FIRED

[68GTO]

I wish all well in pursuit of employment. As Chad points out, the responsibility in the end for finding work and supporting oneself is up to that individual. It is good to have a network. If not, go create it. It takes actual time/work to get it done. Things don't just arrive at one's doorstep. If one relies on another to find your work, one relies on that party's priorities to find a job and those of all others they have before them.

Sure, union dues are "supposed" to help in this finding of a job. What do the dues really do for you? Do they keep you locked into the "system" of union work because you have some vested interest in remaining union? These are questions I would ask myself were I in a union and unemployed.

But unemployment can happen for many reasons. One needs to be vigilant in preparing for contingencies when one has obligations. Some work on a contractual basis and when the contract ends they are looking for the next opportunity. One would be well served to plan ahead and to always have an emergency fund available for down times.

Remember, get up each day and make sure you approach the job search as you would approach being first in line at the salvage yard if someone informed you that your dream car would be placed in the yard that day...

[NOTNSS]

if I keep sittin' on my ass all day online, I'm gonna grow a nice set of tits though.

[Fernanernie]

if I keep sittin' on my ass all day online, I'm gonna grow a nice set of tits though.

I think you found your next income...

[SVT5LITER]

I think you found your next income...

Does this fall into the 'personal sacrifice' catagory?

[Fernanernie]

Does this fall into the 'personal sacrifice' catagory?

Depends....

[Scorpner]

Yep. You can see a glimmer of it every once in a while.

The thing is, I don't think there are many people who have opened there homes to as many people in need as my wife and I have. That's how the both of us were raised. People are people, however, and they sometimes confuse your generosity for weakness. That's usually when you see the worst in people.

I've never jumped on anyone for getting laid off and collecting what they paid into. However, I do jump on people when I see them abusing the system like the guy yesterday wanting under the table work to make money on top of what he was going to collect. That was wrong.

I didn't attack the original poster in this thread. I simply shed a little defensive light on what someone else said in response.

In the meantime I get attacked and called self righteous. Why? Is it because I don't think people should be openly abusive of a system? Because I have an intolerance for scammers? Because I believe I should work to earn my living it's too much for me to expect others to do the same?

My dad got laid off two weeks before Christmas this year. It's starting to look like my mom may be getting laid off soon. I know what how shitty things can get. However, I still don't think it would be right for my parents to collect unemployment while working side jobs and not claiming that income.

Unemployment is supposed to help you make ends meet on a scaled back income while you look for other employment. It isn't supposed to be abused the way it generally is by people collecting for the maximum time they can while they make money under the table.

It was never meant to support the lifestyle you want. It's meant to support the lifestyle you need. Big difference.

If you scale back by not going out to eat, getting rid of your cell phones, cable/dish, recreation and other non-essentials -- you can live on 60%. The only thing that would prevent you from being able to do so is if you are living wrong in the first place and have over extended yourself.

There's nothing pleasant about being laid off. No one ever said there would be. Life isn't fair. If you don't believe me, watch National Geographic or animal planet. Do you think a gazelle being eaten by a lion is thinking, "Yeah, this is fair I guess?"

Here's some food for thought...

There is additional costs to reorganizing your life that compounds the issue. Let’s say you have a couple of kids with a take home income of say $3000 month. I’ll make up a mortgage payment of say $1300. You get laid off and find out COBRA for your family is $1200/mo for healthcare and another $100/mo for dental and vision. So now your monthly costs are $2600 not including expenses, but your income is reduced to approximately 50% of what you were taking in before. Now if you do find work, the amount you take in is subtracted from the “welfare” you receive. Doesn’t look like things add up to me. I can understand why so many houses are going into foreclosure and why someone is tempted to break the law to keep afloat.


