Then, put your money where your mouth is. Hire me (have a degree in CS and a masters in a related field). Don't give me some BS how I'm not "qualified" - because most anyone with half a brain could probably do the run of the mill job.
One should be able to telecommute for IT-type work, especially for jobs that don't need hands on work.
I passed on a job in NYC because once I crunched the numbers, I wouldn't be much better off in the long run. Plus, I am getting married in 3 months so my fiance would have to quit and find a new job as well. So, that makes it a little less cut and dry.
If telecommuting was an option, I would have happily taken a significant raise, but still would have been way under their budget - everybody wins.
The issue is that we have >7.5% unemployment and it's worse if you consider other factors like labor force participation, number of people on food stamps, underemployment and wages have remained flat. It also has been said that the student loan business might be the next bubble that pops.
Because of the raw data, why do we need to let millions of more people into the country, while we already have millions of people on the sidelines ready to work that are already here? It is one thing to let immigration happen when we are at full employment.
This. I think that if finding a worker for a hard to find job is really worth that much to you, then you need to put up the cash or GTFO. It's simple economics really, if you can't find people their wages should go up. As such, you need to pay them 3-4x some current index.
Yes, that's the obvious problem, but IMHO, if you don't fill out the paperwork (wills, etc.), even if you're the the stereotypical straight couple, you're going to be SOL.
People need to understand that they need to take personal responsibility for these sorts of things, regardless of the type of relationship they are in.
Actually, the simple solution would be to strike any law that gives benefit to actually be married. In other words, you treat all relationships the same as far as estate, tax and other benefits.
The other alternative would be to reform the current tax/benefit codes to treat everyone the same (so there would be no benefit to marry)
If I recall correctly, didn't Warren Buffet make some (all) of his fortune buying up businesses that were forced to sell because of the estate tax. We keep making things more complicated so things like gay "marriage" becomes an issue when the law is inherently stupid to begin with.
I list personal projects, things I've learned, etc. outside of my current role to keep up to date. The run of the mill recruiter/HR person (and even hiring managers) pass me over because they claim I don't have relevant full time paid professional experience.
Kinda hard to keep a good attitude when that happens.
Sadly, getting in the door is the hard part as HR and recruiters don't give a shit about any experience you may have outside of a corporate environment.
Then why don't you set up the simple way of paying. No cash (or credit card or debit card or check), no service. For routine visits, this would be a fine thing and it's what my vet does for my cats.
I would agree that it is in the insurer's best interest to encourage the routine stuff. There is additional car insurance that you can buy that covers the type of stuff I am refering too. However most people forgo it.
However, the point is that healthcare is still governed by the same laws of economics. It will have to be rationed somehow. We happen to have a system where lines are short but care is expensive. At some point, people are going to have to take responsibility for their own personal health. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
I am a 30-something single white male and I pay less than $1500 for home and auto insurance combined and I get fairly decent coverage. If we allowed the same type of competition/options for health insurance, I bet we would see prices come in line.
Your point about charging a third party for routine visits. The insurance company gets charged $400 for a simple 15-minute visit. The analogue is getting your oil changed on your car - you don't charge your auto insurance for it and it costs $19.95.
I agree that tax rates would have to be lowered across the board in order to close loop holes. Otherwise there could be unintended consequences. In other words, Apple may still pay only pay 15% in taxes, but you'd get money from GE, who paid no taxes but had $5 billion or something in profits.
I agree with this. Lets do away with all loopholes and simplify the tax code. And make the rates fair so that we do not strangle business, but at least get some money out of them for the common good.
Have to agree with this.
What I would like to see is a simplification of the tax code along with a reduction in rates so that at least we get some pay back from the profits. It would allow Apple and other giants of industry to bring back their money and keep it here. In other words, it's probably a waste of resources to do all this legal moving around of cash to large avoid taxes. Say if we just taxed Apple's profits at 15% or whatever and call it a day - at least we got a piece of the pie and took away any incentive for Apple to keep money offshore.
I agree. Problem is I could probably pay a H1B 1 standard deviation less than the average and still claim it's in the ball park when the government comes knocking
Did you try increasing their pay to match their increased productivity from their increased skillset?
That would make too much sense.
People want to say that college grads will leave after a year or two once they get up to speed. The issue is that in that year or two, they probably have become underpaid because you've probably only given them 3-4% raises (if they are lucky). You might have to over pay them in the short term in order to recoup your investments.
For example, during the dot-com bust, I could not find an internship because there was a lack of funding at several places. The place that I interned at the year before suspended their program temporarily.
Slashdot Mirror
Then, put your money where your mouth is. Hire me (have a degree in CS and a masters in a related field). Don't give me some BS how I'm not "qualified" - because most anyone with half a brain could probably do the run of the mill job.
One should be able to telecommute for IT-type work, especially for jobs that don't need hands on work.
