Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,371
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 27, 2019 22:52:41 GMT -5
Why is it so difficult for the standard Repo-Con to understand that American workers have been getting underpaid since 1973 and that we would all be better off if they weren’t? it is a week argument to the rich, don.
a better argument is that the way to STAY rich is to share some small fraction of the wealth. the reason being twofold:
1) if you don't, someday, your house will be surrounded by starving people with pitchforks and rifles. 2) if you DO, they will end up buying products and services which will keep the gravy train rolling.
even if you don't like threats (as you know, i sure as hell don't), you have to like money.
i mean, who doesn't?
I think it's more along the lines of if you don't - someday you'll wind up spending tons of money to keep the riff raff away from you and your family and friends. Money you could have been spending on disposable golden dinner plates and flatware and cups/glasses (because you refuse to use the same set of plates/etc a second time). Then there's the nifty thing were if you (and other rich people) share some of your wealth with the "losers" - you can leverage the losers opinions/man power/existence to help control the 'power' of the other wealthy people (and get the things you want). So, you can get the rest of the wealthies to agree to help pay for something like 'public projects' that benefit you (and the other wealthies and even the 'losers') without having to foot the bill totally yourself. If the "pitchfork and rifles" thing was a real threat - we wouldn't see so much wealth held by so few people in other poor countries. It's pretty easy to wall yourself away or hire an army to protect yourself from the pitchforks and rifles. It's also pretty easy to withhold (or control) water, food, gas, electricity to the "masses".... I doubt wealthy Americans are worried about people taking up arms and attempting a coup (power from the wealthy - not the government).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,203
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 27, 2019 23:26:46 GMT -5
it is a week argument to the rich, don.
a better argument is that the way to STAY rich is to share some small fraction of the wealth. the reason being twofold:
1) if you don't, someday, your house will be surrounded by starving people with pitchforks and rifles. 2) if you DO, they will end up buying products and services which will keep the gravy train rolling.
even if you don't like threats (as you know, i sure as hell don't), you have to like money.
i mean, who doesn't?
I think it's more along the lines of if you don't - someday you'll wind up spending tons of money to keep the riff raff away from you and your family and friends. Money you could have been spending on disposable golden dinner plates and flatware and cups/glasses (because you refuse to use the same set of plates/etc a second time). Then there's the nifty thing were if you (and other rich people) share some of your wealth with the "losers" - you can leverage the losers opinions/man power/existence to help control the 'power' of the other wealthy people (and get the things you want). So, you can get the rest of the wealthies to agree to help pay for something like 'public projects' that benefit you (and the other wealthies and even the 'losers') without having to foot the bill totally yourself. If the "pitchfork and rifles" thing was a real threat - we wouldn't see so much wealth held by so few people in other poor countries. It's pretty easy to wall yourself away or hire an army to protect yourself from the pitchforks and rifles. It's also pretty easy to withhold (or control) water, food, gas, electricity to the "masses".... I doubt wealthy Americans are worried about people taking up arms and attempting a coup (power from the wealthy - not the government). well, the American elite is not used to social unrest. I think they would find it very uncomfortable. then again, the American Left is a very ineffective tool against it right now. the only visible socialist out there is Sanders.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jun 28, 2019 8:29:02 GMT -5
Is the solution Take money from the rich, give it to the poor, As long as they have free money coming in, why build anything better, And if you are a mover, make a lot of money,, We will take it from you ,, give it to the poor , that well,, don't work! Wow that sounds great!!
