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 13:31:42 GMT -5
Leaping Lizard I can not even begin to respond to your post from an economic or business standpoint. Your proposal will result in less jobs, less hours, and lower stagnant wages as well as loss of jobs. I dont know if you are a Progressive, but that statement is the epitome of Progressive thinking. There is a reason the state of Texas is thriving and it is not based on being a whining, big government, nanny state. Entry level wage is the minimum wage, in the real world. My definition of minimum wage being, the wage paid for entry level jobs with minimal skills, in a particular area, even if higher than the government mandated wage. How about using math/logic? If everyone makes $10/hr or more, and the min. wage increases from $7.25 to anywhere from $7.26 to $9.99/hr, it would have zero, zip, none, nada effect. Only if wages fall below the floor of $10/hr would it have any effect whatsoever. It's nice that you have your own definition for minimum wage. I'm using the one everyone else uses, so I see that this discussion is going to be a complete waste of my time.
|
|
beergut
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2011 13:58:39 GMT -5
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by beergut on Jan 5, 2017 13:53:50 GMT -5
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.
You can tell your kids about the 365 day savings challenge. The original idea was to have people save a penny for the day in a year, so Day 1 is $.01, day 2 is $.02, all the way to day 365 being $3.65. Only issue is this makes the last week of saving cost $25.34. To help people who couldn't force themselves to put away ~$4 a day for the last week, they changed the challenge to be to mark off a calendar of 365 days with a certain savings amount each day. So you could save $3.65 on the 89th day of the year and mark that off, and be done with the final day of the year. You could also save $.02 on the 365th day of the year, it doesn't matter what you save each day as long as you save something each day, and mark it off the calendar. The challenge leaves you with $667.95 at the end of the year. According to my Phil Script, a yearly investment of $667.95 bearing an annual return of 11% could grow to $147,558.95 in 30 years! Using the rates since 1976: According to my Phil Script, a yearly investment of $667.95 bearing an annual return of 11.35% could grow to $476,558.30 in 40 years!
|
|
beergut
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2011 13:58:39 GMT -5
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by beergut on Jan 5, 2017 14:09:38 GMT -5
As for those talking about the challenges of investing prior to the '80s, it could still be done by people firmly in the middle class. DRPs were one way to do it. My great-aunt and great-uncle were investors. He worked as a carpenter and machinist in a shop, he could fix anything. She got a job working with Travelers Insurance. After the first year of their marriage, she completely took over the family finances. My great-uncle told me the story, said after the first year they still had some money left over, so he thought they were doing pretty good. That wasn't good enough for my great-aunt. She would give him a $1 to buy lunch with when he went to work, and then cook dinner for him when he came home. She would then give him $1 so he could grab a beer on the way home from his moonlighting job he did at night. They lived on his salary alone, totally invested her salary. She also handled the investments for her sister, my other great-aunt, and her husband. My other great-aunt was a nurse, and her husband was an engineer. They took my great-aunt's advice, lived on one salary, invested the other one. My great-aunt was a financial whiz, she understood the markets well, and all four of them retired early in their 50s in 1985. They were all millionaires. They began investing in the markets in the early 1950s. My great-aunt has been dead 10 years as of last October, and my only regret is I didn't find out more about what she did when she first started investing. When you consider the time period she lived in, and that she only received a high school education, what she accomplished was phenomenal.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jan 5, 2017 14:31:10 GMT -5
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.
If these people can't afford to even *live* there, how exactly do they *save* to get out of there? Not picking on you specifically, but this blanket statement has irritated me for ages so I'm finally asking. If you can barely keep it together how do you get the cash together to move somewhere less expensive? (We need a head scratching emoji)
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,983
|
Post by haapai on Jan 5, 2017 15:33:51 GMT -5
If these people can't afford to even *live* there, how exactly do they *save* to get out of there? Not picking on you specifically, but this blanket statement has irritated me for ages so I'm finally asking. If you can barely keep it together how do you get the cash together to move somewhere less expensive? (We need a head scratching emoji) I've always scratched my head over that one too. One depressing answer to your question is that moving from an expensive place where you are barely making it to a cheaper place is quite a bit easier than moving from a cheap place where you are barely making it to a more expensive place that has more opportunity. Generally speaking when we exhort folks to move to a place that has better-paying jobs, we're asking them to do the latter. Another answer to your question is that jumping off a cliff can technically be described as "moving". Which means that when you tell someone with no savings or discretionary income to move somewhere better, you're pretty much telling them to jump off a cliff. Yeah, that's a bitter answer.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jan 5, 2017 15:41:10 GMT -5
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.
If these people can't afford to even *live* there, how exactly do they *save* to get out of there? Not picking on you specifically, but this blanket statement has irritated me for ages so I'm finally asking. If you can barely keep it together how do you get the cash together to move somewhere less expensive? (We need a head scratching emoji) I don't have an answer. But opti said that they can't even rent a room for $600 a month where she lives. So I would certainly work on ways to get out of there. I don't have the answer as to how but if the alternative is being homeless, there might be programs to help.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jan 5, 2017 15:54:07 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... According to my grandmother, before the 1970's, department store jobs were full time with some kind of benefits. It was in the 1970's that they started replacing their full time people with part timers. Retail never paid well, of course.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jan 5, 2017 15:56:52 GMT -5
If these people can't afford to even *live* there, how exactly do they *save* to get out of there? Not picking on you specifically, but this blanket statement has irritated me for ages so I'm finally asking. If you can barely keep it together how do you get the cash together to move somewhere less expensive? (We need a head scratching emoji) I've always scratched my head over that one too. One depressing answer to your question is that moving from an expensive place where you are barely making it to a cheaper place is quite a bit easier than moving from a cheap place where you are barely making it to a more expensive place that has more opportunity. Generally speaking when we exhort folks to move to a place that has better-paying jobs, we're asking them to do the latter. Another answer to your question is that jumping off a cliff can technically be described as "moving". Which means that when you tell someone with no savings or discretionary income to move somewhere better, you're pretty much telling them to jump off a cliff. Yeah, that's a bitter answer. I'm not so sure moving from a cheap place to a more expensive one is that much easier. Generally when we advise to move from lower COL to higher COL we also ask them to abandon family support which is massive in terms of money (& sanity) in some cases. The family support is massively helpful in the cheap places too. Cheap COL usually means lower paying jobs. No McD's here is paying $10 an hour like some PP mentioned. And going either direction means starting a new job, which means WAITING on that first paycheck and since either side of this coin has no savings..... how do they get through that section of time? It gets thrown around here like it's such a simple answer but the logistics of it make it sound awfully difficult or downright impossible to me.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jan 5, 2017 16:05:22 GMT -5
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...
Are you telling me that urban areas don't have hospitals, warehouses or call centers? I get that there are going to be some places where the economy is just crap, but I have to wonder if the problem is that widespread or if it is due to our lovely welfare benefits structure. I lived for 15 years in a small city that had a higher than average unemployment rate and never really recovered from the great recession. Yet, the call center I worked at routinely hired girls from the ghetto who had never used a computer. This job paid slightly more than minimum wage and gave 40 hours, tuition reimbursement, and crappy benefits. Most of these girls moved on to better jobs within a few months.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jan 5, 2017 16:07:29 GMT -5
I've always scratched my head over that one too. One depressing answer to your question is that moving from an expensive place where you are barely making it to a cheaper place is quite a bit easier than moving from a cheap place where you are barely making it to a more expensive place that has more opportunity. Generally speaking when we exhort folks to move to a place that has better-paying jobs, we're asking them to do the latter. Another answer to your question is that jumping off a cliff can technically be described as "moving". Which means that when you tell someone with no savings or discretionary income to move somewhere better, you're pretty much telling them to jump off a cliff. Yeah, that's a bitter answer. It doesn't necessarily mean moving to a more expensive area for a better paying job. There's another option, moving to less expensive area with the same paying type of job. Yes, there's expense to moving but a person can come out ahead by doing that, then once on their feet make a move to a more expensive area with better options and pay potential. Take for example MPL's area. Not a terribly expensive area + a good paying job = getting ahead quicker than staying in a high cost area with a low paying job. But to answer Chocolate Lover 's question. I think the sucky answer to that is you do the best you can and take the plunge... one way is to sell everything you can, to finance the move and then start over from scratch. I know I wouldn't be very happy about doing that, but if it gave me a chance for a better life then I'd do it. I suppose the thing that gives me greatest pause is the thought that not everything works out hunky dory every time for (general) us on any life decision and to take such a plunge with no safety net at all sounds like a great way to end up worse off if it doesn't work out. Maybe my thoughts on this are colored by watching BIL move for several different jobs to not very HCOLAs only to have to move again and sell crap off the moving truck to have enough gas money to get to the next place. I admit to being rather risk adverse period too.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 5, 2017 16:08:21 GMT -5
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...
