On 2012-05-12 11:23, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-12 00:31, acesover wrote: Quote: On 2012-05-11 22:48, balducci wrote: "Give me a break and do the math. At $8.00 an hour for 40 hours that is $320/week. times 4 weeks to a month is $1,200/ month. Burger King and McDonalds pay that and I am sure Wally World does also. I know they can find jobs at this rate but do not want that work so they say...can't find a job." I do not know for a fact, but I suspect at a number of fast food locations one would be VERY lucky to get a full 40 hours a week of employment. Most people I know of who have had that sort of job struggled to get even 20 hours a week. Some only 10 hours or so a week. Now you ae making things up. They need people desperately. They do use part time employees but would love full timers. More dependable than those who work PT for spending money.

I'm not making anything up. McDs and the others do offer jobs, but many of those do not offer the full 40 hours you are talking about.

Anyway, the woman in the article is not unemployed. She has a job, and it is already paying her as much (or nearly as much) to work for 20 hours a week as what you claim she would earn full-time at one of those McD, Burger King, or Wally World jobs you described. Yes, she could use the other 20 hours a week to try and find some suitable additional part time employment, and perhaps she is. The article fails to give us a complete picture of her situation.

On 2012-05-12 22:50, acesover wrote:

The article goes on to say that the funding was cut from 4.3 million to $900,000 which resulted in 18,000 hours less use of people like her. but if you do the math that number is so skewed that it makes no sense. 18,000 hours is equal to 3.4 million dollars. Do the math that would put someone at a position like that making around $300,000 a year as 18,000 hours at full time is only 9 people, 40 hour a week jobs and she only works 20. The whole article is kind of off the wall. But then again I may be figuring wrong. But I still I stand by the premise that she can easily make over $900 net a month. Of course she will have to work more than 20 hours a week. Heck I give up, I have a headache. take two aspirins and I will check back in the morning.

On 2012-05-12 23:11, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-12 22:50, acesover wrote: The article goes on to say that the funding was cut from 4.3 million to $900,000 which resulted in 18,000 hours less use of people like her. but if you do the math that number is so skewed that it makes no sense. 18,000 hours is equal to 3.4 million dollars. Do the math that would put someone at a position like that making around $300,000 a year as 18,000 hours at full time is only 9 people, 40 hour a week jobs and she only works 20. The whole article is kind of off the wall. But then again I may be figuring wrong. But I still I stand by the premise that she can easily make over $900 net a month. Of course she will have to work more than 20 hours a week. Heck I give up, I have a headache. take two aspirins and I will check back in the morning.

It did say that last year's budget cut led to a reduction in teaching hours as you note, but it did not say that those 18,000 hours were the ONLY things cut. I suspect that was just one of several cutbacks that were necessary in order to balance the budget.

Doing a bit of online research just now, it appears I am right:

http://theravenreview.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/budget-cuts-and-lay-offs-at-yavapai-college/

"Budget cuts, due to lack of state funding, have caused Yavapai College to make drastic changes to programs across the board. In addition to laying off a number of full-time faculty and staff, other reductions include cutting 50 percent of the Nursing Program, eliminating 75 percent of college scholarships, closing the Camp Verde and Walnut Creek research facilities and finally, cutting men’s and women’s basketball completely."

But they did get the Governor's name right and got it right that he is a republican and he cut the budget for the college. Good reporting.

On 2012-05-13 00:33, Intrepid wrote:
Unfortunately the world doesn't revolve around us and what we dream about doing for a living.

On 2012-05-13 00:44, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-13 00:33, Intrepid wrote: Unfortunately the world doesn't revolve around us and what we dream about doing for a living.

But fortunately there are those who ignored that almost universal parental admonition and instead pursued their dreams. If it weren't for them where would the world be?

Free advice- "Minor in English." A major or minor in English helps with writing skills, which are always in demand in the professional world. I've communicated with many people with an MBA who don't know how to compose a proper email, and with report-writing skills that are barely adequate for making a powerpoint presentation.

On 2012-05-12 23:34, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-12 23:11, balducci wrote: Quote: On 2012-05-12 22:50, acesover wrote: The article goes on to say that the funding was cut from 4.3 million to $900,000 which resulted in 18,000 hours less use of people like her. but if you do the math that number is so skewed that it makes no sense. 18,000 hours is equal to 3.4 million dollars. Do the math that would put someone at a position like that making around $300,000 a year as 18,000 hours at full time is only 9 people, 40 hour a week jobs and she only works 20. The whole article is kind of off the wall. But then again I may be figuring wrong. But I still I stand by the premise that she can easily make over $900 net a month. Of course she will have to work more than 20 hours a week. Heck I give up, I have a headache. take two aspirins and I will check back in the morning. It did say that last year's budget cut led to a reduction in teaching hours as you note, but it did not say that those 18,000 hours were the ONLY things cut. I suspect that was just one of several cutbacks that were necessary in order to balance the budget. Doing a bit of online research just now, it appears I am right: http://theravenreview.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/budget-cuts-and-lay-offs-at-yavapai-college/ "Budget cuts, due to lack of state funding, have caused Yavapai College to make drastic changes to programs across the board. In addition to laying off a number of full-time faculty and staff, other reductions include cutting 50 percent of the Nursing Program, eliminating 75 percent of college scholarships, closing the Camp Verde and Walnut Creek research facilities and finally, cutting men’s and women’s basketball completely."

