The Vent and Rant Thread

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

It depends on the cost of living. If someone lives in an area with a high cost of living and expensive housing (New York City, San Francisco, etc.) that money might not go very far.

I live in NYC. Housing costs vary by location. I'm in the borough of Manhattan, where housing costs are astronomical. Manhattan is an island where the scarce resource is land, and things grew up rather than out. I can afford to live here because of historical quirks. NYC has Rent Control and Rent Stabilization which are outgrowths of policies originating in WWII to try to keep housing affordable. My place is rent stabilized, and my rent has gone up a total of 6% over several decades. (I think I am paying about 1/4 market value or less for the space I occupy.) A new luxury condo opened across the street from me a few years back, and the listed price on the demonstrator unit was $2.5 million. I think some units were rather more expensive.

I've heard stories of places under Rent Control whose rent remains what it was in the 40's, and have been continuously occupied by families through several generations because as long as they are continuously occupied by the family the rent doesn't change.

And there were horror stories back when about landlords of rent stabilized buildings hiring goon squads to force tenants to leave buildings because the only time they could raise the rent was when there was a change in occupancy. No surprise, really. The City of New York owns an assortment of housing, and the City released figures a while back indicating it cost more to provide upkeep and maintenance on their buildings they owned than they were legally allowed to charge for rent on the properties. The landlords resorting to terror tactics had properties that were losing money and that they couldn't sell because no one would buy them when they would still be under Rent Stabilization. I think some properties were simply abandoned by the owners.

And there were grimly amusing bits, like the New York Times and the Village Voice having to put guards on their press rooms because people were breaking in to get advance looks at new apartment listings. New construction wasn't occurring due to the distortion in the market (what incentive did anyone have to build it when they might not be able to charge market rates?) and you found out about a place because you knew someone (and did things like get tight with building doormen to get tipped off about when someone was leaving and their place would come on the market.)

Politically motivated attempts to make things more equitable by interfering in the markets tend to end badly, but that doesn't stop the politicians. They get votes now. What happens later is someone else's problem...
______
Dennis

[cc_in_oh]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

It depends on the cost of living. If someone lives in an area with a high cost of living and expensive housing (New York City, San Francisco, etc.) that money might not go very far.

Of course it would be complicated for the government to set up a program to pay different amounts to people living in different cities so that's unlikely to happen.



Hitch, you are a kind and generous person to help out the people in your life this way.

True, but high-cost states tend to have much higher unemployment benefits. I think I saw that the CA average is over $600. The feds can't hand out different benefits for different states any more than they can for social security. (I suppose they do in a way for Medicare, covering the same 80% at a high-cost NYC provider as a low-cont one in WV)...

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by cc_in_oh

True, but high-cost states tend to have much higher unemployment benefits. I think I saw that the CA average is over $600. The feds can't hand out different benefits for different states any more than they can for social security. (I suppose they do in a way for Medicare, covering the same 80% at a high-cost NYC provider as a low-cont one in WV)...

Correct. Unemployment is a state thing, and will vary by state. Medicare is Federal, and won't.

States are having a lot of fun processing the enormous volume of unemployment claims (and will have more fun coming up with the money to pay them.)

A chap I know in MA posted to a mailing list we are both on about getting laid off after 14.5 years with his employer, and trying to process it. I blinked and then remembered "Oh, yes. You are a tech for a company that sells and rents audio and video gear for events. Events are on indefinite hold. No money is coming in, so no surprise you are one of hundreds of employees over multiple locations that got cut." I told him not to take it personally, treat it as an enforced vacation, and file for unemployment. He would now have an opportunity to get around the the list of things he was thinking about doing but too busy working to do them. He was the guy who assembled gear orders for events, tested to make sure it all worked before it got loaded in the truck, and fixed stuff that broke. I think he'll be one of the first folks rehired when business resumes and there are events needing gear his employer will supply.

But yes, costs of living can be dramatically different. I saw a comparison of IT salaries by location a while back, and the same job with the same knowledge and experience requirements might pay three times as much in San Diego, CA as it would in Wheeling, WV. The reason was cost of living. It costs enormously more to live in San Diego than it does in Wheeling. Employers have to pay that much so workers can afford to live there. (And the chap in Wheeling might do better in terms of disposable income than the one in San Diego, with a consequently better quality of life. Assuming, of course, that you want to live in Wheeling. )
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Would American taxpayers be happy give tens of miliions to an airline that's 90% owned by a consortia of Arab, Chinese, Singaporean and UK companies - some of which are foreign government owned?

I assume you are referring to Qantas here.

Qantas employs about 30,000 people. American taxpayers would be more concerned about the livelihood of the workers who were idled, and likely uninterested in precisely who owned the airline.

If Qantas goes belly up, other carriers will fill the void once normal travel resumes, but don't assume all of the former Qantas employees will be rehired by the new entrants. Jobs that must be done locally may get filled that way (though likely not at the rate they had been paid by Qantas.) Jobs that can be done elsewhere will be done where it's cheapest. That is unlikely to be Oz.

Implying that current Qantas employees should just go hang because you don't like who owns their employer is a non-starter, and there is no way to force the foreign owners to cough up. They aren't in Australia, aren't subject to Australian law, and can simply walk away from a bad investment.

You may not like the idea of a bailout, but I suspect you're stuck with it.
______
Dennis

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Hitch, you are a kind and generous person to help out the people in your life this way.

No, not really. Just...I mean, bad things happen to people. In a very small business like mine, we all live in each other's pockets, in a way. It would be bad for morale, if naught else, if I let someone's kids go hungry! I mean...hell. Even if I were Simon Legree, I wouldn't be able to face the shame of it.

Hitch

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I assume you are referring to Qantas here.

Qantas employs about 30,000 people. American taxpayers would be more concerned about the livelihood of the workers who were idled, and likely uninterested in precisely who owned the airline.

If Qantas goes belly up, other carriers will fill the void once normal travel resumes, but don't assume all of the former Qantas employees will be rehired by the new entrants. Jobs that must be done locally may get filled that way (though likely not at the rate they had been paid by Qantas.) Jobs that can be done elsewhere will be done where it's cheapest. That is unlikely to be Oz.

Implying that current Qantas employees should just go hang because you don't like who owns their employer is a non-starter, and there is no way to force the foreign owners to cough up. They aren't in Australia, aren't subject to Australian law, and can simply walk away from a bad investment.

You may not like the idea of a bailout, but I suspect you're stuck with it.
______
Dennis

False assumption - Virgin Australia.

They are in receivership. They've been in deep doo-doos for at least a year, they may even have been trading (a paltry 9.1% of the stock is listed on the ASX) whilst insolvent, which is unlawful.

VA workers are receiving government covid19 disaster relief payments like everyone else who has lost their job or been furloughed. The receiver will eventually pay them a generous proportion (typically 60-100%) of their outstanding entitlements (accumulated annual leave, long service leave, redundancy pay etc). Under our insolvency laws employees are second cab off the payment rank, after the taxman.

Qantas has been severely impacted of course, but its owners have not begged publicly for a bailout, like Branson has on UK TV! Qantas is majority Australian owned and its furloughed workers are getting the same support as Virgin workers - although their entitlements are intact.

My question stands - would Americans want to bail out an airline that is more than 90% owned offshore. Including by foreign state owned entities; states that hold trillions of US government debt? That last condition doesn't apply so much to us, your banks own most of our government debt, and your airlines don't hold any Virgin Australia stock

Qantas and VA are the only major airlines operating on trunk routes, so if VA goes under then Qantas will have carte-blanche on that market. In which case I would hope the government will do what it should have done decades ago - open the skies to allow reputable international airlines to service the major trunks routes, and subsidise the smaller airlines that service regional Australia.

Branson has also begged the UK government to bail-out Virgin Atlantic, but it's majority UK owned, so they probably will.

Billionaires are not much liked in Australia, especially of the gonged British kind. Even Aussie Mining billionaires that secure and donate a years supply of covid-19 tests, reagents, and equipment to the state health departments are sneered at. And a decidedly left-leaning Aussie IT billionaire who urged people to install the government's contact capture app on their phones has been castigated as a traitor. We have a centre-right federal government.

Stay safe.

BR

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Hitch

One could argue that perhaps they need it for cremation costs.

Hitch

Yes, I had thought of that as a possible thought provoking example too . But I suspect that neither of us are churlish enough to regard it as any more than hypothetical wake up to those who do not understand as to what part of our communities is at greatest risk.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by cc_in_oh

That argument could be made but you're actually the first person I've heard make it...

Actually you were the one who made it. I just pointed out that your argument claiming it should go to those at greatest risk then meant it would be the elderly who would get it, a group you specifically named as being a group who should not get it.

Who needs it is another thing but as has been pointed out by others the world cannot be a fair place. If everyone's or every group's entitlement was to be determined in a minute way most in need will never get the stimulus payment due to an analytical quagmire before the bureaucrats even got to 'B' in the alphabet.

[BetterRed]

Here's a timely twist: the Aussie mining billionaire I mentioned in the last paragraph of my previous post, is reported to be thinking of making a bid for the failed airline.

Maybe he's doing a deal to bail-out buy the Chinese 40%.

BR

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Who needs it is another thing but as has been pointed out by others the world cannot be a fair place. If everyone's or every group's entitlement was to be determined in a minute way most in need will never get the stimulus payment due to an analytical quagmire before the bureaucrats even got to 'B' in the alphabet.

Given how extremely partisan Congress has been in recent years, I was surprised that they managed to come together to distribute any kind of aid relatively quickly.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

...
Of course it would be complicated for the government to set up a program to pay different amounts to people living in different cities so that's unlikely to happen.
...

