LMAO, your economics are a hot mess!!! I do agree with your story on the lady with the condo. You can not fix stupid! However Real Wages have not kept up with inflation. Sure in professions like yours where you have the national lawyers association which is like a labor union you guys "pool" together and set prevailing rates for your services. Trust me I'm a big believer that lawyers rule the world right next to banksters. The banksters are certainly #1 but a close second is lawyers! You guys are the kings!!! I'm seeing this first hand reading about our tax code in Bruce Bartlett's new book "The Benefit and The Burden"
The fact remains UAW wages despite your fuzzy math and thinking kept up with inflation. They unlike everyone else maintained the same disposable income while everyone else went down with the exception of banksters, lawyers, doctors, financial institutions, etc...
New UAW workers make around $14 bucks and hour and can top out at around $19 bucks an hour. The employees have less disposable income than people like my father did when he was working. They do not enjoy the benefit of talking on the phone in a cushy chair blowing smoke up someones [non-permissible content removed] for an hour and hang up the phone with a smile and say "I just paid half of my Bimmer payment...Cha Ching!!! God it is good to be KING"
That is exactly right. So the rest of the population not making big fat UAW paychecks either bought an old beater or went deep in debt to support the over paid UAW workers. You have to feel for the guy working at the Hardware store for minimum wage trying to keep up with the inflation caused by UAW janitors making $35 per hour. The poor [non-permissible content removed] on the bottom cannot afford a wedge of Cheese with the over inflated prices. Caused by Unions. Especially the Public Employee Unions. Of course the guy making minimum wage can quit and go on welfare and get enough food stamps to eat steak and lobster several times a week on the rest of US.
I think it was the Six Figure Teamsters in Alaska that drove prices up! I've never met a UAW worker who owned a farm in Minnesota, a Home and Farm in Hawaii, and a Mansion in San Diego. Right next to Lawyers in Georgia, Ex Alaskan Teamsters, know what the good life is all about!!!
They build in those states because the sheeple can be easily manipulated!!! When you get south of the Mason-Dixon line it's really a crap shoot on IQ's....My link below proves my point!
They believe that Obama is a radical Socialist Kenyan Muslim. Do I need to say more? They are against unions because some blowhard like Rush, Beck, or some other anti union babble mouth on Fixed News, told them they were evil.
They know next to nothing about unions but are opposed to them. I find it quite sad how ignorant and easily manipulated the masses are. No wonder why the 1% have enslaved the 99% :sick:
Mississippi Conservatives Talk About Their Hatred Of Obama
He cannot buy a home as he just transferred to Bakersfield from Maryland. They hated it there and had to give up their upside down home
I feel hurt, HURT that your nephew did not like our fine state; a state where the governor has never seen a tax or fee proposal that he didn't like :sick: .
I feel hurt, HURT that your nephew did not like our fine state; a state where the governor has never seen a tax or fee proposal that he didn't like
I'm glad you posted that, actually, because I was about to ask Gary what it was exactly, about Maryland that his nephew didn't like. And not that I'm going to try and defend Maryland, but I'm just genuinely curious. Most of my complaints about it are more county-specific (Prince Georges, land of corruption, where if you're a property owner they grab onto you like a bunch of leeches). I've also lived in Maryland all my life, so I guess I just got used to it...the whole devil you know, versus the one you don't thing...
As for Verizon, they have a couple of offices local to me, and I remember them going on strike last summer/fall. I had to drive past one of the intersections where they were picketing, and I tell you, the burning of Atlanta paled in comparison! :P Nah, seriously, they were just standing on the corner, waving to people, holding up signs asking you to honk to show their support.
Why did you quit? Why didn't you participate in there 401K/Company Stock Plan?
I did invest in the AT&T stock plan. That is were the $24 went every two weeks. I quit to take the job in Alaska. It was better pay and CA was getting too crowded.
The fact remains UAW wages despite your fuzzy math and thinking kept up with inflation. UAW wages were NOT keeping up with inflation they were causing inflation.
I've never met a UAW worker who owned a farm in Minnesota, a Home and Farm in Hawaii, and a Mansion in San Diego
If they had invested the big UAW bucks in real estate instead of booze, boats, Caddies and drugs, they could have. And I do remember you saying how all UAW workers had homes in MI and FL. So that kind of blows that story.
And not that I'm going to try and defend Maryland, but I'm just genuinely curious.
My complaints are the taxes/fees/cost of living (like I said, the governor has never seen a tax he didn't like), and the traffic/congestion, at least in the Baltimore/DC area. I could live with one or the other, but not both. Got away from the traffic, and some of the taxes by moving to the Eastern Shore .
I was about to ask Gary what it was exactly, about Maryland that his nephew didn't like.
