The biggest social safety net in the US

[creekland]

Just curious how many here agree with Tom Price's statement that, "At the end of the day, it’s better for our national budget if cancer patients pass away more quickly, it’s a lousy way to live anyway, and I’m sorry to say it out loud, but it’s the truth,†

 

While Snopes says this isn't true, there are quite a few people who feel this way who I've come across.  I think they forget that many cancer people beat the cancer and live...

 

Yes this.

 

And I believe one of the biggest reasons for it is the "American Dream". If the poor are not at fault for being poor, if it could happen to anyone good or bad, if the rain potentially falls on everyone the same, then the reality is that the dream is a lot of dumb luck, and not something attainable for everyone who works hard, plans ahead, makes sacrifices for the future. Every tax dollar that goes to helping someone else is one that can't be used to pursue the dream.

 

To admit that is rather bad to the American identity these days, so the delusion keeps spinning.

 

This sounds a lot like the Prosperity Gospel many believe in... very much a fallacy.

[mommaduck]

It's kinda interesting that this thread isn't being shut down by SWB for being political.

 

Because issues vs political parties. This has been a polite discussion about legitimate issues that affect EVERYONE, regardless how people voted.

[creekland]

It's kinda interesting that this thread isn't being shut down by SWB for being political.

 

As I stated before, I don't care which party fixes the issues making them better for Americans.  I'd cheer either that do it - and either that stop the damage proposed.  From what I've seen, either party could as some of each have noticed what some of those changes would do...

 

It's up to individuals to contact their particular legislators, etc. - off Hive time.

[poppy]

People are calling jobs that are not obsolete, they are just being outsourced...obselete. My husband, who has a degree in computer science and over 20 years experience and went to a top university, got told that he just needs to accept that no one wants Americans as software engineers so he just needs to retrain for something else, such as ...this person suggested...an HVAC technician. Not ok. The only thing he has against him is that in the current work environment for tech/computer people, a lot of employers are able misuse and mistreat their Visa employees and they can get away with bringing them in which leaves the Americans in those fields unable to get jobs for fair wages. Most people in my husband's field that I know are either unemployed, working for less than they were 10 years ago, or working 60-70+ hour weeks to stay competitive with the non-Americans who are working and willing to take labor violations. I am tired of hearing all these jobs are obsolete when in reality, very wealthy elite CEOs and such of these tech companies gave a lot of money to one particular candidate so that they could continue to get even richer off the broken backs of people who are unable to defend themselves from the extensive labor violations.

 

Most software engineers are unemployed or working for less than they did 10 years ago? Whaaaat?

I'm in IT hiring in large corporate, and this isn't something I've seen.  At all. Software engineers are in demand.   Software engineers make on average around $100,000. What do you think a fair wage would be?

[TechWife]

People are calling jobs that are not obsolete, they are just being outsourced...obselete. My husband, who has a degree in computer science and over 20 years experience and went to a top university, got told that he just needs to accept that no one wants Americans as software engineers so he just needs to retrain for something else, such as ...this person suggested...an HVAC technician. Not ok. The only thing he has against him is that in the current work environment for tech/computer people, a lot of employers are able misuse and mistreat their Visa employees and they can get away with bringing them in which leaves the Americans in those fields unable to get jobs for fair wages. Most people in my husband's field that I know are either unemployed, working for less than they were 10 years ago, or working 60-70+ hour weeks to stay competitive with the non-Americans who are working and willing to take labor violations. I am tired of hearing all these jobs are obsolete when in reality, very wealthy elite CEOs and such of these tech companies gave a lot of money to one particular candidate so that they could continue to get even richer off the broken backs of people who are unable to defend themselves from the extensive labor violations.

 

This makes no sense to me. The only thing I know of that would cause a competent software engineer to be unemployed or working for reduced pay is if they failed to keep up with new technologies. In that case, they would only be able to work on old products, which are phased out.  At some point, every company ceases to support old products, which would render someone who didn't learn the new products unemployed and unemployable in their field. Why? Because the technology that they know is obsolete. The job of software engineer is not obsolete, but the knowledge any one engineer possesses becomes obsolete and the onus is on the engineer to do everything they possibly can to attempt to make sure that doesn't happen. If an engineer isn't willing or able to do that, then yes, they will need to leave the industry to remain gainfully employed. 

 

There are a limited number of H1B Visas - only 85,000 were granted last year and 20,000 of those are reserved for people with master's degrees and some of them are also reserved for people from specific countries. That is simply not enough people to support an entire industry, not to mention that those Visas are spread out among many industries. The Visa period is at most six years, making H1B Visa holders temps - you can't build an industry on temps. Additionally, obtaining an H1B Visa for a worker is expensive and time consuming for the company involved and it's a lottery system - they have no idea if they will even get a desired employee in the country. They don't go into the process lightly. Software engineers are typically salaried employees, therefore it is not a labor violation for them to work 60-70 hours per week (ask my husband, beginning yesterday he is putting in a minimum of 12 hours each day for nine consecutive days; if you include travel time then it increases to eleven consecutive days). It makes no sense to say that the entire industry is functioning only because of H1B Visas. Numerically, it's just impossible.  

Edited March 18, 2017 by TechWife

[Audrey]

It's 2017 and we are debating the need for a social safety net.  In one of the richest countries in the world. 

From a policy and public health perspective, no, GoFundMe / church helping out only the "worthy" needy isn't adequate. 

And from a moral standpoint... I can't believe we're actually having this conversation.

 

The funny thing is, though, that you're the only 1st world nation that is having this conversation.  The US can come up with every reason in the books for why it can't work, yet every other 1st world nation has managed to come up with its own unique solutions to this problem. 

[FaithManor]

So glad we did SLI with the team this year. NASA will probably not offer the program next year if their entire education budget is trashed.

 

Basically screw everyone except his rich CEO buddies who want ever bigger defense contracts.

 

Oh and screw the world on drinking water. The Great Lakes hold 23% if the heart's freshwater. I wonder if congress has ever tried drinking ocean water? I would like them to try...maybe for 30 days, see how it goes for them.

