Datsun1500 wrote: $70K might work in some places, but it won't work in a lot of places.
Well, I disagree. It will work in MOST plasces, but not in some. I mentioned those, and they are extreme outliers IMO.
Also, just throwing it out there, your opinion might be "slightly" biased from what the GRM board knows of you lol. Anything less than $150k/year is probably "solid middle class" living to you from the opinions you've expressed.
I don't think 70k would be very easy in the metro Boston area. Possible, sure, but not easy. And moving further out of the city just makes your commute more and more soul-crushing the further you go.
Datsun1500 wrote: Living here is like living in SF, you hear about a house for sale for $800K and think "well that's cheap, someone should grab it"
I don't know, a typical detached house in either major city here is at least $600k, especially as soon as you move out of the boonies. The difference between $200k to $400k is a lot larger percentage-wise than $600k to $800k is kind of my point. The actual money may be the same, but due to the change in income...
I'm just saying that after $75k, mo money mo problems comes into play then meeting your basic living needs, which is what this is all about at the end of the day (I would think). Sorry if I came off dick-ish. I know at $75k I can afford a $400k mortgage if I REALLY wanted it. So, if you are telling me $400k doesn't buy a place period in any of those spots you have mentioned (and aren't decrepit hell holes), I'll eat my shoe.
I’m a natural born worry wart and I discipline myself to live on half of what I make so I can get to the point where I don’t have to work anymore as quickly as possible. So, fear, rather than an opulent lifestyle, is my motivator to not be at all content with 75K a year.
Military pilots are taught the concept of TOT “Time Over Target” where they’re told that the best way to avoid being blown out of the sky is to minimize how long they spend flying over the enemy.
I apply that basic philosophy to my entire life…what are my objectives - how can I accomplish them in the minimum amount of time possible.
I just wanted to share my thinking as the idea that “75K should be enough for people” at best is only valid if you assume that the 75K can be counted on and I don’t believe that’s at all true.
From a purely statistical point of view, we’re way, way over due for a huge disruption (pandemic, world war, natural disaster – oh my) and I hope everyone respects my right to assign probabilities to those risks and respond accordingly in terms of meeting my personal income expectations.
That "CEO" guy really needs to read Atlas Shrugged. "And the best part is that we won't make any money!"
That's a new one.
"I need at least 250,000 a year in order to prepare for the Apocalypse."
Dr. Hess wrote: That "CEO" guy really needs to read _Atlas Shrugged_. "And the best part is that we won't make any money!"
I'm not sure you can be a millionaire and not have read the capitalist manifesto that is Atlas Shrugged. It's going to come up at parties, I'm sure.
To me the magic number theory is bs. Why stop at 70k? I know I'm happier and have less to worry about with more money.
After six months of business...
Here's What Really Happened at That Company That Set a $70,000 Minimum Wage
The Money Shot if you can't take the time to read this excellent article.
"Six months after Price's announcement, Gravity has defied doubters. Revenue is growing at double the previous rate. Profits have also doubled. Gravity did lose a few customers: Some objected to what seemed like a political statement that put pressure on them to raise their own wages; others feared price hikes or service cutbacks. But media reports suggesting that panicked customers were fleeing have proved false. In fact, Gravity's customer retention rate rose from 91 to 95 percent in the second quarter. Only two employees quit -- a nonevent. Jason Haley isn't one of them. He is still an employee, and a better paid one."
In reply to Xceler8x:
Wow, neat. I am glad that his plan succeeded.
I am glad it seems that all the naysayers have been proven wrong.
Actually
Sorta tangential: Wal Mart announced a whole bunch of raises throughout their organization. And of course they forecast lower profits. Duh. But it seems the bulk of the raises went to new hires and managerial staff, leaving the rank and file a bit pissed off. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-06/an-unintended-consequence-of-wal-mart-pay-raise-unhappy-workers I'm waiting to see how all that shakes out.
yeah … where I worked there were some very marginal employees … (performance/attendance wise) that got raises one yr when there were zero raises … at least for those of us on the floor … lots of rumors about engineering and managerial raises
the reasoning for the "special" raises was to get them more in line with what others were making (actually earning) as opposed to showing up occasionally and having to have most of their work redone … within a yr most of the "special" folk were gone anyway … but it still didn't go over very well
Glad to hear things are going well, but it is much too early to say "the naysayers have been proven wrong".
6 months on a plan that ifully implemented for 3 years is not enough.
But I look forward to the results.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-01/robin-hood-ceo-who-famously-raised-his-employees-minimum-wage-70000-has-dirty-secret
TLDR: His brother, 30% owner, sued him for robbing the company blind. 2 weeks later (AFTER being served) he comes up with this "everyone makes 70K" thing and he's suddenly Mr. Popular.
You'll need to log in to post.
