01-14-2014 06:50 AM
65 123
tools
  1. msndrstood's Avatar
    Most of the reasons you listed are difference of course. You can't really use the cookie cutter approach in everything. Our government is notorious for it. But, I don't really care that I bothered you. Everyone has the right to be offended, no one has the right to say they can't be offended.
    We'll leave it at that.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    01-09-2014 08:36 PM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    When I mention Jon Stewart, I can generally gauge where a person stands politically. The further right a person is, the more they seem to detest him. I personally find him to be rather intelligent and witty. I think the right hate him because he really knows how to make them look like buffoons.

    His segment a few days ago really does make a good point. Watch The Daily Show slam conservatives for blocking jobless benefits - The Week

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...--moral-hazard
    palandri likes this.
    01-11-2014 01:53 PM
  3. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I just don't like mixing politics and comedy, regardless of which view someone holds. So there.
    01-11-2014 03:48 PM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    I just don't like mixing politics and comedy, regardless of which view someone holds. So there.

    Are you saying that because the right wing doesn't have a comedic giant that can spoof the left as well?


    I do find it interesting how few comedians associate themselves with the right wing. There's Dennis Miller (who also knocked MNF down a notch or two), Larry the Cable Guy, and to some extent Jeff Foxworthy, and possibly Tim Allen.


    I guess there's also Craig T. Nelson if anything for his rant a few years ago....

    01-11-2014 05:04 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Are you saying that because the right wing doesn't have a comedic giant that can spoof the left as well?
    No. I've turned several comedians off that started doing right wing political jokes too. Most of their jokes are only funny if you ignore some facts of the situation or you simply like insulting the people on the opposite side of the aisle.

    About the only political joke I've liked was someone going on about G.W. and one of his opponents. I don't remember the whole joke was describing one being something like a bumbling buffoon and the other being born send bred to be president of the U.S. The punch line was who's who depends on your political affiliation.
    01-11-2014 05:37 PM
  6. delta7's Avatar
    To be perfectly honest here, I lived off 400 a week home pay for over 3 years, I paid rent, food, cable and credit card bills.
    I lived very tight with little entertainment but it is possible.


    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
    01-13-2014 05:47 AM
  7. delta7's Avatar
    To be honest slot of people feel they're too good for certain jobs. I know guys who would rather take food stamps free of charge than flip burgers or work in a warehouse.

    I tell people if your embarrassed of being seen working a crap Jon just become a overnight security guard where no one has to see you.

    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
    01-13-2014 05:50 AM
  8. Aquila's Avatar
    Would you accept a job that paid the same as or slightly less than the net total of unemployment benefits and cost reductions from being at home?

    For example, say you receive $450 per week in unemployment + are saving money on fuel and daycare (lets say $200 per week) because you stay home and watch your children, and then you search for a job when your spouse comes home. Let's assume that you're 80% more likely to gain a job interview if you're currently employed and that it's 50% more difficult to spend time finding a job when you work full time.

    Accepting a job would need to pay approximately 450+200 = 650 take home or $929 or so pre-tax (assuming you take home 70% of your wages. That's $23.23 per hour. In this example, were you to accept a job at $18 per hour, every hour you're at work you're losing $5.23, no including the cost to transport to and from daycare and/or work. A 40 hour per year job is roughly 2080 hours of employment, or nearly $11,000 in expense carried for the privilege of having a job and paying 30% of your income to various taxes. If you're not working, do you have $11,000 to throw away?

    If your unemployed model is that you spend 8 hours a day looking for a job, successfully find 5 jobs that seem to meet your needs and that you're qualified for per day (if that's true, you're a wizard) and you apply for all 5 each day with a success rate of being actually called for an interview on 1 out of 100 applications/resume submissions. It thus takes 20 days, or 1 month to get each interview and lets say your're great at interviewing and you are offered a position at 1 out of every 5 interviews.

    You're going to spend roughly $1000 per month to take this job that pays less than your current net.

