aircooled said:Perhaps some sort of slush fund that is distributed each year weighted by distance traveled?
I am sure most would love to have something that encourages more v12's to appear
Hopefully the guys will take on the challenge.
I still see cheap Jaguars for sale. Once I show that you don't have to be a genius or rich maybe some more will be rescued.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to AaronT :
People with money influencing policy and getting that sweet corporate welfare is capitalism working as intended. Perhaps not as advertised, but the current economic climate is the direct outcome of supply-side/trickle-down/Reaganomics. No one has ever mathematically proven supply side economics but it has festered into the current state of being.
We gave people boatloads of money to not work. Now our economy is hamstrung with labor shortages. There has never been a better time to get a job, and jobs are paying more than they ever have before. Now to no one's surprise that can do math, the cost of doing business has gone up and that cost gets passed on to customers.
I'm not disagreeing with this (specifically the quoted area), but this is only half of the equation. We also gave money to well off, gainfully employed people who have zero need for the supplemental income and will do nothing but invest it. 0% of the money that made its way into my hands as a result of govt. policies the last 2 years (well really any effort to encourage spending/stimulus/etc.) is going to make it back into circulation in the economy.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to AaronT :
Ironically enough, a lot of the labor shortage is because people's 401ks are doing so well, they used Covid as a good reason to retire early. 90% of the people who left the workforce are over 55.
You can't find people willing to work at the diner for $2.15 an hour because they got a higher paying job, that was probably vacated by someone else giving themself a raise by moving up. If I got a job doing whatever at $40k/year I ain't going back to waiting tables or flipping burgers.
If you want cheap labor again, tank the stock market.
Plus shutting off immigration. Without their effort and willingness to take entry level jobs. No wonder we have a labor shortage.
Look at what happened to Japan. They were an economic powerhouse. But because they shut out immigration today they are falling behind. From the #2 globally to #5-6
Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
That's one thing about the nomad trend. It's a big middle finger and "I don't want to play your game anymore" to mainstream life.
We have a forum member that went nomad. Honestly, I envy his decision quite a bit. My wife and kiddo wouldn't go for it. My wife's aunt is going full retired nomad now, and I think she will have a lot of fun. Yes the more self sufficient you are, then in fact the harder it is for anyone to control you. That will always be the case no matter which side of the fence you fall on. For me it's always a situation thing issue by issue. I disagree with both sides on lots of issues even though everyone here thinks I'm a diehard. The nomad life is an elegant solution to the problem. If you drop out of their system, then they have almost zero influence on you.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:I just can't get over the fact that with a war in the Ukraine, a housing shortage, refugees coming from everywhere and the spike in gas prices, that somebody getting slapped at the Oscars gets more press than our real problems. Kids are getting shot in schools and people are getting slaughtered wholesale by the Russians. They guy who got slapped didn't even go down. Hollywood and the elites really want us distracted.
That is so spot on. I'm amazed at the energy the masses waste on such pure nonsense. It's all a bunch of crap while a certain laptop with real criminal activity is being swept under the big ole uniparty rug.
I firmly believe this inflationary spiral is at least partly by design. Part of it is stupid ideas and poor leadership on all fronts. It is going to be made even more painful by shortages of necessities. It's designed to help us on the road to one world digital currency and force as many people as possible to become dependent on the great, self-declared enlightened, wannabe overlords of the world. Don't worry about which side of the fence they are, because they are on both sides and use their "differences" to keep you distracted and divided. On issues that hurt more people the most they often agree and vote in unison.
The sad part is that if the people worked together all of this nonsense could be stopped and quickly. We already have the means to stop it, just not the focus or desire.
All of this is why the Nomad lifestyle is actually an elegant response. It doesn't help everyone, but for the people that can do it, they are removing themselves from the grind.
In reply to AaronT :
Wages have lagged productivity since the late mid-70s, which is the exact opposite result of what trickle down should do. Anyway, I'll ask you for the mathematical proof that trickle down works. This is not a question about feelings, this is a question about math. We really did not give people as much money to not work as the chicken-little crowd will tell you, and that money has long since been spent.
There is no such thing as a labor shortage, simply a wage shortage. Given the record corporate profits, you'd expect increased wages with trickle-down, right? Also, labor cost is just supply and demand, baby! That's the free berkeleying market working it's magic.