[FaithManor]

This makes no sense to me. The only thing I know of that would cause a competent software engineer to be unemployed or working for reduced pay is if they failed to keep up with new technologies. In that case, they would only be able to work on old products, which are phased out. At some point, every company ceases to support old products, which would render someone who didn't learn the new products unemployed and unemployable in their field. Why? Because the technology that they know is obsolete. The job of software engineer is not obsolete, but the knowledge any one engineer possesses becomes obsolete and the onus is on the engineer to do everything they possibly can to attempt to make sure that doesn't happen. If an engineer isn't willing or able to do that, then yes, they will need to leave the industry to remain gainfully employed.

 

There are a limited number of H1B Visas - only 85,000 were granted last year and 20,000 of those are reserved for people with master's degrees and some of them are also reserved for people from specific countries. That is simply not enough people to support an entire industry, not to mention that those Visas are spread out among many industries. The Visa period is at most six years, making H1B Visa holders temps - you can't build an industry on temps. Additionally, obtaining an H1B Visa for a worker is expensive and time consuming for the company involved and it's a lottery system - they have no idea if they will even get a desired employee in the country. They don't go into the process lightly. Software engineers are typically salaried employees, therefore it is not a labor violation for them to work 60-70 hours per week (ask my husband, beginning yesterday he is putting in a minimum of 12 hours each day for nine consecutive days; if you include travel time then it increases to eleven consecutive days). It makes no sense to say that the entire industry is functioning only because of H1B Visas. Numerically, it's just impossible.

My husband is a software engineer and has worked for the biggies.

 

It is not the visa workers. Not at all. It is outsourcing overseas. Little tech companies in India, Bangladesh,China provide coders for American companies but do the work in their countrymen hence management stateside having weird conference call hours many times do to the huge time changes.

 

This is how American IT workers lost their jobs. In India the average IT worker gets about $7000 US per year and no benefits.

[TechWife]

My husband is a software engineer and has worked for the biggies.

 

It is not the visa workers. Not at all. It is outsourcing overseas. Little tech companies in India, Bangladesh,China provide coders for American companies but do the work in their countrymen hence management stateside having weird conference call hours many times do to the huge time changes.

 

This is how American IT workers lost their jobs. In India the average IT worker gets about $7000 US per year and no benefits.

 

My husband works for one of the biggies right now (has for years). Yes, a lot of coding has been sent overseas, as have a lot of other jobs. What a lot of people don't realize, though, is that a lot of computer engineers don't code for a living, there are a lot of different jobs engineers hold.  Janeway was talking about software engineering jobs stateside, though, which is why I didn't address international outsourcing. Changing the H1B Visa program (which is apparently under consideration at some level) would only result in additional outsourcing in the industry, IMO.

[Carol in Cal.]

My husband is a software engineer and has worked for the biggies.

 

 

There is also a tremendous amount of unprovable but evident age discrimination, at least here in Silicon Valley.  Guys hop around, getting multiple offers, and then all the sudden they reach an age cliff and no one will call them back, let alone hire them.

 

There are exceptions, of course, and there have been some righteous and effective lawsuits over blatant examples of this, but more subtle age discrimination in tech is still quite common.

[EmseB]

Actually I looked it up and it would fall under the Community Block Grant program.

 

Here is the blueprint if anyone wants to read it:

 

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/03/16/blue.pdf

 

A lot of the local programs we were talking about up above are funded by these block grant programs. It's how they get federal funding to the local level without clogging it up with restrictions and regulations. It's some of the most Democratic, straight to the people money in the budget

Another look at the CBGD program.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/16/the-community-development-block-grant-pr

[creekland]

Another look at the CBGD program.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/16/the-community-development-block-grant-pr

 

Maybe I'm missing something?  Those projects listed all seemed to be things that would help local communities - things they needed various amounts of money for and things that would benefit a fair number of people.  Isn't that the purpose of community block grants?  To help communities by giving them portions of tax dollars to fund things they otherwise might have a difficult time funding?

 

I was never under the impression these grants were only to help the poor.  I thought they helped us all.

 

And on a similar note, with Americorps on the chopping block, middle son has figured one of his options for next year is likely out.

 

It's really, really sad to see NIH hit - esp after one of our chats on the high school board where we discussed how (most of us at least) would like to see more money poured into various medical research through programs like MSTP, etc.  Personally, I'd venture to say that would help far more people than another battleship would (figuratively on the battleship as I've no idea what their plans are with more defense spending - I just don't see the need to up that budget at all TBH).  We have more diseases that can use cures here than we do attacks that need defending.

[creekland]

While I'm at it, I'd venture to say cuts to keeping/enforcing/restoring clean air and water are likely to sicken or kill more Americans than increasing our defense budget will protect...

[maize]

When we increase defense spending, other countries' threat radar goes up--so they increase defense spending too. Then we feel threatened and further increase spending...and the cycle continues.

 

Anyone remember the cold war?

 

Actually, that may be exactly what DT and cronies are remembering--it was a golden age for certain industries.

Edited March 18, 2017 by maize

[maize]

OK, so I feel bad that I'm doing some talking but no acting on these issues. I'm swamped taking care of my own family so have not done much in the way of political involvement for years.

 

I'm thinking though that I should do a phone call and letter writing mini unit this week with the kids.

 

What do you all think would be the most kid-friendly topic to address? I admit that healthcare is at the top of my list, but the current situation seems awfully complex.

 

We are not a partisan family.

Edited March 18, 2017 by maize

[creekland]

When we increase defense spending, other countries' threat radar goes up--so they increase defense spending too. Then we feel threatened and further increase spending...and the cycle continues.

 

Anyone remember the cold war?

 

Actually, that may be exactly what DT and cronies are remembering--it was a golden age for certain industries.

 

Remember the cold war?  Some of us lived in the cold war... my 10th grade history class at super wealthy private school was Americanism vs Communism.  Kids at the school where I work now get a laugh out of that.

