Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why didn't you? Others did/have. And if your story is true this was in the late 70s, not the best of times but not nearly as bad as it has been for some the last few years.
I transferred within the company I was working at to another branch in the Puget Sound. I then arranged over the phone to rent an apartment before I moved and sent a check (couldn't do that today). The cost was prohibitive. It was almost $1500 for first, last, and security to rent the apartment. It cost $800 to rent the U-Haul and trailer to pull my truck and then so much per mile, I can't remember exactly what. Fortunately, gas wasn't nearly as high then as it is now. A motel room for one night was actually reasonable and I ate cheap.
I figured I spent between $2500 and $2800 moving. That's a lot of money and I'm glad I had it when I needed it. I moved because my rent went up from $450/month to $800/month, just like that. It wasn't the job so much as the lower rents that I moved for.
Moving is expensive and if you don't have a job, a place to live, relatives or friends to help you out when you get there, or money enough to tide you over for a while, it's very difficult to relocate.
I transferred within the company I was working at to another branch in the Puget Sound. I then arranged over the phone to rent an apartment before I moved and sent a check (couldn't do that today). The cost was prohibitive. It was almost $1500 for first, last, and security to rent the apartment. It cost $800 to rent the U-Haul and trailer to pull my truck and then so much per mile, I can't remember exactly what. Fortunately, gas wasn't nearly as high then as it is now. A motel room for one night was actually reasonable and I ate cheap.
I figured I spent between $2500 and $2800 moving. That's a lot of money and I'm glad I had it when I needed it. I moved because my rent went up from $450/month to $800/month, just like that. It wasn't the job so much as the lower rents that I moved for.
Moving is expensive and if you don't have a job, a place to live, relatives or friends to help you out when you get there, or money enough to tide you over for a while, it's very difficult to relocate.
Sure, it's difficult. It's not impossible. And 37 years is a good chunk of time during which to come up with an executable plan, IMO.
At 65 he will have Medicare, and Medicaid will pay his Medicare B premium (~$150/mo?). Depending on where the qualifying income cutoff is, Medicaid might also pay the excess medical costs not paid by Medicare. (In Oregon, $1000/mo income would qualify him for payment of the Medicare B premium but not for the 20% not covered by Medicare.)
If he doesn't qualify for the full Medicare subsidy, a Medigap policy would cost him (in Oregon) about $150 per month, so add that to his $363 monthly expense.
If he works, he would rapidly lose most or all of his SNAP, so working would have to pay at least $500 per month to make sense financially (~$150 for Medicare B, ~$150 for Medigap policy, ~$194 for food). .
Un-believable.
It has to "make financial sense" for someone to work and start pulling the cart instead of being in the cart and feeding at the trough thanks to the largesse of taxpayers.
If the handout is more than what one would get by working, the handout is too generous.
Lots of like minds in this thread; we need a net but it would be nice if it wasn't abused much. Unfortunately policing aid programs with a heavy hand has a bad track record also; people who deserve help are inadvertently turned away or don't try to get the help they qualify for because they think they will be turned away. And before anyone says that's their own fault, I know that but a good safety net will help those people. It is often that sort of thinking that got them in need to begin with so if we have decided we aren't going to let them live in boxes and starve we have to keep the barriers somewhat low for them to request help.
Are you familiar with how governmental budgets work? If you are the head of a department, you make certain that you spend every cent you have been budgeted, no matter what. If you buy things you don't need then discard them later, that is business as usual. You build unnecessary things into your budget, and you spend that money too. Then when recessions come along and you must cut, you reduce or eliminate some of your unnecessary line items, and pat yourself on the back for "trimming" your budget and "saving" taxpayer money. You might even get a bonus or perk of some sort.
This is how it works at every level of government. The waste is staggering, and it is not tracked.
Agreed. It's the "use it or lose it" mentality that abounds in all levels of government. If you have $500 in your budget for equipment for the current fiscal year and you only use $300 because you didn't have to replace anything, then you are guaranteed to only get a maximum of $300 next year because you obviously "don't need that much", even if you need to replace a piece of equipment that broke and needs to be replaced. SOOL!
I transferred within the company I was working at to another branch in the Puget Sound. I then arranged over the phone to rent an apartment before I moved and sent a check (couldn't do that today). The cost was prohibitive. It was almost $1500 for first, last, and security to rent the apartment. It cost $800 to rent the U-Haul and trailer to pull my truck and then so much per mile, I can't remember exactly what. Fortunately, gas wasn't nearly as high then as it is now. A motel room for one night was actually reasonable and I ate cheap.
I figured I spent between $2500 and $2800 moving. That's a lot of money and I'm glad I had it when I needed it. I moved because my rent went up from $450/month to $800/month, just like that. It wasn't the job so much as the lower rents that I moved for.
Moving is expensive and if you don't have a job, a place to live, relatives or friends to help you out when you get there, or money enough to tide you over for a while, it's very difficult to relocate.
You don't have to move hundreds of miles away to find a better situation. You might move only 20-30 miles, from a small town to a bigger city, to find a better paying job, even if you have to commute for a short while. In 40+ years, ol' frmkt has failed to find a better job than burger flipper or pay off his student loans even though he has a bachelor's degree. Either he's lying about his real situation or he's a nut case or he's just plain lazy.
It has to "make financial sense" for someone to work and start pulling the cart instead of being in the cart and feeding at the trough thanks to the largesse of taxpayers.
If the handout is more than what one would get by working, the handout is too generous.
Why is it unbelievable? If trying to better yourself causes you to be worse off than before, what lesson do you learn?
Cliffs don't make sense. Gradual declines are a better way to go.
Are you familiar with how governmental budgets work? If you are the head of a department, you make certain that you spend every cent you have been budgeted, no matter what. If you buy things you don't need then discard them later, that is business as usual. You build unnecessary things into your budget, and you spend that money too. Then when recessions come along and you must cut, you reduce or eliminate some of your unnecessary line items, and pat yourself on the back for "trimming" your budget and "saving" taxpayer money. You might even get a bonus or perk of some sort.
This is how it works at every level of government. The waste is staggering, and it is not tracked.
I know that's not how it works in the real world, but money not spent should be returned to the taxpayers.
Mandated and universal retirement savings. In Australia, employers and employees contribute 15% (each contributes half) to private retirement accounts. The investments could be index based in "target-retirement" type accounts where they start off aggressive and get more conservative as people age. There's no reason we couldn't do this in the U.S. right now. If you save 15% over your working lifetime in a mix of stocks and bonds, retirement security is assured for the vast majority of people. Our current mish-mash of skimpy (and not financially stable) Social Security and voluntary 401Ks & IRAs just doesn't work because somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of people won't save anywhere near enough.
Excellent idea and perspective. That would take care of people at all income levels. Maybe a mandatory "no cashing out before age 62."
But how do you identify the subset? How do you know Dave is a member of the subset? Maybe Dave was a drug baby and as a direct result has mental impairments which are not visible to the naked eye.
Since you don't know, why waste your mental energy resenting him?
I didn't say anything about Dave. My post wasn't about Dave. I do not resent Dave. The discussion had moved on to a more generalized level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
