- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Girlfriend works in childcare and I work in elder care. Fuck me double
Damn y’all must bounce from flu to flu every month of the year lol
My immune systems is jacked SpongeBob
Elder care wealth is extracted using service companies as services. E.g. they hire their for-profit cleaning service for astronomical money while their non-profit elderly care facility claims to make no profits. Since the service takes the money and the elder care facility is paying for a known cost (cleaning, supplies, whatever) then they can still claim to be non-profit. The non-profit pays no taxes so they aren’t doubly taxed either.
This is a widely known scheme in the north east, combined with the fact that when it’s inspection time to see staff levels the business owners mysteriously are given a heads up before they show up so they can make sure just enough staff is there. They routinely understaff these facilities because each person there is just another wage to pay.
Bottom line, for profit healthcare is appalling and corruption is everywhere.
How do you know all of this?
<notices username>
Ah, checks out.
I took a few courses about public policy at my university and met with the groups trying to create change. Did a research paper on this topic even.
The ones in the industry know the secrets and the ones in the government turn a blind eye because lipservice and inspections on paper sound great when you’re trying to get votes from older people. They want to believe that when they need care that the providers will be doing the right thing. Sadly, they are not doing the right thing. There’s so much money in it when you’re charging over $400 per day per patient.
Here’s an article that talks about it.
They use nicer words to make it sound less predatory:
Providers have wide latitude in how they utilize MassHealth and other funds, since there are no limits on self-dealing transactions/contracts and no ceiling on administrative costs.
The growth of for-profit ownership in nursing homes, including significant investment by private equity firms and real estate investment trusts, makes it clear that nursing homes are profitable businesses.
A Boston Globe 2014 study of Massachusetts nursing home finances found that many nursing homes directed cash to subsidiaries “…paying million-dollar rental fees and helping to pay executives’ six-figure salaries…”
If you reach out to the authors of that article, including a former state senator, they’d be glad to talk to you about it. They won’t remember me though, it’s been a while. The things that can be said aloud go way beyond what is written down. No one wants to air their dirty laundry but trust me, the nursing homes are generally given a heads up before inspections take place so nobody gets fined and there are no problems. Unless something changed very, very recently.
Hey there and solidarity from the disability care world. We need a damn union, I heard like 25% of the millenials are in human care positions, so I’m hoping we do something soon, we got the people for it.
I would join an care workers union in a heartbeat
Hospitals will ruin your life but most of the staff lives paycheck to paycheck.
Not just the staff either, providers are making significantly less every year.
I work in orthopedics and rehabilitation, and even though the cost of school, licensing, and insurance has skyrocketed. My field is basically being paid the same amount they were 30 years ago, and that’s not even accounting for inflation.
In some ways it’s nice, as medicine doesn’t attract people who are just in it for the money any longer. But, hospital organizations now know that providers are basically locked in a sunk cost fallacy to pay back their loans, and on top of that they have a calling for it.
But, hospital organizations now know that providers are basically locked in a sunk cost fallacy to pay back their loans, and on top of that they have a calling for it.
Sounds like slavery with extra steps.
Sounds like slavery with extra steps.
Aka a residency
Closer to indentured servitude but yeah
That is the main reason my wife and I are moving to a different state. As a nurse, she has seen her income decrease with her 1.5% raise with inflation going up 3-5% year over year.
Hope she cashed in during COVID. Our hospital administration was trying to get everyone to turn on all the nurses making bank during lock down, but pretty much every provider I know was just happy there were people hitting the administration where it hurts.
This is generating the typical anti-capitalist hate, but we should also consider that this is also a reflection on the kinds of unpaid work that women have been doing for generations. The problem isn’t necessarily profits or middle-men, it’s just that some things are always going to be expensive if people are actually paid for the work they do.
Take daycare. In the US the government says that one adult should care for no more than 3 infants, no more than 4 toddlers and no more than 7 preschoolers.
Take someone working at the US poverty line at about $15,000 per year. That’s $1250 per month. For 3 infants that’s $415 per month each, for 4 toddlers that’s $312 each, for 7 preschoolers that’s $180 each. That’s the absolute cheapest you could possibly go, where a worker is at the poverty line, and there are no costs for rent, supplies, and also zero profit.
But, as a parent, you probably don’t want the absolute lowest “bidder” to take care of your kids. You probably want someone who’s good with kids, kind, gentle, patient, etc. So, let’s not even go all the way up to the lowest possible teacher’s salary of $34,041 in Montana. Let’s say the daycare worker is great with kids, but doesn’t have the teaching background to get even the least well paying teaching job available in the country. Let’s say you’d be willing to have someone who makes $24,000 per year for easy math. That’s a wage where the caregiver is going to struggle to make ends meet in most of the country, but maybe it’s worth it for them because they like working with kids. That’s $2000 per month. For infants it’s $667 per month each or $8000 per year, toddlers it’s $500 per month each or $6000 per year. preschoolers it’s $285 per month each or about $3500 per year.
Again, this is before you consider any profits. That’s money straight from the parents to the caregiver’s salary. That’s before you consider rent, before supplies, before snacks, etc. That’s no reading nook, no library, no arts and crafts, that’s presumably just using someone’s living room.
Now, if the daycare worker is going to be able to take sick days or vacations, you’ll need to pay part of another person’s salary who will cover. So instead of 1 person watching 7 preschoolers, you have 10 people watching 70 preschoolers plus 1 who rotates in to cover when the main workers are unavailable, so make that another 10%. We’re up to almost $9k per year for an infant, and we still don’t have cribs, baby food or a cent in profit, and we have a worker who is barely scraping by.
The point is, any job that involves a lot of human supervision is going to be very expensive. Caring for babies and old or sick people involves a lot of human supervision. Much of this work used to be done by women who didn’t work outside the home. Now that women are working outside the home, even when they have young children, we’re realizing how expensive it is. None of what I’ve talked about involves capitalism or profits, it’s just purely paying someone to do child-care work while the woman does other work.
