The Ballad of Clayton Homes
April 8, 2015 8:12 AM Subscribe
For years, billionaire philanthropist Warren Buffett has controlled a mobile-home empire that promises low-income borrowers affordable houses. Last week, The Seattle Times released an investigative piece that alleges Berkshire-Hathaway controlled Clayton Homes traps homeowners in high-interest loans and rapidly depreciating homes. Berkshire-Hathaway has responded, and The Seattle Times has released a counter-response.
From Berkshire's statement:
"highly-regulated mortgage lending industry"
There's the first load of crap. Dare I read onward?
posted by prepmonkey at 8:29 AM on April 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
"highly-regulated mortgage lending industry"
There's the first load of crap. Dare I read onward?
posted by prepmonkey at 8:29 AM on April 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Warren Buffett involved in this mess? Say it ain't so!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:36 AM on April 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:36 AM on April 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
prepmonkey: "From Berkshire's statement:
"highly-regulated mortgage lending industry"
There's the first load of crap. Dare I read onward?"
By that I think they mean that you can't get a normal mortgage for Clayton's homes. Their annual letter repeats that line every year. Their statement follows up on that in the next paragraph:
"highly-regulated mortgage lending industry"
There's the first load of crap. Dare I read onward?"
By that I think they mean that you can't get a normal mortgage for Clayton's homes. Their annual letter repeats that line every year. Their statement follows up on that in the next paragraph:
"The only 30-year loans being offered by our lenders are through the government FHA title II loan program."posted by pwnguin at 8:39 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm extremely naive about money but he's a billionaire, does that not mean he had to have taken at least some of it from other people? Can he have more without others having less?
posted by Cosine at 8:41 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Cosine at 8:41 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm pretty astonished that the rabidly pro-business Seattle Times would take issue with profiteering.
posted by trunk muffins at 8:44 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by trunk muffins at 8:44 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm extremely naive about money but he's a billionaire, does that not mean he had to have taken at least some of it from other people? Can he have more without others having less?
The question is, does the world's total wealth increase over time? The answer is yes. Either through uncovering new resources, or by more efficiently allocating existing resources, wealth can be created.
He can have more without others having less.
That doesn't make this particular instance any less of a scumbag practice.
posted by leotrotsky at 8:46 AM on April 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
The question is, does the world's total wealth increase over time? The answer is yes. Either through uncovering new resources, or by more efficiently allocating existing resources, wealth can be created.
He can have more without others having less.
That doesn't make this particular instance any less of a scumbag practice.
posted by leotrotsky at 8:46 AM on April 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
And after reading the Times' counter-response, THAT is how journalism is done.
posted by prepmonkey at 8:46 AM on April 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by prepmonkey at 8:46 AM on April 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
And after reading the Times' counter-response, THAT is how journalism is done.
That was a really thorough ass-kicking, wasn't it? Good luck spinning that one, flacks.
posted by leotrotsky at 8:48 AM on April 8, 2015
That was a really thorough ass-kicking, wasn't it? Good luck spinning that one, flacks.
posted by leotrotsky at 8:48 AM on April 8, 2015
Can he have more without others having less?
Wealth accumulation is not a zero sum game. However, clearly someone is not keeping an eye on the store as far as lending practices go. Do I think Warren Buffett is a scumbag? No. Do I think that someone dropped the ball on supervising people selling mortgages who turned out to be unscrupulous? Definitely. How far up the ladder that unscrupulousness goes I'm sure will be revealed now that Berkshire has decided to kick the journalistic hornet's nest.
posted by prepmonkey at 8:54 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Wealth accumulation is not a zero sum game. However, clearly someone is not keeping an eye on the store as far as lending practices go. Do I think Warren Buffett is a scumbag? No. Do I think that someone dropped the ball on supervising people selling mortgages who turned out to be unscrupulous? Definitely. How far up the ladder that unscrupulousness goes I'm sure will be revealed now that Berkshire has decided to kick the journalistic hornet's nest.
posted by prepmonkey at 8:54 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
And after reading the Times' counter-response, THAT is how journalism is done.
