The business continuity plan should deal with more than retirements. I've had a couple of medical incidents that had a nontrivial chance of just killing me without two weeks' notice.
In the US, anybody can go at any time for any reason. Being 58 doesn't have any significance in the US.
There are more significant ages. At 59.5, you can start withdrawing from IRS and 401(k) savings without penalty. At 62, you can start Social Security. At something like 66 or 67, you hit Social Security's "full retirement age" - and I'll be retired before then. At 70, you're going to get the maximum Social Security benefits you can. There may be other significant ages that affect small groups of people, but those are the main ones.
My wife has been working for a local county government for a long time, and she's set to get a very nice pension when she's 59. The "rule of 90" is not available for people hired more recently, so they'd have to work longer.
My personal plan is to sit around for a while, unwinding, and then going for the volunteer stuff I'm more or less lined up for. In the meantime, I can always practice my fiction writing. It's entirely possible that I'll get good enough at it to make money (although almost certainly not much).
What benefits? What I'm getting out of the company for leaving is a nice party and a cash-out of my left-over PTO. I'm not eligible for unemployment benefits on a voluntary resignation. They can lay me off at any time, but that way they'd have to pay benefits. If they fire me "for cause", they are going to have to justify that because I'll fight it, so overall that's probably more expensive than laying me off. It's cheaper to just let me leave on my own.
Corollary to your first point: Be prepared in the unlikely case that your company is stupid, at least concerning you. Make sure that it's acceptable to you to find yourself fired on the spot.
The position I'm in, I can leave after lunch today and have a comfortable retirement. I plan to be out of here within the next eighteen months, and then I can have an even more comfortable retirement. Therefore, there's no significant downside in telling my manager about my retirement plans. As long as things stay friendly, he can use the heads up. If they get unfriendly, they can always lay me off early, and that works too.
Likewise with any employer that says they want two weeks notice but reserve the right to give you no notice before laying you off.
This isn't a problem. The deal is that I give them time and service and they give me money. I give notice to help them get work shuffled around, and work there for the notice period. If I'm gone for my notice period, it causes them some problems. If they lay me off, they can just give me the money I'd have gotten during the notice period, and I'm fine. In that case, I'd rather have the additional time anyway.
you're a millennial who also thinks the entire world is about you and what you can do.
That's not fair. Millennials didn't invent thinking the entire world is about you. Older generations have plenty of those people. We elected one for President.
Every time I've been leaving a Costco, the receipt check has been trivial. Glance at the receipt and the cart, presumably to see if the receipt is long enough to be plausible for how full the cart is, mark the receipt, and go.
A member of the US government sold materials used to make weapons of mass destruction to an adversarial nation for personal gain.
Actually, Ollie North wasn't in it for personal gain, and I don't think the arms were actually WMDs.
At the time, Russia wasn't an adversarial nation. The US was trying to engage Russia in a friendly manner in the hope of avoiding too much hostility. It didn't work, but that doesn't retcon Russia in to an enemy. The deal was selling stock in a uranium company, not selling uranium. I've seen absolutely no evidence that Russia used this particular uranium, assuming they got some out of the deal, for WMD production. Heck, natural uranium is natural uranium, so if Russia got uranium from other sources it doesn't matter which was used.
That is more collusion than Mueller's been able to find.
Are you stating this because you've illegally hacked in to Mueller's investigation, or gotten information from someone who has, or is this just blind faith? Mueller is not going to release what he's got as long as the investigation continues.
The Fake Dossier is the poisoned tree that will free anyone who actually might be guilty, because without it, there is no FISA court warrant that started it all.
The poisoned tree isn't what it used to be in the US. A court warrant is issued because a law enforcement officer swears that there is probable cause. If it's based on phony evidence the government collected, it theoretically should be discarded, and all evidence gained directly or indirectly thrown out. If it's based on phony claims by a private citizen, and the LEO doesn't know it's phony, it's still probable cause sworn to by a LEO.
The difference is that putting ads where we think they'll do the most good is fine, while just serving ads in a discriminatory manner isn't. If I'm in a low-income neighborhood, I can check out ads in upscale neighborhoods, no problem. If I'm black, and the ads are served only to white people, that is a problem.
I don't consider this pass-through liability. Facebook is participating in breaking the law.
