Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[img_assist|nid=20218|title=mid-century era “Chaise Lounge” |desc=|link=node|align=left|width=259|height=194]
Except the gubment ones were/are brown vinyl and had an end table with an alarm clock and army blankets.Go check it out, harvey! I’m sure several are still there . . possibly even in the men’s room!
Participant[quote=harvey]http://piggington.com/more_public_pension_loony_tunes_now_providence_ri_is_in_trouble?page=1
Submitted by bearishgurl on May 11, 2012 – 10:27am.
[quote]3. If you decided to lay down in the restroom or in your vehicle during a 15 min break because you had a headache and came back 15-30 mins late, would you be docked vacation or sick pay for it?[/quote]
Man, that post was a doozy!(I’ll concede that she did call it a “restroom.”)
See how it works, CAR?
Honest people can back up their claims.
This thread needs a slogan: Link or you’re a liar![/quote]
Ha!! Just saw this and I’m still knee deep in work due to taking a short turnaround (emergency) job (but haven’t forgotten about Joe and Jane, CAR).
Uhh, harvey (aka “pri_dk, the troll”), I want you to get in your car and drive to 220 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 right now! Park at a meter and walk there and be sure to bring a female with you if at all possible. Visit floors 4, 5, 6, and 7 by turning left off the elevator. I don’t know about the men’s rooms, but ALL the women’s restrooms, both public and employee have (or had) “Rest Rooms” inside them, which are separate rooms with a door. They have (or had) vinyl chaise lounges in them for decades for the sole purpose of “resting” prone in the dark on a break or between hearings, etc. It is possible that some of these rooms are “locked off” today but are nevertheless still in there.
Then make your way over to 1600 Pacific Hwy, San Diego and you can pay a small fortune to park there now (since public parking is now scarce). At both the north and south ends of the building on at least one out of the three floors, the same chaise was STILL in the women’s restrooms the last time I checked (less than a year ago – try north end first flr first). These “Rest Rooms” are situated just as you enter the door to the restrooms and are separate rooms but do not have separate doors like the ones at 220 West Bdwy do. This bldg was originally constructed in 1938.
These (private) “Rest Rooms” (mostly used by female gubment workers) were a godsend in an era where the worker would lose her job if she did not return to work six weeks after giving birth (or ten weeks after having a C-section) and thus had to “save” whatever leave they had on the books until after delivery if at all possible. These “rest rooms” helped greatly for workers in late pregnancy needing to “rest” on their breaks and lunches. Unlike you people, we didn’t have the “FMLA” to fall back on or computers, laptops, ipads and smartphones at our disposal to help us do our jobs while lounging in a private cubicle with flipflops on and our feet up. We had mainframes with CRT terminals (which were frequently down) to use first thing in the morning which would help us locate files but we didn’t even HAVE cubicles (our desks were all pushed together). We had to work on our feet at least 7 hrs per day lifting, rolling carts, climbing ladders while lifting 30-50 lbs and generally running our a$$es off floor to floor, dept to dept and bldg to bldg. Some clerks were even regularly exposed to asbestos!
H@ll yeah, you can bet your a$$ that I EARNED EVERY PENNY of my pension and healthcare allowance, harvey! Jealous any?? NOW, after you perform the above two exercises with your female friend, you can re-report here to the Piggs on your “findings.”
[quote=harvey]She complained once that she got in trouble at work for sleeping on the bathroom floor.[/quote]
NOW, back to your quote. In reference to me, where exactly is it here that you stated I posted the above??
And how is “being docked” (which happened to every employee all the time) the same as “getting into trouble?”
Unlike YOU, harvey, we didn’t get to “telecommute.” If the employee wasn’t at work between 8 am and 5 pm (with the exception of lunch hour), then they were on some kind of leave, period …. end of story. Many, many gubment employees were never able to take a vacation because they were docked here and there out of all their vacation hours for being tardy to work, tardy from lunch hour and leaving early from work … even for very “legitimate” reasons.
LOL, it takes an idiot like “harvey” over two weeks to “substantiate” his “claims” here yet he ca-a-a-a-an’t qui-i-i-te get it right. Nice try, though ….