But, this is where the capitalism / socialism aspect comes in. If we want women to be able to work outside the home, and we also want kids to be something that isn’t financially ruinous, society needs to help pay for those things. In a purely capitalist, no socialism, winner-take-all world, having kids is a major liability. Having an option to not have kids is great, but in the long term society is doomed if nobody is willing to have kids anymore.
This is a really good point. Historically communities have always relied on unpaid/underpaid labor in some capacity. Even mowing your neighbors lawn once in a while could be considered a value of a few hundred dollars (fuck lawns btw) - there has always been this invisible layer of communal support that is now becoming commodified.
Marginalized groups being fairly compensated is an objectively good thing, but the financial stress is real. As society continues to grow even more individualistic, we will probably see additional pressures mount until another fundamental shift happens. I have no idea what that will look like, but it is interesting to think about.
A very interesting and well-written post.
This is a very interesting thing to point out, but I believe you are not realising how intrinsically tied the generations of women unpaid work is to the economic system.
“mainstream economic theory is obsessed with the productivity of waged labour while skipping right over the unpaid work that makes it all possible, as feminist economists have made clear for decades. That work is known by many names: unpaid caring work, the reproductive economy, the love economy, the second economy.”
“the household provision of care is essential for human well-being, and productivity in the paid economy depends directly upon [the core economy]. It matters because when – in the name of austerity and public-sector savings – governments cut budgets for children’s daycare centres, community services, parental leave and youth clubs, the need for care-giving doesn’t disappear: it just gets pushed back into the home. The pressure, particularly on women’s time, can force them out of work and increase social stress and vulnerability. That undermines both well-being and women’s empowerment, with multiple knock-on effects for society and the economy alike.”
Doughnut economics - Kate Raworth
Capitalism thrived and keeps thriving in concentrating capital because it is able to get away with not accounting for the value it extracts. This is true for this example of unpaid labour as well as for natural resources extraction, ecosystem damage etc(we are beginning to realize this with carbon tax). That’s the cornerstone of the system function, not just a side effect. The unpaid labour may be starting to be dealt with in the West, but this just means it is aggressively outsourced in third world countries. Without these so-called economic externalities there is no profit (or extremely little of it).
Do I detect a little Barbara Laslett and Johanna Brenner in there? Love the post, chef’s kiss!
This person is soooo close to figuring out that the problem is capitalism. This is capitalism working as intended.
As we all know, you can’t make a critique of capitalism without including “capitalism bad” in your critique.
Similar to Poe’s Law I guess… I couldn’t tell if the post was intentionally making a point, or if the person was just making observations. Given the average level of intelligence that I usually see on the internet, I assumed the latter.
No sarcasm, that’s actually exactly what we should be doing. So many people, even people who otherwise call themselves conservatives, have opinions that are so close to realizing that everything sucking is the intentional result of concentrating wealth in the hands of a few, and yet when it comes time to vote they believe the bullshit spewed by the owner class and vote against their own interests. It gets tiring pointing out that capitalism is the root of just about every evil that exists today, but if the paid shills don’t get tired of blaming everything on minorities and maliciously mislabeling everything, we shouldn’t get tired either.
Capitalism bad
deleted by creator
Our current population has emotional breakdowns when told they have to wear a mask to keep old people from dying. I am not at all confident that we will ever reach the same level of energy that led to organized, cohesive revolution and war unless some outside power starts taking away people’s internet and pizza rolls.
Not when more than a third are too apathetic and disengaged to care, and another third are beholden to the robber baron cause through blind consumption of propaganda disguised as ‘fair and balanced’ news.
To be fair, who the fuck goes up against the American army‽
Canada. There are other wars the U.S. has lost, but I don’t know how involved the U.S. Army was in them.
In what world or country are professors not making enough to afford somewhere to live? In my country professors make good money despite the fact that tenure doesn’t really exist here. It’s one of the highest ranks you can have in academia above lecturer, senior lecturer, and reader.
Sorry we’ve got a vocabulist here hold on let me talk him down
Nobody is talking about whatever ivory tower caste system you are talking about, to normals “professor” is common parlance for “college teacher” and many campuses around the country still call adjunct “”“”“”““instructors””“”“”“”" adjunct professors
i hope this fulfills the terms of your devil riddle
Yes except lecturers also make bank.
The only people not making good money are the PhD students who also teach. Even then most of us I think get more money than the undergraduates.
Even I as a student get something like £19,000 a year plus £40 per hour teaching rate for any classes I teach.
Either these people are manipulating you or there is something very wrong with academia in your country. Luckily moving countries is quite easy for academics as many Universities will hire foreign staff and there are often immigration laws in place for these kinds of people.
Yeah, I think, uhh, that something is very wrong with our whole country is actually the whole point of the meme?
i told him directly “Nobody is talking about whatever ivory tower caste system you are talking about” and he didn’t listen
edit, clarity: it isn’t normal to be British
I am telling you that even people further down in the hierarchy make good money. Either your academics are lying to you (which wouldn’t suprise me people are fucking greedy) or something has gone very wrong in your country. If we are talking about American it’s probably both of those things.
Oh interesting, your views inconveniently disagree with my experienced reality, which relates to numbers I can immediately look up because I have worked in that industry. I’m sorry about your views for you. A supermajority of teaching at American Higher Ed Institutions is done by people who get paid a couple hundred bucks per course hour, and teaching a 4:3 course-load under those conditions will not yield the numbers you are vaguely gesturing towards.
Go ahead, pick a school and look up their adjunct job offers.
