| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
June 10th 05, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#3
June 10th 05, 08:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
June 13th 05, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:08:32 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: For example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a family. Why are they single parents in the first place? Such has nothing to do with the layoffs, but death is one reason why many are single parents. Yes, but it's a small minority. Divorce is another reason and thsoe folks are "no small minority". There are tons of reasons that single parents exist. In fact, if you check the stats, I believe half the children in the country are from homes where both nuclear parents are not present. What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical insurance for themselves and their children. Job retraining is usually available for people displaced by layoffs. You're way off. Job training is NOT usually avaliable for those laid off. In fact, job retraining availability is available to only an extremely small percentage of laid off workers. You need to realize many can't move away for myriad of reasons, such as caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single example. Most people have large extended families. Most? How you figure that? Uh, probably because of genetics and reproduction. =A0 So genetics and reproduction is your reasoning for claiming most people have large families. Odd, the US census says otherwise. =A0I know the concept of family has become somewhat foreign with today's younger generation. Why eliminate your chosen term "large" now, when applying to families? It changes not only the subject, but the entire point you were attempting. No one branch of a family should be made to bear the burden of such hardships themselves. Where should these folks turn, then Dave? AS I said, the US census does not support your claim. Perhaps you can point to a single example to support your claim that most have "large extended families". You are assuiming all families share your core beliefs. They do not. No, you are right. Many don't. But that's part of the problem. Only for you. That others do not share your core beliefs is not part of the problem, Dave. Families used to take care of each other. There was no need for the government. There was always a need for government. This country is a melting pot of so many value systems and beliefs that you will never have families all sharing the same. Especially when you start emphasizing diversity instead of encouraging assimilation into the melting pot of American culture. =A0 Diversity is what America is and has always strived for. =A0People lean on the internal support of the family for temporary hardships. We're not talking emotional or physical, we are talking financial. So am I. Most families can assume some hardship (such as elderly member care). Again, you miss the boat. Most families are middle class and can NOT bear the burden of additional extended family health care costs. In fact, the opposie is true, the MAJORITY of Americans struggle with affordable health care costs for themselves and immediate family members, and you are claiming they have the means to take on additional cost. That simply isn't so. The care of an elderly family member should not have to fall squarely on the shoulders of one (or two) people. The cost of a family member's care should not have to fall on ANY family members, especially when the US is giving away free medical care to the Iraqis. A strong family negates the need for the government to stick its nose into it (At other people's expense). I know many strong family units who would die for each other. Yes! And that's how it should be. That doesn't mean one has the financial means to provide a solution for another's misfortunes, especially when catastrophic health issues arise. .But a strong large family has more resources than a single person. Yes, but you are again basing sucha claim on your false and unsupported notion that most families are large. This is not the case. More children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own. Yes, and those who are ambitious will pay it all back when they adjust to their situation and find a new vocation. Many are disabled or seniors and can't work. MANY. There is a big difference between those who can't work, and those who chose not to, or who are underemployed due to lack of motivation. The senior market, especially with boomers retiring, makes up the majority, not the minority. Surely you aren't presenting the idea that all those without health care can simply "adjust". You are assuming these people can all work when a great number of them, esecially in Florida are seniors with a host of health problems. What did these people do 50 years ago, when health insurance was still in its infancy and few people had it? =A0 Argung past history is irrelevant to the current health care situation and crisis. =A0What is your solution to this very large group? There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare. Subsidizing health care costs is what put us in this mess to begin with. Private insurance subsidies have enabled the healthcare field to sharply increase costs. If the government got involved, it would only get worse. The government DID get involved, Dave, and is VERY involved. They regulate and permit the actions of the crooked insurance companies and industry. The government is very much part of the problem. Unless, there were mandatory caps put on the costs Well, if you live in a town where 80% of the people work at "the factory" and that factory closes up, well yea the town's in a real pickle. All towns have a major employer. .That's wrong. Had you said "many" or a "good deal", I would have to reluctantly agree with you. But the area where I live has no "one" major employer. Again, you changed your claim. All towns have a major employer. If a town has 10,000 people and all work at a different locale, but twenty five work at the same place in town, that IS the major employed for that town. There is a collection of many smaller professional and technology businesses. The .same is true in many areas of California, and Texas. Exactly..and all towns have a major employer, even if it's the federal government or local PD. Years ago, when the textile mills ran, the steel mills flourished, and other large factories dotted the landscape, there might have been a bigger impact. But most of those factories have been closed now for over 20 years, and have been replaced by smaller, denser high tech industries. Which, in turn, would be a town's major employer. |
|
#5
June 13th 05, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
David T. Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
The number of those without health care (seniors included) far outnumber those healthy workers who get laid off. Most companies who employ skilled workers, have some form of healthcare coverage as part of their benefits package. I've never had a job without it. Your personal situation is irrelevant to the majority. A growing trend has been major employers hiring at 32 hours or less to avoid offering health care benefits. Resumption of healthcare coverage is tied to .the laid-off worker's need to find another job. So what happens in between when on eneeds prescription medication? When one is laid off from their job and offered the mandated COBRA, the cost is always greater than the original. Now, you have people who can not only pay their bills, but can't afford their medical covereage. What is your solution? That way, no one layoff can cripple a significant portion of the population. Depends what you consider a significant portion of the population. I can think of several examples..Reagan importing cheaper metals from the Asians decimated the steel industry in Pa and Ohio. I live within an easy drive of 4 different steel plants. The towns that surrounded them were dependant on those mills for the majority of their income. But 20 years later and things have pretty much recovered. People can get pretty creative when they need to be. Recovered from what? You said it couldn't happen, but by invoking the fact they recovered, you unwittingly admit the towns were indeed crippled from such layoffs.. In many of those industry towns, this led to the closing of the mills and a significant layoff of those town's populations and many of those towns became ghettos or ghost towns because of that. Not in my area. The towns (Allentown, Phoenixville, Fairless Hills, and Conshohocken) are still going strong, although the people who live there are forced to commute to work now. The towns are going through a revitalization, where the old factories have been leveled and in their place have sprung up huge business campuses. Those towns were never considered large steel towns or large steel industy towns. Think Pittsburgh and similar cities in Ohio. Same can be said with coal mining and to a certain extent, the auto industry. History repeats itself. Yes, as we continue to become more efficient at manufacture, Whaaaa? Manufacturing is DOWN, not becoming more efficient. the nature of jobs have evolved along with it. The automobile pretty much ended the demand for blacksmiths. But we shouldn't blame the automobile for causing the demise of the blacksmith industry. The smart blacksmith went back to school and learned to repair cars. Blacksmiths were never a large industry and the position was never one of those that most in a city were employed, rendering the example fruitless and non-related. That's one of the reasons why I still live where I do. I was once contemplating a move to both Florida and North Carolina. But the lack of .diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay scales pretty much nixed that move. Lack of diverse skilled jobs? Excuse me, I should have said diverse high .paying skilled jobs. When was the last time you checked the stats? Florida has led the country in adding new jobs and has not felt the inflation the country has felt the last so many years. The pay here was always offset by the lower cost of living. That's a myth. Ok,,in the same manner you claimed one who lived in another state could not tell you about Pa, what makes you feel you can tell a lifelong resident of another state about their state? It;s not a myth, Dave. There is no state income tax and prices have always been lower in Fl,,until recently (last 10 years). Yes, there are certain costs which are lower in Florida. The homestead exemption saves a bundle on property tax. Homes are (were) cheaper. There is no state tax, and utilities are somewhat lower. Utilites are higher, especially electric, as the majority of homes do not have gas. Gas was only recently introduced as a choice for heating and cooking, and even in most cities, it has to be trucked in (propane). Yes, many costs ARE lower to an extent. But if you try to buy something like a car, gasoline, or a major appliance or consumer good, the cost is pretty mush the same as it is in any other state. Again,,nope. Auto costs are not only in better condition (speaking of used, of course) but new cars are somehwta cheaper here, so are most manufactured goods. The exceptions are the tourist areas and coastal regions that are developed. I can get a gallon of milk for 3 bucks here. I can get a gallon of milk in Chiefland for 2.29. this is the norm, not the exception. And at 30-40% less of a salary, for the same job, that limits one's buying power. Yep,,salaries for workers who work for another have always been low compared to the northern states. The only people that have trouble adjusting are those who live beyond their means. Living beyond one's means is somewhat subjective. It depends on where you are living and what your earning power is. Your salary has nothing to do with one living beyond their means. One can make 200 bucks a week and live beyond their means, just as one who makes 2000 bucks a week can live beyond their means. It is also not linked to geography or earning power. _ =A0People like you usually get what is coming in the end Yes, we tend to survive, because we don't look to other people to blame, or to the government for help. What about this job retraining you speak of? Who pays for it? We do. That's one area of assistance that I'm very much in favor of. Training enables people to become self-sufficient. Yet, govvernment medical care enables people to live and be healthy, yet, you are against that. That's what self sufficiency and personal responsibility are all about. One can not be self sufficient is one is sick and ailing. Looking to the government for assistance is perfectly acceptable in many instances, Dave. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of people STILL homeless in Fl because of the hurricanes. Yes, Yes, and YES. I'm totally cool with hardship TEMPORARY assistance. Many of the major insurance companies are STILL unable to pay for their customer's claims. And my insurance premiums have increased as a result. Yet the company swears that it has nothing to do with the large payouts they .had to make to cover those claims. Somehow I don't believe them..... If it wasn't for the government assistance (what you always refer to as "handouts") with food, water, shelter, etc., these folks would be on the welfare tit. What's the difference? A handout is a handout, unless you are expected to pay it back. Government assistance or welfare? Comes from the same place. But again, I have no problem if it's temporary only. Many folks would benefit and live healthier and longer if they were permitted even temporary medical assistance from the government,,,so are you for it or against it? =A0=A0Now please 'splain how being self-sufficient and personally responsible can help these folks who paid their premiums on time faithfully all those years, had their homes destroyed or damaged to the point they are rendered unsafe for living conditions, lost all their possessions, yet still manage to survive by living in tents, can bring them up out of their hell created by the insurance companies who are regulated by the federal government. The insurance companies are obligated to make good on their claims. But they AREN'T making good on their claims, Dave, and this is the problem. And they should be made to repay the .government for any "handouts" it had to pay to house people until the insurance companies settled. The government disagrees, this why FEMA was created. Call it an "incentive" clause. You really have no clue the magnitude of damage these storms had on many people in Florida. I saw some of it when I was there last fall. There are so many hardworking people that are struggling just to feed their kids, living in tents, and waiting for the federal government to crack down on the insurance companies and make them ante up. .Which they should. But they AREN'T doing it, and the government is STILL permitting these companies do write more policies. To suggest these fine families are anything less than responsible or self-sufficient shows you haven't a clue, Dave. I never said anything of the sort. I'm not talking about temporarily displaced people. I'm talking about perpetual slackers. Does being displaced for a year eqaute your idea of temporary? On the contrary, I will lay odds these folks are illustrating survival skills and grit that you couldn't handle. Based on what? Based on your invoked claims of your material possessions. Many of these folks have been living out of doors, literally, for almost a year and cooking on fires or grills. I do that for fun. Try this for a year, when all of your equipment enabling you to partake in this "fun" has been destroyed, then you -may- be qualified to speak of what these people should and shouldn't do. _ and karma, luck, divine intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and prostitution charges. Not likely because she will have grown up in a solid supportive family that helps each other and promotes open communications and a strong work ethic with solid morals. What the hell does that have to do with having children to another race? .Nothing. If she wants to marry a black guy, I'm cool with it. As long as they love each other. You can tell you are about to tread in unfamiliar parenting territory. Just you wait. Mistakenly believing that strong morals and all that good stuff aimed at raising your child will prevent her from making her mistakes is the mistake many people make. In fact, many of us who have raised children to adults know better than to believe such tripe, as we were there long before you, Dave. If what you say were true, drug addicts and prostitutes and the like would come from only families that were broken and had no communications, strong work ethic or solid morals. Addiction has no cultural, socioeconomic boundaries. Yes it does to a certain degree. No, it doesn't, at all. Crack is found in the whitest suburbs as well as the darkest ghettos. In fact, the children in this country in addiction programs are overwhelmingly white and from middle class to well -to-do families. Kids rebel and turn to things like drugs because they need an outlet for their energy, or they are craving attention. Among a boatload of reasons you ignore...abuse, peer pressure, self-esteem, curiosity, lies told to them by those who buy into the government's bull**** war on drugs...etc. It's hypocritical of us to tell the kids to just say no when we ply them with ritalin from a young age and mom smokes cigarettes, drinks cup after cup of coffee, and dad drinks alcohol, even if it's the cocktail with dinner. Provide them with many sorts of creative avenues to release, and there will be no need to turn to destructive behavior. Again,,,bull****. A kid who plays sports, acts in drama clubs, plays in the band, participates in the arts, or has a worthwhile hobby, will be way too busy to hang out with the slackers. Your mistake is believing drug use by children is inherent to these you call "slackers". Giving a kid an activity that they can be proud to excel at and bolster their self esteem (While learning what it means to truly EARN it) builds character. Yup,,character that is torn down when these suburban kids from loving families begin using harmful drugs. Lastly, never lose communication with them. Set your ground rules while they are young, and they become adjusted to them. Let a child run amuck when they are young, and then try to reign them in when they hit the teenaged years, and you've already lost. Talk to them always. Know all their friends (and their parents). Make sure they know that you're always there for them. Support them in whatever they do. Show up at their plays, cheer them on at their games. Listen to their teachers when you have conferences. Trust them enough and allow them to make small mistakes, but keep on the lookout for major ones. In short, STAY INVOLVED! Al that is great advice, but is irrelevant in the real world. I know how my parents raised me. I know from a child's perspective which disciplines worked, and which ones didn't. I use what I learned to my advantage as a parent. You ignore the fact that peer pressure is greater today than you can comprehend....your advice has been followed time and time again, yet there are great kids who succumb to drugs every day. |
|
#6
June 15th 05, 01:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
June 15th 05, 09:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:29:46 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: David T. Hall (N3CVJ) wrote: The number of those without health care (seniors included) far outnumber those healthy workers who get laid off. Most companies who employ skilled workers, have some form of healthcare coverage as part of their benefits package. I've never had a job without it. Your personal situation is irrelevant to the majority. Not really. Most people who are in full time gainfully employed jobs have some form of health care coverage. Unless you're a part time worker, chances are you have some coverage. Each year (for the last 4 years) the number of part-time workers has increased as the number of those laid off has increased. A growing trend has been major employers hiring at 32 hours or less to avoid offering health care benefits. There are laws to discourage this practice. Bull****. Any company can fill their positions with ft or pt employees. There is no law that claims copanies must offer ft work. Just as there are laws to prevent an employer from paying you a "Salary" instead of an hourly rate to avoid paying overtime. Look into the federal wage and hour laws. =A0 I have to abide by the laws you speak of but it seems you are not familiar with them. Another easy way to avoid offering benefits is to hire people as independent cotractors, from laborers to clerical..this is very common in Fl. It also negates the need for federal withholding, placing the burden on the worker with a 10-99. =A0Resumption of healthcare coverage is tied to .the laid-off worker's need to find another job. So what happens in between when on needs prescription medication? When one is laid off from their job and offered the mandated COBRA, the cost is always greater than the original. Now, you have people who can not only pay their bills, but can't afford their medical covereage. What is your solution? No one said that life would always be easy. If you don't have a solution, say so, but saying resumption of healthcare is tied to finding another job goes without say. Problem is, the jobs do not exist..check your stats from the feds. Last month, the feds fell short of 100,000 jobs they expected to add to the stats of added jobs for the month. Try growing up during the great depression in the 30's as my parents did, and then tell me what hardship is. How are your parents any different from any other of our parents who did the same thing? When I was a kid, all I would hear were stories of how people did "this and that" to get by. You've probably heard the stereotypical stories of people walking to school with ratty shoes full of holes in the snow. Uphill,,,both ways. Except that these were true. I guess my perspective is a bit different than yours. To me, the examples you've given are a speed bump compared to life during the depression. Except you weren't there and did not experience anything remotely associated with such a hardship as that. That way, no one layoff can cripple a significant portion of the population. Depends what you consider a significant portion of the population. I can think of several examples..Reagan importing cheaper metals from the Asians decimated the steel industry in Pa and Ohio. I live within an easy drive of 4 different steel plants. The towns that surrounded them were dependant on those mills for the majority of their income. Not one of those small towns you mentioned were major steel producing towns. In fact, those towns are obscure to all but those who live near them, except for Allentown, and that was made famous by Billy Joel. But 20 years later and things have pretty much recovered. People can get pretty creative when they need to be. Recovered from what? You said it couldn't happen, but by invoking the fact they recovered, you unwittingly admit the towns were indeed crippled from such layoffs.. Only temporarily. It happened. An entire generation came of age and went during that "temporary" era you refer. That's the whole point. Life goes on. People adapt and adjust. Allow them to do that, give them a few tools to help them, and they will solve their own problem. Except many cities did not recover. We don't need