I disagree. A higher turnover rate means paying the new guy less money. You’ll see this more often when they want to annoy people into quitting so they don’t need to pay unemployment.
They’re using the psychology correctly. It’s just awful for people as a whole. But it can temporarily make their books look good (high sales, low expenses) and justify bigger bonuses for the board.
I hope this will make it clear how much people actually pay on their retirement accounts. Far too many people I talk to don’t realize that they are paying an “expense ratio” on their investment funds.
The groan I just grunt. Well done, hotdogman. Well done.
Most 401k’s will mail checks when people want to roll funds over. Sometimes to the receiving companies, sometimes directly to the client. They won’t even overnight it or put a tracking number on it either. Just snail mail hope it shows up some day.
Ahhh gotcha. We’re basically saying the same thing
I’m not sure what you mean by underwriting it and declining coverage anyway. But you’re correct, it is challenging to get somebody approved for taking medication relating to anxiety/depression. If they have a history of being hospitalized, they will not approve the underwriting.
It’s surprising that your wife got declined for being 10 lbs under weight. If that was truly the only problem, I’d be able to get that approved through just about anybody. Which company did you use?
Honestly they should apply the same CPI-wage index that social security/va pensions use to all means based testing and social nets.
Corporate person only when convenient.
DOJ wants people to realize just how large Google is. Google doesn’t want people to realize how big they are.
Typically the limit is 2 years.
Wouldn’t affect the payout, but it would increase your premium.
Typically no. Life insurance companies don’t like anything regarding mental illnesses. Largely because it’s under researched, so they just say “no thanks.”
Come on in! There’s cookies.
Reddit? No. I was thinking moreso Meta. They have the deeper pockets and a proven track record of breaking privacy laws to their own benefit.
My tin foil hat is telling me it’s one of the other social media companies funding a hacking group to do it. They stand to have the most to lose, and they’ve seemingly decided to enjoy changing the narrative regarding multiple topics. Lemmy stands directly against what the bigger social medias stand for.
I have no evidence to back this though. As a business owner I just know that things become very consistent when people are being paid, and very inconsistent when they aren’t. These attacks are seemingly very consistent/organized.