 

IMO, this budget wastes a ton of money and reduces world safety by increasing the defense budget (sigh).  But yes, certain businesses will do well.

 

I wish only those who voted for this group had to live with the consequences of this budget should it pass.

 

That's as political as I'm going to get though - and I'd feel the same if a similar budget came from any other party.  It's the nuts and bolts of what's in it that I'm talking about, not specifics of who.

[creekland]

What do you all think would be the most kid-friendly topic to address? I admit that healthcare is at the top of my list, but the current situation seems awfully complex.

 

Off the top of my head...

 

health care research and accessibility to all

public broadcasting

libraries, museums, and other educational aspects being cut

clean air/earth policies, regulations, and restoration

 

I'm sure I could list more if I went back and re-read, but those are some that stuck with me from last night's reading and I'd consider them important to kids.

[FaithManor]

According the U.S. department of labor statistics which I would link but am on my tablet and can't make it do that, outsourcing caused the loss of 500,000+ programming jobs, and another almost 500,000 IT related positions.

 

Given the massive firings at EDS, IBM, and HP in the early new millennium those numbers make sense to me.

 

It is hard to say the further impacts, but I was thinking the other day about the number of shuttered buildings just from EDS after HP bought them and then got rid of the bulk of the EDS employees. The administrative assistants, custodians, .... and especially in Michigan where EDS had been tight with GM, those buildings never found new owners, never became part of new businesses. They are sitting empty, becoming dilapidated. At the height of the mess, 22,000 IT workers were unemployed in Michigan.

 

Anyway, just musing.

 

In terms of defense spending, after WW2 Eisenhower predicted ruin for the nation if we did not wind down the war machine, keep it down, and go back to other forms of non defense related industrialization as well as emphasize agriculture and education. Me thinks President Eisenhower was onto something!

Edited March 18, 2017 by FaithManor

[maize]

I wonder if defense spending is being increased partly as a jobs program? A lot of defense stuff cannot be sent overseas because of classification and clearance issues.

[maize]

Outsourcing has made me think about what kinds of jobs cannot be done overseas. Might be worth taking into consideration when our kids are investigating careers.

[Lady Florida.]

Remember the cold war?  Some of us lived in the cold war... my 10th grade history class at super wealthy private school was Americanism vs Communism.  Kids at the school where I work now get a laugh out of that.

 

Americanism vs. Communism was once a social studies graduation requirement in Florida public schools, including when I was in high school. And we too took it in 10th grade. Somewhere along the way it was changed to Comparative Political Systems covering more than just Capitalism and Communism, eventually became a social studies elective, and finally was phased out.

 

I wish only those who voted for this group had to live with the consequences of this budget should it pass.

 

Some of them will and I will have a hard time mustering any form of sympathy for them. My sympathy is reserved for those who voted differently and are now caught in this.

[creekland]

 

Americanism vs. Communism was once a social studies graduation requirement in Florida public schools, including when I was in high school. And we too took it in 10th grade. Somewhere along the way it was changed to Comparative Political Systems covering more than just Capitalism and Communism, eventually became a social studies elective, and finally was phased out.

 

 

Some of them will and I will have a hard time mustering any form of sympathy for them. My sympathy is reserved for those who voted differently and are now caught in this.

 

Super Wealthy Private School was in FL, so this makes sense - thanks for that info!  In 10th grade I was totally unaware of state standards anywhere.

 

And with your last part... I've totally lost any sympathy I had for that group.  Even my charitable donations have changed now - significantly changed.  I don't feel they deserve charity (from me) to compensate what they deny from others.  If they aren't interested in trying to help everyone to the best of our ability, then why should they get singled out for help?  We still donate to charity, of course - just have changed directions to try to help those affected who didn't vote to be affected.

[maize]

In 2016, the U.S. had $3.3 Trillion dollars in revenue, and spent $3.9 Trillion. (https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget)

 

$6.0 Billion was overspent. This was after the last admin. cut defense/military spending, but increased domestic spending. Now, the new admin. wants to increase defense/military spending, but decrease domestic spending. This is so frustrating.

 

They have $3 trillion to work with every year. That's a lot of money.

To be fair, no one wants :their: program or department cut.

 

And since new programs get added regularly, the only way to prevent a constantly growing deficit is to cut stuff.

 

Lots and lots of pressure not to do that. Gosh, we've just been talking about being some of that pressure!

[poppy]

I wonder if defense spending is being increased partly as a jobs program? A lot of defense stuff cannot be sent overseas because of classification and clearance issues.

 

Ratheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and basically all US manufacturers outsource significantly . From a jobs creation perspective, defense spending is terribly inefficient.

[creekland]

And since new programs get added regularly, the only way to prevent a constantly growing deficit is to cut stuff.

 

Or increase taxes to provide for things the vast majority would benefit from - like universal health care.  Many would see the tax increase offset by no longer needing to pay for their own insurance/care or having their employer doing it (so could see raises).

 

It really is like a family budget.  Cut or increase income.  Sometimes increasing income is the best alternative - just like we've discussed on many threads.  It usually is the best alternative when increasing the income also tends to save more money (and lives) in the long run.

 

Health, food, education (including research within all of them and libraries, etc) -  are worth spending money on as they benefit our society in ways that exceed their cost.

 

An adequate defense is needed too, of course, but I'd really argue that we already have that, so certainly don't need more - esp at Cadillac prices that are often associated with military spending.  What country is about to declare war on us?  If they do, it seems to be through economics or IT and not using ballistic missiles.  Homeland defense?  Perhaps - and that's there - separately.

Edited March 18, 2017 by creekland

[TechWife]

Outsourcing has made me think about what kinds of jobs cannot be done overseas. Might be worth taking into consideration when our kids are investigating careers.

Think services.

Household: plumbing, electrical, HVAC, painting, roofing, general contracting, architect, project manager

Transportation: driving, mechanic, parts distribution

Civil engineering: city planning, road design, traffic control, utilities

Land surveying

Real estate (agents, appraisers, inspectors)

Medical - MD, RN, PT, OT, ST, RPh, MSW, PA, NP

Health care administration: finance, facility management, Human Resources, patient relations, etc.