    Based on earlier assumptions, if you DO accept this job, then each hour you are able to spend looking for a job is going to have a higher chance of you being offered another position, to a rate of where your 100 applications may net you 2 job offers per month, rather than 1 every 5 months.

    Last assumptions: 1 out of every 5 job offers will actually cover your expenses of 23.23 per hour for you to break even. 1 out of every 15 will give you at least $.01 more, giving you a total of almost $21 per year incentive to take that job (aside from expiring benefits, moral issues about living off of insurance forever, etc). Is that $21 worth spending 2100 less hours a year with your kids? Is it worth stressing out for 2100 hours a year at a job you're over qualified for? The cash flow summary of these transactions can be modeled out easily enough, and it's easy to tell when the break-even point is to where you have to accept the $18 an hour job rather than holding out for something in your actual expense range because of a deadline on unemployment insurance, etc.

    Etc, etc, bottom line: How many months can you afford to net less than sufficient funds to meet your current already bottomed out budgetary needs in order to increase your odds of getting back into the game at an equivalent position to the one you last departed? These are all value judgments that from a pure math perspective are easily justifiable either way, depending on the costs you affix to time with family, dignity, etc.

    We can all look at any situation and say we may have valued things differently and thus made a different choice and if it's an actual "welfare" situation, then there is a completely different moral argument, but unemployment is typically insurance that is included in and written off as an expense tied to the payroll of every employee. If you're collecting it, you "earned it" in a way, and it thus has a very different context than receiving benefits that are purely from taxpayers intending to help people who are unable to help themselves, at least for a time.
    01-13-2014 06:27 AM
  9. anon8126715's Avatar
    To be honest slot of people feel they're too good for certain jobs. I know guys who would rather take food stamps free of charge than flip burgers or work in a warehouse.

    I tell people if your embarrassed of being seen working a crap Jon just become a overnight security guard where no one has to see you.

    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
    Or we can bring the living wage up to a decent standard so that we're not having to subsidize these low paying jobs.

    Speaking of, I hear a lot of companies are cutting employee hours so that they don't have to cover their employees under Obamacare. I find that to be quite contemptible to be honest. John Schnatter (Papa Johns CEO) whined last year stating that if he had to cover his employees under Obamacare, it would cost about $0.20 per pizza. Staples is another company that's choosing to cut employee hours to get around Obamacare laws. Now considering how blatantly poor these companies are with regard to their employee's well-being, why would I want to work for them instead of living off of $400 a week (if that's where current unemployment levels are)?

    And for the record, WSJ reported that the CEO of staples' salary for 2012 was
    Mr. Sargent's total compensation value dropped to $6.5 million
    . I guess I know what matters most to Staples.

    Would you accept a job that paid the same as or slightly less than the net total of unemployment benefits and cost reductions from being at home?

    For example, say you receive $450 per week in unemployment + are saving money on fuel and daycare (lets say $200 per week) because you stay home and watch your children, and then you search for a job when your spouse comes home. Let's assume that you're 80% more likely to gain a job interview if you're currently employed and that it's 50% more difficult to spend time finding a job when you work full time.

    Accepting a job would need to pay approximately 450+200 = 650 take home or $929 or so pre-tax (assuming you take home 70% of your wages. That's $23.23 per hour. In this example, were you to accept a job at $18 per hour, every hour you're at work you're losing $5.23, no including the cost to transport to and from daycare and/or work. A 40 hour per year job is roughly 2080 hours of employment, or nearly $11,000 in expense carried for the privilege of having a job and paying 30% of your income to various taxes. If you're not working, do you have $11,000 to throw away?

    If your unemployed model is that you spend 8 hours a day looking for a job, successfully find 5 jobs that seem to meet your needs and that you're qualified for per day (if that's true, you're a wizard) and you apply for all 5 each day with a success rate of being actually called for an interview on 1 out of 100 applications/resume submissions. It thus takes 20 days, or 1 month to get each interview and lets say your're great at interviewing and you are offered a position at 1 out of every 5 interviews.

    You're going to spend roughly $1000 per month to take this job that pays less than your current net.

    Based on earlier assumptions, if you DO accept this job, then each hour you are able to spend looking for a job is going to have a higher chance of you being offered another position, to a rate of where your 100 applications may net you 2 job offers per month, rather than 1 every 5 months.

    Last assumptions: 1 out of every 5 job offers will actually cover your expenses of 23.23 per hour for you to break even. 1 out of every 15 will give you at least $.01 more, giving you a total of almost $21 per year incentive to take that job (aside from expiring benefits, moral issues about living off of insurance forever, etc). Is that $21 worth spending 2100 less hours a year with your kids? Is it worth stressing out for 2100 hours a year at a job you're over qualified for? The cash flow summary of these transactions can be modeled out easily enough, and it's easy to tell when the break-even point is to where you have to accept the $18 an hour job rather than holding out for something in your actual expense range because of a deadline on unemployment insurance, etc.

    Etc, etc, bottom line: How many months can you afford to net less than sufficient funds to meet your current already bottomed out budgetary needs in order to increase your odds of getting back into the game at an equivalent position to the one you last departed? These are all value judgments that from a pure math perspective are easily justifiable either way, depending on the costs you affix to time with family, dignity, etc.

    We can all look at any situation and say we may have valued things differently and thus made a different choice and if it's an actual "welfare" situation, then there is a completely different moral argument, but unemployment is typically insurance that is included in and written off as an expense tied to the payroll of every employee. If you're collecting it, you "earned it" in a way, and it thus has a very different context than receiving benefits that are purely from taxpayers intending to help people who are unable to help themselves, at least for a time.
    That's the other part that I find irritating at best, these are programs that are paid into by every person that collects a paycheck. It's just like the whole SS/Medicare "entitlements", this isn't money that's just pulled out of the air, it's actual money that was funded by employees. I hear that if the government would've left the money alone back in the 80s and 90s that we wouldn't be having talks about running out of those "entitlements", but just like the Venture Capitalists that raid small companies, the pension funds of so many hard working Americans is way too easy to raid. I'm not sure why there hasn't been legislation in place that prevents these large Corporate Raiders from touching retirement funds for their own greedy ends.
    01-13-2014 06:30 AM
  10. msndrstood's Avatar
    Would you accept a job that paid the same as or slightly less than the net total of unemployment benefits and cost reductions from being at home?

    For example, say you receive $450 per week in unemployment + are saving money on fuel and daycare (lets say $200 per week) because you stay home and watch your children, and then you search for a job when your spouse comes home. Let's assume that you're 80% more likely to gain a job interview if you're currently employed and that it's 50% more difficult to spend time finding a job when you work full time.

    Accepting a job would need to pay approximately 450+200 = 650 take home or $929 or so pre-tax (assuming you take home 70% of your wages. That's $23.23 per hour. In this example, were you to accept a job at $18 per hour, every hour you're at work you're losing $5.23, no including the cost to transport to and from daycare and/or work. A 40 hour per year job is roughly 2080 hours of employment, or nearly $11,000 in expense carried for the privilege of having a job and paying 30% of your income to various taxes. If you're not working, do you have $11,000 to throw away?

    If your unemployed model is that you spend 8 hours a day looking for a job, successfully find 5 jobs that seem to meet your needs and that you're qualified for per day (if that's true, you're a wizard) and you apply for all 5 each day with a success rate of being actually called for an interview on 1 out of 100 applications/resume submissions. It thus takes 20 days, or 1 month to get each interview and lets say your're great at interviewing and you are offered a position at 1 out of every 5 interviews.

    You're going to spend roughly $1000 per month to take this job that pays less than your current net.

    Based on earlier assumptions, if you DO accept this job, then each hour you are able to spend looking for a job is going to have a higher chance of you being offered another position, to a rate of where your 100 applications may net you 2 job offers per month, rather than 1 every 5 months.

    Last assumptions: 1 out of every 5 job offers will actually cover your expenses of 23.23 per hour for you to break even. 1 out of every 15 will give you at least $.01 more, giving you a total of almost $21 per year incentive to take that job (aside from expiring benefits, moral issues about living off of insurance forever, etc). Is that $21 worth spending 2100 less hours a year with your kids? Is it worth stressing out for 2100 hours a year at a job you're over qualified for? The cash flow summary of these transactions can be modeled out easily enough, and it's easy to tell when the break-even point is to where you have to accept the $18 an hour job rather than holding out for something in your actual expense range because of a deadline on unemployment insurance, etc.

    Etc, etc, bottom line: How many months can you afford to net less than sufficient funds to meet your current already bottomed out budgetary needs in order to increase your odds of getting back into the game at an equivalent position to the one you last departed? These are all value judgments that from a pure math perspective are easily justifiable either way, depending on the costs you affix to time with family, dignity, etc.

    We can all look at any situation and say we may have valued things differently and thus made a different choice and if it's an actual "welfare" situation, then there is a completely different moral argument, but unemployment is typically insurance that is included in and written off as an expense tied to the payroll of every employee. If you're collecting it, you "earned it" in a way, and it thus has a very different context than receiving benefits that are purely from taxpayers intending to help people who are unable to help themselves, at least for a time.
    Not if I run my household like a business. No, I would continue with unemployment until I found a job that limits the negative outflow of cash. Who in their right mind, after cutting expenses as much as possible, want to take a low paying job that will only put them deeper in the hole financially?

    Of course, UE benefits are based on what you made in the previous quarters, low paying job in the past = low UE rate. If you grossed 500$ a week prior to UE, your benefits are going to be around 200$ a week. Some states are higher, some are lower. Bottom line... The person has to weigh which is more beneficial to their family. And don't think on UE you would automatically get Food Stamps (I hear that one coming) check out the income limits for Food Stamps in your state. They are not as easy to get as people want you to believe they are.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    01-13-2014 08:43 AM
  11. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Would you accept a job that paid the same as or slightly less than the net total of unemployment benefits and cost reductions from being at home?

    For example, say you receive $450 per week in unemployment + are saving money on fuel and daycare (lets say $200 per week) because you stay home and watch your children, and then you search for a job when your spouse comes home. Let's assume that you're 80% more likely to gain a job interview if you're currently employed and that it's 50% more difficult to spend time finding a job when you work full time.

    Accepting a job would need to pay approximately 450+200 = 650 take home or $929 or so pre-tax (assuming you take home 70% of your wages. That's $23.23 per hour. In this example, were you to accept a job at $18 per hour, every hour you're at work you're losing $5.23, no including the cost to transport to and from daycare and/or work. A 40 hour per year job is roughly 2080 hours of employment, or nearly $11,000 in expense carried for the privilege of having a job and paying 30% of your income to various taxes. If you're not working, do you have $11,000 to throw away?

    If your unemployed model is that you spend 8 hours a day looking for a job, successfully find 5 jobs that seem to meet your needs and that you're qualified for per day (if that's true, you're a wizard) and you apply for all 5 each day with a success rate of being actually called for an interview on 1 out of 100 applications/resume submissions. It thus takes 20 days, or 1 month to get each interview and lets say your're great at interviewing and you are offered a position at 1 out of every 5 interviews.

    You're going to spend roughly $1000 per month to take this job that pays less than your current net.

    Based on earlier assumptions, if you DO accept this job, then each hour you are able to spend looking for a job is going to have a higher chance of you being offered another position, to a rate of where your 100 applications may net you 2 job offers per month, rather than 1 every 5 months.