I think it was more his wife. She was raised in CA and her folks are here. She also has MS and the cold got to her. There 3 sons 17-23 are doing better here and have found jobs which they could not find in Maryland. It was a win for the whole family. They said the cost of living is less in Bakersfield than near Baltimore. Most people in CA consider Bakersfield kind of below average place to live. Unless your name is Buck Owens.
He transferred out with Verizon at the same pay he was making in Maryland. He had his transfer request in for several years.
My dad's pension was through the Teamsters, not the company he was working for. A lot like Gary's I guess.
Yes ours is a separate pension fund within the Alaska Teamsters. They opted to not be part of the International when the local was formed in 1960. They felt the Teamster Pension fund was far too corrupt and vulnerable with all the shenanigans Hoffa pulled. When RCA employees went with the Teamsters in 1971 the company paid $1 per hour into the pension fund. The last several years I worked it was up to $7 per hour the company paid in. We get a set amount for life. We do not get any COL raises in our pension. So we have cut way back to where it will be plenty no matter what happens. Hopefully
They said the cost of living is less in Bakersfield than near Baltimore. Most people in CA consider Bakersfield kind of below average place to live. Unless your name is Buck Owens.
Well, that is in the vicinity of where they filmed the crop duster scene in "North By Northwest" (in the high-up opening shot of the bus driving up and dropping Cary Grant off, Bakersfield was on the horizon and they had to matte it out), so it must be pretty remote out there. Or, at least it was, once upon a time!
And, I can understand the weather. Maryland's summers can be pretty hot and humid, and the winters can be unpredictable. If you were raised in CA and used to it then yeah, Maryland would probably kinda suck in comparison!
Bakersfield is at the southern edge of the San Joaquin Valley. It is cropland with lots of oil wells. Very hot in the summer very mild in the winter. I noticed last time driving through many new Orange groves. The best part is close proximity to several National Parks in the Sierras. What I found interesting is their boys had jobs in less than a month after they arrived. And the unemployment in Bakersfield is 19%. Sounds to me like lots of people laying around collecting Unemployment checks from the stimulus. Are not interested in getting a job. It is very seasonal work with all the agriculture.
Remember now, unemployment benefits are equivalent to Social Security, you have to pay into it (and work) to get it back.
Well, kinda-sorta. It's actually the employers who are forced to pay for unemployment benefits for their employees. That's why some employers like to find a reason to fire someone for "just cause", rather than simply laying someone off. If you get fired, it can be harder, but not impossible, to claim unemployment.
I guess you could argue that if the employer didn't pick up the tab for this, then the employees would see the difference, through higher paychecks, but don't hold your breath!
I guess you could argue that if the employer didn't pick up the tab for this, then the employees would see the difference, through higher paychecks, but don't hold your breath!
________________
I would definitely argue that if employers didn't pay it, employees would be paid more, at least ideally.
But to be honest, your probably right, I haven't seen any companies out of many researched that let you "opt-out" of health care and get the equivalent value back in salary.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I think they said Target and some fast food place. The two older boys are also taking college classes. The one in HS is on some sort of work program through the school.
Remember now, unemployment benefits are equivalent to Social Security, you have to pay into it (and work) to get it back.
As pointed out the employer picks up the tab for the first 26 weeks. The extensions out to 2 years are all coming out of the Stimulus and the last budget bill. So the tax payers are picking that up in the form of interest on the additional debt the stimulus created. Unemployment is State run. SS is a Federal program. SS has about $3-5 trillion it is owed as a part of the $15 trillion US debt.
"Trust me I'm a big believer that lawyers rule the world right next to banksters. "
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am just a simple lawyer trying to help my clients with bankruptcy or represent them in personal injury cases...no stock manipulations for me, no high powered meetings for me, just me and my client...
andre: employers pick up the tab for unemployment insurance, period...just like they pay the work comp premiums...the employee pays nothing...
one exception: UAW members used to pay a percentage of their checks (1 or 2% I think) into a UAW fund for what they called SUB-pay (supplemental unemployment benefit pay)...the purpose was to pay laid off UAW workers the remainder of their pay to raise it up to 100%...since it was assumed that only a certain percentage of them would be laid off at any given time, but they all piad into it, it was like a self-insurance program run by the UAW...since they "taxed" themselves into a fund for their own use, it made sense to me...
I think it is easy to theorize that UI monies "paid" by an employer could be diverted wages, it might not work that way if employers were not forced to pay, but there's logic behind it. Maybe the same logic that makes our ideal of "free market capitalism" an egalitarian meritocracy on paper, but is anything but in practice.
SS has about $3-5 trillion it is owed as a part of the $15 trillion US debt.
