Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Americans' fear of losing their jobs grows

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 227 posts

Re: Americans' fear of losing their jobs grows

#201

Post by mjevans »

kyleperik wrote: post #196
brewdad wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

401k is government backed. The name itself refers to the law that brought them into existence. Just as Roth IRAs are named for the Senator who proposed them. Without the backing of the government, your retirement plan would solely consist of what you save and you'd be taxed on it all along the way.

I'm not sure that's what was meant by government backed. The government doesn't pay for your retirement fund, a Roth IRA just doesn't charge tax on withdrawals.

My intent was the entire benefits provisioning package outsourced to the government. This way irrespective of if heath coverage (it's not really insurance, which is a separate debate), paid time off of all kinds, and all other pre-tax line items are an entirely separate income stream and go over to the government managed pool of resources.

The compensation rate for all such items might thus become far more standardized, and all of the bureaucratic conformance for such items would be there as well.

This would be an exceedingly small business friendly move as suddenly a lot of the headaches of employing someone would just be paid for with a simple 'tax'.

It would also be very worker friendly as all of those things and seniority/etc would similarly be paid for with that 'tax'.

This does assume that there's a uniform allocation of resources per employee (I know there isn't today), or that there's a standard appreciation track for employees (there isn't today)... or that there might be multiple standard ranks of benefits (which would need to be more clearly advertised in job descriptions)...

However everything really would be easier for everyone if we actually had this system; the only entities that would benefit from the status quo in a meaningful way are large corporations with enough employees to justify full time HR and legal staff.

Re: Americans' fear of losing their jobs grows

#202

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

Miner49er wrote: post #38
dexen wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The mainstream media isn't talking about it to get rid of Trump. That has became a bit of a meme ever since Bill Maher pointed out recession would both prevent Trump's reelection and also judged it as preferable over Trump. "Well, you should wish for a recession,” Maher said, interrupting Nichols. “'Cause that will definitely get him [Trump] unelected." [1] He followed it up with more of the same in a later episode…

You can find other political pundits that'll say that a recession would help Trump get elected, and I personally view that as the case.

Citation? Can you find the analysis that a recession would help Trump get re-elected?

Because I have the opposite as historical fact. That in the 1900s the only incumbent presidents to have lost re-election were those that campaigned during a recession (two irrc, maybe three).

Re: Americans' fear of losing their jobs grows

#203

Post by simplecomplex »

H1Supreme wrote: post #156
simplecomplex wrote: post #119

Save some money, then you don’t need to fear losing your job. Fear of losing your job is a result of poor personal finances. There’s no need to fear if you have your personal finances in order.

Apparently you've never lived "paycheck to paycheck" before. I can remember a time in my life where I would be so happy just to have an extra $100 at the end of the month. This was living with roommates, never going out, and bringing my lunch everyday. No frivolous spending at all. God forbid you have to fix your car, or some other unexpected expense. That $1,000 it took you 6 months to save is gone in an instant. Wh…

I have. If someone can’t save a few hundred bucks a month something is wrong.

Let’s use Dallas TX for example, even just waiting on tables you can make at least twice rent. Forgo a car and you’d be able to pocket $500 / mo or more if one was frugal.

It’s even more critical to save when at the bottom of the economic ladder, because it allows one freedom to pursue or invest in other opportunities (paying for school, moving, weathering unemployment, etc.)

Re: Americans' fear of losing their jobs grows

#204

Post by chillwaves »

cptnapalm wrote: post #200
chillwaves wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why was the mainstream media campaigning for Clinton?

He was the Democrat and once the pile on started, it never let up.

So you are saying the media campaigns for democrats? Doesn't seem likely to me.

Re: Americans' fear of losing their jobs grows

#205

Post by eikenberry »

brewdad wrote: post #193
eikenberry wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need to be government backed, just not tied to an employer/job. Much like current retirement plans are not tied to a specific company.