Calm down, the solution is to give the working poor opportunity and a living wage. The solution is to take care of our own, which means healthcare for all and strengthening our social safety net. Yes, the rich will pay more, but we are not talking about disenfranchising them by any means. Demi, did you get where you are now, by waiting around waiting for some one to give you something?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jun 28, 2019 10:16:01 GMT -5
Someone working 2 jobs at minimum wage with no health insurance isn’t waiting for anything. Too busy.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2019 10:22:34 GMT -5
I'm so fucking sick of this American idea that working 60+ hours a week with maybe 2 wks of vacation is not only acceptable but a perfectly fine way to live. While they blithely ignore all the studies that show how it's bad for both the workers and corporations. I'm a decade into my career and it's fucked up that these dinosaur companies are like oh let's give you the same amount of vacation as a kid. fuck that shit. If your company has positions that consistently need over 40 hours to complete you need more employees. Period. Then quit, Take your services and skills else where. I do refuse to work at shit companies like that. Doesn't mean it's right for them to treat their employees like shit. Doesn't mean it's actually good for productivity. Doesn't mean everyone has the luxury of making that decision. Why is the default reaction to just leave instead of trying to make things better? Why don't people want things to be better?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,920
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 28, 2019 10:47:04 GMT -5
Tell me DJ, if you lost all you money tomorrow, I am willing to say, a few years down the road,, you would have it back, maybe more. That is because you know how to make money. A whole lot of people do not know how to do that, So they are indeed stuck in their job, It is their fault for not figuring out what they need to do. Or don't want to do it!
OC, society does not just need businessmen who can build a successful business and get rich.
I'm sure when you've been in a hospital you appreciated having a good nurse. Your kids needed good teachers to get a good education. Bus drivers, lunch ladies, librarians, retail clerks, fast food workers, the truck drivers who move goods and services around - all of these people provide functions that are useful to society. All these people have seen their wages level out for decades now.
The answer is not for every American to strike out on their own to create their own business - we'd run out of the worker bees who keep all the businesses moving. And it's the worker bees, in turn, who buy the goods and services from the business people and keep those businesses thriving.
It's in our best interest to make sure the worker bees are adequately paid so they can continue to buy the goods and services to keep the economy moving. Otherwise, it'll be like putting a Hard Rock Café in the middle of a beautiful desert island - no one to run it, and no one to visit it.
I don't know why it's so hard to understand how capitalism works (or should work). If we keep allowing the wealth and power to reside in a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, we'll skip back in time to the middle ages where the king has everything, serfs live in squalor and there is no middle class.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jun 28, 2019 11:03:24 GMT -5
Ok so how much is being paid enough? Who gets to set that standard? We have a min wage what more do you want. I believe in people are in charge of their life it's their responsibility to provide for themselves nit the hove the welfare system should be shutdown and revamped. Not going to hurt anyone to work 60-80-100 hrs a wee WeekYou can't possibly be serious! The richest country in the world, where people have to work 100 hours a week, just to put bread on the table and a roof over their heads. Richest country in the world doesn't mean everyone is rich. It certainly doesn't mean that the rich need to feed the poor if the poor can work
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 28, 2019 11:10:40 GMT -5
You can't possibly be serious! The richest country in the world, where people have to work 100 hours a week, just to put bread on the table and a roof over their heads. Richest country in the world doesn't mean everyone is rich. It certainly doesn't mean that the rich need to feed the poor if the poor can work You think they should work 100 hours a week, just to survive. That's despicable.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jun 28, 2019 14:09:24 GMT -5
Richest country in the world doesn't mean everyone is rich. It certainly doesn't mean that the rich need to feed the poor if the poor can work You think they should work 100 hours a week, just to survive. That's despicable. no but working 100 hrs to get out of a jam sure...working 60 to 80 to get ahead why not.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Jun 28, 2019 14:10:31 GMT -5
""You think they should work 100 hours a week, just to survive. That's despicable.""
I would change "should work" to "are allowed to work". I had no problem with 80 hour weeks, I volunteered for the OT and was happy to get it. And I silently thanked those who turned down the OT. Between the ages of 18 and 25, over half of my earnings went to tuition and dorm rooms.
|
|
hurley1980
Well-Known Member
I am all that is wrong with the world....don't get too close, I'm contagious.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 17:35:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,943
|
Post by hurley1980 on Jun 28, 2019 14:36:10 GMT -5
You think they should work 100 hours a week, just to survive. That's despicable. no but working 100 hrs to get out of a jam sure...working 60 to 80 to get ahead why not. Except they aren't getting ahead. They are barely surviving.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jun 28, 2019 14:41:36 GMT -5
no but working 100 hrs to get out of a jam sure...working 60 to 80 to get ahead why not. Except they aren't getting ahead. They are barely surviving. Then that is poor management on their part.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jun 28, 2019 15:37:33 GMT -5
You think they should work 100 hours a week, just to survive. That's despicable. no but working 100 hrs to get out of a jam sure...working 60 to 80 to get ahead why not. You post as if you think the UE rate is 23% and that nobody wants to work. That is exceedingly naive about reality in America.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,203
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2019 16:20:52 GMT -5
Someone working 2 jobs at minimum wage with no health insurance isn’t waiting for anything. Too busy. this is how serfdom works. if you keep people's aspirations to the level of self preservation, they don't have time to imagine a better life.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,203
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2019 16:24:51 GMT -5
You can't possibly be serious! The richest country in the world, where people have to work 100 hours a week, just to put bread on the table and a roof over their heads. Richest country in the world doesn't mean everyone is rich. It certainly doesn't mean that the rich need to feed the poor if the poor can work the richest nation on Earth SHOULD mean, imo, that NOBODY lives in poverty. NOBODY.
now, you might say that is unrealistic. fine, how about this:
we can do better than 2x the average poverty rate of other developed nations, can't we? we should be in the TOP FIVE in the world, don't you think? in fact, since we are the richest nation, why should we NOT have the LOWEST poverty rates?
apparently we are richer in materials than spirit.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 28, 2019 16:33:40 GMT -5
""You think they should work 100 hours a week, just to survive. That's despicable.""
I would change "should work" to "are allowed to work". I had no problem with 80 hour weeks, I volunteered for the OT and was happy to get it. And I silently thanked those who turned down the OT. Between the ages of 18 and 25, over half of my earnings went to tuition and dorm rooms.
Just out of curiosity....were you a single parent with 3 little kids? What makes you think everyone can work 2 or 2 1/2 full time jobs with kids?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,203
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2019 16:39:44 GMT -5
""You think they should work 100 hours a week, just to survive. That's despicable.""
I would change "should work" to "are allowed to work". I had no problem with 80 hour weeks, I volunteered for the OT and was happy to get it. And I silently thanked those who turned down the OT. Between the ages of 18 and 25, over half of my earnings went to tuition and dorm rooms.
Just out of curiosity....were you a single parent with 3 little kids? What makes you think everyone can work 2 or 2 1/2 full time jobs with kids? here are the facts as I see them:
in order to have the same middle class lifestyle as a family living in 1973, families now must have two incomes. this means less "family time". it should bother EVERY REPUBLICAN that women are getting pulled away from families OUT OF NECESSITY.
I find these discussions kinda shocking, honestly.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 28, 2019 16:44:45 GMT -5
70% of the Nation’s Poor are Women & Children Women in America are still 35 percent more likely than men to be poor in America, with single mothers facing the highest risk. Currently, 35 percent of single women with children live and raise their families in poverty. www.legalmomentum.org/women-and-poverty-americaSo tell me....how many daycares operate at night, so women can work 100 hours a week? How many daycares charge $7 per day, so they can AFFORD to work 100 hours a week? The ignorance here is appalling.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,203
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2019 16:52:11 GMT -5
70% of the Nation’s Poor are Women & Children Women in America are still 35 percent more likely than men to be poor in America, with single mothers facing the highest risk. Currently, 35 percent of single women with children live and raise their families in poverty. www.legalmomentum.org/women-and-poverty-americaSo tell me....how many daycares operate at night, so women can work 100 hours a week? How many daycares charge $7 per day, so they can AFFORD to work 100 hours a week? The ignorance here is appalling. weltz:
there was a report that came out in the 90's with the title of "The US Is Killing It's Children", or something like that. the ONLY newspaper in the US that reported on it was the wonderful Dallas Daily News. in this report, it outlined the fact that the US was THE MOST DANGEROUS OF ALL WESTERN NATIONS to raise a child. we start out by having a high infant mortality rate (because we don't do an adequate job of encouraging and ensuring prenatal care). then, kids are subjected to high incidences of traffic accidents, gun violence, drug use growing up. then they have high suicide rates. the net result is that we rank DEAD LAST among Western nations in mortality for children.
now, in a NORMAL society (I say normal because all societies value their children), one would expect there to be widespread outcry over such a report, and a national effort to do something about it. in ours? the story was crushed. it was the most censored story that year, according to Project Censored.