Also, the lack of transparency bothers me. Again, if a company puts out an employment ad that says Catholics and Pastafarians need not apply, that's illegal, but everyone who goes to where the ad is will see that and know that. If Facebook restricts an ad from Catholics and Pastafarians, who knows? The only reasonable thing to do would be to have Facebook keep records of what ads go to what groups, to be examined periodically, and I think that would be worse.
AFDC is not related to the Social Security trust fund. The surplus must by law be invested in T-bills, which is not the same as plundering it (although it does reduce interest rates). The Republican plan appears to be to cut income taxes and then raid the Social Security trust fund to make up for it. That will get them thrown out of office, possibly permanently. There's a lot of us who have been paying in for decades, and we older folks vote in large numbers.
The problem with your theory is that while governments can indeed force people to do a lot of stuff, they cannot force value on a currency because in the end a currency is only as useful as the people that will accept it.
There are cases where people in the US need to use USD. All monetary transactions with the government are in USD. Almost all civil case awards are in USD. They are required to have at least basic accounting in USD. The result is that people generally use USD as money.
People all over the world accept bitcoin, so it has a much broader base of support than any state sanctioned currency,
People all over the world accept USD, and in general the density of people who accept USD is greater than the density of people who accept BTC. Far more people accept USD than BTC. Many of the people who accept BTC do so only as a means of transferring real money.
and is also immune to the inevitable gaffes all states make.
Gaffes are not limited to government. Moreover, gaffes in a government can be corrected, while gaffes in software everyone uses really can't.
Money is worth what you can get for it. USD stay fairly constant in that, and the changes are reasonably predictable. Gold and silver don't, and they aren't..
The intrinsic value of gold is not in its ability to be currency, since there's lots of other ways to store value. The intrinsic value of something is what you can use it for. Gold has some industrial uses, but mostly it's just pretty, and the value of that can change wildly.
You're the sort of person who makes socialists look like calm, rational, intelligent people who don't need to resort to such flimsy straw men in their arguments.
A legal right is what the law says is a legal right. That can include things that other people have to supply (typically because they're being paid to supply them by someone, possibly the government). There is no necessary logic to legal rights (although it's nice).
You might be thinking of human rights, in which case I'd like some sketch of an operational definition of "human right", so I can figure them out for myself rather than just listen to someone blather on about.
So, what are human rights, as opposed to government-granted rights? I'm not going to ask for a list, I'm just going to ask for some sort of sketch as to how I can find them, other than pulling words I like out of my ass. As far as I can see, "human rights" is about as logically rigorous and empirically sound as astrology.
Slashdot Mirror
The business continuity plan should deal with more than retirements. I've had a couple of medical incidents that had a nontrivial chance of just killing me without two weeks' notice.
Legally, they're supposed to know that you're in the 40-65 age band. People older than that are not a protected class in the US.
There are more significant ages. At 59.5, you can start withdrawing from IRS and 401(k) savings without penalty. At 62, you can start Social Security. At something like 66 or 67, you hit Social Security's "full retirement age" - and I'll be retired before then. At 70, you're going to get the maximum Social Security benefits you can. There may be other significant ages that affect small groups of people, but those are the main ones.
My wife has been working for a local county government for a long time, and she's set to get a very nice pension when she's 59. The "rule of 90" is not available for people hired more recently, so they'd have to work longer.
My personal plan is to sit around for a while, unwinding, and then going for the volunteer stuff I'm more or less lined up for. In the meantime, I can always practice my fiction writing. It's entirely possible that I'll get good enough at it to make money (although almost certainly not much).
What benefits? What I'm getting out of the company for leaving is a nice party and a cash-out of my left-over PTO. I'm not eligible for unemployment benefits on a voluntary resignation. They can lay me off at any time, but that way they'd have to pay benefits. If they fire me "for cause", they are going to have to justify that because I'll fight it, so overall that's probably more expensive than laying me off. It's cheaper to just let me leave on my own.
Corollary to your first point: Be prepared in the unlikely case that your company is stupid, at least concerning you. Make sure that it's acceptable to you to find yourself fired on the spot.
The position I'm in, I can leave after lunch today and have a comfortable retirement. I plan to be out of here within the next eighteen months, and then I can have an even more comfortable retirement. Therefore, there's no significant downside in telling my manager about my retirement plans. As long as things stay friendly, he can use the heads up. If they get unfriendly, they can always lay me off early, and that works too.