I wish it were, more often.
posted by Gelatin at 8:58 AM on April 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
I wish it were, more often.
posted by Gelatin at 8:58 AM on April 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Good luck spinning that one, flacks.
The Clayton flacks seem to be hoping this one goes away on its own, given their apparent lack of any interaction with the Times until after publication, and even then responding via a letter published in a Berkshire owned newspaper.
posted by chavenet at 9:01 AM on April 8, 2015
The Clayton flacks seem to be hoping this one goes away on its own, given their apparent lack of any interaction with the Times until after publication, and even then responding via a letter published in a Berkshire owned newspaper.
posted by chavenet at 9:01 AM on April 8, 2015
This is my surprised face. Essentially everyone who buys a mobile home will have subprime credit, and will therefore end up with an exploitative loan unless they go through FHA, USDA, or VA loan programs.
Sometimes it's still cheaper than renting, though. Depends on where you are, I suppose.
posted by wierdo at 9:01 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sometimes it's still cheaper than renting, though. Depends on where you are, I suppose.
posted by wierdo at 9:01 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Cosine: "I'm extremely naive about money but he's a billionaire, does that not mean he had to have taken at least some of it from other people? Can he have more without others having less?"
Berkshire, and Warren, by extension, has made most of its money by trading. His first major trade, that led him to become CEO of Berkshire, was buying a failing textile mill business. But the deal that put them back on the map was buying equity in GEICO, and moving into the insurance business.
Insurance operates like this: you have a steam of up front premiums, and a stream of claims later. Your job is two fold: price premiums such that premiums > claims, and to invest the float between when you receive them and when they flow out. Importantly, a growing insurance company can make longer term investments as new premiums coming in allow them make longer term investments. Anyways, insurance operations allows Buffet to make trades and purchases bigger than an individual can afford.
I used to own Berkshire stock directly, but sold it a few years back. Berkshire is famously located far, far away from Wall Street for a firm that effectively trades stocks. They claim it's to avoid the short term thinking that dominates the moneycenter banks. But it probably helps avoid a bit of scrutiny; Nebraska isn't exactly overflowing with Elliot Spitzers ready to take on investment firms. And the same goes of their corporate structure. The A share B share divide with limited voting rights for B shares. Basically the same rules that theoretically provide for long term investments also provide insulation when executives front run their own business. Shareholders need to trust not only Warren, but his subordinates, whose reputation and net worth is far less bound up in a single company.
posted by pwnguin at 9:04 AM on April 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
Berkshire, and Warren, by extension, has made most of its money by trading. His first major trade, that led him to become CEO of Berkshire, was buying a failing textile mill business. But the deal that put them back on the map was buying equity in GEICO, and moving into the insurance business.
Insurance operates like this: you have a steam of up front premiums, and a stream of claims later. Your job is two fold: price premiums such that premiums > claims, and to invest the float between when you receive them and when they flow out. Importantly, a growing insurance company can make longer term investments as new premiums coming in allow them make longer term investments. Anyways, insurance operations allows Buffet to make trades and purchases bigger than an individual can afford.
I used to own Berkshire stock directly, but sold it a few years back. Berkshire is famously located far, far away from Wall Street for a firm that effectively trades stocks. They claim it's to avoid the short term thinking that dominates the moneycenter banks. But it probably helps avoid a bit of scrutiny; Nebraska isn't exactly overflowing with Elliot Spitzers ready to take on investment firms. And the same goes of their corporate structure. The A share B share divide with limited voting rights for B shares. Basically the same rules that theoretically provide for long term investments also provide insulation when executives front run their own business. Shareholders need to trust not only Warren, but his subordinates, whose reputation and net worth is far less bound up in a single company.
posted by pwnguin at 9:04 AM on April 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
There's a good reason why the rebuttal reads like a press release; the Omaha World Herald is owner by Berkshire Hathaway.
posted by dr_dank at 9:06 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by dr_dank at 9:06 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
There's a good reason why the rebuttal reads like a press release; the Omaha World Herald is owner by Berkshire Hathaway.