Yes, but since the SS admin. already admits it's not long before they only have .72 cents for every dollar that needs to go out in payment, they should immediately start paying 72 cents on the dollar right now, rather than wait to create further debt? If you know your gonna run out of money, why not accept that fact and make the adjustments now, rather than bury your head in the sand and become extinct absent another bailout.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I think that 72 cent figure is based on the Ponzi scheme that those Now working are paying for those that are retired. That is far from the original SS plan sold to Congress and the American people. It was supposed to be a savings plan that the employee paid into and the Feds were to put it into an account that paid interest. Before they cut out SS being paid to those that paid in, they should drop SSI being paid to millions that NEVER paid in a penny. And do away with Medicaid that covers those that in most cases don't pay any taxes. Or better yet get the UAW to cover the expenses of people that can no longer work and never paid into anything. I think you would be amazed how many immigrants bring their aged parents from all over the World promising to care for them after they get here, only to dump them on the SSI system. After the Feds get rid of all the Freebie programs, then they should start cutting on SS. Until we have a balanced budget. If Clinton and the GOP Congress was able to balance the budget in 1999, it should be possible again.
andre: employers pick up the tab for unemployment insurance, period...just like they pay the work comp premiums...the employee pays nothing...
But shouldn't the employee have the right to opt out of these costly programs and in exchange get a higher salary?
Why not let employees exempt employers from paying workers comp, UI premiums, and/or health care premiums, but in exchange reward the employees with an equivalent higher salary?
If you can save the business money, shouldn't that result in higher wages. Why should the corporation get 100% of the benefit? If companies never laid off employees, they wouldn't need UI benefits....
I don't understand the mentality that all costs to the corporation couldn't be reduced to benefit wages and salaries. How about raise the wages and then let people choose whether they want these programs or not (opt in or out).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I think that 72 cent figure is based on the Ponzi scheme that those Now working are paying for those that are retired.
I get a yearly statement from the Social Security Administration, and on that statement I believe the 72 cents in for every dollar going out figure was knowingly published.
I didn't realize one could get SS benefits without having contributed to the program. My first few years working, my benefits statement kept going up as my credit units also went up too, until finally it said I was fully vested. Early on, I wasn't vested at all, then partially, then fully.
How do you dump into the SSI system without putting your years of work in?
I agree, freebies should be eliminated, but will that solve the problem, or only skim the surface?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
First coverage like unemployment and workman's comp is mandated by the Federal Government. The law is about 100 years old. The states administer it. The company and the employees have no say in that. And Workman's comp is sky high. Many fly by night contractors here in CA do not pay in as they can hire illegals that will not scream when they get laid off or hurt on the job.
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program pays benefits to disabled adults and children who have limited income and resources.
SSI benefits also are payable to people 65 and older without disabilities who meet the financial limits.
I didn't realize one could get SS benefits without having contributed to the program
Assuming we're talking about "normal" social security income, I thought that was the case too. Though non-working spouses are entitled to a fractional benefit of what their working, and contributing, spouse is entitle too.
A child under 18 gets a benefit from a deceased parent.
Then there are the the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program that pays benefits to disabled adults and children who have limited income and resources that Gary mentioned.
> .Poor, destitute and unable to work. Not sure you even have to be here legally. Obama's aunt has collected for years and is not here legally
Have a kid with learning disabilities, supposedly, or physically disabled, or parent dies, and the kid gets social security. Adults take disability as a way to retire early and they collect out of social security.
But shouldn't the employee have the right to opt out of these costly programs and in exchange get a higher salary?
The problem is that the creeping-eversstronger role of government has been to decide FOR YOU what is best for your safety. You are no longer allowed to be responsible for your retirement - Social Security is the answer. You can't be responsible for your safety - you must wear a seatbelt, and a helmet while riding a motorcycle. And you certainly cannot smoke MJ or use cocaine - because you might hurt yourself.
I'm ready for mommy government to outlaw scuba diving, hang gliding, and jet-skiing. After all, people actually DIE doing those activities. I just don't understand why the government allows those types of dangerous things. :surprise:
Are helmets and seatbelts really the same as our asinine drug laws? Even in places with much more logical drug policies, belts and helmets are still mandatory.
Are helmets and seatbelts really the same as our asinine drug laws? Even in places with much more logical drug policies, belts and helmets are still mandatory.
The common theme is that the government is legislating our safety choices.
"But shouldn't the employee have the right to opt out of these costly programs and in exchange get a higher salary?"
If they could do it, I would agree with you, but those programs are mandated by the state...at least work comp is state regulated, unemployment compensation IIRC is paid to the state also, but I have not had employees since 1995 and I simply do not remember...
Also, in GA, you needed to have 3 employees to be required to be covered by workers comp...1-2 employees and it was not required...since I had 2 employees back in the early 90s, I was exempt from work comp but not unemployment premiums...also, that 1-2 employees did not count me or my wife, just "others"...so we were exempt from work comp...
