you'd have to be a complete idiot (or love the craft so much you don't care what it costs you) to go to school for nursing or teaching in the US. Now chef'ing, that's not a half bad idea :)
Really there is just a housing shortage. Every road of struggling lower/middle class finances leads back to housing being outrageously expensive. All these other costs/wages are in mostly functional and liquid markets. They are being priced/valued more or less correctly.
Except housing. It's artificially choked to bolster home values by home owners.
Teachers and nurses still don't get paid enough even in cheap places, where housing is extremely affordable like Detroit, Cleveland, all of Mississippi, etc.
So maybe it's a bigger problem in HCOL areas like California, but it's a problem everywhere.
The problem is, in the last ~20 years we went from ~7% of the population being retired to ~20%. Over the next 10 years, it's going to get close to ~30%.
I can't imagine that nursing's problems are just fundamentally housing. Tracing back rough work schedules, unreasonable administration expectations, and hostile patients to housing costs feels like a stretch.
Pay is part of the problem, but also prioritizing profit margin above all else.
The fundamental problem is if you understaff and overwork your employees, you make more money. The actual drop in quality for the service doesn't degrade enough to stop people from using it.
This is why hospitals are horror stories of nurses/doctors working 60+ hour weeks with no vacation and managing a huge patient load. It's because admin has found that even if you don't have enough nurses, that just means 1 or 2 patients suffer or wait in line for longer. Perhaps someone dies, but in the meantime you'll save 10s, 100s of thousands or even millions of dollars over the course of a year.
It's a pay problem, but it's also a staffing problem.
That would be fun. Give Iris Explorer a spin - the demos make any SGI seem like a supercomputer. (Better on an Indigo2 or Octane, but hey) I did real work in Octave + gnuplot on SGI machines of the era but I'd be surprised if recent versions compile.
Cash transactions over 10k are also reported to FinCEN via Currency Transaction Reports [0]
> Also, having $50k on you with a bank receipt is generally a non-issue.
You have personal experience? The whole issue of Asset Forfeiture surrounds non-drug-dealing persons regularly having their cash seized under the assumption that they must be drug dealers while skipping the inconvenient step of pressing charges.
"A 2020 study found that the median cash forfeiture in 21 states which track such data was $1,300."[2]
For civil asset forfeiture the whole premise is that you can't prove the money is your's. If you have proof the money is yours and came from a bank, that invalidates the basis.
Just because you have proof the money is yours doesn't mean they won't take your money.
>...On his drive from Texas to California, a Nevada Highway Patrol officer engineered a reason to pull him over, saying that he passed too closely to a tanker truck. The officer who pulled Stephen over complimented his driving but nevertheless prolonged the stop and asked a series of questions about Stephen’s life and travels. Stephen told the officer that his life savings was in the trunk. Another group of officers arrived, and Stephen gave them permission to search his car. They found a backpack with Stephen’s money, just where he said it would be, along with receipts showing all his bank withdrawals. After a debate amongst the officers, which was recorded on body camera footage, they decided to seize his life savings.
Well they must really believe they have a strong case then, right?
>...So Stephen teamed up with the Institute for Justice to get his money back. It was only after IJ brought a lawsuit against the DEA to return Stephen’s money, and his story garnered national press attention, that the federal government agreed to return his money. In fact, they did so just a day after he filed his lawsuit, showing that they had no basis to hold it.
Nope, I guess they knew they didn't have a case. To recap: They engineer a fake reason for a traffic stop treating cars as a potential lottery ticket with a big payoff. They take the money even though they know they shouldn't. They circumvent Nevada law by handing the money to the DEA so they could get a kickback, hoping he won't be able to now afford a lawyer since they took his life savings. The minute he shows he has a powerful legal team looking into the case, they hand back the money.
>For civil asset forfeiture the whole premise is that you can't prove the money is your's.
Also, one has to wonder why the basic principle of the state having to prove guilt needs to be upended with civil asset forfeiture. If you are alleged to have murdered someone you are assumed innocent, but for civil asset forfeiture you are assumed guilty?
"Also, one has to wonder why the basic principle of the state having to prove guilt needs to be upended with civil asset forfeiture. If you are alleged to have murdered someone you are assumed innocent, but for civil asset forfeiture you are assumed guilty?"
This is civil vs criminal law. In civil cases you do not have the right to an attorney and hearing can be ex parte. The burden of proof is only more likely than not. So you have one-sided cases with no representation for the asset. These same lack of protections are being exploited for things like red flag laws, proposed abortion laws, etc. It's the same sloppy paradigm - too much work to do things under criminal law due to pesky rights, so just move it to the civil side.
You need to show the cash came from a legitimate source if you’re transporting it. (Not okay, but it is what it is)
Coming directly out of a bank (and hence tracked by the gov’t already) is a legitimate source.
