The jobs story is worse than it looks

[scooterbug44]

Yes, if you are offered a job while on unemployment you do have to take it.

But it's not like they show up at your door and drag you off to flip burgers. You send in resumes and interview for jobs IN YOUR FIELD and then if you are offered one, you do have to accept it or stop getting benefits.

Are you talking about unemployment benefits or other assistance programs? Most recent graduates are not eligible for unemployment due to lack of prior employment.

Other assistance programs may in fact require that if any job is available you have to take it - beggers can't be choosers.

Sorry, but someone in their late 50s who has been making 500K a year and is retiring early with benefits while their spouse still has a job is not my biggest concern.

The households where kids are hungry, they have no insurance, and they are losing their homes rank quite a bit higher.

 

[Beach Runner]

See comments in caps below.

Yes, if you are offered a job while on unemployment you do have to take it.

But it's not like they show up at your door and drag you off to flip burgers. You send in resumes and interview for jobs IN YOUR FIELD and then if you are offered one, you do have to accept it or stop getting benefits.

Are you talking about unemployment benefits or other assistance programs? Most recent graduates are not eligible for unemployment due to lack of prior employment. OUR DAUGHTER WORKED AT IN RETAIL WHILE AT GEORGIA TECH. MAYBE WE GOT BAD ADVICE AT THE UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE.

Other assistance programs may in fact require that if any job is available you have to take it - beggers can't be choosers.

Sorry, but someone in their late 50s who has been making 500K a year and is retiring early with benefits while their spouse still has a job is not my biggest concern. THE BENEFITS WERE HEALTH INSURANCE AND ONE YEAR'S SALARY, YET THEY ARE OUT OF THE JOB MARKET FOR TWO YEARS DUE TO NON-COMPETE. THESE GUYS' WIVES DON'T WORK OUTSIDE THE HOME EXCEPT FOR VOLUNTEER WORK. YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT STILL IF YOU HAVE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS THAT YOU HAD PLANNED TO TAKE CARE OF BY 65 AND YOU ARE 55 WITH NO INCOME, YOU STILL HAVE THOSE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS. CAN'T SELL A HOUSE IN THIS MARKET (NO SALES IN OUR TOWN FOR HOUSES OVER $100,000 IN TWO YEARS). DON'T YOU BUY INTO THE AMERICAN DREAM? THAT IF YOU GET A GOOD EDUCATION (EVEN IF IT MEANS BEING ON FOOD STAMPS) AND WORK HARD TO BE SUCCESSFUL, YOU WILL LIVE OUT YOUR DREAM? SURELY YOU CAN RELATE TO THIS -- YOU KNOW WHEN YOU ARE 20 AND CAN'T IMAGINE BEING 30? SAME FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE 55 WHO ARE THINKING ABOUT BEING 65. ACTUALLY IT'S WORSE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE 55 BECAUSE 10 YEARS AS A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR LIFE (18%) GOES BY MUCH MORE QUICKLY THAN FOR SOMEONE WHO IS 20 (50%). IT'S HARD TO GRASP THAT AT YOUR AGE.


The households where kids are hungry, they have no insurance, and they are losing their homs rank quite a bit higher. I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT CAN YOU SEE MY POINTS?

 

[scooterbug44]

If she had worked retail and claimed benefits from it, then she would have to accept a similar job/pay scale. You aren't allowed to be too good for the same job you had before and keep getting paid benefits.

I'm not saying it doesn't suck, just that it is a pretty normal way for things to go in corporate America.

Your husband is getting health insurance and is being paid $500K to not officially* work in his field for 2 years. 99.99% of the world would gladly trade places with him and do not think of this as a horrible tragedy that negates the American dream. Most of Sowal would do it for 1/10th that pay and the health insurance.

*corporate America also knows how to circumvent this by following the letter of the law, not the spirit. A "hiring bonus" or something similar and not officially starting work until the non-compete expires are also quite normal.

 

[Beach Runner]

If she had worked retail and claimed benefits from it, then she would have to accept a similar job/pay scale. You aren't allowed to be too good for the same job you had before and keep getting paid benefits.

I'm not saying it doesn't suck, just that it is a pretty normal way for things to go in corporate America.

Your husband is getting health insurance and is being paid $500K to not officially* work in his field for 2 years. 99.99% of the world would gladly trade places with him and do not think of this as a horrible tragedy that negates the American dream. Most of Sowal would do it for 1/10th that pay and the health insurance.

*corporate America also knows how to circumvent this by following the letter of the law, not the spirit. A "hiring bonus" or something similar and not officially starting work until the non-compete expires are also quite normal.

I am talking about friends of ours, not my husband who is very successfully employed.

I know that several of our friends have taken jobs that supposedly circumvented the non-compete clause. The corporation's New York City lawyers have gone after them with a vengeance. Our friends can't afford to pay lawyers who can compete with these high-end lawyers.

It stinks. But no matter how bad someone has it, many people have it much worse. But does that mean that one can't have empathy for them all? Pepper had a seizure on Monday. Someone's dog probably died on Monday? But can't you have empathy for the owners of the dog with seizures?

 

[scooterbug44]

Sorry, I misread.

Yes, but obviously I feel much worse for the person whose dog has died than the one who is complaining that their caviar & filet mignon dog food is being discontinued.