Somehow, despite spending most of my life in NE, where the Herald is one of the only papers of any relative heft and Buffett is routinely lionized by pretty much everybody, I had no idea this was the case.
Looking at Wikipedia, it seems like they only bought the paper in 2011 or thereabouts, a while after I left, so I guess I feel a little better about missing this one. It does not strike me as a healthy thing.
posted by brennen at 9:30 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Somehow, despite spending most of my life in NE, where the Herald is one of the only papers of any relative heft and Buffett is routinely lionized by pretty much everybody, I had no idea this was the case.
Looking at Wikipedia, it seems like they only bought the paper in 2011 or thereabouts, a while after I left, so I guess I feel a little better about missing this one. It does not strike me as a healthy thing.
posted by brennen at 9:30 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Eat the rich.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:32 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:32 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm extremely naive about money but he's a billionaire, does that not mean he had to have taken at least some of it from other people? Can he have more without others having less?
The question is, does the world's total wealth increase over time? The answer is yes. Either through uncovering new resources, or by more efficiently allocating existing resources, wealth can be created.
He can have more without others having less.
That is not the only question. There is another, at least equally important question: is the world's total wealth increasing faster than it is accumulating to rich individuals? For a while, now, I believe the answer to this second question has been "no". In fact, isn't this what Piketty's Capital was pretty much all about?
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:50 AM on April 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
The question is, does the world's total wealth increase over time? The answer is yes. Either through uncovering new resources, or by more efficiently allocating existing resources, wealth can be created.
He can have more without others having less.
That is not the only question. There is another, at least equally important question: is the world's total wealth increasing faster than it is accumulating to rich individuals? For a while, now, I believe the answer to this second question has been "no". In fact, isn't this what Piketty's Capital was pretty much all about?
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:50 AM on April 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
There are a lot of similarities between manufactured homes and automobiles, in the sense that they are frequently financed and tend to depreciate very quickly. The difference is that the manufactured-home market seems to lack any of the arms-length separation of business requirements that the automobile market has.
For instance, automobile manufactures are generally prohibited from owning the dealers that sell cars to consumers. (Some people would tell you that this exists mostly as a full-employment measure for shifty car-dealer franchise owners, and that may be the case on an ongoing basis, but the measures were put in place precisely to stop cozy relationships like Clayton's.) The manufacturers are still allowed to offer financing, which seems like a mistake, but there are regulations there too.
Oddly—given the general impression most people have of the real estate market being more regulated than consumer automobile finance (with its repo lots and Crazy Eddie advertising)—we don't prohibit such relationships by manufactured homebuilders. It's apparently legal for Clayton to not only manufacture the houses, but own the dealerships and provide the financing.*
Separating those functions might not guarantee a lack of predatory behavior (predatory lending certainly exists in the non-manufactured market, where the homebuilders and sellers are typically not the same), but it does seem like it would make it easier to detect. Kickbacks between separate entities tend to be more obvious than ones occurring between different divisions of the same umbrella company.
It's worth pointing out that this would not require Federal action; the automobile-market regulations are largely all at the state level. They're remarkably uniform between states today, because we've figured out what works, but they were adopted by the states as a series of basically bottom-up measures. Maybe it's time for manufactured homes to get the same scrutiny.
* Although there's a couple of inconsistencies between the various articles. In several (principally the Seattle Times ones) they describe the retailers as being owned by Clayton; in others (Fast Company) they talk about the dealers being independently owned franchises who have to bear much of the risk of their own financing themselves. Which is it? Or did they used to be independent and that has since changed under Berkshire? That would be a big deal, IMO.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:08 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
For instance, automobile manufactures are generally prohibited from owning the dealers that sell cars to consumers. (Some people would tell you that this exists mostly as a full-employment measure for shifty car-dealer franchise owners, and that may be the case on an ongoing basis, but the measures were put in place precisely to stop cozy relationships like Clayton's.) The manufacturers are still allowed to offer financing, which seems like a mistake, but there are regulations there too.
