Extending unemployment

125 replies [Last post]
Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

0

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Life in low pay lane!Let's go with the "take any job that pays the bills agrument." Let's ignore that this thinking falls flat on it's face on the first count; that is, these jobs won't pay the bills. So, now we're flipping burgers at Wendy's. This is known as a "job easy to get" because it's in the "Jobs easy to get catagory." The job is easy to get because it requires no skill, no training, and no license. It is easy to get because it offers low pay, long hours, and no benefits. Of course while you're busy working at Wendy's for 39 hours a week, 39 hours to keep you as part timer thus denying you full time wages and benefits, you have put your engineering degree aside and with it 25 years of experience as a professional engineer, program director and project leader. Still, you are actively seeking work in your field. And, as luck would have it you have a promising interview coming up next week. But there is a problem. You are scheduled to work that day. You know if you ask, the manager will not give you time off. There are no days off at this Wendy's. So, you decide to call in sick. You go on the interview. It goes well. The next day you go back to Wendy's, work your shift, and are called into the manager's office just before you leave. He says "Don't come back, you are fired." When you ask why, the manager, all of 24 years old, dismisses you with a wave and says " you missed yesterday." And with that your career at Wendy's come to a close.Getting fired from a "Job easy to get" is as easy as getting hired. The "keep your job threshold" is very low in these positions. There is a line of unskilled people willing to take your place. Hirable with a phone call. Thus the revolving door in this catagory. But for you this is a big problem. You gave up receiving employment benefits after your layoff from Lockeed because you believed in work and didn't want to take public assistance. The serverance benefits from Lockeed, along with the pay from whatever job you could get would allow you to go a year without tapping into savings. And, surely you would land someplace before then. But things hadn't worked out as planned. Lockeed now, was almost two years in the rearview mirror. The economy was still on its back. The series of low pay meanial jobs had interfered with finding a job as an engineer. The Taxi company fired you when they found out you were taking time off to interview instead of looking for fares. The phone collector job was run by pricks who wouldn't let you take a bathroom break, let alone take time off for interviews. Plus they constantly shorted you on your paycheck. The chicken processing plant gave you a week to come up to speed before you were gone. To your credit  you out lasted the eight people you were hired with. And the Hyundai dealership was a joke. A $250 a week draw against commission. They only paid you $25 per car sold. That meant you needed to sell 10 cars a week just to make the draw! That's 40 cars a month! One month in and the dealership had sold a grand total of 110 cars. Split between 11 salesman ranging from 23 cars down to 6 per guy. No one made draw and the bottom five guys were fired. You among them. That was a relief at the time because of the pressure from managment the 12 hour shift 70 hour weeks and all the crap from customers who  believed it was their God given right ot abuse car salesman. 70 hour weeks left no time to seach for work in your field. Next up was the in home carpet sales job. They kept sending you on appointments with only a husband or wife, unclosable one leggers in the biz parlence, that lasted only two weeks. The Verizon and Sprint stores wouldn't hire you., too old, even though you could run circles around the kids working there. Same story at Apple. Out of options, you then worked for Werner Transportation. Some how you survived the CDL training. You endured a trainer who didn't teach and only wanted the extra training check.  Still,  somehow, you were qualified to command an 80,000lb vehicle carrying freight worth over a million dollars.  Then 3 weeks into your first solo trip, 1200 miles from home, you are called to the yard office of the Werner depot in Houston Texas . When you enter the office the manager fires you on the spot. He said you made an unauthorized turn onto an unapproved route. This is bullshit, but there is no arguing. He gives you bus fare home. You get home and apply to other trucking companies.  But, none of the big companies will hire you because Werner has queered your abstract. Straighten that out and call us back came the reply again and again. To straighten it out requires hiring lawyer. With what money? You find a job working for a local produce trucker. He puts  you into an aging Kenworth T600. The truck is a POS. The owner insist you drive the truck even though the brakes are not working properly. You walk away. Weeks later you read in the paper that, that very truck has been invovled in a horrific accident. You couldn't get a job over at Enterprise rent a car because of your age, 49. No one at the location over 30. That brought you to taking job at Wendy's. And now this! A real probelm because you chose to work rather than collect, and you were fired, there are no unemployment benefits to be has at this point. Then, in the mail, a letter from a lawyer. Werner is suing you to recover the cost of your CDL training, $5500! Included is a copy of the agreement you signed. The promised phone call from the interview comes. Your heart races. The interviewers loved you but believe that you are over qualified and wouldn't be happy in the position offered. You assure them that is not true. But the deal is sealed, they've hired someone else, and cheerfully wish you good luck.  On the table in front of you is a notice that you have special delivery letter waiting for you at the post office. You know the letter is from the mortgage company. Final forecloure notice. Your heart sinks. The kids will be home soon. You gather yourself. You pick up the local paper and see that the Kia dealership one town over is looking for six promising candidates for career position, draw against commission, rewarding career for hard workers. You dial the phone. Ok, guys ,read that and understand this - that is life in the jobs easy to get catagory. Hired in a heartbeat and fired just as fast. Just ballbusting work for little money and no respect. There is no reason that anyone who has skill, training, education, or experience beyond that level to subject themselves purposely to that existence. Why? because as i said in the very first sentence, it fails on the first count. It doesn't pay the bills. And it never will. Lowering oneself to that level permenantly relegates you to the underclass of the working poor with no way out.  Not a way to raise and support a family. Take the unemployment check and work your butt off to find a job that fits your qualifications. it can be in a different field, different state, different country, just not on the bottom wrung.  

