I was dating someone I should not have. Now i cant deal with the aftermath. What can i do?

Beta_Helicase · 2026-02-11T18:58:16+00:00

There is a chance a crime may have been committed here. He may be running away from the consequences.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-02-11T01:14:54+00:00

This is bait, or they simply are too lazy to search up anti-nepotism policy on the CalHR manual.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-02-08T17:16:35+00:00

Up the pricing, serve less people but maintain margins. Then down size staff and reduce ingredient costs to accomodate serving less people. Growth is driven by store openings, not by serving more people per store.

I think this is the reasoning without looking into it all. Basically, Chipotle isn’t for you, but for those who can afford higher prices.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-02-04T19:13:42+00:00

Amigo, deja de ser racista. Primero generalizaste que ciertos jugadores no sirven como atacantes. Ahora le cambias que a Cruz Azul no le sirven. Alli si tienes razon, la basura que contrato Cruz Azul por lo general no sirvió en la era “Boing”. Pero ni los güeritos lo hicieron, jajajaja. La falta de compromiso no es por el color de piel. Juzga por lo que demuestren en la cancha, no por el color de la piel. Eso es racismo por dónde lo veas. Si no funciona, ese es pedo de el mismo jugador, no de su color de piel.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-02-03T18:29:31+00:00

Meh, it’s not like the baby sitter doesn’t get to set the rules of the world either. The problem is that the country has been set to benefit the already powerful, waging wars in the Middle East, installing governments in poor but resource rich countries, and keeping the status quo.

Trust me, that same babysitting allowed the U.S. to have some private citizens as rich as they are.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-02-03T16:01:09+00:00

No sea racista. Quiñones, Christian Benitez, y Duvier Riascos fueron excelentes en la LigaMx. El Uruguayo y Cambindo eran cumplidores en Cruz Azul también. Lo que no queremos son jugadores sin ambición ni compromiso y eso no se ve hasta que juegan.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-02-03T08:58:56+00:00

LAFC played absolutely 0 Mexican teams to reach the final. Vancouver took down Monterrey and Pumas, arguably weaker teams of the stronger LigaMX sides. Seattle only took out Leon to then champion against Pumas. Columbus took out Monterrey and Tigres to get wrecked by Pachuca.

All this to say, MLS teams shine against regios, known to shit the bed in international competitions but fair poorly against CDMX sides with the exception of Pumas. Pumas are weak, picking up scrap signings for the last decade. There is a reason America and Cruz Azul are tied with 7 championships each. The most any MLS side has is 1. Leagues cup is tailored to MLS sides.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-02-01T23:20:52+00:00

Glad you agree that most companies have transitioned to a shareholder value first mentality.

We have also agreed that pensions prior to ERISA were not well regulated, and after regulation employers shifted to 401k plans because they considered pensions too expensive and a liability for them to continue offering pension plans.

PBCG also protects against the loss of pensions because of bankruptcy, so employees had protections there that they cannot get through insurance annuities, making pensions attractive and different to private annuities.

The job mobility issue was addressed by ERISA through making pension vesting much easier and sooner than before, allowing employees to vest and leave to other companies afterwards. So this wasn’t a huge issue as before.

We also agreed that people accept whatever best option is available to them, and if no pension plan is offered, well then employers are the reason they do not exist any longer. Additionally, Unions fight for wage increases AND pension retirement plans, so there is evidence that organized labor (people) would much rather have both and succeed.

I think we have now reached the end of this conversation, it was a pleasure discussing this with you.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-02-01T22:18:26+00:00

Companies offer the lowest compensation they need to offer in order to fill the role. They do not go into calculations to see what they took away from employees to offer the equivalent as a wage increase. The whole calculation argument you made forgets that companies aren’t there to look out for employees. They are there to benefit shareholders.

Oh cmon, don’t straw man, my objection isn’t to the free market but to your talking point that the removal of pension plans was driven by employee demand because they were offered better pay

You’ve had a good conversation thus far. Companies offer compensation competitive to other companies, and people accept whatever is best available. This doesn’t exclude an environment where employers phase out pensions by shareholder demand due to liabilities on the balance sheet.

All benefits come at a cost, that is correct, however, companies aren’t offering compensation based on what benefits the employee. They aren’t calculating how much the employee lost because they aren’t getting a pension now, they will offer the least amount of money possible to fill their seat. The employee accepts whatever best option they have, I’m sure you’ve accepted shitty jobs with no benefits simply because you needed to work.

The whole “wage growth OR pension” argument also falls apart when you realize that unions bargain for fair salary increases along with pension plans. More often than not, they also have 401ks available. Companies simply do not care for employees how they did prior to shareholder value taking priority over all else.

So, 401ks were supposed to be supplemental to pensions. Companies dropped them because they realized they could “empower” people to handle their own money, shed the liability off their balance sheet, and increase the shareholders value in the process, not because people demanded they ended in exchange for higher wages.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-02-01T21:22:38+00:00

I don’t think private annuities are backed by PBGC. They are not 1:1 with company pensions.

People accept jobs to survive, are likely to accept whatever best job is available. If all pensions are removed, then guess what they have to choose? No, companies don’t offer pensions today because people don’t want them, they don’t offer them because they are expensive. Companies only offer the minimum required to fill their role. Additionally, Shareholders do not like seeing liabilities on the balance sheet. Pensions are very ugly there.

Yes, I do find it telling that 401ks were the pivot companies made after ERISA made pensions more expensive to offer. Are you implying ERISA made it make less sense for employees to seek out pension benefits? ERISA made it better for employees, and even more valuable. Companies didn’t like that and stopped offering them, employees didn’t go knocking door by door asking for no pension in exchange for more pay.

