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.
Would you say that people who spent their careers at places like Enron and other companies who lost everything lived their lives "wrong"? All the retirement money up in smoke when the companies went under....
Ask any, and I mean ANY, hedge fund manager, investment banker, broker, day trader, talking haircut on CNBC, investing author, etc. what the key to a successful investment account and retirement fund is, and they will all tell you the same thing: Diversification. They ALL scream it from the rooftops. It's not a secret. You never put more than 20% of your investment in one equity. It's like remembering to breathe in and out. You diversify. That's the rule. So yes, those who had their ENTIRE retirement/investment account in Enron stock did live their life wrong. And you're also trying to use the most extreme of extreme cases as a blanket for the masses, who did not have a situation like Enron happen to them.
Stop guessing. The Salvation Army rarely hires people after bell ringing. I don't whine. I get things done. Keep your judgments to yourself.
Yes, that's correct. An unpaid seatbelt ticket and driving on that suspension is NO big deal. Glad your not in charge. Would you rather it be someone that has multiple or even one DUI? Didn't think so.
I always call a spade a spade.
I was under the impression that the bell ringing was a volunteer position. As Flavor Flav would say "Wooooooooooooow." What are you getting done? Seeing as how you couldn't be bothered to pay a seatbelt ticket and proceeded to violate the law when you license got suspended, I'd say you're talking out both sides of your mouth.
So violating the law is okay if it's only b/c you were driving on a license that was suspended for an unpaid seatbelt ticket? Why the heck would the bus system even allow you to drive for them if you had a recently suspended license? Woooooooooooow.
Why in the world did it cost you that much to move across town? We didn't pay anywhere near that to move and get settled after relocating to Wisconsin from Florida.
Yeah I am wondering about that 6 k myself.
I moved 40 miles bought a new sofa and some decorations and rented a truck and it didn't cost even half that much.
If my spouse or child couldn't find a job for 2 years, I would be embarrassed. I would hope that they would feel the same of me.
If I were seeking employment in a specific field, those employers would not need to place an ad for that position, because I would be in their face all the time.
I understand that we are in difficult times, but 9 of 10 people are still employed at all times.
I apologize for any appearance of hijacking or thread drift, but when faced with such breathtaking arrogance and hubris, I'm going to say this anyway.
So, Xan and Andrea, I suppose you'll claim age discrimination against Boomers does not exist in the ranks of the 99ers?
Just ONE source of dozens I found:
"Before the recession hit full force some employers hired baby boomers and the elderly because they saw them as more stable and with a better work ethic that the oncoming workforce of teens. When the recession did hit and employers were faced with the decision of who to lay off; and while the boomers were reliable with a good work ethic, they were also costing companies more money in salary, wages, and health benefits.
Now boomers looking for employment face the same problems. They are resented for causing unemployment for the younger population. They are thought of as a financial burden to potential employers. They are also facing the prospect of being over qualified at the same time as being a potential drain on training resources. The stereotype that the elderly are difficult to train, set in their ways, and incapable of evolving with current technologies is also working against them.
Baby boomer 99ers face a bleak future if Tier V benefits are not passed and an even bleaker future after those benefits run out. Discrimination against the senior population is not only hurting the baby boomers, but also the families and communities of which they are a part."
Age discrimination prevalent against unemployed jobseekers. | World News Heard now (http://www.worldnewsheardnow.com/age-discrimination-prevalent-against-unemployed-jobseekers/2542/ - broken link)
So what should we do about the ranks of mid-range unemployable Boomers who are looking at a decade before Social Security kicks in?
Should they all go back to school and incur more debt to get a "practical" degree when they're overqualified now with the education they have?
Should they dye their hair gray, get Botox injections, falsify their resume to hide evidence of incipient senility, and take Valium before interviews to hide that air of desperation?
Oh, wait, I guess you can force them all to march with signs at intersections pointing out to passing drivers what NERVE they had to age in our youth-obsessed society and then have them offer to commit suicide to lighten the "welfare" rolls for the rest of you who are so offended by the benefits that allow them a meager existence.
Hey, check out "Logan's Run" for your viewing pleasure -- definitely YOUR kind of movie.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread topic and apologize for my rant.