BUT, despite being exempt, I opted in for work comp premiums, simply because if an employee was injured on the job, rather than deal with paying their salary and med bills, it would be easier administratively to just call comp and let them handle it...plus, what is an employee was SERIOUSLY injured, like a roof beam fell on the head and broke their neck???
So, even tho we were exempt, I felt it was prudent to carry comp insurance...
The common theme is that the government is legislating our safety choices.
I get the idea, but seat belts and helmets are a bad example. If you aren't wearing you seat belt, then you can't control your vehicle properly in an emergency avoidance manuever, which may make you crash into me damaging me physically and/or my property. That, I can't allow, it's just plain dumb.
Now this new stuff called V2V or V2X communication scares me, because what if it malfunctions, and/or makes a bad decision that causes an accident I could have otherwise avoided (say it brakes whereas I could have floored it instead and avoided the accident).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Yeah, paper cuts can be brutal and a paper shredder can be a widow maker;) LOL just messing with you!
You bring up a legitimate point. I think my wife's stepson told me his Workmen's Comp premium was $60,000 last year with about 15 iron workers on the job. Workmen's comp was real high in the oilfield. So many guys got back injuries. The down side is they pay far less than you make on the job. And it is like Unemployment now, taxable. The guys we had off were trying to convince the doctor to release them to go back to work. An office policy would likely be a lot less money. Based on risk.
You bring up a legitimate point. I think my wife's stepson told me his Workmen's Comp premium was $60,000 last year with about 15 iron workers on the job. Workmen's comp was real high in the oilfield. So many guys got back injuries. The down side is they pay far less than you make on the job. And it is like Unemployment now, taxable. The guys we had off were trying to convince the doctor to release them to go back to work. An office policy would likely be a lot less money. Based on risk.
My friend who owns a small machine shop claims workmen's comp is one of his biggest employee expenses other than wages.
The common theme is that the government is legislating our safety choices.
Watch how Obamacare ratchets up the government intrusion into personal choices(sexual preference/behavior and abortion being excluded, of course). The Holy Jihad against tobacco was just the tip of the camel's nose. Now "unhealthy food choices" are in the nanny state's cross-hairs; I even read about one school which had a Health [non-permissible content removed] who removed "bad" foods from the lunchboxes of kids whose parents packed their lunches...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
I did invest in the AT&T stock plan. That is were the $24 went every two weeks. I quit to take the job in Alaska. It was better pay and CA was getting too crowded.
But you live in California, now!!!! :P
If they had invested the big UAW bucks in real estate instead of booze, boats, Caddies and drugs, they could have. And I do remember you saying how all UAW workers had homes in MI and FL. So that kind of blows that story.
Well the UAW big bucks are chump change compared to what you earned as a Teamster and at AT&T. As far as UAW people owning a home in Florida, it is usually a "Florida Home" not a McMansion like retired Teamsters working in the oil buiz!
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am just a simple lawyer trying to help my clients with bankruptcy or represent them in personal injury cases...no stock manipulations for me, no high powered meetings for me, just me and my client...
Circumstances, kids, family etc etc. Not my first choice place to live. I have a nice home above the maddening crowd. I would never want to work here. Probably stay if the Democrats don't tax us out of house and home. You are correct, the rich live quit well here. Drive along the beach communities and you would not believe their are places in CA with 30% unemployment and 100s of 1000s homeless. We like going down to La Jolla for dinner. Driving around for half an hour to find a parking place kind of ruins it for me. It is now a once every couple years occasion. Last time we ate down there in the Marine room it was packed and waiting. You cannot get out of their for less than $100 each. Lots of well to do people. A whole lot more than 1%. That is kind of a joke. I would say there are more people in CA with NO financial worries than there are people living in poverty.
Probably stay if the Democrats don't tax us out of house and home.
It's getting to that point here in Illinois. My house is worth at least 25% less than it was 5 years ago. Has my property taxes gone down? Yeah right.
The state pension system is in such disarray, the state is talking about throwing the teachers pensions on to the local school boards. According to some, that could cause local property taxes to increase by 25% due to many school boards already being in the red. If that were to happen I could end up with a 5 figure annual property tax bill on a house in the $300k range. Illinois is being run into the ground.
My friend who owns a small machine shop claims workmen's comp is one of his biggest employee expenses other than wages.
Is workman's comp the same thing as long term/short term disability? I just looked at my entire compensation summary, which my employer provides, and it's showing the company pays $240 per year for short term, and $251.16 per year for long term disability for me. Pretty low amounts, but then I'm not exactly in a high-risk job. The biggest risk I have is probably getting carpal tunnel syndrome, or passing out when one of my coworkers overdoes it on the perfume!
