I told my tbm dad about it and he seemed kinda cool about it. I'm gonna start applying for other jobs in my area in a few days I hope.I guess I can say that I'm "underemployed". The first time work did was a few months prior to my mom's death. I went from 18 hours a week to 15. Then this week starting next week I'm only working 12 hrs a week.

If the media and the government say that the unemployment situation and economy is getting better why are more people unemployed or given up looking for work altogether?

Good luck with finding something better.

Would the 12 hours per week work better for you in terms of keeping your disability checks?

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would the 12 hours per week work better for you in
> terms of keeping your disability checks?


Not really.there also the issue of the 14k that they say I owe to social security!

The more you earn, the more they will take out of your disability check.

AND, if you earn enough, they might decide to hold what's called (or used to be called - maybe it's different now) a Continuing Disability Investigation to determine whether or not you still meet the requirements for disability.

Now, this has nothing to do with your actual condition. It's purely beaurocrat-think. Remember the late actor Christopher Reeve, who became quadriplegic after a fall from a horse? I heard through the SS grapevine that he could not get disability, because (thanks to who he was), he could bring in a very substantial amount of money by hosting fund-raisers, writing books, doing guest appearances on TV shows, etc.

OF COURSE the guy was totally disabled - he couldn't even wipe his own nose - but because of his ability to earn considerable money in spite of it, he was technically "not disabled." That's how the Government sees it.

I think your dad is right. Be very cautious about what you earn.

I happen to agree, it might be best to keep your current job because at least with the Social Security, you have the health insurance that goes along with it, and that's better than not having insurance or having to buy your own. While it's now illegal for companies to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions, including a previous cancer diagnosis, there's nothing preventing those companies from charging you more. If you make over a certain income level, Social Security will stop sending those checks, and it would be hard to get those again if you were somehow laid off.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2014 04:14PM by adoylelb.

adoylelb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I happen to agree, it might be best to keep your
> current job because at least with the Social
> Security, you have the health insurance that goes
> along with it, and that's better than not having
> insurance or having to buy your own. While it's
> now illegal for companies to deny coverage to
> people with preexisting conditions, including a
> previous cancer diagnosis, there's nothing
> preventing those companies from charging you more.
> If you make over a certain income level, Social
> Security will stop sending those checks, and it
> would be hard to get those again if you were
> somehow laid off.

I don't have health insurance with my job. I don't work 40 hours a week. They(management) have also cut two other part time employees hours as well. The rumor is that management is cutting our hours to make room for another full time employee!! I'm still seriously considering finding another job for the afternoon and evenings if at all possible! It's like the upper class management doesn't even care at all about us peons in the trenches. Not to mention cutting our hours isn't that good for employee morale either!!

Now my tbm dad just told me to stick it out at my current job! He doesn't want me to lose my social security again!

southern Idaho inactive Wrote:
->
> If the media and the government say that the
> unemployment situation and economy is getting
> better why are more people unemployed or given up
> looking for work altogether?

Because...they lie? :)

In some places the economy is booming. Take San Francisco for example. The tech economy is EXPLODING. There aren't enough tech experts for all the jobs out there and you certainly can't find housing. But in most areas, it is not just stagnating, but likely shrinking.

But then, I am not a "techie," so it's not an issue for me.

The economy is booming in certain segments of society and floundering in others.

In many towns and cities I still see boarded up businesses and some of the formerly thriving restaurants are barely getting by or are closed.

The Stanford Area is doing well. But many places are doing very poorly. People are having trouble finding work and are typically underemployed.

Some unemployment stats don't include those who give up. Makes long term unemployment problems look better over time.

notnewatthisanymore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some unemployment stats don't include those who
> give up. Makes long term unemployment problems
> look better over time.


That's what my TBM dad said when he talks about the unemployment stats in this country of us.

Didn't Obama just say in the state of the union that congress should extend unemployment/underemployment benefits for the millions of americans who need them? I'm not sure they're saying it's getting better...

Of course they are. It's the basis of the executive "I'm the only savior that can save you" narrative.

It doesn't help that the OP lives in Twin Falls. I doubt Obama was thinking about a Podunk town in Idaho when he made that statement. There are a ton of jobs here in the Ogden area.

Tupperwhere Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It doesn't help that the OP lives in Twin Falls. I
> doubt Obama was thinking about a Podunk town in
> Idaho when he made that statement. There are a ton
> of jobs here in the Ogden area.


I live in Burely, not twin falls!