Michael and Brandon 7: Lying Low in Batesville

[Coconut Flan]

Continued from here:

 

[Jackie3]

Quote

Having 12 children is just not possible in the US because most jobs just can’t support that big of a family. Most jobs are under paid in the US to be honest.

Not possible? Of course it's possible. I know families with 12 kids. They aren't wealthy, but they exist. 

I think you mean "not possible if you want to pay for their college" or "not possible if you want to have a phone, vacations and money for retirement." 

It's a choice, but it can be done, because I've seen it done. It's not a choice I'd made, and it's generally pretty unfair to the kids. But people do it. My friend (4th of 12) grew up to be an attorney. I'm not sure how he paid for school--I doubt his parents would've been much help. 

Perhaps you are not in touch with many lower-income communities. If you were, you'd see that families with 12 kids do exist, and the kids aren't necessarily miserable or traumatized, despite being poor. Poor doesn't always equal miserable.

Spend some time in these communities and you'll see that.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Jackie3

[SassyPants]

@HermioneSparrow yes, LPN and LVN are interchangeable.

@HereticHick…maybe Jana will eventually seek employment and secure SS benefits and less costly Medicare options. Sarah Maxwell married at 40+ years of age. Maybe Jana will gain some adult independence too.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

Social security only helps if you or your spouse earn enough that counts and long enough. And even then it won't 100% your salary.

It seems stupid to not have SOME kind of job while she can . Part time would count to social security. She could save money up for whatever she needs in future.

 

But I fear her "volunteering" is abortion related. Because I can just see her deciding that her infertility story can convince somebody or that it's a better use of her time than working.

I also think she won't do paid nursing because she won't tolerate having to obey company policies and training. Which include things like not discriminating or not harassing people about religion etc.

Not to mention she'd have to do nursing duties to/for men unless maybe working for labor and delivery. But who would hire a low experience, socially unusual person who may feel uncomfortable with variety of patients for labor and delivery? 

I think she did it to have something to do before kids with maybe some vague nurse midwife leanings. It also may be if her plan was to avoid dealing with men clinically was to go for pregnancy care-maybe post fertility issues she feels she can't do that now.

 

Either way. Go get a job and expand your horizons Michael!

[HereticHick]

12 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Social security only helps if you or your spouse earn enough that counts and long enough. And even then it won't 100% your salary.

It seems stupid to not have SOME kind of job while she can . Part time would count to social security. She could save money up for whatever she needs in future.

 

Thank you!  For our non-American friends on here--"Social Security" is a federal pension program that you have to work to be eligible for as an adult--OR be married to someone who worked. You have to do some sort of paid work for 10 years (it doesn't have to be consecutive) to be eligible.  

 

"The only people who can legally collect benefits without paying into Social Security are family members of workers who have done so. Nonworking spouses, ex-spouses, offspring or parents may be eligible for spousal, survivor or children's benefits based on the qualifying worker's earnings record." https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/collecting-benefits-without-paying-into-social-security.html#:~:text=The only people who can,the qualifying worker's earnings record.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

Some jobs actually don't pay into social security (teachers/school employees in some places) so if you spend your career there you have no back up.

Also, I could be wrong, but I think my friend whose husband is a pastor does not pay into s.security either.

So does Brandon? Is he somehow in one of these nonprofits who don't pay into it?

Another note for s.security. the longer you pay in the better your benefit but it's not like a pension where you get something comparable to your former salary.

I coworker retired with a combination of having only worked of s.security qualified pay for part of her career and pension from schools the other part. Both combined were less than i think 75% of her salary and she was unable to fully retire on that income despite working into her 70s in middle class jobs.

She still works part time.

 

All that to say. In the USA planning for retirement is actually pretty dang important at age 20. Especially for a single income household. You're just going to have so much less $ earned and saved. And in the USA there isn't much support even for.retirees.

Not sure about the most recent cost of living adjustment. But my mother's social security after a lifetime of working was less than 2000$/mo and I think more like 1200-1500. Which isn't enough money at all. Her personal retirement plan 401k was wiped out in the financial crisis in 08 as well as her ability to get a job. She worked in finance. So despite working middle class jobs 40-60 hrs a week her whole life til about age 60. She's lived in poverty since 2008.