401k is government backed. The name itself refers to the law that brought them into existence. Just as Roth IRAs are named for the Senator who proposed them. Without the backing of the government, your retirement plan would solely consist of what you save and you'd be taxed on it all along the way.

401k's are only government backed in a weird circular way. If there were no government, they would work fine as a retirement savings plan. The government backs them only by protecting them from the government taking more of the money in taxes.

And as the other response mentions, this was more in about the idea of the government funding and controlling it.

Re: Americans' fear of losing their jobs grows

#206

Post by bproven »

Ensorceled wrote: post #192
dragonwriter wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Boomers and GenX stayed for 30 years when they had pensions, Uh, GenX was being born as private pensions were being phased out; GenX was 401K at best from day one for the most part, outside of public sector.

The oldest Gen X is almost 60 now, many entered the workforce when there were still defined benefit plans. But you're essentially right, most missed the boat.

Not quite that old, but early to mid-50s - Pretty sure GenX is 1965 - 1980. I'm on the tail end of that and yeah no pensions... Baby boomers got all the good stuff :)

Re: Americans' fear of losing their jobs grows

#207

Post by threwawasy1228 »

simplecomplex wrote: post #203
H1Supreme wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently you've never lived "paycheck to paycheck" before. I can remember a time in my life where I would be so happy just to have an extra $100 at the end of the month. This was living with roommates, never going out, and bringing my lunch everyday. No frivolous spending at all. God forbid you have to fix your car, or some other unexpected expense. That $1,000 it took you 6 months to save is gone in an instant. Wh…

I have. If someone can’t save a few hundred bucks a month something is wrong. Let’s use Dallas TX for example, even just waiting on tables you can make at least twice rent. Forgo a car and you’d be able to pocket $500 / mo or more if one was frugal. It’s even more critical to save when at the bottom of the economic ladder, because it allows one freedom to pursue or invest in other opportunities (paying for school, mo…

This is an absolutely incorrect and unrealistic estimation for the majority of the people waiting tables. I started writing up a long thing calculating this out and stopped myself. I am going to assume you are commenting in good faith, so I'll just state the correct information would be extremely quick for you to research with a few google searches..

Re: Americans' fear of losing their jobs grows

#208

Post by mikelyons »

ramphastidae wrote: post #168

I always thought job loss was something that happens to other people until I got laid off despite being an ‘A player.’ Now I assume it is just a matter of time no matter the role. This is the reality for everyone under at-will employment. Even if you are the best at your job, outside circumstances like changes in strategy, funding and leadership can make you a target for ‘managed offboarding.’

What other types of employment are there?

Re: Americans' fear of losing their jobs grows

#209

Post by danielscrubs »

blhack wrote: post #43
VonGuard wrote: post #5

The United States is weird in that you are defined, here, by your job or profession. TV shows put your job title under your name when you appear on them. People's first question is always "What do you do?" at parties and at events. In other countries, this isn't always the case. When I'm in Europe, people ask where you're from, what's for dinner, and what's happening? The question of your job is rarely asked up front…

These silly “American bad Europe good” comments always find their way into these discussions, and they are as uninsightful as “if you aren’t the customer you’re the product!”. An equally uncharitable interpretation is: American culture, unlike European, places incredible value on personal agency. We ask each other “what do you do” because we actually have the socially enforced freedom to choose what the answer to the…

What have you been smoking? We get paid to go to university and it’s free.

https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobi...

And it’s never rude to ask what kind of work you do.

Re: Americans' fear of losing their jobs grows

#210

Post by ramphastidae »

mikelyons wrote: post #208
ramphastidae wrote: post #168

I always thought job loss was something that happens to other people until I got laid off despite being an ‘A player.’ Now I assume it is just a matter of time no matter the role. This is the reality for everyone under at-will employment. Even if you are the best at your job, outside circumstances like changes in strategy, funding and leadership can make you a target for ‘managed offboarding.’

What other types of employment are there?

Contract employment? Unions?
Post reply on HN