Oddly—given the general impression most people have of the real estate market being more regulated than consumer automobile finance (with its repo lots and Crazy Eddie advertising)—we don't prohibit such relationships by manufactured homebuilders. It's apparently legal for Clayton to not only manufacture the houses, but own the dealerships and provide the financing.*
Separating those functions might not guarantee a lack of predatory behavior (predatory lending certainly exists in the non-manufactured market, where the homebuilders and sellers are typically not the same), but it does seem like it would make it easier to detect. Kickbacks between separate entities tend to be more obvious than ones occurring between different divisions of the same umbrella company.
It's worth pointing out that this would not require Federal action; the automobile-market regulations are largely all at the state level. They're remarkably uniform between states today, because we've figured out what works, but they were adopted by the states as a series of basically bottom-up measures. Maybe it's time for manufactured homes to get the same scrutiny.
* Although there's a couple of inconsistencies between the various articles. In several (principally the Seattle Times ones) they describe the retailers as being owned by Clayton; in others (Fast Company) they talk about the dealers being independently owned franchises who have to bear much of the risk of their own financing themselves. Which is it? Or did they used to be independent and that has since changed under Berkshire? That would be a big deal, IMO.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:08 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
price premiums such that premiums > claims, and to invest the float between when you receive them and when they flow out.
TBH most insurers I've worked for, premiums are a pretty small part of the overall business model. The government won't let you operate as an insurer unless you can demonstrate you already have a pretty huge "float" (reserves) to back up any policies you issue, and what you do with that huge amount of money investment-wise tends to be what drives the business more than premium.
posted by Hoopo at 10:15 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
TBH most insurers I've worked for, premiums are a pretty small part of the overall business model. The government won't let you operate as an insurer unless you can demonstrate you already have a pretty huge "float" (reserves) to back up any policies you issue, and what you do with that huge amount of money investment-wise tends to be what drives the business more than premium.
posted by Hoopo at 10:15 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Kadin2048, Clayton Homes has roughly 320 "home centers" that are owned by the "retail company". These stores are all owned by Clayton Homes but are branded as Clayton, Oakwood, TruValue, Luv, or Crosswood stores, to give the illusion to customers that they are "shopping around". For example, there may be an Oakwood Homes, a Clayton Homes, and a Luv Homes all on the same street, and they are all corporately owned home centers. All of these stores are zoned by location, and have both a zone and a regional supervisor that works at the corporate office. The independent stores are NOT owned by Clayton Homes, although Clayton would love to buy them out and turn them into corporate home centers. These independent stores sell homes made by Clayton factories, as well as homes manufactured by other companies. That's the major difference between them.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 10:19 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by SkylitDrawl at 10:19 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
>is the world's total wealth increasing faster than it is accumulating to rich individuals?<
I think one could argue that a lot of what accumulates has been created, not 'found'.
Given the way financial markets work these days I am not convinced it was not created out of whole cloth. ;)
Still there is a valid argument that wealthy (corporations and individuals) can actually create jobs and industries (and wealth and demand).
In this specific case they are being shysters...
posted by twidget at 10:22 AM on April 8, 2015
I think one could argue that a lot of what accumulates has been created, not 'found'.
Given the way financial markets work these days I am not convinced it was not created out of whole cloth. ;)
Still there is a valid argument that wealthy (corporations and individuals) can actually create jobs and industries (and wealth and demand).
In this specific case they are being shysters...
posted by twidget at 10:22 AM on April 8, 2015
Mobile homes are such a disappointment. We have the technology to allow nearly anyone with a modest income to own their own small, but safe and secure house, free and clear from a mortgage or shady landlords or difficult roommates. And instead of taking advantage of this -- building beautiful, walkable towns where the houses cost $50k instead of $500k -- we screw it up and cause problems with taxes and zoning and financing that make it an undesirable option for 99% of people.
posted by miyabo at 10:25 AM on April 8, 2015 [23 favorites]
posted by miyabo at 10:25 AM on April 8, 2015 [23 favorites]
So at least one person noted he owns GEICO as well .. The initial snark I wanted to make was something along the lines of "what do you expect from a company that owns geico, who re-defines nickle-and-diming you, despite what the cute gecko says, or that really funny salt'n'peppa commercial.
Has anyone ever had to file a claim with GEICO ? I've been involved with them, and find their customer service and, hm, ability to help people through things, very poor.
posted by k5.user at 10:25 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Has anyone ever had to file a claim with GEICO ? I've been involved with them, and find their customer service and, hm, ability to help people through things, very poor.
posted by k5.user at 10:25 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
The problem is that customers have no clue that Oakwood, Luv, TruValue, HomeFirst, Vanderbilt Mortgage, 21 Mortgage, Norris, and Clayton (there's like ten more, but I don't know them all) are all the exact same company. They have no clue that their dealer's boss, the collection agent, and the customer service rep that they talk to about their home insurance all work in the same building. I think that's pretty shady.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 10:31 AM on April 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by SkylitDrawl at 10:31 AM on April 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Has anyone ever had to file a claim with GEICO ?
But the lizard is so cute... I wonder how much the tv commercial on the aircraft carrier cost...
posted by sammyo at 10:47 AM on April 8, 2015
But the lizard is so cute... I wonder how much the tv commercial on the aircraft carrier cost...
posted by sammyo at 10:47 AM on April 8, 2015
Their TV commercials are too omnipresent and repeated ad nauseam to be anything remotely resembling funny. The only ones worse are Progressive.
posted by blucevalo at 10:51 AM on April 8, 2015
posted by blucevalo at 10:51 AM on April 8, 2015
Behind every great fortune, a great crime.
posted by absalom at 11:42 AM on April 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by absalom at 11:42 AM on April 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
Can't make lemonade without crushing a few lemons. Can't make wine without treading on a few grapes. Can't make a few billion dollars without keeping the poor down.
posted by dazed_one at 11:45 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by dazed_one at 11:45 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I lost a ton of respect for Buffet when he swooped in on the financial crises to make billions from companies that were receiving bailout money. He was as bad as those he chastised for stealing from the public purse.
posted by srboisvert at 12:06 PM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 12:06 PM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Mobile homes are such a disappointment. We have the technology to allow nearly anyone with a modest income...
Very true, and it has been for decades. And that means that, for many people like you (and I) there is a big, under-served market out there - waiting for someone with scruples to serve it.
The public image of mobiles has been carefully shaped to suggest that they're for low-lifes. Over and over. Combine that with discriminatory zoning and excessive monthly land-rent costs in 'trailer parks' and you've got a big hurdle for people who don't need 2000sq.ft. or even 1000sq.ft.
posted by Twang at 12:23 PM on April 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Very true, and it has been for decades. And that means that, for many people like you (and I) there is a big, under-served market out there - waiting for someone with scruples to serve it.
The public image of mobiles has been carefully shaped to suggest that they're for low-lifes. Over and over. Combine that with discriminatory zoning and excessive monthly land-rent costs in 'trailer parks' and you've got a big hurdle for people who don't need 2000sq.ft. or even 1000sq.ft.
posted by Twang at 12:23 PM on April 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
I'm pretty astonished that the rabidly pro-business Seattle Times would take issue with profiteering.
The Seattle Times is not a monolith. While their editorial board swings right, I've met a few of their actual investigative reporters (having gone to college for journalism in Seattle) and they don't always believe the same things as the editorial board. I knew one of the Times former editors as a teacher as well and she was not what I would call "pro-business."
posted by john-a-dreams at 3:41 PM on April 8, 2015
The Seattle Times is not a monolith. While their editorial board swings right, I've met a few of their actual investigative reporters (having gone to college for journalism in Seattle) and they don't always believe the same things as the editorial board. I knew one of the Times former editors as a teacher as well and she was not what I would call "pro-business."
posted by john-a-dreams at 3:41 PM on April 8, 2015
The Seattle Times has won more than one Pulitzer, I believe, from their excellent investigative work over the years. To my mind, they don't do enough of it. There is much muck to rake.
posted by lhauser at 4:52 PM on April 8, 2015
posted by lhauser at 4:52 PM on April 8, 2015
I live in a singlewide Clayton home that I was only able to purchase because it was foreclosed during the economic "downturn". Fortunately, my brother loaned me the money at 6% interest so I didn't have to deal with the "company".