My views are based on data from my own country. If that situation is that bad in Los Estados Unidos then leave. In my country the average lecturer salary is a bit over £40k per year which is above the average UK salary for all age groups. That again is for lecturers which are not the same as professors.
You still haven’t said what their salary actually is, just vaguely talked about hourly rates. Shouldn’t most lectures be full time employees? Are you saying most lectures aren’t full time in your country?
Edit: In the UK we actually have a dedicated visa for people with certain skills and qualifications like your academics. So if you wanted to move here you probably could: https://www.gov.uk/global-talent-researcher-academic
The professors in the US aren’t living in their cars because they pay isn’t adequate it’s because of the cost of the huge amount of student debt it takes to become a phd
We need to rethink economy
It seems that they do understand this economy. It’s capitalism.
If you went 100 years back in time and told people that school teachers would be dead broke despite making the best financial decisions possible and be nearly homeless despite working long hours they would be fucking shocked.
Being a school teacher, even one for elementary school kids, in the late 19th century was not only a respectable profession, but also decently paid. I think Horrible Histories said that the average school teacher in the 1880s and 1890s in the UK made around 60 pounds sterling a year, which was a fairly decent wage at the time.
The problem is there’s not a good historical context for the high cost of daycare and nursing homes. Just 60 years ago it was considered normal and good parenting for kids to be left unattended for most of the time. We’re taking 3 year olds wandering around town unattended. This is where some of the outdated expectations of children come from is teaching kids to survive in a world where they’re expected to be on their own for such a huge amount of their childhood
And on the flip side of the spectrum people are living far longer than they ever have so end of life care has become a decades long investment. Social security was first implemented because people who didn’t expect to live long enough to need to think about retirement suddenly found themselves too old to work but needing to make ends meet
The only window of historic context we have for the sheer cost of daycare and nursing care would be from about 1970 and later, since that would be after civil rights protections had been passed (meaning you couldn’t just pay a minority person a pittance to do the work) at a time when women really started entering the workforce in earnest, and expectations had largely become that children were not left unmonitored
Like someone else said, £60 in today’s money is £9k. Per year. What am I missing because that does not sound like a decent wage.
At that time it was.
Holy moly! According to this website that’s over £9000 today! And teachers are risking their physical, mental health and lives, today.
Wait, why are you impressed by £9k per year? That is below minimum range in all western society.
Oops, my brain must have autoconverted “year” to month. That’s… Not good.
where are college professors living in their cars?
Community college professor here. I’m lucky enough to be tenured at this point, but when I started teaching, I was making just enough money such that if I had been paying the going rate for rent, I would have been losing about $100/month, before taking into account other expenses like food (or health insurance or gas or utilities…). And that was with me teaching 75% at two different schools (so, a total of about 24 units per term when full-time is usually 16 units per term)
I was privileged enough to be able to live with family while I pursued a full-time position and extra work, but many are not so lucky.
So, yeah, college professors are drastically underpaid, on par with K-12 teachers
There was an article about a UCLA professor recently.
everywhere there are professors.
It’s very common in the US.
https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/homeless-professor-who-lives-her-car
You do know these are all about the same lady from 7 years ago. Stop living in the past.
oh, you’re like a fake news guy?
seems a bit wildly ignorant in the face of evidence.
2024 is this year, not 7 years ago, by the way.
Oh wow you’re right, lol… 3 links to a story about the same person, Ellen Tara James-Penny.
Everywhere indeed.
I don’t know, tenure track professors doing research, probably not. But the cost of living here is kind of insane. If we didn’t have a double income, my wife would have to take a pretty substantial downgrade in where she lives. Cost of living is getting out of hand everywhere regardless, and the point still stands I think.
There’s really a two tiered structure to academia that seems to be hidden from most students. Maybe even 3 tiered. There’s the tenure-track research faculty who might teach one class per semester (often less) - they’re still underpaid relative to industry equivalent jobs, but they get their research freedom and low six figures after a few years while bringing in seven figure research grants for the university. Mid-six-figures if they’re upper admin. There’s non-tenure-track adjuncts & academic professionals who teach 3-5 classes per semester, often at multiple universities because no one will give them enough classes to live on, doing the bulk of a university’s teaching, especially at ‘tier 1 research’ universities, and they’re lucky to get median salary. There’s also a set of tenure-track faculty at universities without big research programs who teach 2-3 classes, maybe do a little bit of research or literature review, but probably without any significant extramural funding. They get paid somewhere in between.
They all get called “professor;” they all have PhDs; there’s infighting to keep the faculty as a whole from rising up. I used to tell my students they (or someone on their bahalf) paid about $200 for each of my lectures, and they’re free to skip them if they want, but even in a tiny seminar, 10 students, $2000/hour revenue, the highest paid professors are only getting 5% of that (not accounting for out-of-class effort).
Everywhere unless they’re tenured
It’s a little more complicated than that. I think the factors are:
- part-time adjunct vs full-time
- research vs non
- type of college (prestige, size, focus)
- what you do in summers
- field
So for example you could be a machine learning Research Professor (non-tenure-track) in a first-tier university and bring in a lot of money through grants. Or you could be a tenured teaching professor at a smaller college and not work in summers and make a mid-level income. Or you could be a part-time instructor (e.g., adjunct faculty) in the humanities and make very little.
Agree with the above, with the exception of summer work which is unrelated to what they make from being professors. If you are a college professor and need to keep a second job to keep the roof over your head, then I think the point stands.
Last time I interviewed I saw a couple jobs that had 9-month academic calendar (fall/winter) obligations, for a given salary. If you wanted to teach summer classes at that college for additional pay you were welcome to, or you could just take those months off. or do consulting, or visiting teaching somewhere else, or get a grant to pay your salary while you did research, etc.
My last post got downvoted so I hope it doesn’t sound like I love the current academic environment. On the contrary I’m jaded. But if you’re just starting out, ask the older people for advice, the more you know the better your chance of survival.