This isn't a problem. The deal is that I give them time and service and they give me money. I give notice to help them get work shuffled around, and work there for the notice period. If I'm gone for my notice period, it causes them some problems. If they lay me off, they can just give me the money I'd have gotten during the notice period, and I'm fine. In that case, I'd rather have the additional time anyway.
That's not fair. Millennials didn't invent thinking the entire world is about you. Older generations have plenty of those people. We elected one for President.
Every time I've been leaving a Costco, the receipt check has been trivial. Glance at the receipt and the cart, presumably to see if the receipt is long enough to be plausible for how full the cart is, mark the receipt, and go.
Actually, Ollie North wasn't in it for personal gain, and I don't think the arms were actually WMDs.
At the time, Russia wasn't an adversarial nation. The US was trying to engage Russia in a friendly manner in the hope of avoiding too much hostility. It didn't work, but that doesn't retcon Russia in to an enemy. The deal was selling stock in a uranium company, not selling uranium. I've seen absolutely no evidence that Russia used this particular uranium, assuming they got some out of the deal, for WMD production. Heck, natural uranium is natural uranium, so if Russia got uranium from other sources it doesn't matter which was used.
Right, like Facebook blaming ad providers for Facebook's actions.
Are you stating this because you've illegally hacked in to Mueller's investigation, or gotten information from someone who has, or is this just blind faith? Mueller is not going to release what he's got as long as the investigation continues.
The poisoned tree isn't what it used to be in the US. A court warrant is issued because a law enforcement officer swears that there is probable cause. If it's based on phony evidence the government collected, it theoretically should be discarded, and all evidence gained directly or indirectly thrown out. If it's based on phony claims by a private citizen, and the LEO doesn't know it's phony, it's still probable cause sworn to by a LEO.
The difference is that putting ads where we think they'll do the most good is fine, while just serving ads in a discriminatory manner isn't. If I'm in a low-income neighborhood, I can check out ads in upscale neighborhoods, no problem. If I'm black, and the ads are served only to white people, that is a problem.
I don't consider this pass-through liability. Facebook is participating in breaking the law.
Also, the lack of transparency bothers me. Again, if a company puts out an employment ad that says Catholics and Pastafarians need not apply, that's illegal, but everyone who goes to where the ad is will see that and know that. If Facebook restricts an ad from Catholics and Pastafarians, who knows? The only reasonable thing to do would be to have Facebook keep records of what ads go to what groups, to be examined periodically, and I think that would be worse.
Bush 1? The cut tax and then cut spending rhetoric has been around at least since Reagan. That trick never works.
AFDC is not related to the Social Security trust fund. The surplus must by law be invested in T-bills, which is not the same as plundering it (although it does reduce interest rates). The Republican plan appears to be to cut income taxes and then raid the Social Security trust fund to make up for it. That will get them thrown out of office, possibly permanently. There's a lot of us who have been paying in for decades, and we older folks vote in large numbers.
There are cases where people in the US need to use USD. All monetary transactions with the government are in USD. Almost all civil case awards are in USD. They are required to have at least basic accounting in USD. The result is that people generally use USD as money.
People all over the world accept USD, and in general the density of people who accept USD is greater than the density of people who accept BTC. Far more people accept USD than BTC. Many of the people who accept BTC do so only as a means of transferring real money.
Gaffes are not limited to government. Moreover, gaffes in a government can be corrected, while gaffes in software everyone uses really can't.
Money is worth what you can get for it. USD stay fairly constant in that, and the changes are reasonably predictable. Gold and silver don't, and they aren't..
The intrinsic value of gold is not in its ability to be currency, since there's lots of other ways to store value. The intrinsic value of something is what you can use it for. Gold has some industrial uses, but mostly it's just pretty, and the value of that can change wildly.
You're the sort of person who makes socialists look like calm, rational, intelligent people who don't need to resort to such flimsy straw men in their arguments.
Okay, find me some clean water near where I am that doesn't cost people money.
A legal right is what the law says is a legal right. That can include things that other people have to supply (typically because they're being paid to supply them by someone, possibly the government). There is no necessary logic to legal rights (although it's nice).
You might be thinking of human rights, in which case I'd like some sketch of an operational definition of "human right", so I can figure them out for myself rather than just listen to someone blather on about.
So, what are human rights, as opposed to government-granted rights? I'm not going to ask for a list, I'm just going to ask for some sort of sketch as to how I can find them, other than pulling words I like out of my ass. As far as I can see, "human rights" is about as logically rigorous and empirically sound as astrology.