Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-03-2016, 02:15 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 5,130,164 times
Reputation: 5036

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nlambert View Post
But it isn't that simple....... we can't ONLY look at employers. We must also look to the employees who are living above their means.


A person who makes $60k a year and has a $250k house, a $60k car, 3-4 maxed out credit cards, buys $100 jeans, eats $100 dinners at restaurants frequently, etc.... and then has to go bankrupt because they over extended themselves isn't the fault of the company. The government shouldn't step in to force the company to pay employees more, or provide more benefits when people are abusing their finances. If anything, it just makes the problem worse because folks know that the government will bail them out instead of hold them accountable.




If the government wants to make companies MORE accountable, then the same must be done for employees. You would have to also control their finances so that they can live comfortably within their means and not have to ask the government for more help. See the problem there? Now you have the government controlling not only the companies, but the employees.
But are their credit cards maxed out because there are no cost control measures? I mean my wife and I went out to get a burger and fries and it was over 30$ and that was a serve yourself place. When she went and got groceries it was $240 and there were not prime rib or flay steak.


Yea the 60k vehicals are obnoxious but 250k for a house in some areas is 1/4 step above a shack. Rent where I am for a marginal apartment is 1300 a month, that's a lot of money.


People cant afford to sit around and be savvy because their pay does not allow them to save in the first place. I am doing an experiment now where I am pretending I am unemployed (obviously I cant look for jobs full time because im not really unemployed) but I have been looking for an offer for almost a year now and have not got one. Even if I had all day to look that really does not help because only so many jobs pop up at any given time, then the rest of the time is maybe updating your resume and waiting, maybe calling.


If you are willing to live out of a suit case with no family and no life then you can get on a plane to anywhere and probably eventually find a job. Do you want the USA to continue into the "gig economy" with a total collapse of the family because everyone is forced to move across the country or even the globe to find the next opportunity?


I think you are minimizing the amount of savvy required and gravity of the risks that have to be taken in the new America to thrive. To stay above board and to keep your soul clean without being subjected to constant upheaval is getting more and more difficult these days. Eventually something is going to break and its not going to be pretty.


The million dollar question is do you want to be living in a banana republic where there are a hand full of nice corporate campuses and a few nice areas with rich people and the rest is cesspool where the surfs and vassals are expected to move themselves and family half way across the country every time their corporate lords have a hiccup?


I encourage you to do a practice run of pretending your are unemployed and try finding like employment within a 30-50 mile radius of where your house is. Also take a look at the proliferation of the legal weed movement ... why do so many people just want to check out? What are the consequences of large chunks of the population just checking out?


People did not even live out of suit cases back in the 1800's, granted the iphone did not exist or 60k vehicals but families could stay solvent and together. Also ask yourself why is a base model car 20 grand or a base model truck over 30 grand, add a warrenty plan and a few oil changes and it does not take much to hit almost 40k for a vehcial unless you want to drive a jalopy.


Why do americans find this paradigm acceptable? We are not in westward expansion or the building of American wilderness anymore, having a decent job should be an American human right otherwise we are no better than some 3rd world crap hole that has a nice corporate campus for the banana company.


My issues is I don't know where to go to expatriate where I can find an opportunity that wont require me to be a nomad wondering the world living out of a suitcase. How do I start building those relationships now so that when the crap hits the fan I can still do well? Learning another language is not trivial so I don't want to learn the wrong one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-03-2016, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Huntsville
6,009 posts, read 6,684,896 times
Reputation: 7042
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
But are their credit cards maxed out because there are no cost control measures?

Yes. Because as a consumer, many of us are no longer controlling our spending. We spend on things that we don't need with the intention to pay it off a little over a long period of time. It happens with vehicles, homes, clothing, electronics, vacations, and many other factors. But at the end of the day... before you can expect a company to get on board, some self reflection by those who are spending above their means is required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
People cant afford to sit around and be savvy because their pay does not allow them to save in the first place. I am doing an experiment now where I am pretending I am unemployed (obviously I cant look for jobs full time because im not really unemployed) but I have been looking for an offer for almost a year now and have not got one. Even if I had all day to look that really does not help because only so many jobs pop up at any given time, then the rest of the time is maybe updating your resume and waiting, maybe calling.