Here’s another one for the fire which I’m throwing out for fun. People without kids generally pay more in taxes than people with kids. One could also bitch that people with kids are on a kind of welfare by taking deductions that they could get by without. Why should people without kids have to pay for people that decided to do so? Also paying for school referendums that doesn’t benefit them in any way. If people are going to have kids they should make sure their income will support the additional cost and not depend on the government (and kidless taxpayers) for hand outs.

[Fernanernie]

Here's some food for thought...

There is additional costs to reorganizing your life that compounds the issue. Let’s say you have a couple of kids with a take home income of say $3000 month. I’ll make up a mortgage payment of say $1300. You get laid off and find out COBRA for your family is $1200/mo for healthcare and another $100/mo for dental and vision. So now your monthly costs are $2600 not including expenses, but your income is reduced to approximately 50% of what you were taking in before. Now if you do find work, the amount you take in is subtracted from the “welfare” you receive. Doesn’t look like things add up to me. I can understand why so many houses are going into foreclosure and why someone is tempted to break the law to keep afloat.


Here’s another one for the fire which I’m throwing out for fun. People without kids generally pay more in taxes than people with kids. One could also bitch that people with kids are on a kind of welfare by taking deductions that they could get by without. Why should people without kids have to pay for people that decided to do so? Also paying for school referendums that doesn’t benefit them in any way. If people are going to have kids they should make sure their income will support the additional cost and not depend on the government (and kidless taxpayers) for hand outs.

Indeed. COBRA is an ass-raping, especially if it's the family package. But, with kids, you pretty much need insurance these days. VERY good point.

As for #2?

[LES]

Here's some food for thought...

There is additional costs to reorganizing your life that compounds the issue. Let’s say you have a couple of kids with a take home income of say $3000 month. I’ll make up a mortgage payment of say $1300. You get laid off and find out COBRA for your family is $1200/mo for healthcare and another $100/mo for dental and vision. So now your monthly costs are $2600 not including expenses, but your income is reduced to approximately 50% of what you were taking in before. Now if you do find work, the amount you take in is subtracted from the “welfare” you receive. Doesn’t look like things add up to me. I can understand why so many houses are going into foreclosure and why someone is tempted to break the law to keep afloat.


Here’s another one for the fire which I’m throwing out for fun. People without kids generally pay more in taxes than people with kids. One could also bitch that people with kids are on a kind of welfare by taking deductions that they could get by without. Why should people without kids have to pay for people that decided to do so? Also paying for school referendums that doesn’t benefit them in any way. If people are going to have kids they should make sure their income will support the additional cost and not depend on the government (and kidless taxpayers) for hand outs.

So a tax deduction for kids is the same as you paying for them? Well if you think its such a huge advantage, you also have the same right to have kids. So that would entitle you to that same deduction. Also school referendums are based on what the majority votes. And those with kids in private school still pay those same taxes and referendums that pass.

[2 beer]

So does this mean that people on social security should not be working either? They paid into it. This thread is gayer then 2 boys fucking.

[Scorpner]

So a tax deduction for kids is the same as you paying for them? Well if you think its such a huge advantage, you also have the same right to have kids. So that would entitle you to that same deduction. Also school referendums are based on what the majority votes. And those with kids in private school still pay those same taxes and referendums that pass.

I threw it out for fun, not to argue. You make some good points, and would be a good topic to debate if I had the time. My knowledge of this does come from living with someone with the same pay, noting the difference and what the costs actually were. I basically threw it out as a devils advocate on principle only, and know I can change the circumstances if I wish to.

[iamtheshaner]

There is some really good logic in this thread. At least we can all agree that the only person responsible for their wellbeing is the individual.

But I can't help but be sympathetic towards those that live within their means during "lucrative" times yet may not be able to live within their means under unemployment. All the responsibility in the world can't prevent some tragedies.