the government mollycoddling us and indoctrinating us into becoming dependant on them. Asking for health care from those who are charged with regulating it when they have the best care available and toss our cash away like ****ing in the wind and give away health care to the very same people you say are trying to kill us and wage war and terror on us, is not mollycoddling. Kind of difficult to explain your position when you suport these leaders who "mollycoddle" with healthcare those you repeatedly insist are our enemy and hate us and want us dead. My original point was also that having diverse industries in your locale helps to prevent crippling a town if one of those industries goes belly-up. The others still go on, and the impact is much less than a town which grew up around one very large plant. In many of those industry towns, this led to the closing of the mills and a significant layoff of those town's populations and many of those towns became ghettos or ghost towns because of that. Not in my area. The towns (Allentown, Phoenixville, Fairless Hills, and Conshohocken) are still going strong, although the people who live there are forced to commute to work now. The towns are going through a revitalization, where the old factories have been leveled and in their place have sprung up huge business campuses. Those towns were never considered large steel towns or large steel industy towns. Tell that to the thousands of people (And Billy Joel) who lived and worked there and were laid off when the mills closed. They were small, tiny mills compared to the larger cities and employed a fractio of the workers.=A0 =A0Think Pittsburgh and similar cities in Ohio. Same can be said with coal mining and to a certain extent, the auto industry. History repeats itself. Yes, as we continue to become more efficient at manufacture, Whaaaa? Manufacturing is DOWN, not becoming more efficient. Down in this country. It's growing strong in other places where it is cheaper (Hence more efficient) to manufacture things. Yea, but that isn't "we". "We" is,,,,er,,,are the USA! =A0=A0the nature of jobs have evolved along with it. The automobile pretty much ended the demand for blacksmiths. =A0But we shouldn't blame the automobile for causing the demise of the blacksmith industry. The smart blacksmith went back to school and learned to repair cars. Blacksmiths were never a large industry and the position was never one of those that most in a city were employed, rendering the example fruitless and non-related. It's very much related. A particular vocation doesn't have to be large to be relevant. It does to be compared to an entire industry such as the steel industry of which we were speaking. The blacksmith example highlight quite accurately what happens when our society evolves and old skills and crafts are no longer needed. The loss of blacksmith jobs never crippled any towns or cities and that was what we were speaking. At the same time newer skills open up as a result of advancing technology. People need to keep up with the trends so that the skills they posses are not obsolete. That's one of the reasons why I still live where I do. I was once contemplating a move to both Florida and North Carolina. But the lack of .diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay scales pretty much nixed that move. Lack of diverse skilled jobs? Excuse me, I should have said diverse high .paying skilled jobs. When was the last time you checked the stats? Florida has led the country in adding new jobs and has not felt the inflation the country has felt the last so many years. The pay here was always offset by the lower cost of living. All that sounds fine and all, but the long and short of it is that for the field that I am in, the salaries offered were between 20 and 40% lower than they are here. The employers there (And I interviewed with quite a few) once they find out where you're from, tell you right up front not to expect a comparable salary. That's a myth. Ok,,in the same manner you claimed one who lived in another state could not tell you about Pa, what makes you feel you can tell a lifelong resident of another state about their state? Because I did some extensive research So did Shark on your laws, but you stil claimed because one lived somewhere else, they cold not know the particulars as well as one who resided there. when I was considering the move there 15 years ago. 15 years ago was another era in Fl. I walked into a K-Mart and compared prices of the things that I normally buy with what I pay up here. My wife was especially knowledgable about clothing prices. It's not a myth, Dave. There is no state income tax and prices have always been lower in Fl,,until recently (last 10 years). Slightly lower in specific cases, like locally produced goods like fruit and other food. =A0 =A0Yes, there are certain costs which are lower in Florida. The homestead exemption saves a bundle on property tax. Homes are (were) cheaper. There is no state tax, and utilities are somewhat lower. Utilites are higher, especially electric, as the majority of homes do not have gas. Actually, when I was checking, I was currently paying 15 cents per kilowatt hour. In Florida (In Brevard County), the rate was about 8 cents per kilowatt hour. Water rates varied depending on whether you had "city" water or a privately owned "utility", but they were cheaper by and large than what I paid up here. What do you refer to as a privately owned utility? You either have city, county, or well water. I have city -and- a well. Heat was not an issue as most homes used efficient heat pumps, which spent most of their times as air conditioners. With insulation ratings of R34 in most new homes, the cooling costs offset the normal eastern PA winter heating cost by a considerable margin. Gas was only recently introduced as a choice for heating and cooking, and even in most cities, it has to be trucked in (propane). I prefer electric for cooking (When I'm not grilling). Not me. I hate it, but until we get gas lines, I'm not paying for propane. And heating in Florida is not normally an issue, as you know. A couple of logs on the fireplace will take the chill off on those few chilly mornings. =A0 Depends where you live. The top of the state, even from Ocala northward use their heat all winter every winter. 30's is a bit chilly and a fireplace can't heat the entire house. =A0Yes, many costs ARE lower to an extent. But if you try to buy something like a car, gasoline, or a major appliance or consumer good, the cost is pretty mush the same as it is in any other state. Again,,nope. Autos are not only in better condition (speaking of used, of course) but new cars are somewhat cheaper here, so are most manufactured goods. Not according to what I found. I didn't bother with used car pricing because there is a certain amount of subjective perception. (shrug) I go by NADA or edmunds.com perceptions, as does the auto industry. Check resale and trade-in values. But the MSRP of new cars there was the same (or very close) as what I see up here. Sure, no one pays MSRP, but the degree of discount is not going to be any more significant there than here. Gasoline was actually more expensive back then than up here. What do you pay for gas now? Last week, I paid $1.94/gallon =A0 Last week I paid 1.94 also. This week it's 2.03 but I haven't checked gasbuddy.com in a few weeks. - =A0The exceptions are the tourist areas and coastal regions that are developed. I can get a gallon of milk for 3 bucks here. I can get a gallon of milk in Chiefland for 2.29. this is the norm, not the exception. I can do the same up here. Orange Juice is $2.00 a half gallon (for the "Not from concentrate" stuff). That's something I would expect to be much cheaper in Florida. It is, bit not in the stores. Go to the stands or groves. |
|
#8