I sent documentation to show my property was worth a lot less than what I paid. They lowered my taxes the next year. Then raised them back up. I sent comparable sales figures to show that our property had not increased but went lower. No response. So I am stuck paying about $500 per month in taxes. Moonbeam would love to raise property, income and sales tax. He has to get it past the voters. Fortunately we have had forward thinking people in Sacramento in the past that wrote laws to protect against run away spenders like our current bunch. Our property taxes are lower than many states. We pay about the highest income and gas tax. I think Illinois and maybe NY are the only states as tax happy as CA.
Is workman's comp the same thing as long term/short term disability? I just looked at my entire compensation summary, which my employer provides, and it's showing the company pays $240 per year for short term, and $251.16 per year for long term disability for me.
They are not the same and are funded seperately. Workman's comp is only for being hurt on the job. Disability is for insuring your income for injury or illness regardless of where it happens.
Years ago when my wife was pregnant with our oldest, she got hit in the stomach by a door that someone opened into her. She ended up on bed rest for a few months. She was paid out of workman's comp and disability payed the difference between what workman's comp and her salary.
Plus I believe workman's comp payments are based on state rules, where disability is usually a percentage of your income. Something like 100% for 6 months and 60% for long term to 67. That's how our work provided policies are. Since 60% isn't going to cut it, particularly since disability is only for base pay. O/T or bonuses are not covered.
That's why we pay for private supplemental disability on top of what provided through work. Unfortunately, it's hard to qualify for. Though it's not really that expensive.
Lack of disability insurance is a major factor why people go broke for medical reasons. What sucks is SSI disability is hard to qualify for and takes forever to get through all of the red tape. I think on average it takes almost 18 mos. to get SSI disability, providing you even qualify.
Is workman's comp the same thing as long term/short term disability
Don't think so. Long term/short term disability protection is usually provided by some outside insurer the company contracts to. That is not the same as workman's comp.
Don't know about your company, but my LTD coverage only guarantees a certain percentage of your salary, when all other sources of compensation are included. That level might be 50%, 60%, or 75% (I pay for that coverage, BTW).
It also has some legal clauses in the documents that say things like "unable to perform normal or all job related functions", or something close to that. With me being a desk jockey, that means I could be confined to a wheelchair and still not be able to collect LTD.
Comments
The fact remains UAW wages despite your fuzzy math and thinking kept up with inflation. They unlike everyone else maintained the same disposable income while everyone else went down with the exception of banksters, lawyers, doctors, financial institutions, etc...
New UAW workers make around $14 bucks and hour and can top out at around $19 bucks an hour. The employees have less disposable income than people like my father did when he was working. They do not enjoy the benefit of talking on the phone in a cushy chair blowing smoke up someones [non-permissible content removed] for an hour and hang up the phone with a smile and say "I just paid half of my Bimmer payment...Cha Ching!!! God it is good to be KING"
-Rocky
I think it was the Six Figure Teamsters in Alaska that drove prices up! I've never met a UAW worker who owned a farm in Minnesota, a Home and Farm in Hawaii, and a Mansion in San Diego. Right next to Lawyers in Georgia, Ex Alaskan Teamsters, know what the good life is all about!!!
-Rocky
They believe that Obama is a radical Socialist Kenyan Muslim. Do I need to say more? They are against unions because some blowhard like Rush, Beck, or some other anti union babble mouth on Fixed News, told them they were evil.
They know next to nothing about unions but are opposed to them. I find it quite sad how ignorant and easily manipulated the masses are. No wonder why the 1% have enslaved the 99% :sick:
Mississippi Conservatives Talk About Their Hatred Of Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7r2i6NrqNs&feature=related
Thankfully there is the exception to the rule!
President Obama visits UAW Freightliner plant in North Carolina
http://uaw.org/articles/president-obama-visits-uaw-freightliner-plant-north-caro- - - - - lina
-Rocky
P.S. Hopefully the people of Indiana, will wake up and smell the coffee and realize that RTW, is voting against there own self interests!!!
My dad's pension was through the Teamsters, not the company he was working for. A lot like Gary's I guess.
I feel hurt, HURT
I'm glad you posted that, actually, because I was about to ask Gary what it was exactly, about Maryland that his nephew didn't like. And not that I'm going to try and defend Maryland, but I'm just genuinely curious. Most of my complaints about it are more county-specific (Prince Georges, land of corruption, where if you're a property owner they grab onto you like a bunch of leeches). I've also lived in Maryland all my life, so I guess I just got used to it...the whole devil you know, versus the one you don't thing...