I may be an example of this debacle if I am laid off this month. I don't have a stockpile of cash in a bank. Nearly all my capital is in the form of asset. My car is a perfect example. In normal economic times my vehicle is a liquid source of capital. Should I be laid off in a relatively normal economic climate (it happens) I would be releived to know that if I could not afford my rent/mortage I could likely sell it. I could also put faith in the likelihood that it would sell quickly if priced lower than market value. However, in a climate such as this, where people are loosing jobs because of the overall lack of lucrative business - the likelihood of me selling the car for anything NEAR what it is worth is slim. I would have to give the damn thing away in order to sell it. Items are only worth what people are willing to pay, so what do I do if nobody wants to buy a mustang? What about people that invested their money in other areas and lost dearly?

I guess my point is that the only people who are truly prepared for the worst-case scenario are those that own their shelter outright and have the ability to produce their own food. Any financial backup, reserve or investment other than a suitcase full of cash is at risk of dissolution. Everyone else that has ANY form of debt/mortgage/rent or requires cash to provide the basic means of survival are at the will of the social system and its ability to function "properly".

If I was laid off and unemployment would not cover my food, utilities and rent - I would suppliment it with a cash job even if it meant me hanging out by Home Depot. Sure, I could move into a cheaper place or go live with family. But, that would almost definitely require the sacrifice of all my possessions (at no gain whatsoever). How would I sell furniture, automobiles, electronics, tools, jewelry, appliances, etc. if everyone (including the typical buyers of these times) is broke? How will I store that crap for a few months while it sold on Ebay or Craigslist if I can't even afford next months rent?

You can argue the lack of taxable income all day long and it doesn't mean anything. Sad, but true. I'm not too proud to flip burgers or clean bathrooms for minimum wage. I have done it before and by god I'll do it again if need be. Look at things this way though: What has the overall worse effect FULL CIRCLE:

A) someone who can continue to pay debts, provide means for others (my landlord is a veteran with a family) and still hang on to the very meager empire they have made by supplementing TEMPORARY unemployment benefits

OR

B) someone who gets a job paying less than their unemployment benefits, is forced to default on debts (bankruptcy), go deliquent on contracts (domino effect of income loss to my landlord) and sacrifice all my valuables to start over.

I'll choose option A. The only person in control of my destiny is ME. If I was satisfied to live a life flipping burgers I WOULD NOT HAVE SPENT THE LAST TEN YEARS WORKING MY ASS OFF.

In all likelihood, in the worst-case scenario, everything would be abandoned. I sure couldn't afford to move all that shit, I know I can't afford to store all that shit, and if nobody is buying that shit - it HAS ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE WHATSOEVER.

If there are a lot of people on this board that could continue to live a lifestyle anywhere NEAR comparable to their current lifestyle indefinitely with only half of their current income is my hero. I am a single, 27 year old guy from the sticks. I put myself $30k in educational debt so I could HOPE to earn a decent living while enjoying it simultaneously. Perhaps I got myself in over my head living in a situation that would become dire if I lost my income.

But my American Dream is enjoying the civil, social and financial luxuries that differentiate America from...say.... Kenya. If that means prosperity obtained by living at the edge of my means - so be it. The county's wellbeing depends on our ability to consume does it not?

Sorry for the book...and somewhat tree.t

[68GTO]

There is some really good logic in this thread. At least we can all agree that the only person responsible for their wellbeing is the individual.

But I can't help but be sympathetic towards those that live within their means during "lucrative" times yet may not be able to live within their means under unemployment. All the responsibility in the world can't prevent some tragedies.

I may be an example of this debacle if I am laid off this month. I don't have a stockpile of cash in a bank. Nearly all my capital is in the form of asset. My car is a perfect example. In normal economic times my vehicle is a liquid source of capital. Should I be laid off in a relatively normal economic climate (it happens) I would be releived to know that if I could not afford my rent/mortage I could likely sell it. I could also put faith in the likelihood that it would sell quickly if priced lower than market value. However, in a climate such as this, where people are loosing jobs because of the overall lack of lucrative business - the likelihood of me selling the car for anything NEAR what it is worth is slim. I would have to give the damn thing away in order to sell it. Items are only worth what people are willing to pay, so what do I do if nobody wants to buy a mustang? What about people that invested their money in other areas and lost dearly?

