Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CoronitaParticipantI just put in my request to my boss to see if I could be furlowed on Friday or Monday to save the company money. He didn’t understand why. I explained it to him. He still didn’t believe it. I explained it to him again. He then submitted my request to SMt and requested to be furlowed himself one day. His argument is not every SMT needs to be working 5 days. We will see what happens. I wouldn’t be surprised if every SMT ends up furlowing themselves for one day. There’s roughly 5-6 SMTs in CA, and they could alternate their furlow day so there is at is only 1 less SMT each day…. That’s around a $6000/week cost savings right there. For a big company, this isn’t a lot. For a small company, these small cost savings add up and could make a big difference if a customer continues to defer purchases or payments. No lease + 6000/month cost savings with very little hit to productivity at just one office location.
.. I’m such a troublemaker.I do need to spend some time looking for replacement work…someone who would hire me exactly 1 day per week, paying me what I make for that 1 day/week for work.. um, ok I’ll try and ask. Wish me luck. lol. For the rest of my time during that furlow day, I’ll be restoring my cars. I have a $1050 budget for it, more than I originally had.lol.
Hey, SMT did ask people for ways to save the company money…This is one way. I’m a problem solver, and they paid me to think of solutions when problems arise.
Weren’t we taking about on another thread about taking a mortgage forbearance to save cash?
This is even better. Paid more to not work….To conserve company cash while not impacting workers…$4200/month of pay for not working for up to 39 weeks, assuming it doesn’t get extended which it most likely will.
Maybe some have it right. Maybe others should pay more taxes so some of us can get paid more for not working..Maybe I’ll vote for Harris after all, lol.
CoronitaParticipantAre you sure you really want to back out of an Arizona property?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tsmc-build-chip-plant-arizona-185039746.html
Seems like Arizona is in this administration’s good graces and should benefit form any sort of pork that comes out of this administration. Seems like more jobs coming to Arizona.
“TSMC to Build Chip Plant in Arizona With Government Support”(Bloomberg) — Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. is planning to build a multibillion-dollar chip plant in Arizona, a potential realignment of global trade designed to allay U.S. concerns over supply chain security.The Taiwanese company is negotiating a deal with the administration of President Donald Trump to manufacture semiconductors in the U.S. to create jobs and produce sensitive components domestically for national security reasons, according to people familiar with the situation. Talks have been progressing swiftly in recent days and an announcement could come as early as Friday, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the deal is not public yet.
“We are now actively evaluating the U.S. fab plan,” TSMC Chairman Mark Liu said on a recent analyst conference call, referring to fabs, the industry term for chip factories. “There is a cost gap, which is hard to accept at this point. Of course, we have — we are doing a lot of things to reduce that cost gap.”
TSMC is the largest and most advanced maker of chips for other companies. Its factories, which are primarily located in Taiwan, produce important components designed by Apple Inc. and most of the largest semiconductor companies, including Qualcomm Inc., Nvidia Corp., Advanced Micro Devices Inc. and China’s Huawei Technologies Co. That makes TSMC a crucial part of many electronic devices, such as smartphones, laptops and servers running the internet, and corporate and government computer networks.An agreement would call for TSMC to build a plant in Arizona by 2023, according to the people. It’s unclear what type of support the project will get from the federal government or the state of Arizona.
A cutting-edge fab is expensive to build. TSMC spent NT$500 billion ($17 billion) to build an advanced facility in the southern Taiwanese city of Tainan that will churn out components for new iPhones this year. It plans another $16 billion in capital spending this year.
If the federal government provides cash for a U.S. plant, it’ll mark a shift in policy and rhetoric from a Republican administration. Trump’s White House has rarely supported such direct industrial intervention, favoring market dynamics. However, emerging trends may be forcing a reconsideration. The U.S. government is already giving or lending billions of dollars to keep companies afloat in the midst of a pandemic-fueled recession. The crisis has also highlighted how vulnerable global supply chains are to such shocks.
Semiconductor companies have not really slowed down due to covid, at least not yet. And neither has their stock price…
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSM
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMD
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/INTC
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AVGO
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NVDA
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/QCOMSemiconductors are critical to high tech supply chain. Asking a US company to build something from the ground up is not feasible (Intel is the only US company that still has a fab). However, getting Taiwan Semiconductor (who is #1) who is also a U.S. ally might actually work… Because TSM would have a vested interest to have a fab on US soil if it means skirting future import tariffs. And sensitive chips used for military and communications could be securely done here, instead of overseas. It could be a win for both US and Taiwan.
I’m biased. Maybe if you were talking about a rental property in Nevada, I would say hell no, back out. But seems like Arizona and Colorado…I don’t know. The probably aren’t getting hit as hard.
CoronitaParticipantHey, so if I now dedicate an entire room to a home office, and since it’s now a workplace requirement to have a home office, I should be able to have some deductible home office expenses now, right?
Furniture, utilities (electricity, internet, cell phone), part of the cost of the home, for dedicating a home office room itself right?
https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/filing/home-office-deductions-coronavirus/
You qualify for a home office deduction if you:1. Use part of your home regularly and exclusively for work
2. Conduct the majority of business from your home office
3. Prove your home office is for the convenience of your employer
4. Refrain from renting any space of your home to your employer for work- related services.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Lol. More covid financial benefits…
CoronitaParticipant[quote=svelte][quote=Coronita]Lol, so things get even weirder….Just in from todays SMT meeting….Since everyone has more or less been working from home/remotely since March, and generally things have worked out ok for us….SMT decided to further save money. We’re not renewing our commercial lease here in SD… We’re going to be 100% remote for the rest of this year. [/quote]
Wow.
But it does make sense.
However, probably the BIGGEST reason to do the above is not to save rent money – it is to minimize liability of COVID running rampant at the office. From what I’ve read companies aren’t too worried about being sued by their employees because there are limitations on that…what they are worried about is the employee getting it at the office and transmitting it to someone else who is not an employee who then in turn sues the company.[/quote]
Maybe.. I think our lease is around $15k/month. So maybe it’s a little of both. It’s not exactly the most expensive expense. There’s also a bunch of incidentals, like running a corporate network, utilities, office perks, keeping an office manager. It adds up. I think we’re going to be taking office furniture home and the office computer(s). I call shotgun on the foosball table and the beanbags
CoronitaParticipantLol, so things get even weirder….Just in from todays SMT meeting….Since everyone has more or less been working from home/remotely since March, and generally things have worked out ok for us….SMT decided to further save money. We’re not renewing our commercial lease here in SD… We’re going to be 100% remote for the rest of this year. The rational is, we’ve done fine working from home, and maintaining an office in SD is expensive, and since god knows when the lockdown will end, we’re just paying rent for unused office when everyone is working from home. Our lease ends in May, and we pulled the plug on renewing.
Like I said, commericial RE is going to have big problem. REITs might be in trouble..
CoronitaParticipant[quote=teaboy][quote=Coronita]So……Here’s something funny that happened at work. We had to furlow some people at work for 1/day per week back in end of March, or reduce their hours by 8hours/week[/quote]
Question.. are those employees exempt or hourly? If they’re exempt, why did your company have to cut their hours at all?
I’m exempt and my total pay was reduced by my company by 7%, without any formal reduction in my hours.
tb[/quote]
It was done to both exempt and non exempt employees. For several of exempt employees, the hours were reduced to 32 hours/4 day work weeks, and consequently reducing pay by 20% (1 day of pay). SMT didn’t feel it was fair just to cut their pay and still continue to expect people to work the same hours (Me, in particular objected to this idea along with many others in the leadership team. Yes team, you’re welcome)… So we went to a 4 day work week in CA and in out of state offices for some of us. And 32 hours is the minimum to maintain a full-time status that would qualify for all the employee benefits medical/dental/vision/life/disability/etcetceetc for exempt employees without having to change the employee benefits. We thought this was the fairest way to handle things. And plus a few of us thought the state+federal government would eventually throw folks a bone and make up for the income shortfalls.
By actually reducing hours and pay, it would qualify the employer/employee under the the CA “Worksharing” program that our company applied and was approved for.
https://www.edd.ca.gov/unemployment/Work_Sharing_Program.htm
It was done to preempt a cash flow issue if more customers deferred their purchases or deferred paying us, some of which indicated they were skipping March – May (some that now have come back and said things will resume in June/July)….I guess our senior management team figured it was better to dump the problem onto the state/federal UI benefit program. And it turns out, at least for our CA employees, everyone seem to be getting more back from the state+federal UI insurance then if they were to be working the 5th day. Almost everyone is getting the full $1050/week, because the extra $600 from the federal government is not capped by income reduction, it’s all or nothing… So they are coming out ahead each week about $300-500 per week, because very few engineers and product managers make $1050/day, lol
So… Go from a 5 day to 4 day work week, get paid more for the 5th furlow day than work…And June/July timeframe, resume business as usual when PO’s start coming in (or if not, extend the furlow day until they do)…from an employee’s perspective, what is there to complain about again??? Nothing….. Lol
The only real problem is now that we got customer orders coming in and customers paying again, we actually need some people back right away, and trying to ask people volunteer to come back is getting slow traction… I don’t blame people.
It’s kinda funny. It’s not like we were trying to game the system. But sometimes, the system’s game just plays out in unexpected ways. Some people aren’t just doing as well, they actually are doing better , lol.
CoronitaParticipantSo……Here’s something funny that happened at work. We had to furlow some people at work for 1/day per week back in end of March, or reduce their hours by 8hours/week, just because some of our customers postponed their purchasing decision for about 3 months, and because our senior execs wanted to be careful about a prolonged economic downturn.
Originally a bunch of people that were furlowed for one day/week were all upset…But after folks started putting their heads together, all the sudden they were happy to be furlowed that 1 day/week.
Why? Simple… People were paid more by current UI benefits than they made if they worked that 5th day, even engineers and product managers. Let me explain.
Right now for CA employees, there are two unemployment benefits
1. California Benefit: Up to $450/week for reduced hours. This portion is capped, based on how much your income was reduced by2. Federal Benefit: $600/week for reduced hours. This is a lump sum payment, and it doesn’t matter if your earnings were reduced by $10000/week , $1000/wk, or $10/week. You get $600/week for any reduced earnings.
So in CA, a person is eligible for $1050/week, $600 is guaranteed, $450 is capped by your reduction in weekly income.
Fast forward to engineers/product managers/etc that were furlowed for 1 day…. Engineers/product managers/etc don’t typically make $1050 per day. But they typically make more than $450/day. So they get the entire state benefit (that would have been salaried capped)…And they also get the $600 lump sum federal benefit.
So basically, for those folks that were furlowed for 1 day, they were paid $1050 by both federal/state UI benefits, more than they earned if they worked that day as an engineer or product manager. Lol.
The problem is, now that we got a lot of customers that suddenly want our product in June/July, all those furlowed people don’t want to get unfurlowed. They’d rather keep working with a 4/day work week until the 39 week UI benefits ends….I’m now hearing: “pick me, pick me. I want to get furlowed 1 day per week” ….If we need to do more 1-day furlows, I’m definitely volunteering…..I’ll take a 4 day work week while getting paid like a 5 day work week, any day.
So for some, not only did they not have an income reduction due to Coronavirus, they actually had an earnings increase due to Coronavirus.. Viva La United States of France… Lol.
CoronitaParticipant.
CoronitaParticipant[quote=The-Shoveler]Wow almost worth moving LOL.[/quote]
It’s at least worth considering taking up a residence there so you can register cars that normally won’t pass CARB 🙂
500+hp, weight distribution 1% more up front at 53%/47%, 2600 lbs with a tank of gas…about the same weight as an FRS. It’s as close to a tubular kit car a real production car is going to get
Price is kinda steep..It’s $50k plus you need to provide a Miata chassis, which will.run about $15-20k. So about a $70k kit car that could be daily driven. The used price of a C7 Z06 is around $50+60k and CA and street legal. So…… Not many people want to pony up to build one..I would one, lol.