As for Verizon, they have a couple of offices local to me, and I remember them going on strike last summer/fall. I had to drive past one of the intersections where they were picketing, and I tell you, the burning of Atlanta paled in comparison! :P Nah, seriously, they were just standing on the corner, waving to people, holding up signs asking you to honk to show their support.
I did invest in the AT&T stock plan. That is were the $24 went every two weeks. I quit to take the job in Alaska. It was better pay and CA was getting too crowded.
The fact remains UAW wages despite your fuzzy math and thinking kept up with inflation.
UAW wages were NOT keeping up with inflation they were causing inflation.
I've never met a UAW worker who owned a farm in Minnesota, a Home and Farm in Hawaii, and a Mansion in San Diego
If they had invested the big UAW bucks in real estate instead of booze, boats, Caddies and drugs, they could have. And I do remember you saying how all UAW workers had homes in MI and FL. So that kind of blows that story.
My complaints are the taxes/fees/cost of living (like I said, the governor has never seen a tax he didn't like), and the traffic/congestion, at least in the Baltimore/DC area. I could live with one or the other, but not both. Got away from the traffic, and some of the taxes by moving to the Eastern Shore
I think it was more his wife. She was raised in CA and her folks are here. She also has MS and the cold got to her. There 3 sons 17-23 are doing better here and have found jobs which they could not find in Maryland. It was a win for the whole family. They said the cost of living is less in Bakersfield than near Baltimore. Most people in CA consider Bakersfield kind of below average place to live. Unless your name is Buck Owens.
He transferred out with Verizon at the same pay he was making in Maryland. He had his transfer request in for several years.
Yes ours is a separate pension fund within the Alaska Teamsters. They opted to not be part of the International when the local was formed in 1960. They felt the Teamster Pension fund was far too corrupt and vulnerable with all the shenanigans Hoffa pulled. When RCA employees went with the Teamsters in 1971 the company paid $1 per hour into the pension fund. The last several years I worked it was up to $7 per hour the company paid in. We get a set amount for life. We do not get any COL raises in our pension. So we have cut way back to where it will be plenty no matter what happens. Hopefully
Well, that is in the vicinity of where they filmed the crop duster scene in "North By Northwest" (in the high-up opening shot of the bus driving up and dropping Cary Grant off, Bakersfield was on the horizon and they had to matte it out), so it must be pretty remote out there. Or, at least it was, once upon a time!
And, I can understand the weather. Maryland's summers can be pretty hot and humid, and the winters can be unpredictable. If you were raised in CA and used to it then yeah, Maryland would probably kinda suck in comparison!
One is a nurse, while the other has been doing full time duty with the Air Nat'l Guard and will be heading back to school in a few months.
While I enjoy visiting my family in California, it is highly unlikely that I'll ever move back there. Just too expensive.
Remember now, unemployment benefits are equivalent to Social Security, you have to pay into it (and work) to get it back.
What jobs did they get in Bakersfield?
Well, kinda-sorta. It's actually the employers who are forced to pay for unemployment benefits for their employees. That's why some employers like to find a reason to fire someone for "just cause", rather than simply laying someone off. If you get fired, it can be harder, but not impossible, to claim unemployment.
I guess you could argue that if the employer didn't pick up the tab for this, then the employees would see the difference, through higher paychecks, but don't hold your breath!
________________
I would definitely argue that if employers didn't pay it, employees would be paid more, at least ideally.
But to be honest, your probably right, I haven't seen any companies out of many researched that let you "opt-out" of health care and get the equivalent value back in salary.
I think they said Target and some fast food place. The two older boys are also taking college classes. The one in HS is on some sort of work program through the school.
Remember now, unemployment benefits are equivalent to Social Security, you have to pay into it (and work) to get it back.
As pointed out the employer picks up the tab for the first 26 weeks. The extensions out to 2 years are all coming out of the Stimulus and the last budget bill. So the tax payers are picking that up in the form of interest on the additional debt the stimulus created. Unemployment is State run. SS is a Federal program. SS has about $3-5 trillion it is owed as a part of the $15 trillion US debt.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am just a simple lawyer trying to help my clients with bankruptcy or represent them in personal injury cases...no stock manipulations for me, no high powered meetings for me, just me and my client...
andre: employers pick up the tab for unemployment insurance, period...just like they pay the work comp premiums...the employee pays nothing...
one exception: UAW members used to pay a percentage of their checks (1 or 2% I think) into a UAW fund for what they called SUB-pay (supplemental unemployment benefit pay)...the purpose was to pay laid off UAW workers the remainder of their pay to raise it up to 100%...since it was assumed that only a certain percentage of them would be laid off at any given time, but they all piad into it, it was like a self-insurance program run by the UAW...since they "taxed" themselves into a fund for their own use, it made sense to me...