Typically, the amount of grant money you receive does not affect your salary. It can affect your job security and it can be a factor in earning tenure, but in general, writing more grant proposals=/=higher pay (just more money for research).
Plus, even at R1 schools, tenure-track positions are often starting out with pretty low pay compared to tuition and very low compared what the professor could be making in private industry. According to this study by National Center for Educational Statistics, only about a third of college budgets are spent on instruction, with about another third on support services (counselors, financial aid, tutoring/library services, accessibility services, etc.), with the remainder spent on administration. But that doesn’t look so bad until you realize that at most schools, 50%-75% of the courses are not taught by full-time instructors, but by adjuncts, and adjuncts are often paid at or below the poverty line (about 25k/year in 2020). Even as a tenured instructor with 10 years of salary schedule advancements and a partner with a full-time job in higher education, I’m still living paycheck-to-paycheck.
So, yes, it is more complicated than “all professors are underpaid,” but not by much. It’s really more like “75% of college instructors are near or below poverty level.”
Yeah, I agree that most faculty are underpaid, especially in the humanities. Also, I agree that universities should have more tenure-track Teaching Faculty (whose main job is being good teachers to undergraduates) rather than just having part-time adjuct faculty or research-focused professors who don’t really want to teach.
I didn’t mean to sound like I was defending the status quo. Just that there are a lot of career considerations that I didn’t learn “until it was too late” that I was hoping to communicate to younger generations.
That fair, and I think a realistic view of the current situation is definitely beneficial for aspiring academics, especially given the current “academic industrial complex” pumping out PhD far faster than jobs open up.
It seems that they do understand this economy. It’s capitalism.
Well, something does trickle down, it’s just not money/wealth…
Nah, that shit only happen in USA, think twice before allowing companies to control your political system
It’s not that simple, simp…
And yet my most professional teachers were not paid for teaching.
I’m not advocating lowering the paycheck to increase the professionalism; just highlighting how phantom money are in this equation
Can you elaborate? What phantom money? How was your teacher not being paid to teach? Finally, what makes a teacher more professional than another?
I suggest voting with your feet and living in cheaper countries with better infrastructure.
Why give broken US systems more money if you weren’t getting anything in return?
It’s not like you can just up and move when you don’t have money. There’s also the little issue of not being a citizen wherever you go, and then add in the culture shock, and family being far away. It’s no wonder people stay.
“It’s not like you can just up and move”
yes, you can.
you need a few hundred bucks and a job that makes you $500 a month(there are many).
with that much, you can live at the level you’re living in the US right now, and then build off of there pursuing what you’re interested in because you don’t have any financial stressors.
“There’s also the little issue of not being a citizen wherever you go”
this is far more of a benefit than a liability.
do you mean a positive issue? I can’t really think of any liabilities of being a non-citizen.
“culture shock”
“culture shock” is an absurd debilitating elitist promise and symptom of jingoism.
it is a flimsy term with laughable connotations.
“you all ride bikes? but I’m used to a car, im so confuuused!?”
this is like saying people should never exercise because they might hurt themselves.
or that people should never eat food because they might choke.
Americans get “culture shock” because they are taught to be afraid of non-american cultures.
"oh no. chopsticks. however, will I overcome this barrier? "
“It’s no wonder people stay.”
it is truly a wonder how much Americans complain about their shitty, expensive livelihoods ( rightly so), and how much they’re getting screwed over by the education, employment, healthcare systems in the US and can’t afford to live, but absolutely refuse to engage with the simplest alternative.
in the same breath condemning their government and the systems that abuse them, they haughtily defend that abuse.
" what am I going to do, leave my abuser?"
Yes, that would be a savvy alternative to being abused.
You know what? Instead of just down voting you, imma explain. You highlighted exactly why people do not understand abuse.
Sure, leaving your abuser is the obvious answer. But the ability to leave your abuser is much more complex. If you were being savagely beat, but if you left your child starts to get beat, and they have restricted access to your child, how do you leave then?
Do you think victims want to keep being abused? No. Many times they can’t find an escape because so many things are controlled by there abuser. Money, communication, social lives, health. People dont leave countries for the exact same reasons. A lot of us know one language, and do not have enough time to learn another. What about those of us who have to take medication daily? How am I supposed to get that medication across the border and find a doctor to prescribe it. Hell, how do I even know if the medicine I take is available in that country? Research it? Can’t. Don’t have the time.
Critical thinking requires you to test aspects supporting and dissenting from your original understanding. Instead of “why x reasons won’t prevent you” in this scenario, find a single reason that could.
I can guarantee you that there is a long complex list of reasons why people are unable to leave the abuser just like they are unable to leave a country.
- “Sure, leaving your abuser is the obvious answer. But the ability to leave your abuser is much more complex.”
I didn’t say it was the obvious answer, you did.
I said it was the savvy alternative.
I also didn’t say it was easy.
but I understand why you got confused, lots of people make the same assumptions you have.
as for your travel questions:
“What about those of us who have to take medication daily?”
you go to a hospital or pharmacy and get the medication.
If you are lucky enough to speak English, you’ll have no trouble with this.
“How am I supposed to get that medication across the border and find a doctor to prescribe it?”
I would get the medication locally, but if you want or need to take it with you:
to get the medication across a border, fill out a small index card stating the medication and its purpose.
If you want the doctor to prescribe it, if that is necessary, you go to a hospital or a pharmacy.
“how do I even know if the medicine I take is available in that country?”
If it is available in your country, it is available in other countries.
“Don’t have the time.”
then you don’t have this non-problem you are hoping is an issue.
people who need medication have the time to get the proper medication, which is usually much cheaper and easier to do in other countries because most countries have working health care systems.
