Wall Street Journal Article

**yaduck9** · 09-25-2009, 11:39

Article on the economy and the AT.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125348373308426061.html

**The Weasel** · 09-25-2009, 16:34

Only the WSJ would be so tight-assed as to spell it out as "through hikers".

Also fascinated about the "hobo" and "bum" references. I'm sure that those who were on me like white on rice about suggesting that thru (not "through" for me) hikers resemble hobos and the homeless to many people will now write angry letters with filled with lots of really neat insults to the WSJ, which will (as it always does with criticism) promptly ignore them.

But hardly surprised that the WSJ approves of skinning hikers by "work for sleep" after "14 hour days" playing bracero in their fields or "shearing the sheep" by all you "athletic hippies." Beats paying that communist-mandated legislative crap called "the minimum wage" to the people who thru-hikers took their jobs from. Congrats. Who says thrus don't care?

Man. Can't help praying this is fiction.

TW

**max patch** · 09-25-2009, 17:23

If you don't like the WSJ you can always go back to the Daily Worker.

Oh, wait a minute. It went belly up.

**Madison County Owl** · 09-25-2009, 17:50

I wrote to the nerd " Joel Millman" and asked him if he was nuckin futs

**The Weasel** · 09-26-2009, 01:30

Originally Posted by max patch

If you don't like the WSJ you can always go back to the Daily Worker.

Oh, wait a minute. It went belly up.

If I don't like the WSJ I can ignore it. Used to be a newspaper. Now it's just fishwrap. For news, I go to the Times, both of them.

Were you one of the hobos they are referring to, Max? Or just one of the "athletic hippies"?

TW

**earlyriser26** · 09-26-2009, 07:11

Originally Posted by The Weasel

If I don't like the WSJ I can ignore it. Used to be a newspaper. Now it's just fishwrap. For news, I go to the Times, both of them.

Were you one of the hobos they are referring to, Max? Or just one of the "athletic hippies"?

TW

I read both the times and the WSJ, but if I had a fish I'd use the times.

**max patch** · 09-26-2009, 09:33

Originally Posted by The Weasel

Were you one of the hobos they are referring to, Max? Or just one of the "athletic hippies"?

TW

Neither. I'm the guy who worked hard and saved enough money before my hike so that I didn't have to worry about funds while hiking.

But if Ron Haven and a hiker mutually agree that if the hiker strips the sheets off 20 beds and makes up those beds with clean sheets in exchange for room and board for the night is a fair deal then thats between them. Sounds like a win-win proposition. None of my business. Nor none of yours.

**The Weasel** · 09-26-2009, 09:54

If it ain't none of my business, why it is any of the business of the WSJ? But so glad to hear you brag about how you're such hot stuff. Kind of shames all the other thru hikers, but puts them in their place. I'm also kind of glad someone hasn't come along to take away your job by working cheaper, even if you work hard. That way you - unlike those athletic hippies and all them out-of-work braceros - have the cash to pay your ISP so you can post here. Gotta love it!

TW

**max patch** · 09-26-2009, 10:10

Originally Posted by The Weasel

If it ain't none of my business, why it is any of the business of the WSJ?

TW

Its a newspaper. They report the news.

If you don't like the article go back to the WSJ and leave a comment. Share your thoughts with the world like 49 other people have already done. It'll stay up -- Mr Gator doesn't have editing power over there.

Excuse me, the Saturday edition just arrived. WSJ with a coffee and bagel. Good times!

**Pedaling Fool** · 09-26-2009, 10:19

Originally Posted by The Weasel

If I don't like the WSJ I can ignore it. Used to be a newspaper. Now it's just fishwrap. For news, I go to the Times, both of them.

Were you one of the hobos they are referring to, Max? Or just one of the "athletic hippies"?

TW

They? The WSJ was not referring to thru-hikers as "athletic hippies". That was the words of Mr. De Sena.
From the article:

"But it isn't always an easy fit, Mr. De Sena says.

"We thought there was a correlation between people who would hike the 2,200 miles and an incredible work ethic," says the 40-year-old entrepreneur, a former Wall Street trader who, besides farming, also operates an asset-management firm. "Turns out those people tend to be athletic hippies, just looking to have fun forever."

Originally Posted by The Weasel

...I'm also kind of glad someone hasn't come along to take away your job by working cheaper, even if you work hard. That way you - unlike those athletic hippies and all them out-of-work braceros - have the cash to pay your ISP so you can post here. Gotta love it!

