Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=flu] . . . The biggest problem I have with Trump isn’t Trump himself. It’s with a good percentage of his supporters that are itching to ship people who aren’t white “back home”.[/quote]flu, I can tell you from direct experience that “a good percentage of (Trump’s) supporters” are “Hispanic.” Meaning 100% Hispanic with relatives still living in MX. Many of this subset of Hispanics are boomers and older, who grew up in the US and were schooled in SD County. This group of mostly longtime homeowners are sick and tired of the (essentially) open borders allowing Mexican Nationals to cross the border at nine months pregnant with no questions asked, only to drop their babies on US soil within 72 hours of arrival (with witnesses, of course). It is not uncommon for Mexican Nationals to use “professionally manufactured” fake ID’s (using identities gleaned from a deceased American’s SSN record) and bogus US addresses (often of long vacant, boarded-up homes) to successfully obtain access to US health clinics and food banks and even successfully obtain USDA food aid (SNAP)! (Not sure if an “illegal immigrant” can successfully get cash aid (TANF) for their “anchor baby” after it is born …. this might be problematic for them because it involves oversight from a human social worker who has access to state computer systems.) In addition, I believe Mexican Nationals can now legally obtain CA Driver Licenses WITHOUT a US address, but of course it is not too difficult at most for them to use the US address of a relative to apply for their DL and use their relative’s CA-tagged vehicle to take their driving exam for their initial license. However, their personal vehicles are licensed in MX so they don’t have to provide “proof of insurance” to drive here. In the states of Baja CA, MX the legal liability limits are about $3K per vehicle and it is very likely that most Mexican drivers don’t even carry that. In some parts of south county (SD), up to 75% of the vehicles on the street every day sport MX tags. Long-naturalized citizens who came to the US legally (of Mexican and Filipino descent) and those who were born here long ago detest our “open borders” and are very vocal about it. If Trump wins the repub nomination, I expect to see “Trump for President – Let’s Make America Great Again” signs in front yards on every block around here. LOTS of Mexican-Americans (esp the older set) watch FOX News every day. I think we’re all going to be shocked when we see a LOT of precincts of SD South County turn from “blue” to “red” or “purple” (since the last general election 3.5 years ago). Let’s refer back to this thread in November, shall we?
In sum, Trump supporters are not all “white rednecks” and besides, “non-hispanic whites” are in a minority as a group in the US. They may still be the biggest minority, but nonetheless, I doubt their numbers are >50% of the US population. In addition, a percentage of “white-appearing persons” in the US are of mixed heritage or are European or Canadian immigrants or dual citizens and many may not even identify as “white” on paper.
[quote=flu]And I’m not even talking about illegal aliens. There’s this current of backlash against tech workers, specifically Indians and to a lesser extent, asians. Part of this is animosity against H1-B programs. The problem is many of these Trump supporters blame indians and to a lesser extent asians as the source of all their joblesness problem. I don’t get it.
This country really haven’t “progressed” as are misled to believe. When in doubt, when your in a financial rut, blame someone that isn’t white on all of your problems…[/quote]flu, the discontent among US citizens who majored in tech and haven’t been able to land a good job in their fields because some employers would prefer H1b hires are of ALL races, not just “white.” Think about it, flu. Do you know of any other country who “gives away” the bulk of their most coveted, higher-paying jobs with an actual “career path” to “foreigners” over their own citizens?
I DO believe that there are not enough American medical school graduates to fill MD positions for some medical sub-specialties in the US. But I don’t believe for a minute that there are not enough qualified engineering graduates of all kinds to fill engineering positions in US companies with a presence on US soil. Yes, even all the available engineering openings in SV at any given time.
ParticipantFrom his purple-tie rah-rah video after the Nevada caucus, Trump appears to have lost a few pounds in recent weeks. It’s possible that he has gotten a clue and is toting a personal trainer/dietition in his entourage.
