Forums | MacLife

Ra wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Ra wrote:

But one should always strive for getting better jobs, regardless. Besides, some employers offer better benefits.

I think it speaks volumes of your worldview.

World view? What has "world view" to do with switching to a job that offers better benefits? Why paying over $1,000 per month for health insurance when the average family health insurance coverage through a government (city, state, borough, etc.) costs under $300.00 per month? Mine is under $200.00 per month.

Oh, I know.

:: nods sympathetically ::

robco wrote:

So, if everyone gets a better job with benefits, who is going to ring up your purchases at Wal-Mart?  Or serve your food?  Or do many tasks performed by workers who don't have health insurance?

Well, all depends. For example, not everyone needs or wants a job because of higher benefits. Some people, specially the young, don't even think about health insurance. Some people only want to work a few hours at Wall-Mart, while others work there to complement their earnings. However, those who want something better than what they have, must do all they can to achieve their goals, even if it takes moving to another State, working two jobs, etc.  A coworker of mine, a self-made millionaire, achieved his goal by working at it. He worked over 60 hours per week for years; his goal was money, not health insurance.

There is no such thing as a self-made millionare...except the guy who invented the mint.

Ra wrote:

Well, all depends. For example, not everyone needs or wants a job because of higher benefits. Some people, specially the young, don't even think about health insurance. Some people only want to work a few hours at Wall-Mart, while others work there to complement their earnings. However, those who want something better than what they have, must do all they can to achieve their goals, even if it takes moving to another State, working two jobs, etc.  A coworker of mine, a self-made millionaire, achieved his goal by working at it. He worked over 60 hours per week for years; his goal was money, not health insurance.

Oy vey.  Everyone needs coverage, even young, healthy folks.  Things happen.  I don't think that telling people they have to work two or three jobs is the right answer.  Moving is nice - if you can afford it.  Not everyone gets to make it, one of the pitfalls of capitalism.  For every Apple, there are thousands of new enterprises that fail.  For every financially successful person, there are thousands more whose companies folded, investments tanked, etc.  It's also a bit insulting to infer that just because someone doesn't make a lot of money, that they don't work hard.

Pulling 60-80+ hour weeks isn't workable when you want to, you know, have a life outside of work.  Especially if you have annoying responsibilities outside work, like kiddies for example.

That, and with skyrocketing costs, it's getting more and more difficult not just for small businesses, but for large businesses to offer health insurance.  Even they are cutting back, passing more costs to the individual.  It's expensive enough to insure a family with coverage, now the co-pays and deductibles are getting more expensive.  The theory was that if the insured had a greater financial stake in the game, they'd cut back and reduce costs.  Instead, they're just not getting treatment until conditions worsen to the point where they're much more expensive to treat.

In a country as wealthy as ours, there is no reason why everyone shouldn't have access to medical care.  If the fat cats at the top weren't being so damn greedy and placed people over profits, the free market system might work.  If pharmaceutical companies quit spending so much on marketing their products and let physicians decide which medications are correct for a patient, perhaps medication costs would go down a little.  I'm for free markets and cut-throat competition in business - but not health care.  Not everyone gets to be an Alpha Plus.  Someone has to scrub the toilets, fry up the fries and stock the shelves at Wal-Mart, and they deserve access to medical care like everyone else.  The free market hasn't delivered - and won't.

iBubba wrote:

Onthebeach wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I think it speaks volumes of your worldview.

If you are too lazy to get off your butt and get a better job that's your problem not mine. So what if you might have to relocate, pull your kids out of some school they like...wife's got a nice job where she is? Screw her! Leave her behind. Find a better job with better benefits. Of course six months down the road they might decide to rationalise you and pull your benefits. No problem, get another job.

You're completely out of touch with reality.

You are aware that the job market is unbearably tight, right now, right? That fact, compounded by ever expanding "temp" recruitment and employement just kind of smurfing means a person can't change jobs on a whim for better bennies - or even ANY bennies at all!

Not that I believe most people have been able to do that in the past. "Lazy"? smurf you. You have no idea how many people bust ass for minimum compensation by their employers.

I do believe he was joking ...

ShnickyShnack wrote:

iBubba wrote:

Onthebeach wrote:

If you are too lazy to get off your butt and get a better job that's your problem not mine. So what if you might have to relocate, pull your kids out of some school they like...wife's got a nice job where she is? Screw her! Leave her behind. Find a better job with better benefits. Of course six months down the road they might decide to rationalise you and pull your benefits. No problem, get another job.

You're completely out of touch with reality.

You are aware that the job market is unbearably tight, right now, right? That fact, compounded by ever expanding "temp" recruitment and employement just kind of smurfing means a person can't change jobs on a whim for better bennies - or even ANY bennies at all!

Not that I believe most people have been able to do that in the past. "Lazy"? smurf you. You have no idea how many people bust ass for minimum compensation by their employers.

I do believe he was joking ...

In that case, I will commence eating my footwear.

bratboy wrote:

Ra wrote:

A coworker of mine, a self-made millionaire, achieved his goal by working at it. He worked over 60 hours per week for years; his goal was money, not health insurance.

Healthy person, then?

Yes, I guess he is. He also pays as much as I pay for for Bluecross/Blueshield medical coverage.

Ra wrote:

robco:

Before one marries, one should be financially independent (owe no money, earn enough money to take care of a family, to pay for the car, apt., food, etc.), and still have enough money in the bank for at least six months without work.

So no college then?

Ra wrote:

robco:

Before one marries, one should be financially independent (owe no money, earn enough money to take care of a family, to pay for the car, apt., food, etc.), and still have enough money in the bank for at least six months without work. Before one marries, both the man and the woman should be financially independent, not living at home with their parents, and done with college.

:: wipes tears from eyes ::

Yes, that would be nice.

Umm, yeah.  I think I'll be out of debt from school loans by the year 2030.  I'll only be about 50 years old by then.



Of course, Ra's plan completely falls apart if you're sick for more than 6 months, out of work for more than 6 months, have an extremely sick child or parent, if one of the spouses dies, if one becomes permanently injured, if you have an unexpected child......

Ra wrote:

robco:

Before one marries, one should be financially independent (owe no money, earn enough money to take care of a family, to pay for the car, apt., food, etc.), and still have enough money in the bank for at least six months without work. Before one marries, both the man and the woman should be financially independent, not living at home with their parents, and done with college.

In other words, only the top 1 percentile of the world should have the priviledge of breeding.

That was my mistake!  I wasn't a ring-knocker! I was ROTC. And I did have top level security clearances. I just didn't have any top procurement jobs.

sturner wrote:

Can't say it would have worked for me. My first career was U.S. Army. You damn well don't get wealthy following the colors. And I worked very hard.

I got in the AF a few months before the Vietnam War ended,and retired 20 years later. Believe it or not, we all have the opportunity to save or invest, even if it takes a dollar per day. I was stationed in Alaska, and there was an Airman Basic who would save all his earnings.    He became known for lending money to others, and make 25% from the loan. The loans were not larger than $100.00, but he was doing quite well. He was only 19 years old, and was already investing on the market.