Trade Wars and Tariffs

#4,251
#4,251
volbound1700 said:
Automotive Industry is one of the biggest employers in most nations.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. You don't read up on Business News, Automotive News, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, etc. You haven't worked a real job (I can tell) and are probably doing something like teaching or some profession that lives in the abstract.

Record numbers of young people (not just in the USA but even globally) are under employed, unable to find housing, etc. Granted, we have had other bad periods and recoveries (the 1970s oil crisis was bad and so was 2008 which is the one that I personal dealt with).

You might be onto something with the bolded comment. I do think Trump and MAGA have a lot more in common with the AOC/Bernie crowd that either group wants to admit.
Click to expand...
What does "underemployed" mean?
 
#4,252
#4,252
DinkinFlicka said:
Why not demand higher initial move in costs to offset the risk?

Or, if it's really about insurance against delinquency, why not demand a much higher deposit? Why do good renters like me have to pay the price for ****** tenants and government overreach?
Click to expand...

You're an adult, owned your own business and are asking that question?

The Fair housing act prevents landlords from overtly treating qualified residents differently. They can't say "well Dink is a good renter so here's his deposit and monthly and McDad is a dirtbag so we're going to stick it to him". Especially with multi-family properties you have to have rent/deposit policies you can defend.
 
#4,253
#4,253
hog88 said:
You're an adult, owned your own business and are asking that question?

The Fair housing act prevents landlords from overtly treating qualified residents differently. They can't say "well Dink is a good renter so here's his deposit and monthly and McDad is a dirtbag so we're going to stick it to him". Especially with multi-family properties you have to have rent/deposit policies you can defend.
Click to expand...
In some respects I think Dink is a really good guy that does a lot of blustering on here. For example the chick that trashed his bar. He didn't lock her up when it was pretty clear he could have. So he probably is a good renter and is frustrated that dirtbags are costing more indirectly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and PEPPERJAX
#4,254
#4,254
SpaceCoastVol said:
In some respects I think Dink is a really good guy that does a lot of blustering on here. For example the chick that trashed his bar. He didn't lock her up when it was pretty clear he could have. So he probably is a good renter and is frustrated that dirtbags are costing more indirectly.
Click to expand...

I get it, you should see our company insurance premiums (GL and Auto alone) we pay more per year than a nice, real nice house costs. It pisses me the F off that we pay for the dirtbags on both sides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, Vol737, tbh and 1 other person
#4,255
#4,255
SpaceCoastVol said:
In some respects I think Dink is a really good guy that does a lot of blustering on here. For example the chick that trashed his bar. He didn't lock her up when it was pretty clear he could have. So he probably is a good renter and is frustrated that dirtbags are costing more indirectly.
Click to expand...
I believe most that post here are pretty good folks. Even that evil landlord Mcdoodle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737, BernardKingGOAT, Orange_Crush and 1 other person
#4,256
#4,256
hog88 said:
I get it, you should see our company insurance premiums (GL and Auto alone) we pay more per year than a nice, real nice house costs. It pisses me the F off that we pay for the dirtbags on both sides.
Click to expand...
Yep. Same with health insurance passing on the cost of smokers to the rest of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEPPERJAX
#4,259
#4,259
hog88 said:
You're an adult, owned your own business and are asking that question?

The Fair housing act prevents landlords from overtly treating qualified residents differently. They can't say "well Dink is a good renter so here's his deposit and monthly and McDad is a dirtbag so we're going to stick it to him". Especially with multi-family properties you have to have rent/deposit policies you can defend.
Click to expand...

Sure am.

I'm not sure how adding high (but refundable) move in costs doesn't relieve your qualms.

Ah, right. You get to keep the money when you sandbag high rent.

And McDad isn't a dirtbag. He's just loose with the lewd photo sending and tragically misunderstood.
 
#4,260
#4,260
SpaceCoastVol said:
In some respects I think Dink is a really good guy that does a lot of blustering on here. For example the chick that trashed his bar. He didn't lock her up when it was pretty clear he could have. So he probably is a good renter and is frustrated that dirtbags are costing more indirectly.
Click to expand...

Thanks but to be clear, I don't think it's dirtbag tenants are costing people like me more to rent.

It's still the jaded American landlord doing it.
 
