sell your ride
post your service
sell your stuff
post your class
browse all jobs
post a job
homes for sale
for sale by owner
post your listing
If you're looking for "I Spys," dating or LTRs, this is your scene.
If you're looking for full-on kink or group play, you'll get what you need here.
Mr. DeFrancis - You are mistaken. I said nothing about unemployment. I was referring to the labor force. The decline is matched almost exactly by the number of Vermonters who have aged out (65+). All of those jobs have been filled and another 16,000 created. Don't you just hate those "job growth talking points?" BTW - Although I am both a Dem and a Prog, the facts I present are non-partisan.
Finally, you said "Without 0.93% payroll tax, Vermonters can actually afford to build up their own rainy-day fund and take leave in such situations." Really? If you earn $11 per hour and saved 0.93% of your gross wages for a year, you would have $213. How much of a leave would that cover?
"At a time when we are losing an average of six workers from our workforce per day..."
This is terribly misleading. Census data shows that many older Vermonters are retiring and leaving the workforce. That has nothing to do with state policy. Moreover, not only are retirees' jobs being filled, but many others created. We now have 16,000 more jobs than six years ago, including 14,700 in the private sector (VT Dept. of Labor, seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll). Facts matter.
Rustic Roots does a very nice job with shirred eggs, among other things. Good food.
The affordability issue has two elements: costs and wages. But we rarely hear about wages. Mr. Kelly makes the point in the comment above. It's Econ 101: if you pay them, they will stay or come.
Second, Vermont is tiny compared to the metropolitan areas so for any particular occupational title there might be 50 jobs here (with limited turnover each year), but 800 in Boston or New York. It's just a matter of scale having nothing to do with state policy.
To all those who posted complaining about John Walters: Why should we take you seriously when you don't even post with your real names?
As I pointed out during testimony in Senate Government Operations this week, the requirement that members report on corporate involvement only when they have a "controlling" interest is not optimal. A person could own 45% of a small firm or 15% of a large firm. In both cases, the ownership stake is noteworthy, but neither person would have to report. I hope they reconsider this.
Dave is a professional and a good man. Our loss. Good luck Dave.
All Comments »