[SassyPants]

15 minutes ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Some jobs actually don't pay into social security (teachers/school employees in some places) so if you spend your career there you have no back up.

Also, I could be wrong, but I think my friend whose husband is a pastor does not pay into s.security either.

So does Brandon? Is he somehow in one of these nonprofits who don't pay into it?

Another note for s.security. the longer you pay in the better your benefit but it's not like a pension where you get something comparable to your former salary.

I coworker retired with a combination of having only worked of s.security qualified pay for part of her career and pension from schools the other part. Both combined were less than i think 75% of her salary and she was unable to fully retire on that income despite working into her 70s in middle class jobs.

She still works part time.

 

All that to say. In the USA planning for retirement is actually pretty dang important at age 20. Especially for a single income household. You're just going to have so much less $ earned and saved. And in the USA there isn't much support even for.retirees.

Not sure about the most recent cost of living adjustment. But my mother's social security after a lifetime of working was less than 2000$/mo and I think more like 1200-1500. Which isn't enough money at all. Her personal retirement plan 401k was wiped out in the financial crisis in 08 as well as her ability to get a job. She worked in finance. So despite working middle class jobs 40-60 hrs a week her whole life til about age 60. She's lived in poverty since 2008.

Teachers usually have union pensions though. Same with many other government type employees.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

8 hours ago, SassyPants said:

Teachers usually have union pensions though. Same with many other government type employees.

Not all teachers have unions....in fact you may be surprised to learn teacher unions are illegal in some states....guess how I know??

My direct experience is if you don't work a full 30 years at the same district you will probably not have a full pension. So you worked ma years not paying into social  security then you only have partial pension.

This happened to my coworker mentioned above.

The last place I worked it was 10 years to partially vest. So if you had to move at 9 years....you have nothing. Including no s.security.

If you vested you were only a little vested. You weren't fully vested. If you.moved to a new state you start over or even county you often start over. Here there's district/County part of pension and state part of pension. So if you change counties you lose that part but keep the state vesting.

If you move states your 9 years of credits are gone. It's a stupid loophole situation....ugh!

[HeartsAFundie]

And if you work any kind of governmental or municipal/public sector job that provides a pension but worked enough at one point in the private sector to earn enough SS quarters to get any benefits, your SS income will be severely reduced depending on what state you live in.  It happened to my dad's best friend.  Because of his municipal pension, his SS was reduced to around $200/month.  They don't take SS out of your pay in MA if you work for the state or a MA city/town.  Believe me, this guy has a decent pension from the city and is certainly not living in poverty because his SS was slashed to pieces due to the pension offset, but it's the principle of the thing. He still worked those quarters that justified the SS income attached to them.  

 

[Cupcake79]

Interesting about pensions/social security. I definitely haven’t read enough, but so far it seems to me that the system(s?) regulating this are just as  strange as the health insurance system. Like it’s almost impossible to get a good pension no matter how much you work. Except if you’re in the military. That’s the impression I have. Am I correct in assuming that if you work in the military you’re always getting the best benefits? 
 

If someone would care to explain how the systems with social security and pensions work in the US I’d be really happy.

[rebeccawriter01]

My pension is pretty darn good, but it is a rare thing these days. I changed jobs (in part) to start paying SS after I was vested in my pension because I wanted both to be substantial. 

I haven't been in the military but I have done government related work for much of my career.

[HeartsAFundie]

3 hours ago, rebeccawriter01 said:

My pension is pretty darn good, but it is a rare thing these days. I changed jobs (in part) to start paying SS after I was vested in my pension because I wanted both to be substantial. 

I haven't been in the military but I have done government related work for much of my career.

My mom worked for almost 30 years as a paraprofessional for our city school department and collected a municipal pension upon retirement, so she never paid into SS.  She did say, however, that later on people were given the option to have SS taken out if they chose to.  Because MA offsets SS for those who collect municipal pensions, I don't know how beneficial it was but at least it was an option.  Especially if an employee returned to the private sector, where any SS work history would be recorded and count toward their SS earning quarters.     

 

3 hours ago, Cupcake79 said:

Interesting about pensions/social security. I definitely haven’t read enough, but so far it seems to me that the system(s?) regulating this are just as  strange as the health insurance system. Like it’s almost impossible to get a good pension no matter how much you work. Except if you’re in the military. That’s the impression I have. Am I correct in assuming that if you work in the military you’re always getting the best benefits? 
 

If someone would care to explain how the systems with social security and pensions work in the US I’d be really happy.

Here's a basic explanation.  I hope this helps!   

 Pensions are hard to come by in the US, but there are some places that still offer them.  Most public sector places do but they do not take SS out of the employee's pay, so if you have a long work history in the public sector, you are likely not getting SS, leaving your public pension as your main source of retirement income.   Depending on the state you live in, a public pension collector's SS earned at prior jobs will be offset.   Like I explained earlier with my dad's friend, he worked long enough in the private sector to collect SS before switching to the public sector, but his SS was severely reduced due to collecting a state pension. 

I believe you need to be in the military 20 years to collect a military pension.  My retired neighbor is both ex-military and a former teacher in a neighboring city.  He collects a military pension and a pension from the school district in which he worked.   He also gets Tricare/Champus military health benefits for himself and his wife.  I don't believe he gets SS, though.  If he does, it's most likely drastically offset like my dad's friend's SS is.  Neither public pension is offset by the other as far as I know.  And I am unsure if the medical benefits are completely subsidized, but if not, I imagine it's pretty close.          

Private pensions, which are paid out by private (non-government) employers and are becoming harder to find, are a completely different beast in the SS world. Utility companies and insurance companies seem to be the last holdouts with private pensions, and even then, companies have taken measures to eliminate pensions for new hires, leaving only those who are grandfathered in to receive them.  If you are fortunate enough in the US to collect a private monthly pension from your employer, who would have taken SS out of your pay, you will collect all monthly SS you are entitled to collect at your chosen collection age (ranging from 62-70) PLUS your monthly private pension.  Which is not a bad deal at all.     Private pensions are not offset like public ones are.   

Edited May 26, 2023 by HeartsAFundie

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

Retirement funds are equally messed up as American Healthcare.

Every place is different.  You have little idea what the retirement is actually like when offered a job.

Each company sets up their own so the rules vary wildly.

Social security  is paid by the federal (whole country) government . But only if you have enough "credits" meaning you worked X number of years. But then it's nit a universal $ amt everybody gets. Your social security payment is based on your income. So if you struggled in poverty your working life. Your social security well help you continue in poverty because you didn't pay in as much money. 

But don't worry. If you're rich only part of your income is taxed for social security....so it's "fair" we can't have the rich contributing too much. That would be a burden on them.

 

Now once upon a time, post ww2, in the time of unions, many people(men) got into a life time job with a pension. You worked your whole career there and you got a good pension in the end and you did not have to work at Walmart into your 90s.

 

But as unions got broken up, factories moved to cheaper places, and businesses realized they could make more profit for the top...suddenly pensions were bad and 401k plans were good!

A 401k plan is what most americans have now if they have a retirement account at all (all jobs do not offer them).

401k plans mostly invest your personal retirement savings into the stock.market in the hopes that one day the stock market will grow enough that when you retire you aren't broke.

Some jobs offer "matching" so if you put in 3% or your income into the 401k then the company will "match" it and that's what the company offers instead of a pension. A really nice job might match 6%.

I think 3% is kinda normal *if* your company offers matching. They don't have to.

But bonus round...."vesting"

Vesting is how a company can save money. Many places have 3-10 year vesting. I think 6 years seems to be common now.

Meaning if you quit after 2 years-you are NOT vested. You keep the money you put in your 401k. But the company takes back what they put in. So if you change jobs you will keep losing the money from the "match"

To bad for you! The company doesn't owe you anything!

Another weird thing about 401k. They are for profit!

Which means you pay fees for your money to be invested in a program that you don't pick. Your employer does. So the employer is more likely to pick a plan that doesn't charge them the fees but instead charges you the fees! But you never know about the fees til after you're hired.

My last place had an 403b which is a 401k for public/nonprofit employees. But the fees were insane. And you couldn't pick how it was invested. I put a fee thousand in....it's lost money every year. Because I couldn't move that retirement $ to a good plan with low fees. The money I need to retire...is shrinking every year

Anyway. That's the simple version!

if you have a disability or stay home parent or lose your job or public school employee...youbare likely screwed even more.

 

Oh any my friends on military pension all went on to get post military jobs because they couldn't afford to live on military pension...soooo...I dont think that helps. The benefit from.military is having somewhat reliable healthcare.

 

[Cupcake79]

Oh dear, that’s complicated. A few follow up questions.

Is there no kind of pension that you get if you’ve been unemployed or sick or disabled? Like some sort of minimum pension?

Are there no unions in the US? No one that works for improving employers rights? The Boss sings about getting a union card (and a wedding coat) is that something that doesn’t exist anymore? 
 

About the 401k. In case of a financial crisis can they go bankrupt and all the money invested disappear? Like if you buy stocks and loose your money. If so it’s stupid and I don’t get how such a system could have been started in the first place.
 

A lot of Europeans went to America like 100-150 years ago, maybe later too, to “dig gold”. Some literally, others figuratively but all of them to make themselves a better life. The more I learn about the US, the more I think that it must be hard to have a financially stable life over there. But maybe I’m wrong? Is it easy to be successful? Was it easier 100 years ago? 
 

 

[HereticHick]

20 minutes ago, Cupcake79 said:

 

Are there no unions in the US? No one that works for improving employers rights? The Boss sings about getting a union card (and a wedding coat) is that something that doesn’t exist anymore? 
 

There has been a steady decline in Union membership in the US. Currently only 10.1% of workers are in unions: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

There is a program called Supplemental Social Security: https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/ for disabled folks and the low-income elderly.

 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

Disability exists but I believe you have to have paid into like soc. Security. 

And it's very little money.

I think for me it would be about 500$ per month. Please note that an apartment in a regular town nothing fancy is usually over 1000$/mo.

You can also lose your disability $ on 30 days notice if "they" decide you are no longer disabled (my ex had this happen. He then lost access to health care and couldn't afford medication or appointments to renew medication. And eventually was homeless)

Also if you become disabled often it's not approved quickly and you will spend months if not years trying to get disability money. People will employee lawyers to fight for their disability (my ex did).

Some states have more unions. Some states have functionally outlawed unions and strikes. 

For example the state I live in has what's called "right to work"

That means not that I, an employee, get any benefits. What it means is that this state has enacted laws that say a company can fire you without any cause, same day. Every company in my state can do this whether you have a contract or not. So functionally you can't have a union. There are zero repercussions if they fire anybody who strikes or talks about anything they don't like.

And once you're fired you've lost your retirement if you aren't vested and most importantly in US access to better Healthcare.

There's no good Healthcare unless you are in national politics. The politicians voted themselves a very nice healthcare system. But employer based Healthcare plans are usually much better and cheaper than the most expensive health insurance than you can get through "obamacare"

(edit to clarify- employer health plans are cheaper and cover more than the most expensive obamacare plan. When I was employed before, I had a very nice 145$/mo plan. As a self employed person now the most expensive plan in my area is over 500$/mo and doesn't cover as much as my old plan did. And I live in an area with pretty good prices and options on obamacare. Some places have very limited options. It varies by county/parts of states) 

Depending on the state you are in you may have pretty much zero workers rights. It's strongly viewed by many here that business owners are important and workers are replaceable cogs. Business owners lobby for laws that benefit them and there's pretty much unlimited $ businesses are allowed to contribute secretly to politicians. So politicians write those laws.

401ks.

Yes you can lose all or most of your money just on stock market ups and down not even the 401k going bankrupt. This happened to my mother in 2008 financial crisis.

401k work on the theory that the market always goes up. Which so far is true...overall.

But in any given stretch of years if may go down. So if you needed retirement money when it's going down....you had to cash out more of your retirement to pay bills. A bigger percent. Which left too little to grow back when the market goes up again....rinse repeat.

I dont know the exact #s but most americans have very very very little saved in their 401ks. Overall Americans are extremely poorly educated on money and all finance.

I have a big interest on not having what happened to my mother happen to me. So I started researching A LOT. But this is not normal.

Most people in lower income have no retirement savings and plan to work til they die.

People who have 401ks usually just set it to take 1-3% out of your payck and they hope for the best.

I would assume a 401k can go bankrupt. They are public businesses for profit after all. There's supposed to be regulations but Republicans are pretty opposed to regulations so I don't know. 

Fees in 401k are a problem too. The stock market here tends to grow about 7% per year averaged out. If your company's 401k (which you didn't chose, the company did) has fees of 3-4%(this is common). Then your money in your 401k will only grow 3-4%. Then there's inflation....that has been kept around 3% for years (not now) so if your job's 401k has high fees then really your retirement fund will only grow because you out new money in each payck. Not because of stock growth.

Which is a huge problem.

The point was to grow money in stocks so you can afford to retire. Not just have a very complicated savings account.

The last place I worked that had 403b...

(same thing but for nonprofits. Why do nonprofits have a different thing?....because....reasons?)

...the fees are like that. So since stock market lost value and im still paying fees MONTHLY. Then it's  just losing money not saving money up for my retirement.

(It's possible but extremely complicated to move my money to a new retirement acct and if I do it wrong then I will owe many taxes and fees. So I've left it there)

My current employment: I'm In a loophole job where I'm classified as self employed...even though I'm not really...so I get zero benefits at all. I'm responsible for saving for my own health care, sick leave, and retirement.

This is also pretty common in certain areas and job types because certain job types are less regulated by the labor laws so there's these loophole jobs where the company doesn't hire you as an actual employee so what few labor laws do apply. Don't apply.

 

It's so easy right? 

(I have provided a simplified overview without any fine level nuances)

Americans believe we should be free of regulations....so this is how it manifests.

Edited May 26, 2023 by WatchingTheTireFireBurn

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

You asked about becoming successful.

Life in American is a lot like playing the claw machine or slot machine

It's rigged to not pay out and make a profit off you. But every once in awhile somebody wins so that other people keep playing and spending and believing their "skill" will help them win.

 

Every(non rich) American deep down in their hearts believes that they will be the next winner.

We tell ourselves a lot of stories about meritocracy and working hard. You can be anything you want! You just have to work hard. This is a very important cultural myth we have.

Therefore, if you're not successful it's because you were lazy. And you don't deserve it. You don't deserve help. You "didn't contribute" 

When anybody says "hey I think we might have a corrupt, rigged system.. "

The masses, who desperately need to believe the myth, scream out that anybody who thinks that is un-American!  And lazy! And a liar! They have sour grapes. 

Nobody wants to accused of being lazy/moocher. And if you're not successful it's because you're a lazy moocher....so if you want to change things it's like proclaiming to the world you're too dumb or lazy or incompetent to be successful. Nobody wants to be the one who admits they failed (they didn't but this is how we think).

It's a weird deep social collective unconsciousness thing here. And that , along with massive corrupt political $$$, is how Trump happens and DeSantis happens. 

 

And statistically speaking, it's been pretty well researched I believe that we have a bad case of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer.

 

[just_ordinary]

Someone said, the US is more of a high risk-high gain society. And people are more willing to take the risk because they are either living so comfortably they money to spare and therefore a loss don’t break them or they are so poor it doesn’t matter and it can only go up. But this will obviously create the rage to riches vision. No one talks about the ones that didn’t make it.

[Kiki03910]

Watching the BUB post-Michael-wedding episodes ... COULD BRANDON STOP RUBBING HER ARM CONSTANTLY. I was afraid she'd end up flayed. It was very, very creepy. But then I generally find Brandon and his cutesy platitudes and dead eyes creepy.

[Coconut Flan]

On 5/24/2023 at 8:38 AM, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Some jobs actually don't pay into social security (teachers/school employees in some places) so if you spend your career there you have no back up.

Older federal employees, teachers, etc. pay or paid into separate retirement systems so they do have a back up and frequently it's better than Social Security.  Social Security was only intended to provide about 1/3 of a person's retirement income.  

