Pages: 1

 

2009-02-23 22:20:44
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7019
http://www.boston.com/business/articles … loving_it/

They say they were sick of the success spiral?  They could live in the woods and hunt squirrels... no stress there...
  It's a little bizarre this couple is enjoying being unemployed... I guess they can stop and smell the roses and collect unemployment...
and eventually get a job again...  The American Dream...lol...   

there are people who are really suffering and in time the economy will be back on track...  news stories like this are idiotic and don't help...
except if you are trying to prove that work is optional...  and unemployment and welfare are ready to help you until you feel like working again...

all of us that are working will take care of the people that aren't  until they are ready to get back to work... entitlement is awesome....

Also I am still waiting for my house.... must be an oversight... thanks in advance BO...

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-02-23 22:23:57)

Love is the answer
2009-02-23 23:14:28
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6978|Canberra, AUS
In Australia such people would be looked on as the lowest form of scum...

I think.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-02-24 00:24:09
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5889

Catbox...you...missed the...point of the...article.

One of them worked at a law firm and has a severance  package for leaving and the other was a software designer. They have a bit of money saved up. The point of the article is that instead of committing suicide or becoming misanthropes they decided to try to make the best of it and what happened.  The way they look at it is they now have some time to spend with their new child and raise it.

They're just trying to be happy with whats life given to them.

Last edited by Macbeth (2009-02-24 00:31:25)

2009-02-24 01:57:09
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7019
I...didn't.... miss....anything...  if they want to have more time for themselves and their family... that's great... do it without unemployment checks and or welfare... and please take as long as they like to find themselves. Until then...   The rest of the taxpayers pay for these able bodied folks while they sit around.
Love is the answer
2009-02-24 03:00:48
JahManRed
wank
+646|6931|IRELAND

Those two ppl have paid enough in taxes to cover their partly forced break. Its the ppl who never worked a day in their lives like their parents, who are the problem. Is this story really thread worthy. FFS, ppl take work sabbaticals all the time. I took one for 6months 5 years back.
Are you one of lowings kids by any chance?
2009-02-24 12:08:03
THROBBING.:.RHOMBUS
Member
+2|5848
Yeah I'd love a paid sabbatical to, but collecting unemployment means I'm subsidizing your time off.

I know nothing is fair about the mess we are in but people have to really think more about this kind of crap. I work in Mass. and I know for a fact you have to be actively seeking employment if your laid off (and collecting). I'm sure the authorities will love that article.

Last edited by THROBBING.:.RHOMBUS (2009-02-24 12:16:11)

2009-02-24 13:08:19
JahManRed
wank
+646|6931|IRELAND

THROBBING.:.RHOMBUS wrote:

Yeah I'd love a paid sabbatical to, but collecting unemployment means I'm subsidizing your time off.
I didn't collect a penny in benefits, never have. I moved to an old house in the country. Went all low tech. I lived for £50 a week, all in. Which I made doing about 2hours drawing work on my PC. Didn't have shit, but, Good times.
2009-02-24 14:04:40
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7019
Then i applaud you.... well done... you would be a good example for responsible people...
   and because i favor personal responsibility i am related to lowing?  lol
I am older than lowing so i'm not his son... and we have independent views...
Love is the answer
2009-02-26 04:40:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6954|USA

THROBBING.:.RHOMBUS wrote:

Yeah I'd love a paid sabbatical to, but collecting unemployment means I'm subsidizing your time off.

I know nothing is fair about the mess we are in but people have to really think more about this kind of crap. I work in Mass. and I know for a fact you have to be actively seeking employment if your laid off (and collecting). I'm sure the authorities will love that article.
Actually no, unemployment insurance is paid by the the individual, they paid into unemployment so now thewy are simply collecting what they have paid. I have no problem with this. They are entitled, as workers, producers to paid unemployment. Nice to see some have made good choices and are able to do something like this.

I have not made good choices, so now I think I ill never be in a position to retire.
2009-03-02 13:58:52
THROBBING.:.RHOMBUS
Member
+2|5848

lowing wrote:

THROBBING.:.RHOMBUS wrote:

Yeah I'd love a paid sabbatical to, but collecting unemployment means I'm subsidizing your time off.

I know nothing is fair about the mess we are in but people have to really think more about this kind of crap. I work in Mass. and I know for a fact you have to be actively seeking employment if your laid off (and collecting). I'm sure the authorities will love that article.
Actually no, unemployment insurance is paid by the the individual, they paid into unemployment so now thewy are simply collecting what they have paid. I have no problem with this. They are entitled, as workers, producers to paid unemployment. Nice to see some have made good choices and are able to do something like this.

