SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (698868)2/13/2013 10:25:57 PM
From: SilentZ  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575147
 
You talk about that over and over and over without mentioning the context of the conversation and CJ's explanation to you. The discussion (eight friggin' years ago) was about the human costs of unemployment. CJ wrote:

"It, of course, depends on your definition of "better". If I were to be unemployed, I'd much prefer 100% of my last wage with health insurance for a year, dropping to 80% indefinately, instead of less than 20% with the option of paying $500 a month for health insurance for 6 months. It might be a struggle for you, but..."

In context, what part of that do you disagree with? Would you rather have pretty much nothing if you were laid off or have some kind of safety net?

-Z



To: steve harris who wrote (698868)2/14/2013 12:03:18 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575147
 
See? This is what I mean. I still stand by what I posted. But what I posted isn't your straw man. That you made up.

Context is important.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News