June 16th 05, 01:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:37:58 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:29:46 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: David T. Hall (N3CVJ) wrote: The number of those without health care (seniors included) far outnumber those healthy workers who get laid off. Most companies who employ skilled workers, have some form of healthcare coverage as part of their benefits package. I've never had a job without it. Your personal situation is irrelevant to the majority. Not really. Most people who are in full time gainfully employed jobs have some form of health care coverage. Unless you're a part time worker, chances are you have some coverage. Each year (for the last 4 years) the number of part-time workers has increased as the number of those laid off has increased. A growing trend has been major employers hiring at 32 hours or less to avoid offering health care benefits. There are laws to discourage this practice. Bull****. Any company can fill their positions with ft or pt employees. There is no law that claims copanies must offer ft work. You are right. But wasn't there some provision that stated that if a "part time" worker works consistently more than 32 hours that they become considered full time? Just as there are laws to prevent an employer from paying you a "Salary" instead of an hourly rate to avoid paying overtime. Look into the federal wage and hour laws. * I have to abide by the laws you speak of but it seems you are not familiar with them. Another easy way to avoid offering benefits is to hire people as independent cotractors, from laborers to clerical..this is very common in Fl. It also negates the need for federal withholding, placing the burden on the worker with a 10-99. Independent contractors are common here too. I know many professionals who actually prefer working this way. My company hires contractors for special projects. For the company it's a win-win situation since, if they like the person and they do a good job, they have the option of hiring them on full time. If not, they can just let him go when his contract expires. But the thing is, the company usually pays much more for a contractor than they pay for a full time employee. The people who like contract work claim that they can make enough to easily pay their own medical coverage and still end up ahead of the game. The biggest downside is the uncertainty of finding consistent contracts. Many of these people work through an agency to help them find contract jobs. The downside to that though is that the agency takes a "cut" of what a company would otherwise pay you. On the other hand, some of these agencies will pick up medical coverage, and you end up becoming an employee of the contract agency. There are many variations. *Resumption of healthcare coverage is tied to .the laid-off worker's need to find another job. So what happens in between when on needs prescription medication? When one is laid off from their job and offered the mandated COBRA, the cost is always greater than the original. Now, you have people who can not only pay their bills, but can't afford their medical covereage. What is your solution? No one said that life would always be easy. If you don't have a solution, say so, but saying resumption of healthcare is tied to finding another job goes without say. Problem is, the jobs do not exist..check your stats from the feds. Last month, the feds fell short of 100,000 jobs they expected to add to the stats of added jobs for the month. On the other hand, the federal unemployment rate is around 5.1%. Even if that number under represents the total number of unemployed people, and it's really 10%, that also means that 90% of eligible people are working. Try growing up during the great depression in the 30's as my parents did, and then tell me what hardship is. How are your parents any different from any other of our parents who did the same thing? They're different in that they understood the hardship and got through it without screaming for the government to bale them out. What we are going through today is a walk in the park compared to back then. When I was a kid, all I would hear were stories of how people did "this and that" to get by. You've probably heard the stereotypical stories of people walking to school with ratty shoes full of holes in the snow. Uphill,,,both ways. And they were glad! Except that these were true. I guess my perspective is a bit different than yours. To me, the examples you've given are a speed bump compared to life during the depression. Except you weren't there and did not experience anything remotely associated with such a hardship as that. Not directly no. But when the family would talk about it seemingly endlessly when I was a kid, you'd swear they were reliving it. That way, no one layoff can cripple a significant portion of the population. Depends what you consider a significant portion of the population. I can think of several examples..Reagan importing cheaper metals from the Asians decimated the steel industry in Pa and Ohio. I live within an easy drive of 4 different steel plants. The towns that surrounded them were dependant on those mills for the majority of their income. Not one of those small towns you mentioned were major steel producing towns. In fact, those towns are obscure to all but those who live near them, except for Allentown, and that was made famous by Billy Joel. But the problem was very real to those who lived there. Phoenixville was especially hard hit when not only the steel mill closed, but the Firestone tire plant closed, and the Budd Company (Made truck and train bodies) closed as well. But today, the town is doing alright. A whole new host of tech and office type jobs opened up. But 20 years later and things have pretty much recovered. People can get pretty creative when they need to be. Recovered from what? You said it couldn't happen, but by invoking the fact they recovered, you unwittingly admit the towns were indeed crippled from such layoffs.. Only temporarily. It happened. An entire generation came of age and went during that "temporary" era you refer. 20 years is a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. Recovery started sooner than that. It took 20 years to finally raze the old buildings. That's the whole point. Life goes on. People adapt and adjust. Allow them to do that, give them a few tools to help them, and they will solve their own problem. Except many cities did not recover. Most did, and still do. If not, people always have the option to move. We don't need the government mollycoddling us and indoctrinating us into becoming dependant on them. Asking for health care from those who are charged with regulating it when they have the best care available and toss our cash away like ****ing in the wind and give away health care to the very same people you say are trying to kill us and wage war and terror on us, is not mollycoddling. Kind of difficult to explain your position when you suport these leaders who "mollycoddle" with healthcare those you repeatedly insist are our enemy and hate us and want us dead. I'm not so sure how true it is that we are giving free healthcare to all Iraqi's. That was a rumor started by a liberal rag, based on war related casualties. That doesn't mean that every sick person in Iraq gets free healthcare at our expense. If the government provided all of us healthcare, it would cost a huge sum. Just the medicare prescription benefit that Bush signed in (And I strongly opposed) is a huge adder to the deficit. To cover every American, it would require a sizable increase in taxes. I already have good coverage, and it costs me less than the tax increase to cover the government's plan. So why should I favor it? It's nothing more than socialism. Taking from those according to their means, to give to those according to their needs. And when the government is paying the bill, those "needs" will increase exponentially. There is a certain segment of the population that like to take advantage of as much free money as they can get. In many of those industry towns, this led to the closing of the mills and a significant layoff of those town's populations and many of those towns became ghettos or ghost towns because of that. Not in my area. The towns (Allentown, Phoenixville, Fairless Hills, and Conshohocken) are still going strong, although the people who live there are forced to commute to work now. The towns are going through a revitalization, where the old factories have been leveled and in their place have sprung up huge business campuses. Those towns were never considered large steel towns or large steel industy towns. Tell that to the thousands of people (And Billy Joel) who lived and worked there and were laid off when the mills closed. They were small, tiny mills compared to the larger cities and employed a fraction of the workers.