 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:18:04 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> If costs come down, that's a good thing, right?
>>>
>>> When you open your coffee shop and expand to the point you need
>>> employees, are you going to give them health care? If so, good for
>>> you.
>> What if I instead allowed him to work overtime, put out a tip jar, or
>> sleep in the storage closet so that he could provide for his own
>> health-care? That wouldn't do, would it?
>
> No, because the cost of health care is high enough that at minimum wage,
> you'd never actually earn enough to afford it.
Not true for a young person. Now, he's not going to have health
insurance + car + his own apartment + cigarettes + beer, but $300 a
month will get insurance + yearly deductible + copays.
I'm not talking about minimum wage anyway. I'm talking about minimum
wage + tips, overtime, or a cot.
>
> Plus if he's working overtime to make the money to afford it, and gets
> sick, he needs to take time off (would you give him paid time off?) to go
> to the doctor.
There's no need for paid time off. When at work, I work 84 hours a week.
A person can make a trip to the doctor and still get 40-50 work hours
out of 84.
Now if the guy gets a flu and is bedridden for a week, I'll pay him if
he's worth the expense to keep, but I don't owe someone a new kidney
just because he mops my floor.
>
> Would you give him paid time off to do preventative health tasks?
Better yet, why don't I give him paid time off to work a second job?
Then he could afford plenty of preventative health care.
-Shay - who actually spent years working for minimum wage and less.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:24:02 -0500, Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
>
>Not working offshore, but still roughnecking. This will be my last job.
>I do not accept promotions (a non-issue at the moment due to the state
>of the industry :)) and have no desire to ever again lease my intellect
>to an employer or customer.
>
>My wife and I do have a tiny hobby/business, the facetious goal of which
>is to make back the $140 a month pay-cut I recently received. More than
>that would involve disengaging from intense, but non-$$ personal
>endeavors -- I'll report on one of these in November.
>
>Beyond that, I do have the intention of one day owning a coffee shop or
>small restaurant, though I won't do this until I can pay cash for the
>business. I save aggressively, so this isn't as outlandish as it sounds.
>
> -
Good to hear from you again. The oil industry is not one for ever especially if
you don't like the responsibility of telling people what to do. I used to carry
my own tools ;)
I hope that your future business does well but if you don't have much experience
in catering it might be a good idea to get a job in it first. (My brother-in-law
is a chef and he tells some horror stories about owners full of good intentions
but no experience. It is a business after all and you should make money ;)
Anyway report back in November and start posting some of your images when you
can.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>> WE need to to take more from the tax-payers.
>>> WE need to control industry.
>>
>> If we controlled the banking system, that would probably be a good idea.
>>
>
> Replace WE with GWB and imagine where you might be in a few years. If
> GWB controlled the banking system ...
Uh, no. I'm talking about the federal reserve making monetary policy. By
"we" I mean "the government."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:29:44 -0500, Shay wrote:
>> No, because the cost of health care is high enough that at minimum
>> wage, you'd never actually earn enough to afford it.
>
> Not true for a young person. Now, he's not going to have health
> insurance + car + his own apartment + cigarettes + beer, but $300 a
> month will get insurance + yearly deductible + copays.
The young people you know are pretty atypical, unless you're talking
about kids still living with their parents. In which case that saves you
money because they're still covered by their parents' insurance.
> I'm not talking about minimum wage anyway. I'm talking about minimum
> wage + tips, overtime, or a cot.
Yeah, and I'm sure that will still not be enough for them to afford a
decent plan.
>> Plus if he's working overtime to make the money to afford it, and gets
>> sick, he needs to take time off (would you give him paid time off?) to
>> go to the doctor.
>
> There's no need for paid time off. When at work, I work 84 hours a week.
> A person can make a trip to the doctor and still get 40-50 work hours
> out of 84.
Ah, so you're a bloody slave driver. Gotcha. Remind me NEVER to work
for you.
> Now if the guy gets a flu and is bedridden for a week, I'll pay him if
> he's worth the expense to keep, but I don't owe someone a new kidney
> just because he mops my floor.
But at the same time, you pay him not quite enough for him to live if he
can't afford the kidney operation. Let's see, kidney operation or
eating. Kidney operation or paying the rent.
Nice compassion.
>> Would you give him paid time off to do preventative health tasks?
>
> Better yet, why don't I give him paid time off to work a second job?
> Then he could afford plenty of preventative health care.
>
> -Shay - who actually spent years working for minimum wage and less.
You ain't the only one whose worked for minimum wage and less.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Now if the guy gets a flu and is bedridden for a week, I'll pay him if
>> he's worth the expense to keep, but I don't owe someone a new kidney
>> just because he mops my floor.
>
> But at the same time, you pay him not quite enough for him to live if he
> can't afford the kidney operation. Let's see, kidney operation or
> eating. Kidney operation or paying the rent.
>
> Nice compassion.
>
The employee and I have a contract. He sells me his time and effort at
an agreed price. Many believe the way you do: that because I have a
contract with my employee, I owe him whatever YOU believe he may need
for a "complete" life. That's ludicrous.
What if, instead of an employee, he were a vendor. Would I be
discompassionate if I did not pay enough for his goods that he could
afford insurance, housing, transportation, etc.