Magician's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-05-19

BG - You apprently have never worked at a fast food restaurant.  They don't fire you for calling in sick.I'm going to chime in again with a personal story.  When I was in graduate school (just about to graduate), a classmate of mine mentioned that he would never take a job for less than $80k.  He ended up with a decent job making $90k for a while.  Got a few promotions and got laid off in 2008.  Now, I worked with this guy quite a bit on projects.  This is the guy who didn't show up for project meetings, who never did his part of the work, so either I or someone else had to take up the slack.  Those of you who have MBAs know what I'm talking about.It is no wonder this guy got laid off.  He is still, to this day, out of work, because he is sticking to his (I need to make $80k).  His wife works two jobs (I see her at the gym in the a.m.), and he tells her she can quit as soon as he gets a good paying job again.Really?  You are going to let your wife do that?  W.T.F.?!The job market is littered with these people.BG - your example of the guy with REALLY bad luck would be the minority.  It's like my uncle.  Wants to start a business, and only needs $5k to do it.  My dad said he'd give it to him, if he would just get a job in the meantime.  Show us you are willing to work.  Show us you are willing to do SOMETHING.  ANYTHING.  I will never hire someone who has been languishing on unemployment.  I am at the rate of hiring somebody new every two months this year (that is, increasing headcount).  You better show me some work ethic and not entitlement.  

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

0

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Mag, my guy is an amalgam of several people. Not that, that scenerio couldn't happen. The point is that joining the working poor does not solve any problems for the unemployed person. They get an unlivable wage, usually below poverty level, no benefits, and no future. This comes at a cost of interfering with the task at hand, finding a job that will maintain the lifestyle the individual worked and sacrificed to attain. And contrary to your experience in fast food, these jobs are very easy to lose. Not that taking a day off will cost you the job. But it doesn't take much.I'm not saying that under no circumstances  don't take an easy to get poverty pay job, just not as your first move. Everyone of us can come up with personal examples of people who bootstrapped themselves up. Such people are the exception, not the rule. Once most people get relegated to the bottom wrung, the bottom wrung is where they stay. Again, you like the others opposed to helping people demean the unemployed with your word usage. Lanuishing on unemployment?

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

1

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Mily, what qualifies you judge anyones thinking?By the way we missed you, how was rehab?

navet's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-02-25

Unemployment insurance is paid out of unemployment insurance taxes that all employers of full time employees pay. So we all pay for this insurance through our employers. The idea of unemployment insurance isn't just for the benefit of the employee. It serves the greater good by keeping the flow of goods and services during brief periods of economic downturn. To say that people on unemployment are freeloaders would be similar to saying people who collect disability or life insurance payments are freeloaders. And to say that people are somehow "happy" to recieve about 1/3 of their income to do nothing, is not only inaccurate(you have to show proof of job hunting), but downright foolish. And like BG said so eloquently, taking any job is not usually a solution. But the truth is, we all have the right to unemployment insurance because we pay for it.

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

0

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Back to the Christians - My Bible tells me to help the widows and the orphans.  It tells me to help the poor and the needy.  It also says that if a man shall not work, neither shall he eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10).  I think this is where most Christians lose their giving spirit.  I can quote you all kinds of verses from Proverbs that talk about being lazy.  BG - you're comment about the WWJD bumper stickers makes me think that Jesus would say get off your butt and go get a job.  There are way too many verses in the Bible that reference laziness, slothfulness, and work for me to think otherwise.  Now, I also know that a lot of churches are willing to help those that come and ask for it.  I know my church has a fund, not a small one BTW, specifically designated for people who have lost their jobs and can't pay for the basics of life.  Every church I've ever been a part of has a similar fund.  In addition to that, most churches support some sort of shelter or food pantry to help people in need.  I think there is a huge difference between the Biblical command to help the poor and needy and being OK with extending unemployment benefits. Spiff, this is a really good post. 

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

navet - I agree that we all have the right to the unemployment insurance that we purchase.  For a limited time.  There have already been extensions of the original unemployment insurance terms.  Why would we extend them again?  My BOA and I were talking about this thread this morning.  She said that someone in one of her college classes has been looking for a job for 2 years and her unemployment insurance extensions were about to run out.  2 years.  You can't tell me you've been seriously looking for a job for 2 years.  In two years you can get certified to become a paramedic, dental hygenist, HVAC worker, medical technician, nurse.  You can get computer certificates.  You can become a paralegal.  This list could go on and on.  If you're out of a job, chances are you can get grants to go back to school.  Or you can get student loans that are paid back when you get a job.  Lots of options out there.  The point being, if you're getting a check from the government, figure out how to stop getting a check from the government.    It's actually a little scary to think that our government would support this woman for a full two years.  I'm guessing she's received just a little bit more than she's put into the system.  Hmm...sound like Social Security.  That program is run incredibly well, don't ya think?There are over 130,000 jobs listed right now on monster.com.  Add to that the number of small business owners who don't advertise on monster.com and I'll bet that there are a ton of jobs out there if people are willing to do the legwork and go find them.  Or, maybe there could be more jobs if small business owners, and big corporations, weren't terrified of what's going to happen if all of the changes in the tax codes and health care program hit their businesses square in the nose.  That will certainly make you want to just hold onto what you've got and not add any more staff. 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Spaceman Spiff wrote:navet - I agree that we all have the right to the unemployment insurance that we purchase.  For a limited time.  There have already been extensions of the original unemployment insurance terms.  Why would we extend them again?  My BOA and I were talking about this thread this morning.  She said that someone in one of her college classes has been looking for a job for 2 years and her unemployment insurance extensions were about to run out.  2 years.  You can't tell me you've been seriously looking for a job for 2 years.  In two years you can get certified to become a paramedic, dental hygenist, HVAC worker, medical technician, nurse.  You can get computer certificates.  You can become a paralegal.  This list could go on and on.  If you're out of a job, chances are you can get grants to go back to school.  Or you can get student loans that are paid back when you get a job.  Lots of options out there.  The point being, if you're getting a check from the government, figure out how to stop getting a check from the government.    It's actually a little scary to think that our government would support this woman for a full two years.  I'm guessing she's received just a little bit more than she's put into the system.  Hmm...sound like Social Security.  That program is run incredibly well, don't ya think?There are over 130,000 jobs listed right now on monster.com.  Add to that the number of small business owners who don't advertise on monster.com and I'll bet that there are a ton of jobs out there if people are willing to do the legwork and go find them.  Or, maybe there could be more jobs if small business owners, and big corporations, weren't terrified of what's going to happen if all of the changes in the tax codes and health care program hit their businesses square in the nose.  That will certainly make you want to just hold onto what you've got and not add any more staff. Again, i believe you are oversimplfying the situation this unemployed person finds themselves in. Outside of our resident economist, Mily, most people can't forcast the future with any accuracy. The reason being that the future is unknowable. The woman in your BOA's class would first have to give up on her current career choice. If the recession is temporary as all recessions have been in the past what's her motivation to do this? Ok, no jobs today, look for work but hang in for your current career. Ok, so now were past that. Time to rethink the current career choice and get training in another disipline. It will take anywhere from one to three years to get the training needed to get a job on the new career path. Here's where it gets tricky. Which of the available careers will be in demand upon graduation from career school? The answer is nobody knows. All of the careers you mention in your post are in recession.  So, picking a new career and getting trained, not so simple as just do it!That's not to say that there aren't jobs out there. There are. For most people ,not enough jobs to justify a complete career makeover.

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

1

navet's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-02-25

Milyunair wrote:This isn't about feeling sorry for anyone. It's about helping your fellow man. Giving them a hand up. If you believe there is something wrong with that and it puts me out of touch, well then, so be it. I'm glad to be out of touch with the world of hate in which you live. And I mean that in the nicest way. - BGI know folks who are absolutely opposed to war, and others who feel the need to defend themselves or their values. Pacifists have to be respected. It's okay to be a touchy - feelie liberal with your own money. When you start borrowing and spending other people's money, where does it stop?You cross a line when you imply that those who fear debt live in a world of hate. The is where the discussion breaks down, the worst kind of mental diarhrea. The fact that you can't forecast the future is the reason to be prudent. What gives you any cred here, when you just ignore questions, like, where are your good paying jobs going to come from? You can't answer the question, so you say, borrow money, in hopes that we can pay it back. But you don't really care, because you already got yours, so you're just having fun with us. I agree with you. It's OK to be touch feely with your own money, as long as you don't start borrowing and spending other peoples money. But let's not just blame the left for that problem. We are currently fighting two wars using a Chinese credit card to pay for them. So it's OK to kill hundreds of thosands of people(directly or indirectly), using other peoples money, yet you stand in righteous indignation at the thought of helping folks out of tough times with other peoples money. And so many of the pro-war types are so-called christians. I have a little trouble with that. I would agree with the conservatives(I was one for most of my life) if they would have stuck to their principals. But considering the lions share of this economic mess was initiated under the conservative watch, yet they are the first to complain and finger point at any dem solution, it just smacks of hypocracy to me.

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

BG - For the most part, I am oversimplifying things.  It's not easy to just wake up one day and start a business for yourself.  My wife and I go through this once in a while because she has a talent that could morph itself into a business rather easily.   There are licenses, inspections, etc that she'd have to go through to get the business going.  Or, she can just keep doing it the way she is now, which is very small time, under the radar.   My point is that there are a ton of people out there who either have worked in a particular industry and have some knowledge of that industry but no marketable skills otherwise, but are unwilling to take a leap and get some sort of training to change that.  If we could funnel some of that unemployment money back into the small business arena, you'd see a drastic rise in employment.  If we could just give some of the existing small business owners reason to believe that they're not going to go broke paying for health care and their taxes, we'd see a rise in employment.  I think the reason we don't agree on this issue is that we're seeing this issue from opposite sides of the coin.  On your side it's impossible to make changes, take a job that's not ideal, start a business, etc so the government, and therefore the working, taxpaying Americans are responsible for giving additional assistance to the unemployed.   I see this as an opportunity for the thousands of people out there who think they could be their own boss to actually try to give it a shot.  It's just a function of where my tax dollars go.  One ends up creating jobs, the other creating dependancy on the federal government.  Which, is what the progressives want at the end of the day, isn't it navet?

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

1

navet's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-02-25

Spaceman Spiff wrote:BG - For the most part, I am oversimplifying things.  It's not easy to just wake up one day and start a business for yourself.  My wife and I go through this once in a while because she has a talent that could morph itself into a business rather easily.   There are licenses, inspections, etc that she'd have to go through to get the business going.  Or, she can just keep doing it the way she is now, which is very small time, under the radar.   My point is that there are a ton of people out there who either have worked in a particular industry and have some knowledge of that industry but no marketable skills otherwise, but are unwilling to take a leap and get some sort of training to change that.  If we could funnel some of that unemployment money back into the small business arena, you'd see a drastic rise in employment.  If we could just give some of the existing small business owners reason to believe that they're not going to go broke paying for health care and their taxes, we'd see a rise in employment.  I think the reason we don't agree on this issue is that we're seeing this issue from opposite sides of the coin.  On your side it's impossible to make changes, take a job that's not ideal, start a business, etc so the government, and therefore the working, taxpaying Americans are responsible for giving additional assistance to the unemployed.   I see this as an opportunity for the thousands of people out there who think they could be their own boss to actually try to give it a shot.  It's just a function of where my tax dollars go.  One ends up creating jobs, the other creating dependancy on the federal government.  Which, is what the progressives want at the end of the day, isn't it navet?  No, it's not what progressives want. It's insurance. The insurance should go to the person for whom the premiums were paid. What progressives want is justice. And a viable middle class.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Spiff, you are expanding my answer. I view welfare programs as creating government dependancy. Unemployment, by comparison is a blip on the radar. Unemployment does not create a culture of dependancy. I agree, your wife should step out of her comfort zone and start the business. Many small businesses start that way.Where i don't agree is in the use your skills to start a business type of thinking. And, the thinking that says if you don't do this it's because you are lazy. Most unemployed people are not in a position to start a business. Both financially or from a peace of mind POV. No money coming in, limited resources, and dooms day financial thinking takes over. The thought of blowing through the savings kitty on something that 'Might" work is usually off the table in these homes. Unlike your wife's situation, there is no stable income to fall back on as the business grows and if the biz doesn't produce. Most businesses take years to produce a sustainable income. Those started on a shoestring budget even more so. Going out on your own is a non starter in most cases in this situation.Not to mention the risk. Most of you guys are preaching fiscal responsibility and conservatism. What could be more risky than starting your own business?Navet - good catch on the hypocrisy of what the conservatives consider money well spent. 