And, for the record, harvey, I never “made up lies” about your family. YOU KNOW why my post was redacted and that is NOT what happened. You would do well to go back through that thread again and read ALL your posts and then after completing that exercise, look in the mirror and ask yourself a few piercing questions. (As I recall, it was yet ANOTHER thread [out of dozens] where you were going OFF about public employee pensions.)
Participant[quote=spdrun]Unless you live in very specific parts of SD County, you’ll still need a car for things other than commuting.
Though I do know someone who got away with it for a year or two in Carlsbad, since work, grocery stores, etc were within biking distance of her apartment, and she could take the commuter train+bus to the airport when she wanted to get out of town. (She has family in NY and abroad as well.)[/quote]
Understand, spdrun. I didn’t say that dtn workers didn’t own a car. I was only stating that they didn’t need to put 500+ mi per week on it commuting, as many workers likely do who live and work in distant suburbs and exurbs. When you’re not sitting in traffic two or more hrs per day, you don’t have anywhere near the maintenance costs on your vehicle as you would if you drove it long distances every day. I also believe a whole lot more worker-bees in SD County drive vehicles worth between $3K and $10K to work everyday than some of the assumptions made on this forum. Contrary to popular belief, older vehicles are actually cheaper to run and maintain, even taking into acct that they need more parts. This is due to the high cost of annual registration and insurance coverage in the urban counties of CA (where the vast majority of “worker bees” live and work). Lots of families consisting of one or more “professional” workers DO own an expensive road car or 4WD vehicle (which they keep garaged) and maybe even a boat and/or other trailered “toys.” But the vehicle they take to work everyday is 10-20 yrs old.
Participant[quote=CA renter]. . . BG (and others) insists that it doesn’t make sense to have a SAHP — that this person is a drain on the family’s finances, but nobody else dared to come up with the actual numbers like I did (though BG has been saying that she would do so, and would include the first wage-earner’s income in order to get the true picture of how much that second spouse is **really** earning when choosing to work outside the home. Of course, that would make the case for having a SAHP even more compelling, which is why I think we still haven’t seen the numbers.
It’s pretty eye-opening when you run the actual numbers.[/quote]
CAR, my people came in at the crack of dawn this morning and are still sleeping so thought I’d check in. I AM working on that post/thread I promised and WILL get it out very soon. There is a little more research I need to do on local child care resources and I need to place this family in a fictional home in SD County so they can claim the correct tax writeoffs and we can mull over their housing expenses. Congress made it worthwhile for both parents to work FT (or one PT) when it revised the tax code in 1986:
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
… and made it even more lucrative by increasing the household income ceiling over the years on the usage of the Dependent Care credit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_and_Dependent_Care_Credit
To your comments above regarding transportation and lunches, I’m going to state here again that many, many “professionals” take public transportation to/from work and bring their own lunches from home daily the vast majority of the time. Most “professionals” don’t have time in their workday to run around waiting in lines trying to scare up a lunch everyday. And most workers want a healthy lunch and snacks available (ie apples, carrots and celery, and reheated leftovers, etc) instead of fast food. I’m referring to the worker-culture in dtn SD as that is the only culture I’m really familiar with. There are actually many more dtn workers who take public transportation now than before I “retired” due to (now) the exorbitant cost of daily parking for governments, firms and their employees. The trolleys are standing-room only and the express buses during rush hours are full! This is also true of SF, dtn LA (Temple St vicinity) and dtn Sac workers.
Perhaps many/most posters on this board aren’t familiar with an urban work culture due to always having worked in a suburb or exurb where their employer provided free parking for them.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]I think there’s a stigma paying with foodtamps and getting free school lunches.
How would the kids feel?[/quote]None of the other students can find out anymore. The problem has been fixed with electronic ID cards for the students with their picture on them. They are loaded with meals from the parents’ check or the Free Lunch program by the school’s front office. Every student stands in the same line and nobody in the cafeteria knows anything about who is eating a free (or 40-cent) lunch and who is paying full price (not even the cafeteria workers).
It’s as it should be. (see my latest post detailing the procedure from the “pre-computer” days, lol)
Participant[quote=spdrun]Public universities were cheaper then as compared to incomes. At least partially due to (zOMFG!) … taxpayer support.
Was your stepfather a single parent when he was going to school? Were your cow-orkers single parents, or did they have a spouse to share responsibilities with?
