domestic. A trip to London by train.

If I could choose to live anywhere in the world, it might well be in a
flat overlooking Hyde Park. Why that's not very likely to happen, I will
leave as an exercise for the reader.
--
Roland Perry