This passage made me appreciate germanys health care. You can think of germany whatever you want, but the easy access to health care is super glorious. I think a lot of people that live here are not aware of it, because it just happens to be there and they don't have to think about it.
The past 2 1/2 years i had to go to so many doctors and I was just happy to live in a country with absolutely beautiful healthcare.
But maybe it is bad how the german health system works and I just have been lucky. It's possible, but I don't think so.
Isn’t it case in most of the world, including many EU countries? Please don’t bring up the “free” healthcare, unviersal healthcare can really mistreat one for whom contributions are not paid.
Wait, what? Where else in the developed world do you lose access to basic health care (or, well, it'll bankrupt you and you'll be in shit for the rest of your life, same same) simply by losing a job? Do you really think that that is the case in most EU countries too?
It's not the case at all in most, if not all, EU countries.
You have access to healthcare for small fees, and you'll generally get better care than in the private sector; you'll just have to wait longer if it's not urgent.
I know for a fact that in at least two EU capitals private hospitals often forward patients they are unable to handle (e.g. complicated births) to public hospitals, who are more skilled and experienced.
> private hospitals often forward patients they are unable to handle (e.g. complicated births) to public hospitals, who are more skilled and experienced.
In India, this happens simply because private hospitals don't want mortalities on their hands. Complicated cases often mean higher chances of things going wrong. Best let the public hospitals handle it.
Based on the content of your comment, I can tell you with certainty you don't know what you are talking about. Do some actual research before you make outlandish (and wrong) claims please.
>Second, employers affect the stress-inducing conditions of work: work-family conflict, long work hours, absence of control over one’s work environment, and economic insecurity. Stress makes people sick both directly and by inducing unhealthy individual behaviours such as smoking, drinking, and overeating.
Not just stress, I simply hate my job. I'm stuck here, for 12 years now.
"so get another job Ryan" bahahahaha you're funny.
I have no degree, in the past month I was flat out rejected within 24 hours of applying to two jobs for not having a 4 year degree in ANYTHING.
I have a personal bankruptcy which will prevent most employers from hiring me, in fact last year I took a remote job and a few days in discovered I couldn't log in... no one would return my emails... some time later I get an email saying if I don't return the laptop immediately I will be billed for it, I said fine send me a label 'we did to your email' the email address you blocked me from? 'oh'. Apparently my bankruptcy came up in the background they did AFTER hiring me, at no point did they ask me about my financial background, if I'd had a bankruptcy, or even if I had a criminal record... they waited until after training me and starting work, fortunately I hadn't quit my current job yet or I'd have been screwed.
Yesterday, after 3 video interviews spanning 21 days, I was rejected for entry-level customer service remote work and was told "keep honing your skills. Maybe find a relevant side project or a local company to dip your toes deeper into a technology company".
So I hate my job and no one else wants to even take a chance on me because I lack a degree, have a personal bankruptcy from 6 and a half years ago and have been in a niche job for 12 years.
I legitimately wake up some days thinking "shit, why didn't I die in my sleep" because I have no future, each year I'm at this job I hate my life more. I dread doing ANYTHING most days now because it's "I can't really afford this" or "I just want to vegetate" or "what the hell happens if I have an unplanned expense of more than a few hundred bucks" or "what if mom has more issues". I get even more pigeonholed into being stuck at this job because it doesn't translate to anything else. Add to that I have a disabled parent I help support and my whopping 32k gross income doesn't even allow me to save for retirement.
Awesome. SERENITY NOW!
THIS is how work is killing me. I'm sure that stress, dread and worry are doing wonders for my long-term health.
If you ever need anyone to talk to text HOME to 741741 from anywhere in the United States, anytime for free.[0]
There may be many reasons why some employers don't hire you, but don't forget that there are many reasons why they will hire you. Rejection doesn't mean that you are not a great person, it means that you, the company and the role might not be a good fit for each other. And that is OK. It's more than OK because you don't want to work for a place that isn't a great fit anyway. You want to find a great fit and you might have to hear NO 100 times before you get to 1 Hell Yeah! Flip that "no" around and use it as a reward for working hard, collect them and don't be afraid of them.
I've worked with people with all types of backgrounds, including people who went to federal prison and people without degrees. It is not about IF it's about WHEN. My suggestion is to start by going for walks, investing in yourself and if you are having a bad day there is no shame in reaching out for support. Literally everyone needs support.
One of the better people giving quality free advice on the internet these days is Gary Vaynerchuk, born in Belarusian and basically gave his services away for free for 10 years. I know you have skills, but you might need to give them away to build up a network. If you are on HN then you must have internet superpowers that you don't know you have.
Some random thoughts; sorry if those are off the mark. If the challenge is that you have in demand skills, but old bankruptcy is a black mark for employers, try small companies -- they tend to be much less bureaucratic. Personal contacts help a lot, too.
On a degree -- if you have skills and just need a piece of paper, maybe look at some gray area schools (especially non-US based) that will effectively sell you a cheap one. Those are complete scams in terms of acquiring skills, but if all you need is a piece of paper it might be an acceptable ROI.
If the challenge is that you do not have skills that are appreciated by employers, try switching fields completely. Are you handy? Folks who can do medium sized house jobs well (e.g., bathroom remodeling) are hunted by homeowners. I have seen groups of friends keeping such folks occupied full time for years. Asking if he could do a hardwood floor gets me a sharp "we got him busy for months from now; go away" from others. Surely there are other examples.
However, to do this career change you need to have energy. This is hard given your current work, but IMO there is no way around it. Looking friendly and energetic can get you through sketchy resume. Looking like a dead fish will kill your chances even with a stellar papers.
Sorry if this is completely off the mark. And best of luck!!
> So I hate my job and no one else wants to even take a chance on me because I lack a degree, have a personal bankruptcy from 6 and a half years ago and have been in a niche job for 12 years.
I might be recalling wrong, but you might like to look into credit history law -- events like this expire after 7 years and so you could be in for a change.
Do you know why a personal bankruptcy prevents you from being hired? That seems very weird, it should be completely separate from your work and can't in anyway harm your employer.
In the case of that company, they worked with finances and it makes me a 'risk'. Apparently exercising protection that dates back to antiquity makes you undesirable.
My bankruptcy also prevents me from ever having a security clearance again as I'm considered a security risk (blackmail, my mom worked at DoD before she had to retire via disability and one of her co-workers got fired when her debt shot up post divorce and it caused her clearance to get yanked).
>Private employers, however, aren’t constrained by a similar rule, and some people find that having a bankruptcy in their past comes back to haunt them—mainly when applying for jobs that require them to deal with money (bookkeeping, accounting, payroll, and so on).
If you go look at a lot of traditional job applications when they are asking about prior military experience and criminal history they also usually ask something along the lines of "have you ever declared bankruptcy". A bankruptcy effectively makes you a 2nd class citizen in the eyes of many companies... which is funny because a quick google search shows me a little less than 1% of the US population files bankruptcy annually which means you have a statistically significant percentage of the population walking around with bankruptcies on their record, the only people that have it worse are those with criminal convictions (about 1 in 3 adults, shockingly) so I guess I'm somewhat lucky anyway.
> Apparently exercising protection that dates back to antiquity makes you undesirable.
I mean it's easy to categorize it this way but I think you're ignoring the actual risks for the company. Yes, bankruptcy is a completely legal and typically very useful legal mechanism for restructuring. There's nothing ethically or morally wrong with bankruptcy or even having multiple ones in your history depending on the circumstances.
But more often than not, it shows an inability to manage ones finances and staying within a reasonable band of spending. With few exceptions, bankruptcies are typically avoidable. To quote the word risk in the manner you did diminishes the real fact that you had a finance job and had recently shown that you unable to control your personal finances.
With the litigious nature of the US, especially within the confines of employment law, it's safer for a company in that sector to outright ban employees with major financial issues than to investigate the root causes and make case-by-case judgments on whether a given bankruptcy was "okay."
> My bankruptcy also prevents me from ever having a security clearance again as I'm considered a security risk (blackmail...
This is an accurate and very reasonable concern. It's the whole reason why applicants for every sensitive job from local part-time police officer to CIA agent have their personal finances investigated. If someone has 1.5x their yearly salary in high interest debt it's going to be much easier for a malicious actor to control them.
> it shows an inability to manage ones finances and staying within a reasonable band of spending
In a world^w country where being sick can put you in complete and utter financial ruin, or where buying a house you can make payments on but whose value drops precipitously resulting in a seizure of the house, I call bullshit.
There's many, many reasons in our world today that you might need to declare bankruptcy, and being unable to manage your finances is only one.
>But more often than not, it shows an inability to manage ones finances and staying within a reasonable band of spending
You know what home economics taught me in high school? How to sew a tennis racket cover and how to make a beaded lizard keychain/zipper pull.
You know what it didn't teach? Balancing a check book, taxes, 19%+ interest rates on credit, emergency fund savings, how to deal with sudden unemployment, how to deal with sudden unexpected medical expenses.
I was paying my debts monthly, barely, that wasn't good enough for one of the lenders and they sued me in small claims. I never got the summons (apparently quite common) and they were awarded default judgement of 35% of my gross income and had my waged garnished which forced me to file.
I don't think anyone will argue that the US public education system is teaching its students what it should be about personal finances and money management. It's a disgrace, frankly.
> I was paying my debts monthly, barely, that wasn't good enough for one of the lenders and they sued me in small claims.
I'm sorry but there is definitely information missing here. If you were making the full minimum payment you wouldn't be sued, ever. If you were paying less than the minimum then you weren't actually "paying your debts monthly."