There’s a 430 hp version that is CARB legal in first generation Miata, but many people do that. If I can find a cheap enough NA Miata and cheap enough used LS1 motor, that might be my next project.
CoronitaParticipant[quote=The-Shoveler]Flyer,
If I understand your situation correctly you do not live in CA or pay taxes here.
I don’t think you are in position to say what CA should or should not do.[/quote]
Meh, unless you have the cliff notes version of what he said said, I am listening to the advice of others who have already done the same…using the ignore list. lol. He can demonstrate taking things personally all he wants, just proved what others already know, lol…
Colorado is a beautiful state. Awesome outdoor and skiing. Besides winter skiing, did some serious sometime summer camp track time out there. No CARB emissions regulations. That’s how Flying Miata can stuff a LS V8 motor into a Miata and still be street legal. Can’t do it here .
at willow springs
Keith Tanner is a really nice guy at FM, btw.
Definitely high on the list of places I could see myself after my kid goes off to college and when I am retired. It actually makes sense because post retirement to be in a state with low to no state income tax, when the bulk of income is off of dividend and investment income. Oregon is nice too.
I don’t understand the attraction of Nevada. It’s cheap but that’s about it.
I’m liking Elon Musk more and more each day. Hard working , smart, a doer not a talker, unlike politicians.
CoronitaParticipantHave you seen the fight Musk is having with CA/Alameda?
Colorado is looking better and better alternative to CA. Business friendly and pretty socially liberal. It’s like California without all the crazy progressives that can’t manage money.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tweet-tesla-hq-colorado-2020-5
It’s also a beautiful state. Maybe I’ll end up being a CA refugee there. Lol. Plus, they are the home of one of my favorite companies. Flyin Miata, lol.
CoronitaParticipantThe admissions process for STEM related majors is really broken . Gone are the days are universities really trying to take only the best and more qualified candidates. In the move for more diversity , some kids who are you cookie cutter white or asian male student will get cut, simply because there’s too many white or asian male engineers and stem career related individuals. The odds of my kid being able to get in have gone significantly up because of her gender , versus if I had a biological son all else being equal. Sorry, that’s reality. It’s not to say one gender is less capable than others. far from it. It’s saying university administrators are biasing admissions to settle diversity scores. Great if your kid falls into one of the diversity categories, totally sucks if your kid is one of the ones excluded through no fault of their own. This is why many of us were fighting against bullshit things like SCA-5 a few years ago…though, technically this isn’t fully my fight. My kid could, if she wanted to, probably play the gender diversity card a few years from now for a STEM related major. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s easier for her to get into school under an engineering program versus a fine art program, even though I could see her more likely to want to do fine art than engineering. That would be pretty phucked up too.
CoronitaParticipantI’m of the opinion that now that many state universities are going to be remote instructions, there really shouldn’t be a reason to limit class enrollment especially for freshman year. Most of the freshman classes are general classes anyway, and could be used as a weeding out process so that those that can’t keep up flunk out and either drop out completely or transfer to an easier major. There’s absolutely no reason to restrict admissions to anyone with a gpa of 4.0 and stellar SAT score whose parents are able and willing to pay….especially since many of the state schools will have a big revenue shortfall for lack of on campus attendence.
Denying a kid with a 4.0gpa and good SAT score at even a not so top rank university is just bullshit.
CoronitaParticipant[quote=outtamojo]I have a sneaking suspicion that when your parents have a degree and are relatively affluent,college admissions to some schools are stacked against you.[/quote]
slight correction
“I have a sneaking suspicion that when your parents have a degree and are relatively affluent and you are white or asian male student, even with a 4.0+ gpa, college admissions are stacked against you.”
There. Fixed it for you.
I guess in my case, my kid can use the gender wild card to tilt the odds back in the center, maybe. I mean even out side of California, since she biologically is that way… In calfornia, technically you could claim whatever you want, right? That’s one of the reasons why Allstate no longer uses gender to determine auto insurance rates. My agent shared the internal email about the change lol
-
AuthorPosts