If you are willing to live out of a suit case with no family and no life then you can get on a plane to anywhere and probably eventually find a job. Do you want the USA to continue into the "gig economy" with a total collapse of the family because everyone is forced to move across the country or even the globe to find the next opportunity?

You can't blame that on the employer. I've been in the exact same boat..... until I decided to get out of it. It's not easy to do, but you CAN do it. Depends on how badly someone wants out.


No. But you must learn to live within the constraints you have. If you live in an area with no jobs, you might have to move to an area where it is easier to get a job. You can't expect a company to pay you more simply because of a bare market where you live. Just as nomads move where the resources are, so must we. The more resources we have, the easier it is to use them. They're not going to come to you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
The million dollar question is do you want to be living in a banana republic where there are a hand full of nice corporate campuses and a few nice areas with rich people and the rest is cesspool where the surfs and vassals are expected to move themselves and family half way across the country every time their corporate lords have a hiccup?

The million dollar answer is this: Individuals need to take care of themselves..... that is all they can do. If you don't have any aspiration to accomplish more and keep driving to higher goals, that is not something the government, corporations, or other individuals can fix. That is a personal issue.





Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
I encourage you to do a practice run of pretending your are unemployed and try finding like employment within a 30-50 mile radius of where your house is. Also take a look at the proliferation of the legal weed movement ... why do so many people just want to check out? What are the consequences of large chunks of the population just checking out?

I don't have to pretend. I have been unemployed. I was laid off in 2009. It took quite a while to find another job, but because we have tried to live within our means we had enough money stashed back to float by on until I could find work. I then had to work the next few years in menial jobs until a decent job came along. But at the end of the day, we kept our bills paid. We refused to give up or to expect anyone else to provide for us. It took us almost 7 years to recover and get back into a comfortable state. BECAUSE of that, we have refused to take that path twice, and have pushed ourselves for better jobs so that we can make more money and save it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
People did not even live out of suit cases back in the 1800's, granted the iphone did not exist or 60k vehicals but families could stay solvent and together. Also ask yourself why is a base model car 20 grand or a base model truck over 30 grand, add a warrenty plan and a few oil changes and it does not take much to hit almost 40k for a vehcial unless you want to drive a jalopy.

Materials, labor, economy.... there are a lot of factors what cause prices to climb. Guess what? You want more money in these companies? The companies will be forced to raise prices to pay for it. So your 30k truck just went to 40k and so on and so forth. There is a direct effect to raising costs.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
Why do americans find this paradigm acceptable? We are not in westward expansion or the building of American wilderness anymore, having a decent job should be an American human right otherwise we are no better than some 3rd world crap hole that has a nice corporate campus for the banana company.
Because it is a capitalist model........ those who take the risk reap the rewards. Those who want to play it safe make less and in turn don't have as many risks to overcome. But income is more predictable and more stable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
My issues is I don't know where to go to expatriate where I can find an opportunity that wont require me to be a nomad wondering the world living out of a suitcase. How do I start building those relationships now so that when the crap hits the fan I can still do well? Learning another language is not trivial so I don't want to learn the wrong one.

Tell you what..... I think visiting another country and joining their labor force might help you understand. The rose colored glasses will quickly fade away when you see that our model is not nearly as bad as it seems. To be successful here though, it requires you to put something in before you can get something out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2016, 03:46 PM
 
Location: God's Country
5,182 posts, read 5,265,457 times
Reputation: 8689
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
Should the contract of PTO be upheld as the policy that was in place at date of hire?

For purposes of morale, it should.


But who cares about morale these days...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2016, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Proxima Centauri
5,817 posts, read 3,240,685 times
Reputation: 6150
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
Can a company change PTO policy and essentially keep putting off giving employees PTO?

Example: Handbook says employees get 15 days at 5 years.
Next year, revised Handbook says employees get 15 days at 8 years.

So employees who were about to receive additional days off now have to wait another three years.