Participant[quote=spdrun] … Why would you want to work for some piece of filth if you’re licensed to practice on your own?[/quote]Two reasons. Malpractice insurance premiums in CA are exorbitant and I would often need to “work around the clock” when I had deadlines (often) if I didn’t pay a “paralegal” to support me (plus all their payroll taxes and benefits) OR hire an independent contractor paralegal by the job (also expensive).
Participant[quote=skerzz][quote=bearishgurl]
You can’t compare the work of a paralegal to a “bookkeeper making journal entries.” Paralegals actually do all the work attorneys do except depose witnesses, negotiate settlements and explain their terms to the party(s) and appear before the court. Often when an attorney goes into court to argue a motion, a paralegal wrote the motion and filed it and served it after the attorney looked it over and signed it. If a paralegal’s attorney trusts their research skills and the paralegal provided them with the cases they will be arguing with good notes and possible objections, they’re not going to spend hours (and $100(0)’s of their client’s money) “researching the paralegal’s research.” Ditto for trial prep, deposition prep and witness prep.
Umm, paralegals are frequently the invisible “grunt-worker attorneys” in the back room doing all the work and the “real (licensed) attorney” is in the front room taking all the credit for it.
As it should be :=)[/quote]
Bookkeeper to paralegal seems like a fair comparison. A bookkeeper can generally do everything a CPA does except sign a tax return as preparer (unless they obtain additional certifications/education requirements), provide attest services (issue an audit opinion on financial statements), and represent a Client in front of the IRS. That leaves a lot of accounting/bookkeeping type tasks that can be performed. Accountants without a CPA designation often do most of the “grunt” work while the CPA takes the credit/assumes risk for work performed and is out bringing in more work for the “grunts” to perform.[/quote]If that’s the case, skerzz, I hope your bookkeepers are paid well. We used an “enrolled agent” to do our taxes for many years and she was very competent. We had no need for a CPA.
Participant[quote=skerzz] . . .
For the paralegal positions you did not successfully interview for, were you asking for the same salary as the younger worker? Perhaps you were a more qualified candidate, but did not get the job because you were too expensive (boomers are generally more expensive and demand higher wages because of more personal financial obligations/expectations than their millennial competition)? [/quote]skerzz, I’m sure you are aware that job seekers can’t command more money than the range an employer stated they are paying just because they have more “obligations” than the next candidate. A prospective employer doesn’t CARE what a candidate’s financial obligations are. If boomers are making a higher salary than millenials in the same office, it means they have more experience doing the work. How would you like to work at a firm for 30 years and then see a young “green” new hire come in who is making more than you for a position you actually interviewed for!My salary reqs were always in the range the firm advertised. For a small firm, however, the cost of my health insurance would likely be double or triple that of younger workers for the same policy (which is out of anyone’s control). I guess if I go back out on the interview circuit, I’m going to just ask for the amount of the insurance premium they’re paying for a 35 or 40 year old to be placed in an HSA account every month and use it to help pay my (exorbitant and rising) premium. That’s really the only way I feel I can “stay competitive” in the job-seeking market. I really like working for smaller plaintiff firms or firms who represent small to medium-sized businesses. Since the ACA was enacted, the difference between my monthly premium and a 35 yo’s premium is likely $600 to $800 month and rising rapidly because I am now mixed in with everyone in my age group who has health problems (the majority). That $600-$800 is a barrier to getting hired.
