Vacation Days (or lack thereof)

Closed Thread Subscribe

Thread Tools

May 28th 2016, 2:36 am

#46

kodokan

BE Forum Addict

Joined: Apr 2011

Location: Ohio

Posts: 1,834

Re: Vacation Days (or lack thereof)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asg123

I think it's something like 6 months at 50% of salary. (and maximum I think around $450/week)

Varies by state - in AZ last year, the max hubby could claim was $240 a week. It's about double that here in OH.

May 28th 2016, 2:56 am

#47

Pulaski

Joined: Dec 2001

Location: Dixie, ex UK

Posts: 52,439

Re: Vacation Days (or lack thereof)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonSquirrel

.... I understand however that unemployment benefits is tons better in America, two years at 75% of your last salary, is that right? ....

I don't think so, though it varies by state. In NC (i) it is capped at a fairly low level per week, (ii) only lasts for x weeks (less than a year at the moment, though it varies depending on the state budget and the amount of money the federal government will chip in), (iii) you can only get money out depending on how many months/ years you were employed and (your employer) contributed to the unemployment fund, so if you're unemployed twice within a couple of years you might find yourself without unemployment pay after a very short period, (iv) arguably the nastiest twist, if your employer fails to pay the mandatory contributions based on payroll to the state fund, then you can't claim at all, making you a victim of your employers fraud on the state unemployment fund.

And (v) I don't believed self-employed people are eligible to contribute to the fund and claim unemployment pay if their business fails.

May 30th 2016, 7:43 pm

#48

michaeldc

Forum Regular

Joined: May 2016

Posts: 70

michaeldc is an unknown quantity at this point

Re: Vacation Days (or lack thereof)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonSquirrel

People do seem to see life in the past with rose-tinted spectacles. My mum and dad paid 15% interest rates on their mortgage (and no they didn't have a big house and for several years we lived in a council house). We didn't have anything that people nowadays take for granted. Most 'poor' people have 50 inch plasma TVs. We had black and white and no telephone at home until about 1983. Never went on a foreign holiday until I was an adult and could pay for it myself. Only a few toys for Christmas that my parents paid for the rest of the year. only 5% of people went to university. No £599 iPhones that kids expect nowadays and half a toy shop. Yes I was lucky to go to a grammar school, but it went comprehensive in my 3rd year there. Most of our houses (we moved around a lot) had no central heating. If you wanted money you had to go to the bank, no cash machines, no internet banking, no cheap clothes, if you couldn't afford to pay 'normal' prices you went without. Which we did, my mum had one maternity dress when she was expecting my brother. All washing was done in a twin tub which was a lot of work, and we all had cloth nappies not disposables. Nowadays the government encourages people to have a company pension as well as the state pension, but pensioners my mum's age have mostly only the state pension. And there was no Childline and kids didn't go around hitting their parents like I see now because they were scared of them and might get hit if they misbehaved even at school. And in my aunt's youth a woman couldn't get a mortgage unless she was married! No minimum wage, my mum had a clerical job that paid £3.15 an hour back in about 2000. I myself had a Saturday job earning the princely sum of £4.34 a day and I worked all the holidays and saved £1600 to take to university. My dad died of a brain tumour aged 42 and my brother killed himself aged 21, and I had anorexia and went down to about 60 pounds. So I've not led the charmed life that you seem to think I have.

I agree that there are a lot of challenges facing young people these days but please let us not pretend that it was all sweetness and light 'back in the day.'

I'm not sure I understand what point you are making LS, you had a black and white tv, today people have 50" plasma's... yeah because technology moved on like it always does. None of these technological advancements make up for people not being able to buy a home for their family though do they? I'm 34, have a good job and couldn't secure a mortgage if my life depended on it, in fact, of all my friends, the only ones who have been able to buy are the ones who have parents who can gift them a large deposit. If you're single and want to buy - forget about it.

I think it says a lot about the state of the country when my parents saved up for 3 months for a tiny deposit and bought a nice home for £15k that they could easily afford on very modest incomes but today when young people who are paying through the nose for their education (that was free for older generations) have to leave Uni with massive debts and then rent for 10 years because they can't get on the property ladder. There's a shortage of affordable housing and this will be a huge problem in 50 years when all these people can't afford to rent and don't have any equity in the form of a house. What happens then?

The standard of living, technological and medical advances are all well and good, I expect them to continue to get better as they always have but I must ask, at what cost?

May 30th 2016, 8:53 pm

#49

LondonSquirrel

BE Enthusiast

Joined: Nov 2014

Location: London

Posts: 556

LondonSquirrel has a reputation beyond repute

Re: Vacation Days (or lack thereof)

I didn't say that I disagreed with the point about young people struggling to get affordable housing. And my post was not about technical advanced but about a higher general standard of living. I don't know how old you think I am but colour TV and telephones at home existed when I was growing up, heck people had telephones since the 1930s, but my parents couldn't afford to have one until 1983. I was making the point that we didn't live in utopia back in the day. If mortgage interest rates ever return to 15% I suspect most people would lose their homes, probably including us.