From the associated nerdwallet article:
"**The credit card debt figures in this chart represent revolving credit card balances — those that are carried from month to month — rather than all credit card balances. Total U.S. credit card outstanding debt stands at $944 billion, which includes both revolving and transacting balances"
Curious, in references:
- Revolving and transacting bank-card balances, June 2018, via email from Experian.
And that is not linked anywhere. I'm not going to say the data is wrong, but if I can't see the source color me skeptical: why the push from lenders to distinguish revolved vs. transacted balances if this is already been available for six + months?
@tacpoly: California dreaming - right to work state and non-compete agreements are illegal under the C-suite level.
Also when they are directly making 180k+ off me annually they aren’t really in a spot to complain.
Ultimately my boss is aware and I have told him what it would take to keep me from working a second gig and they are able to do that and interested in doing so, so they probably will play ball on that front (hence my needing to build up a new company).
Actually the second company knows too though they probably don’t realize I am pulling 40 there too.
Ultimately nobody can tell me how I spend my free time and unless I become derelict in my dury to either one nobody cares and both are happy currently... cost of turnover is high for both companies.
Basically it is an employee’s market right now.
Also when they are directly making 180k+ off me annually they aren’t really in a spot to complain.
Ultimately my boss is aware and I have told him what it would take to keep me from working a second gig and they are able to do that and interested in doing so, so they probably will play ball on that front (hence my needing to build up a new company).
Actually the second company knows too though they probably don’t realize I am pulling 40 there too.
Ultimately nobody can tell me how I spend my free time and unless I become derelict in my dury to either one nobody cares and both are happy currently... cost of turnover is high for both companies.
Basically it is an employee’s market right now.
@tacpoly wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
@tacpoly: California dreaming - right to work state and non-compete agreements are illegal under the C-suite level.
Also when they are directly making 180k+ off me annually they aren’t really in a spot to complain.
Ultimately my boss is aware and I have told him what it would take to keep me from working a second gig and they are able to do that and interested in doing so, so they probably will play ball on that front (hence my needing to build up a new company).
Actually the second company knows too though they probably don’t realize I am pulling 40 there too.
Ultimately nobody can tell me how I spend my free time and unless I become derelict in my dury to either one nobody cares and both are happy currently... cost of turnover is high for both companies.
Basically it is an employee’s market right now.Is California a "right to work" state now -- when did that happen? I don't understand what "right to work" has to do with moonlighting...I thought that was mostly a union thing.
Banning non-competes doesn't mean a company cannot have a policy on moonlighting. I used to work in California and all my previous employers were California-headquartered except one; their policy is that second jobs need to be approved first because there would just be too many possible conflicts of interest, not to mention IP risk. It seems you're lucky with your companies -- are you an independent consultant/contractor?
Being a contractor or employee doesn't matter even if these days most of my gigs are being employed for a body shop. Right to work covers all labor, I can either be fired or quit for any or no reason at any time: what I was getting at is there's no protection for me beyond my professional conduct anyway, why would I grant any company special rights unless I was being compensated for it?
Just because a company has a policy on that doesn't make it legally binding, and conflict of interest is virtually nil in most situations (Ok working for Amazon and an Amazon client at the same time perhaps) but there is no overlap in my case and NDA's while still enforcible there's no additional IP risk working for two companies instead of just one. Maybe if someone was trying to hide it and lied about it, that's one thing, but when both sides know and neither is complaining... fact is competent people aren't common anymore in my industry and as such you don't kick those that can scratch an itch to the curb over some corporate infidelity.
Not sure when you were last here but ultimately I think you're overstating things in the modern economy where there's not really any such thing as loyalty between employer and worker anymore: hasn't been since '92.
@tacpoly wrote:
@Revelate wrote:Being a contractor or employee doesn't matter even if these days most of my gigs are being employed for a body shop. Right to work covers all labor, I can either be fired or quit for any or no reason at any time: what I was getting at is there's no protection for me beyond my professional conduct anyway, why would I grant any company special rights unless I was being compensated for it?
Just because a company has a policy on that doesn't make it legally binding, and conflict of interest is virtually nil in most situations (Ok working for Amazon and an Amazon client at the same time perhaps) but there is no overlap in my case and NDA's while still enforcible there's no additional IP risk working for two companies instead of just one. Maybe if someone was trying to hide it and lied about it, that's one thing, but when both sides know and neither is complaining... fact is competent people aren't common anymore in my industry and as such you don't kick those that can scratch an itch to the curb over some corporate infidelity.
Not sure when you were last here but ultimately I think you're overstating things in the modern economy where there's not really any such thing as loyalty between employer and worker anymore: hasn't been since '92.
I believe you meant "employment at will" and not "right to work". The two are completely different, hence my confusion.
Most companies' moonlighting policy are not inflexible (i.e. they don't prohibit moonlighting, you just need to seek approval). I work in technology development so I can understand concerns re conflict of interest and IP risks with moonlighters (we were still filing patents on my project a decade after I left the company), and I know people who took cutting edge ideas, code and design developed in one company to start another company (that was a brouhaha). So I wasn't advocating blind loyalty, I just assumed since you are in tech, that you were in a similarly sensitive situation -- a wrong assumption.
What happened in '92?
Ah hrm, thank you for fixing my terminology.
I'm on the operations and architecture side, somewhat different than writing say cutting edge algorithms or what not... but ultimately we're talking people: someone not having the professional conduct to not reveal sensitive information is the same whether they work for 1 company for dozens at the same time: I would stand by my assertion there's no additional risk either way, either the employee is trustworthy or they are not and your case of someone's leaving the company to go build a competitor, that is a single individual's decision which doesn't reflect upon anyone else individually.
'92 was when IBM had their first layoff and it was a watershed moment in the industry: one of the last major loyalty to employees companies in America if not the last.
After that point as one of my buddies opined in the Austin newspaper: loyalty between company and employees is dead, now employees are loyal to each other. Funny how the C suite wasn't too happy with that statement hahaha.