The reason I am having this discussion “out loud” here :=0 is because I am strongly considering trying to get a job in 2016 just for the health insurance. Law firms usually offer PPOs from major carriers and an employee can qualify for coverage working just 32-35 hrs week. I want to leave Covered CA and stay off of it and I still have a few years left until Medicare kicks in.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Bearishgurl — actually, California is one of the US states that permits “reading the law.” If you have an employer that’s willing to vouch for you, you might be able to sit the bar exam after some time without attending law school.[/quote]That’s fine and dandy but no one will hire me as a “newbie attorney” at my age so your suggestion is moot. But thanks for it anyway 🙂
Participant[quote=yamashi] . . . I also question your last statement about your ability to pass the bar exam. I’m sure their are very good paralegals, but you can’t compare that to someone that has been practicing. I also hope that you didn’t tell that to people when you interviewed with them. It probably would be akin to a bookkeeper saying they could pass the CPA exam because they’ve been doing journal entries for 30 years.[/quote]H@ll, no. I would never say that in an interview and it wouldn’t help me, anyway cuz I would be applying for a paralegal job with no upward mobility to an attorney position. As it should be.
You can’t compare the work of a paralegal to a “bookkeeper making journal entries.” Paralegals actually do all the work attorneys do except depose witnesses, negotiate settlements and explain their terms to the party(s) and appear before the court. Often when an attorney goes into court to argue a motion, a paralegal wrote the motion and filed it and served it after the attorney looked it over and signed it. If a paralegal’s attorney trusts their research skills and the paralegal provided them with the cases they will be arguing with good notes and possible objections, they’re not going to spend hours (and $100(0)’s of their client’s money) “researching the paralegal’s research.” Ditto for trial prep, deposition prep and witness prep.
Umm, paralegals are frequently the invisible “grunt-worker attorneys” in the back room doing all the work and the “real (licensed) attorney” is in the front room taking all the credit for it.
As it should be :=)
Participant[quote=yamashi][quote=bearishgurl]Oh, wow, you really DON’T get it. I have never applied for positions where Spanish was a “requirement.” But in my biz, if a SD job description doesn’t state it is a requirement, it is always “preferred.” And you’re damned straight that in my biz the most “senior positions” ARE occupied by the “oldest people in the building.” Usually people who are well past retirement age. And due to my experience level, the jobs I apply for typically answer to the “oldest people in the building.” That’s just how it is.[/quote]
Probably depends on the type of attorney firm you were applying for. If it is immigration law, it’s definitely a yes. One of my good friends is a partner at one the largest and oldest firms in SD and he does not speak a word of Spanish. Either way, you have to admit it’s not because of age discrimination. It is usually due to other qualifications, which is usually based on the bottom line.[/quote]Attorneys (esp “partners”) don’t have to speak Spanish on the job. That’s what they have paralegals at the office and interpreters in the courtroom for.
SD Firms which have mostly individuals for plaintiffs (usually small-med sized firms) prefer Spanish speaking candidates over those who don’t.
If I was willing to travel up as far as UTC, SR or Poway or even North County, there are several insurance defense and construction defect firms up there I could apply to where Spanish would not be necessary. But I detest pushing reams of paper to plaintiffs all day. I find this kind of (defense) work boring as h@ll. And, at this stage of my life, I’m not commuting 1 hr+ to and from work in traffic cuz I don’t have to :=0
Participant.