“Critical thinking requires you to test aspects supporting and dissenting from your original understanding.”
your misunderstanding of alternative = risk is a very common fear-based symptom of hermetic monocultures.
mint ice cream is an alternative to strawberry ice cream.
that does not make mint ice cream significantly more risky or dangerous than strawberry ice cream, it is simply an alternative that functions the same way.
So now we’re starting down the road of throwing out logical fallacies to support your argument? Why don’t you just go do something else. Arguing with people here with long winded responses isn’t going to sway anybody anyway.
“So now we’re starting down the road of throwing out logical fallacies”
I don’t mind If you’re going to try fallacies next, but they probably aren’t going to fare much better than your previous illogical reasoning, which didn’t exactly pan out for you.
“Why don’t you just go do something else.”
I’m washing clothes right now.
you’re my down time.
“Arguing with people here with long winded responses isn’t going to sway anybody anyway.”
I’ve had the opposite experience.
although it is funny that you ostensibly think that while simultaneously keeping the conversation going.
How would someone with zero savings move to another country? Most have every barriers of highly skilled, unfilled professions. Like who move from extremely underprivileged nations to extremely wealthy nations often end up surrendering passport and other critical documents to their employers and end up severely mentally and physically abused, sexually abused, trafficked. How would an older person even pay for required documents, let alone a living space, food, utilities, especially being monolingual?
“How would someone with zero savings move to another country?”
there are many, many ways, I suggest teaching English because it’s the easiest thing.
If you have a phone, you can start teaching English online.
you need $100 to leave the country, about $250 to $300 to make it to Asia, where most of the highest paying English teaching jobs are.
so let’s say you only have 30 minutes free time a night and you’re making the lowest amount of money teaching on an app, about $12 an hour, and you want to go teach in korea.
you’ll need to work about 25 hours to get $300, so 50 days of 30 minutes per day,
or a little over 2 weeks of 90 minutes a day teaching.
you will then have the savings to get to korea and start teaching, or you’ll be making over 2,000 USD with zero experience starting and your costs will plummet to less than $1000 USD a month.
so within 2 months envisioning the bare minimum of free time in the US, you can be in Asia saving $1,000 per month.
so within a couple of months, you have $1,000 more savings than you have, and every month you have $1,000 or more savings.
you can obviously tweak this, but those numbers are accurate.
“Most have every barriers of highly skilled, unfilled professions.”
this is inorrect.
most countries have barriers of unskilled in persons.
The more skilled you are, the easier it is to get a work permit in most countries.
are you into material sciences? are you a power plant engineer?
then you can get a work visa everywhere if you want to.
countries specifically have high-skill visas for high skilled people because every country wants high skilled people to move to their country.
you don’t need any skills, to move, but if you are one of the rare high skilled people and want to move permanently and work locally, professional skills help.
“How would an older person even pay for required documents, let alone a living space, food, utilities, especially being monolingual?”
can you clarify this question?
are you asking about specifically old people traveling?
there are no age restrictions on travel, so they would travel the same as I’ve recommended for any other English speaker.
All of those have been answered in detail in previous comments, food and documents and all that.
“How would an older person even pay for required documents, let alone a living space, food, utilities, especially being monolingual?” can you clarify this question?
Of course! My apologies, I just meant with the physical challenges, bursitis, arthritis, failing eyesight, etc.
Thanks so much for your answers. I appreciate them.
If you want the doctor to prescribe it, if that is necessary, you go to a hospital or a pharmacy.
You can just walk into any hospital and a doctor will have time to see you and prescribe a medication for you? Or you can just walk into any pharmacy and get a medication without a prescription? Forgive me if I’m skeptical. What country are you describing?
If it is available in your country, it is available in other countries.
While this is generally true, it is not universally true for all medications. Where a specific medication is not available there generally will be similar/suitable alternatives (at least, in a country with a developed healthcare system), but a lay person won’t know what those are and will require professional guidance, meaning finding a doctor and waiting for an appointment. During which time you may well run out of your medication.
people who need medication have the time to get the proper medication, […]
This take suggests a lack of perspective on chronic/debilitating illnesses as well as poverty. I hope you never have to experience either. I don’t know about wherever you’re from, but in the US it is not uncommon for people to have to work 2-3 jobs just to survive and taking time off for going to a doctor and pharmacy could mean the difference on making enough to pay rent this month. Even if taking time off is a real option, for people struggling to secure basic survival needs (i.e. food/shelter), it leaves little cognitive space for more abstract/complex concerns. It may be conceptually simple to obtain healthcare, but in practice it can be anything but simple even if the healthcare system itself isn’t broken. I am fortunate enough to make a living with only one job but I work the same hours that most doctors’ offices are open, which means taking time off work every time I or my offspring require care, which can quickly eat through paid leave time and isn’t exactly conducive to success in America’s abusive work culture.
Healthcare in whereever you are from may well be more functional than in the US, but I really can’t fathom that it’s as trivial as you imply for someone who requires medications or other ongoing treatment to simply arrive and get the care they need without potentially problematic delay.
“You can just walk into any hospital and a doctor will have time to see you and prescribe a medication for you?”
yes.
“you can just walk into any pharmacy and get a medication without a prescription?”
depends on the medication.
but mostly, yes.
I can’t think of a legitimate health scenario where the answer is no.
“Forgive me if I’m skeptical.”
forgiven.
I’ve heard these questions a hundred times.
If you’re haven’t traveled, you equate everything to the US, although things like the healthcare system abroad are meant to serve people rather than corporations so they function a lot differently than you’re used to.
“What country are you describing?”
most of Western Europe and most of Asia (I can only speak to the countries I’ve been to), and I know someone who lives exclusively in the Balkans who says all the countries there are the same as well.
“While this is generally true, it is not universally true for all medications.”
it’s universally true as far as I’m aware and have experienced.
you might not have the same brand, but it’ll be the same medication except readily available and cheaper.