Also, during your stepfather’s time, it was easier to get a decent job without a college degree in the first place. He was probably a union factory worker at Rockwell, not a Mickey Dee’s fry cook.[/quote]
My stepfather’s ex-spouse always worked FT as well. At all times when he was a PT student, he was married and his kids were grown. My student-coworkers were all married and living with their spouses and kid(s) at the time of going to night school, IIRC. I was in the same situation (worked FT and lived with spouse and kids) while attending night classes at City and SW Colleges (local CC’s) for about ten years. I earned about 75-80 sem units but never graduated because I am still lacking 9 units GE credits (3 classes). My accounting classes were four units and I got home about 10:45 pm. My paralegal program was a one year program (500-level graduate course) two nights per week (got home at 10:30 pm) and every other Saturday (until about midnight). At the time of earning my paralegal certificate, I worked FT and had minor children at home. I had a sister (now deceased) who earned a BS in Accountancy and a Masters in Taxation, all while working FT (married, no kids at that time) and putting herself thru college. I have a brother who earned a double major (Voc Ag teaching credential and Meat Science) all while working FT (single, no kids at that time) and putting himself thru college.
My siblings and I NEVER borrowed one dime for school or even qualified for a grant then – grants were $2-$4K yr back then (mostly $2K “BEOG” grants) and in order to get one, the student literally had to be on “welfare.” I applied for one on my FAFSA as a senior in HS and my mom made $900 too much money that year for me to get it. I then went to work FT right out of HS and made too much money to qualify for the grant (but was able to pay rent on a nice apt and buy a nice car – all cash). So it wasn’t worth it anymore for me to try to qualify for a measly $2-$4K in college aid.
Yeah, college was cheaper and housing was cheaper back then but we didn’t get paid as much either. My brother and I didn’t make anywhere NEAR $15 hr (more like <$5 hr). People did what they had to do back then to get ahead in life. Accepting aid was frowned upon unless a parent couldn't feed their family. Even those parents temporarily down on their luck had their pride and so were embarrassed to apply for food stamps or stand in line for commodities. Public school students had different-colored daily lunch tickets (participants of the Free Lunch program at school) and had to stand in a different lunch line than the paying students. The “free lunch” kids were stigmatized. (I’m glad this problem was “fixed.”) There were way fewer programs available and the benefit amounts were much lower than they are today and as such, there was much less incentive to attempt to defraud the “system” which seemingly appears to be so attractive today. It seems that there’s been a sea change in people’s views of what it really means to be “poor” today in the US and a huge increase in an individual’s “sense of entitlement.”
Participant[quote=spdrun]Bearishgurl: I’d argue that the welfare reforms of 1996 did more harm than good, and actually risked trapping more people in poverty.
Take the case of someone with kids who wants to leave work to go to school full time. Between that and kids, they’d have a “full time job” on their hands.
The reform of 1996 limits their assistance to two years without a job, and places a lifetime limit of five years on total assistance. Barely enough time to get bachelor’s degree.
So more people who want to better themselves either end up sleeping four hours a night (more risk of health issues and dropping out) or end up up to their nipples in debt. Or they just skip the education and survive as best they can.
In the guise of taking “welfare queens” off the rolls, it essentially made having a family (especially as a single parent, even if not by choice) an educational dead end.[/quote]
If my parents and my generation chose to have children first and then pursue a college degree (in that order), they took 3-6 credit hrs (1-2 classes) per semester at night and on Saturdays. Yes, it took 7-10 years that way, but eventually they got a degree with losing $1 of pay or benefits and were eligible and in line for whatever promotion they were aiming for while studying for the degree.
My stepfather (now deceased) joined Rockwell as a HS dropout after getting married at the age of 21. He and his spouse had three kids and he eventually received the title of “metallurgist” there through his work experience only. He divorced and married my mom, received his GED and began attending a local 4-yr college at night and some Saturdays and graduated ~5 yrs later with a degree in Geological Engineering (he was able to CLEP out of several GE’s and use his work experience for some credits). Of course, he was then promoted at work to an engineering position and worked in that position until retiring with 38 years of service and a very nice monthly pension.
Dozens of my own co-workers over the years actually got a 3-year LAW degree attending nights and weekends for ~5 yrs, studied hard during their one-hour lunches and hardly ever missed a day of work (except for vacations). 80% of them had minor kids at home.