I guess my point is that the only people who are truly prepared for the worst-case scenario are those that own their shelter outright and have the ability to produce their own food. Any financial backup, reserve or investment other than a suitcase full of cash is at risk of dissolution. Everyone else that has ANY form of debt/mortgage/rent or requires cash to provide the basic means of survival are at the will of the social system and its ability to function "properly".

If I was laid off and unemployment would not cover my food, utilities and rent - I would suppliment it with a cash job even if it meant me hanging out by Home Depot. Sure, I could move into a cheaper place or go live with family. But, that would almost definitely require the sacrifice of all my possessions (at no gain whatsoever). How would I sell furniture, automobiles, electronics, tools, jewelry, appliances, etc. if everyone (including the typical buyers of these times) is broke? How will I store that crap for a few months while it sold on Ebay or Craigslist if I can't even afford next months rent?

You can argue the lack of taxable income all day long and it doesn't mean anything. Sad, but true. I'm not too proud to flip burgers or clean bathrooms for minimum wage. I have done it before and by god I'll do it again if need be. Look at things this way though: What has the overall worse effect FULL CIRCLE:

A) someone who can continue to pay debts, provide means for others (my landlord is a veteran with a family) and still hang on to the very meager empire they have made by supplementing TEMPORARY unemployment benefits

OR

B) someone who gets a job paying less than their unemployment benefits, is forced to default on debts (bankruptcy), go deliquent on contracts (domino effect of income loss to my landlord) and sacrifice all my valuables to start over.

I'll choose option A. The only person in control of my destiny is ME. If I was satisfied to live a life flipping burgers I WOULD NOT HAVE SPENT THE LAST TEN YEARS WORKING MY ASS OFF.

In all likelihood, in the worst-case scenario, everything would be abandoned. I sure couldn't afford to move all that shit, I know I can't afford to store all that shit, and if nobody is buying that shit - it HAS ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE WHATSOEVER.

If there are a lot of people on this board that could continue to live a lifestyle anywhere NEAR comparable to their current lifestyle indefinitely with only half of their current income is my hero. I am a single, 27 year old guy from the sticks. I put myself $30k in educational debt so I could HOPE to earn a decent living while enjoying it simultaneously. Perhaps I got myself in over my head living in a situation that would become dire if I lost my income.

But my American Dream is enjoying the civil, social and financial luxuries that differentiate America from...say.... Kenya. If that means prosperity obtained by living at the edge of my means - so be it. The county's wellbeing depends on our ability to consume does it not?

Sorry for the book...and somewhat tree.t

Personal responsibility 101.

[Fosters]

So a tax deduction for kids is the same as you paying for them? Well if you think its such a huge advantage, you also have the same right to have kids. So that would entitle you to that same deduction. Also school referendums are based on what the majority votes. And those with kids in private school still pay those same taxes and referendums that pass.

So what you're saying, is, I have no choice (and shouldn't have a choice) in paying for kids, whether I have some or not?

[LES]

So what you're saying, is, I have no choice in paying for kids, whether I have some or not?

Yes that is what the current goverment and tax laws say.
But you have the choice, if you think it is such a great advantage, to have kids and take the same tax deduction i do. A whopping $4500 per kid. Woopty fucking do.

[Fosters]

Yes that is what the current goverment and tax laws say.
But you have the choice, if you think it is such a great advantage, to have kids and take the same tax deduction i do. A whopping $4500 per kid. Woopty fucking do.

What if I want to use that $4500 for hookers and blow instead of diapers?

How about you pay a $4500 dollar tax for hookers and blow, and you get the option of a tax break if you get hookers and blow? Would that be fair? Since you would have the option of getting hookers and blow yourself...