If you have a receipt showing you just withdrew it from a bank account, even if they’re stupid enough to seize it, the court is going to give it right back to you - along with a civil settlement.
> If you have a receipt showing you just withdrew it from a bank account, even if they’re stupid enough to seize it, the court is going to give it right back to you - along with a civil settlement.
This isn't true. You'll probably get the money back, but it will take a couple months and cost a couple thousand in attorney's fees (which the courts will not reimburse)
Unless you get a lot of press, and/or have someone like the Institute for Justice fighting on your behalf, that's not a given.
There's a playbook that local/state and federal agencies have.
If a local/state agency seizes your cash, then they can just kick it up to the feds. Then any suit you file will have to be against the federal government. This increases your costs and difficulty.
The local/state agency is fine with this, because they have an agreement (see "Equitable Sharing"[1]) to get 80% of the money back.
Maybe, but they’d need a really high bar if you had the paperwork with you to not have to pay out. It’s true though that it would require some fighting. But that’s true of any cop misbehavior, unfortunately.
Civil penalties for this behavior means if you prevail (and it’s an egregious case), you can more than make up for it. Many attorneys will take such cases on contingency, as the odds are pretty good.
That’s because the moment someone lawyers up and appears to have a case, they give the funds back to avoid creating bad precedent. So it doesn’t go to court.
The best trick is the court case will not be against you, it will be against the money itself, as in "State of Indiana vs. $50,000". Your money has no rights, so it gets no public defender nor any other rights.
And plenty of attorneys would take a case like that on contingency if you would present even halfway decently in court, and win - and get you a nice payout on top of it.
Since they can say ‘Your honor, the prosecution can not identify any articulable factual basis, or even concrete suspicion as to why they should have seized my clients money. The money my client just withdrew from the bank that he earned lawfully, paid taxes on, was held in a regulated institution, and that he intended to use for lawful purposes.
In fact, as is clear from opposing councils arguments, they not only didn’t even attempt to investigate to discover if a lawful basis existed to seize my clients funds, they actively ignored documentation that my client attempted to provide them showing the funds were from a legal source.
Additionally, it’s clear they have since been unable to identify any lawful reason besides a generic ‘my training and experience says this was okay’, and in fact are not even able to identify which parts of their training and experience support it, even with x months of time.
This is in violation of the federal rules around these seizures (cut and paste the sections), and their own policies (cut-n-paste from their policy book).
Additionally, that they persist in not only defending these tactics, but continuing to keep my law abiding clients funds, shows a complete and continuing disregard for the law, my clients rights as a law abiding citizen of this great nation, their own policies, and the integrity of this court. ’
If they still persisted (historically they haven’t, even in far more ambiguous cases), I can’t imagine a judge being unsympathetic to punitive damages (3x) on top of everything else.
It wouldn’t be hard to make an argument that literal criminal gangs are less dangerous to society than a police agency acting that way in such a case.
"In April, police inspectors at the Indianapolis FedEx distribution center seized a box containing nearly $43,000 in cash. Even though no criminal charges have been filed in connection with the package, it’s been in the government’s possession for about four months. "
and
"In court documents, the Marion County prosecutor’s office wrote that shipments of bulk cash are typically associated with criminal activity. Even though Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department dogs alerted handlers to the smell of drugs in the box, no contraband could be found once it was opened."
It happens, and the cops just lie to courts, and they get away with it. They especially get away with it when they steal from the sorts of people who do not have easy access to lawyers, and who are not in a position to have tens of thousands of dollars tied up for months or years while cops lie to judges.
It generally doesn't matter what evidence you have about the cash on you, it won't stop US law enforcement seizing it from you through Civil Asset Forfeiture.
There's been plenty already provided in the thread.
Plenty of cases where random traffic stops and airport "additional screening" checks have resulted in cash being seized, even when someone has sufficient evidence that they withdrew it from a bank.
In Civil Asset Forfeiture cases the burden of proof is reversed (i.e the cash is presumed guilty).
Simply having a bank receipt doesn't prove innocence of the cash, and the law enforcement officers who seize it will just do so and claim that you were about to do something criminal with it.
It's on you to prove - in court, by filing a lawsuit - how you came by it, how it was to be used in legitimate activity. Even then, if you 100% prevail, you're still liable for all of your costs for doing this.
If you had to file a Federal case (because local/state authorities can, and will, send it to some federal agency and get 80% of it back in a sharing-arrangement) then your costs for getting your money back are increased even further.
Why would you expect this. These people doing the swatting often aren't even citizens. These are often foreign attacks and the inept police make these attacks very effective.
I suppose the theory is that people won't see significant pay increases if they stay with the same company (but also presumably that if everyone leaves after training, the company will just stop training workers).
reply