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

0

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

1

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

1

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

0

RealWorld's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

BG- I just continue to disagree with your points. And they are a bit long winded man. I think that your "points" empathize the larger issue. First - Dead wrong on the Wendy's job. It is actually really really hard to get fired from these places. Why? B/C Wendy's knows there are a lot of people who think the job is beneath them. Also if you are calling in sick all the time you should be fired. Right? Second - The orginal problem still persists. Why should anyone think that Wendy's is beneath you? Really? Nothing is beneath me if I want to pay the bills.Lastly - If you work 39 hours at Wendy's and you can't pay the bills, it looks like you will put in 31 hours at the local gas station too. Is that soooooo wrong? To ask people who are not working and still living ABOVE their means (notice not your means or my means) their means.Sir if you don't have a job, maybe you shouldn't have the 4 bedroom house with the 3 car garage? I just don't get what point you are making. In fact maybe you just got caught up in Milnayair's crazy posts and got aggravated but you basically have made the other's sides point.

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

BG - If you have a "level 8" job on a 1-10 range I really doubt you have to go all the way to fry cook at Wendy's to find a job. You may have to go from "level 8" to a "level 4" job maybe. You kill me with your EXTREME examples.Also, you never answered my question so I will ask it for the third time. Do you see anything wrong with asking for college credit hours or community service hours etc. worked for exchange of unemployment benefits? I would even bite my tongue and say this would be a requirement after the first 6 weeks have passed so they can make a decent effort to gather their thoughts and get together a game plan of what to do next. What about winding down unemployment benefits? For example start off with 100% and reduce that amount by 1% each week until they are back to work or two years have passed.I am going to go out on a limb and say you and Navet are disagree with this quote - "When government accepts responsibility for people, then people no longer take responsibility for themselves" George Pataki

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

N.D. wrote:BG - If you have a "level 8" job on a 1-10 range I really doubt you have to go all the way to fry cook at Wendy's to find a job. You may have to go from "level 8" to a "level 4" job maybe. You kill me with your EXTREME examples.Also, you never answered my question so I will ask it for the third time. Do you see anything wrong with asking for college credit hours or community service hours etc. worked for exchange of unemployment benefits? I would even bite my tongue and say this would be a requirement after the first 6 weeks have passed so they can make a decent effort to gather their thoughts and get together a game plan of what to do next. What about winding down unemployment benefits? For example start off with 100% and reduce that amount by 1% each week until they are back to work or two years have passed.I am going to go out on a limb and say you and Navet are disagree with this quote - "When government accepts responsibility for people, then people no longer take responsibility for themselves" George Pataki Extreme examples? What extreme examples? You, along with RW, spiff, and Miliy have all taken the "any job in a storm" position. By " You kill me" I hope you mean you are, at the least , entertained? Maybe not so much?The Wendy's post is an amalgam of people and some of the things they've experience down in the low pay lane. All of the trials and tribulations of our out of luck no count lazy f*cker example are taken from real life. Every event I posted is from real life experience. Either myself or someone i know. Some details changed for net security purposes. The Werner trans example is exactly what happened. The rookie driver was dispatched with directions from his dispatcher. Those directions put him on a dead end street from which he had to back out. Apparently a big nono at Werner. He called the dispatcher, who apologized, said ops it was a right turn, not left, and rerouted him to his pick up. Three weeks later he was fired for the wrong turn. The dispatcher claimed ignorance. The rookie with copies of the wrong routing tried to fight it but his trucking career was effectively over. My son couldn't find a part time job easy to get because the town he was going to school in was and is flooded with out of work Pratt and Whitney engineers. They were working at Mickey Ds. So much for level 8 going down to level 4! I might add that none of you guys were making any such "job level" qualifications in previous posts.The point is that along with being hard work, and low pay, these jobs are easy to lose. I find it interesting that by my bringing to life the reality of what each of you has been saying,  you and RW are backing away from the any job rhetoric and calling my reality extreme. Reality is not extreme.  Reality is a bitch. About your question - I think a work for benefits or college credit/skills training in lieu of program is an excellent idea. It could reduce taxes while creating substance. Unfortunately, the state workers unions in most states would never let this happen. I agree with George's statement, but i don't think he was the first to say it. Regardless, one need look no further than the Society Islands to see the result of too much government dependance.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