Yes, but since the SS admin. already admits it's not long before they only have .72 cents for every dollar that needs to go out in payment, they should immediately start paying 72 cents on the dollar right now, rather than wait to create further debt? If you know your gonna run out of money, why not accept that fact and make the adjustments now, rather than bury your head in the sand and become extinct absent another bailout.
But shouldn't the employee have the right to opt out of these costly programs and in exchange get a higher salary?
Why not let employees exempt employers from paying workers comp, UI premiums, and/or health care premiums, but in exchange reward the employees with an equivalent higher salary?
If you can save the business money, shouldn't that result in higher wages. Why should the corporation get 100% of the benefit? If companies never laid off employees, they wouldn't need UI benefits....
I don't understand the mentality that all costs to the corporation couldn't be reduced to benefit wages and salaries. How about raise the wages and then let people choose whether they want these programs or not (opt in or out).
I get a yearly statement from the Social Security Administration, and on that statement I believe the 72 cents in for every dollar going out figure was knowingly published.
I didn't realize one could get SS benefits without having contributed to the program. My first few years working, my benefits statement kept going up as my credit units also went up too, until finally it said I was fully vested. Early on, I wasn't vested at all, then partially, then fully.
How do you dump into the SSI system without putting your years of work in?
I agree, freebies should be eliminated, but will that solve the problem, or only skim the surface?
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program pays benefits to disabled adults and children who have limited income and resources.
SSI benefits also are payable to people 65 and older without disabilities who meet the financial limits.
http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/
How do you dump into the SSI system without putting your years of work in?
Poor, destitute and unable to work. Not sure you even have to be here legally. Obama's aunt has collected for years and is not here legally.
Assuming we're talking about "normal" social security income, I thought that was the case too. Though non-working spouses are entitled to a fractional benefit of what their working, and contributing, spouse is entitle too.
A child under 18 gets a benefit from a deceased parent.
Then there are the the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program that pays benefits to disabled adults and children who have limited income and resources that Gary mentioned.
Have a kid with learning disabilities, supposedly, or physically disabled, or parent dies, and the kid gets social security. Adults take disability as a way to retire early and they collect out of social security.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The problem is that the creeping-eversstronger role of government has been to decide FOR YOU what is best for your safety. You are no longer allowed to be responsible for your retirement - Social Security is the answer. You can't be responsible for your safety - you must wear a seatbelt, and a helmet while riding a motorcycle. And you certainly cannot smoke MJ or use cocaine - because you might hurt yourself.
I'm ready for mommy government to outlaw scuba diving, hang gliding, and jet-skiing. After all, people actually DIE doing those activities. I just don't understand why the government allows those types of dangerous things. :surprise:
They might as well. Since they cut the pay of UAW workers they can't afford all those toys. :shades:
You forgot Skis, snowboards, bicycles, motorcycles, airplanes, horses & dune buggies.
The common theme is that the government is legislating our safety choices.
If they could do it, I would agree with you, but those programs are mandated by the state...at least work comp is state regulated, unemployment compensation IIRC is paid to the state also, but I have not had employees since 1995 and I simply do not remember...
Also, in GA, you needed to have 3 employees to be required to be covered by workers comp...1-2 employees and it was not required...since I had 2 employees back in the early 90s, I was exempt from work comp but not unemployment premiums...also, that 1-2 employees did not count me or my wife, just "others"...so we were exempt from work comp...
BUT, despite being exempt, I opted in for work comp premiums, simply because if an employee was injured on the job, rather than deal with paying their salary and med bills, it would be easier administratively to just call comp and let them handle it...plus, what is an employee was SERIOUSLY injured, like a roof beam fell on the head and broke their neck???
So, even tho we were exempt, I felt it was prudent to carry comp insurance...
I get the idea, but seat belts and helmets are a bad example. If you aren't wearing you seat belt, then you can't control your vehicle properly in an emergency avoidance manuever, which may make you crash into me damaging me physically and/or my property. That, I can't allow, it's just plain dumb.
Now this new stuff called V2V or V2X communication scares me, because what if it malfunctions, and/or makes a bad decision that causes an accident I could have otherwise avoided (say it brakes whereas I could have floored it instead and avoided the accident).
You bring up a legitimate point. I think my wife's stepson told me his Workmen's Comp premium was $60,000 last year with about 15 iron workers on the job. Workmen's comp was real high in the oilfield. So many guys got back injuries. The down side is they pay far less than you make on the job. And it is like Unemployment now, taxable. The guys we had off were trying to convince the doctor to release them to go back to work. An office policy would likely be a lot less money. Based on risk.
My friend who owns a small machine shop claims workmen's comp is one of his biggest employee expenses other than wages.