> I never got the summons (apparently quite common)
I can't speak to how common something like this is but you do typically need to be served with the summons, or the plaintiff needs to show some sort of proof that you received the notice (e.g. a certified mail receipt or statement from a process server that you were indeed served). But I can say it's not the first time I've heard of someone being unaware of a court date so who knows.
>I can't speak to how common something like this is but you do typically need to be served with the summons, or the plaintiff needs to show some sort of proof that you received the notice (e.g. a certified mail receipt or statement from a process server that you were indeed served). But I can say it's not the first time I've heard of someone being unaware of a court date so who knows.
In my case I found out I'd been sued after the wage garnishment, oddly enough my check was 666$ that pay period which was considerably less than it should have been, I immediately told my manager, she told HR, HR pulled me into their office and informed me my wages were garnished. I then had to search the state court records to find that Capital One had sued me 3x via "bowman & heintz" and a quick google query shows it's quite common for people to have been sued, and never received a summons, by that shady 'law firm' with an alarming number of default judgements awarded because the person never knew.
If I pull up the court records for the cases they do not even state when I was served, or if I was served. Just that a hearing was scheduled, a bench trial was commenced and default judgement awarded as I failed to appear.
I believe you, but I stand by my previous point that paying the amount due on or before the due date would have never resulted in a lawsuit, especially from a firm like Capital One. Assuming it's a credit card (ca. 2010-2012) there would have been a slew of internet notifications not to mention the mailings if you were past due. I charged off a Citi card in 2009/2010 and can say from experience I had ample opportunity to make it right, I just didn't have the funds and negotiating a charge off with Citi directly resulted in the quickest end at the cost of a big credit hit and being unlikely to ever get credit from Citi ever again.
Edit: And this is a point that you've ignored in this entire thread, which leads me to believe you were paying below the minimum payment on a credit card. This is an excellent way to get an account sent to collections and not have liquid cash available to actually pay it off. The worst of both worlds.
> I can't speak to how common something like this is but you do typically need to be served with the summons, or the plaintiff needs to show some sort of proof that you received the notice
I can, somewhat. I also had a similar situation (although much less serious) where I was supposedly "served" paperwork.
Basically process fraud is endemic in the debt collection "industry" - from the brief research I did years ago. I won my case mostly off this and the judge being sick of having to grant default judgement to these "pocket filers".
Some states are far worse than others due to laws such as pocket filing, etc.
The real problem is there is no real fear of punishment from a process server lying to the court. The worst I've seen happen is someone lose their job.
They give all sorts of reasons.
I worked for a gas station that did credit checks on low-level employees. They said that if a person had bad credit, they were more likely to steal from work. For some folks that work in finance, they require the employee to be bonded by an insurance company. Unfortunately, bankruptcy means they won't do that, and I'm guessing bad credit does as well. The reason for the bankruptcy doesn't matter, which is rather unfortunate since many folks have had bad luck between the housing market bust and medical expenses.
Oddly enough, I later worked at a pharmacy chain for many years. They didn't care about your finances. For front store cashiers, there were no checks. Manager and above got criminal background checks and a single drug test, either when hired or when promoted. Pharmacy employees were the same.
Yikes. Sounds like you’re having a rough time. I have a book recommendation re: your financial stress. It’s called Early Retirement Extreme, and it’s written by a man who earned about what you do, and retired in under a decade by living frugally. It’s got some pretty great tips and examples of living within your means. It is pretty intense, but it sounds like your stress level is too. “Buying” yourself at least a few months of living expenses by living differently may ease some of that stress.
Entering some skilled labor trade isn't exactly easy in the US, you've got tons of 18 year old sons and nephews gunning for internships that they'll gladly take before a 33 year old with no connection to the industry if you go the union route and if you don't go the union route there's tons and tons of cheap-laborers already for stuff like roofing or hanging drywall.
I feel you mate. Don't get too distracted on self-imposed limitations. You can always try to do your own thing (e.g. a digital product, whatever). There is no need for a stellar credit report to sell your offering worldwide.
Being unemployed might kill us even more. I'm not sure I understand the argument here.
In Finnish there is a idiom_ "People have died at home as well" that captures this idea that doing stuff away from home is not necessary less safe than being at home - you can die at home as well.
The argument is that companies do arbitrary things that are both harmful to the health of employees and also harmful to the profitability of the companies.
So the idea is that companies (and society) can actually make more money by doing things that are less impactful on employee health and that they should do them.
That sounds like a good argument that nobody would disagree with but by the end of the day I think that being unemployed is probably worse to your health than having a work "that kills you"
If you are out of job:
- The goverment should pay your health insurance, or it should be free.
If you are in job:
- You employer should pay your healh insurance (for GOVERMENT not for private indistry). The rate should be fixed or as fixed percentage of your income - the same no matter if you have any illness or not.