that was one of the first indications I got that we were doomed.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 28, 2019 16:55:01 GMT -5
70% of the Nation’s Poor are Women & Children Women in America are still 35 percent more likely than men to be poor in America, with single mothers facing the highest risk. Currently, 35 percent of single women with children live and raise their families in poverty. www.legalmomentum.org/women-and-poverty-americaSo tell me....how many daycares operate at night, so women can work 100 hours a week? How many daycares charge $7 per day, so they can AFFORD to work 100 hours a week? The ignorance here is appalling. weltz:
there was a report that came out in the 90's with the title of "The US Is Killing It's Children", or something like that. the ONLY newspaper in the US that reported on it was the wonderful Dallas Daily News. in this report, it outlined the fact that the US was THE MOST DANGEROUS OF ALL WESTERN NATIONS to raise a child. we start out by having a high infant mortality rate (because we don't do an adequate job of encouraging and ensuring prenatal care). then, kids are subjected to high incidences of traffic accidents, gun violence, drug use growing up. then they have high suicide rates. the net result is that we rank DEAD LAST among Western nations in mortality for children.
now, in a NORMAL society (I say normal because all societies value their children), one would expect there to be widespread outcry over such a report, and a national effort to do something about it. in ours? the story was crushed. it was the most censored story that year, according to Project Censored.
that was one of the first indications I got that we were doomed.
Agreed. USA! USA!
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 28, 2019 17:13:20 GMT -5
Maybe the poor should just have the decency to die.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Jun 28, 2019 18:26:58 GMT -5
""Except they aren't getting ahead. They are barely surviving.""
80 hours x $15/hour min wage = $1200/wk = $60,000 gross. When I drove trucks, ages 18 to 25, I made more than min wage (altho I don't recall how much). especially after I switched from gravel trucks to 18-wheelers at age 21. Are you saying that today's millennials can't manage their lives on $60k/year?? Tips: Sleep at YMCAs, eat at bowling alley lunch counters. ""Currently, 35 percent of single women with children live and raise their families in poverty."""
Birth control pills became commonly in use beginning in about 1960, it caused a major cultural shift. Womens' Lib, bra burning, Woodstock, yada. Followed by the women's movement, etc. In many cases, young women openly stated that men were not needed, an anti-man culture. That has resulted in a whole new demographic - single moms. And poverty - single moms are among the poorest in the country. I've seen it in our neighborhood - we built here 45 years ago, many of the girl babies never married, now in their 40's.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,203
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2019 18:30:54 GMT -5
""Except they aren't getting ahead. They are barely surviving.""
80 hours x $15/hour min wage = $1200/wk = $60,000 gross. When I drove trucks, ages 18 to 25, I made more than min wage (altho I don't recall how much). especially after I switched from gravel trucks to 18-wheelers at age 21. Are you saying that today's millennials can't manage their lives on $60k/year?? Tips: Sleep at YMCAs, eat at bowling alley lunch counters. ""Currently, 35 percent of single women with children live and raise their families in poverty."""
Birth control pills became commonly in use beginning in about 1960, it caused a major cultural shift. Womens' Lib, bra burning, Woodstock, yada. Followed by the women's movement, etc. In many cases, young women openly stated that men were not needed, an anti-man culture. That has resulted in a whole new demographic - single moms. And poverty - single moms are among the poorest in the country. I've seen it in our neighborhood - we built here 45 years ago, many of the girl babies never married, now in their 40's.
so, you think it is OK to have 20% poverty rates?
the blame game is fine, phil, but what is your solution?
you think it would improve matters to cut welfare? because we did that in the 90's. it doesn't seem to have helped.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jun 28, 2019 18:57:49 GMT -5
Phil, Please list all the states in the union that have $15 minimum wage across the board o as to add a smidgen of validity to your assertion.TYIA
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jun 28, 2019 19:00:45 GMT -5
I just looked it up and the 2019 US minimum wage is $7.25/hr. Less than half of way Phil states. Perhaps he needs a redo and also he can explain why the Repo-Cons generally oppose any increase therein.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 28, 2019 19:36:30 GMT -5
""Except they aren't getting ahead. They are barely surviving.""
