[-] Kungolicious@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

I disagree. A higher turnover rate means paying the new guy less money. You’ll see this more often when they want to annoy people into quitting so they don’t need to pay unemployment.

They’re using the psychology correctly. It’s just awful for people as a whole. But it can temporarily make their books look good (high sales, low expenses) and justify bigger bonuses for the board.

[-] Kungolicious@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Ahhh gotcha. We’re basically saying the same thing

[-] Kungolicious@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I’m not sure what you mean by underwriting it and declining coverage anyway. But you’re correct, it is challenging to get somebody approved for taking medication relating to anxiety/depression. If they have a history of being hospitalized, they will not approve the underwriting.

It’s surprising that your wife got declined for being 10 lbs under weight. If that was truly the only problem, I’d be able to get that approved through just about anybody. Which company did you use?

[-] Kungolicious@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Corporate person only when convenient.

[-] Kungolicious@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

DOJ wants people to realize just how large Google is. Google doesn’t want people to realize how big they are.

[-] Kungolicious@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Typically the limit is 2 years.

[-] Kungolicious@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Wouldn’t affect the payout, but it would increase your premium.

[-] Kungolicious@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Typically no. Life insurance companies don’t like anything regarding mental illnesses. Largely because it’s under researched, so they just say “no thanks.”

[-] Kungolicious@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I just watched this episode of Star Trek TNG

[-] Kungolicious@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Come on in! There’s cookies.

[-] Kungolicious@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Reddit? No. I was thinking moreso Meta. They have the deeper pockets and a proven track record of breaking privacy laws to their own benefit.

[-] Kungolicious@lemmy.world 58 points 1 year ago

My tin foil hat is telling me it’s one of the other social media companies funding a hacking group to do it. They stand to have the most to lose, and they’ve seemingly decided to enjoy changing the narrative regarding multiple topics. Lemmy stands directly against what the bigger social medias stand for.

I have no evidence to back this though. As a business owner I just know that things become very consistent when people are being paid, and very inconsistent when they aren’t. These attacks are seemingly very consistent/organized.

view more: next ›

Kungolicious

joined 1 year ago