* *Think Pittsburgh and similar cities in Ohio. Same can be said with coal mining and to a certain extent, the auto industry. History repeats itself. Yes, as we continue to become more efficient at manufacture, Whaaaa? Manufacturing is DOWN, not becoming more efficient. Down in this country. It's growing strong in other places where it is cheaper (Hence more efficient) to manufacture things. Yea, but that isn't "we". "We" is,,,,er,,,are the USA! "We" still own many of the companies and still manage the operations overseas. That employs people. True, it requires a more advanced management skillset, but the jobs usually pay better too. **the nature of jobs have evolved along with it. The automobile pretty much ended the demand for blacksmiths. *But we shouldn't blame the automobile for causing the demise of the blacksmith industry. The smart blacksmith went back to school and learned to repair cars. Blacksmiths were never a large industry and the position was never one of those that most in a city were employed, rendering the example fruitless and non-related. It's very much related. A particular vocation doesn't have to be large to be relevant. It does to be compared to an entire industry such as the steel industry of which we were speaking. The principle is the same, regardless of the size of the industry. When technology allows the reduction of manual labor, or the obsolescence of a particular vocation, and a savings in costs, should we not take advantage of it? Isn't part of an individual's responsibility to remain marketable? The blacksmith example highlights quite accurately what happens when our society evolves and old skills and crafts are no longer needed. The loss of blacksmith jobs never crippled any towns or cities and that was what we were speaking. Again the scale of the effect is irrelevant. The principle is the same. When jobs become obsolete, people must learn new current skills. At the same time newer skills open up as a result of advancing technology. People need to keep up with the trends so that the skills they posses are not obsolete. That's one of the reasons why I still live where I do. I was once contemplating a move to both Florida and North Carolina. But the lack of .diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay scales pretty much nixed that move. Lack of diverse skilled jobs? Excuse me, I should have said diverse high .paying skilled jobs. When was the last time you checked the stats? Florida has led the country in adding new jobs and has not felt the inflation the country has felt the last so many years. The pay here was always offset by the lower cost of living. All that sounds fine and all, but the long and short of it is that for the field that I am in, the salaries offered were between 20 and 40% lower than they are here. The employers there (And I interviewed with quite a few) once they find out where you're from, tell you right up front not to expect a comparable salary. Ok,,in the same manner you claimed one who lived in another state could not tell you about Pa, what makes you feel you can tell a lifelong resident of another state about their state? Because I did some extensive research So did Shark on your laws, Says you. I saw no evidence of that. But please stay focussed. but you stil claimed because one lived somewhere else, they cold not know the particulars as well as one who resided there. Which is true in most cases. when I was considering the move there 15 years ago. 15 years ago was another era in Fl. Things have changed that much? Ok, I'll take your word for it, since you live there. I walked into a K-Mart and compared prices of the things that I normally buy with what I pay up here. My wife was especially knowledgable about clothing prices. It's not a myth, Dave. There is no state income tax and prices have always been lower in Fl,,until recently (last 10 years). Slightly lower in specific cases, like locally produced goods like fruit and other food. *Yes, there are certain costs which are lower in Florida. The homestead exemption saves a bundle on property tax. Homes are (were) cheaper. There is no state tax, and utilities are somewhat lower. Utilites are higher, especially electric, as the majority of homes do not have gas. Actually, when I was checking, I was currently paying 15 cents per kilowatt hour. In Florida (In Brevard County), the rate was about 8 cents per kilowatt hour. Water rates varied depending on whether you had "city" water or a privately owned "utility", but they were cheaper by and large than what I paid up here. What do you refer to as a privately owned utility? You either have city, county, or well water. I have city -and- a well. Wells were usually used to water the grass. The new homes I was looking at all had one. What I meant by a privately owned utility was a utility that was built by the housing developer to provide water to their developments. It's not owned or operated by the city, it is a private entity. I understand that after a certain number of years passed many of these private utilities were sold to the city. Heat was not an issue as most homes used efficient heat pumps, which spent most of their times as air conditioners. With insulation ratings of R34 in most new homes, the cooling costs offset the normal eastern PA winter heating cost by a considerable margin. Gas was only recently introduced as a choice for heating and cooking, and even in most cities, it has to be trucked in (propane). I prefer electric for cooking (When I'm not grilling). Not me. I hate it, but until we get gas lines, I'm not paying for propane. Personal choice I guess. I grew up with electric appliances, so that's what I'm used to. And heating in Florida is not normally an issue, as you know. A couple of logs on the fireplace will take the chill off on those few chilly mornings. Depends where you live. The top of the state, even from Ocala northward use their heat all winter every winter. 30's is a bit chilly and a fireplace can't heat the entire house. I was in Central Florida (Brevard), and was told that heat was a rarity for about a three week span in January. *Yes, many costs ARE lower to an extent. But if you try to buy something like a car, gasoline, or a major appliance or consumer good, the cost is pretty mush the same as it is in any other state. Again,,nope. Autos are not only in better condition (speaking of used, of course) but new cars are somewhat cheaper here, so are most manufactured goods. Not according to what I found. I didn't bother with used car pricing because there is a certain amount of subjective perception. (shrug) I go by NADA or edmunds.com perceptions, as does the auto industry. Check resale and trade-in values. But the MSRP of new cars there was the same (or very close) as what I see up here. Sure, no one pays MSRP, but the degree of discount is not going to be any more significant there than here. Gasoline was actually more expensive back then than up here. What do you pay for gas now? Last week, I paid $1.94/gallon * Last week I paid 1.94 also. This week it's 2.03 but I haven't checked gasbuddy.com in a few weeks. I'm up to $2.04 as of today. But that just goes to show that there isn't enough of a difference in most consumer costs in Florida to justify a 30% reduction in salary. *The exceptions are the tourist areas and coastal regions that are developed. I can get a gallon of milk for 3 bucks here. I can get a gallon of milk in Chiefland for 2.29. this is the norm, not the exception. I can do the same up here. Orange Juice is $2.00 a half gallon (for the "Not from concentrate" stuff). That's something I would expect to be much cheaper in Florida. It is, bit not in the stores. Go to the stands or groves. And it's better there too. There's nothing tastier than a fresh from the grove Florida Orange juice. We have vegetable stands too. Obviously we can't grow citrus fruits, but we do tomatoes, cucumbers, corn, lettuce and most common produce. And it's cheaper than the stores usually too. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#9