RealWorld wrote:BG- I just continue to disagree with your points. And they are a bit long winded man. I think that your "points" empathize the larger issue. First - Dead wrong on the Wendy's job. It is actually really really hard to get fired from these places. Why? B/C Wendy's knows there are a lot of people who think the job is beneath them. Also if you are calling in sick all the time you should be fired. Right? Second - The orginal problem still persists. Why should anyone think that Wendy's is beneath you? Really? Nothing is beneath me if I want to pay the bills.Lastly - If you work 39 hours at Wendy's and you can't pay the bills, it looks like you will put in 31 hours at the local gas station too. Is that soooooo wrong? To ask people who are not working and still living ABOVE their means (notice not your means or my means) their means.Sir if you don't have a job, maybe you shouldn't have the 4 bedroom house with the 3 car garage? I just don't get what point you are making. In fact maybe you just got caught up in Milnayair's crazy posts and got aggravated but you basically have made the other's sides point. Long winded? I prefer verbose!On that count, no one's forcing you to read my posts. As i've said, every example in that post is taken from a real life example. Either my own or someone I know. If anything i cut out some of the more disturbing details. Like getting fired from a retail job for being 15 minutes late. Or, getting fired for filing a sexual harrassment complaint against your boss. This shit really happens. And, by the way, the harrassment complaint resulted in a six figure settlement. But, still, the low pay employee found themselves on the street with no money and no paycheck simply because she was tired of the unwarranted advances. How scary is that?Wendy's isn't beneath anyone. It just doesn't pay the bills. Nor would cobbling together two or three of these types of jobs. Taking three low pay jobs that together might bring in 12k before tax doesn't replace an 80k salary as an engineer. Nor does it replace the 150k a project manager could make. Again, you are speaking from a positon of the unknowing oversimplified solution. What means do you speak of? The previous long term lifestye that the newly unemployed has work a lifetime to achieve or the new unemployed means? When should they adjust an how do they adjsut? For example, who do they sell their house to?You are absolutely correct, an unemployed person shouldn't own a 3 bedroom home with a three car garage. So, when Mr. production manager loses his job because the company execs above him sold the company and bolted with their golden parachutes, the new bosses closing the doors, when exactly should he sell the home he worked his entire life to buy? And, in this economy who, exactly who would he sell it to? Honestly RW, do you think before you post? Or are you just spewing more Glen beck dribble? I ask, because this statement "don't have a job shouldn't own a big house" is assinine. And, i think if you really think about it you'll agree. After-all, if you lose your job today are you going to sell your house tomorrow? I think not. Help!!!!

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

For the record, this has been one of the most entertaining threads we've had on here in a while.  And even though, BG, you and I are on different sides of the table, it's nice to have a civil discussion without a lot of the other sophomoric posts we normally see.  What's up with Mily's posts?  Did he get banned for something?Found this report on Yahoo this morning: http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110013/debate-on-jobless-benefitsI find it interesting that the studies are showing that unemployment benefits are actually increasing the length of time some folks are out of a job. 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Spiff, good article.I thought the article had balance. Hits on both sides of the issue. The 58 year old JP Morgan employee said it best that no one can live on unemployment benfits. Everyone she knows is looking for work every day. Which makes my point. So both sides covered.I thought Mily's 1's and 0's were just a new level of insanity. The term +1 is used to show agreement. But, there wasn't any reference to what was being agreed to. The zero made no sense, but again par for the poster. I guess we'll see. I didn't see anything recently that was a bannable submission. It could have been something he tried to post. And then there is this: There are a large number of ex-patriot posters who are banned. I've suspected that Mily, who has zero'd in on me is one of these people. Just one of the many dual personalities that populate this site. Maybe even someone i'm friendly with on the outside who has decided to bust my chops and liven things up here a bit. It's a possibility and now they got busted by the RR forum police? His recent absence corresponded neatly with some known vaca time of some people I know. And then again, maybe not!You can't take any of this stuff too seriously.  

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

BondGuy wrote:About your question - I think a work for benefits or college credit/skills training in lieu of program is an excellent idea. It could reduce taxes while creating substance. Unfortunately, the state workers unions in most states would never let this happen. UNIONS?? We could start another entire thread on this bullshit topic.Anyway, excuses are just that, freakin excuses. Everybody has the option to get up and put on a pair of work boots or they can open the dresser drawer and shake out that folded up wrinkle free "poor pitiful me" attitude. I have roofed houses, sold and serviced automobiles at a dealership, called for donations from the local firefighters hall, hauled off junk, went back to school, help start a business, held office in my local district, and now I am trying to build my idea of the perfect career, all on top of volunteer work that continues regardless of the economy. None of these jobs/careers relate to one another. I started each one at the very bottom. The ones I realized were not for me I left at the bottom. Trust me when I say if I can find something to do, then anybody willing to humble themselves somewhat can do the same. Your life is what you make of it. Anyone receiving unemployment benefits while sitting on their couch complaining is not worth my air that they breathe. If they are putting on some type of work/school/volunteer boot each morning to try and make sure tomorrow is better than today, I congratulate them. But facts are facts and the longer someone is on unemployment benefits the higher the probability they are not humble enough to make a difference for themselves or the community they live in. But instead choose to blame their situation on everything but their self.BG - Just so I understand what you are saying let me ask you this question. How long after someone starts unemployment benefits do you think it is acceptable for them to wake up and pile on the couch in anticipation of watching Ellen instead of indulging themselves in the possibilities of a job search or the excitement of furthering their education or the rewarding feeling they could get from giving back to their community in some way?  

navet's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-02-25

Have you ever woken up and watched Ellen? Or judge shows? Work is much better than sitting on your ass. And most people prefer to work. However, every citizen has the right to national healthcare, and a social safety net that includes social security and unemployment insurance. I wish you neocons lots of luck opposing those issues.