Allied Heath: phlebotomy, radiology tech, aid, etc.

Food services: dietician, chef, manager, regional manager, owner, etc.

Public Safety: police, fire, EMT

Armed forces: Army Navy Air Force Marines Coast Guard Merchant Marines

Recreation: teaching, equipment supply and repair, facility management, programming, volunteer recruiting, park management, park ranger

 

There are hundreds more.

[FaithManor]

And when it comes to medical, do not think radiology necessarily. Several big hospitals now outsource the reading/diagnostics, and reporting. With the ability to transmit x rays, scans, etc. by internet, it is possible to reduce the number of radiologists because they do not need to perform and read/report/diagnose.

 

 

Sigh....

 

You need it think in terms of jobs that cannot be managed overseas by internet technology but also have low or no start up costs.

 

And EMT is in most states not a self supporting career. For all of the immense training and responsibility, the average starting pay is around $10.00 an hour for EMT basic in the Great Lakes/Midwest and $12.00 for paramedics. Higher COL areas pay more but nothing near what they should, and often benefits are not great and between the back breaking nature of the job plus PTSD, it is often not a long term career. Some can parlay their licensing in to ER tech and triage at trauma centers though, and those jobs are usually pretty good.

 

Says the mom of a former medic whose daughter's back was irreparably ruined only three years into her career!

 

IV techs in hospitals are paid better and do not have the trauma and nightmares of working in the field.

 

That said, I am immensely proud of the work my daughter did. I am grateful to the first responders that have stuck out the low pay and saved my son's life!

[Lady Florida.]

 

And EMT is in most states not a self supporting career. For all of the immense training and responsibility, the average starting pay is around $10.00 an hour for EMT basic in the Great Lakes/Midwest and $12.00 for paramedics. Higher COL areas pay more but nothing near what they should, and often benefits are not great and between the back breaking nature of the job plus PTSD, it is often not a long term career. Some can parlay their licensing in to ER tech and triage at trauma centers though, and those jobs are usually pretty good.

 

Says the mom of a former medic whose daughter's back was irreparably ruined only three years into her career!

 

IV techs in hospitals are paid better and do not have the trauma and nightmares of working in the field.

 

That said, I am immensely proud of the work my daughter did. I am grateful to the first responders that have stuck out the low pay and saved my son's life!

 

Yep. My stepson is a firemedic. He realized that at some point his body won't let him do the backbreaking work of firefighting and/or lifting patients. Then he realized that as he ages there is only so far you can go in that field before you hit an advancement plateau. He's now gone back to school for nursing because he wants to stay in the same general profession. His wife is a nurse and has many more options that he does in his current field.

[Dmmetler]

Most software engineers are unemployed or working for less than they did 10 years ago? Whaaaat?

I'm in IT hiring in large corporate, and this isn't something I've seen. At all. Software engineers are in demand. Software engineers make on average around $100,000. What do you think a fair wage would be?

I understand where she's coming from. It's true my husband is making more than he was 10 years ago-but 10 years ago, his company was all people hired to work in the office there, making 60-70k. A couple of H1B's, but mostly people from US colleges.

 

Now his division has less than half the people full-time permanent that it had 10 years ago, despite having more programs in development and under support. But almost all the hiring is contract teams overseas. There are three currently in my husband's division alone. Basically all the junior coding is outsourced, with the software engineers only doing clean up and making it actually work. He is working more hours than he was 10 years ago, and certainly more than he was 20 years ago when he was one of those junior folks who wrote lots of code. He is regularly getting told that he has to work weekends. That he cannot take vacations that were booked months in advance. He has not used his full vacation days in the last 5 years because they simply will not approve that many.

 

And it's a golden handcuff situation. If he leaves, he is likely too experienced and too expensive to get hired by someone else. He would not be allowed to work in the same general sector because of NDA's, and in other sectors, he'd be too expensive to allow time to get up to speed. We've seen it happen with other folks who get frustrated.

 

All told, he's not exactly encouraging kids to go into software engineering as a field.

[brehon]

And when it comes to medical, do not think radiology necessarily. Several big hospitals now outsource the reading/diagnostics, and reporting. With the ability to transmit x rays, scans, etc. by internet, it is possible to reduce the number of radiologists because they do not need to perform and read/report/diagnose.

 

 

Sigh....

 

You need it think in terms of jobs that cannot be managed overseas by internet technology but also have low or no start up costs.

 

And EMT is in most states not a self supporting career. For all of the immense training and responsibility, the average starting pay is around $10.00 an hour for EMT basic in the Great Lakes/Midwest and $12.00 for paramedics. Higher COL areas pay more but nothing near what they should, and often benefits are not great and between the back breaking nature of the job plus PTSD, it is often not a long term career. Some can parlay their licensing in to ER tech and triage at trauma centers though, and those jobs are usually pretty good.

 

Says the mom of a former medic whose daughter's back was irreparably ruined only three years into her career!

 

IV techs in hospitals are paid better and do not have the trauma and nightmares of working in the field.

 

That said, I am immensely proud of the work my daughter did. I am grateful to the first responders that have stuck out the low pay and saved my son's life!

I want to say, though, speaking as a 20 year street paramedic, the ability to work in public safety (especially EMS) and fully support a family is entirely area dependent. I am the sole provider for my family of eight. I work for a third service county EMS system (i.e., not a private company and not part of the fire department). I am extremely well paid and have what can be reasonably said to be great benefits. We certainly aren't rolling in wealth and have to budget, but neither are we pinching pennies wondering which bill to pay. I live in medium to high COL area.

 

Unfortunately, private EMS services (e.g. private companies) are notorious for paying well below the industry average and offering poor bennies. Equally unfortunate is the fact that in certain areas the only EMS option is a corporate one. EMS services that are rolled into an area's FD are treated much better in terms of pay and bennies, usually due to union negotiating. Third service EMS agencies (county, hospital-district, etc) are also treated very well, at least in my area, and tend to be the most progressive in terms of practicing medicine.