“a lay person won’t know what those are and will require professional guidance”
yea, I assume it’s the same in your country? where some medications should be prescribed or recommended by a doctor?
“finding a doctor and waiting for an appointment.”
Google and maybe sitting down and playing on your phone for a half hour is a lot easier than you’re making it out to be.
“During which time you may well run out of your medication.”
how?
I can’t imagine this scenario happening.
Unless you’re talking about something you have to take hourly and you brought one pill with you so you’ll be without medication for 30 minutes?
these are such unlikely possibilities.
I’ve known known an uncountable number of travelers for the past decade, many of whom take medication, zero of which have ever complained of not being able to find their particular medication.
not once.
I hear “geez did you know X is only like three bucks here? It’s like $80 a bottle in the states!”
“This take suggests a lack of perspective on chronic/debilitating illnesses as well as poverty.”
couldn’t be less correct.
your doubt on what I’m saying simply demonstrates your ignorance.
I’m not using “ignorance” as a pejorative term, I mean that you literally don’t know what you are talking about.
chronic debilitating illnesses and poverty are characterized by financial trouble.
traveling takes away financial stressors.
I have known many retirees and chronically ill people who have regaled me with tales of how easy it is to retire in Vietnam/Germany/Portugal/Laos and so on because they don’t have to worry about the cost of medication.
financial anxiety isn’t completely determining their life.
“it leaves little cognitive space for more abstract/complex concerns.”
Yes, this was my original point.
If you don’t have any savings, if you’re a month away from living on the street, if you have healthcare needs, and these financial stressors are determining your life, traveling can fix that almost instantly.
then you can save up money, make a plan and go back to whatever you want to do.
but at the very least you’ll have breathing room, and what’s most likely is you’ll discover that traveling is way better than struggling in the US and you’ll keep traveling.
“…isn’t exactly conducive to success in America’s abusive work culture.”
yep, America’s work culture sucks.
most other countries have siestas and employee rights.
and are focused on draining you financially. every second you’re awake
Plus, if you’re outside of the US for more than 330 days out of the year, you fill out the FEIE, an IRS tax form, and you don’t pay income tax up to $120,000 per year.
“I really can’t fathom that it’s as trivial as you imply for someone who requires medications or other ongoing treatment to simply arrive and get the care they need without potentially problematic delay.”
That’s because you haven’t done it yet(and I never said it was trivial).
It’s difficult to fathom something you’ve never experienced.
especially when you’re living in the worst existing iteration of functional health care infrastructure.
you’ve grown up with excruciating waits and debilitating, financially disastrous healthcare your whole life, and you are surrounded by people who think the same thing and think it’s normal, so thinking about health care at all puts you in the mindset of excruciating waits, debilitating, financially disastrous, healthcare.
That’s mostly a US specialty.
ask anyone who has traveled for any length of time and they will tell you exactly what I’m telling you.
I’m very happy to answer these questions and will answer any other questions you have.
I’m going to just roll into Canada and see if they kick me out? You can’t just show up in a country and roll the dice. American is not a desired nationality in developed countries.
Yes, you can just show up in a country.
I’m not sure what dice you’re referring to, what sort of risk are you afraid of?
it’s very easy to travel to other countries.
That’s pretty fuckin dependent yo.
US to Mexico? Yeah Portugal to Spain? You bet. HK or Taiwan to PRC? HELL YES.
Mexico to US? Depends. US to Canada? Depends. UK to France? Depends.
NK to SK? Lol no Cuba to US? Lol no
Inside the Eurozone you’re right, but it’s not really an effective blanket statement.
dependent on having a passport and the price of a ticket.
If you have leapt those hurdles, you can travel to any of 186 countries with the click of a button and anywhere from ten to a few hundred dollars.
Canada was $22 yesterday from Washington.
I got a ticket from New York to London for $23 and a ticket from Ireland to Morocco for $12.
New York to Hong Kong? $213 this spring.
I’m comfortable checking ticket prices regularly, but even if don’t plan at all, you can add 50 to 100 bucks to any of those prices and find a ticket right away.
you already mentioned you don’t want to visit North Korea and Cuba.
That’s okay, traveling to one country doesn’t mean you have to travel to literally every country.
Just choose the places you want to go to.
I suggest avoiding North Korean and any countries currently operated by actively genocidal warlords.
leaves you with almost 200 other breathtakingly beautiful, culturally unique countries to travel to.
proof in the pudding:
tickets for tomorrow:
So, question: You’re someone with a not-remote-friendly skill set. You save your money to travel - travel, mind you, not immigrate, so subject to the visa requirements of travellers/tourists (as this seems to be what you’re talking about - immigration is a whole different kettle of fish). The money runs out. What do?
Or - you’re living paycheck to paycheck with children. You try to save money to travel for the reasons you’ve brought up here. It’s not possible. What do?
No offence, but your account of travel as a solution here seems deeply naive. It can work for some, sure, but “just leave the country bro” simply isn’t an option at all for many, many people.
“The money runs out. What do?”
you do not need a remote friendly skill set to find an online job that will pay you a few hundred dollars per month.
so you get an online job.
if for whatever reason you only want to work in person, you can go berry picking in a lot of countries or harvesting on farms, you can teach English in person in 40 different countries immediately, au pairs, housesitters, a lot of countries hire seasonal workers.
so if you need a job, you can find one.
and if you plan ahead at all (oh no! I only have four more weeks of money), your overhead is so cheap that whatever job you get will cover you, you’ll be able to catch up and hopefully learn to plan ahead a little bit.
example: this month you somehow forgot you needed money. but you remembered in the last month before you ran out and you taught English for 10 hours and you got rent for the next month.
now you’re one month ahead, so you teach English for 10 more hours, and now? you’re 2 months ahead, and you have one whole month minus 10 hours to figure out what you’re going to do next.
or what you want to do next.
most travelers don’t have this problem, I’ve never met one that ran out of money without some sort of plan in place.
you have so much time when you don’t have any financial stressors, and there are jobs in every country, and a billion jobs that you don’t need skills for online, plus countless online certifications if you want a professional online job.
there’s no reason why you would end up in a situation where you surprisingly ran out of money.
