movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 5, 2017 10:06:20 GMT -5
Another issue is even if they did save the$362.50 a year (2016 dollars) - they might not have easy or free access to the stock market. By easy I mean knowing how to get started (although with the advent of the internet- you'd think it wouldn't be that hard). And by 'free' I mean finding a way to invest the $$ without paying any upfront fees (either for the account because it doesn't meet a minimum balance criteria/some other criteria OR some sort of 'trading fee' per trade/purchase). I was kind of stunned when my late 20 somethings nieces and nephews seem to think they needed a financial advisor to figure out how to invest the 3% of their income they thought they could manage to save (if they really tightened their belts and SUFFERED!!! deprivation) every year (I'm guesstimating it's less than $2500 a year...) not to mention they weren't sure which stocks to buy - as in INDIVIDUAL stocks. These are the children of fairly well educated working parents. these are adults who managed to get thru 4 years of college and successfully hold down white collar type jobs. There's also the obvious (as pointed out by others) - a full time minimum wage income, doesn't go very far if you are going to attempt to live on your own. My father, who actually is quite smart and managed to save a good amount for retirement, lead me down the wrong path when I was younger. When I first started investing he encouraged me to buy individual stocks with money in my IRA account. I finally figured out that was pretty stupid when I could just stick it in a couple of funds, leave it alone and make more money. Then he started encouraging me to time the market. Saying I should sell my funds and then buy them back when the market was down. Uh, okay...yeah, that didn't work too well. After about 3-4 years of receiving some bad financial advice I finally figured out that overthinking this stuff can actually make you lose money. Eventually, I learned that I just needed to set my contributions and pretty much leave it the hell alone. My dad still tries to tell me to jump in and out of the market but now I just let it go in one ear and out the other. I have come to realize that he allowed fear to take over logic. He did manage to save a decent amount but my guess is he would probably have twice the amount had he not let fear guide his investing strategy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 18:38:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2017 10:14:13 GMT -5
Another issue is even if they did save the$362.50 a year (2016 dollars) - they might not have easy or free access to the stock market. By easy I mean knowing how to get started (although with the advent of the internet- you'd think it wouldn't be that hard). And by 'free' I mean finding a way to invest the $$ without paying any upfront fees (either for the account because it doesn't meet a minimum balance criteria/some other criteria OR some sort of 'trading fee' per trade/purchase). I was kind of stunned when my late 20 somethings nieces and nephews seem to think they needed a financial advisor to figure out how to invest the 3% of their income they thought they could manage to save (if they really tightened their belts and SUFFERED!!! deprivation) every year (I'm guesstimating it's less than $2500 a year...) not to mention they weren't sure which stocks to buy - as in INDIVIDUAL stocks. These are the children of fairly well educated working parents. these are adults who managed to get thru 4 years of college and successfully hold down white collar type jobs. There's also the obvious (as pointed out by others) - a full time minimum wage income, doesn't go very far if you are going to attempt to live on your own. My father, who actually is quite smart and managed to save a good amount for retirement, lead me down the wrong path when I was younger. When I first started investing he encouraged me to buy individual stocks with money in my IRA account. I finally figured out that was pretty stupid when I could just stick it in a couple of funds, leave it alone and make more money. Then he started encouraging me to time the market. Saying I should sell my funds and then buy them back when the market was down. Uh, okay...yeah, that didn't work too well. After about 3-4 years of receiving some bad financial advice I finally figured out that overthinking this stuff can actually make you lose money. Eventually, I learned that I just needed to set my contributions and pretty much leave it the hell alone. My dad still tries to tell me to jump in and out of the market but now I just let it go in one ear and out the other. I have come to realize that he allowed fear to take over logic. He did manage to save a decent amount but my guess is he would probably have twice the amount had he not let fear guide his investing strategy. My mom was no help because she worked a job with a pension and didn't invest outside of work. I got caught up in investing in the hottest sector funds. Of course I lost my shirt during the dot.com crash because I was so heavy in science and technology. Glad it happened back when I was just starting out and losing 50% of my retirement was only a few thousand dollars! Then I was in managed funds for a long time, but the last 10 years I've been moving more into passive index and cut down the number of funds a lot. I'm hoping to help my kids avoid all my learning errors.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,140
|
Post by giramomma on Jan 5, 2017 10:16:17 GMT -5
When DH and I were first married, we saved about 15-17% of our gross income..and we were only grossing 30ishK a year.
However, I'm not foolish enough anymore to presume that all people can save for retirement.
One thing I haven't seen discussed here at all, is the support of extended family. I'm not talking about a woman popping out 3453453 kids.
I'm talking about folks taking care of grandparents and other great relatives or multi-generational household. That costs money too. And someone may look at those extra $15 a week and say..well, that will help grandma, my neighbor, etc much more and elect to spend money elsewhere..rather than "Too bad grams. You didn't save in the depression. That's your fault. I've got to take care of me now."
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jan 5, 2017 10:20:52 GMT -5
It is still very possible to do ok, not great, but ok. Around here (Texas) all the signs for workers at fast food, etc, that I see are mostly in the $10-$13 per per range. A couple working those jobs can earn $40,000 to $48,000 per year, gross. Depending on number of kids it is very possible to live on that amount. At this point most of those jobs in the general area where I live are no longer teen jobs, they are now Hispanic women. I thought we were talking about min. wage here, not several dollars an hour more than min wage.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 18:38:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2017 10:25:26 GMT -5
When DH and I were first married, we saved about 15-17% of our gross income..and we were only grossing 30ishK a year. However, I'm not foolish enough anymore to presume that all people can save for retirement. One thing I haven't seen discussed here at all, is the support of extended family. I'm not talking about a woman popping out 3453453 kids. I'm talking about folks taking care of grandparents and other great relatives or multi-generational household. That costs money too. And someone may look at those extra $15 a week and say..well, that will help grandma, my neighbor, etc much more and elect to spend money elsewhere..rather than "Too bad grams. You didn't save in the depression. That's your fault. I've got to take care of me now." No, for sure, not everyone can, but there are definitely a LOT of people out there that could, but don't and it's not because they're feeding Grandma.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Jan 5, 2017 10:26:54 GMT -5
Yes we all know that some places are more expensive than others, geez we go round and round with that ALL THE TIME. Maybe let's take the outliers out (more expensive areas pay a higher min wage anyway) and look at the average. It is possible to do it with a roommate. If someone wants to think min wage is for a family then maybe their thinking is what is holding them back.
|
|
chen35
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 19:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,312
|
Post by chen35 on Jan 5, 2017 10:31:17 GMT -5
I think the bigger issue than the pay is the fact that most lower wage jobs will never get you close to 40 hours. And since the hours are unpredictable, it's difficult to get a second job to get more hours.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 5, 2017 10:47:54 GMT -5
When DH and I were first married, we saved about 15-17% of our gross income..and we were only grossing 30ishK a year. However, I'm not foolish enough anymore to presume that all people can save for retirement. One thing I haven't seen discussed here at all, is the support of extended family. I'm not talking about a woman popping out 3453453 kids. I'm talking about folks taking care of grandparents and other great relatives or multi-generational household. That costs money too. And someone may look at those extra $15 a week and say..well, that will help grandma, my neighbor, etc much more and elect to spend money elsewhere..rather than "Too bad grams. You didn't save in the depression. That's your fault. I've got to take care of me now." This is definitely true! I have always said that the best gift people can give their children is to save for retirement. It takes a huge burden off and allows them to save for the future themselves. At one point, when people didn't live very long, it wasn't such a huge deal for elderly parents to become dependent upon their children for a couple of years. Now with people living longer and more active lives it can become an insurmountable burden. A 50 year old couple trying to juggle a couple of teenage/college kids and helping to financial support their own parents can most definitely eat up a ton of money (and I am talking about middle income people). If you are low income, then forget it... trying to support a multi-generational household would probably put retirement at the bottom of the list. I believe, don't know because I have been lucky, this one reason why the cycle of poverty is so hard to break. Each generation is dependent upon the next, not allowing for a lot of movement up the financial ladder.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 18:38:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2017 10:58:09 GMT -5
Leaping Lizard It is called the FREE MARKET and the impact of the free market. Around here $10 to $13 per hour is the MINIMUM WAGE. NOT by law but due to market forces. Yes, even in EVIL Texas, a nasty red state, in most cities the actual entry wage is above the mandated minimum wage. Yes, around here starting at McDonald's is $10/hour. Our factory floor is now $12.25 and you just need a GED. 100 openings too if anyone knows anybody. Sucky part is, the entry wages are going up, but I keep staying the same. The newbies are catching up to me.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jan 5, 2017 11:04:59 GMT -5
I think the bigger issue than the pay is the fact that most lower wage jobs will never get you close to 40 hours. And since the hours are unpredictable, it's difficult to get a second job to get more hours. If you're talking strictly retail, then yes. Most call center jobs I've seen don't require anything beyond high school, pay a little more than minimum wage, give 40 or more hours a week, and usually have some kind of health insurance, tuition reimbursement, and a 401k. It's a tough gig though. Sitting in a cube, surrounded by chatter, talking to a string crabby strangers. Pushing a mop or a wheelchair at the local hospital may be a better gig for a more introverted person. Again, those jobs are usually full time with tuition reimbursement and 401k, but they're harder to get than the call center jobs and you have to have a certain amount of strength to do them. The real question is why anyone who has to support themselves would bother with a 30 hour a week minimum wage job when there are better options out there.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Jan 5, 2017 11:10:02 GMT -5
I think the bigger issue than the pay is the fact that most lower wage jobs will never get you close to 40 hours. And since the hours are unpredictable, it's difficult to get a second job to get more hours. If you're talking strictly retail, then yes. Most call center jobs I've seen don't require anything beyond high school, pay a little more than minimum wage, give 40 or more hours a week, and usually have some kind of health insurance, tuition reimbursement, and a 401k. It's a tough gig though. Sitting in a cube, surrounded by chatter, talking to a string crabby strangers. Pushing a mop or a wheelchair at the local hospital may be a better gig for a more introverted person. Again, those jobs are usually full time with tuition reimbursement and 401k, but they're harder to get than the call center jobs and you have to have a certain amount of strength to do them. The real question is why anyone who has to support themselves would bother with a 30 hour a week minimum wage job when there are better options out there. I can think of 5 reasons off the top of my head. Can you not?
|
|
chen35
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 19:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,312
|
Post by chen35 on Jan 5, 2017 11:21:27 GMT -5
Obamacare definitely had an impact, but it was a problem (at least in retail and fast food) well before then. Those places staff to sales levels, meaning lots of 3 - 4 hour shifts per day. They don't want a ton of people working when it's dead.
When I worked fast food we had a lot of people leave for call center jobs. A lot came back because of how sucky those jobs were. A lot didn't have transportation to get themselves to those jobs in the first place. And a lot simply wouldn't have had the skill set to succeed in a job like that.
|
|
chen35
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 19:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,312
|
Post by chen35 on Jan 5, 2017 11:26:38 GMT -5
The skill set issue is another problem. I don't know how you fix it.
I worked fast food for about 6 months as an 18 year old before I was approached to move into management, which was full time with benefits. I did it long enough to put myself through college because I knew I didn't want to work in fast food forever. But if you are good at what you do, you will move up quickly and there is plenty of $$ to be made. I imagine the same is true of retail, gas stations, etc. But a lot of people just don't have the skill set to move up like that. And it's not all due to poor choices (though some of it is). So what do we do with the rest of those people who can't get full time hours being worker bees, and don't have the skills to move up?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jan 5, 2017 11:33:21 GMT -5
Medicare and SS are only 7.2%. $7.25 an hour wouldn't be pleasant here, but nobody makes that. Even McDonalds pays $10. With a roommate that's doable since there are quite a few two bedroom apartments for $600. Nice on the apartment rental prices. Its hard to get even just a room for $600 month in central NJ. Should you find one, almost all tack on utilities and extras like funding their FIOS habit.
But see, no one is forcing someone to live in central NJ. And honestly, if all a person can get is a minimum wage job they have no business living in central NJ.
we have apartments locally that rent for $500-$600, sometimes less (though I probably wouldn't want to live in the super cheap ones). If a person can't afford where they live then they need to move.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jan 5, 2017 11:35:18 GMT -5
We were really poor for a number of years. We made next to nothing and still I look back and think we actually had resources available to use that allowed us to live much better than our income would normally have allowed. We had already bought a house. It was a small house but a house non the less. And it was cheap to live in because of that. So our living expenses were lower, including utilities, for all of us than the rent on a very small apartment. We also had two paid off cars. So we could just try to keep them up and lowered our auto ins limits so we could afford it. We then just had to buy food and replace clothes when we absolutely had to. We literally didn't buy anything we didn't need and most weeks the mantra was more like "can't eat it, can't buy it". I literally did things like collected empty soda cans and took them to the recycling place to get paid for them. I kept a small amount of cash in my sock drawer as my EF. I'm sure at some times it was even in quarters,nickles and dimes. That small amount though allowed us to get new used tires or sneakers for our DD type of thing. Someone telling me to use it to save for later would have literally meant not buying those new shoes for DD or driving an unsafe car. And that is assuming there is a place where I can invest $7.52 a week. Isn't your husband an engineer? How in the world were you that poor? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just dont' understand.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 5, 2017 11:36:23 GMT -5
The skill set issue is another problem. I don't know how you fix it. I worked fast food for about 6 months as an 18 year old before I was approached to move into management, which was full time with benefits. I did it long enough to put myself through college because I knew I didn't want to work in fast food forever. But if you are good at what you do, you will move up quickly and there is plenty of $$ to be made. I imagine the same is true of retail, gas stations, etc. But a lot of people just don't have the skill set to move up like that. And it's not all due to poor choices (though some of it is). So what do we do with the rest of those people who can't get full time hours being worker bees, and don't have the skills to move up?I agree, and even more concerning are the fact that a lot of food service and lower level positions will be obsolete in the future. I am not sure what is going to happen to those who just aren't smart enough to move beyond that type of work. With all the advancing technology I envision a lot more jobs requiring some sort of skill set.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jan 5, 2017 11:39:07 GMT -5
The real question is why anyone who has to support themselves would bother with a 30 hour a week minimum wage job when there are better options out there.
This has been my argument against higher minimum wage since the debate started this election cycle. A 'living wage' minimum wage does NOT encourage self improvement. My D g-dtr and her BF are great examples.
G-dtr has a bachelors degree in psychology from University of Phoenix ....... a totally useless degree from a totally useless school. BF education is high school and working a lot of years at Jimmie Johns. Both are 28 and they have a 2 yr old. BF is looking to get into management but refuses to get that piece of paper that says he is worth more. G-dtr is a SAHM .... but she doesn't have a practical education to get a job. Their choice.
AZ voted to increase minimum wage from $8.05 to $10 per hour and yesterday I stopped at Burger King for my once-every-couple-of-weeks lunch. Last month is was $4.02, yesterday it was $5.10.
Wonder how much McDs went up ........ maybe I'll try that tomorrow.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jan 5, 2017 11:43:07 GMT -5
Leaping Lizard It is called the FREE MARKET and the impact of the free market. Around here $10 to $13 per hour is the MINIMUM WAGE. NOT by law but due to market forces. Yes, even in EVIL Texas, a nasty red state, in most cities the actual entry wage is above the mandated minimum wage. (It is strange that things work that way without any government mandate or interference) AND.....there are help wanted signs everywhere. Then we're talking about 2 different things: entry level vs min wage. If things are booming so much in Texas, I guess it wouldn't hurt at all to increase the state min.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jan 5, 2017 11:43:39 GMT -5
I know in the last election cycle Bernie was all for 'free college for everyone'.
I would rather see free trade/technical schools for everyone. If people really want to go to college, they can work at a trade and EARN their way.
Horrors ........... I said a horrible 4 letter word ............. EARN
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jan 5, 2017 11:52:22 GMT -5
Getting back to the original post ........ I remember my first job around 1965. It was a factory job and I ran a sewing machine that sewed paper tape to large paper bags. Think 50 lb dog food bags or huge bags for rolled insulation.
That company had its' own credit union and I had one hours wages taken out each week for savings. I worked there about 7 years. DH worked civil service and had an hours wage taken from his check also and he bought Series E bonds.
I think all of this has gone by the wayside now with 401Ks and such. With all the direct deposit and the like today, one hour wage could be diverted to a savings account. Although people without a bank this wouldn't be possible.
Don't know what the answer is ........
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 5, 2017 11:54:02 GMT -5
Since when have minimum wage jobs ever been full-time jobs with benefits? I graduated high school in 1991. Most all the fast food and retail jobs were worked by high school and college age kids. Sometimes you had a SAHM (back then it was mostly SAHM's as opposed to SAHP) who wanted to make some extra money so they worked part-time at a department store or something. Sure there may have been a few more full-time positions but it's not like retail and fast food were KNOWN for staffing full-time workers. Now, for a variety of reasons, a lot less of those jobs appear to be taken by teenagers and young adults but if you think the evil government somehow caused these jobs to suddenly become part-time positions in the last few years then you are only fooling yourself. It had SOME impact but minimal...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 18:38:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2017 11:58:55 GMT -5
I got my first full-time job in 1994. It was $6.45/hour or something like that. They had direct deposit where you could allocate between a couple accounts and you could buy EE bonds through work. I turned mine in and marked down I wanted $50/pay period to go to bonds and $200 to checking and the rest to savings. Payroll called me in because they were sure I messed it up and wanted $200 to go to savings and the remainder to checking. Whenever I worked OT it just went to savings. I had to raid it a lot, but I tried to stay living off the $200/biweekly. (I also still had my part-time job)
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 5, 2017 12:04:15 GMT -5
I never worked minimum wage past college. My first job out of college in 1995 paid 21K per year; however, we also worked off an incentive program so I made between 23K - 24K. At that time I lived in a LCOL area. I could have saved but I didn't...stupid, stupid, stupid...
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on Jan 5, 2017 12:12:58 GMT -5
Do you have any idea the expenses involved in investing back then? And I don't think you could invest those low amounts . This is just a comment =- but if back in the 70's you had $10 or $20 to invest every month or other month... I know a couple of low cost ways you might have been able to do it - I know one of my older brothers (in the 70's) had a job where he could have money deducted and a US savings bond purchased every month. I think there was something like $12.50 got you a $25 EE bond ($25 got you a $50 EE Bond) there was no added cost involved.
You could also purchase individual stocks (through a Dividend Reinvestment plan). You had to have the money to buy a share and then sign up for the plan.... the trick was knowing HOW to get the paperwork from the company who's stock you wanted to purchase and then having a way to snail mail them your money on a regular basis. This also had the problem of 'having all your eggs in one basket' - since you would be buying an individual company.
Either way - you locked up your savings AND it was easy to loose track of the investments. (you needed someplace safe to keep the Savings Bond(s) you bought and if you didn't keep any of your mail from your DRPs and/or update your address if you moved - you could loose track of the money.)
I'm sure actual investing the way we would do it today was only for the Rich People....
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,288
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Jan 5, 2017 12:14:08 GMT -5
The real question is why anyone who has to support themselves would bother with a 30 hour a week minimum wage job when there are better options out there.This has been my argument against higher minimum wage since the debate started this election cycle. A 'living wage' minimum wage does NOT encourage self improvement. My D g-dtr and her BF are great examples. G-dtr has a bachelors degree in psychology from University of Phoenix ....... a totally useless degree from a totally useless school. BF education is high school and working a lot of years at Jimmie Johns. Both are 28 and they have a 2 yr old. BF is looking to get into management but refuses to get that piece of paper that says he is worth more. G-dtr is a SAHM .... but she doesn't have a practical education to get a job. Their choice. AZ voted to increase minimum wage from $8.05 to $10 per hour and yesterday I stopped at Burger King for my once-every-couple-of-weeks lunch. Last month is was $4.02, yesterday it was $5.10. Wonder how much McDs went up ........ maybe I'll try that tomorrow. my biggest issue in this living wage debate is that if someone isn't making enough to live on - less than a "living wage" - then the taxpayer are paying the difference. It does not encourage improved business practices. For example - you have a business of 10 employees, all working FT, min. wage, and collecting EITC, maybe food stamps, housing assistance, whatnot. Then the business owner is getting a nice income off it - if they realize a 25k profit per worker - then they are getting 250k. That is only $12 profit/hour/worker. This means that the tax payers are paying the workers to stay in non-living, low wage jobs, so that the 250k is funneled to the owner. If the owner is making a more modest income, say - 80k and the workers are each getting about 10k in benefits from the tax payers in order to get to "base" living conditions - then the business is essentially losing money. You have 10 people - (11 if the owner is also working it for his 80k) - working FT in a business that doesn't support their endeavors - and no one even realizes it. Cuz, uncle sam is paying. b The owner is even encouraged to think it is profitable, and not essentially losing 20k a year.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,201
|
Post by bean29 on Jan 5, 2017 12:16:23 GMT -5
If they only knew how to save and invest at an early age, I did not know! I wish info had been available back in the 80s. We would have saved much more. I made sure my kids knew about retirement savings. When they got their first jobs with benefits I sat with them and helped them sign up for the 401k plans and insurance. They told me in one of their classes the instructor asked if someone could explain 401ks and my kids were the only ones who knew what they were . These were college courses just a couple years ago, so apparently there are still a lot of people out there who have no idea how to save for retirement. I always explained how the health insurance worked to my kids. Made my kids fill out the forms in the Dr's offices so they knew the family health history. My daughter has said the same thing. Instructors would ask questions about Ins, family finance issues and she would be the only one in class that even knew the answers. Her friend's parents listen to her when she answers questions.
I don't think I have covered the 401K issues with my kids too well. I did want to share this with them. It really strikes me. I started saving in a 401K at my 1st job but pulled it out when we bought our first house. Next job, I went right back into saving in my 401K, but man, the results in the example blow my results away and I have saved closer to 10-15% a year since the early 1990's.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on Jan 5, 2017 12:25:02 GMT -5
In the 1960's it would have been just about impossible for a lower income person or even most middle income people to have a brokerage account. Mutual fund ownership by the general public was VERY RARE. I would agree with this - but if you worked for a "Big Company" or a Utility you MIGHT have access to buying your employer's stock one share at a time. And you might have access to a DRP for that stock so any dividends were reinvested. That's how my dad wound up with about 30 shares of stock in the Utility he worked for. The shares got divided between me and my siblings when he died. That's how I started out with 4 shares of stock (valued at less than $30) with a Dividend Reinvestment Plan at the age of 11.
Of course - back then it depended on your employer OR it depended on how good you were with mailing away for information so you could buy stock directly from a company you didn't work for - and use their DRP plan. There generally wasn't any charge to buy stock DIRECTLY from a company - no need for a broker. You can do this today. I'm NOT really recommending this... but it is still available. There currently are higher minimums to do this (I'm guessing you need atleast $250 to get started...) but back in the 70's when I would bet most single shares of stock were LESS than $10.00 you could get started fairly easily IF you were persistent with snail mail and a good record keeper and good at NOT spending all of your money before you could mail away your $10 every month.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on Jan 5, 2017 12:39:14 GMT -5
No you weren't? We were talking 80's, not 90's. There were a lot of changes, first with computers, then the internet. Huh? I didn't have a computer or internet in 92. I mailed checks to the funds. I was still making minimum (or nearly) and saving. For the most part it was just going into a savings account at the bank in the late 80's and I would buy EE bonds too. I remember - at the age of 17 (in 1982) and working part time - mailing a $25 check to my dividend reinvestment plan (those 4 shares I inherited at age 11 generated a lot of snail mail that came to the house in my name each year). When I filled out my FIRST tax form - I had to account for the 'dividends' on it... which made me look harder and pay more attention to all that snail mail.... and I thought it was very Adult to have a job, a checking account AND be able to write a check to buy stock It was all hoity toity and upper crusty and snootty LOL!! Unfortunately, I didn't get into the habit of REGULARLY mailing off those small additional contributions... if I had I would probably be retired already. FWIW: I can't remember if the minimum additional monthly contribution was $10.00 and up or if it started at $25. I know in the 90's it was $25.00 and eventually jumped to a $50.00 contribution minimum (but by then single shares were about $50 each). Anyway $25.00 was a lot of money back then (for me) - I think I was earning $3.25 an hour minimum wage... and working between 16 and 24 hours a week.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on Jan 5, 2017 12:49:16 GMT -5
I think the bigger issue than the pay is the fact that most lower wage jobs will never get you close to 40 hours. And since the hours are unpredictable, it's difficult to get a second job to get more hours. If you're talking strictly retail, then yes. Most call center jobs I've seen don't require anything beyond high school, pay a little more than minimum wage, give 40 or more hours a week, and usually have some kind of health insurance, tuition reimbursement, and a 401k. It's a tough gig though. Sitting in a cube, surrounded by chatter, talking to a string crabby strangers. Pushing a mop or a wheelchair at the local hospital may be a better gig for a more introverted person. Again, those jobs are usually full time with tuition reimbursement and 401k, but they're harder to get than the call center jobs and you have to have a certain amount of strength to do them. The real question is why anyone who has to support themselves would bother with a 30 hour a week minimum wage job when there are better options out there. I'm with you on this... but I live in a VERY urban area surrounded by 6 million other people... I have to drive on the expressway for nearly 40 minutes to see "open land" ie farmers fields. So, my experience of 'work' and 'employers' is vastly biased.
I would guess that in places with less density of inhabitants there aren't quite as many employers/jobs available... and THAT might be one reason why someone might have to attempt a 30 hour a week minimum wage income to live on...
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jan 5, 2017 12:53:18 GMT -5
The real question is why anyone who has to support themselves would bother with a 30 hour a week minimum wage job when there are better options out there.This has been my argument against higher minimum wage since the debate started this election cycle. A 'living wage' minimum wage does NOT encourage self improvement. My D g-dtr and her BF are great examples. G-dtr has a bachelors degree in psychology from University of Phoenix ....... a totally useless degree from a totally useless school. BF education is high school and working a lot of years at Jimmie Johns. Both are 28 and they have a 2 yr old. BF is looking to get into management but refuses to get that piece of paper that says he is worth more. G-dtr is a SAHM .... but she doesn't have a practical education to get a job. Their choice. AZ voted to increase minimum wage from $8.05 to $10 per hour and yesterday I stopped at Burger King for my once-every-couple-of-weeks lunch. Last month is was $4.02, yesterday it was $5.10. Wonder how much McDs went up ........ maybe I'll try that tomorrow. my biggest issue in this living wage debate is that if someone isn't making enough to live on - less than a "living wage" - then the taxpayer are paying the difference. It does not encourage improved business practices. For example - you have a business of 10 employees, all working FT, min. wage, and collecting EITC, maybe food stamps, housing assistance, whatnot. Then the business owner is getting a nice income off it - if they realize a 25k profit per worker - then they are getting 250k. That is only $12 profit/hour/worker. This means that the tax payers are paying the workers to stay in non-living, low wage jobs, so that the 250k is funneled to the owner. If the owner is making a more modest income, say - 80k and the workers are each getting about 10k in benefits from the tax payers in order to get to "base" living conditions - then the business is essentially losing money. You have 10 people - (11 if the owner is also working it for his 80k) - working FT in a business that doesn't support their endeavors - and no one even realizes it. Cuz, uncle sam is paying. b The owner is even encouraged to think it is profitable, and not essentially losing 20k a year. In 1981, I graduated from college and moved to Boston. My salaried wage with a degree was $11,000/year. Of this, I took home $142 of a $211/week salary, but as I was salaried, I NEVER worked a 40 hour week. At the time in research, it was expected that you put in anywhere from 50-60 hours/week. Min wage at the time was $3.35/hour, working the least number of hours I was expected to work, I made about $1/hour over min wage. Working 60 hours put me at min wage. Of that $211, I took home $142. This was in Boston, and I managed to found a 2 room, 200 sq ft basement apartment in Boston for $250/mo. I had $15/week go directly to a savings account, so only saw $127 weekly. I paid around $25/mo for my T pass. Electric ran around $30/mo, landline $17/mo. Those were my basic expenses. Of the $550 I brought home monthly, once I had taken care of my basic expenses, I had roughly $200/mo to live off of. This paid for laundry ($20/mo), groceries ($20-25/week), clothes and prescriptions (my BCPs were $20/mo, and considering how little I was taking home, I knew that there was no way in hell I could support another mouth on my salary). So of that $200 I had left, there was very little remaining. I lived, and actually managed to thrive on this sort of income, but it was freaking hard. I took advantage of employer benefits like crazy, including taking additional classes to improve my worth (I had to get a B for them to pay 80% of my tuition). What I DID know was that I did not want to remain in this situation forever. I got my foot in the door, I was going to make myself invaluable to my employer.
|
|