Watch how Obamacare ratchets up the government intrusion into personal choices(sexual preference/behavior and abortion being excluded, of course). The Holy Jihad against tobacco was just the tip of the camel's nose. Now "unhealthy food choices" are in the nanny state's cross-hairs; I even read about one school which had a Health [non-permissible content removed] who removed "bad" foods from the lunchboxes of kids whose parents packed their lunches...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Oh, so then the government is only legislating common sense. :surprise:
But you live in California, now!!!! :P
If they had invested the big UAW bucks in real estate instead of booze, boats, Caddies and drugs, they could have. And I do remember you saying how all UAW workers had homes in MI and FL. So that kind of blows that story.
Well the UAW big bucks are chump change compared to what you earned as a Teamster and at AT&T. As far as UAW people owning a home in Florida, it is usually a "Florida Home" not a McMansion like retired Teamsters working in the oil buiz!
-Rocky
Yes they do!
-Rocky
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am just a simple lawyer trying to help my clients with bankruptcy or represent them in personal injury cases...no stock manipulations for me, no high powered meetings for me, just me and my client...
Well your lawyer brothers and sisters do!!!!
-Rocky
Circumstances, kids, family etc etc. Not my first choice place to live. I have a nice home above the maddening crowd. I would never want to work here. Probably stay if the Democrats don't tax us out of house and home. You are correct, the rich live quit well here. Drive along the beach communities and you would not believe their are places in CA with 30% unemployment and 100s of 1000s homeless. We like going down to La Jolla for dinner. Driving around for half an hour to find a parking place kind of ruins it for me. It is now a once every couple years occasion. Last time we ate down there in the Marine room it was packed and waiting. You cannot get out of their for less than $100 each. Lots of well to do people. A whole lot more than 1%. That is kind of a joke. I would say there are more people in CA with NO financial worries than there are people living in poverty.
Millionaire Pushes Congress for Jobs
"I threw Donald Trump off my yacht," Epstein regales. "I told him I thought he was a low-class creep."
This one statement alone makes him a hero in my eyes!
It's getting to that point here in Illinois. My house is worth at least 25% less than it was 5 years ago. Has my property taxes gone down? Yeah right.
The state pension system is in such disarray, the state is talking about throwing the teachers pensions on to the local school boards. According to some, that could cause local property taxes to increase by 25% due to many school boards already being in the red. If that were to happen I could end up with a 5 figure annual property tax bill on a house in the $300k range. Illinois is being run into the ground.
Is workman's comp the same thing as long term/short term disability? I just looked at my entire compensation summary, which my employer provides, and it's showing the company pays $240 per year for short term, and $251.16 per year for long term disability for me. Pretty low amounts, but then I'm not exactly in a high-risk job. The biggest risk I have is probably getting carpal tunnel syndrome, or passing out when one of my coworkers overdoes it on the perfume!
I sent documentation to show my property was worth a lot less than what I paid. They lowered my taxes the next year. Then raised them back up. I sent comparable sales figures to show that our property had not increased but went lower. No response. So I am stuck paying about $500 per month in taxes. Moonbeam would love to raise property, income and sales tax. He has to get it past the voters. Fortunately we have had forward thinking people in Sacramento in the past that wrote laws to protect against run away spenders like our current bunch. Our property taxes are lower than many states. We pay about the highest income and gas tax. I think Illinois and maybe NY are the only states as tax happy as CA.
They are not the same and are funded seperately. Workman's comp is only for being hurt on the job. Disability is for insuring your income for injury or illness regardless of where it happens.
Years ago when my wife was pregnant with our oldest, she got hit in the stomach by a door that someone opened into her. She ended up on bed rest for a few months. She was paid out of workman's comp and disability payed the difference between what workman's comp and her salary.
Plus I believe workman's comp payments are based on state rules, where disability is usually a percentage of your income. Something like 100% for 6 months and 60% for long term to 67. That's how our work provided policies are. Since 60% isn't going to cut it, particularly since disability is only for base pay. O/T or bonuses are not covered.
That's why we pay for private supplemental disability on top of what provided through work. Unfortunately, it's hard to qualify for. Though it's not really that expensive.
Lack of disability insurance is a major factor why people go broke for medical reasons. What sucks is SSI disability is hard to qualify for and takes forever to get through all of the red tape. I think on average it takes almost 18 mos. to get SSI disability, providing you even qualify.
Don't think so. Long term/short term disability protection is usually provided by some outside insurer the company contracts to. That is not the same as workman's comp.
Don't know about your company, but my LTD coverage only guarantees a certain percentage of your salary, when all other sources of compensation are included. That level might be 50%, 60%, or 75% (I pay for that coverage, BTW).
It also has some legal clauses in the documents that say things like "unable to perform normal or all job related functions", or something close to that. With me being a desk jockey, that means I could be confined to a wheelchair and still not be able to collect LTD.