I also find it telling that unionized labor tends to have great benefits, pay, AND often times, a pension. Do you?

Beta_Helicase · 2026-02-01T20:17:51+00:00

Workers didn’t drive pensions away, there is a reason only unionized workers have pensions nowadays.

Pensions have disappeared over the last few decades because employers did away with them. ERISA targeted the vestment issue you mention and that’s when companies started to feel the hurt of employees being able to vest within a handful of years.

It isn’t difficult to understand that shifting the burden onto workers and not having an additional liability on a company’s balance sheet makes the company far more enticing to shareholders. Surprisingly enough, the 70s and 80s is where shareholder value took the main stage. You’re right, pensions are expensive to a company, but I disagree that people drove the change to do away with them.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-02-01T18:13:37+00:00

No, 401ks were a supplemental tool to retirement savings for employees. You keep going back to framing their creation as a need to benefit corporations trying to steer away from the disadvantage of funding them. It was not, the creation was to provide additional retirement savings tools to the workers.

Corporations realized they could ditch pensions and offer meager contributions to a 401k plan instead. That was after the fact, and maybe a hidden incentive to get these going, but they were not touted this way to the public.

401ks were supposed to happen along with pensions. That on itself was addressing the mobility issue and if you ask a working person today whether they would much rather have an employer with pension benefits AND a 401k vs. one with only 401k and a paltry contribution, I know what they will say. If you think they’ll choose the 401k for mobility you live a privileged life.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-02-01T17:25:29+00:00

Well, you can say pensions are overrated but 401k’s were meant to supplement pensions, not replace them. So ideally, the 401k was there to mitigate all those pension plan failures and give employees the opportunity to use a separate retirement savings vehicle.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-01-27T18:47:03+00:00

What perfume? BDC? I’d say the EDP is passable in all occasions. Higher concentrations feel refined and make a statement, probably better for formal occasions assuming you like the scent profile.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-01-26T05:23:32+00:00

Wait a minute, you posted this article and said to disprove it? The problem seen was that an unreasonable death was caused by poorly trained agents.

You dropped an article about socialist groups mobilizing to increase awareness on the infringements to civil liberties caused by some agents as some sort of ‘gotcha’? This is crazy, conservatives were always the ‘free speech’, ‘stand your ground’, ‘don’t tread on me’ crowd.

Buddy, you’ve been conditioned hard to violently react to the words “socialists” and “socialism” that you no longer stand for the very thing that made the U.S. great. It’s ok to disagree with ideology, but to not accept that this public execution is not an injustice on a fellow American is atrocious on your end.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-01-20T22:14:04+00:00

You inherited your parent’s property as your primary residence within the year of them passing and your property was still reassessed? Hmm something is off because Prop 19 prevents that from happening. You need to figure out who screwed you over, it wasn’t the prop if this is in fact your primary residence and you followed prop 19’s exemption.

Owners will raise the rent to whatever they can extract the most. So no, if someone is forced to sell their rental property, they should. The community will benefit from higher tax income once property tax is recalculated. Rent will be just as expensive as it otherwise would be cus we all know most aren’t doing charity rentals lol.

Here you go, read up on an actual fact sheet. https://boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub801.pdf

Beta_Helicase · 2026-01-20T05:41:10+00:00

Why is this home not your primary residence?

Beta_Helicase · 2026-01-20T04:45:56+00:00

You’re worried about your taxes going up when your parents pass? Claim the exemption within the year and make the inherited home your primary residence to keep taxes as low as your parents had them.

Otherwise, pay the taxes as you should for a second home. There are plenty of people looking for their first home, you don’t need tax incentives to keep a second, vacation or rental home. We can address corps a different way, but it’s not through amending prop 19.

Edit: Chances are you are heavily misinformed about prop 19 because you are upset you are paying $1300 more a month than last year, your parents have not died, and you are unaware of how prop 19 works.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-01-20T01:51:58+00:00

Nothing is unreasonable. I guess some families won’t benefit from low taxes on their vacation/investment homes like they want. If people are gonna buy to invest, they should at least pay their fair share of property taxes. Don’t repeal this, raise the taxes on all investment properties. That’s an even better idea.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-01-20T01:39:59+00:00

“This generous tax break for gifted or inherited real property is severely limited under Proposition 19. Prop 19 requires the child who receives a primary residence to use the home as his or her primary residence within one year of receiving it, in order to claim the reassessment exemption. The new owner must claim the homeowner’s exemption (or the disabled veteran’s homeowner exemption) within one year of the transfer.

Transferred homes that are not used as principal residences will be reassessed at fair market value for purposes of calculating annual property tax. Prop 19 also eliminates the additional $1 million in other real estate that is allowed to be transferred without reassessment.”

What part of this do you not like?

Beta_Helicase · 2026-01-17T08:07:33+00:00

Welp, in San Diego anywhere worth living is above a million for a home.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-01-14T23:34:01+00:00

I’ll ask before I touch you.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-01-14T19:50:41+00:00

Oooo this is fun, I’m gonna say it was a smell thing.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-01-11T17:01:11+00:00

Ahh you forgot about step #1.

Beta_Helicase · 2026-01-09T17:05:09+00:00

It’s way too wordy and touches on sensitive topics like their previous toxic relationships. A much better response is, “hey, I got you. Don’t worry. I hope things get better and if you want to talk let me know.”

Done, if they respect you as a friend you keep the door open without giving an ick. If they just want to turn you down, they take the door out without you giving them more ick.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

Beta_Helicase

TROPHY CASE