Are you telling me that urban areas don't have hospitals, warehouses or call centers? I get that there are going to be some places where the economy is just crap, but I have to wonder if the problem is that widespread or if it is due to our lovely welfare benefits structure. I lived for 15 years in a small city that had a higher than average unemployment rate and never really recovered from the great recession. Yet, the call center I worked at routinely hired girls from the ghetto who had never used a computer. This job paid slightly more than minimum wage and gave 40 hours, tuition reimbursement, and crappy benefits. Most of these girls moved on to better jobs within a few months. I think she is referring to people living in less populated areas not having those opportunities (that is how I read it anyway). So people living out in the middle of nowhere have no other option but work at Wal-Mart or the local Tasty Freeze.
|
|
chen35
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 19:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,312
|
Post by chen35 on Jan 5, 2017 16:24:59 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. mow lawns? or do a million other things that could net you an extra hundred bucks or more per week with minimal effort/time? I mowed lawns in HS in addition to my after school job. easily made 20-30 per lawn, which my partner and i could do in 20-30 minutes (both of us running, one with a mower, one with a weedeater). People don't usually care which day you mow their lawn, so even with work schedule changes, I just had to get to their house either every week or every other (depending on client preference) That's a good idea for those who have equipment to mow lawns and a way to transport it. DS did this for a few summers, and we just let him use our equipment. If you already have to have those things for your own place, it would make it easier. If you're an apartment dweller, it would be a bit more difficult. If you're already relying on a part time minimum wage job to survive, I'm not sure how much extra cash you would have to invest in those things.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jan 5, 2017 16:25:46 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. One way to improve the business practice would be to automate those people out of a job. I'm sure that will reduce the amount of benefits paid. I agree with you that minimum wage needs to go up. But when you're talking about how high it can go, the question isn't 'What is a living wage?' The real question is how high can minimum wage go before a marginal worker or disadvantaged teen can't get a foot in the door. Entry level jobs have their uses. I benefited greatly from having jobs as a teenager. But I seriously doubt that any employer would have taken a chance on me or dealt with the hassle of managing teenagers (and adults who act like teenagers) if the minimum wage had been a 'living wage'.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jan 5, 2017 16:29:47 GMT -5
I suppose the thing that gives me greatest pause is the thought that not everything works out hunky dory for (general) us on any life decision and to take such a plunge with no safety net at all sounds like a great way to end up worse off if it doesn't work out. Maybe my thoughts on this are colored by watching BIL move for several different jobs to not very HCOLAs only to have to move again and sell crap off the moving truck to have enough gas money to get to the next place. I admit to being rather risk adverse period too. Oh believe me I am the poster child for risk adverse, but sometimes the biggest risk is staying where you are. If I'm not able to stay afloat in a HCOLA then eventually I'm going to drown. All that stuff I have sitting around me isn't going to do me much good. If I sell it all and get to a Lower COLA with even a decent paying job with stability, I'm already ahead of the game. Now if I manage to keep that decent paying job and keep my costs down I have half a chance at starting to tread water. Then if I have to move on to the next place I may be in a little better spot. I've made a couple of strategic cross-country moves because I thought my future prospects would be better somewhere else. (joke's on me I recently found out that the company my employer bought pays data analysts (the job I had when I left my hometown) 6-figures in my hometown... oh well) Maybe I've got a different perspective in that I never really thought of my family as a safety net. I think I've asked for financial help twice in my post college adult life. Both times were "hey I think I have this covered, but the timing may be off by a few days... if I need to borrow $ I could have it back to you within the week..." The other weird thing I've noticed is that I'm way more risk adverse now that I'm comfortable than when I was struggling. I guess I have more to lose now than I did. My family has been a daycare safety net for me over the years. Instead of having to pay for after school care they went to Mom's. Or her aunt's right next door. Summers too. I've not gotten much cash from them in ages but they have helped when they could with kid's clothes (from the thrift store) and such things. I didn't really ask but not having that would have meant more money and time spent acquiring those things. Maybe I haven't been close enough to drowning to really consider the options. I just don't think it's as black & white as many posters here do.
|
|
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 16:42:15 GMT -5
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on Jan 5, 2017 16:47:59 GMT -5
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...
Are you telling me that urban areas don't have hospitals, warehouses or call centers? I get that there are going to be some places where the economy is just crap, but I have to wonder if the problem is that widespread or if it is due to our lovely welfare benefits structure. I lived for 15 years in a small city that had a higher than average unemployment rate and never really recovered from the great recession. Yet, the call center I worked at routinely hired girls from the ghetto who had never used a computer. This job paid slightly more than minimum wage and gave 40 hours, tuition reimbursement, and crappy benefits. Most of these girls moved on to better jobs within a few months. I didn't articulate my reply well - there are potentially so many possible employers in my dense urban area that being stuck/trapped in a 30 hour a week minimum wage job/dead end job FOREVER shouldn't happen... you (the generic you) should be able to 'work' your way out of it... it might take some time (a couple years to move up the 'ladder', get some additional education (jr. college), or make some job changes) but with time and effort you should be able to find some sort of full time employment (with benefits). Or atleast I'd like to think so.
I would think that in a more rural area it might be harder to find the next step up from part time simply due to the lack of employers/number of jobs available -well, without having to move or commute further.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jan 5, 2017 16:48:13 GMT -5
Of course it matters how much you like your family, I happen to like mine. I understand I'm lucky that way. They also like me. I just don't get why some people seem to think that moving is the solution to everything. One random thought, in response to @sroo4 comment about selling everything. I'm not sure there's always enough to sell to get out of dodge either. Basically, I think it's at best a 50/50 shot someone can get out of where they are. Odds might not even be that good.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jan 5, 2017 16:57:55 GMT -5
My family has been a daycare safety net for me over the years. Instead of having to pay for after school care they went to Mom's. Or her aunt's right next door. Summers too. I've not gotten much cash from them in ages but they have helped when they could with kid's clothes (from the thrift store) and such things. I didn't really ask but not having that would have meant more money and time spent acquiring those things. Maybe I haven't been close enough to drowning to really consider the options. I just don't think it's as black & white as many posters here do. The paradigm definitely shifts when there are kids and family involved. In your case, the tangible benefit of staying close to family is apparent. But in cases where there aren't kids the benefit of family safety nets is greatly overblown unless the person is living with them and sharing expenses. Of course things aren't black and white, but there's usually some fairly easy to recognize buckets that can be sorted in to. Here's the other thing... maybe if you had taken a leap you'd have found yourself in a situation where the oop daycare wouldn't have been that great of an impact in the long term. (Of course I don't have any knowledge of your situation outside of what you've told me here, so there's a 100% chance that I'm completely wrong ) I think we're all too quick to say both "Hey you should go out and x,y,z" and "It's impossible to do x,y,z" I feel like the answer in all situations is probably a combination of the two. I have no disagreement with the 1st paragraph. 2nd one: I've never been much of risk taker OR highly motivated. I was never interested in doing anything but getting along ok. I didn't aspire to anything other than decent shelter. lol I will say that of course I could have taken that leap and done better, because as risk adverse as I am, I am not stupid. I can learn fast and adjust when I need to. But once kids came into the equation.... it was an entirely different ball game for many different reasons. As to your last point, I agree. I just see way more of "they should just move" than any acknowledgement of the idea that it could be pretty damn hard to do so if they can barely survive. Around here (YM) anyway.
|
|
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 16:59:00 GMT -5
So you hate your family if you move away for better opportunities? My comment was a bit tongue in cheek. The point of the link was that you have very limited time left to spend with the people from your past. And even 10x less if you move away.
|
|
chen35
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 19:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,312
|
Post by chen35 on Jan 5, 2017 17:00:09 GMT -5
Yes.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jan 5, 2017 17:04:38 GMT -5
Finally got around to reading this, my mom is 70, another reason I'm not going anywhere anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 18:39:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2017 18:53:00 GMT -5
My comment was a bit tongue in cheek. The point of the link was that you have very limited time left to spend with the people from your past. And even 10x less if you move away. Hmm.. moving away may have benefited my relationship with my family Hell yes it did, my aunt always said you can pick your nose but you can't pick your relatives.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 5, 2017 19:24:53 GMT -5
Hmm.. moving away may have benefited my relationship with my family Hell yes it did, my aunt always said you can pick your nose but you can't pick your relatives. My Aunt said the same thing but with one added variation. You can also pick your friends!
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on Jan 5, 2017 19:35:54 GMT -5
So you hate your family if you move away for better opportunities? your family may think you HATE them - if you move away for better opportunities. Leaving the family can be seen that way.... families are weird.
Heck, just going on a diet and saying "no, thank you" to their food pushing ways can make your family feel like you HATE them (if you aren't with them in eating a bucket full of food you MUST be against them. basically you make them feel bad about themselves so they figure you MUST HATE THEM!!!!!) .. It was an unexpected dynamic I experienced with family/friends when I went on weight watchers and started loosing weight.... I didn't preach WW to them at food oriented get togethers I brought my own food to share with them OR simply picked and choose what I was eating from what they provided... and said "No, thankyou!" a lot or just took the food/drink and then didn't eat it. You would have thought I called them all dirty awful names to their faces... I can't imagine the betrayal they would all feel if I were to move away for a better opportunity... (what kind of losers they must be if I have to move away to do better.... )
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,983
|
Post by haapai on Jan 5, 2017 19:54:35 GMT -5
FWIW, I live in a state with expanded medicaid and the magic number for single adults without dependents is about $18K a year. If you earn less than that, you are eligible for expanded medicaid and also getting at least a bit of the earned income credit for single adults without dependents but if you go over either of the magic numbers, you are in wild and confusing territory. Marginal tax rates increase dramatically; you're no longer eligible for whatever expanded medicaid is called in your state; and figuring out the ACA subsidy and the OOP costs of the plans offered on the exchange is a nightmare.
I know someone in his 50s who currently makes about $18K a year turn down an offer to increase his hours from 25 to 40 hours a week because he had done his research and figured that working an extra 3 hours a day decreased his financial stability.
The situation might be a lot rosier for younger folks who have lower premiums and fewer out of pocket costs associated with buying on the exchange but it is still hard for anyone to power through this period of dramatically increased fixed expenses.
I feel kinda dirty and disreputable for even pointing out this inflection point. The sense that good folks should not know anything about this dynamic is very strong.
|
|
Anne_in_VA
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:09:35 GMT -5
Posts: 5,545
|
Post by Anne_in_VA on Jan 5, 2017 20:13:16 GMT -5
Another thing to consider is that people in low paying jobs may not have reliable transportation and are therefore unable to get to where there is a better paying job. I know in my case, I was unable to drive and public transportation here is pretty bad, so it really limited which job I was able to get and keep. Uber and Lyft are not available in all areas so that may not be an option for many.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jan 5, 2017 20:24:15 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.
He is an engineer now. Before he was an engineer he was a carpenter who got shot by his boss with a nail gun.
|
|
beergut
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2011 13:58:39 GMT -5
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by beergut on Jan 5, 2017 20:51:03 GMT -5
Another option: You follow the boom, and go where the jobs are.
If that means moving to North Dakota when they hit a boom because of fracking, you move to North Dakota.
|
|
dannylion
Junior Associate
Gravity is a harsh mistress
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:17:52 GMT -5
Posts: 5,212
Location: Miles over the madness horizon and accelerating
|
Post by dannylion on Jan 5, 2017 22:01:13 GMT -5
And yet there are people with limited incomes who do manage to save money, move away from places with no opportunities to places with better prospects (even leaving family and friends behind), pursue better jobs, or figure out how to overcome whatever difficulty others see as an impossible obstacle. There are people with limited skills who do decide that the temporary hardship of moving somewhere else or the stress of getting an education or training while holding down a job (or jobs) will not be the end of the world, so they suck it up and do it. There are people who figure out how to increase their income by mowing lawns or walking dogs or doing alterations (sorry for the sewing reference--please don't hate me) or cleaning houses or any number of other ways even if they don't have a lawnmower or a leash or a sewing machine or a broom or whatever. Maybe they're just lucky. Or something.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 5, 2017 22:14:10 GMT -5
I have a guy friend living in Nebraska now. He hates living there but that's where a good paying job was so there he is. Sometimes you have to suck it up to support yourself.
|
|