 

It *is* true that being a paramedic (FF, LEO) is extremely wearing physically and mentally. It is incredibly easy to sustain a career ending injury. I help train our new employees and always emphasize that they need to invest in their lives and have a back-up plan. A significant percentage of the medics in my system are taking college classes (UG and graduate level) in many different areas, both healthcare and non-healthcare related.

 

If anyone's kids are interested in public service, I recommend putting a lot of research into the area of interest - average pay in the locale, benefits, retirement package, working conditions, COL, etc. Know, however, that people can and do have great careers in public service and are also well compensated for the work they do.

Edited March 18, 2017 by brehon

[poppy]

I understand where she's coming from. It's true my husband is making more than he was 10 years ago-but 10 years ago, his company was all people hired to work in the office there, making 60-70k. A couple of H1B's, but mostly people from US colleges.

 

Now his division has less than half the people full-time permanent that it had 10 years ago, despite having more programs in development and under support. But almost all the hiring is contract teams overseas. There are three currently in my husband's division alone. Basically all the junior coding is outsourced, with the software engineers only doing clean up and making it actually work. He is working more hours than he was 10 years ago, and certainly more than he was 20 years ago when he was one of those junior folks who wrote lots of code. He is regularly getting told that he has to work weekends. That he cannot take vacations that were booked months in advance. He has not used his full vacation days in the last 5 years because they simply will not approve that many.

 

And it's a golden handcuff situation. If he leaves, he is likely too experienced and too expensive to get hired by someone else. He would not be allowed to work in the same general sector because of NDA's, and in other sectors, he'd be too expensive to allow time to get up to speed. We've seen it happen with other folks who get frustrated.

 

All told, he's not exactly encouraging kids to go into software engineering as a field.

 

Sure and I agree with him. Software engineering isn't the golden goose it used to be.  It is a different world for people who grew up with it and learn coding in middle school.  It was an especially lucrative field for people who had 'specialized knowledge' before the boom in the mid-90s and were able to bring corporations into the digital age.

 

Now, it's just another job, and those are all being outsourced whenever possible because: capitalism.  My husband is a engineer. The parts he designs used to be build in Ohio.  Now they're built in China and Korea.

 

Thing is---- I bet more than a third of Americans reading this right now use those parts every day, and enjoy the low prices the result from the outsourcing. It is what it is.

[Lady Florida.]

I want to say, though, speaking as a 20 year street paramedic, the ability to work in public safety (especially EMS) and fully support a family is entirely area dependent. I am the sole provider for my family of eight. I work for a third service county EMS system (i.e., not a private company and not part of the fire department). I am extremely well paid and have what can be reasonably said to be great benefits. We certainly aren't rolling in wealth and have to budget, but neither are we pinching pennies wondering which bill to pay. I live in medium to high COL area.

 

Unfortunately, private EMS services (e.g. private companies) are notorious for paying well below the industry average and offering poor bennies. Equally unfortunate is the fact that in certain areas the only EMS option is a corporate one. EMS services that are rolled into an area's FD are treated much better in terms of pay and bennies, usually due to union negotiating. Third service EMS agencies (county, hospital-district, etc) are also treated very well, at least in my area, and tend to be the most progressive in terms of practicing medicine.

 

It *is* true that being a paramedic (FF, LEO) is extremely wearing physically and mentally. It is incredibly easy to sustain a career ending injury. I help train our new employees and always emphasize that they need to invest in their lives and have a back-up plan. A significant percentage of the medics in my system are taking college classes (UG and graduate level) in many different areas, both healthcare and non-healthcare related.

 

If anyone's kids are interested in public service, I recommend putting a lot of research into the area of interest - average pay in the locale, benefits, retirement package, working conditions, COL, etc. Know, however, that people can and do have great careers in public service and are also well compensated for the work they do.

 

Here fire EMS services are all one system - either city or county (for unincorporated areas). Dss works for the county. We do have private ambulance companies but their services and level of personnel training aren't equal to public departments. My stepson would not be able to support his wife and two children on his government salary. The benefits are decent but not fantastic. Union negotiations in a right-to-work state like Florida are a joke.

 

At one time he considered transferring to a nearby county that pays more, but he's vested here, and would have to start at the bottom if he went elsewhere. He's been there 12 years so that's a lot of seniority to give up. He actually loves what he does. Although he's a trained firefighter he's usually assigned to paramedic duty. His station is on the beach and he's often involved in beach rescue. He loves that, but just doesn't see it being a good long term career. 

 

We don't live in a high COL area.

[EmseB]

Maybe I'm missing something?  Those projects listed all seemed to be things that would help local communities - things they needed various amounts of money for and things that would benefit a fair number of people.  Isn't that the purpose of community block grants?  To help communities by giving them portions of tax dollars to fund things they otherwise might have a difficult time funding?

 

 

I was simply posting the article to provide another perspective on the CDBG idea and why some people think there are better ways of funding the things currently on the chopping block.

 

The point is that distributing funds through the federal government to municipalities is, in general, a bad way to target those funds and is horribly inefficient from a financial standpoint.  Why spend millions to fund local programs via the feds?  There's no good reason to do it that way other than to enrich a bureaucratic system that takes the very dollars that are intended for charity (or anything in a city, really) in order to administer less efficient, not entirely exactly charitable programs.  If your city wants or needs a park, there's no reason to filter that need through the federal and state governments via the IRS.  We all spend millions more dollars to do it that way.

 

I'm not arguing that the programs themselves are bad.  In general, trying to fund it with a large federal system is horribly inefficient in terms of how much money taken in via taxes actually makes it to these programs. Not to mention the idea that if we fund it through some federal program, then it's taken care of and we don't have to worry about it.