This system works in Europe flawlessly.
3 pillars of socialism:
- Free healthcare
- Free education including university level education
- Pension by goverment for ALL people who retire.
In communist countries we had it all since 1945...
Whats the point of goverment who is not giving you anything?
That they are not wrong that the standard of living for the average person in a lot of ex-soviet (which I assume they are talking about) countries did indeed decrease sharply after their "liberation".
Work may kill us, but I've also seen enough people die shortly after retirement to be a bit suspicious. It really depends on how much your career is a part of your identity.
I am suspicious too, I had not thought about identity yet but linked it with change in lifestyle. I have seen several men die 1 - 2 yrs after retirement.
I know/have known men who never really retired, they just scaled back operations bit by bit. Like my dentist now at 71 scaled back to 3 days/week. Why he does it? "Because I like it".
Or people who have shifted ownership of the business to their sons, but are still around some days of the week.
Yea, IMO there is a connection there. Although I also think a lot of people only retire when they're on their last leg health wise. They probably would have passed regardless of retirement in the same time frame.
I had dinner last year with Professor Pfeffers along with some other GSB Alumni.
This was just before his book went to print, but it was the topic of conversation.
He makes some solid points.
It’s pretty shocking, but understandable, since the impact on individuals, groups, and society isn’t like a physical workplace injury that has cause/effect immediacy.
> AI and automation will almost certainly make things worse
This quote is followed by percentages of jobs being at risk.
But I find it not convincing at all. There are measures society can take to care for the unemployed. And realistically speaking, I look forward to a future where AI and automation makes most of our manual labor jobs obsolete.
There was a small documentary recently about japanese people who die alone in their houses. One of the inverviewed people said that people have a really hard to adjusting from the community they have at work, and the hierarchical system, to completely on their own in a 'flat' community once they're retired.
Many of the famous 19th century liberal industrialists that dramatically improved worker conditions for the period. Remarkably different to the attitudes of companies and directors today. For instance...
William Lever, founder of Lever Brothers (now Unilever) famously created Port Sunlight village to house workers and ensure a healthy and happy workforce.
He personally led the planning and building of the village. Hundreds of houses (beautiful houses in a lovely setting, even today) were built. Along with those the village had a free hospital, schools, a concert hall, open air swimming pool, church, and an art gallery (and bought art to put in it). He also introduced welfare and free education for workers and their families.
There were many others. Modern day executives could learn a lot.
Let me tell you the secret - life as a process is killing you every moment. One can not exist without another. Jobs is just something we chose to spent our short time on, as well as few other things.
This is not entirely true. Sure, if you put on yourself tons of debt, then you have to work it off. Sure, if you really need to drive that fancy car, dine in good restaurants and wear expensive status stuff just to show off (to people you probably don't really care about), it costs.
But if you travel a bit around the world, you will meet a lot of people who didn't have a proper job for a decade or more. Maybe 1 month work and 6 months travel. Or just decide to live like a hermit someplace out there, anywhere. You won't find them on instagram much, I mean the serious bunch who are honest about this, but they are out there, proving it can be done.
But it requires sacrifices in some aspects of life, which might be too much to give up for most. I know it would be too much to give up for me at this point in life.
You can chose to not have a job. There are plenty of people like this. Yes, they don't have same amount of money and conveniences, but hey hey, this is your life and you only have one. If you see yourself being fulfilled by doing something else - no one can stop you.
There's a point to that. It sort of depends on the country, the US is pretty good about having people live like it pleases them, but others are not. In Scandinavia I don't really see any good way of avoid some kind of job. There a some expenses that aren't necessarily tied to any particular living standard.
What really surprises me is that politicians (Danish in my cases), refuse to discus the idea of reducing the length of the average work week (only one party suggested it, and was laughed of a being unrealistic). You could do a lot of good moving from a 37 hour work week to 30, but no, it's dismissed with no further debate. I really think that should be the discussion: How much do we need to work. Having it being black and white, job/no-job debate isn't particularly helpful.
I know that some would argue that people can just "choose" to work less, but that's rarely an option. Very few industries allow you to choose how much you work. In terms of compensation I could be happy, financially, working only 75% of my current hours, while receiving an similar reduction in pay, but that's not something most companies find attractive.
Yes, surely it depends a lot on how developed the country is and how much social care is there. Eg in a country there is little to no social help living without any job means your life will end rather soon.
I think everyone should see where their bar is in needs vs free time and manage that. I'd love to drop 30% of my working hours and income accordingly as you said as well :) Hope this will be an option in our future.
We have this absurd combination of people that are working 40,50,60+ hours a week when some of them might prefer less, and people cant find any work so they are stuck at 0 hours a week.
I have spotted the problem.
As usual, America wins the absurdity trophy.