    Last assumptions: 1 out of every 5 job offers will actually cover your expenses of 23.23 per hour for you to break even. 1 out of every 15 will give you at least $.01 more, giving you a total of almost $21 per year incentive to take that job (aside from expiring benefits, moral issues about living off of insurance forever, etc). Is that $21 worth spending 2100 less hours a year with your kids? Is it worth stressing out for 2100 hours a year at a job you're over qualified for? The cash flow summary of these transactions can be modeled out easily enough, and it's easy to tell when the break-even point is to where you have to accept the $18 an hour job rather than holding out for something in your actual expense range because of a deadline on unemployment insurance, etc.

    Etc, etc, bottom line: How many months can you afford to net less than sufficient funds to meet your current already bottomed out budgetary needs in order to increase your odds of getting back into the game at an equivalent position to the one you last departed? These are all value judgments that from a pure math perspective are easily justifiable either way, depending on the costs you affix to time with family, dignity, etc.

    We can all look at any situation and say we may have valued things differently and thus made a different choice and if it's an actual "welfare" situation, then there is a completely different moral argument, but unemployment is typically insurance that is included in and written off as an expense tied to the payroll of every employee. If you're collecting it, you "earned it" in a way, and it thus has a very different context than receiving benefits that are purely from taxpayers intending to help people who are unable to help themselves, at least for a time.
    Some things wrong with your numbers.

    First unemployment also does not include benefits like health insurance. So there is an easy extra $150 a month in expenses, You also are going on the high side of child care and auto expenses.

    Factor in that stuff and your numbers change. Far to many bad assumptions in there.

    450 a week with zero benefits really changes things.
    01-13-2014 10:31 AM
  12. Aquila's Avatar
    Some things wrong with your numbers.

    First unemployment also does not include benefits like health insurance. So there is an easy extra $150 a month in expenses, You also are going on the high side of child care and auto expenses.

    Factor in that stuff and your numbers change. Far to many bad assumptions in there.

    450 a week with zero benefits really changes things.
    Health Insurance is a net $0 factor since it could be carried either by the spouse, or when you are working you're paying it either way, so while the amount might change, the fact of it's payment does not, and therefore it's not necessary to compare it.

    Childcare at 200 a week is not the high side, by any means. I have two kids that are both daycare aged and without some serious shopping around and compromises on location, etc, it can easily be $2-4 per hour per child for just basic daycare. Average that at $3, figure around 50 hours a week of care so that you can work 40 hrs, times two kids and that's $300 per week, so I went fairly conservative on that number. Varies by region, etc, but people paying over $1,000-1,500 per month for daycare is extremely common.

    I didn't list fuel expenses, so I'm not sure how I'm on the high side of that number. I mentioned them because fuel, car maintenance, etc are all things people need to consider in their budget and a lot of people do not.

    This isn't a one size fits all situation, the numbers would be different for every family. The point isn't to scrutinize the exact scenario as described, but to apply the variables and observe whether or not it changes your assumptions about which course is better.
    01-13-2014 03:58 PM
  13. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Health Insurance is a net $0 factor since it could be carried either by the spouse, or when you are working you're paying it either way, so while the amount might change, the fact of it's payment does not, and therefore it's not necessary to compare it.

    Childcare at 200 a week is not the high side, by any means. I have two kids that are both daycare aged and without some serious shopping around and compromises on location, etc, it can easily be $2-4 per hour per child for just basic daycare. Average that at $3, figure around 50 hours a week of care so that you can work 40 hrs, times two kids and that's $300 per week, so I went fairly conservative on that number. Varies by region, etc, but people paying over $1,000-1,500 per month for daycare is extremely common.

    I didn't list fuel expenses, so I'm not sure how I'm on the high side of that number. I mentioned them because fuel, car maintenance, etc are all things people need to consider in their budget and a lot of people do not.

    This isn't a one size fits all situation, the numbers would be different for every family. The point isn't to scrutinize the exact scenario as described, but to apply the variables and observe whether or not it changes your assumptions about which course is better.
    Your still off on health insurance. Yes they might be able to jump on board with spouse but most couples I know the husband and wife are on their respective companies. The kids will be one one of the 2 parents. Spouses adding on one of the 2 is a very good jump in cost. So that is a fair number to throw in.