 

I read a HuffPo article the yesterday that Meals on Wheels had a huge, record number of volunteers sign up when the headlines were trumpeting that it was being cut from the federal budget (which has since been fact checked, ironically). The tragedy, to me, is that those people had to hear the budget was being cut in the FEDERAL government in order for them to perceive a need in their community large enough for them to volunteer. Were those people discouraged from volunteering because they did not perceive a need in their community because of one small federal program?  The need for local, loving, human interaction was there all along whether or not the CBGD program was in the federal budget.  And yet...people only seem inspired to act when they think that it's not being taken care of by "the system".  It gives me hope that maybe the "I'll just pay a little more taxes and let the government take care of it" mentality going away may be one of the few bright spots coming in the next four years. Maybe we will see what it really means to be our brother's keeper, and that it isn't as simple as paying a little more in taxes.

[Dmmetler]

And honestly, if substantial tax cuts at the federal level were made, it would make sense to do more things locally. But if federal taxes are the same (or greater), that makes it really hard to make up cuts at the local level.

[SKL]

It's good to vet all these issues and contact your representatives if you have time.  That wasn't allowed with certain past big legislation and other lawmaking that affected everyone.

 

So more power to you.  There are always winners and losers.  Make your voices heard and we'll see how it shakes out.

[creekland]

I read a HuffPo article the yesterday that Meals on Wheels had a huge, record number of volunteers sign up when the headlines were trumpeting that it was being cut from the federal budget (which has since been fact checked, ironically). The tragedy, to me, is that those people had to hear the budget was being cut in the FEDERAL government in order for them to perceive a need in their community large enough for them to volunteer. Were those people discouraged from volunteering because they did not perceive a need in their community because of one small federal program?  

 

How does more people volunteering make up for the actual $$ cut (for any organization).

 

Many people actually have time to support things.  They only need inspiration.  That can come from a "good" news story of any sort as few seek out things, but are interested when they find out about them.  Think of how many folks offer to adopt a dog or cat that's the center of a "poor critter" story vs those just at the pound.  It's the same effect.

 

But can all those folks - in every community - provide the money that's lost?  And if they do in the short term, does it last after the story dies down?  'Cause if not, that's when folks will be going hungry (or dying from medical costs, etc).  Many volunteers with little to actually give doesn't help all that much.  

 

The Feds don't give much directly - they fund grants to organizations that have more local oversight and know where the needs are.  Yes, there's extra money lost (although one could also argue more jobs for that money), but the same will be true with military spending.  No system is perfect.  The idea of a larger picture is one where the haves end up helping the have-nots since it's tough for the have-nots to fund their own systems, but the haves could usually fund theirs at the Country Club.

 

We need to work to perfect systems, not eliminate them.  As a PP said, all of these systems came into play because things weren't getting successfully covered by charities and local attempts.  Real people were suffering/dying.  As humans we came together (or at least elected leaders did) and vowed to do something about it.  That something works for many.  We don't need to shove them back to the old days because systems aren't perfect.

[brehon]

Here fire EMS services are all one system - either city or county (for unincorporated areas). Dss works for the county. We do have private ambulance companies but their services and level of personnel training aren't equal to public departments. My stepson would not be able to support his wife and two children on his government salary. The benefits are decent but not fantastic. Union negotiations in a right-to-work state like Florida are a joke.

 

At one time he considered transferring to a nearby county that pays more, but he's vested here, and would have to start at the bottom if he went elsewhere. He's been there 12 years so that's a lot of seniority to give up. He actually loves what he does. Although he's a trained firefighter he's usually assigned to paramedic duty. His station is on the beach and he's often involved in beach rescue. He loves that, but just doesn't see it being a good long term career. 

 

We don't live in a high COL area.

 

Your dss' experience proves my point about different areas having different pay scales which either do or do not allow any individual paramedic, FF, LEO to support a family. In my state, also a very strong right-to-work state with a generally weak union presence, most paramedics, firefighters, and officers are able to support a family on government pay. In fact, in my area, the public service unions have negotiated pay and benefits for their members which put several area departments at the top of the league tables for the entire very large state. These departments are almost all city departments, not county departments. In full disclosure, I am NOT part of a union and don't have that option. My system isn't even civil service.

 

I completely understand being vested in a county system as I vested many years ago in my county system and would probably not be willing to give that up were I to need to change systems. For me, at least, that's a lot of seniority, pay, and, even more importantly, retirement bennies to give up. Paramedics bridging to nursing or another allied health profession is very common and a great way to serve people and support families.

 

I also agree about private ambulance personnel generally not being very well trained or having decent equipment. I have strong opinions about private ambulance companies, but that's neither here nor there. I hope your dss is successful in his studies!

 

[poppy]

I was simply posting the article to provide another perspective on the CDBG idea and why some people think there are better ways of funding the things currently on the chopping block.

 

The point is that distributing funds through the federal government to municipalities is, in general, a bad way to target those funds and is horribly inefficient from a financial standpoint.  Why spend millions to fund local programs via the feds?  There's no good reason to do it that way other than to enrich a bureaucratic system that takes the very dollars that are intended for charity (or anything in a city, really) in order to administer less efficient, not entirely exactly charitable programs.  If your city wants or needs a park, there's no reason to filter that need through the federal and state governments via the IRS.  We all spend millions more dollars to do it that way.

 

I'm not arguing that the programs themselves are bad.  In general, trying to fund it with a large federal system is horribly inefficient in terms of how much money taken in via taxes actually makes it to these programs. Not to mention the idea that if we fund it through some federal program, then it's taken care of and we don't have to worry about it.

 

I read a HuffPo article the yesterday that Meals on Wheels had a huge, record number of volunteers sign up when the headlines were trumpeting that it was being cut from the federal budget (which has since been fact checked, ironically). The tragedy, to me, is that those people had to hear the budget was being cut in the FEDERAL government in order for them to perceive a need in their community large enough for them to volunteer. Were those people discouraged from volunteering because they did not perceive a need in their community because of one small federal program?  The need for local, loving, human interaction was there all along whether or not the CBGD program was in the federal budget.  And yet...people only seem inspired to act when they think that it's not being taken care of by "the system".  It gives me hope that maybe the "I'll just pay a little more taxes and let the government take care of it" mentality going away may be one of the few bright spots coming in the next four years. Maybe we will see what it really means to be our brother's keeper, and that it isn't as simple as paying a little more in taxes.