Allowing money to influence policy is how we end up with corporate welfare and the taxpayers subsidizing too-big-to-fail. Isn't failure part of the free market? Let them go under.
You aren't going to find mathematical proof of trickle down because it's not a mathematical concept. It's a perjorative term that covers a range of policies over the last 100 years give or take. Supply side economics is the most closely tied to trickle down, but it is also a general policy with a wide range of implementation options, not a mathematical formula. It's generally accepted that the more you tax something, the less you get of it- be it cigarette sales or business growth. The contention is where the sweet spot is. The closest you might get to a mathematical formula is the Laffer curve, but that is more of a small piece of the equation rather than the whole equation. So it literally is about feelings, which is what most policy is. Demand side is the same, no math, it's about feelings. The argument against supply side economics is often filled with biased terminology such as tax breaks , loopholes, and handouts. What we are really talking about is how much of a business or individuals production and wealth we should should confiscate. Same thing, but it sounds different when you say it correctly.
There is a labor shortage. There are more open jobs than people willing to take them. Yes, wages are part of it, and why that is why they are going up. Also a big factor in the current rate of inflation. The labor participation rate has not recovered to pre pandemic levels (although it did jump last month.) So where is everybody? Did a bunch of people who used to work in grocery stores and restaurants just become independently wealthy? Pete hit on a chunk, people retiring early. But there is still a lot more poeple missing. Gig work is likely a big chunk of the "missing" labor. People that used to work at Taco Bell or Walmart now deliver for them instead. They set their own hours and only work as needed, I can see the appeal. So Taco Bell and Walmart need to pay more if they want them back (and raise prices.) Or wait until the next economic downturn when people cut out delivery services.
As for money influencing policy. Of course it should influence policy. If we just made policy without any regard to how it affected businesses- well, you would just end up with California. But that's not an excuse for bad policy. I actually agree with you on too big to fail. All kinds of businesses have failed, I'm not comfortable with the government picking winners and losers. With one caveat- if regulation directly led to the failure, such as requiring a bank to make risky loans.
I find these haves Vs. the have-nots discussions interesting. A lot of people think that if you just take more from the haves and give it the have-nots, it will even things out. Higher wages for the have nots, higher taxes to the haves- it's just an exercise in a dog named Inflation chasing it's tail. Telling the have-nots that what they are doing is just fine, they just deserve to be paid more is what is really unfair. They should be told that they need to work to become a have.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Wages have lagged increases in productivity since the mid-70s, indicating that supply side economics is actually trickle up. This is by design.
You'll be hard pressed to prove that the government forced anyone to buy or sell a MBS.
What more/harder/other work should a normal person be doing? The trades do not pay as well, on the whole, as advertised. If everyone learned to code it would pay peanuts. Getting an education is not the panacea it was advertised to be.
But your last paragraph says it all: normal people should do better but normal people should not get pay raises. What's the point of doing better if it's not compensated? Are you going to go to work and ask for a 20% pay reduction to fight inflation?
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to AaronT :
Ironically enough, a lot of the labor shortage is because people's 401ks are doing so well, they used Covid as a good reason to retire early. 90% of the people who left the workforce are over 55.
You can't find people willing to work at the diner for $2.15 an hour because they got a higher paying job, that was probably vacated by someone else giving themself a raise by moving up. If I got a job doing whatever at $40k/year I ain't going back to waiting tables or flipping burgers.
jIf you want cheap labor again, tank the stock market.
Depending on people over 55 for cheap labor?? Good luck with that. Some of them already died of Covid. Some of them own their houses outright, can live cheaply and don't need to work. Many of them have health problems like arthritis or heart disease that would keep them from waiting tables, working retail and taking other jobs that require you stand up all day. And they are starting to die off. Every day you lose a few more to the grim reaper. Of couse they are not coming back. Cutting marginal unemployment benefits won't change this a bit.
AaronT said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Wages have lagged increases in productivity since the mid-70s, indicating that supply side economics is actually trickle up. This is by design.
You'll be hard pressed to prove that the government forced anyone to buy or sell a MBS.
What more/harder/other work should a normal person be doing? The trades do not pay as well, on the whole, as advertised. If everyone learned to code it would pay peanuts. Getting an education is not the panacea it was advertised to be.
But your last paragraph says it all: normal people should do better but normal people should not get pay raises. What's the point of doing better if it's not compensated? Are you going to go to work and ask for a 20% pay reduction to fight inflation?
Your point about the trades is understated. Not only are the trades underpaid but underprotected. Some trades are physically demanding enough that it's nearly impossible to work until retirement age. Example? Carpenters and masons. If you examine the hands of a skilled Mason nearing the age of 55 you will note arthritic damage caused by repetitive stress. And past 60 they can no longer hold a brick and trowel properly. Actually it's their whole body suffering not just hands but shoulders, elbows, back etc.
Carpenters too wear out their bodies. Back, arms, shoulders from humping wood around. Hearing from the explosive sound of nail guns. Legs, hips, the local Union retires all carpenters at age 55, forcing them into Management or other less rewarding jobs. Both of those professions also are at higher risk of death or disability.
There are other professions in similar status. I'm trying to keep this short.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to AaronT :
Ironically enough, a lot of the labor shortage is because people's 401ks are doing so well, they used Covid as a good reason to retire early. 90% of the people who left the workforce are over 55.
You can't find people willing to work at the diner for $2.15 an hour because they got a higher paying job, that was probably vacated by someone else giving themself a raise by moving up. If I got a job doing whatever at $40k/year I ain't going back to waiting tables or flipping burgers.
jIf you want cheap labor again, tank the stock market.
Depending on people over 55 for cheap labor?? Good luck with that. Some of them already died of Covid. Some of them own their houses outright, can live cheaply and don't need to work. Many of them have health problems like arthritis or heart disease that would keep them from waiting tables, working retail and taking other jobs that require you stand up all day. And they are starting to die off. Every day you lose a few more to the grim reaper. Of couse they are not coming back. Cutting marginal unemployment benefits won't change this a bit.
Too many older people lost some or all of their 401K /IRA in the recession of 2008. Just 14 years later is not enough to fully refund that amount lost. It wasn't that they took expensive vacations or bought things they shouldn't have. Banks and Bankers caused that recession . Yet few of that industry were ever punished even finically.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
That's one thing about the nomad trend. It's a big middle finger and "I don't want to play your game anymore" to mainstream life.
We have a forum member that went nomad. Honestly, I envy his decision quite a bit. My wife and kiddo wouldn't go for it. My wife's aunt is going full retired nomad now, and I think she will have a lot of fun. Yes the more self sufficient you are, then in fact the harder it is for anyone to control you. That will always be the case no matter which side of the fence you fall on. For me it's always a situation thing issue by issue. I disagree with both sides on lots of issues even though everyone here thinks I'm a diehard. The nomad life is an elegant solution to the problem. If you drop out of their system, then they have almost zero influence on you.
One of my mtn bike friends went nomad a few weeks ago. Traveling around with his Jeep and a small travel trailer. I saw him while riding over the weekend in MD. Yesterday he went to a bike park TN. Yeah... I'm jealous. I've wanted to go to that park for years.
I would say the step below "full nomad" would be living entirely debt-free. No CC debt. No mortgage. Maybe a car loan if the numbers work. While many so-called financial experts will say paying off your mortgage ASAP isn't the best use of money, part of me also thinks they are working from the mindset of playing the game. Owning your house outright at a reasonably young age (I paid mine off at 43) definitely gives you a sense of security that is hard to put a monetary value on.
frenchyd said:Too many older people lost some or all of their 401K /IRA in the recession of 2008. Just 14 years later is not enough to fully refund that amount lost.
Yes, it was. If you had done nothing in 2008, just left your investments alone, you investments would have doubled from their pre-recession peak. Please stop stating outright financial falsehoods.
Very interesting thread.
I find the Nomad concept, at least the non income generating version, somewhat disappointing. Yes it allows personal freedoms but relies on all the income generation and taxation of others to survive. It would start to impact the whole society. Living as a nomad is equal to living off the federal tax base. The roads, parks, clean water sources, safe hunting/fishing grounds(I still find it hilarious how many people think their "private hunting grounds" aren't kept healthy by federal laws and thus federal taxes), safe air travel, septic or sewer line maintenance, electricity and water are all touched by local or federal tax payer funds.
If society started to correct for a large number of nomadic workforce, it would mean massive point of sale tax increases. At an extreme example, how do you keep clean water flowing (facilities, chemicals, staff, etc) for all the nomads if you don't have anyone paying property taxes or local city/state taxes?
It is fun extended vacation for those wealthy enough to know they can slide back into non nomad life to get long term medical care as they age or some other situation. Or maybe the point is to put the burden of any elderly care onto the tax base as well.
But on the topic of this thread it seems to me that a nomad shift of the population would result in much higher cost of living through inflation and other factors.
In reply to AaronT :
I am fascinated about the idea that, on one hand there is a 1to20% of haves and everyone in the have nots should just luck out(ok let's fake it and say "work hard") into being a have. Like that would solve inflation? So everyone magically is successful and we have only millionaires on the planet so who works at the trash dump? Only the folks who earn less than $1.5milliin/year? So that would put cost of trash pickup at.........$500,000/year per household?
Inflation SOLV......wait?
frenchyd said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to AaronT :
Ironically enough, a lot of the labor shortage is because people's 401ks are doing so well, they used Covid as a good reason to retire early. 90% of the people who left the workforce are over 55.
You can't find people willing to work at the diner for $2.15 an hour because they got a higher paying job, that was probably vacated by someone else giving themself a raise by moving up. If I got a job doing whatever at $40k/year I ain't going back to waiting tables or flipping burgers.
jIf you want cheap labor again, tank the stock market.
Depending on people over 55 for cheap labor?? Good luck with that. Some of them already died of Covid. Some of them own their houses outright, can live cheaply and don't need to work. Many of them have health problems like arthritis or heart disease that would keep them from waiting tables, working retail and taking other jobs that require you stand up all day. And they are starting to die off. Every day you lose a few more to the grim reaper. Of couse they are not coming back. Cutting marginal unemployment benefits won't change this a bit.
Too many older people lost some or all of their 401K /IRA in the recession of 2008. Just 14 years later is not enough to fully refund that amount lost. It wasn't that they took expensive vacations or bought things they shouldn't have. Banks and Bankers caused that recession . Yet few of that industry were ever punished even finically.
I don't think it matters how much money you saved or didn't save. If you are sick, you can't work. If you are in poor health, you can't work a job in a warehouse requiring heaving lifting or in a restaurant where you have to be on your feet all day. And they don't want you anyway. Try interviewing for a job if you are over 55, or worse yet, over 60. You can do interviews 7 days a week and not get a single callback. It's a joke. They are whining about not finding anybody yet if you show up with 30 years experience and a willingness to work they won't touch you with a ten foot pole. I am lucky to be working where I am now. Very few companies are hiring anybody over 60.
Part of the problem is not developing workers. Monetizing college to make it more expensive and leaving people in heavy debt eventually leads to fewer people going to college and getting the skills employers need. Lots of companies would rather hire employees away from other companies than train their own. Yes. I know. Training people to go somewhere else and make more money and so on. But still, the affect is fewer trained people. Working people hard for long hours until they break. Poor, expensive health care and the crappy food in the typical American diet. Most people are overweight and sick by the time they get old which limits what they can do. It's almost a perfect storm. These people are like kids who played hard with their toys, broke them and didn't save money to buy new ones. There is nothing left to do but cry about it.
Not surprising that more and more people are breaking the rules and going nomad. Rent is stupid expensive. So are houses and property taxes. You are stuck playing a losing game. You work more and more hours to maintain the same or even a declining lifestyle. Why not drop out and start making your own rules.
We have to accept that most people give only lip service to caring for their fellow man. If you've scrounged real hard to get ahead it seems like simple math to be selective about your employees.
Traditionally people over 50 have a terrible time getting good jobs. And don't want to give up on their education, training and experience that it took to get ahead. In spite of their merits and past successes employers seek younger more obligated people.
Some aged out of the work force waste their life's savings on buying a business or starting one from scratch, often unsuccessfully.
A few even give up and go on the road. Knowing that soon they will be moving to a senior care center where they become a ward of the county. ( county not country ) That's where the real cost of welfare is. The last 2 years cost more then single moms get in decades.
frenchyd said:We have to accept that most people give only lip service to caring for their fellow man. If you've scrounged real hard to get ahead it seems like simple math to be selective about your employees.
Traditionally people over 50 have a terrible time getting good jobs. And don't want to give up on their education, training and experience that it took to get ahead. In spite of their merits and past successes employers seek younger more obligated people.
Some aged out of the work force waste their life's savings on buying a business or starting one from scratch, often unsuccessfully.
A few even give up and go on the road. Knowing that soon they will be moving to a senior care center where they become a ward of the county. ( county not country ) That's where the real cost of welfare is. The last 2 years cost more then single moms get in decades.
A lot of people die before they end up in a senior care center. My dad did. He owned a home till the day he died. Too bad for my Mom it had three mortgages on it.
My mother is in an assisted nursing center. That means she needs a nurses help to go to the bathroom. Nobody wants to end up like that. The Inuit people didn't have nursing homes. When your time came, you would just walk into the snowstorm. Maybe that is a better way.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to AaronT :
Ironically enough, a lot of the labor shortage is because people's 401ks are doing so well, they used Covid as a good reason to retire early. 90% of the people who left the workforce are over 55.
You can't find people willing to work at the diner for $2.15 an hour because they got a higher paying job, that was probably vacated by someone else giving themself a raise by moving up. If I got a job doing whatever at $40k/year I ain't going back to waiting tables or flipping burgers.
jIf you want cheap labor again, tank the stock market.
Depending on people over 55 for cheap labor?? Good luck with that. Some of them already died of Covid. Some of them own their houses outright, can live cheaply and don't need to work. Many of them have health problems like arthritis or heart disease that would keep them from waiting tables, working retail and taking other jobs that require you stand up all day. And they are starting to die off. Every day you lose a few more to the grim reaper. Of couse they are not coming back. Cutting marginal unemployment benefits won't change this a bit.
I am not suggesting that they take low paying grunt jobs. I would assume they would go back to whatever it was they were doing beforehand.
A lot of Japan's economic issues stem from a lack of inflation and the elderly not leaving the workforce. This is causing enough economic anxiety that a lot of people under 30 don't even date, let alone consider starting a family. And the government pays you to have children there! (As in direct money transfer, not the US style indirect payment via tax rebates)
Pete. (l33t FS) said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to AaronT :
Ironically enough, a lot of the labor shortage is because people's 401ks are doing so well, they used Covid as a good reason to retire early. 90% of the people who left the workforce are over 55.
You can't find people willing to work at the diner for $2.15 an hour because they got a higher paying job, that was probably vacated by someone else giving themself a raise by moving up. If I got a job doing whatever at $40k/year I ain't going back to waiting tables or flipping burgers.
jIf you want cheap labor again, tank the stock market.
Depending on people over 55 for cheap labor?? Good luck with that. Some of them already died of Covid. Some of them own their houses outright, can live cheaply and don't need to work. Many of them have health problems like arthritis or heart disease that would keep them from waiting tables, working retail and taking other jobs that require you stand up all day. And they are starting to die off. Every day you lose a few more to the grim reaper. Of couse they are not coming back. Cutting marginal unemployment benefits won't change this a bit.
I am not suggesting that they take low paying grunt jobs. I would assume they would go back to whatever it was they were doing beforehand.
A lot of Japan's economic issues stem from a lack of inflation and the elderly not leaving the workforce. This is causing enough economic anxiety that a lot of people under 30 don't even date, let alone consider starting a family. And the government pays you to have children there! (As in direct money transfer, not the US style indirect payment via tax rebates)
Not just Japan. I know people who have kids in their 20s who would rather play computer games than date, think that going to college is a joke because unless you are in Tech or Medicine you end up with a crappy job and student loan debt you can't pay, and that taking a crappy job is an even bigger joke. They want to live with Mom and Dad forever.
frenchyd said:
We have to accept that most people give only lip service to caring for their fellow man.
BullE36 M3. It's not true, and we don't have to accept it. I would say 90% of the people I've met in my life wanted to help, but lacked the skills, resources, or time to do so. Mostly because they're exhausted, or overworked, or don't have the time to find out where their help is needed. But don't tell me most people don't rise to the occasion when the opportunity is put in front of them:
https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/whats-with-all-these-forum-supporter-tags/170724/page1/
Which leads in to:
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:
Part of the problem is not developing workers. Monetizing college to make it more expensive and leaving people in heavy debt eventually leads to fewer people going to college and getting the skills employers need. Lots of companies would rather hire employees away from other companies than train their own. Yes. I know. Training people to go somewhere else and make more money and so on. But still, the affect is fewer trained people. Working people hard for long hours until they break. Poor, expensive health care and the crappy food in the typical American diet.
I 100% agree with this. We need to reassess how businesses operate. "No one wants to work anymore!" is a laughable rallying cry. It means "No one wants to work for 1990s wages with 2022 skills and 2040 cost of living!". We need to hire more workers, so we can spend more time on training and people aren't so burnt out. It may not have an immediate quantifiable boost to this quarter's earnings. People may jump ship for other jobs. But putting that good into the world, helping people, training them, giving them time to develop, will absolutely lead to a better future 20 years down the road (economically, socially, across the board). We (mostly corporate america in this case) have just forgotten how to commit to long-term investments. A 5 year plan is earth-shattering, a 20 year plan would break wall street analysts' world view.
As a fun example, Sweden planted hundreds of acres of oak because they predicted a critical shortage of warship-quality lumber for sailing ships in a mere 200 years:
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/visingso-oak-forest
And despite not being needed for the intended purpose when the project was complete in 1975, it retains its value as a recreation area, AND the lumber could be repurposed to any of the other commercial applications still around today.
In reply to AaronT :
Wages have lagged increases in productivity since the mid-70s, indicating that supply side economics is actually trickle up. This is by design.
The wages Vs. productivity number is more than a bit misleading. "Productivity" doesn't really mean productivity, it is the total of all wages. So the charts showing wages versus productivity diverging since the 70's are really showing the increase in disparity of incomes, which I think we can all agree has happened. But that doesn't automatically mean that the average person makes less, it also could indicate that the top wage earners make more- meaning more opportunity, not less. Here is a good artical explaining what wages Vs. productivity really means and how it is calculated...
Debunking the production pay gap
It's long, but does a pretty good job.
You can use this to argue that the disparity of wages has increased since the 1970's, but I'd argue that's a good thing- higher ceiling and lower floor, to be honest. Organized labor played a much larger role, and grew and grew, until it started injuring and killing it's hosts. Pay was much more equally distributed. Which was great if you were on the low end of effort and skills, not so great if you were on the high end.
You'll be hard pressed to prove that the government forced anyone
to buy or sell a MBS.
Yes, but MBS's didn't create the hot potatoes, the government lending requirements did. The some banks wisely tossed away the hot potatoes, while others held onto them and got burned. It's much more complicated than that, there were expectations of government help when the music stopped, but it was still a version of gambling that never should have happened. And the people who walked away from their loans aren't innocent either.
What more/harder/other work should a normal person be doing? The trades do not pay as well, on the whole, as advertised. If everyone learned to code it would pay peanuts. Getting an education is not the panacea it was advertised to be.
But your last paragraph says it all: normal people should do better but normal people should not get pay raises. What's the point of doing better if it's not compensated? Are you going to go to work and ask for a 20% pay reduction to fight inflation?
Normal people should not rely on raises to advance. Raises within the same position are tools for an employer to retain their employee, nothing more, nothing less. They may need to do cost of living raises, they may not. They may need to pay a bit more to retain their most productive employees. It depends on how replaceable that employee is. At best, raises for a current position just maintain the status quo, maybe a bit of a bump for a harder to replace employee. But raises won't bump them up the ladder. Which is fine if your job is meeting your needs. If it's not, you need to grab the next rung on the ladder. Give yourself a raise by moving up to a higher position, learning a new skill, or changing jobs. Waiting for a raise to do what you are already doing is 1) not likely and 2) if it does happen it means that the cost of living has also increased so you didn't get ahead.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to AaronT :
....If it's not, you need to grab the next rung on the ladder. Give yourself a raise by moving up to a higher position, learning a new skill, or changing jobs. Waiting for a raise to do what you are already doing is 1) not likely and 2) if it does happen it means that the cost of living has also increased so you didn't get ahead.
I will just throw a curve ball in here as a bit of a tangent (sorry). That process can, and does create a pretty big issue. You have a productive and skilled worker who has been in a positions for a while and wants to step up. Eventually they hit a point that they will have to enter some sort of management positions.
The huge issue with this, is that being a good worker in a field is many time very much disconnected with being a good manager, and more specifically, a manager of people. You can see this in many places, people who get promoted to management, who are horrible managers.
Businesses of course need to adopt to this. They really need to provide effective training for managers as well as reasonable options for those who are not appropriate for management (or just shovel them off to another employer?)
In reply to aircooled :
Or an unpopular opinion: Some people are just going to hit the limit of what they are either willing or capable of doing. All the training in the world can't transform some people into good managers. And some folks don't want the risk or change involved in moving to something else. And while it takes a certain type of person with a specific skill set to be able to go out and land the multi-million dollar account, I can get anybody to scrub the floors.
So circling back to inflation, and based on a real world example, here's an exercise we can all do to reset our expectations and see what it's like for people just starting out and how it may be different than when we all entered the workforce:
I have a friend who has a bachelors in marine biology, and a graduate degree in molecular biology. They applied to a research lab in the Northern Virginia/DC area working on gene sequencing (I give you this background to demonstrate that it was a fairly high level, professional job...they're not a fast food worker). The lab initially offered them $38,000 as a starting salary offer. They asked me if they should take the job. That is a ridiculously insulting offer on the part of the company, but I don't think it was intended that way. I think their HR department just still thinks it 2002, both from a salary standpoint and a NOVA living cost standpoint. Living in Reston, or Sterling, or even out past Leesburg back then was cheap.
So anyway, here's the exercise: assume you're 22-24, just out of school with a degree, and you got a job offer for $60,000 at a bigger company (pretend healthcare is included in the job offer to take it out of the equation). So already well above the real world example above. Can you live on that in your area?
Here's my breakdown (using SmartAsset for the tax estimation) for a much cheaper part of Virginia:
$60,000 - Salary
$6000 - 10% 401k contribution
$4868 - Fed taxes
$4590 - FICA Taxes
$2535 - State Taxes
Which leaves you $42,007 take home to live on, or almost exactly $3500/month.
Here is a basic apartment (I lived here in college, it was perfectly adequate 20+ year old housing 20 years ago, not one of the nice new fancy places going up everywhere):
https://www.apartmentfinder.com/Virginia/Blacksburg-Apartments/Windsor-Hills-Apartments
Rent is $1500 for a pretty basic place (1 or 2 bedroom, but not a studio thank god), plus say another $300 for power/water/trash/internet. I'm using an apartment, because I'm (hypothetically) fresh out of school and this is what I know. Using zillow to check the same place for something to buy, there are zero houses under $400,000 right now. A $400,000 house with 10% down and 4.5% interest rate on a 30 year fixed works out to $2250/month for PITI, so I'll stick with the apartment. But included the option for discussion.
Cell phone and data plan is $100/month (ATT or Verizon)
I'm going to assume I already own a decent hatchback or commuter car from college, so $0 there. Plus, this is GRM. If there's one area we can be rockstars in, it's our cars.
Car insurance $100/month
Fuel $150/month (may be low these days, or maybe I got lucky and WFH)
So now I have the basics: a place to live, a car, and a phone. I've got $1350 left to feed myself, do anything fun socially, indulge in hobbies etc. To say nothing of student loans, or unexpected expenses, having to replace or repair the car, save toward a house, etc. Marriage and child raising (to include daycare at $1500+/month) immediately destroys the budget. I can't afford to house, feed, and cloth a family on $60,000, assuming I am just starting out from zero in 2022.
I think this is the real reason younger people aren't buying houses or starting families. The cause and effect is backward. They play video games because it's a one-time $50 charge to escape the reality that they can't afford the basics of a house and family, let alone the luxuries (lake house, boat, new truck, insert other common American dreams here) that many people over 40 take for granted.
Food for thought.
In reply to aircooled :
I will just throw a curve ball in here as a bit of a tangent (sorry). That process can, and does create a pretty big issue. You have a productive and skilled worker who has been in a positions for a while and wants to step up. Eventually they hit a point that they will have to enter some sort of management positions.
The huge issue with this, is that being a good worker in a field is many time very much disconnected with being a good manager, and more specifically, a manager of people. You can see this in many places, people who get promoted to management, who are horrible managers.
Businesses of course need to adopt to this. They really need to provide effective training for managers as well as reasonable options for those who are not appropriate for management (or just shovel them off to another employer?)
I agree 100%. I'm very familiar with this problem, and it seems to be getting worse. It's mostly an employer problem- it really hurts them- but it is a problem for the employee as well because it can set them up to fail. Opportunity is better than no opportunity, but it can definitely be a double edged sword. I've seen people who were good employees be such bad managers that they ended up losing their jobs. It would be wise of the employer thoroughly train their managers, it's an investment with a lot of payback. That said, a prospective or new manager can invest in themselves too. There is no shortage of manager training materials or programs out there, and the basics cross over just about any business. And to be honest, some people are just not cut out to be managers. If they are on a track where the only way to move up is to become a manager, they need to either accept the cap they have placed on themselves or change to a different job that has an attainable goal.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
