From webster - relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts
So it is more the opposite of specific than objective. I think your confusion comes from colleges using holistic to mean they looks at things beyond beyond objective measurements like test scores and GPA
After verifying that the person isn't just venting and looking for empathy, I'll put in my plug for learning about the transtheoretical model of change [1]. Step one is determining whether the person even sees a problem. If they don't, you can ask questions about what would things look like if there was a problem. But there is no point in giving advice until the preparation or action stages. Before that your best avenue is asking the right questions (see motivational interviewing [2]).
That's simply not true. If you did not pay into Social Security for at least 40 quarter, the only way you can get retirement Social Security is through marriage (spouse benefit or survivor benefit). You can qualify for both benefits even if you're divorced if you were married at least 10 years. I'm ignoring disability benefits for the moment.
For those who qualify for Social Security the minimum benefit for 2024 is $50.90/mo (10 yrs of work) and $1,066.50 for 30 years of work [1].
Most of my neighbors are considered disabled by the Social Security Administration and they all get at least $943 a month from the Administration -- even the ones who never had a paying job -- and when they get old enough (66 years and a few month in one recent case) they no longer have to prove that they are still disabled to continue to receive the income.
For what you write to be true, the Administration would have to have a rule that if you apply for disability income when you are of working age, you get enough to survive for life even if you paid nothing into the system (through FICA), but if you apply past the retirement age and you didn't pay into the system, you get basically nothing. I suppose that could be true (and I'm not going to search the web to try to find out) but it seems unlikely.
If you have a very strong work ethic, but have piss-poor ability to get paid a decent income and never applied for Social Security disability income, you've almost certainly worked some and consequently paid some amount into the system. When you get to retirement age, my strong guess (although I don't have personal knowledge) is that the SSI program kicks in such that the combination of your month Social Security retirement check and the SSI check adds up to $943 if you are single (plus $20 because the first $20 per month of non-SSI income is not counted) just like the millions of chronic schizophrenics that went on SSI in their 20s who never paid any FICA.
But if someone replies saying that they personally know an American with no other sources of income and no savings who has applied, but gets less than $943 a month from Social Security, I'll believe them.
ADDED. If you apply for disability or retirement benefits, the Administration automatically assesses whether you qualify for SSI benefits: one application suffices for both programs.
I have to agree. When I was working with a carpenter union, one of their big problems was that members would see their pension balance get large at which point they would stop working long enough to trigger emergency access to the pension and then withdraw the money to buy a truck or other expensive item they wanted. As a result, even though the union had a pretty good pension system, many of their members were sabotaging their retirements.
If you transfer within the state system probably 95% to 100% of the credits will transfer depending on how careful you are in your choices. If you transfer to another state's system you can probably get 70% to 90% of the credits to transfer. Some state systems are more compatible than others. If you are going to a private school the percentages are typically much worse 20% to 50%. There are a few like USC which do a lot better.
In the eighties it was completely nonstandardized and depended heavily on each person you talked with. You would typically visit with a company for the day while they passed you around from person to person. One might have you code something on a whiteboard. Another might ask you a brain teaser. Someone would go through the experience on your resume. And another might ask you something like "how would you figure out the number of pixels needed to make this wall indistinguishable from a picture (i.e., retina display)" just to see how you think. Lunch was often where team fit was assessed.
> It used to be that if you sold one house and bought another for same price then there would be no appreciation taxes, but that stopped a few(?) years ago.
In the US from 1964 to 1997 you could upgrade your home (i.e., buy one equal or more expensive) and avoid capital gains taxes and after age 55, you could downsize once and not pay capital gains taxes.
From 1997, we've had the current regime of $250K/single, $500K/couple exclusion if you lived there 2 of the previous 5 years from the sale.
We let our 3 kids choose between homeschool and private school. As a result they tended to bounce back and forth between the systems depending on their priorities. By the time they reached 4th grade I was mostly a coach when they chose homeschooling. I would let them know the things they needed to learn and help them find curriculum. And when they got stuck on something they would come to me for help, but in general they were responsible for themselves. Mostly they would only do schoolwork for 3 hours a day or so.
They had no problems reintegrating into regular school when they chose to do so. Our youngest stayed on the homeschool track the longest (from 7th grade because they got involved in competitive Call of Duty. So they ended up doing the homeschool->community college->GaTech track.
> But it boggles my mind how people can assume, with a straight face, that they are equipped to educate their child alone - something which is normally a profession for which you have to study O(years) (and even then most people aren’t really good at). What gives parents this confidence? And what gives parents the right to squander the future of their children on a whim?
There are awesome resources to educate you kid on just about anything. The real distinguishing attribute on whether a parent can be a good educator is whether their children can spin them up emotionally. If a parent can't stay calm when their child is pushing their buttons homeschooling probably won't work. And then secondarily, a parent should know when they are over their head and need to bring in assistance. Not every parent is equipped to help their children learn calculus and other advanced courses.
Over 40% of marriages in Hawaii are interracial and around 15% of new marriages nationwide are [1]. And this is 10 year old data. I'm sure it's more now.
reply