“you’re living paycheck to paycheck with children. You try to save money to travel for the reasons you’ve brought up here. It’s not possible. What do?”
do you have a phone? easiest way is to teach English online for 10 hours a month If that’s all you have.
you have enough money to move your family after a few months.
“No offence, but your account of travel as a solution here seems deeply naive”
That’s because you don’t know anything about traveling, so you are imagining that these simple solutions won’t work because you don’t know how to solve these problems.
I do.
“naive”
I don’t think you know what this word means.
i know exactly how to travel immediately and indefinitely, I’ve brought other people along and taught them how to travel, I have simple practical solutions to any question off the cuff because I know and have lived this stuff back and forth.
I have as much practical experience with travel and insight into traveling as anybody you’re going to find.
you’re assuming that because you don’t know how to travel, other people cannot know how to travel.
but we do.
“It can work for some, sure, but “just leave the country bro” simply isn’t an option at all for many, many people.”
travel can work for anybody, leaving the country is an option for anyone with a valid passport and 100 bucks.
and especially if you need financial relief, It’s a heck of a lot easier and more liberating than borrowing money from friends or family or living in your car or on the streets, or moving back in with your parents.
people are afraid of traveling, especially Americans, because they live in a monoculture, they’re told that the world outside is scary and other cultures are scary, but other cultures are beautiful and compassionate.
other countries function better than the US does in most respects, and practically all livability.
if you travel, you will learn that.
Naive in the sense that it doesn’t adequately account for the situation of many people. Not everyone has the circumstances where they can do this. I can’t help but feel there’s some survivorship bias influencing your position.
I’m curious, though, if you’re up to illustrating (if not, totally fine): You are a single mother of two sons, ages 7 and 8, living in Generic State, USA. You have a high school degree and no post-secondary education. You have limited support, solely in the form of limited childcare, from family/the wider community. You make about $1600.00 USD per month, after taxes, working 50 hours a week at a physical workplace. You’re finding yourself with $10 left at the end of each month, after all legitimately necessary expenses (rent, food, basic utilities) are paid for. Let’s make it easy and say you have no debt.
What are you doing, and where are you going, if following your advice? It should be noted these circumstances are actually quite a bit better than other folks in the U.S. To be clear, I don’t think this is a gotcha, nor is it intended to be - I just want to see your approach here.
Edit: Monthly wage should be after taxes, not before, and changed $900 to $1600 (based roughly on monthly takehome pay at Ohio’s minimum wage rate, and I calculated for 1 pay period rather than 2 per month)
do you have a phone? easiest way is to teach English online for 10 hours a month If that’s all you have.
Can I do this from the USA, because every listing I see requires degrees or certifications. Can you toss a few websites my way, please?
That’s the traveling bit sorted, but you suggested living there, and there are many more problems to overcome to achieve that.
As a previous commenter said, within the EU it’s doable, but you’re going to run into visa related issues trying to immigrate to most other countries. Some, perhaps most, of those can be overcome by throwing money at the problem, but others are more permanent. Even once you have a visa there are often limits on what you can do and where you can work until you get the equivalent of a green card, which can take years.
Then there are the logistics of living in your adopted country. I’ve known enough immigrants to know it’s possible, but also how much effort it takes, especially if you’re moving as a family. There may be a new language to learn, there will certainly be a new culture, and whilst you can probably get by for a while, long term you need to learn it and integrate into it, or permanently be the outsider.
Then you have the upheaval of your life. Leaving your family and friends behind, and walking away from all the little things you know that make living where you do easier. These you face moving even a comparatively short distance, but they’re magnified going overseas.
Of course it’s possible, but it’s nowhere near as simple as you suggest.
“Of course it’s possible, but it’s nowhere near as simple as you suggest.”
it is exactly as simple as I suggest.
you buy a ticket, tell your things, go to the new country.
start saving money, figure out what you want to do.
or don’t, and just hang out. retire at 30.
“…living there, there are many more problems to overcome to achieve that.”
not that I’ve encountered or heard about from any traveler, It’s more of the same.
“within the EU it’s doable”
or any other part of the world.
'but you’re going to run into visa related issues trying to immigrate to most other countries."
whoever is telling you this is incorrect from any practical or logistical perspective and obviously have no idea what they’re talking about.
moving permanently is easy enough procedurally, but there isn’t a ton of benefit in going through that whole process for no reason, whereas living in a place for 6 months or a year and then living in a place for another 6 months or a year gives you all of the upsides and none of the downsides.
especially within the context of saving money and controlling your own life, what’s the point of going through the hassle of applying for citizenship or changing nationality when a Visa-free stay or tourist visa takes 10 minutes?
living permanently on tourist or digital Nomad visas is way less trouble than going the citizenship route, while retaining all of the benefits.
“Some, perhaps most, of those can be overcome by throwing money at the problem”
you don’t have to guess, you can just ask the question.
If you have money, it doesn’t really matter because visas are way cheaper overall than the cost of living in the US. $40 for 6 months is very common.
The only time money would help is if you’re trying to buy citizenship specifically, in which case there are a few less financially stable Islands that will accept $60,000 or something to become a citizen.
again, there’s no real reason to do this unless you want to second citizenship, but you seem very focused on these esoteric non-issues, so there’s a way that you could necessarily spend a bunch of money money if you want to.
The Schengen areas are completely free for 3 months, and you can apply for longer visas if you like.
and visas take 10 to 15 minutes to apply to.
online.
traveling is much simpler than people think.