That’s the way life is.
It’s not the taxpayers’ responsibility to pay for a college student’s living expense because the student chose to make important life decisions in a particular order.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Isn’t public assistance assets based? So if you have a 401k or savings you may not qualify…[/quote]
It is, FIH. See the link below as my reprinted income chart is not properly aligned. Our fictional family makes $31,200 yr with one 40-hr week, $15-hr worker. The income limits for Federal food aid for a family of four is $2584 mo gross or $31,008 yr. In addition, our fictional family doesn’t live on TANF, SSI or pensions so if their car is worth more than or their bank acct has more than $2,250, they’re SOL:
Resources
Households may have $2,250 in countable resources, such as a bank account, or $3,250 in countable resources if at least one person is age 60 or older, or is disabled. However, certain resources are NOT counted, such as a home and lot, the resources of people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the resources of people who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, formerly AFDC), and most retirement (pension) plans. The procedures for handling vehicles are determined at the state level. States have the option of substituting the vehicle rules used in their TANF assistance programs for SNAP vehicle rules when it results in a lower attribution of household assets. A number of States exclude the entire value of the household’s primary vehicle as an asset. In States that count the value of vehicles, the fair market value of each licensed vehicle that is not excluded is evaluated. Currently 39 States exclude the value of all vehicles entirely. 11 States totally exclude the value of at least one vehicle per household. The 3 remaining states exempt an amount higher than the SNAP’s standard auto exemption (currently set at $4,650) from the fair market value to determine the countable resource value of a vehicle. For more information concerning State specific vehicle policy, check with the State agency that administers the SNAP program.
IncomeHouseholds have to meet income tests unless all members are receiving TANF, SSI, or in some places general assistance. Most households must meet both the gross and net income tests, but a household with an elderly person or a person who is receiving certain types of disability payments only has to meet the net income test. Households, except those noted, that have income over the amounts listed below cannot get SNAP benefits.
(Oct. 1, 2014 through Sept. 30, 2015)
Household Size
Gross monthly income
(130 percent of poverty)
Net monthly income
(100 percent of poverty)
1
$1,265 $ 9732
1,705 1,3113
2,144 1,6504
2,584 1,988http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility
I forgot to mention that our fictional family’s two children are also eligible for .40 school lunches, thereby saving them money on food.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=spdrun]True. BTW, not being judgmental, but you have to take it into account that not everyone wants to be on WIC or Medicaid.[/quote]Agree. The free money is there. It’s up to you whether you want to take it or not. You can always have both parents work @ $15/hr. Just saying you would come out ahead of you just have one parent stay at home.[/quote]AN, $15 hr FT (assuming the worker got a paid vacation and health benefits and so got paid for 52 weeks is $31,200 per year. There is no way those food programs you mention and Medi-Cal (which is horrible to have in comparison to an employer-paid healthplan or one off the exchange) are worth anything near $31,200. You’re also forgetting that the worker is adding quarters to their Social Security Account, may also be offered low-cost health and dental plans for their kids and may be eligible for a raise, bonus or both at the end of the year (or their rating period).
AN, do you actually know anyone on Medi-Cal and have you talked to them about their opinions on the quality of their healthcare lately … or lack thereof? I do, and I’m here to tell you that they’ll give you an earful on all that they have to go through in making an appt and showing up for a simple office call. That is … IF they can find a provider who will accept Medi-Cal. Do you have any idea how long Medi-Cal recipients have to wait for medically-necessary surgery? And how much groceries ($ amt per mo) do you think a family of four making $31,200 can get who qualifies for an EBT card? You DO KNOW that EBT cards pay for food only and zero household or personal items, right?
And I haven’t looked into the program lately, but aren’t WIC benefits limited to those who are currently pregnant and/or children under the age of 2 (or even younger)?
In addition, if the working parent making $31,200 per year was offered an “affordable” healthplan at work for he/she and their spouse/dependents, then this family would be automatically ineligible for Medi-Cal.
This “fictional” family grossing $62,400 yr likely also qualifies for the 6 to 6 program and DASH (afterschool programs subsidized by the school district) on a sliding scale of $37 – $45 wk for their first kid and $20 – $28 for their second kid (morning kinders slightly higher).