RealWorld's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

How about moving the discussion to solutions. Bondguy - Respectfully, you are unable to keep my attention with such long winded responses. It isn't that I don't want to read your responses. I am interested in your perspective. I (and anyone over 5 yrs old) know that I don't have to read your responses..."Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”- Antoine de Saint Exupery 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

ND - we have differing points of view on this subject. Your POV plainly tatoos all unemployed as lazy and not looking for work. it's as if they are responsible for losing their jobs. Which, of course, is impossible. Had they been responsible for losing their jobs they couldn't qualify for benefits. Furthrer, you want them immediately go down to the local fast food joint and get a job tomorrow. OTOH, my POV is that they should try to get a job that maintains their lifestyle. Short of that, get as close as you can. Read the article in spiff's post. In NJ benefits extended unemployment by an estimated 1.something weeks. Again, where is the problem with the loafers and the takers?To answer your question - never. If you are unemployed your fist and only job is looking for work. Only after you've exausted all you can do that day or time period is it play time. The unemployed i know take their situation very seriously. They are engaged in looking for work. That doesn't mean there isn't time for a run or bike ride. ND, coming up we've all done our share of shit jobs. Yes, we can all go back that way, but who would want to? I don't hold that against anyone. Yeah, the guy who turns down a good offer because he wants a better offer, that's wrong.Read today in USA Today that 44% of the 2010 Nursing sch grads are unemployed with little hope of finding jobs anytime soon. One of those grads is someone i know. Four years in school to get her BS in Nursing. On top of that she has a masters in math and a masters in chemistry. Smart woman! She got an offer yesterday from a local hospital for an MST position. They're the nurses helpers. The ones who do all the shit work. $10.00 an hour. Should she take it?

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

RealWorld wrote:How about moving the discussion to solutions. Bondguy - Respectfully, you are unable to keep my attention with such long winded responses. It isn't that I don't want to read your responses. I am interested in your perspective. I (and anyone over 5 yrs old) know that I don't have to read your responses..."Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”- Antoine de Saint Exupery RW, i hear you. Still, i'm going to say what i'm going to say the way i want to say it. Sorry if it takes up a lot of bandwidth.Tell ya what. Just for you we can have a debate/conversation limited to three word posts. Say whatever you want to say, but say it with three words only.  Because we disagree i'll begin with:You are wrong! 

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

First off, I am just going to start ignoring Navet all together. He will not be around much longer anyway, besides his verbal diarrhea is nauseating.Second...BondGuy wrote:ND - we have differing points of view on this subject. Your POV plainly tattoos all unemployed as lazy and not looking for work.Do you always read what you want? I never said all unemployed are lazy. The guy standing on the street corner with sandwich boards looking for a job was inspirational. All though, I may be guilty of generalizing the unemployed. I am a strong advocate to help anyone that wants to help themselves. I do not believe in account minimums when there are people out there just starting to plan for the future. I will help anyone willing to help themselves. But maybe you and I have a difference of opinion similar to the chicken/egg analogy. I believe in expecting results before offering rewards and it seems you feel more to offer rewards in hopes of expecting rewards. Neither one is right and neither one is wrong, I guess. Just difference of opinions. BondGuy wrote: It's as if they are responsible for losing their jobs. This, of course, is impossible. Had they been responsible for losing their jobs they couldn't qualify for benefits. Further, you want them immediately go down to the local fast food joint and get a job tomorrow. I do not expect them to put in applications at McDonalds on the way home from clearing out their desk. Again you read what you want to and not what I said. I do expect them to start looking at all options within the next couple days and decide on a plan of action. BondGuy wrote:OTOH, my POV is that they should try to get a job that maintains their lifestyle. Short of that, get as close as you can. Surely if you do financial planning, you know most people live above their lifestyle and really needed a promotion not a layoff. But yes as close as they can would be acceptable to me. I had a friend that was let go and had several interviews lined up and accepted the first position offered. Unbeknown to him two weeks later he was offered his first choice and then accepted it. I wish he had not taken the first offer but he thought the interview with the preferred employer went poorly. BondGuy wrote:Read the article in spiff's post. In NJ benefits extended unemployment by an estimated 1.something weeks. Again, where is the problem with the loafers and the takers?Again, I do not have a problem with unemployment or any entitlement program, I do have a problem with perpetual entitlements.BondGuy wrote:To answer your question - never. If you are unemployed your first and only job is looking for work. Only after you've exhausted all you can do that day or time period is it play time. The unemployed I know take their situation very seriously. They are engaged in looking for work. That doesn't mean there isn't time for a run or bike ride. I completely agree with making time for exercise and family. I would not expect more time spent then a typical days work.BondGuy wrote:ND, coming up we've all done our share of shit jobs. Yes, we can all go back that way, but who would want to? I don't hold that against anyone. Yeah, the guy who turns down a good offer because he wants a better offer, that's wrong. I guess we have found another difference between you and I.  I would rather take a shit job, but I would not expect someone to take a job for less then what their benefits would provide though. Unemployment benefits are not meant to maintain the recipient’s lifestyle but they are designed to maintain a REASONABLE lifestyle for that income range and it is capped at a max just like most other programs that are TRUELY designed for the middle to lower class. It is assumed someone making 100k a year is financially responsible enough to not have a need for unemployment i.e. cash reserve etc. but you and I both know by the savings rate in the US that this was not so (below 2%). Credit was too easy, keeping up with the Jones' was too important.BondGuy wrote:Read today in USA Today that 44% of the 2010 Nursing sch grads are unemployed with little hope of finding jobs anytime soon. One of those grads is someone I know. Four years in school to get her BS in Nursing. On top of that she has a Masters in math and a Masters in chemistry. Smart woman! She got an offer yesterday from a local hospital for an MST position. They're the nurses’ helpers. The ones who do all the shit work. $10.00 an hour. Should she take it? 44%? That's wonderful. Good for them and I feel they should continue to receive benefits as long as they are enrolled and maintaining a 2.0 average (anything less will probably keep them from succeeding in this field anyway). If they cannot find jobs after graduation they should enroll in the next level of education in their particular field of interest.As for the person you know, if the $10 p/h job provides more income then unemployment benefits and it will not reduce her GPA in school then yes she should. If she is finished with school, then yes she should. If her desired position opens up, it is more likely to be filled from within first, someone with work experience and current references second and an outta work grad student third. At least that is my opinion of HR.

