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.
I worked every day through a year of chemo and then six years later, six months of every week chemo.
I have little sympathy for whiners who don't show up for work and complain about how hard their job is.
They wouldn't survive a single day as a physician.
Hats off to you, and I hope your recovery continues!
And I agree wholeheartedly with you. So many don't see the other side of the equation; they (falsely) believe that physicians have banker's hours, play golf in the afternoon, and are rolling in the dough. They fail to realize the immense responsibility that you and your fellow doctors are tasked with, and that you have your own bills to pay.
I understand it well, having a physician in the family now, along with a veterinarian. They are managing well, with families of their own, and spouses with demanding careers as well (LEO & military). We were taught to get up, suit up, and show up. That's how we roll.
so, if you were provided an opportunity to work for such a company, how much as a % of your current income would you give up gladly in order to get these additional bennies?
I mean, these are all the questions. A bunch of people think it just happens.
Guess what?
Employers could easily buy insurance for this. They already contribute more towards your health insurance than you do. They already (78% of people) pay you for vacation and sick time. They already buy insurance for unemployment and worker's comp.
So if a job told you "100K, but you'll probably work 50 hours a week" vs another told you "we have a strict only 40 hours/week, heck as long as it's 160 hrs/month take all the time you need, but we only pay you $70K" ... how many of you people would opt for $70K?
My husband worked for private engineering firms and did the 50+ hours a week, weekend work, travel, long drives, etc. until he turned 52. He then opted for a state government job and took a 30 per cent pay cut but did a (mostly) 40-hour week and less travel until he retired. We could afford for him to take the state job because I worked full-time until I retired and we lived below our budget. But I understand that not everyone is in a position to do this.
I did, more times than not over the last 4+ decades. The only time I was the family’s primary breadwinner was while my husband was in law school and the first couple of years afterwards. Once the kids came I shifted my focus to being the family’s primary caretaker. This meant sometimes I worked part time or not at all, depending on what was going on. We could comfortably do that because we did not count on my earnings - just like we never counted on him always being available to be a family caretaker, although of course he was one when available. This is why families need two adults in a legal binding relationship, one whose primary focus is providing economic resources for the family, one whose primary focus is providing comfort, running the home, and overseeing the emotional well-being of the family. Both are valuable, both have to happen for the family to thrive. Over the last few decades we have decided that both adults should do both jobs instead of dividing it, and problems arise when the division isn’t equal or one person ends up as a single parent and is trying to do it all.
Women are in this pickle now because when feminists were preaching that women didn’t need a man they pretended the part about children still needing a father didn’t matter.
Yep. Back in the 80s when I had my 3 kids, there was no paid maternity leave whatsoever. I took 6 weeks off, unpaid, then got back to work. It never would have crossed my mind, not in a million years, that the government (that is, other taxpayers) should have been paying for my time off, my childcare, or anything else our family needed.
Thank you for your dedication and for not expecting U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for your life choices. And congratulations on raising three children.
I doubt you were like many of the mothers I worked with over the years: frequently arriving late, leaving early, calling in sick, receiving first choice of vacation days, eschewing overtime and weekend hours, not doing travel, etc.
Your six weeks off work are equitable to employees taking off a month or two for family leave, surgeries, or serious health problems.
Thank you again for being a responsible citizen and taking responsibility for your decision to have children, instead of expecting U.S. taxpayers and your co-workers to partially fund you and to take up the work slack for you.
I still don't know why companies and employers offer any insurance products to people. They should not, it's an entirely separate thing from their work-for-pay contract. Isn't that what the marketplace is all about? Nobody should be beholding to their employer for that sort of thing.
I did, more times than not over the last 4+ decades. The only time I was the family’s primary breadwinner was while my husband was in law school and the first couple of years afterwards. Once the kids came I shifted my focus to being the family’s primary caretaker. This meant sometimes I worked part time or not at all, depending on what was going on. We could comfortably do that because we did not count on my earnings - just like we never counted on him always being available to be a family caretaker, although of course he was one when available. This is why families need two adults in a legal binding relationship, one whose primary focus is providing economic resources for the family, one whose primary focus is providing comfort, running the home, and overseeing the emotional well-being of the family. Both are valuable, both have to happen for the family to thrive. Over the last few decades we have decided that both adults should do both jobs instead of dividing it, and problems arise when the division isn’t equal or one person ends up as a single parent and is trying to do it all.
Women are in this pickle now because when feminists were preaching that women didn’t need a man they pretended the part about children still needing a father didn’t matter.
^^^^
I do not care who said what to whom, Eve did eat the apple. Females give birth. Somebody has to take care of the child.
DH and I felt the kids were our primary duty. He worked 40 years. Sometimes he liked it, sometimes he hated it. But how are you going to feed and care for 3 kids. I was a SAHM who rehabbed houses to supplement the income. That way I had total control over my life.
There are ways for families to get income without a 8-5 job. IMO, it is not the job of any government to subsidize the decisions made by families, parents or businesses.
I do not care who said what to whom, Eve did eat the apple. Females give birth. Somebody has to take care of the child.
DH and I felt the kids were our primary duty. He worked 40 years. Sometimes he liked it, sometimes he hated it. But how are you going to feed and care for 3 kids. I was a SAHM who rehabbed houses to supplement the income. That way I had total control over my life.
There are ways for families to get income without a 8-5 job. IMO, it is not the job of any government to subsidize the decisions made by families, parents or businesses.
But over the years nanny government has come to the rescue and now people, especially younger ones, seem dependent on government bailing them out if they cry loud enough.
But over the years nanny government has come to the rescue and now people, especially younger ones, seem dependent on government bailing them out if they cry loud enough.
And the USG went and printed money and handed it out. Only those were during recessionary times.
This is inflation....a different animal. The USG printing money is what got us here and they cannot print any more. Printing money during inflation increased inflation.
And the USG went and printed money and handed it out. Only those were during recessionary times.
This is inflation....a different animal. The USG printing money is what got us here and they cannot print any more. Printing money during inflation increased inflation.
I agree. I just have a problem with the incessant (from everyone, not just your post) harping on welfare when it's a total double standard for wealthy institutions. You'll get somebody to agree that it's bad, but then return to their emotional default of hating young poor people. Never a peep about corporate welfare unless you squeeze it out. Then it's just a peep. Did you even peep against welfare for the wealthy at all with your post? It sounds more like a justification. No welfare, or welfare for all. No in-betweens based on economic/political justification.
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.