With what you found it makes a lot more sense now.

I just read the article. You did fail to mention the salary increase to employees that have stayed on.

On 2012-05-13 07:44, Intrepid wrote:
The debates on this forum often resemble resemble those between idealistic youth and pragmatic parents. The parents are often behind the curve on social issues and the youth pound foolish on financial matters. There is no universally correct answer for everyone, however with one in six american's now on food stamps the saged advise of the parent maybe shouldn't be dismissed so freely.

On 2012-05-13 12:40, mastermindreader wrote:
Intrepid-

I'm aware they had a bicycle shop. I was simply making a point with a bit of humor.

Without dreams to pursue, what is the point of living?

Perhaps a more fitting example to this forum would be Harry Houdini. Do you think he should have just given up his silly aspirations and gotten a regular job when he found himself virtually starving in his early years trying to make it in show business?

On 2012-05-13 12:54, Intrepid wrote:

I think my statement that "There is no universally correct answer for everyone, however with one in six american's now on food stamps the saged advise of the parent maybe shouldn't be dismissed so freely" stands on its own.

On 2012-05-13 13:22, Intrepid wrote:
As a former starving artist I can assure you that such ideals are far dreamer from the perspective of the well to do than the practitioner of your philosophy. There is something to be said about balancing our lives with an ounce of old fashion pragmatism, especially with today's economy. Just something to think about.

On 2012-05-13 11:44, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-12 23:34, acesover wrote: Quote: On 2012-05-12 23:11, balducci wrote: Quote: On 2012-05-12 22:50, acesover wrote: The article goes on to say that the funding was cut from 4.3 million to $900,000 which resulted in 18,000 hours less use of people like her. but if you do the math that number is so skewed that it makes no sense. 18,000 hours is equal to 3.4 million dollars. Do the math that would put someone at a position like that making around $300,000 a year as 18,000 hours at full time is only 9 people, 40 hour a week jobs and she only works 20. The whole article is kind of off the wall. But then again I may be figuring wrong. But I still I stand by the premise that she can easily make over $900 net a month. Of course she will have to work more than 20 hours a week. Heck I give up, I have a headache. take two aspirins and I will check back in the morning. It did say that last year's budget cut led to a reduction in teaching hours as you note, but it did not say that those 18,000 hours were the ONLY things cut. I suspect that was just one of several cutbacks that were necessary in order to balance the budget. Doing a bit of online research just now, it appears I am right: http://theravenreview.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/budget-cuts-and-lay-offs-at-yavapai-college/ "Budget cuts, due to lack of state funding, have caused Yavapai College to make drastic changes to programs across the board. In addition to laying off a number of full-time faculty and staff, other reductions include cutting 50 percent of the Nursing Program, eliminating 75 percent of college scholarships, closing the Camp Verde and Walnut Creek research facilities and finally, cutting men’s and women’s basketball completely." With what you found it makes a lot more sense now. I just read the article. You did fail to mention the salary increase to employees that have stayed on.

And so? Your point being what exactly? That the remaining full-time employees gained at the expense of some other employees (like the woman in the article)?

As you brought them up and apparently view them as being significant, what is your opinion about the salary increases to the remaining employees? Good thing, bad thing?

How would you handle the situation if you were the decision maker and had to decide to lay off x number of people in order to give a certain few a raise or keep everyone employed with no raises this time around?

On 2012-05-14 05:46, Woland wrote:

Quote:

How would you handle the situation if you were the decision maker and had to decide to lay off x number of people in order to give a certain few a raise or keep everyone employed with no raises this time around?

I would think that's an unusual choice.

I think the usual choice is that you have to decide to lay off x number of people in order to keep the company afloat and try to make sure that the remaining people, usually a number substantially larger than x, get to keep their jobs at all. Without a raise.

On 2012-05-14 10:40, Salguod Nairb wrote:
She could always join up with a branch of the military. I believe she could even become an officer and at the very least it would provide her with new skills and a way to pay off her loans.

Given her background in medieval history she could easily become a commander of a catapult or boiling oil division.