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

navet wrote:Have you ever woken up and watched Ellen? Or judge shows? Work is much better than sitting on your ass. And most people prefer to work. However, every citizen has the right to national healthcare, and a social safety net that includes social security and unemployment insurance. I wish you neocons lots of luck opposing those issues.  As far as I know there are only 10 rights that people have in this country as dictated by the Constitution:1.  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.2. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. 3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in a time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be voilated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 5. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.   7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. 8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 9.  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.I could post the rest of the amendments, but I any 5th grader who's had to study the Constitution can tell you that the things you're saying are rights are simply just wishes and that they just simply aren't in there.  Nice try though.  The problem we're dealing with right now is that WAY too many people view what they want their government to do for them as rights.  And they couldn't be more wrong.  The sad thing is that it seems this particular administration wants to step all over our actual Constitutional rights to further it's own agenda.  The Fairness Doctrine and comments about people clinging to their God and their guns come to mind.  How about we just strike the First Amendment altogether?  This goes way beyond unemployment insurance and well into my disagreement that this country needs to undergo some, what did you call it...progressive renaissance. 

navet's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-02-25

Spiff, we all know the Bill Of Rights, and rights issued under the constitution. You must have a lot of time on your hands. The right to medical care comes from a source that pre-dates our constitution by a millenium or two. Every doctor takes an oath when they recieve their MD degree in the US. The Hippocratic oath sets the standard for treating patients. Currently, in the US any patient who presents at a hospital will recieve care irregardless of their ability to pay. Therefore, by fiat, everyone in the US has medical coverage. Many have expanded that care to a "right" to care, and for practical reasons. When we treat people irregardless of ability to pay, we essentially "insure" all citizens. The alternative is to let the poor suffer and die(many middle class would fall into this category). The most hamane and cost effective alternative is to provide national health insurance to all citizens, pool risk in the most cost effective way, and pay for that insurance through taxes. That doesn't mean nationalization of medicine. Medicare pays for privately run medicine through a taxed insurance plan. That is what is happening now and will evolve into a single payor system for all citizens. Pretty much a done deal, just a matter of time.

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

Cut and paste.  I wouldn't actually type out all of that.  Again, I'm going to cut and paste the basis of your argument and ask that you tell me where it says that doctors are obligated to treat everyone, therefore creating the "right" to healthcare in this country:"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help." Nowhere in there does it say that doctors swear that they will treat everybody regardless of their ability to pay.  Again, nice try, but health care is a privilege in this country, not a right. However, I do have a right to get together with my Christian friends, congregate on public grounds, and let the government know that we believe they aren't acting in our best interests all while singing The Old Rugged Cross and Just As I am. 

navet's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-02-25

That's a modern version of the oath. Most new MD's take the original. But either way, I am not going to waste time argueing the relative merits of which oath doctors take. It's a very moving ceremony that everyone should witness. The point I make is really very simple. As a country, will we refuse to treat a citizen that cannot pay? If you are in favor of that, then you will be on the losing side of the national healthcare argument. And as long as we choose to treat all citizens who need it, the question becomes how best to pay for it. The most cost effective way to do so is through pooling of risk on a national basis. Thus, national health insurance for all citizens. And I maintain that every citizen, and ultimately evry human being has a right to medical care.

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

You won't because you can't.  Even in the classic and ancient versions of the oath it isn't there.  I've been to several family member's ceremonies and you are correct that it is very moving.We can agree on a few things. First, that if you're sick, your ability to pay for your medical care shouldn't mean that you have to die.  I think most physicians, whether it's in the oath or not, would agree.  It's just who they are.  I do believe that doctors, many of whom are business owners, should have the right to turn people away if it doesn't make business sense for them to treat someone.  Or they should be able to refer them to a facility that will treat anyone regardless of their financial status.To that end there are many faith based hospitals out there that are set up to run this way.  In fact the vast majority of the hospitals here in STL are faith based:  St. John's Mercy, Missouri Baptist Medical Center, Barnes Jewish, St. Luke's.  Each of those will treat anyone.  Second, pooling risk is the most cost effective way to pay for medical costs.  You'll notice I didn't say at the national level.  Unless you're going to give the responsibility of running a program like that to a company who actually has experience in doing it, like a large insurance providor (think BC/BS types), I don't think the government is capable of effectively doing it.  Too much red tape.  I don't think that's what Obama and his folks have in mind, however.  I don't believe this national healthcare debate is over.  The states are going to excercise some rights of their own, as is dictated by the Constitution, and cause a big stink before it's all said and done.  We're going to see how far Obama thinks he can get his hands in everyone else's pie before someone slaps it.   

navet's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-02-25

I believe that it is impossible to run a healthcare plan from the states. Since there would have to be reciprocal agreements between states to cover out of state illnesses, a national program is the only feasable way to cover health costs. And there would have to be a national insurance standard. No way to get each state to agree to that. Healthcare, like national defence and the highway system has to be a national program.

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

and after everyone receives a pay check no matter if they work or not, receives healthcare whether they pay for it or not, should we then clothe everyone? What about dental care and eye sight? Government should provide everyone with free transportation not just urban citizens, right? Who will draw the line between what should be a given and should be earned on their own?oh yeah, Navet - Irregardless is an informal term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as "incorrect" or "nonstandard".