I have not made good choices, so now I think I ill never be in a position to retire.
We are both wrong, the employer pays for it. In the end it's still coming out of someone elses pocket. If Obama gives an extension on unemployment where do you guess that comes from? I agree if you get laid off you are entitiled to collect but there are strings attached. Namely you should be actively seeking employment during that period.

http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=38&pageID=17&subpages=yes&dynamicID=603
2009-03-02 18:31:16
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6968|NT, like Mick Dundee

Rhombus, the article does mention the male in the couple was seeking work at the time of writing.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-03-02 19:21:11
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,060|7075|PNW

Macbeth wrote:

The way they look at it is they now have some time to spend with their new child and raise it.
My guess is that English needs a new personal pronoun that avoids offending people by randomly choosing 'him' over 'her' or vice versa, or putting a kid in the same category as a sofa with 'it.'
2009-03-02 19:24:28
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5889

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

The way they look at it is they now have some time to spend with their new child and raise it.
My guess is that English needs a new personal pronoun that avoids offending people by randomly choosing 'him' over 'her' or vice versa, or putting a kid in the same category as a sofa with 'it.'
I always put kids as it. Why are people always so offended when I do?
2009-03-02 19:29:13
imortal
Member
+240|6968|Austin, TX

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

The way they look at it is they now have some time to spend with their new child and raise it.
My guess is that English needs a new personal pronoun that avoids offending people by randomly choosing 'him' over 'her' or vice versa, or putting a kid in the same category as a sofa with 'it.'
I go by the general guideline that if you do not know the gender of someone, you simply assume it to be the same gender as the speaker.  So, a man would refer to someone (he did not know the gender of) as 'he,' and a woman (also who does know the same person) would use 'she.'  Even if they were in a conversation.

Example:
Man: Did you hear about the 911 call someone made to order a pizza?  Can you believe his nerve?
Woman: I bet she was really druck or high or something.  How stupid could she have been?
Man:  Yeah, I bet he got his ass thrown in jail.

Once the gender is known, whoever was... incorrect in usage would simply change to the appropriate pronoun; no harm, no foul.  It is a very simple system.
2009-03-02 19:31:58
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5889

imortal wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

The way they look at it is they now have some time to spend with their new child and raise it.
My guess is that English needs a new personal pronoun that avoids offending people by randomly choosing 'him' over 'her' or vice versa, or putting a kid in the same category as a sofa with 'it.'
I go by the general guideline that if you do not know the gender of someone, you simply assume it to be the same gender as the speaker.  So, a man would refer to someone (he did not know the gender of) as 'he,' and a woman (also who does know the same person) would use 'she.'  Even if they were in a conversation.

Example:
Man: Did you hear about the 911 call someone made to order a pizza?  Can you believe his nerve?
Woman: I bet she was really druck or high or something.  How stupid could she have been?
Man:  Yeah, I bet he got his ass thrown in jail.

Once the gender is known, whoever was... incorrect in usage would simply change to the appropriate pronoun; no harm, no foul.  It is a very simple system.
Fuck that, it's easier to just refer to all children which I don't know the gender to as it.
2009-03-02 19:37:15
imortal
Member
+240|6968|Austin, TX

Macbeth wrote:

imortal wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

My guess is that English needs a new personal pronoun that avoids offending people by randomly choosing 'him' over 'her' or vice versa, or putting a kid in the same category as a sofa with 'it.'
I go by the general guideline that if you do not know the gender of someone, you simply assume it to be the same gender as the speaker.  So, a man would refer to someone (he did not know the gender of) as 'he,' and a woman (also who does know the same person) would use 'she.'  Even if they were in a conversation.

Example:
Man: Did you hear about the 911 call someone made to order a pizza?  Can you believe his nerve?
Woman: I bet she was really druck or high or something.  How stupid could she have been?
Man:  Yeah, I bet he got his ass thrown in jail.

Once the gender is known, whoever was... incorrect in usage would simply change to the appropriate pronoun; no harm, no foul.  It is a very simple system.
Fuck that, it's easier to just refer to all children which I don't know the gender to as it.
Yes, but 'easier,' and 'correct' are seldom in the same ballpark.  "It" is a pronoun already used too frequently.  The English language has been taking one hell of a beating over the last half-century, as 'alternative spellings' have emerged enough to become accepted, and grammer has become strictly optional.  I fear for the way the language may sound in another few decades.

...Plus, I do not like to think of or refer to a person as an 'it.'  Maybe that is just me.

Last edited by imortal (2009-03-02 19:37:57)

2009-03-02 19:39:33
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5889

imortal wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

imortal wrote:


I go by the general guideline that if you do not know the gender of someone, you simply assume it to be the same gender as the speaker.  So, a man would refer to someone (he did not know the gender of) as 'he,' and a woman (also who does know the same person) would use 'she.'  Even if they were in a conversation.

Example:
Man: Did you hear about the 911 call someone made to order a pizza?  Can you believe his nerve?
Woman: I bet she was really druck or high or something.  How stupid could she have been?
Man:  Yeah, I bet he got his ass thrown in jail.

Once the gender is known, whoever was... incorrect in usage would simply change to the appropriate pronoun; no harm, no foul.  It is a very simple system.
Fuck that, it's easier to just refer to all children which I don't know the gender to as it.
...Plus, I do not like to think of or refer to a person as an 'it.'  Maybe that is just me.
there we're too the point.
2009-03-02 19:52:49
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6984|Disaster Free Zone

imortal wrote:

Yes, but 'easier,' and 'correct' are seldom in the same ballpark.
Well it sure as hell isn't 'correct' to call a male 'she' or a female 'he'.
2009-03-02 20:15:04
imortal
Member
+240|6968|Austin, TX

DrunkFace wrote:

imortal wrote:

Yes, but 'easier,' and 'correct' are seldom in the same ballpark.
Well it sure as hell isn't 'correct' to call a male 'she' or a female 'he'.
I do believe I specified when the speaker is unsure of the gender of the person who is the subject of conversation.  It sure beats "it."

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard