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.
Ok, sorry, I should have put that in two sentences not one. I think the point OP was trying to make is that "less busy" time times ARE disappearing post covid. I attribute it to folks being able to set their own hours and in some cases to an increase in local populations. Better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zentropa
Hey guys, just finished everything I planned to accomplish at work today and it's only 1:30. Heading out to the grocery store, dispensary, and dog park now. Then picking up my son in law at the airport.
Au contriare mon ami. EVERY time is now a good time to do things!
That entirely depends on your viewpoint. For people who worked typical workday schedule I bet it is, their new ability to shop when it's less crowded is probably a boon. Not so much for the people who were used to having those hours practically to themselves. It's okay that some people don't agree that it's a good thing for them. I don't get why people act like the OP is some sort of hater because she isn't fond of the change.
Ok, sorry, I should have put that in two sentences not one. I think the point OP was trying to make is that "less busy" time times ARE disappearing post covid. I attribute it to folks being able to set their own hours and in some cases to an increase in local populations. Better?
That entirely depends on your viewpoint. For people who worked typical workday schedule I bet it is, their new ability to shop when it's less crowded is probably a boon. Not so much for the people who were used to having those hours practically to themselves. It's okay that some people don't agree that it's a good thing for them. I don't get why people act like the OP is some sort of hater because she isn't fond of the change.
Because she basically accused midday errand-runners of being deadbeats and slackers maybe?
Yeah, what are they doing posting in a thread addressed to retirees and some when they're supposed to be working? For those that are federal employees, does working from home mean you give up your locality pay?
Why should they give up locality pay? The "locality cost of living" does not change and in fact, has increased due to inflation.
Ok, sorry, I should have put that in two sentences not one. I think the point OP was trying to make is that "less busy" time times ARE disappearing post covid. I attribute it to folks being able to set their own hours and in some cases to an increase in local populations. Better?
That entirely depends on your viewpoint. For people who worked typical workday schedule I bet it is, their new ability to shop when it's less crowded is probably a boon. Not so much for the people who were used to having those hours practically to themselves. It's okay that some people don't agree that it's a good thing for them. I don't get why people act like the OP is some sort of hater because she isn't fond of the change.
Exactly. It totally depends on which side of the fence you're on. Every time I hear people chorting with glee about working from home, I turn bright green with envy. I had an hour plus commute to and from work for 20 years and worked standard M-F 9-5 hours. I retired two years before Covid. If I had been able to work from home, I definitely would have worked a few more years to add to my social security, but didn't have that luxury. I'm also one who looked forward to having pretty much empty stores in retirement, but not the reality. It's just human nature....look at all of the posts about student loan forgiveness...anyone who paid off their loans can't stomach the thought of all those "slackers" who expect the government to forgive their loans.
Why should they give up locality pay? The "locality cost of living" does not change and in fact, has increased due to inflation.
What about locality pay if the employee moves to a lower cost of living area due to work from home? Pay based on their previous location or their new one?
Even the states that cut off monetary assistance very early on did not see an increase in their labor force.
During the Pandemic, aggregate household wealth in the USA increased by $40 Trillion although the stock market contraction has erased about $5 Trillion of that. Still, the remaining $30 Trillion funds quite a number of people leaving the labor force.
As an aside, that increase in household wealth is the primary thing the Fed has to contend with in their efforts to reduce aggregate demand in order to reduce inflation. The "Negative Wealth Effect" indicates that for every dollar of reduced wealth, consumers reduce consumption by only about 5 cents.
What about locality pay if the employee moves to a lower cost of living area due to work from home? Pay based on their previous location or their new one?
I believe the pay is based on your work location, not where you live.
The government is not worry about its pay efficiency to employees. It's not like they're trying to save money.
If it is, then the pay raise system should depend on how many children you support.
I believe the pay is based on your work location, not where you live.
The government is not worry about its pay efficiency to employees. It's not like they're trying to save money.
If it is, then the pay raise system should depend on how many children you support.
But the work location presumes your residence there. Locality pay is designed to be a supplement to base pay for employees living in a high COL area (EX: a Social Security employee in Annapolis is paid more through locality pay than one in Pittsburgh). Don't think for a minute that if it's found that employees have moved to low COL areas from ones with a high COL to do work from home that Congress won't start to look at salary adjustments.
During the Pandemic, aggregate household wealth in the USA increased by $40 Trillion although the stock market contraction has erased about $5 Trillion of that. Still, the remaining $30 Trillion funds quite a number of people leaving the labor force.
As an aside, that increase in household wealth is the primary thing the Fed has to contend with in their efforts to reduce aggregate demand in order to reduce inflation. The "Negative Wealth Effect" indicates that for every dollar of reduced wealth, consumers reduce consumption by only about 5 cents.
Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of that information. What is the definition of aggregate household wealth? Is that in stocks? During that time my 401K increased, but I have no access to that money to spend.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
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.
