Money makes the World go around...

GUITARIDOL5682 · Post by **GUITARIDOL5682** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:30 pm

NicDots wrote:What does it mean to be "over-qualified" and why does that keep you from getting a certain job?

I have since given up on finding work right now. I could find a really REALLY shitty minimum wage job right now, but it's just not worth it at the time. Hooray for living off savings.

Nic are you claiming any benefit/welfare while out of work ?. I'm just interested in how much you get when unemployed in the USA without any other benefits i.e poll tax or rent paid the UK give you £121.00 thats for 2 weeks, being single. You get more in different circumstances i.e if you are married with kids etc.

Cpt Matt Sparrow · Post by **Cpt Matt Sparrow** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:06 pm

Ritchie wrote:and they wondered how could i possibly buy " another" guitar , i just told them i did'nt smoke , did'nt drink , lived a basic and clean life .. boring to some , awesome to me !

Good on you Ritchie!

I believe what Abraham Lincoln said
"People are just about as happy as they make their mind up to be"

In SE London unemployed you get your rent paid enough to get a two bed apartment, council tax exception and a free bus pass. Spending money wise you get £60 odd quid.
So many people just do one or two days cash in hand on the quiet , add it to their unemployment money and live as well as many people working a full week.

Matt

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:36 pm

xx123456

NicDots · Post by **NicDots** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:17 pm

GUITARIDOL5682 wrote:
NicDots wrote:What does it mean to be "over-qualified" and why does that keep you from getting a certain job?

I have since given up on finding work right now. I could find a really REALLY shitty minimum wage job right now, but it's just not worth it at the time. Hooray for living off savings.
Nic are you claiming any benefit/welfare while out of work ?. I'm just interested in how much you get when unemployed in the USA without any other benefits i.e poll tax or rent paid the UK give you £121.00 thats for 2 weeks, being single. You get more in different circumstances i.e if you are married with kids etc.

No, I do not take welfare/unemployment. I cannot qualify for it because my parents paid for the current year in school I am in. That makes me a "dependent" as far as the government is concerned, which means that in theory, my parents will pay for my expenses.

I had a friend go on unemployment last year. I don't remember what she got, but it was definitely more than 121 pounds (or the US equivalent) every 2 weeks! I think she got maybe 900 or even 1000 every month. However, she had worked in two states for substantial time so she was able to collect her unemployment for both.
But seriously, the whole welfare system here is extremely confusing.

Sarab · Post by **Sarab** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 pm

NicDots wrote:What does it mean to be "over-qualified" and why does that keep you from getting a certain job?

I have since given up on finding work right now. I could find a really REALLY shitty minimum wage job right now, but it's just not worth it at the time. Hooray for living off savings.

Over-qualified meant that Best Buy wouldn't hire him as an Asst. Manager. He knew too much, I guess.

The government had just recently added $25.00 a month to unemployment as a part of the "stimulus package". I'm greatful for that, but this leads me to be concerned. Why would you add money (not that I'm complaining) to unemployment instead of creating more jobs, or have the money available to businesses to hire more people, or something like that? Makes no sense.

Paul Wolfe · Post by **Paul Wolfe** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:33 pm

They do the 'stimulus' thing because the people making the decisions have money and have no idea what it means to be unemployed. Their thought is that if they give you a little cash, you'll go spend it and help the store owners and product manufacturers in business by spending your money.

The problem is that they don't understand the ancient proverb: "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime."

Politicians - no matter how well intentioned - are out of touch with reality because they are not hurting for money. If a senator's pay were $50,000 a year or less (as opposed to the minimum $165,200), things would run much differently in the United States.

Sarab · Post by **Sarab** » Fri May 01, 2009 3:20 am

+1 Paul.

shanic · Post by **shanic** » Fri May 01, 2009 10:35 am

Paul Wolfe wrote:
Politicians - no matter how well intentioned - are out of touch with reality because they are not hurting for money. If a senator's pay were $50,000 a year or less (as opposed to the minimum $165,200), things would run much differently in the United States.

Personally I think that here politicians may start off with the best intentions but get lost in the madness of the job. There is something about giving people the power to make decisions at that level that bends people and moves the goal posts. There are often decisions made by politicians that are so removed from reality it is very hard to see where they are coming from. I don’t think it is the money they earn so much but the warped sense of responsibility they feel they have to enforce. Decisions start to be made on a monetary level instead of the human level. It may go like this “What is the best thing for the country”; generally that means how can I stimulate the economy not how can I look after the people in my country.

shanic · Post by **shanic** » Fri May 01, 2009 10:55 am

Sarab wrote:The government had just recently added $25.00 a month to unemployment as a part of the "stimulus package". I'm greatful for that, but this leads me to be concerned. Why would you add money (not that I'm complaining) to unemployment instead of creating more jobs, or have the money available to businesses to hire more people, or something like that? Makes no sense.

This is something that I have talked about with an economist friend of mine I cannot claim to understand all that was said some of it went way over my head. But the jist of it I believe was if there is no one buying product from a firm then there is no way that the business can keep afloat. So that means the government gives money to support business when in fact there is no real demand for that company it goes under the employees end up on social welfare. No growth for the economy, like walking to a fire and burning your tax payer’s money. When you give money to the people that may go to a company and buy some product a company can keep their workers and stimulate the economy at the same time (the employees have money to spend as well now). The money goes into business via a different route and actually gets reinvested into the economy stimulating growth.

Ehh yeah anyway something like that kind of made sense at the time. I’m not saying that it is the way to go about it but just that is how it was explained to me.

Paul Wolfe · Post by **Paul Wolfe** » Fri May 01, 2009 3:04 pm

The stimulus concept works on a short-term level. The problem in the States is that so many companies mismanaged themselves. By giving CEOs and executives hundreds of thousands, even millions in salaries, the capital needed to keep the business afloat was tied up in salary. The execs and CEOs don't care, because the money is in their pocket already. Granted, not all businesses are run this way, but the ones causing the recession are.

Now, for the government to give a long-term solution, why not increase taxes for only those making $100,000 or more a year? What about a straight 10% income tax? Those folks "earning" (I use the term loosely) millions in compensation would give back to the people supporting them. What about laws eliminating the loopholes that allow 'signing bonuses' and tax shelters? Is it unfair to expect those who have swindled their way into big bucks to give back to those of us who do the actual work in this country?

The othe problem with the stimulus and bailout money is that it has to be paid back - by the taxpayers struggling now. This will only deepen the depression.

Paul Wolfe · Post by **Paul Wolfe** » Tue May 05, 2009 5:52 pm

It is things like this that the United States government needs to crack down on. Corporations and individuals who utilize foreign bank accounts to avoid paying taxes. The greedy need to start contributing to this country before the poor get fed up to the point of revolution.