I passed on a job in NYC because once I crunched the numbers, I wouldn't be much better off in the long run. Plus, I am getting married in 3 months so my fiance would have to quit and find a new job as well. So, that makes it a little less cut and dry.
If telecommuting was an option, I would have happily taken a significant raise, but still would have been way under their budget - everybody wins.
This shows a poor understanding of the problem.
The issue is that we have >7.5% unemployment and it's worse if you consider other factors like labor force participation, number of people on food stamps, underemployment and wages have remained flat. It also has been said that the student loan business might be the next bubble that pops.
Because of the raw data, why do we need to let millions of more people into the country, while we already have millions of people on the sidelines ready to work that are already here? It is one thing to let immigration happen when we are at full employment.
And there's no way to grow your workforce, either. Which has to be bad for the country as a whole.
This. I think that if finding a worker for a hard to find job is really worth that much to you, then you need to put up the cash or GTFO. It's simple economics really, if you can't find people their wages should go up. As such, you need to pay them 3-4x some current index.
Yes, that's the obvious problem, but IMHO, if you don't fill out the paperwork (wills, etc.), even if you're the the stereotypical straight couple, you're going to be SOL.
People need to understand that they need to take personal responsibility for these sorts of things, regardless of the type of relationship they are in.
Actually, the simple solution would be to strike any law that gives benefit to actually be married. In other words, you treat all relationships the same as far as estate, tax and other benefits.
The other alternative would be to reform the current tax/benefit codes to treat everyone the same (so there would be no benefit to marry)
If I recall correctly, didn't Warren Buffet make some (all) of his fortune buying up businesses that were forced to sell because of the estate tax. We keep making things more complicated so things like gay "marriage" becomes an issue when the law is inherently stupid to begin with.
And you're looking for people in all the wrong places as well.
I list personal projects, things I've learned, etc. outside of my current role to keep up to date. The run of the mill recruiter/HR person (and even hiring managers) pass me over because they claim I don't have relevant full time paid professional experience.
Kinda hard to keep a good attitude when that happens.
Sadly, getting in the door is the hard part as HR and recruiters don't give a shit about any experience you may have outside of a corporate environment.
Then why don't you set up the simple way of paying. No cash (or credit card or debit card or check), no service. For routine visits, this would be a fine thing and it's what my vet does for my cats.
I would agree that it is in the insurer's best interest to encourage the routine stuff. There is additional car insurance that you can buy that covers the type of stuff I am refering too. However most people forgo it.
However, the point is that healthcare is still governed by the same laws of economics. It will have to be rationed somehow. We happen to have a system where lines are short but care is expensive. At some point, people are going to have to take responsibility for their own personal health. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
You better check your facts on that. I believe the profit margins of publically traded healthcare insurers is 3-5%. They aren't exactly rolling in it.
Honestly I would be fine with a simple we pay nothing until $X, then we pay everything. Somehow that does not seem to be available at all.
But your state and federal government do not allow this for some odd reason.
You couldn't be more correct here.
I am a 30-something single white male and I pay less than $1500 for home and auto insurance combined and I get fairly decent coverage. If we allowed the same type of competition/options for health insurance, I bet we would see prices come in line.
Your point about charging a third party for routine visits. The insurance company gets charged $400 for a simple 15-minute visit. The analogue is getting your oil changed on your car - you don't charge your auto insurance for it and it costs $19.95.
I agree that tax rates would have to be lowered across the board in order to close loop holes. Otherwise there could be unintended consequences. In other words, Apple may still pay only pay 15% in taxes, but you'd get money from GE, who paid no taxes but had $5 billion or something in profits.
This is why I vote/support 3rd parties. Sure, there are some fringe ideas but it is sure better than voting for Demicans or Republicrats
I agree with this. Lets do away with all loopholes and simplify the tax code. And make the rates fair so that we do not strangle business, but at least get some money out of them for the common good.
Have to agree with this. What I would like to see is a simplification of the tax code along with a reduction in rates so that at least we get some pay back from the profits. It would allow Apple and other giants of industry to bring back their money and keep it here. In other words, it's probably a waste of resources to do all this legal moving around of cash to large avoid taxes. Say if we just taxed Apple's profits at 15% or whatever and call it a day - at least we got a piece of the pie and took away any incentive for Apple to keep money offshore.
KHAAAAANNNNN!
I agree. Problem is I could probably pay a H1B 1 standard deviation less than the average and still claim it's in the ball park when the government comes knocking
Did you try increasing their pay to match their increased productivity from their increased skillset?
That would make too much sense.
People want to say that college grads will leave after a year or two once they get up to speed. The issue is that in that year or two, they probably have become underpaid because you've probably only given them 3-4% raises (if they are lucky). You might have to over pay them in the short term in order to recoup your investments.
But most people congregate around the center, even if they are below average.
For example, during the dot-com bust, I could not find an internship because there was a lack of funding at several places. The place that I interned at the year before suspended their program temporarily.
Here's one idea: You might have to overpay or take someone more "average" than you are expecting. But, that is life.