Magician's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-05-19

I was wondering how navet got to be so old and uses irregardless.I would say it is the Edward Jones minimum hiring standard, but so many of the Jones guys I know are smarter than that.  And it would kind of be a thread hijack.Regardless of whether the Hippocratic oath states that people are entitled to healthcare (which I think that Spiff proved that it doesn't), we live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  Emphasis on STATES, plural.  We seem to have forgotten that.  No one is entitled to healthcare, retirement or welfare.  Should we, as a caring society, take care of our weak, our infirm and those without the ability to care for themselves?  Yes.  I think we should.  As individual citizens, and maybe even government help.  The disabled, either through mishap, or if they were born that way, should be cared for.But I read something interesting the other day.  Check this article out:  This woman was born with an issue that caused her to have her leg amputated.  I just want to point out that she made something of her life. http://www.rangerup.com/kellybruno.html Plus, she's kind of hot.Anyway, people in this country need to sack up and start doing for themselves.  I wonder what the frontiersmen did when they lost their jobs?  I guess went to the unemployment line... oh wait, there WAS no unemployment line. 

Magician's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-05-19

One more point on unemployment.  I have two open positions.  I have been trying to get them filled for about three weeks.  I'm not asking for a whole lot, but people have applied with Master's degrees knowing what the salary range was.  Out of 30 people who have applied, I have offered ten interviews so far.  NINE have been no-call, no -shows.  Yeah, people really want to work.

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

navet wrote:I believe that it is impossible to run a healthcare plan from the states. Since there would have to be reciprocal agreements between states to cover out of state illnesses, a national program is the only feasable way to cover health costs. And there would have to be a national insurance standard. No way to get each state to agree to that. Healthcare, like national defence and the highway system has to be a national program.You're thinking that I want my state to run my healthcare program?  Hardly.  National defense, btw, is constitutional.  That is something I'm OK with getting taxed for.  The National Highway System was originally constructed to make travel for our military vehicles easier.  The by-product of that was a highway system that lets us go where we please whether I'm in my mini-van or a green Humvee.  I'm OK with the taxes for that too.Your idealism is to be commended.  I think you truly believe that the government should help everyone with pretty much everything.  That they are the answer to our problems as a country.  I believe, however, that the unintended consequence of drastically more people becoming dependant on the country for an ever growing laundry list of daily needs is simple - bankruptcy.  We simply run out of money.  Just like with Social Security.  Just like with Medicaid. Here's the reason I don't think the government can make it work:  They don't think like business owners.  They judge the success or failure of a program based on how much money they throw at it.  They never, ever, stop to think about the results.  They never stop to think about how they can create a better product with less investment dollars.  In their book if it's broke, throw more money at the problem and it'll get better.  That simply doesn't work.  It doesn't work in my household, my business, or my church, and it surely doesn't work in our government.  If I thought the government handled ANY program well, I might have a little faith that they could handle healthcare.    

RealWorld's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

I have heard many people comment that if we had a plan to get people back to work, maybe in terms of infastructure that would at least help these people "earn" some of their money.1. What infustructure really needs improvement on a large scale or can they simply be state or county level.2. Would the unemployed union workers really participate? BG- You have thrown any once of intellectual respect that I would have had for you out the window. 

navet's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-02-25

N.D. wrote:and after everyone receives a pay check no matter if they work or not, receives healthcare whether they pay for it or not, should we then clothe everyone? What about dental care and eye sight? Government should provide everyone with free transportation not just urban citizens, right? Who will draw the line between what should be a given and should be earned on their own?oh yeah, Navet - Irregardless is an informal term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as "incorrect" or "nonstandard". So I guess you are an asshole, irregardless!

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

RealWorld wrote:I have heard many people comment that if we had a plan to get people back to work, maybe in terms of infastructure that would at least help these people "earn" some of their money.1. What infustructure really needs improvement on a large scale or can they simply be state or county level.2. Would the unemployed union workers really participate? BG- You have thrown any once of intellectual respect that I would have had for you out the window. Would have had?

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

He's evidenlty never asked you a question about bonds.  That's the beauty of this country.  We can completely disagree on politics and social issues, but lend each other a helping hand on other issues.  I know that when I have a question about bonds, there's really only one guy I know will shoot straight without bias and tell it like it is.  And it ain't Mario DeRose.

RealWorld's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

I don't think bonds are very intellectual. I have taken advice from you BG on bonds in the past and agree with how you view them. I find your mindsight very intelligent on that aspect of finance. This entire discussion is hard to swallow. Instead of coming to a formidable solution with "intelligent people" we debate the merits and worthiness of individuals. BG's answers have been slowly breaking down to the level of childish. I imagine that some of mine haven't been as thought out as they should be. I guess this is the reason why Washington has so much trouble with the same problems, it is very difficult in the polarized society that we live in to intelligently look beyond our on convictions and develop solutions for the better good. Maybe that is human, however we will not survive as a country so divided and that is the livelyhood of you, I and our offspring.

Magician's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-05-19

RealWorld wrote:I don't think bonds are very intellectual. I have taken advice from you BG on bonds in the past and agree with how you view them. I find your mindsight very intelligent on that aspect of finance. This entire discussion is hard to swallow. Instead of coming to a formidable solution with "intelligent people" we debate the merits and worthiness of individuals. BG's answers have been slowly breaking down to the level of childish. I imagine that some of mine haven't been as thought out as they should be. I guess this is the reason why Washington has so much trouble with the same problems, it is very difficult in the polarized society that we live in to intelligently look beyond our on convictions and develop solutions for the better good. Maybe that is human, however we will not survive as a country so divided and that is the livelyhood of you, I and our offspring. Are you serious? 

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×