Warning: Read this before leaving a job these days

In reply to GameboyRMH :

We are gonna have to agree to disagree. I lived for 5 years when I was younger supporting a family of 4 on $700 per month total household income.

During that time I started tithing 10%, and put aside more money in savings than I ever had. At the end of 5 years I had quite a bit saved up. It was nest egg I've built my whole life on. 
 

My family never missed a meal, and always had a place to live. But there were a lot of things we didn't have (like a race car, a computer, central air conditioning, a car payment, or a cell phone)

(Edit:  In today's dollars that's $1567 per month. $18,804 per year.  $361 per week. $9.04 per hour although there were 2 of us so it was really half that). The point isn't what we made, nor to criticize anyone else for not doing it. The point is we made choices, and we chose to live without a lot of things. And it worked well for us in the long term. I admit- the world doesn't look easy today, and there are a lot of things I don't understand .  But there ARE ways to do it. My kids are doing it just fine now.

Always funny how we like to bin generations into segments and say one is better than the other.  Having worked with a lot of people considerably older and younger than me over 30 years, can't say that I've really noticed a difference in work ethic and whatnot.   All I can think of is that people see one example of a "soft" worker and extrapolate that to everyone just for reasons.

IMHO, the real reason that people job hop is that there is zero benefit to being tied to one company for your entire career.  That died with pensions being taken away.  Maybe someday, companies will realize that it's costing them more money than a solid pension costs- given the rise in pay and the training/familiarization costs that worker churn naturally creates.

I had a decent pension, but it was better before me.  The general result of that was a roughly 25% increase in pay.  You just don't see it until you retire.  There are jobs out there that have pensions, but given the constant lack of retirement preparedness that we were constantly told through my career- people don't seem to want to know they will be secure after ~65 vs. having money now.  Mind you- that's NOT generational.   We heard the same data in 1992 as I did in 2022.

I also think the constant pressure to be at work is pretty stupid.  And the pressure to not use your vacation is moronic.  I could not tell any productivity increase to those who didn't take their time off to the ones who bought time off.  Fact is, for the white collar worker, even when you are on vacation, you are thinking about work.   

Anyway, seeing how Ford churned a lot of people, I'm glad I was able to retire in 2022.  And, to be honest, I can tell in my 2024 Escape that inexperienced people did a lot of work on this car.

In reply to alfadriver :

You're right about the loss of pensions. Its economically devastating. (And we won't see the end results until about 40 years from now). 
 

I don't have a pension, but I sure see how the loss of pensions has damaged the economic health of our entire society.  That's why I encouraged each of my kids to consider military service (none did)

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

One hour. 

If I could save half my income, I would, that would be awesome. In my area, only way I could save 50% of my income is if I rented a basement to live in for $1500 a month. But I don't think that would work for my family and my kids. Especially, if I want to live in a good school zone for my kids, because that's necessary. Or if I doubled my income, but that isn't possible while actively working for Uncle Sam. 3 years until I retire then I'll be looking for a job like yall 

I'm good though. I bought my house at fair price with a decent rate. Much more mortgage than I ever thought I'd pay in my life. And I don't see losing any money on it. 

Saving a large portion of your income isn't a solution to society's problems, nor is it desirable for everybody. 

But it's doable for many, many people and is vastly preferable to stressing out about work, bills, etc.

For some reason the idea just glitches some people out, which is too bad.

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

The nice thing about the ability to save for the nominal person is that there is actual turn over in employment.

And by "nominal" I mean the kind of person who will end up using ~90% of their savings in retirement.  Which isn't bad for the long term economy.

SV reX said:

In reply to alfadriver :

You're right about the loss of pensions. Its economically devastating. (And we won't see the end results until about 40 years from now). 
 

I don't have a pension, but I sure see how the loss of pensions has damaged the economic health of our entire society.  That's why I encouraged each of my kids to consider military service (none did)

I just want to make sure that we don't find it as a fault that people jump jobs so much these days- it's in their economic best interest to do that.  And it's not a bad thing for a person.  Let alone, it should not be held against generations because they don't stay with companies.  I hold it against companies that they don't make it appealing to stay with them for the very long term.

In reply to alfadriver :

You can't blame an employer for taking the guy that looks like he will be there long-term versus the guy that will not, based on his past job hopping. That's just common sense for the employer

In reply to alfadriver :

I don't think anyone said it was a fault. Several of us said it's a fact. 
 

It's naive to think that it's not a factor in hiring. It is. 
 

It's not a matter of fault. It's offering a recommendation to try to help people find long term employment. I know it doesn't work for everyone, but job hopping is certainly not in everyone's best interest.
 

And my opinion is that it's not in most people's best interest, even if it's becoming more common.   It's very sad. 

I get where Gameboy is coming from as far as savings go.

The Canadian housing market in major cities makes it incredibly hard to put any money away.

Housing is way beyond 50% of income in most major cities.

A big part of why we moved was no longer having a mortgage. 

In reply to SV reX :

I think that varies by industry. In tech for example, if you stay with one company there's usually not much room for advancement unless going into management is a desired and realistic goal, and companies are very hesitant to promote from within even when they could, so you'll relatively quickly run into a brick wall of stagnant pay. This means job-hopping to better-paid positions at other companies is the normal path to getting raises and promotions while remaining in technical roles. Tech workers will often get advice that if they're staying at the same company for more than X years (probably an average of 4) they're leaving money on the table.

On the other end of the spectrum, for pilots racking up flight hours to gain seniority is the usual way to get a raise, and it certainly doesn't help to switch companies. Unionized auto manufacturing is another industry that greatly rewards sticking it out long-term, if you keep at it and do a decent job they just make it rain raises and promotions on you.

I agree it's not a good state of affairs to have whole industries where you need to switch jobs to get raises or promotions, it sounds extremely silly just typing it out, but in many industries it is, sadly, in workers' best interest.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Ok, but you're still gonna have to factor in the down time for the periods when you are making $0.

A bigger salary can be nothing more than a shiny object to chase.  I get offered a bigger salary nearly every month (to try to steal me from my current job). I turn them down because I know that in my industry there is no loyalty once a project is complete. I was offered a 30% raise last week to head up a project that would probably last about 14 months.  At the end of 14 months I'd be the new guy with the highest salary and nothing productive to work on until they sell another decent project (and go through the permitting process). That's an easy choice for an employer. Most of the people I know in my industry jump ship for an extra 10%. And most of them spend pretty big periods of time unemployed between jobs, and most aren't headed toward a decent retirement. I am.

My choice is to not job hop. It has worked well for me in the long run (even though my salary is 20-30% less than potential)

My method has been to take any salary growth through the years and shove it into the retirement account. Keep living on the old salary.. Instead of buying a $40k car to keep up appearances.. 

And hope I live a long time to make use of/enjoy the savings. 

"Just save more money, I did it, you're just making excuses if you don't". "Just enter the trades". "Don't job hop as much".

Lots of moralizing in this thread. I'm glad things worked out for some of you guys, but there's no need to look down on others who may not be able to make the same choices you did. If someone is not in as fiscally sound a position as you, that is not a moral failing. Get off your high horse and start realizing your shared humanity. 

In reply to dr_strangeland :

Nobody is looking down on anybody.

People have been encouraging the O/P over several threads to find a way to make his situation better. 

Some people just don't want to make the changes necessary to achieve what they want.

Life owes you precisely SFA. If you want something, you need to get out there and do it.

In reply to dr_strangeland :

The OP is a very skilled and capable IT professional who has been applying for jobs loading trucks and doing oil changes.  Why wouldn't trades be a reasonable consideration?

Honesty, I don't recommend trades for Gameboy. I think it's a bad fit and don't think he'd do very well with it. But I respect his choice if he wants to try it. 
 

GameboyRMH said:

In reply to SV reX :

I think that varies by industry. In tech for example, if you stay with one company there's usually not much room for advancement unless going into management is a desired and realistic goal, and companies are very hesitant to promote from within even when they could, so you'll relatively quickly run into a brick wall of stagnant pay. This means job-hopping to better-paid positions at other companies is the normal path to getting raises and promotions while remaining in technical roles. Tech workers will often get advice that if they're staying at the same company for more than X years (probably an average of 4) they're leaving money on the table.

On the other end of the spectrum, for pilots racking up flight hours to gain seniority is the usual way to get a raise, and it certainly doesn't help to switch companies. Unionized auto manufacturing is another industry that greatly rewards sticking it out long-term, if you keep at it and do a decent job they just make it rain raises and promotions on you.

I agree it's not a good state of affairs to have whole industries where you need to switch jobs to get raises or promotions, it sounds extremely silly just typing it out, but in many industries it is, sadly, in workers' best interest.

There are two ways of "advancement" in companies- technical and managerial.  And the technical side is limited to companies that deal in some kind of technology- which isn't all of them.  Let alone, there's both an upper limit to technical advancement and numerical limitations.  So it's kind of obvious that management is the clear side of advancement in all companies.  If you are not into being in management, you are very, very stuck if you really desire upward mobility.

As for stagnant wages- do you really mean zero raise, or a raise that just keeps up with inflation?  If it's the former, then the company is a horrible place to work with, and you should move on.  If it's the latter, and it's an industry that's largely stagnant in terms of growth, that's realistically all you can expect- maybe slightly higher if the company is on the upper end of competitiveness.  

Again, if switching jobs is the way to get honest wage growth, then it's the way to go.  But at the same time, as you are finding out, you need to make sure your ducks are in a row before you bail.

If I can be "preachy" here- hardly any jobs out there are truly life enhancing in terms of who you are.  They are just means to have a life.  So people need to learn to tolerate a job that is not all that fulfilling.  And then use it to have a great life outside of work.

alfadriver said:

If I can be "preachy" here- hardly any jobs out there are truly life enhancing in terms of who you are.  They are just means to have a life.  So people need to learn to tolerate a job that is not all that fulfilling.  And then use it to have a great life outside of work.

I've been saying that forever - and always criticized for it. I left an awesome job in R&D to be a number in a large good paying factory, and it was the best move I ever made for me and my family. A job is just a means to an end. Fulfillment my ass, if we were wealthy few of us would be doing what we're doing, where we're doing it.

Peabody said:

alfadriver said:

If I can be "preachy" here- hardly any jobs out there are truly life enhancing in terms of who you are.  They are just means to have a life.  So people need to learn to tolerate a job that is not all that fulfilling.  And then use it to have a great life outside of work.

I've been saying that forever - and roundly criticized. I left an awesome job in R&D to be a number in a large good paying factory, and it was the best move I ever made for me and my family. A job is just a means to an end. Fulfillment my ass, if we were wealthy few of us would be doing what we're doing, where we're doing it.

The part that makes being a cog really suck is if you are being asked to sacrifice your life to the benefit of the company and you get nothing for it.  But I honestly think some people *think* that it's happening to them when they are really just bored looking at a computer all day.

If you are being forced to work more than 50 hours all of the time, it's time to move on.  If you think you are suffering just being at work 40 hours a week, working maybe 20, yea.  Use the job as what it is, a means to live a decent life.

It doesn't take a lot of looking around to appreciate it when you have a good job.  But it does take boundaries to make sure your good job is making a good life.

CrustyRedXpress said:

I spent 7 years (2011-2018, late 20's to mid 30's) saving half of my household income and investing the rest-

That adds up to 100% of your household income.

What were you living on?

But you do get something, you get a salary, paid time off, benefits, etc.  All with zero risk/business exposure.  I'm a small business guy, I have 5 employees and there have been numerous times in that time where I've paid myself ZERO.  Meanwhile my employees have gotten paid.  They have paid vacation, I have negative paid vacation, they get benefits, I don't.  They didn't spend the money, time and effort on schooling, take out the loans for the business, equipment, facility, etc. 

Yeah, I get it, it sucks if you get laid off, but you can go get another job.  Yeah, you have "nothing" to show for your career, but if my business goes under, I don't have nothing, I'm in a financial swamp of badness that will completely wipe me out.  So I don't feel badly about the fact that when I'm done, I'll profit from selling my business and building.

In terms of vacation time, I do give my staff a TON of paid vacation time, like 5.5 weeks paid between holidays, sick and vacation time.  It costs me around $10/hour/employee, which is a huge burden for me.  Especially since I have to hire temps when they're out, so I'm making negative money on those encounters.  There's a cost to everything and while a multi national can certainly soak it up more easily than I can, the numbers are still there for them too.

dr_strangeland said:

"Just save more money, I did it, you're just making excuses if you don't". "Just enter the trades". "Don't job hop as much".

Lots of moralizing in this thread. I'm glad things worked out for some of you guys, but there's no need to look down on others who may not be able to make the same choices you did. If someone is not in as fiscally sound a position as you, that is not a moral failing. Get off your high horse and start realizing your shared humanity. 

See my post about why we don't discuss this here because people get their feelings hurt. 
 

no one is looking down on anybody we are just letting people know that it can be done. 

In reply to docwyte :

Yup.

I've been at negative income for the last three years, thanks to starting a new business. 

Three years of 12 hour days, 6-7 days a week and I'm finally showing a profit.

I don't have staff and I don't want any.

Working for someone else is certainly easier but I just can't do it anymore. 

Lots of talk about the trades, what kind of money can a tradesman make these days?