#4,261
#4,261
SpaceCoastVol said:
Yep. Same with health insurance passing on the cost of smokers to the rest of us.
Click to expand...
It really is a crock of $hit. Years back my company had to do a blood test annually to rule out employees that were smokers and non-smokers in order to provide incentive for non tobacco use. Essentially, non smokers pay much less for company health insurance. A bunch of smokers complained and lied stating that they didn't smoke but their spouse/partner did exposing them to second hand smoke. The false positive rate for a nicotine & metabolite test is extremely rare. Even if the result is in question, it is a free test for employees that can be repeated easily even on a different specimen type like urine. Now all the company requires is an online affidavit where you select a box for tobacco user or non user to get the insurance discount. What smoker is going to tell the truth and pay more for insurance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#4,266
#4,266
PEPPERJAX said:
It really is a crock of $hit. Years back my company had to do a blood test annually to rule out employees that were smokers and non-smokers in order to provide incentive for non tobacco use. Essentially, non smokers pay much less for company health insurance. A bunch of smokers complained and lied stating that they didn't smoke but their spouse/partner did exposing them to second hand smoke. The false positive rate for a nicotine & metabolite test is extremely rare. Even if the result is in question, it is a free test for employees that can be repeated easily even on a different specimen type like urine. Now all the company requires is an online affidavit where you select a box for tobacco user or non user to get the insurance discount. What smoker is going to tell the truth and pay more for insurance?
Click to expand...

The issue is that there is little leverage on the insurance industry. If you go off straight up capitalism, the scenario would be to just go to a different provider and get a better deal. However, the industry is so regulated (and often in a way that benefits insurance companies) that it prevents this industry from truly having a competitive market place.

We are in the same boat with Utilities as well.

I will say this, I do think my specific Health Insurance provider has been good to me and I don't have issues with it on my end, I just see how it is impacting the overall industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEPPERJAX
#4,267
#4,267
hog88 said:
I wasn't being facetious. And I agree, people should invest their money without expecting the best returns they can get. Now I'm being facetious
Click to expand...

Expecting the best is a one way ticket to disappointment, baby ;-)

I've never eaten a turd sandwich on anything that cost more than 30k, luckily, but I always go in with a low bar goal of getting my money back within a certain time frame. That way, profit is that much more of a dopamine experience.

With the bar, I didn't expect to see my investment for at least three years. Fortunately, on payouts and the sale, I saw a 300% return in just under two years.
 
#4,268
#4,268
volbound1700 said:
The issue is that there is little leverage on the insurance industry. If you go off straight up capitalism, the scenario would be to just go to a different provider and get a better deal. However, the industry is so regulated (and often in a way that benefits insurance companies) that it prevents this industry from truly having a competitive market place.

We are in the same boat with Utilities as well.
Click to expand...
The BMI requirement is a much bigger joke than the nicotine use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and volbound1700
#4,269
#4,269
PEPPERJAX said:
It really is a crock of $hit. Years back my company had to do a blood test annually to rule out employees that were smokers and non-smokers in order to provide incentive for non tobacco use. Essentially, non smokers pay much less for company health insurance. A bunch of smokers complained and lied stating that they didn't smoke but their spouse/partner did exposing them to second hand smoke. The false positive rate for a nicotine & metabolite test is extremely rare. Even if the result is in question, it is a free test for employees that can be repeated easily even on a different specimen type like urine. Now all the company requires is an online affidavit where you select a box for tobacco user or non user to get the insurance discount. What smoker is going to tell the truth and pay more for insurance?
Click to expand...

It's not a popular idea but as a country we need to go away from employer provided health insurance. Make individual premiums 100% tax deductible and allow insurance providers sell across state lines without going through the various insurance commissions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT, SpaceCoastVol, tbh and 1 other person
#4,271
#4,271
hog88 said:
It's not a popular idea but as a country we need to go away from employer provided health insurance. Make individual premiums 100% tax deductible and allow insurance providers sell across state lines without going through the various insurance commissions.
Click to expand...
Either that or give the discount to employees that have deserve it.
 
#4,274
#4,274
PEPPERJAX said:
The BMI requirement is a much bigger joke than the nicotine use.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen that one yet but I can imagine.

Cholesterol was another. I now have high cholesterol and I never had it until the last 2 years. My sister has it as well and she is skinny and pretty much eats a very healthy diet that would be opposed to that. The issue that I found out is that they dropped the cholesterol rate down so that more Americans are now under "high cholesterol". They are doing the same stuff with BMI. It is all about $$$. Funny that all my other vitals were perfect. I started eating healthy and went back for checkup and then they noticed no change at all. My doctor then stated that was common and my cholesterol was pretty much on point at my age and my diet wouldn't impact it.

I do think one minor factor is that I drink more beer. Even though I only drink 1 or 2 a day and I don't drink it daily, that probably did play a slight factor but the biggest factor is likely the changes in what is considered high cholesterol.

Food Pyramid is now outdated as well and has been changed. I feel like it changes ever 5-10 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEPPERJAX
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top