June 15th 05, 10:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hall Jr.(N3CVJ) wrote:
And at 30-40% less of a salary, for the same job, that limits one's buying power. Yep,,salaries for workers who work for another have always been low compared to the northern states. Exactly my point. Which limits my buying power. The only people that have trouble adjusting are those who live beyond their means. Living beyond one's means is somewhat subjective. It depends on where you are living and what your earning power is. Your salary has nothing to do with one living beyond their means. Sure it does. You salary determines what "your means" is. One can make 200 bucks a week and live beyond their means, just as one who makes 2000 bucks a week can live beyond their means. It is also not linked to geography or earning power. When one budgets carefully and lives a certain standard of living in one area and "lives within his means", suddenly up roots and moves somewhere else, and his salary decreases, he is now living beyond his means assuming the bills stay relatively the same. Demonstrating anyone can live beyond their means. Cuts in spending involve changing your standard of living. Someone used to driving a BMW might now have to deal with a Chevy. It might not be their idea of "living". What about this job retraining you speak of? Who pays for it? We do. That's one area of assistance that I'm very much in favor of. Training enables people to become self-sufficient. Yet, government medical care enables people to live and be healthy, yet, you are against that. Because it is a widening blacke hole Sure,,when the US in covering Iraqi medical care for the asking. As long as there are no attempts to cap medical costs they will keep spiraling, no matter how much the government kicks in on our behalf. Yet, you speak out against our own people getting such care, but you have said nothing concerning the current admin's waste of medical care and supplying the Iraqi's with it, or any other of the "enemies' on our list That's what self sufficiency and personal responsibility are all about. One can not be self sufficient if one is sick and ailing. People got sick in the 1930's too. Try to stay relevant, Dave, and not slip into your preference of discussing ancient history that will not change anything. And you know what? They went to work anyway, or there might not be any food on the table that night. Advocating people to go to work sick in today's climate is a very irresonsible thing to do, Dave. Even the CDC and the WHO tell people to stay home. In fact, many employers, such as hospitals have policies against coming to work ill. _ Looking to the government for assistance is perfectly acceptable in many instances, Dave. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of people STILL homeless in Fl because of the hurricanes. Yes, Yes, and YES. I'm totally cool with hardship TEMPORARY assistance. Many folks would benefit and live healthier and longer if they were permitted even temporary medical assistance from the government,,,so are you for it or against it? No. Not as long as nothing is done to address the supply side of the equation. There are many problems in the medical field. And those who lost everything and are in need of medical assistance were not responsibe for any of them. Fraud is rampant, lawsuits are commonplace, everyone looks to wring big bucks out of the medical industry. Until there is meaningful tort reform, lessening of malpractice insurance, and someone steps in to run roughshod over billing practices, I don't want one more penny pumped into this industry only to encourage it to grow even further in costs. =A0 It's not a oney shortage problem, like you assume, it's a budget issue of where and how the monies are spent. Instead of spending health care on the enemy overseas, there are many children in this country who could benefit from the care El Mohammed Mujasteen receives and which you condone. - =A0Now please 'splain how being self-sufficient and personally responsible can help these folks who paid their premiums on time faithfully all those years, had their homes destroyed or damaged to the point they are rendered unsafe for living conditions, lost all their possessions, yet still manage to survive by living in tents, can bring them up out of their hell created by the insurance companies who are regulated by the federal government. The insurance companies are obligated to make good on their claims. But they AREN'T making good on their claims, Dave, and this is the problem. Well, if they aren't because they can't, that's one thing. If they can't, the fault lies with your government because they are the ones that regulate the premiums and the industry. You can't get blood from a rock. If they're just dragging their feet, the government should step in and push on behalf of the residents. And they should be made to repay the .government for any "handouts" it had to pay to house people until the insurance companies settled. The government disagrees, this is why FEMA was created. FEMA provides assistance to people displaced due to natural disasters. Hurricanes -are- natural disasters, Dave. You perhaps thought otherwise? .Which they should. But they AREN'T doing it, and the government is STILL permitting these companies do write more policies. So you advocate that the government control aspects of business? That's socialism. Better read up on who the insurance industry answers to, Dave. The feds regulate everything to do with them. Besides, if the insurance companies don't write more policies, where are they going to get the money they need to pay the claims (Other than by raising MY rates for no good reason)? From their catastrophic relief fund, a fund specifically created in order to prevent such problems. To suggest these fine families are anything less than responsible or self-sufficient shows you haven't a clue, Dave. I never said anything of the sort. I'm not talking about temporarily displaced people. I'm talking about perpetual slackers. Those displaced by the hurricanes need aid and they are not slackers. Does being displaced for a year equate your idea of temporary? Yes. On the contrary, I will lay odds these folks are illustrating survival skills and grit that you couldn't handle. Based on what? Based on your invoked claims of your material possessions. Which means what exactly? I grew up in a struggling middle class family. My parents were both penny pinchers, and I learned it from them. I'm not rich by any standard, but I pick and choose what things I spend my money on. I prefer to spend money on a few big things rather than on a bunch of smaller ones. Many of these folks have been living out of doors, literally, for almost a year and cooking on fires or grills. .I do that for fun. Try this for