 

As someone who's done some volunteer coordination, let me tell you,   "I emailed out of concern because I saw something online" volunteers are like fair weather fans.  Not who you count on for the long haul grind.  They're the equivalent of people who volunteer at the food pantry only on Thanskgiving day only.

[TechWife]

 

The point is that distributing funds through the federal government to municipalities is, in general, a bad way to target those funds and is horribly inefficient from a financial standpoint.  Why spend millions to fund local programs via the feds?  There's no good reason to do it that way other than to enrich a bureaucratic system that takes the very dollars that are intended for charity (or anything in a city, really) in order to administer less efficient, not entirely exactly charitable programs.  If your city wants or needs a park, there's no reason to filter that need through the federal and state governments via the IRS.  We all spend millions more dollars to do it that way.

 

I'm not arguing that the programs themselves are bad.  In general, trying to fund it with a large federal system is horribly inefficient in terms of how much money taken in via taxes actually makes it to these programs. Not to mention the idea that if we fund it through some federal program, then it's taken care of and we don't have to worry about it.

 

 

 

If money isn't collected through taxes for things such as public parks, how do you propose it be collected? 

 

There is actually nothing wrong with funding through a federal program because it is taken care of and we don't have to worry about it. Pooling resources is a very legitimate way to get things done, IMO, and that is exactly what taxes do. 

[Bluegoat]

Outsourcing has made me think about what kinds of jobs cannot be done overseas. Might be worth taking into consideration when our kids are investigating careers.

 

I think about this from time to time - white collar jobs in general don't look that great a prospect. 

[Innisfree]

I was simply posting the article to provide another perspective on the CDBG idea and why some people think there are better ways of funding the things currently on the chopping block.

 

The point is that distributing funds through the federal government to municipalities is, in general, a bad way to target those funds and is horribly inefficient from a financial standpoint. Why spend millions to fund local programs via the feds? There's no good reason to do it that way other than to enrich a bureaucratic system that takes the very dollars that are intended for charity (or anything in a city, really) in order to administer less efficient, not entirely exactly charitable programs. If your city wants or needs a park, there's no reason to filter that need through the federal and state governments via the IRS. We all spend millions more dollars to do it that way.

 

I'm not arguing that the programs themselves are bad. In general, trying to fund it with a large federal system is horribly inefficient in terms of how much money taken in via taxes actually makes it to these programs. Not to mention the idea that if we fund it through some federal program, then it's taken care of and we don't have to worry about it.

 

I read a HuffPo article the yesterday that Meals on Wheels had a huge, record number of volunteers sign up when the headlines were trumpeting that it was being cut from the federal budget (which has since been fact checked, ironically). The tragedy, to me, is that those people had to hear the budget was being cut in the FEDERAL government in order for them to perceive a need in their community large enough for them to volunteer. Were those people discouraged from volunteering because they did not perceive a need in their community because of one small federal program? The need for local, loving, human interaction was there all along whether or not the CBGD program was in the federal budget. And yet...people only seem inspired to act when they think that it's not being taken care of by "the system". It gives me hope that maybe the "I'll just pay a little more taxes and let the government take care of it" mentality going away may be one of the few bright spots coming in the next four years. Maybe we will see what it really means to be our brother's keeper, and that it isn't as simple as paying a little more in taxes.

 

So am I hearing correctly that there are several objections to the federal funding:

 

1: Inefficiency of multi-layered bureaucracy,

 

2: Constitutional limits to appropriate activities for federal, as opposed to state or local, government,

 

3: A sense that it is perhaps better to force/influence more people to be involved in volunteerism and service on a local level.

 

Am I heading in the right direction, for those who feel this way?

[Sneezyone]

As someone who's done some volunteer coordination, let me tell you,   "I emailed out of concern because I saw something online" volunteers are like fair weather fans.  Not who you count on for the long haul grind.  They're the equivalent of people who volunteer at the food pantry only on Thanskgiving day only.

 

OMG, yes! My first post-college job was a volunteer coordinator for a sheltered workshop. The regular volunteers were great but the 'I saw your facility on the news last night' folks would come once, maybe twice, and lose interest.

[Bluegoat]

Super Wealthy Private School was in FL, so this makes sense - thanks for that info!  In 10th grade I was totally unaware of state standards anywhere.

 

And with your last part... I've totally lost any sympathy I had for that group.  Even my charitable donations have changed now - significantly changed.  I don't feel they deserve charity (from me) to compensate what they deny from others.  If they aren't interested in trying to help everyone to the best of our ability, then why should they get singled out for help?  We still donate to charity, of course - just have changed directions to try to help those affected who didn't vote to be affected.

 

How can you do this though, practically?  Know who votes for what?  Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean?

[Innisfree]

Because if that's why people object to the federal programs, I have mixed feelings in response.

 

I get the desire for more state control, and in theory have no objection. But if you remove federal contributions, are you comfortable accepting that a child in, say, Arkansas or Mississippi will have very different opportunities from a child in Maryland or California? Are you comfortable with great inequalities, or is there a way to remedy them that I am missing?

[creekland]

How can you do this though, practically?  Know who votes for what?  Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean?

 

With organizations, it was easy to see who (if anyone) they endorsed.  If they endorsed someone I didn't care for... that settled it.  They don't have my values.  If they stayed neutral, no problem.

 

With individuals, all one has to do is listen to their opinions as they talk about them - no direct question needed unless it's just to get on the topic and that's super easy to do.

 

We do both types of charity giving and have changed beneficiaries quite a bit over the past 6 months.

 

If in doubt I give the benefit of the doubt, but there's honestly no doubt in many cases - esp local.