The employee is selling labor, the vendor goods. The ONLY difference is
that I can hold the vendor's product in my hand. But that's against
years of programming, isn't it? Employees are a majority and employers
are a minority, so every election cycle, the candidates sell the idea to
people like yourself that the employer owes the employee more and more.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>
> Good to hear from you again. The oil industry is not one for ever especially if
> you don't like the responsibility of telling people what to do. I used to carry
> my own tools ;)
Thanks.
"No, when I go to sea, I go as a simple sailor, right before the mast,
plumb down into the forecastle, aloft there to the royal mast-head.
True, they rather order me about some, and make me jump from spar to
spar, like a grasshopper in a May meadow. And at first, this sort of
thing is unpleasant enough. It touches one's sense of honor,
particularly if you come of an old established family in the land, the
van Rensselaers, or Randolphs, or Hardicanutes. And more than all, if
just previous to putting your hand into the tar-pot, you have been
lording it as a country schoolmaster, making the tallest boys stand in
awe of you. The transition is a keen one, I assure you, from the
schoolmaster to a sailor, and requires a strong decoction of Seneca and
the Stoics to enable you to grin and bear it. But even this wears off in
time." -Melville
> I hope that your future business does well but if you don't have much experience
> in catering it might be a good idea to get a job in it first. (My brother-in-law
> is a chef and he tells some horror stories about owners full of good intentions
> but no experience. It is a business after all and you should make money ;)
Wife's got 16 years experience. She would run the coffee shop; I'd hold
the purse. :) And though it should indeed make money, it wouldn't *have*
to. I'm not counting on it for my livelihood.
> Anyway report back in November and start posting some of your images when you
> can.
>
No more images from me, though I have been piddling around with some
re-renders. I'll post any if they're fresh enough to be interesting to
those who have seen the originals.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>> No, because the cost of health care is high enough that at minimum
>> wage, you'd never actually earn enough to afford it.
>
> Not true for a young person. Now, he's not going to have health
> insurance + car + his own apartment + cigarettes + beer, but $300 a
> month will get insurance + yearly deductible + copays.
I don't know how long it's been since you've worked for minimum wage,
but a few quick numbers here might help.
Minimum wage: ~$8.50/hr
Work week: 40 hours (w/o overtime, which many employers actively forbid)
Weekly wages: $340
Taxes: $120
Rent: $100
Utilities: $30
Food: $50
Remainder: $40/wk, or $180 / month.
So if you sit in a concrete room, never go anywhere or do anything (and
forget listening to music, reading books, or buying clothes even), then
you STILL can't afford even a basic health plan.
Oh, and that's without factoring in retirement accounts. Because, you
know, people have to save for retirement rather than expect the
government to take care of them.
Yeah, great system we have here.
Oh, and did I mention that many employers these days, aside from
forbidding overtime, also purposefully limit the hours their employees
work so that scheduling problems are easier to solve if they fire
somebody? Many minimum wage jobs are only 20 hours a week, so you can
turn off the electricity and forget about eating.
I'm not saying that healthcare should be free to anyone; but I do think
a certain amount of healthcare should be affordable to everyone. What
that amount is, and how much it ultimately will cost, is a separate subject.
As it is, though, our current system causes a great deal of unnecessary
expense. It works like this:
The poor cannot afford healthcare.
They never go to the doctor, missing out on preventive care and education.
They get sick, but attempt to treat themselves.
Many of them get better.
Some get sicker, until they are forced to admit themselves to an
Emergency Room (the costliest form of healthcare available).
The ER treats them.
The patient cannot pay.
Insurance companies (and the government) are forced to pay for the
treatments.
Now, we could eliminate a large number of those costs by providing
preventive care and education to a greater number of people. Every
dollar spent that way would save more money later by avoiding emergency
treatments. Even if the government paid for the whole thing (which I
don't think they should), it would save money in the long run, and so
would be fiscally advisable. Is that really such a bad thing?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So, you believe that Government is inherently evil and that, given the
opportunity, those in power will take every chance they get to screw you
in every conceivable fashion just to piss you off?
Sorry, but I don't believe that. Government is no more evil than
Corporations or Individuals.
And your cynicism isn't going to stop me from casting my vote to shape
Government into a powerful force for good. I'm aware that I'll never
entirely succeed, but that doesn't mean I can't witness occasional
victories, does it?
If you honestly believe Government is so evil, you should put your money
where your mouth is and live on a boat in international waters.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Replace WE with GWB and imagine where you might be in a few years. If
> GWB controlled the banking system ...
>
> Bet you don't like the sound of that.
Guess what?
SOMEone controls the banking system. It's a fact of life.
SOMEone controls the insurance industry (ok, a group of someones).
Right now, those someones have screwed over the American public. Just
for the sake of argument, would replacing those private someones with
public someones who are checked by transparency and accountability
really be that bad of an idea? After all, it would really be placing a
limit on their power (and their ability to screw us all).
Since you seem to have an inherent distrust of power, I'm surprised
you're not arguing for more regulation like that.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Beyond that, I do have the intention of one day owning a coffee shop or
> small restaurant, though I won't do this until I can pay cash for the
> business. I save aggressively, so this isn't as outlandish as it sounds.
Let us know when you do. If I'm ever in the area, I'd love to stop by
for a cup of coffee :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