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

5 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Older federal employees, teachers, etc. pay or paid into separate retirement systems so they do have a back up and frequently it's better than Social Security.  Social Security was only intended to provide about 1/3 of a person's retirement income.  

The school district I worked for (as of 3 years ago) had 10 years vesting. Working there you did not pay into SS. So if you had to move to another district/state or had to quit or change jobs in some way - you had zero retirement from the place you worked 9.9 years AND you didn't have any qualifying SS income or credits towards SS

If you worked 10-20 years or so you would partially vest. Meaning you would have not very much retirement income after 20 years and you would still not have paid into SS and therefore have no credits to qualify and no income for it to be based on. So if you had to stop working due to disability, having kids, or moving to another state/district - you were screwed. The retirement does not transfer to another district. (technically it can but you have "pay" for it, if the other district allows it, and it's thousands of dollars to "buy back" 1 year, nobody can buy back several years).

There's no "matching" for any money you might put into a nonschool retirement account.

A colleague stayed in the same state her whole over 30 year career. 20+ years in the local district. 10 years at the state university. She did not have enough to retire on and had to keep working and has no SS either to help balance it out.

Further these non-SS plans can have all sorts of financial difficulties.

The district one over from mine - their retirement plan went bankrupt. And the career teachers/district staff had no SS to help balance that out. 

If you work part of your career in these types of jobs and part of your career doing traditional SS eligible jobs with a 401k....then SS will dock you the amount from your school pension. So you get a double whammy.  I fall into this category and I have specifically decided to stop working in the school before I vested and became subject to this nonsense. Because I have already - outside of working for schools - earned credits for and qualified for the average amount of SS.  So there should not be a situation where I'm penalized for also spending some time working in the schools. But I would be. I should be able to increase my options by having a second career, not limit them.

It's absurd. And people don't pay attention to all this when they work in these types of jobs and don't realize what will happen until it's too late.

I've also had a federal job and have non SS federal retirement funds. (But mostly plan to self fund my retirement).

Addendum: Keeping in mind the shockingly high number of teacher quit within 5 years (44%). This means the districts are using this system to deprive them of access to up to 5 years worth of SS vesting while also keeping their pension funds.

And for reference, I worked in a well paid, large school district and the pension is basically a joke unless you can work the full 30 years in the same district (because nobody moves in 30 years, or changes jobs often).  Even then there's a interesting number of "retirees" who come back and work 19 hrs per week (they can't work more than that as retirees). Must be a "great" pension that so many come back and keep working. That's the ones who started waaaay back. I would imagine there's going to be fewer and fewer 30 yr retirees moving forward.

Edited September 10, 2023 by WatchingTheTireFireBurn

[Coconut Flan]

That's interesting, but very sad.  The state where I live has a statewide teacher retirement plan..  I got hit a bit by the same law that kept other public pension plans out..  I can't receive from my deceased husband's record. There was a time when this didn't happen, but Congress wanted to abolish "double dipping."

[CanadianMamam]

Michaela confirmed the timeline of her miscarriage, she posted a bracelet that Brandon got her shortly afterwards with “Eden” on it and said she hasn’t taken it off in two years. That was the timeline a lot of people speculated. 

[EmiSue]

So many people have a miscarriage and then get pregnant within a few months and have a healthy baby. I wasn't one of those lucky people and it sounds like Michaela isn't either. I don't want another child born into this cult, but I feel very sorry for her. At least if she does manage to have a child, they won't be the first in a long line like she was, and even in this environment that counts for something.

[HermioneSparrow]

59 minutes ago, EmiSue said:

So many people have a miscarriage and then get pregnant within a few months and have a healthy baby. I wasn't one of those lucky people and it sounds like Michaela isn't either. I don't want another child born into this cult, but I feel very sorry for her. At least if she does manage to have a child, they won't be the first in a long line like she was, and even in this environment that counts for something.

I don't think one thing can exclude the other. I don't want more children born or raised in the cult but I feel VERY sorry for Michaela and I hope she finds peace and comfort, and takes care of herself.