There are still a large group of folks who have nothing else available to them other than apartments at the same monthly cost. I'm still conflicted about profiting from someone else's misfortune. It's similar to pawn shop buying in my naive mind.
For many, the options are limited to being a servant to minimum wage jobs and little hope for a better future, since the wealthy prey on the small.
posted by mightshould at 5:24 PM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
There are still a large group of folks who have nothing else available to them other than apartments at the same monthly cost. I'm still conflicted about profiting from someone else's misfortune. It's similar to pawn shop buying in my naive mind.
For many, the options are limited to being a servant to minimum wage jobs and little hope for a better future, since the wealthy prey on the small.
posted by mightshould at 5:24 PM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Has anyone ever had to file a claim with GEICO ? I've been involved with them, and find their customer service and, hm, ability to help people through things, very poor.
Really? Been with them 10+ years, 2 accidents, 2 windshields, totally satisfied.
This article from the Times last year about mobile home park ownership, and how that can be a great way to make money off the poor, might also interest folks.
posted by Miko at 7:02 PM on April 8, 2015
Really? Been with them 10+ years, 2 accidents, 2 windshields, totally satisfied.
This article from the Times last year about mobile home park ownership, and how that can be a great way to make money off the poor, might also interest folks.
posted by Miko at 7:02 PM on April 8, 2015
I had a job for a few months in 1995 building mobile homes in a non-union piece-rate shop. We built 10 or 12 mobile homes a day. I usually finished my job "skinning" (gluing and installing drywall panels on the walls) in 7 to 9 hours. Some jobs were done in much less time. Each of us went home when we finished our quota. The jobs that took less time were much more desirable and went to people who were liked by the bosses. The quality inspectors and repair workers were not paid piece-rate. They made a dollar or two an hour over minimum wage and often worked 12 or 13 hours fixing mistakes. Those jobs were reserved for people the bosses didn't like.
You can guess how shoddily we built these mobile homes under this system. Everyone just hauled ass and got the hell out of there. I'll grant that my experience was from 20 years ago but I wouldn't be surprised if things are the same or worse now.
On a side note, one of the things I hated about working there was that some of the people I worked were deeply involved in the militia movement. The morning of the Oklahoma City bombing, they were making jokes about it two hours before it happened because they knew something big was going to happen that day. They were ecstatic when they found out that Timothy McVeigh had "taken out" a federal building. I quit the next day.
posted by double block and bleed at 7:46 PM on April 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
You can guess how shoddily we built these mobile homes under this system. Everyone just hauled ass and got the hell out of there. I'll grant that my experience was from 20 years ago but I wouldn't be surprised if things are the same or worse now.
On a side note, one of the things I hated about working there was that some of the people I worked were deeply involved in the militia movement. The morning of the Oklahoma City bombing, they were making jokes about it two hours before it happened because they knew something big was going to happen that day. They were ecstatic when they found out that Timothy McVeigh had "taken out" a federal building. I quit the next day.
posted by double block and bleed at 7:46 PM on April 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
All mobile home companies ate like this - the amazing thing is that traditionally Clayton was the good one.
WEB has been in reputation harvesting mode for at least the last 15 years.
posted by JPD at 1:46 AM on April 9, 2015
WEB has been in reputation harvesting mode for at least the last 15 years.
posted by JPD at 1:46 AM on April 9, 2015
On a side note, one of the things I hated about working there was that some of the people I worked were deeply involved in the militia movement. The morning of the Oklahoma City bombing, they were making jokes about it two hours before it happened because they knew something big was going to happen that day.
