[geeks] PC Repair shop fun...

[Phil Stracchino]

Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> 
>> I'm considering something like that myself, part-time from home.  I
>> don't need to make a *lot* of money off it, because I can't make over
>> $900 a month without jeopardizing disability, and I can't afford to do
>> that until I *know* I can maintain a steady income.
> 
> Mmmm, one of the favorite US government rants.  Whether disabled or on
> welfare, people are encouraged by the system to not get back to working
> as much as they're able because there's a huge income gap where they're
> working a lot harder and making a lot less than you would by doing
> nothing.
> 
> This benefits neither society as a whole nor any one person in
> particular.

Well, actually, in this case, the problem's not that there's an income 
hole as such.  I'm allowed up to $900 a month indefinitely with no 
problems; if I make more than that, I need to let them know and they 
make adjustments, but it's not an automatic complete loss of benefits.

What I'm concerned about is that anything under three months is 
considered an unsuccessful return to work, and we just go back to square 
one.  But if I manage to get a full-time job and go even a single day 
over three months, that's automatically considered a *successful* return 
to work and I lose benefits.  Then if I lose the job for any reason, 
even if that reason is "Trying to do this has left me in so much pain I 
can't function", I can't just resume where I was, I have to re-qualify 
all over again -- and even if I get re-qualified *immediately* (which is 
unlikely, bureaucracy happens slowly, it took something like 13 months 
last time) there's an automatic 5 months lock-out period.  They 
back-date benefits, up to a certain limit, but that doesn't keep us from 
getting foreclosed on in the meantime.

That means that any time I try to go back to work full-time, *just in 
case* it doesn't work out, I've somehow got to make enough in those 
first three months to cover us for *at minimum* the next five months as 
well, and probably more like twice that.  Which means in order not to 
risk financial disaster if it goes wrong, I've got to go more or less 
directly from "disabled, hasn't had a permanent job since 2001" to "six 
figure income".  And that seems to be all but impossible, short of 
robbing banks.[1]  I haven't managed to get a job offer at all since 
2001, let alone one making six figures.


So, I don't think the problem is so much an income gap, as a lack of 
safety net if you try to go back to work and can't make it long-term. 
However much you'd like to go back to work, you don't dare take the 
chance, because trying and failing could leave you on the street.



[1]  Which offers great short-term profits, but the job security sucks.


-- 
   Phil Stracchino, CDK#2         ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
   Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
   alaric at caerllewys.net            alaric at metrocast.net
           It's not the years, it's the mileage.