“Even once you have a visa there are often limits on what you can do and where you can work until you get the equivalent of a green card, which can take years.”
If you work online, most countries do not have a restriction on you working in their country.
If you want to become certified in that country at some offline profession, then yes you’re going to have to take certification courses like in every other country and profession.
but you’re coming up with this very unlikely problem, like your health concerns that are completely immaterial to practical life.
why apply for a work visa if you don’t have to?
Why commit yourself to a office job when you don’t have to?
Why struggle for more money when you don’t need more money?
If you are a native English speaker, you can start with zero experience TEFL certificate, repeating primary colors to school children for $20 an hour.
you can work as little or as much as you want online or in the classroom, and done.
work for a couple of months, save a couple grand, reevaluate.
English teaching is by far the easiest route to start making money immediately with zero experience, but online work is everywhere in every field and depending on what country you’re in, a few hundred bucks a month is going to cover you.
steve not being able to be hired as a paper company manager in Stuttgart just isn’t a realistic concern.
he doesn’t have that financial burden or the negative cultural reinforcement where he is forced to believe he wants to be a paper company manager anymore.
“Then there are the logistics of living in your adopted country.”
absolutely! immaterial.
Google house/apartment any City, get a house or an apartment.
every country has transportation, healthcare, supermarkets.
The “logistics” is a false scare, like “culture shock”, where Americans pretend that they don’t understand what a bicycle is.
“your muffins are usually savory? I’m used to sweet muffins!?! brain aneurysm!”
“upheaval”
sell your things. buy a ticket.
Slough off all of your financial concerns.
call your parents with free Wi-Fi calling or your family everyday.
or take your family with you, I know families that travel permanently.
it’s so much cheaper and they get to live in all the paradise places everybody wants to go to.
traveling is exactly as simple as I’m making it out to be.
I’ve been doing it with zero problems for years, I know people who have been doing it for decades, I know people from every walk of life who have done it, with every disability or privilege you can imagine.
it boils down to buying a ticket and going where you want to go.
The first time can be scary, but there’s nothing real stopping you from taking control of your life.
as soon as a traveler moves for the first time and you land in the new country, or you go into a store in Portugal and realize that yes they also have juice and toilet paper, you realize that all your concerns were ridiculous.
everything you do in the US, you can do in the countries you live in, for far less money with better social services.
Two words:
Record Profits
One word: Unionize.
Guillotine
You have been permanently banned from c/Conservative.
LOL you totally had me with that message. Thanks for the laugh!
Don’t ask how I know what that message looks like! 😄
Can’t imagine how. LOL.
Username checks out
Can I pls?
Yeah baby!!
Line goes up, grandpa and kiddo can just go to the crappier nursing home and daycare and you can work a little harder can’t you!?
Now if you’ll excuse me, but I’ve got some senators dicks to suck
Now if you’ll excuse me, but I’ve got some senators dicks to suck
You got it backwards…
Line must go up.
The internet has a serious issue with managers, upper management, and even landlords nowadays. It’s so weird to see people slip back into blaming anyone but the real grifters who provide no benefit but take a dollar for no real benefit, or the wage inequality with CSuites. Even people here are falling back into blaming people in their own wage bracket rather than looking at people who provide nothing or paid too much.
As someone who’s worked the peon doing the shit to management, so much of the issue is rooted in insurance and government mandated oversight.
People love to hate on their manager making $20,000-40,000 more than them, but they’re basically the same as you to everyone grifting or the 1%. Quit blaming them for living in a society that both WANTS and REQUIRES massive oversight.
Running a business ethically takes far more money than anyone wants to admit.
Running a business while making sure you follow all government regulations, codes, is insurable, and is cost efficient is even harder.
First, get rid of for profit insurance. They should all work as collectives.
Get rid of for profit healthcare and go single payer. Remove middlemen who provide no benefit. Quit overpaying shit like salesmen because they’re a clear tick that shows more $$$$ and pay people nicely. A housekeeper making $40,000 shouldn’t be $50,000 away from their manager and shouldn’t be $400,000 or more away from their President. Quit overvaluing and paying a rich person to what amounts to having to have someone dedicated to sucking up to other rich people to stay alive.
Understand that the stock market only works with infinite growth. You will need to save up exactly what you plan to use in retirement without the magic of it or compounding interest and redistribute the wealth through unionizing, and collective bargaining.
Understand that all of it takes someone to lead and do it that will need to be paid as well. People want to live their lives happily, not sacrifice themselves and their life out of some noble goodness of their heart. Pay them appropriately and understand that if you’re in these positions, you shouldn’t be paid double what other people make just because you do important work. We all do.
Remember that it takes more people to run anything that we like to admit, and that often these regulations are there for a reason. Find the real fat, and cut it while you can.
Seriously though, blame for profit businesses that should just be government run if they’re a requirement. Insurance/public health, safety/audit oversight, infrastructure, utilities, public health.
Push for cooperatives for things that can be more privatized but get sketchy when it’s all government or full on for profit, like private land ownership, private schools, banking to credit unions.
I agree with the general thrust of what you’re saying, but your comment includes several contradictions. You imply that $400,000 a year is far too high a salary for a president of a company, but then you suggest that we should pay top dollar for a competent leader. You say we shouldn’t be angry at the manager making $40,000 more than us, but you also say to remove unnecessary middlemen.
Generally, I think all of that is unnecessary considerations. As you said, some things just require a lot of people to physically be present for oversight and require a lot of regulations. Where these things are necessary for society, they should be paid for at least in part by taxes. It is immoral to have the bulk of this labor be done on the backs of uncompensated people. It is also immoral to set them up such that only the very wealthy can afford them. The only way to reconcile these two economic facts are through making them a publicly funded service.