    As for auto expenses I would say it does not drop that much. I remember after I was laid off yeah my auto expenses dropped some but not as much as you think. For example I would stop by the grocery store on my way home from work most of the time so no extra trip but now the out of work person will make that run out to the store. But I think my expense auto wise maybe a reduction by 30-40% oh and I was single. Now the reduction is based on how much longer a tank of gas would last me. Total miles drop by more but those miles became harder miles and as such MPG drop as I lose my high way miles from driving to and from work.

    But yeah it is more than total unemployment but still not as great.
    I find unemployment insurance all it did was slow the bleed on other resources.
    Plus sanity is worth some money as well. Remember most a majority of their social interaction is at work.
    01-13-2014 04:20 PM
  14. Aquila's Avatar
    Your still off on health insurance. Yes they might be able to jump on board with spouse but most couples I know the husband and wife are on their respective companies. The kids will be one one of the 2 parents. Spouses adding on one of the 2 is a very good jump in cost. So that is a fair number to throw in.
    There are definitely a wide range of things to consider for healthcare costs. In my family of four example, I based it on my family which is $x for 1 person, $y for 2 people and $z for 3 or more persons, for which z doesn't change. My wife, myself and both of our daughters are all on the same plan even though both of our employers offer insurance, it's much cheaper for us to all be on one plan.
    01-13-2014 04:28 PM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    Your still off on health insurance. Yes they might be able to jump on board with spouse but most couples I know the husband and wife are on their respective companies. The kids will be one one of the 2 parents. Spouses adding on one of the 2 is a very good jump in cost. So that is a fair number to throw in.

    As for auto expenses I would say it does not drop that much. I remember after I was laid off yeah my auto expenses dropped some but not as much as you think. For example I would stop by the grocery store on my way home from work most of the time so no extra trip but now the out of work person will make that run out to the store. But I think my expense auto wise maybe a reduction by 30-40% oh and I was single. Now the reduction is based on how much longer a tank of gas would last me. Total miles drop by more but those miles became harder miles and as such MPG drop as I lose my high way miles from driving to and from work.

    But yeah it is more than total unemployment but still not as great.
    I find unemployment insurance all it did was slow the bleed on other resources.
    Plus sanity is worth some money as well. Remember most a majority of their social interaction is at work.
    Healthcare insurance would be a casualty during most peoples' downtime. Not sure how that would play out with the ACA now in place. As far as auto expense, I can see it dropping significantly for some people. I know for me, my commute is extremely long, so even with a car that gets about 34 MPG, I'd save a lot on gas, then my insurance can list my car's primary use as "pleasure", which drops it a few more dollars, and then the depreciation, not putting 300 or so miles a month would significantly limit the amount of depreciation. And then you would save money on laundry, especially if you take your clothes to the dry cleaners, or even just regular laundering.

    There is quite a bit of overhead that you have to consider when you're working. If anything, claiming unemployment against taking some of these low paying jobs might force employers to raise the rates they pay. As I said before, I was called one time by a recruiter that wanted all the experience I had (about 16 years in IT), wanted all the certifications I possessed, (and even more that I didn't have at the time), and was only willing to pay $12.00 an hour. Oh and the kicker is he wanted me to speak fluent Japanese.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-14-2014 06:50 AM
65 123

Similar Threads

  1. How to tell if you are connected at 802.11ac?
    By zBernie in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-08-2017, 02:23 PM
  2. How often do you charge your Gear?
    By richv77 in forum Samsung Galaxy Gear
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 11-16-2017, 01:56 PM
  3. How to get dial pad on opening phone
    By Double Tap in forum Google Nexus 4
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-21-2017, 04:56 PM
  4. damn you otterbox
    By cliro in forum Google Nexus 5
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 01-06-2014, 05:28 AM
  5. How can I get my phone not to go in the battery save mode?
    By Taylork64 in forum Samsung Galaxy S4 Active
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-29-2013, 06:30 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD