If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   You're probably never going to be able to retire, so get off Fark and get back to work   (nypost.com) divider line 72
    More: Sad, Fark, Animal Farm, hair colour, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

5418 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Nov 2013 at 7:12 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-19 07:15:06 PM
But if I'm going to work until I die, what incentive do I have to work hard now? Postpone work, not play
 
2013-11-19 07:15:58 PM
Betting against the house is a sure way to financial stability!

/(the stock market is stealing from the blind, you idiots)
 
2013-11-19 07:16:27 PM
The joke is on you; by the time I'm ready to retire, the UN will have put us all into happy fun-time FEMA camps. We'll all be retired, because of the COMMUNISUM.
 
2013-11-19 07:17:09 PM
I just watched that Frontline piece about how IRAs and 401Ks are mathematically designed to cause the loss of 60% of lifetime savings to bank fees.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

I'm actually thinking about taking the hit for cashing out my IRA and just dumping it into my checking account. 0% interest is better than -60%.
 
2013-11-19 07:17:45 PM
Sure, if you plan to buy shiat you don't need.
 
2013-11-19 07:19:34 PM
You mean when you pay people slave wages they can't save for retirement?
 
2013-11-19 07:20:52 PM
Cool! If I can work 'til I'm 80, I won't have to start saving for retirement until I'm 45.
 
2013-11-19 07:21:28 PM
You mean when people are lazy and stupid and don't save and buy bullshiat they don't need?
 
2013-11-19 07:21:37 PM
Good thing there's so many jobs for 75 year olds out there
 
2013-11-19 07:24:18 PM

OneBrightMonkey: I just watched that Frontline piece about how IRAs and 401Ks are mathematically designed to cause the loss of 60% of lifetime savings to bank fees.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

I'm actually thinking about taking the hit for cashing out my IRA and just dumping it into my checking account. 0% interest is better than -60%.


When we re-jiggered our 401ks this year, we picked the index with the lowest annual rate specifically because of that episode of Frontline.
 
2013-11-19 07:25:48 PM
♫♫  Lowered expectaaations.... ♫♫

 Seriously, several million people live on nothing but a social security check.  Suck? Sure.  Starving in the streets.  Not really.  They move in together or with family.  They move to crappy small towns in the midwest where houses go for under $30k (not kidding).

If you want the glossy-magazine retirement, you'd better save.  But, it's not like you're going to work to 80.  As said above:   sandbar67: Good thing there's so many jobs for 75 year olds out there
 
2013-11-19 07:27:12 PM

OneBrightMonkey: I just watched that Frontline piece about how IRAs and 401Ks are mathematically designed to cause the loss of 60% of lifetime savings to bank fees.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

I'm actually thinking about taking the hit for cashing out my IRA and just dumping it into my checking account. 0% interest is better than -60%.


1) Compound interest is a biatch.  Just going from a 5% return to a 4% return (and that's a LOW, LOW 1% fee) is going to cost you 32% of your savings over 40 years.  A high-fee vehicle is even worse.
2) Assuming that 4% return, every dollar you save turns into $4.80 40 years later.  Without the 1% fee, it turns into $7.03.  And your checking account turns it into $1.00.

3) Guess what.  Those pension funds that are driving towns into bankruptcy are doing the same damn thing.  Watch as your tax dollars go to pay Wall Street fees as the underfunded pensions (that are underfunded due to 13th checks, politicians deliberately overpromising for votes, and demographic issues) try to desperately get higher and higher returns though super-high risk (and then fail and ask for MOAR tax money).

/And I'm on record as saying 13th_check?() ? fark_off_and_die() : we_will_try()
 
2013-11-19 07:27:22 PM
I will gain my riches from selling counterfeit viagra around the nursing home. sure, it will be aleve but those old folks have bad eyes.

i'll be rich at last!

and get old mrs. denbrow to take out her dentures for me

oh yes oh yes
 
2013-11-19 07:28:23 PM
Can we just ship old people off to China so they'll be a job opening or two for the rest of us?
 
2013-11-19 07:28:53 PM
My retirement plan has always been 45 with a .45.

fark the golden years.
 
2013-11-19 07:29:03 PM

Lawnchair: Seriously, several million people live on nothing but a social security check. Suck? Sure. Starving in the streets. Not really. They move in together or with family. They move to crappy small towns in the midwest where houses go for under $30k (not kidding).


I'm the youngest sibling and have no kids. Fortunately, I have a cousin 12 years younger than me with whom I have an outstanding relationship. I've already told her that she'll be taking care of me when I'm old. Then she tells me I need to kiss the ass of her five year old son because it'll be him taking care of both of us in 40 years!
 
2013-11-19 07:32:26 PM

Mike Chewbacca: When we re-jiggered our 401ks this year, we picked the index with the lowest annual rate specifically because of that episode of Frontline.


My wonderful administrators decided to replace the TIAA-CREF fund (.46% fee) with one of their own craptastic house funds (.96% fee).  I probably made FMs' heads spin, I moved out so fast.
 
2013-11-19 07:34:14 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: My retirement plan has always been 45 with a .45.

fark the golden years.


cdn.straightfromthea.com
 
2013-11-19 07:35:45 PM

OneBrightMonkey: I just watched that Frontline piece about how IRAs and 401Ks are mathematically designed to cause the loss of 60% of lifetime savings to bank fees.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

I'm actually thinking about taking the hit for cashing out my IRA and just dumping it into my checking account. 0% interest is better than -60%.


I have a 401K. I have put X dollars into it. With company matching and fund performance I have about 3X dollars in there. After fees.

Note that 3X, when X is not equal to 0, is a much larger number than 0.
 
2013-11-19 07:40:20 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: My retirement plan has always been 45 with a .45.

fark the golden years.



44 here.  That's my retirement plan as well.  I don't like the idea of guns though, having lost a few friends that way.  I've got my retirement stash:  A bottle of nitrogen and a scuba mask and regulator.  I haven't really set any specific age yet.  I'm in no hurry.  Now that I know I can retire anytime I want.
 
2013-11-19 07:40:48 PM
www.formiche.net
 
2013-11-19 07:42:39 PM

meyerkev: OneBrightMonkey: I just watched that Frontline piece about how IRAs and 401Ks are mathematically designed to cause the loss of 60% of lifetime savings to bank fees.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

I'm actually thinking about taking the hit for cashing out my IRA and just dumping it into my checking account. 0% interest is better than -60%.

1) Compound interest is a biatch.  Just going from a 5% return to a 4% return (and that's a LOW, LOW 1% fee) is going to cost you 32% of your savings over 40 years.  A high-fee vehicle is even worse.
2) Assuming that 4% return, every dollar you save turns into $4.80 40 years later.  Without the 1% fee, it turns into $7.03.  And your checking account turns it into $1.00.

3) Guess what.  Those pension funds that are driving towns into bankruptcy are doing the same damn thing.  Watch as your tax dollars go to pay Wall Street fees as the underfunded pensions (that are underfunded due to 13th checks, politicians deliberately overpromising for votes, and demographic issues) try to desperately get higher and higher returns though super-high risk (and then fail and ask for MOAR tax money).

/And I'm on record as saying 13th_check?() ? fark_off_and_die() : we_will_try()


Why assume a 4% return? We're going to be at (or near) 0% interest rates for years and the world is clamoring to buy and hold our bonds at no return just for the safety factor.
 
2013-11-19 07:42:47 PM
Obvious tag was too busy working as a greeter for Wal-Mart at the age of 86.
 
2013-11-19 07:45:18 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: My retirement plan has always been 45 with a .45.

fark the golden years.


I've decided to go to Carousel and Renew myself when I've had enough... Or maybe I was going to recycle myself at the Soylent Green plant... Meh... What difference does it make?
 
2013-11-19 07:45:47 PM

BravadoGT: [www.formiche.net image 475x356]


You're an idiot.
 
2013-11-19 07:49:10 PM

Scrotastic Method: OneBrightMonkey: I just watched that Frontline piece about how IRAs and 401Ks are mathematically designed to cause the loss of 60% of lifetime savings to bank fees.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

I'm actually thinking about taking the hit for cashing out my IRA and just dumping it into my checking account. 0% interest is better than -60%.

I have a 401K. I have put X dollars into it. With company matching and fund performance I have about 3X dollars in there. After fees.

Note that 3X, when X is not equal to 0, is a much larger number than 0.


I think the company matching policy is making the difference - my place of work does not offer the same benefit. The larger point made by the Frontline piece (which I encourage you to watch - it's only 53 minutes) is that you are still subject to the whims of 1) the volatility of the market (which is always a given) and 2) the "wisdom" of financial planners, who by and large do as good or worse than a dart board.

We're into one of the great bull market runs ever, but that won't last. I'm not predicting calamity, just a regression towards the mean.
 
2013-11-19 07:49:44 PM
Knew this years ago, have a plan...........no you cannot come along.
 
2013-11-19 07:50:53 PM

phamwaa: Mike Chewbacca: When we re-jiggered our 401ks this year, we picked the index with the lowest annual rate specifically because of that episode of Frontline.

My wonderful administrators decided to replace the TIAA-CREF fund (.46% fee) with one of their own craptastic house funds (.96% fee).  I probably made FMs' heads spin, I moved out so fast.


I just got my first-ever retirement fund in January, at the ripe old age of 26 (I'm 27 now), and it's a TIAA-CREF. So far, so good. I showed it to my mom (just turned 64), and she was jealous.
 
2013-11-19 07:51:18 PM

meyerkev: OneBrightMonkey: I just watched that Frontline piece about how IRAs and 401Ks are mathematically designed to cause the loss of 60% of lifetime savings to bank fees.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

I'm actually thinking about taking the hit for cashing out my IRA and just dumping it into my checking account. 0% interest is better than -60%.

1) Compound interest is a biatch.  Just going from a 5% return to a 4% return (and that's a LOW, LOW 1% fee) is going to cost you 32% of your savings over 40 years.  A high-fee vehicle is even worse.
2) Assuming that 4% return, every dollar you save turns into $4.80 40 years later.  Without the 1% fee, it turns into $7.03.  And your checking account turns it into $1.00.

3) Guess what.  Those pension funds that are driving towns into bankruptcy are doing the same damn thing.  Watch as your tax dollars go to pay Wall Street fees as the underfunded pensions (that are underfunded due to 13th checks, politicians deliberately overpromising for votes, and demographic issues) try to desperately get higher and higher returns though super-high risk (and then fail and ask for MOAR tax money).

/And I'm on record as saying 13th_check?() ? fark_off_and_die() : we_will_try()


Just inherited my mother's 403B (university) retirement account.
Cashing it in meant a 20% tax hit and the rest added as income (also taxable)

I rolled it over into an inherited account and ignored any promise of future payouts - I'll be happy if it's there when we "retire". Her 15 years of savings in that account plus a minimum of 15 years "no touchie" will come out to a "cat food - but kibble only" grocery option.
 
2013-11-19 07:53:03 PM

OneBrightMonkey: I just watched that Frontline piece about how IRAs and 401Ks are mathematically designed to cause the loss of 60% of lifetime savings to bank fees.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

I'm actually thinking about taking the hit for cashing out my IRA and just dumping it into my checking account. 0% interest is better than -60%.


I think you are not understanding the math. First of all, it's 50% loss, not 60%. Second of all, the two scenarios they are comparing are:

1) 7% average return with a 2% annual fee
2) 7% average return with a 0% annual fee

The scenario you are proposing is:

3) 0% average return with a 0% annual fee

Suppose you contribute $500 a month for 50 years. Your returns would be:

1) $1,176,890
2) $2,439,174
3) $300,000

So as you can see from that, while you are losing a lot of money to the fees, you are still gaining a far higher return than you would with bank interest (0% and unlikely to change any time soon).
 
2013-11-19 07:53:56 PM

OneBrightMonkey: Scrotastic Method: OneBrightMonkey: I just watched that Frontline piece about how IRAs and 401Ks are mathematically designed to cause the loss of 60% of lifetime savings to bank fees.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

I'm actually thinking about taking the hit for cashing out my IRA and just dumping it into my checking account. 0% interest is better than -60%.

I have a 401K. I have put X dollars into it. With company matching and fund performance I have about 3X dollars in there. After fees.

Note that 3X, when X is not equal to 0, is a much larger number than 0.

I think the company matching policy is making the difference - my place of work does not offer the same benefit. The larger point made by the Frontline piece (which I encourage you to watch - it's only 53 minutes) is that you are still subject to the whims of 1) the volatility of the market (which is always a given) and 2) the "wisdom" of financial planners, who by and large do as good or worse than a dart board.

We're into one of the great bull market runs ever, but that won't last. I'm not predicting calamity, just a regression towards the mean.


I agree, they're certainly not perfect, and the volatility is scary -- I guess we just have to wait for the Dow to hit like 40,000 in 2050 and then cash out before the hoverbike bubble bursts or whatever the hell is going to go wrong.
 
2013-11-19 07:58:30 PM
These cigarettes are my retirement plan. Screw old age, I'll keep going til the cancer hits and then just end it the easy way.
 
2013-11-19 07:58:54 PM
I will not.
 
2013-11-19 08:02:56 PM

LedLawless: Obvious tag was too busy working as a greeter for Wal-Mart at the age of 86.


media.tumblr.com

"Welcome to Wal-Mart. Get your shiat and get out."
 
2013-11-19 08:03:11 PM

Enigmamf: OneBrightMonkey: I just watched that Frontline piece about how IRAs and 401Ks are mathematically designed to cause the loss of 60% of lifetime savings to bank fees.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

I'm actually thinking about taking the hit for cashing out my IRA and just dumping it into my checking account. 0% interest is better than -60%.

I think you are not understanding the math. First of all, it's 50% loss, not 60%. Second of all, the two scenarios they are comparing are:

1) 7% average return with a 2% annual fee
2) 7% average return with a 0% annual fee

The scenario you are proposing is:

3) 0% average return with a 0% annual fee

Suppose you contribute $500 a month for 50 years. Your returns would be:

1) $1,176,890
2) $2,439,174
3) $300,000

So as you can see from that, while you are losing a lot of money to the fees, you are still gaining a far higher return than you would with bank interest (0% and unlikely to change any time soon).


Where are you getting 7% returns?
 
2013-11-19 08:03:29 PM

OneBrightMonkey: Why assume a 4% return? We're going to be at (or near) 0% interest rates for years and the world is clamoring to buy and hold our bonds at no return just for the safety factor.


Just pulling a number out of my ass to make a point.  And the returns ARE usually positive.  If you're in the stock market right now, QE is doing wonderful things and you're WELL above where you were in 2009 during the crash (Of course, since inflation is going to be a biatch for the next little bit because of QE, you're probably breaking even, but still).

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/04/the_dumbest_economic_collapse .h tml
 
2013-11-19 08:06:02 PM

meyerkev: OneBrightMonkey: Why assume a 4% return? We're going to be at (or near) 0% interest rates for years and the world is clamoring to buy and hold our bonds at no return just for the safety factor.

Just pulling a number out of my ass to make a point.  And the returns ARE usually positive.  If you're in the stock market right now, QE is doing wonderful things and you're WELL above where you were in 2009 during the crash (Of course, since inflation is going to be a biatch for the next little bit because of QE, you're probably breaking even, but still).

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/04/the_dumbest_economic_collapse .h tml


Yeah, looking back on DJIA, if you put all your money in the first time it broke 14000, you've made about 3% returns.
 
2013-11-19 08:07:30 PM

frak21: Ego edo infantia cattus: My retirement plan has always been 45 with a .45.

fark the golden years.


44 here.  That's my retirement plan as well.  I don't like the idea of guns though, having lost a few friends that way.  I've got my retirement stash:  A bottle of nitrogen and a scuba mask and regulator.  I haven't really set any specific age yet.  I'm in no hurry.  Now that I know I can retire anytime I want.


Well this thread got weird fast
 
2013-11-19 08:08:16 PM
I'm mid-twenties and I know my retirement will consist of blowing my brains out.

I do plan on putting a quarter on a string to spite the booths, a la Bender
 
2013-11-19 08:11:53 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'm mid-twenties and I know my retirement will consist of blowing my brains out.


*snerk* My dyslexia was acting up and I read that as "bowling my brains out".
 
2013-11-19 08:14:23 PM

Propain_az: You mean when people are lazy and stupid and don't save and buy bullshiat they don't need?


Yeah, bullshiat like food, water, transportation, and housing.  All frivolous spending by dumbass welfare queens.

I mean, refrigerators! What kind of frugal family has refrigerators?
 
2013-11-19 08:20:11 PM

OneBrightMonkey: Enigmamf: OneBrightMonkey: I just watched that Frontline piece about how IRAs and 401Ks are mathematically designed to cause the loss of 60% of lifetime savings to bank fees.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

I'm actually thinking about taking the hit for cashing out my IRA and just dumping it into my checking account. 0% interest is better than -60%.

I think you are not understanding the math. First of all, it's 50% loss, not 60%. Second of all, the two scenarios they are comparing are:

1) 7% average return with a 2% annual fee
2) 7% average return with a 0% annual fee

The scenario you are proposing is:

3) 0% average return with a 0% annual fee

Suppose you contribute $500 a month for 50 years. Your returns would be:

1) $1,176,890
2) $2,439,174
3) $300,000

So as you can see from that, while you are losing a lot of money to the fees, you are still gaining a far higher return than you would with bank interest (0% and unlikely to change any time soon).

Where are you getting 7% returns?


My Vanguard Mid-Cap Index fund (annual expense ration of .08%) has earned a 27.98% return in the last year, 17.15% average annual returns over the last three years and 10.63% average annual returns over the last ten years.

And it's just an index fund, nothing fancy.
 
2013-11-19 08:21:26 PM
Scratch "probably".
 
2013-11-19 08:22:39 PM

Danger Avoid Death: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'm mid-twenties and I know my retirement will consist of blowing my brains out.

*snerk* My dyslexia was acting up and I read that as "bowling my brains out".


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-19 08:24:45 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'm mid-twenties and I know my retirement will consist of blowing my brains out.

I do plan on putting a quarter on a string to spite the booths, a la Bender


So what do you do?

Actually, don't tell me.  Just answer these questions:

1) Can I ship it off to China?
1b) When I ship it off to China, will it result in giant bundles of shiat and can you get a job fixing the giant bundles of shiat (aka: The software engineer paradox)?
2) Can I replace it easily with a computer?
3) Can you say "Fark this" to your current boss and turn it into a business that you own? (Colbert works for the company and makes $1 Million.  Stewart owns the company and makes $25 Million, IIRC)
4) Are you learning interesting skills so that when #1,#2, and #3 catch up with you, you can go change industries and do something else, preferably for more money?
5) Given that all the manufacturing jobs are going away, are you in an industry that's about to be flooded with unskilled labor desperate for any job at any price?

/Grandpa started out making $1.15/hour, and at his last job before retirement was offered "an extra $100K" to stay on.  And the tone he was using (and the house we were standing in) said that he was getting more than 1 $100K to begin with.
//Uncle was a cheap bastard and now owns 3 houses and 8 cars as a retired teacher.
///Other uncle was a mover, went to night school in his 30's, and became a HIGH muckity-muck at one of the Big 3.
////Mom lost her job and then married a doctor allowing her to "retire" at 52.
//Life has a way of working out.
 
2013-11-19 08:25:16 PM

OneBrightMonkey: Enigmamf: OneBrightMonkey: I just watched that Frontline piece about how IRAs and 401Ks are mathematically designed to cause the loss of 60% of lifetime savings to bank fees.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

I'm actually thinking about taking the hit for cashing out my IRA and just dumping it into my checking account. 0% interest is better than -60%.

I think you are not understanding the math. First of all, it's 50% loss, not 60%. Second of all, the two scenarios they are comparing are:

1) 7% average return with a 2% annual fee
2) 7% average return with a 0% annual fee

The scenario you are proposing is:

3) 0% average return with a 0% annual fee

Suppose you contribute $500 a month for 50 years. Your returns would be:

1) $1,176,890
2) $2,439,174
3) $300,000

So as you can see from that, while you are losing a lot of money to the fees, you are still gaining a far higher return than you would with bank interest (0% and unlikely to change any time soon).

Where are you getting 7% returns?


One of the articles I read from the link you sent used those assumptions, though I can't find which one again. It's pretty standard to assume that the long-term average return from the US equity markets will be 7% (which is actually a more conservative, reduced estimate: before the dot-com bust and the rise of individual retirement accounts, one assumed 9% return long term, which happens to match the S&P's current 20 year average annualized return).
 
2013-11-19 08:25:36 PM

OneBrightMonkey: Scrotastic Method: OneBrightMonkey: I just watched that Frontline piece about how IRAs and 401Ks are mathematically designed to cause the loss of 60% of lifetime savings to bank fees.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

I'm actually thinking about taking the hit for cashing out my IRA and just dumping it into my checking account. 0% interest is better than -60%.

I have a 401K. I have put X dollars into it. With company matching and fund performance I have about 3X dollars in there. After fees.

Note that 3X, when X is not equal to 0, is a much larger number than 0.

I think the company matching policy is making the difference - my place of work does not offer the same benefit. The larger point made by the Frontline piece (which I encourage you to watch - it's only 53 minutes) is that you are still subject to the whims of 1) the volatility of the market (which is always a given) and 2) the "wisdom" of financial planners, who by and large do as good or worse than a dart board.

We're into one of the great bull market runs ever, but that won't last. I'm not predicting calamity, just a regression towards the mean.


Yeah, company match and profit share can build it up. I lucked out a little from gambling with the 401K; since 2008 I've had a little over 35% total return, (a bit over 7%/yr average). Of course to do this I was putting in upwards of 25% of my pay in when the market was crashing - It's really tough to go on month after month watching 25% of your cash not only go away, but actually watch the total drop when the market was really bad, (I'd put $1400 in and the total value would drop $1800.) On the upside, when the price went up I was on cloud nine. The fund managers rate of return for the same period? A little less than 2%. The company was pretty good about offering cheap funds - fee's range between .2 and .46; they actually dropped one that went up. There are people out there charging 2% - Man, that's gotta hurt.

Lately? Returns have been teetering like they could crash at any time, but are still holding their ~1.5%. 1.5%? I would rather just early withdraw and take the penalty. I'd really only be losing about 3% and the peace of mind would be worth it. I could pay the house off and practice living on SS.
 
2013-11-19 08:35:08 PM
In the interest of not thread spamming I would reply to the those who have responded to me that I'm the quintessential, "Average Joe" investor that thinks it reasonable that a prudent and conservative investment strategy is still possible.

Just keep my returns ahead of inflation so that I'm gaining in the race and I'm fine.

I try to be a responsible and educated citizen and I can't simply ignore what I hear about the usury of the financial services industry.
 
2013-11-19 08:42:07 PM

meyerkev: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'm mid-twenties and I know my retirement will consist of blowing my brains out.

I do plan on putting a quarter on a string to spite the booths, a la Bender

So what do you do?

Actually, don't tell me.  Just answer these questions:

1) Can I ship it off to China?
1b) When I ship it off to China, will it result in giant bundles of shiat and can you get a job fixing the giant bundles of shiat (aka: The software engineer paradox)?
2) Can I replace it easily with a computer?
3) Can you say "Fark this" to your current boss and turn it into a business that you own? (Colbert works for the company and makes $1 Million.  Stewart owns the company and makes $25 Million, IIRC)
4) Are you learning interesting skills so that when #1,#2, and #3 catch up with you, you can go change industries and do something else, preferably for more money?
5) Given that all the manufacturing jobs are going away, are you in an industry that's about to be flooded with unskilled labor desperate for any job at any price?


I'm an accountant who does lien processing and insurance verification for auto loans.

1. You can try, but good luck getting issues fixed because salesguys don't do paperwork and customers are idiots
2. Most of my job is automated. The part you can't automate is human intuition and problem solving - again, garbage in - garbage out
3. I'm on track to get promoted. My boss is the owner of the company and my supervisor is looking to fill that spot and I would take his spot, meaning I'd be a certified dealer agent and could eventually go out if I had the capital
4. I'm an accountant and I do IT work because the magic beepy boxes are scary. Payroll, tax prep, inventory management, debt collections, and contract work are part of my job.
5. There's a chance for foreign labor coming in and undercutting accountant wages, but I'm a white dude in the Midwest. There's a natural racism factor that still gives me a competitive advantage until I leave. Why would I change that until I have enough experience to not be entry level?

Just because I have a damn good job in my field, that pays well enough for me to survive in a low cost area doesn't mean that I'm ignorant about the future. I'm in my mid twenties, health costs for me consist of dental/eye appointments, a flu shot, and a physical. I can budget $500 for the year and still come in under cost. That will not last forever. I don't believe this job would pay enough to survive on retirement, so I have to save and consider the possibility in my original comment.
 
2013-11-19 08:43:34 PM
That will only be true as long as we lack the political will to change it.
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report