 

Now too, I have options of adding in programs subject to getting less in the new budget with the $$ I've quit sending elsewhere.  Our overall charitable giving hasn't changed one bit - just the direction it goes to.  We never have problems finding enough good causes (even prior to the latest turn of events), so it's not like I'm hard up figuring out where I can send our $$.  I could easily spend more if we get it.  

 

We donate a percentage of what we earn.  It doesn't matter if it's a tax deductible donation - like to an organization - or to an individual/small group - like kids from school raising $$ for a field trip or a jar next to the cash register or similar.  We give based on how much we have in our budget for it and whims on who we want to support.  Since our income changes monthly (being self-employed can do that), so does our charitable giving.  By the end of the year I make sure it's hit the percentage we want - sometimes it's over, but that's ok.  If it's under, I add extra elsewhere.  At Christmas time, that's easy to do - though actually at any time of the year it's easy to do.

[Lady Florida.]

As someone who's done some volunteer coordination, let me tell you,   "I emailed out of concern because I saw something online" volunteers are like fair weather fans.  Not who you count on for the long haul grind.  They're the equivalent of people who volunteer at the food pantry only on Thanskgiving day only.

 

 

OMG, yes! My first post-college job was a volunteer coordinator for a sheltered workshop. The regular volunteers were great but the 'I saw your facility on the news last night' folks would come once, maybe twice, and lose interest.

 

Some organizations will make you start with the things people least like doing, to see if they're truly interested. Ds had always wanted to volunteer at our local no-kill shelter but never actually got around to signing up. When one of his college classes required a service learning component he decided it was finally time. The shelter has people start in the thrift shop because they said they get a lot of people (including students like him who need the class credit) who will volunteer for a short time, get bored, then leave. They figure if you're willing to put in your time at the boring stuff like the thrift shop then you really want to be there. Now he works with the dogs (they call those volunteers Bark Buddies) but will still help out at the thrift shop when they need him there. 

[FaithManor]

Because if that's why people object to the federal programs, I have mixed feelings in response.

 

I get the desire for more state control, and in theory have no objection. But if you remove federal contributions, are you comfortable accepting that a child in, say, Arkansas or Mississippi will have very different opportunities from a child in Maryland or California? Are you comfortable with great inequalities, or is there a way to remedy them that I am missing?

And with completely uneven services, many will move to the States with good services which may put an undo burden on that state.

[Carol in Cal.]

And with completely uneven services, many will move to the States with good services which may put an undo burden on that state.

...driving a rush to the bottom, as in so many other things.

 

My DH has always said that WI is known for having really good welfare and that people move there for it.  I cannot imagine that that is true.  The climate is harsh, poor people are VERY poor, medicaid benefits are more rationed than some other places, and there seems to be a significant stigma to welfare that makes it harder to find employment.  Access to services is fairly fast, though--Meals on Wheels starts quickly, for instance, whereas out by us you get on a waiting list and hope to get on in a few months.

 

OTOH, here in the Bay Area, it's very expensive to live, BUT, being homeless does not mean you will die of exposure.  I mean, you could, but it's not that likely.  Welfare is harder to get, but there are really excellent sources for food and clothing.  And MediCal seems pretty easy and generous.  Meals on Wheels takes forever.  So do senior housing spots.  Section 8 has a waiting list that is literally years long at times.  When they open the Section 8 program up for new spots every few years, they can't even find a lot of the people on the waiting list because they have become homeless or moved away.

 

I dunno.

 

It's a ridiculous patchwork now, and social workers can be wonderful or they can be little petty despots.  

 

Getting rid of federal block grants seems like it would make things worse in most places, to me. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Some organizations will make you start with the things people least like doing, to see if they're truly interested. 

Interesting...

We are just the opposite.

 

If someone shows up to volunteer just once, we hope that they have a great time doing genuinely helpful stuff in a positive, encouraging environment.  Then they might get inspired to come back regularly and/or financially contribute.

 

We want to make sure that the people who come to us for food are treated cheerfully and that food is given ACROSS rather than down, because it's really hard to ask for food.  OMGosh, it's so hard.  So we don't want to make it any harder.  So we want anyone who is contact with those suppliants to be cheerful and kind even if they are stressed, scared, or tired.  It happens that that attitude also helps new volunteers feel welcome and positive, so that works out.  

 

It's certainly true that our most helpful volunteers are the ones who come every week, but we consciously try (and discuss in board meetings) to make sure that there is a list of 'one of' jobs to ask people to do who are onesie twosie helpers.  That's not always possible, but we do try.

 

Also, we schedule a few Saturday 'work parties' to pull together things like hygiene kits, or fix the floor tiles, or bag up toys, or sort clothing donations from time to time.  That way people can come on a day when the public is not present collecting stuff, and still make a meaningful contribution.

[Lady Florida.]

Interesting...

We are just the opposite.

 

If someone shows up to volunteer just once, we hope that they have a great time doing genuinely helpful stuff in a positive, encouraging environment.  Then they might get inspired to come back regularly and/or financially contribute.

 

We want to make sure that the people who come to us for food are treated cheerfully and that food is given ACROSS rather than down, because it's really hard to ask for food.  OMGosh, it's so hard.  So we don't want to make it any harder.  So we want anyone who is contact with those suppliants to be cheerful and kind even if they are stressed, scared, or tired.  It happens that that attitude also helps new volunteers feel welcome and positive, so that works out.  

 

It's certainly true that our most helpful volunteers are the ones who come every week, but we consciously try (and discuss in board meetings) to make sure that there is a list of 'one of' jobs to ask people to do who are onesie twosie helpers.  That's not always possible, but we do try.

 

Also, we schedule a few Saturday 'work parties' to pull together things like hygiene kits, or fix the floor tiles, or bag up toys, or sort clothing donations from time to time.  That way people can come on a day when the public is not present collecting stuff, and still make a meaningful contribution.

 

I think it might be because of the animals, especially dogs. They get attached to someone and that person just never comes back once they get their hours in or decide they have something better to do. The cats probably don't care, but they'd rather not have different rules for cats and dogs. So, if you want to volunteer with animals, first you start at the thrift shop.