Whoa. Jesus Christ. Really? I know this is not the subject of the thread, but I hadn't heard before that there was wider knowledge of that one in advance.
posted by brennen at 10:47 AM on April 9, 2015
Whoa. Jesus Christ. Really? I know this is not the subject of the thread, but I hadn't heard before that there was wider knowledge of that one in advance.
posted by brennen at 10:47 AM on April 9, 2015
Yes, that surprised me, too. I'd kind of like to hear more about that.
posted by Miko at 12:56 PM on April 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Miko at 12:56 PM on April 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
brennen: "Whoa. Jesus Christ. Really? I know this is not the subject of the thread, but I hadn't heard before that there was wider knowledge of that one in advance."
I don't think they specifically knew in any detail that Timothy McVeigh was going to detonate a Ryder truck full of explosives in Oklahoma City at 9:02 am. They clearly did know that someone in their larger community was planning to do something big that day against the government. They were dropping cryptic hints about Bill Clinton and presidential assassinations that seemed more serious than the usual "someone should just shoot Bill Clinton". When I asked them what they were talking about, two of them told me with evil smiles that it would be "a day to remember". They were certainly right about that.
Their excitement and elation reached a fever pitch when the news broke. There were literally high-fives and hugs. I went to the bathroom and threw up. I told my wife what happened that afternoon and quit the next morning. I made good money for the time and I had her and our baby to support, but I'd be goddamned if I was going to spend another day working in that shithole with those racist thugs.
Sorry. I didn't mean to highjack the thread.
posted by double block and bleed at 7:15 PM on April 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
I don't think they specifically knew in any detail that Timothy McVeigh was going to detonate a Ryder truck full of explosives in Oklahoma City at 9:02 am. They clearly did know that someone in their larger community was planning to do something big that day against the government. They were dropping cryptic hints about Bill Clinton and presidential assassinations that seemed more serious than the usual "someone should just shoot Bill Clinton". When I asked them what they were talking about, two of them told me with evil smiles that it would be "a day to remember". They were certainly right about that.
Their excitement and elation reached a fever pitch when the news broke. There were literally high-fives and hugs. I went to the bathroom and threw up. I told my wife what happened that afternoon and quit the next morning. I made good money for the time and I had her and our baby to support, but I'd be goddamned if I was going to spend another day working in that shithole with those racist thugs.
Sorry. I didn't mean to highjack the thread.
posted by double block and bleed at 7:15 PM on April 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Sorry. I didn't mean to highjack the thread.
Nor I, but thanks for the further detail. I'm sorry you had to experience that.
posted by brennen at 9:24 AM on April 10, 2015
Nor I, but thanks for the further detail. I'm sorry you had to experience that.
posted by brennen at 9:24 AM on April 10, 2015
They clearly did know that someone in their larger community was planning to do something big that day against the government.
Just for future reference for anyone reading the thread...it's okay to call the FBI with this type of thing even if it's all you know.
posted by Miko at 10:33 AM on April 10, 2015
Just for future reference for anyone reading the thread...it's okay to call the FBI with this type of thing even if it's all you know.
posted by Miko at 10:33 AM on April 10, 2015
Miko: " They clearly did know that someone in their larger community was planning to do something big that day against the government.
Just for future reference for anyone reading the thread...it's okay to call the FBI with this type of thing even if it's all you know."
I would definitely do that today. I was in my early 20s then. It didn't even occur to me at the time.
posted by double block and bleed at 2:14 PM on April 10, 2015
Just for future reference for anyone reading the thread...it's okay to call the FBI with this type of thing even if it's all you know."
I would definitely do that today. I was in my early 20s then. It didn't even occur to me at the time.
posted by double block and bleed at 2:14 PM on April 10, 2015
I totally get it and don't mean any blame. Just seemed like it might be worth mentioning as I don't think I'd have known that at that age either.
posted by Miko at 2:42 PM on April 10, 2015
posted by Miko at 2:42 PM on April 10, 2015
« Older The Great Wall of India | Straight from Second Avenue Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mightygodking at 8:17 AM on April 8, 2015 [7 favorites]