Is this legal? Should the contract of PTO be upheld as the policy that was in place at date of hire?
If you had a union contract saying fifteen days after five years, it would be a contract violation. Without a union, if you protest, you will find out what "at will" means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2016, 07:00 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 5,130,164 times
Reputation: 5036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nlambert View Post
Yes. Because as a consumer, many of us are no longer controlling our spending. We spend on things that we don't need with the intention to pay it off a little over a long period of time. It happens with vehicles, homes, clothing, electronics, vacations, and many other factors. But at the end of the day... before you can expect a company to get on board, some self reflection by those who are spending above their means is required.




You can't blame that on the employer. I've been in the exact same boat..... until I decided to get out of it. It's not easy to do, but you CAN do it. Depends on how badly someone wants out.


No. But you must learn to live within the constraints you have. If you live in an area with no jobs, you might have to move to an area where it is easier to get a job. You can't expect a company to pay you more simply because of a bare market where you live. Just as nomads move where the resources are, so must we. The more resources we have, the easier it is to use them. They're not going to come to you.





The million dollar answer is this: Individuals need to take care of themselves..... that is all they can do. If you don't have any aspiration to accomplish more and keep driving to higher goals, that is not something the government, corporations, or other individuals can fix. That is a personal issue.








I don't have to pretend. I have been unemployed. I was laid off in 2009. It took quite a while to find another job, but because we have tried to live within our means we had enough money stashed back to float by on until I could find work. I then had to work the next few years in menial jobs until a decent job came along. But at the end of the day, we kept our bills paid. We refused to give up or to expect anyone else to provide for us. It took us almost 7 years to recover and get back into a comfortable state. BECAUSE of that, we have refused to take that path twice, and have pushed ourselves for better jobs so that we can make more money and save it.




Materials, labor, economy.... there are a lot of factors what cause prices to climb. Guess what? You want more money in these companies? The companies will be forced to raise prices to pay for it. So your 30k truck just went to 40k and so on and so forth. There is a direct effect to raising costs.....



Because it is a capitalist model........ those who take the risk reap the rewards. Those who want to play it safe make less and in turn don't have as many risks to overcome. But income is more predictable and more stable.





Tell you what..... I think visiting another country and joining their labor force might help you understand. The rose colored glasses will quickly fade away when you see that our model is not nearly as bad as it seems. To be successful here though, it requires you to put something in before you can get something out.
I guess I kind of like the command and control economy. Unfortunately my wife does not and while she has seemingly relented and agreed to travel to Russia with me since I went with her to the east coast (which is nice until you see the price tags for the real estate) I am not so sure she really will. I want to fly to the far east and take the train across (after I learn Russian). Would be nice to see if they really are starving in the streets like the US media portrays it, which is usually brain washing to get the sheeple to tolerate sub par politics and living standards to enrich the power brokers. If all the smart people who just happen to not have a lot of capital to leverage started leaving the US would go down the tubes.


As long as she is happy paying the mortgage while I work at a liquor store (if I were to loose my job) then its ok I suppose because moving all around all the time is dysfunctional when you have family in the area. If she grows tried of it then I will move to Russia lol. Her quiting her good job for me to be the first one in in a new area is really dumb so that pretty much means I have to find a new job where I am now if something happened. These sorts of dynamics occur due to a lack of controls on employers and also a lack of legal cost controls to keep key things people need from soaring out of sight (real estate/rent, medical care, etc).


Its always fun reading about the big risk takers (bill gates, Jobs, etc) who made out big and are at their lake house now with their wave runners, but they don't write about the 10,000 other people who made similar attempts and ended up at the metaphorical burn barrel (shanty home still waking up at the a$$ crack of dawn and being subjected to draconian company policies) because they risked what little capital they had and it fell through. Also a lot of these people got there start when the encumbrances put on the American people were much less and capital was much easier to raise through labor. I suppose we still have Elon Musk to look up too but who knows if he had a nice pot of seed money from who knows where.


As long as you are making good money and are at the top in a capitalist society life is good, but when that ceases to continue being the case things can get way way worse in a capitalist society than in other forms of government.


As another poster put it, without VERY strong unions you are not really "voting with your feet" you are simply becoming unemployed and no one cares and you have no real collective leverage. Maybe if you are Enrico Fermi you can utilize your leverage by threatening to leave but 99.99% of us can not get the results we want by threatening to "vote with our feet".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2016, 07:17 PM
 
93 posts, read 96,118 times
Reputation: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita View Post
The majority of employers with at least 100 employees, using fully funded, self funded or a hybrid with stop loss have seen relatively small increases in health insurance cost. In some cases, cost have gone down.

The reason may have seen steep increases with employer provided plans is because the employer is using the employees' ignorance and emotions against them. People expected health insurance cost to skyrocket under the ACA. Because many had preconceived expectations of price increases, employers simply used that to increase their own profits. Some employer seized the chance to go out and get a crappy plans with crappy coverage and delectable, others kept the same policy. But they both changed the amount they contribute to the plan. So, instead of covering 80% of the cost, they lowed their share to 55% blaming the increase cost to employees on Obamacare. Since so few employees actually know the final year end cost of that issuance (after any legally required refund to the employers was made) and fewer yet cared to look, employers had profit increases via reduced insurance cost handed to them on a silver platter and employees were just to wrapped up in the politics of the ACA to realize the con.

What makes this all the more hilarious is that employers have been complaining about health insurance cost since the 80's and the only change is who they will blame. But nothing compares to the almost outright coffee puking laughter when you read all these employees whining and complaining and shouting about how evil, devious, deceptive, lying, back stabbing and untrustworthy employers are, yet when it comes to health insurance cost, those same employees suddenly see what their employers tell them as some sainted words from god. And employees wonder why we don't treat them like they have a brain!
Yes!

My company's rates went down. But costs for employees went up. Most employees blamed the ACA not realizing that it was the company paying a smaller percentage of coverage. The company allowed that thinking.

If you want a true answer whether costs have gone up or down, you should compare the cobra rates for the different years but check that coverage is the same. A HDHP will cost less than a PPO so make sure you're comparing apples to apples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2016, 08:55 AM
 
Location: NYC
20,550 posts, read 17,758,488 times
Reputation: 25616
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLSFan View Post
yes, last year I got 3 weeks, now I get 4 weeks PTO, so why would going one way be legal but the other not?

you not liking a change does not make it illegal, but somehow CD complaints seems to think so?
This is why companies give out less perks because it's harder to take it away later on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2016, 09:01 AM
 
Location: NYC
20,550 posts, read 17,758,488 times
Reputation: 25616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie1013 View Post
Yes!

My company's rates went down. But costs for employees went up. Most employees blamed the ACA not realizing that it was the company paying a smaller percentage of coverage. The company allowed that thinking.

If you want a true answer whether costs have gone up or down, you should compare the cobra rates for the different years but check that coverage is the same. A HDHP will cost less than a PPO so make sure you're comparing apples to apples.
It is the ACA because the cadillac tax it tackled on.

Affordable Care Act Cadillac Tax | Cigna
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2016, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
6,782 posts, read 9,613,306 times
Reputation: 10246
Quote:
Originally Posted by vision33r View Post
It is the ACA because the cadillac tax it tackled on.

Affordable Care Act Cadillac Tax | Cigna
The Cadillac Tax from the ACA has never gone into effect. It was supposed to kick-in in 2018,and has since been delayed to 2020.

Blaming Obama for things he hasn't actually done is about par for his critics, but usually people who do that don't post a link that points out they are ill informed in the first paragraph.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2016, 09:33 AM
 
13,139 posts, read 21,064,295 times
Reputation: 21440
Quote:
Originally Posted by vision33r View Post
It is the ACA because the cadillac tax it tackled on.

Affordable Care Act Cadillac Tax | Cigna
THERE IS NO CADILLAC TAX AT THIS TIME!!!!!!

Any employer blaming the Cadillac Tax is lying to you. The question is, will you be that some political dolt of an employee and just believe whatever they feed you (which means you deserve to be screwed over) or be a real person and think for yourself?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top