Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

What determines how your life will be?

12346»

Replies

  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 7,549 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Ok - well that is quite different here.

    Permanant part time gets exactly same benifits as permanant full time - but in proportionate amounts to hours worked - so, for example, I would get the equivalent of 6 days Sick Leave per year if I worked part time, 6 days per week
    Full time gets 10 days.

    Just to add one thing, there are different kinds of part time. I am most familiar with salaried part time (I have not done it, but it is available where I work and I know people at my office and elsewhere who are part time), and in those kinds of jobs you typically get benefits (although paid time off would be likely based on percentage of time you worked and vary employer to employer anyway). In general there are going to be big differences between types of jobs.

    What people are talking about, of course, is federal requirements for certain benefits (that they aren't required doesn't mean no one gets them). With health insurance in particular, employers are only required to offer health insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours per week (there are other health insurance options under ACA if one does not have employer-provided insurance). Social security is based on income (some jobs don't get soc sec but other options like govt workers and pensions -- which are actually more generous than SocSec by a lot where I live). The US generally doesn't have any requirements for paid time off, that tends to be up to the employer (and will often have to do with what the employer has to offer to be competitive). There are requirements for unpaid, but they vary based on reasons for the leave and the hours you work.


    yes the whole system seems different - here in Aus you can't work permanant full time or permanant part time and NOT get annual leave, sick leave etc

    All employers have to follow Award conditions and wages and those are basic requirements.

    Casual is different - but the hourly rate is higher to compensate for lack of leave benifits.

    and of course the whole health insurance issue is null and void - everyone is covered by medicare and if people want private health insurance on top of that they take it out themselves, is not an employer issue.

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,867 Member
    What is casual? Like freelancing? Or being an independent contractor of sorts?
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 7,549 Member
    Casual is you dont have permanant hours.

    not free lancing or contracting

    Usually (but not always) somewhere where the hours are not many or are variable or intermittent.

  • Slacker16
    Slacker16 Posts: 1,185 Member
    You know, reading through this thread, I keep seeing comparisons between the modern US with that of the 50s and 60s...

    Here's the thing: as a highly developed country, the US's main economic competitors are western+central Europe, Japan and, to a lesser extent, eastern Europe and China (there's also Australia and Canada but, put together, they have ~1/6 of the US's population)... during the 50s, and even the early 60s, most of these countries were either still recovering from WW2 or communist whereas the US came out of it with its infrastructure, social order and, by and large, even demographics pretty much intact.

    It's just not the same situation today.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,128 Member
    edited January 13
    14% of employees in America's largest grocery chain are homeless or have been in the last year.

    https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-01-11/2-out-of-3-kroger-workers-struggle-to-afford-food-housing-survey-finds

    This is not the kind of world we should be living in.

    A closer look at the info in this article reveals that the survey did not use a national sample, but rather selected employees from 3 specific areas with extremely high costs of living and high rates of homelessness.
    The one example it gives of an employee who has to earn recycling money to afford food was essentially working full time hours at just a few cents less than $15 per hour.
    In most parts of the US, that's enough to get by.
    I was making less and my wife wasn't working when I bought my first home.
    This isn't a "Kroger pays too little" problem.
    It's a "cost of living is too high" problem.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,881 Member
    edited January 15
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    This isn't a "Kroger pays too little" problem.
    It's a "cost of living is too high" problem.

    A distinction without a difference. People doing their party and working can't afford to buy the food Kroger sells.
  • TakeTheLongWayHome
    TakeTheLongWayHome Posts: 755 Member
    Yup. I know a cashier at my local Kroger and she told me that she has to shop elsewhere to be able to afford it. It just seems kind of hopeless out in the world right now. Maybe it’s just here in the U.S. Maybe it’s just me. Seemingly endless problems with no good solutions.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,128 Member
    edited January 17
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    This isn't a "Kroger pays too little" problem.
    It's a "cost of living is too high" problem.

    A distinction without a difference. People doing their party and working can't afford to buy the food Kroger sells.

    If you want to actually solve the problem there's a huge difference.
    If you only care about the symptoms, not so much.

    Of course, treating only the symptom while ignoring the root cause simply allows the real problem to become worse and worse, creating more and more disparity.
  • HelPur25
    HelPur25 Posts: 23 Member
    edited January 21
    I was reading recently about the 18 Early Maladaptive Schemas. It's the theory that there are basically 18 different negative cognitive mindsets that people can acquire 1 or more of early on in life. These negative outlooks can hinder one's own success in a variety of ways. There are online quizzes you can take to see if you have any of them, and there are therapists certified in counseling people who have them. It was very interesting and made a lot of sense to me.
  • LaurenMargott
    LaurenMargott Posts: 24 Member
    Lots of things influence your life and how it ends up.

    1. Social status at birth. Rich kids vs poor kids. Rich kids are more likely to succeed, sure poor kids can, but it takes a LOT more work and a setback can be completely devastating.
    2. Health. Being born with a disability or illness or acquiring one over your life time. You have to navigate a world not built for you, can't work for X company to get your first experience in industry because their buildings only have stairs, can't work full time because of health limitations, can't work at all while you have surgery and 2 years worth of physio to recover from a big accident (me). I speak from experience on this one. I was about to buy my first home when I had an accident at work, I still have not caught up to my peers almost 10 years later, I had to do all that work and training all over again. Start a career in my 30s etc. I still don't own a home.
    3. Luck. Plain old luck. Not everyone gets that lucky break and for everyone who does a lot of people fail.
    4. Where you live, born into poverty as a girl in a country that sells kids into sex trafficking or marriage?
    5. Education
    6. Hard work

    And so so many other things. While hurdles can be overcome it's unrealistic to think that every single person will overcome every hurdle placed in front of them. That doesn't mean they didn't work hard, they didn't want it or they didn't deserve it. They just didn't overcome it because the same hurdles can be a lot harder for some people.