80 hours x $15/hour min wage = $1200/wk = $60,000 gross. When I drove trucks, ages 18 to 25, I made more than min wage (altho I don't recall how much). especially after I switched from gravel trucks to 18-wheelers at age 21. Are you saying that today's millennials can't manage their lives on $60k/year?? Tips: Sleep at YMCAs, eat at bowling alley lunch counters. ""Currently, 35 percent of single women with children live and raise their families in poverty."""
Birth control pills became commonly in use beginning in about 1960, it caused a major cultural shift. Womens' Lib, bra burning, Woodstock, yada. Followed by the women's movement, etc. In many cases, young women openly stated that men were not needed, an anti-man culture. That has resulted in a whole new demographic - single moms. And poverty - single moms are among the poorest in the country. I've seen it in our neighborhood - we built here 45 years ago, many of the girl babies never married, now in their 40's.
80 hours? AGAIN....how many daycares do you know of which are open at night? That's 2 full time jobs. I guess the kids will just have to raise themselves, cook for themselves, and go to doctors and PTA meetings themselves. Maybe hang around the local gangs to have a sense of family.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,425
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 28, 2019 21:16:00 GMT -5
""Except they aren't getting ahead. They are barely surviving.""
80 hours x $15/hour min wage = $1200/wk = $60,000 gross. When I drove trucks, ages 18 to 25, I made more than min wage (altho I don't recall how much). especially after I switched from gravel trucks to 18-wheelers at age 21. Are you saying that today's millennials can't manage their lives on $60k/year?? Tips: Sleep at YMCAs, eat at bowling alley lunch counters. ""Currently, 35 percent of single women with children live and raise their families in poverty."""
Birth control pills became commonly in use beginning in about 1960, it caused a major cultural shift. Womens' Lib, bra burning, Woodstock, yada. Followed by the women's movement, etc. In many cases, young women openly stated that men were not needed, an anti-man culture. That has resulted in a whole new demographic - single moms. And poverty - single moms are among the poorest in the country. I've seen it in our neighborhood - we built here 45 years ago, many of the girl babies never married, now in their 40's.
80 hours? AGAIN....how many daycares do you know of which are open at night? That's 2 full time jobs. I guess the kids will just have to raise themselves, cook for themselves, and go to doctors and PTA meetings themselves. Maybe hang around the local gangs to have a sense of family. 😁 Vegas apparently has an industry of overnight child care. 😁
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2019 21:47:12 GMT -5
1) at 80 hours a week with a 30 minute commute that leaves 25 hours a week to eat breakfast and dinner (and lunch if you have a none working day) and do everything else you need to survive like grocery shopping, cleaning, bill pay, laundry etc. 25 fucking hours and we're supposed to say "hell yea that's an awesome fucking country where I 30 minutes a week to myself" (it's inconceivable if you have kids, or should be)
2) I love how he doesn't include over time so that means 2 separate jobs which directly contradicts his last post about overtime
3) I love how he ignores that a ton of people working over 40 hours are salary and therefore not paid a dime for overtime. That's the case for most of the people I know
4) I love how work experience from last century is supposedly still relevant to give you the ability to talk about today's work environment. If the iPhone didn't exist when you were working stfu about anything to do with work.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,203
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2019 13:29:28 GMT -5
I worked 80-100 hours a week for a couple of years.
I was so burned out by the end of it that I never wanted to work again.
once my son was born, I got down to 110 hours/payperiod.
now I work 21 hours a week. that's enough for me.
I wish everyone could work so little.
life is more than work.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,426
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Jun 29, 2019 13:38:43 GMT -5
Those of you a little closer to my age (ahem) can remember when it was legal for businesses to pay salary only (no overtime) to assistant managers. My husband had the misfortune of being an assistant manager during that time, and was killing himself working long days, 7 days a week. He rarely saw our infant daughter awake during that time, and would pick her up out of her crib, asleep, to rock her, so he at least got a bit of time with her. He was too exhausted to even job hunt, so I'd put together a new resume for him, and he did eventually get a different job. But, I've never forgotten how LITTLE money he made during that time, not to mention feeling like a single parent, since he was rarely at home.
|
|