a year, when all of your equipment enabling you to partake in this "fun" has been destroyed, then you -may- be qualified to speak of what these people should and shouldn't do. The thing is, if I had a member of my family who was displaced from their home in Florida, I would take a week or two off of work, hook up the trailer to my truck, load up the generator and drive down. I would let them live in the trailer until their home was rebuilt. Again, not everyone has families that can help, Dave. If it were that simple, there would be no displaced families there now,,,and there are thousands and thousands. THAT is what I meant before by leaning on and getting support from family. I can't believe all those people who lost homes don't have relatives they can live with, or who can help them in some way. Yea..they all choose to live without roofs and appliances and choose to cook outdoors because of their pioneering spirit. My in-laws had a fire in 1987. Their home was unlivable for almost a year, while waiting for insurance claims to settle. I invited them to live with my wife and I for the time period. It was tight, but that's what you do for family. Ummm,,,actually, i would have rented them their own place. - Among a boatload of reasons you ignore...abuse, peer pressure, self-esteem, curiosity, lies told to them by those who buy into the government's bull**** war on drugs...etc. It's hypocritical of us to tell the kids to just say no when we ply them with ritalin from a young age and mom smokes cigarettes, drinks cup after cup of coffee, and dad drinks alcohol, even if it's the cocktail with dinner. Not an issue. Peer pressure is something you have to deal with. And something whcih parents have no control to what their children are exposed in public schools. I took a lot of peer pressure abuse when I was a kid. Dave, multiply that times your highest faction you can handle and then you amy come close to understanding the level of peer pressure today. You learn to ignore and deal with it. You learn that those people are not worth your time, and when it's all said and done, they'll be serving you fries 20 years from now. You know better than to try and tell a child what it will be like in 20 years. 20 weeks is an eternity to kid. 20 years is inconceivable. Provide them with many sorts of creative avenues to release, and there will be no need to turn to destructive behavior. Again,,,bull****. Not at all. Perhaps just youare just naive, then. A kid who plays sports, acts in drama clubs, plays in the band, participates in the arts, or has a worthwhile hobby, will be way too busy to hang out with the slackers. Your mistake is believing drug use by children is inherent to these you call "slackers". Drug use is done mainly as an escape by those who can't handle life. Then the same can be said for alcohol and obacco users. Mostly this is a result of isolating parents who protected their kids for too long, and who now have to deal with the ugliness of the real world. They have self-esteem and social issues. But in their minds they are perfectly ok, and they try to get other kids to partake as well, to further bolster the illusion of normalcy that dopers tend to believe. Same can be said for those who drink, then. Being an alert and supportive parent who can intercede when your kid starts to have "problems" before they turn to drugs. Drugs are not the problem Dave, they are a symptom. That's why it's also important to know their friends. =A0=A0Giving a kid an activity that they can be proud to excel at and bolster their self esteem (While learning what it means to truly EARN it) builds character. Yup,,character that is torn down when these suburban kids from loving families begin using harmful drugs. If the character is strong, and you believe enough in yourself, you can just say no. I never did drugs in school. For one thing I never smoked at all, and the smell of smoke bothered me. Other drugs seemed silly to me. To me, they were pointless. Plus I never had enough money to buy them anyway. I spent all my cash on CB radio stuff. I guess you could say CB was my "drug". Keep your kids poor! And for God's sake, don't give them a credit card. =A0 Keep your kids poor? That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. On one hand, you claim that if you act one way with your kids, they will avoid drugs and other pitfalls you mistakenly only attribute to "slackers", yet you believe giving them a credic card or a pocket full of cash will destroy the values you instill in your kids. Oh man, just you wait. You are in for the shock and heartbreak of your life like you can never imagine. =A0Lastly, never lose communication with them. Set your ground rules while they are young, and they become adjusted to them. Let a child run amuck when they are young, and then try to reign them in when they hit the teenaged years, and you've already lost. I don't equate not keeping my children "poor" (as you do) with permitting them to "run amuck". Talk to them always. Know all their friends (and their parents). =A0 =A0Make sure they know that you're always there for them. Support them in whatever they do. Show up at their plays, cheer them on at their games. Listen to their teachers when you have conferences. Trust them enough and allow them to make small mistakes, but keep on the lookout for major ones. In short, STAY INVOLVED! All that is great advice, but is irrelevant in the real world. It is great advice, and it is very relevant in the real world. Not every kid is a weak, spineless bowl of self esteem goo, that can be shattered .by the taunting of some lowlife idiot. Who said otherwise? Those are your mistaken core beliefs. If you build their confidence and show them their potential, they will know enough to laugh .at the pathetic attempts by the slackers who use peer pressure to elevate their own pitiful self-esteem at the expense of others. There are two types of people in the world. No Dave, despite your best attempts at pigeonholing people into neat little groups of twos, it's not true. Those who excel, and the ones that those who excel laugh at. Again, despite your mistaken core beliefs, most successful people do not laigh at those less fortunate than themselves. It's also not a very christian thing to do, let alone something a parent should be teaching their child. I used to laugh a lot when I was in school. I still do. I know how my parents raised me. I know from a child's perspective which disciplines worked, and which ones didn't. =A0 You know what works with -you-. You have no clue what works in other families, religions, faiths, cultures, cities, etc. Your myopic view that everyone shares your beliefs has never been more wrong, as the majority of good caring, parents would never laugh at the misfortune or expense of other's, regardless the situation. =A0I use what I learned to my advantage as a parent. As far as learning as a parent, you are in the infancy stage. You ignore the fact that peer pressure is greater today than you can comprehend No it's not. It's the same old story done for the same reasons. Yea, ok. How many people were killed for their sneakers or clothes when you were a kid, Dave? People elevate themselves by trying to make other people feel lousy. Like laughing at those less fortunate than you, yes, I see your point, but you are extremely hypocritical. Once you understand the psychological forces that drives this, you can defuse them. Uh-huh. ...your advice has been followed time and time again, yet there are great kids who succumb to drugs every day. Then that advice was not followed completely. Once you understand there is no guarantee in parenting, you will understand. Dave "Sandbagger" |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1419 Â October 22, 2004 | CB | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
| OLD motorola trunking information | Scanner | |||
Hybrid Mode