Actually they do exactly that with federal employees' salaries. They have something called "locality pay" that is added to base pay for high cost of living areas. Would it surprise anyone to know that one of the highest localities is Washington DC?

[Rumpelteazer]

It's time for another Family Thing update:

The solicitor for my grandmother's estate wanted to push through the sale of the house to my father as quickly as possible. But they needed my uncle's signature for that. He, to nobody's surprise, made several demands before he would even consider signing, The solicitor let my father know and together they decided that the solicitor would email my uncle telling him that if he doesn't sign we'll go to court, again, not only demanding he'll sign (there are two recent rulings he has to sell) but that he pays for the legal costs incurred during this round at court.

One of the things he wants is to immediately settle my grandmother's estate. In other words, he wants money. In their email the solicitor also casually mentions some things has to be paid to the estate before that can happen, without going into detail. My uncle will think that's about the €5000 he had promised to pay back over a year ago. He still doesn't know we want to go after him for €25000 for the insurances and the sex dating websites.

The solicitor looked into the cost of another court case. They estimate it'll cost another €4000 and will take up to year, maybe longer due to the Covid-19 situation. Since there are two recent rulings that my uncle has to agree to sell there might be a chance to go for a fast tracked court case, which is quicker.

We also talked to our lawyer, who would prefer to hit two birds with one stone and merge the case of getting my uncle signature with the case of getting the €25000, but then the fast track isn't possible. So we'll wait with that.

Yesterday the solicitor agreed to call my uncle and see if they can persuade him to sign. We're not going to negotiate anymore, that's useless and my uncle would try to drag that on endlessly. If he doesn't agree to sign our lawyer will write to my uncle's lawyer to let him know the next court case is being prepared if he can't get his client to do what the judge told him to do.

If things are going to be settled ASAP (not likely, I think) my father and aunt end up with a couple of thousand euros if my uncle only pays back the €5000, if he pays back the €25000 (snowball in hell chance) they get around €100000 each. But knowing my uncle he'll go for the court case, try to drag it on, blame everything on my aunt (he knows he'll hurt her by doing so) and will probably try to change the direction of the court case to try and make the judge block the sale to my father. With the rulings we've had over the years we've got a greater chance of winning (though you never know). But the chances of my uncle paying back even an euro of what he owes the estate are close to zero, I think.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X704F using Tapatalk

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Rumpelteazer

It's time for another Family Thing update:

[snippage]

If things are going to be settled ASAP (not likely, I think) my father and aunt end up with a couple of thousand euros if my uncle only pays back the €5000, if he pays back the €25000 (snowball in hell chance) they get around €100000 each. But knowing my uncle he'll go for the court case, try to drag it on, blame everything on my aunt (he knows he'll hurt her by doing so) and will probably try to change the direction of the court case to try and make the judge block the sale to my father. With the rulings we've had over the years we've got a greater chance of winning (though you never know). But the chances of my uncle paying back even an euro of what he owes the estate are close to zero, I think.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X704F using Tapatalk

Rumple, your uncle is just the anti-gift that keeps on giving. I mean, I've been here for a decade, now, and hell, I am emotionally invested in this damn case!!!

Hitch


Hitch

[Rumpelteazer]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Rumple, your uncle is just the anti-gift that keeps on giving. I mean, I've been here for a decade, now, and hell, I am emotionally invested in this damn case!!!

Hitch


Hitch

We had hoped to push through the sale quickly and then do battle with him about the division of whatever is left and him having to pay back money. But of course it could never be that easy.

After my grandmother's death both my aunt and uncle, who were my grandmother's conservators signed over their rights to the solicitor. But that was years ago, and with the sale of the house well below market value (that being in an unoccupied state) the solicitor doesn't want to risk signing off without my uncle's approval.

My uncle also wants to divide the estate according to my grandmother's will, where my aunt will get less than him and my father. He influenced my grandmother to do this when her Alzheimer was getting worse. But the way my grandfather's will was set up it'll take precedent over my grandmother's will and the estate will be equally divided.

We're hoping, of course, that the solicitor succeeds in convincing my uncle. But I doubt they will. Luckily they are also past the point of negotiating with him, so hopefully next week we'll know what course we'll be needing to take.

As always, to be continued.

[Hemmi]

Just when I think I've seen it all in regards to my coworkers. Drama coworker gave her notice about a week and a half ago. Thank goodness I don't have to waste any more of my life hearing about the wedding.

Anyway, she was supposed to be working a couple more weeks until her new job starts. Thursday she comes in for about an hour and then suddenly has to leave. Won't be in Friday nor the weekend she was supposed to work. Calls in Monday. Apparently she's convinced she has COVID but she won't test get tested. Has none of the symptoms. She just needs to be in quarantine for the next 3 weeks. Funny how that's the exact amount of time she has left on her notice.

Needless to say, she's now unemployed because she refuses to go get tested and refuses to come to work.