I understand age discrimination, but your article is in part saying that older workers were laid off b/c they cost too much to employ (due to having worked up to a higher salary). That is not age discrimination. I've never heard of anyone resenting older workers for "causing" the UE crisis. They might be overqualified but only an idiot would pay them more for doing an unskilled job, so the "drain" comment is a moot point. The elderly are often difficult to train b/c they are more set in their ways, they also do not understand technology the way younger folks do. They have two options, they can learn and get a job or they can not learn and continue to be unemployed. The choice is theirs and I don't see why the taxpayers should be penalized.
I agree with Xanathos here again b/c the oldest boomers are almost retirement age anyway, so they should have already done their planning and should be prepared for not working. They can live off their savings for awhile while looking for a job. Heck, they already lived off UE for two years so that's 2 years of savings they will still have access to when they officially retire.
Ask any, and I mean ANY, hedge fund manager, investment banker, broker, day trader, talking haircut on CNBC, investing author, etc. what the key to a successful investment account and retirement fund is, and they will all tell you the same thing: Diversification. They ALL scream it from the rooftops. It's not a secret. You never put more than 20% of your investment in one equity. It's like remembering to breathe in and out. You diversify. That's the rule. So yes, those who had their ENTIRE retirement/investment account in Enron stock did live their life wrong. And you're also trying to use the most extreme of extreme cases as a blanket for the masses, who did not have a situation like Enron happen to them.
Life gets EXTREME on a rather regular basis......which you will discover if you're a fortunate man and live a long life.
Stafford loans are guaranteed and can't be withheld, they are easy to obtain.
I assume you go to Cal, which is an extreme scenario.
Community college can't discriminate. And if you're just starting, you need a ton of classes.
Then I guess it's a good thing that the government puts the money in your student account before the deadline.
That's amazing, because I moved clear from Texas to the Pacific Northwest last year for half of what it cost you to move across town, and I've got a ton of stuff.
Great points.
As to paying for it before the deadline, when I had a scholarship or student loan (or my FL Prepaid College program money), they defer your tuition and the third party pays it for you electronically about a week later. Usually they don't drop your classes right away, either, they give you awhile and charge you a $100 late fee during this time.
Anybody and their dog can get a Stafford loan. Pell grant is based solely on income and applying for it before funds run out. You just fill out the FAFSA and they tell you what you qualify for.
I was quite suprised at the number of people angry about only being offered cheap crap. one client whom I repaired a piece of furniture for that was damaged in shipping sugested it. I was doing some high end trim in their home and was asked to do the repair.well the referrals went pretty well and I found a good nitch. People really dont want cheap crap but that is all they can find mostly due to being lazy and going to the big box stores. I plan to change that in my little world
I'm in the furniture business too. Have you ever taken apart an Ashley sofa? I don't think I've ever seen such junk! I've repaired many...
I have to laugh at the notion that going to school will suddenly fix things. Many of the unemployed have degrees. Schools are flooded now also. Want to get into a high demand program? Get in line. Nursing? Long waits. Want your pharmD? Good luck and get in line. The program here had 450+ applicants for less then 50 openings for the year. Even qualifying for some programs is hard as they make having experience working in the field a pre-req to apply. Well those positions are filled. Volunteer? Get in line once again as things are stagnant everywhere.
Even if one does get a shiny new degree in a new field, that still doesn't mean there aren't more applicants than jobs. There are more people looking for work then there are positions open. That will leave people out in the cold no matter their best efforts. Also it has come out that employers are hesitant to hire unemployed over currently employed applicants. Thus, once in that rut it becomes more difficult to get out as time goes by.
Look, the world isn't black and white. The job market is in the toilet. Luckily I've not had to face prospects of being unemployed. I wouldn't want to be in this economic state. Sure there are some lazy who will milk the benefits. But I cannot generalize everybody who has been on benefits to 99 weeks as so.
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.
The Salvation Army rarely hires people after bell ringing. 
They might be overqualified but only an idiot would pay them more for doing an unskilled job, so the "drain" comment is a moot point. The elderly are often difficult to train b/c they are more set in their ways, they also do not understand technology the way younger folks do. They have two options, they can learn and get a job or they can not learn and continue to be unemployed. The choice is theirs and I don't see why the taxpayers should be penalized.