TW

But those "atheletic hippies" have put people out of work, again from the article:

"Up in New England, through-hikers have become a popular form of just-in-time labor for rural businesses, especially for organic farmers like Joseph De Sena.

He operates Amee Farm in Pittsfield, Vt., which lies a few miles from a trailhead. Mr. De Sena says that in a good year, "hikers could provide 50% of the labor we need," doing everything from watering lettuce in the greenhouse, to weeding the garden to shearing the sheep.

He estimates that hiring similar labor locally, if he could find it, would cost $50 to $75 a day. He does a barter deal with hikers who stay at the farm in exchange for their labor. No money is exchanged."

**SunnyWalker** · 09-26-2009, 10:22

OK. I read all the comments. Now I'll go back up and try to read the WSJ article.

**SunnyWalker** · 09-26-2009, 10:36

Oh, I thnk it's a pretty positive article. IMO: it's not really about AT. The article is on the "Carreer" section or page of the WSJ and thus is a slant article on alternative ways to make a living or suviving these perilous economic times, so to speak. It's pretty good. Kinda nice to know when one is hiking the AT one might be able to make it still if you are short of funds or couting change. As for folk just hiking the AT as an alternative "job" I don't think so. Maybe for a short stretch, but the entire AT. No, I don't think so.

**Pedaling Fool** · 09-26-2009, 10:54

I think all this talk about more people being on the trail due to the economy is a little overstated. Yes there seems to be more people this year and I agree it's probably directly related to the economy, but how many?

If you were to read the WSJ article or any other article that has covered this, knowing almost nothing about the AT, this would seem like some new phenomenon, MAYBE EVEN AN ALARMING PHENOMENON. However, we who know the AT, know this is nothing more than a little bump in the numbers, THIS IS NOTHING NEW; people have always worked for stay/food along the AT.

Look at the numbers, it's just a bump http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site...Statistics.htm

**Darwin again** · 09-26-2009, 17:10

Just the MSM going for the colorful story, trying to keep everybody skeered.
As usual.

**Jack Tarlin** · 09-27-2009, 09:58

My beef with the article is that it isn't very accurate. While there are many hikers who will take advantage of a work-for-stay option if they see one, the implication that many, if not most hikers work their way up and down the Trail or take time off to do so is inaccurate, and helps foster the image of hikers as tramps/bums. Also the "dollar a mile" budget for a thru-hike hasn't been accurate for many, many years. Most thru-hikers spend twice that. I'm not sure where this reporter got their information on the Trail and on thru-hiking, but whatever the source was, it wasn't very good.

**jersey joe** · 09-27-2009, 10:45

I see Ron Haven got a nice plug!

**Lemni Skate** · 09-27-2009, 11:04

I have nothing against the WSJ; if I read it I'm sure I'd be wealthy enough by now to be finishing up a thru-hike right now, but this article did rub me the wrong way.

The descriptions of thru hikers seemed so opposite of what I've encountered. I've rarely encountered any thru's who could be described as bums (though I've encountered a couple of bums pretending to be thru hikers). Most of the hikers I've run into are hard working people in whatever they do, and can't really be classified by job or anything else. I'm sure if you are a business near the trail you run into a few bad eggs every year, but they've got to be a small minority.

**Just a Hiker** · 09-27-2009, 11:25

As already mentioned, the WSJ article is a tad misleading and contains it's fair share of misinformation. The article also implies that hikers can work their way up the trail with relative ease, but it's not as easy as the article wants us to believe. Further, the article wants it's readers to believe that thru-hiking is a product of the economy, which isn't accurate either. Lastly, if my hike was dependent upon working for Elmer Hall for a month, I would just stay home.

**Tipi Walter** · 09-27-2009, 14:06

Reading the Wall Street Journal for info on backpacking the AT is like hiring Adolf Eichmann as a consultant for race relations. As an alleged shill for the companies behind the biggest financial meltdown in U.S. history, I'd say the Wall Street Journal needs to find another line of work. Maybe it's already out of work and trying to become a midget OUTSIDE magazine?

**Jack Tarlin** · 09-27-2009, 15:33

Geez guys, let's leave politics out of this.

It's a newspaper story, period.

Lety's judge it on its merits as a piece of journalism, OK?

Thread: Wall Street Journal Article

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Wall Street Journal Article

Reality Check!!

Posting Permissions