AN, I’m just curious so humor me here. If all you could make was $31,200 per year, would you want your spouse to stay at home if she had the training and license, etc to make a decent wage ($15 hr and up)? We’ll assume you are renting in SD (or living with relatives) because you couldn’t save anything for a downpayment on your own home with a $31,200 annual income and 2 kids.
Your mindset is precisely why the “Welfare Reform Act” of 1996 was created and enacted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
Participant[quote=Hatfield]Glad to hear folks are healthy. Let’s keep it that way, OK? 🙂
So it’s open enrollment season again. Quick recap: I was with Costco Pacificare since 2006, and good booted about a year ago when Pacificare pulled out of the individual marker in California. Went on the exchange and picked HealthNet which was one of several PPO options available. Was informed a few months ago that HealthNet was pulling their PPO plans out of the exchange.
it looks like (at least for my demographic) Blue Shield is the only company currently offering a PPO through Covered California. There’s probably 20+ other plans available to me, but they’re all HMO or EPO.[/quote]
For 2015, BSOC offers a PPO in all regions except for 1, 2, 6 and 9, I believe (where Anthem Blue Cross offers a PPO). BSOC is also is a member of the BCBS nationwide provider network (not sure about Anthem). Therefore, nationwide coverage is available to BSOC’s PPO members, not only for emergencies, but for everything. For this reason, it is the only carrier I’ll sign up for on the exchange and I am keeping my current plan for 2015, which will rise by $82.88 month beginning January.
November 25, 2014 at 12:57 PM in reply to: Costco Aetna Health Insurance now available in CA #780376Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]Great to hear it’s not cancer in both of your cases. 🙂
Yeah, it takes a while for the biopsy site to heal, but it’s always a good idea to get anything unusual checked out.[/quote]
FYI, insurance was charged $1198 for biopsy. I think you estimated $500.
I hate going to the doctor’s and using up resources for nothing, when I gain nothing.
I don’t see why people are so uptight about discussing medical costs. They should not be so opaque.[/quote]
Ironic that you posted this, FIH, and my Blue Shield file is sitting right here on my desk!
My ins was actually charged $578 for two visits plus a biopsy. But the EOB’s and bills indicate that $144.40 was pd by my ins co (per contract) and I paid $88.38 in copays/coinsurance for a total of $232.78.
Medical providers always charge a lot when they code procedures/visits for billing purposes but end up settling for the contracted amount from the carrier, whatever that may be. The rest is the responsibility of the patient.
Participant[quote=localguy]BG’s post on 11/7/14 is one of the classics….the one in which Peter’s bested DeMaio in the SD mayoral race. Epic.
Localguy[/quote]Localguy, IIRC, don’t you reside in Scripps Ranch?
If so, and even if you voted for him, you should be extremely thankful that CDM is not now representing YOU in Washington! He’s a disaster in the making and even though I’m not a resident of the 52nd, I’m relieved to hear that Peters won by the seat of his pants, however that happened.
There is a such a thing as a “charismatic idiot.” CDM fit the bill to a “T” and obviously had a lot of your brethren voters fooled. Here’s a simple layman’s discussion for you explaining the concept:
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler][quote=flu]
That’s just because the credit spigot has been relaxed again and people can lease again.[/quote]Maybe, Oddly enough the IE is doing a lot better right now, they got Amazon building and opening a large facility and a score of others doing the same. They loosen up credit and housing industry will likely take off next year in the IE, one of the few places with a lot of buildable land left in SoCal.[/quote]Shoveler, I don’t know about “buildable land left” that is zoned residential but overall I agree with you. Even “rough around the edges” San Bern, Ontario and surrounds are (slowly) moving on up (hopefully, out of BK) 🙂
ParticipantEven though SD County is losing another ~5K jobs, likely by EOY, I’m overall bullish on the CA economy. SD has always been known as a “branch office”/retirement locale and nothing has changed. A SD County parent should not expect that their college grad kid is going to be able to make a decent living in SD County and also have job security (unless they can obtain a meaningful gubment position). It’s okay. CA’s freeways aren’t going anywhere and neither is Southwest Airlines. There’s really nothing wrong with the rest of the state, not even LA. I’ve recently changed my opinion, even on some “armpit” inland cities. It’s all good 🙂
-
AuthorPosts