Participant[quote=yamashi][quote=bearishgurl]
You have a point about the law school graduate. Law firms will take a “green” law school graduate to do paralegal work over a paralegal with a lot of experience. Law school graduates (whether they have their bar card, or not) WILL work as paralegal because there are not enough attorney positions to go around and haven’t been for at least 15 years. The country is glutted with law school graduates. Part of the reason is that many attorneys stay with their firms long past the age of 65, taking up an “attorney” spot. I know I was discriminated against when (several years ago, before the ACA) I was asked in three different interviews, “How has your health been? and “Have you been healthy, lately?” They wanted to know how much it was going to cost them to provide me with health insurance (small firms) before deciding whether to make a job offer to me … or not. One of the interviewers even took out a clipboard in my interview and started adding up salary and benefits in front of me to see what the total would be! It was uncalled for because I am fit, dress well, present well and wear a size 6-8. I can assure you that they don’t ask those kinds of questions to a 32 year-old in a job interview. And why should I compensate by telling them that I don’t want or need a health policy when they are providing it to their younger workforce?Of course, you millenials really have no idea about how overt discrimination feels because you have never experienced it … yet. That day will come and it might be sooner than you think.[/quote]
Ok so it sounds like you were a paralegal. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought most paralegals were interim positions for people that just finished their undergraduate and were looking for a mentorship program waiting to either go to Law School or pass the Bar; afterwards they can start practicing and move up to the Attorney ranks. Is this not true? If that’s the case, it would be better for an Attorney to hire someone who they believed would move up to within the firm. Someone that they could vest time into so they can move up the chain. Not sure if it is similar to Accountants, but when my wife was working at a Big 4 firm they started as Juniors, and Seniors, and moved up to a Manager once they passed their CPA exam. I’m not sure how the company would look at a Senior who would never move up to Manager or Senior Manager, but I think that if they compared a person who had the ability to move up within the organization it would be a significant advantage.[/quote]No. A paralegal is a position in a law firm unto itself. Paralegal Programs are typically “Certificate Programs” lasting 1-2 years and either confer an Associate Degree or no degree. The USD program does not confer a degree, nor were the (500 level) classes I took worth credits at any university. It is an occupational certificate program, requiring a bachelor’s degree to enter it. I didn’t have to produce one because I had letters from the required number of attorneys stating that I had X amount of experience in the field and knew what I was doing.
I have never been to law school but could very well possibly pass the CA bar exam . . . with a bit of studying beforehand, of course. In any case, I would not be allowed to sit for it and that ship sailed long ago.
Participant[quote=yamashi] . . . Then why do you keep complaining about age discrimination? Also not sure what the job was for, but if Spanish was a requirement then maybe you shouldn’t have applied; if wasn’t required, then the hiring manager must have thought that you were not worth the money they would be spending. I know a lot of people that don’t speak Spanish that do very very well living in San Diego. Also when it comes to hiring, companies spend money on the most qualified employees that will bring in the most money. If they are a cost center, they are looking for the most qualified that costs the least. Employees are similar to investments, and companies make decision on an ROI/NPV analysis. You always pick the one that will generate the highest ROI, or if you use NPV anything that generates > $0. Maybe you don’t get it as a boomer and believe in facetime and that the most senior positions belong to the oldest people in the building.[/quote]Oh, wow, you really DON’T get it. I have never applied for positions where Spanish was a “requirement.” But in my biz, if a SD job description doesn’t state it is a requirement, it is always “preferred.” And you’re damned straight that in my biz the most “senior positions” ARE occupied by the “oldest people in the building.” Usually people who are well past retirement age. And due to my experience level, the jobs I apply for typically answer to the “oldest people in the building.” That’s just how it is.
Participant[quote=yamashi] . . . BG, not sure why you didn’t get the job, nor what you applied for, but I’m sure there was a very good reason other than age. But if you feel that is the reason to help you sleep better than go for it! Personally, our generation doesn’t care about how you look or how you dress or any of that like your generation may have. Maybe in the position you were applying for it really didn’t matter. Maybe she dressed that way but she just graduated from Harvard Law at the top of her class. Maybe you were asking for too much…so much so that it was not even a break-even proposition. There are so many variables that are at play here that your points are not worth discussing.[/quote]I haven’t interviewed in a few years, yamashi, but it wasn’t just one job I interviewed for … it was several. I sat in the reception area with one or more of my “competition” so I had an idea of who that was.
You have a point about the law school graduate. Law firms will take a “green” law school graduate to do paralegal work over a paralegal with a lot of experience. Law school graduates (whether they have their bar card, or not) WILL work as paralegal because there are not enough attorney positions to go around and haven’t been for at least 15 years. The country is glutted with law school graduates. Part of the reason is that many attorneys stay with their firms long past the age of 65, taking up an “attorney” spot. I know I was discriminated against when (several years ago, before the ACA) I was asked in three different interviews, “How has your health been? and “Have you been healthy, lately?” They wanted to know how much it was going to cost them to provide me with health insurance (small firms) before deciding whether to make a job offer to me … or not. One of the interviewers even took out a clipboard in my interview and started adding up salary and benefits in front of me to see what the total would be! It was uncalled for because I am fit, dress well, present well and wear a size 6-8. I can assure you that they don’t ask those kinds of questions to a 32 year-old in a job interview. And why should I compensate by telling them that I don’t want or need a health policy when they are providing it to their younger workforce?
Of course, you millenials really have no idea about how overt discrimination feels because you have never experienced it … yet. That day will come and it might be sooner than you think.
February 24, 2016 at 3:28 PM in reply to: How will unfunded “pensions” affect the local economy? #794845Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Cap health care to 10% of the economy. Can easily be done through policy.
We should also retire in cheap locales — Pensacola, Panama, Puerto Rico, Costa Rica, etc… Good for those local economies and good for retirees. Change Medicare to cover medical expenses overseas.
I plan to buy a condo in Thailand (when the next financial crisis hits). On $2,000 per month (excluding housing) I can live very well. Just travel back and forth. Social security + income on 1 rental should cover it. I don’t even need to touch my principal.[/quote]More power to ya, FIH, but I don’t want to leave the country. If Trump becomes president, he states he plans on making all healthplans nationwide and portable (eliminating the state barriers among insurance carriers). That’s a great start but I think I’m going to contact my legislator about writing up a bill to introduce to the next Congress and administration to bring back HDHPs when the Repub Congress is in the middle of figuring out how to gut the ACA without too much disruption. For example, I didn’t sign up for “maternity benefits” or “autism coverage” for my child when I applied for my HDHP in 2004 and I don’t want to continue to pay for these services now. There are other services on my “ACA-compliant” healthplan that I don’t need and I don’t need as comprehensive of coverage as I have. I can deal with a $5K deductible and $12K OOP maximum and don’t need a “paternal” gubment to decide for me, otherwise. I want an affordable plan (without needing a “subsidy” to help pay for it where the gubment at all levels is constantly in my personal business, twice conducting unauthorized effing with my income and cancellation my plan), a good CHOICE of providers and NATIONWIDE coverage and am not alone. There are MANY people like myself who are on the road several weeks per year where anything can happen in the blink of an eye.
If I end up getting “roped into” lobbying in Sac or the like for healthplan “reform” in the wake of the ACA being piecemeal gutted, then so be it. I know how and there is a hotel room with my name on it waiting for me up there :=0
I feel very passionate about bringing back into CA all six health insurance carriers that defected at the end of 2013, in the wake of Obamacare :=)
I was registered as a dem for 25 years but I want to know WTH they were thinking when they passed the ACA. It is the most ridiculous, costly, poorly-thought-out piece of legislation that I have seen in my lifetime. From “ground zero,” its mechanics and moving parts are completely unworkable and are causing state gubments to actually run amok going “rogue” in their efforts to decide themselves who is and who isn’t eligible for a subsidy and how much. That decision was supposed to be the purview of the IRS but for the last two years, the hopelessly incompetent Covered CA has been taking it upon themselves to decide. It’s a comedy of errors which unfortunately has far-reaching ramifications, including effing up thousands of people’s lives. It’s a shining example of the “Peter Principle” in all its glory.
Everything should have been left alone and the people who had letters from carriers turning them down for coverage due to pre-existing conditions should have been able to use those letters to receive affordable coverage from the state insurance pool which EVERY carrier doing biz in the state is forced to join. I wouldn’t have minded a little added to my premium to get these people coverage. The gubment didn’t have to eff with the many thousands of OTHER existing individual policyholders. We were fine.
[end rant]
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]. . . Speaking Spanish or a foreign language is a huge competitive advantage. It may trump experience.![/quote]Yes, it absolutely is my biz in this region, FIH.
-
AuthorPosts
