scouts-l Mail Archive for June of 2000: Re: Zero Tolerance & Uniforms
Ronald W. Fox (ronfox@MINDSPRING.COM
Wed Jun 07 2000 - 23:51:19 CDT
At 09:10 AM 6/5/00 -0400, Rick Seymour wrote:
>Is anyone on the list good with statistics? The Uniform is marked up 40%
>higher than the RETAIL price of the vastly superior army BDU, meaning that
>at LEAST 80% (probably closer to 90%) of the Uniform is pure profit.
I'm quite good with statistics. I'm even better at logic. And logic tells
me that the retail price of a BDU has NOTHING to do with the price, or
profit level, of a BSA uniform.
Think! There's a heck of a lot more BDUs than BSA uniforms made.
Additionally, the government has a lot better leverage in negotiating
contracts than the BSA does.
And while I'm not an expert on BDU's, let me ask a couple of questions.
What has a simpler design; BDUs, or BSA uniforms? And figure that the BSA
has to fit a lot more different sizes than the Army does, since the Army
doesn't have to outfit children or obese adults. And do BDUs come in the
same variety as the BSA's uniforms (Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Venturer/Explorer)?
>A technical question for Mike: Are Uniform profits strictly earmarked for
>the Professionals' Retirement Fund, or can they be used as above?
>Finally, to keep things positive, a good math test question for Scouting in
>If the BSA Uniform is 90% profit, how many children does National have to
>cheat per day to pay for each hour of millionaire Ratcliffe's retirement?
What the heck is your problem, Rick? Do you really think that the BSA is
out to cheat kids? That they make a 90% profit? And they earmark it all
for Jere's pockets? Why don't you go work out your problems somewhere
else, instead of wasting everyone's time with nonsense like this?
Scoutmaster, Troop 69, Des Plaines Valley Council (W&SW Chicago Suburbs)
Pachsegink Lodge 246 | <------<<< |
"... and a good old Eagle, too" (C-19-96)