No. of Recommendations: 0
That’s a really weird blog entry. Color me suspicious with all of the product references....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 51
In addition to being incredibly conservative, the 4% rule does not consider other sources of income you have and the timing of when each source begins.

It does if you consider them. It's not difficult to calculate your required withdrawal for living expenses beyond your guaranteed retirement income streams.

For example, some may retire at age 60, but not have access to Social Security or a pension until a few years later. Why scrimp by only withdrawing 4% of your portfolio while waiting for Social Security?

I think one reason why people do not tend to include future SS benefits in their planning is because . . . Republicans seem to want to take it away. When I see Trump and his 40% of US voters who support him acting like a mob with pitchforks burning down our government institutions so that Trump can get another tower with his name on it, I worry about the future of SS too.

Stupid people have taken over the government and they seem determined to prove just how stupid they are.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
The 4% rule is a very simple rule of thumb. Expecting sophisticated analysis from a single digit guideline is a flaw of the reader not a flaw of the guideline.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Jonathon: "The 4% rule is a very simple rule of thumb. Expecting sophisticated analysis from a single digit guideline is a flaw of the reader not a flaw of the guideline. "

That guideline is what you can withdraw safely for 30 years from a portfolio. It does not include SS, annuity, pensions, or other sources of income a retiree may have.

- -- --





SG:"I think one reason why people do not tend to include future SS benefits in their planning is because"

Well, if you look at the demographics....in 1960s there were 10 people working for every SS receipient. By the 1990s, it was down to 3-4 workers per retiree

Now it is 2.9 workers for everyone receiving SS benefits. THink about that for a while. If you are working, all your SS you pay in go out immediately to fund someone's SS income - well, if you are average. If you are high earner, you max out and pay a bit more......remember, a lot of folks are making $20,000 to $50,000 and their SS contributions aren't all that great.


https://www.mercatus.org/publication/how-many-workers-suppor...

As this trend continues, with 10 million baby boomers retiring, with more and more (millions) added to 'social security disability' rolls.....soon it will be approaching 2 workers per retiree/beneficiary.

There is no lock box filled with magic money. It's filled with IOUs, and the government will have to borrow trillions more to pay those IOUs off to pay for benefits for a while. For just a while.

In 30 years, there won't be money to pay SS like today. Half? Means tested so only 'low income' folks get them? Folks who didn't save?

Yeah, if I were 20, or 30, or maybe even 40, I wouldn't be counting on SS to be around when I retired at the new age of 70 or 75 or 77 when I got there.


t.








SSG:" When I see Trump and his 40% of US voters who support him acting like a mob with pitchforks burning down our government institutions so that Trump can get another tower with his name on it, I worry about the future of SS too."

Oh, wealth envy? Or just partisan hatred? A lot of government institutions should likely be totally dismantled, privatized (like the PO - and completely), done away with, 'sunset' , etc. We have 100 departments with 'poverty programs' and give aways. We have commissions that haven't met in 20 years but get allocations. A good portion of the government should be eliminated.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/16/what...


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
telegraph:


SG:"I think one reason why people do not tend to include future SS benefits in their planning is because"

"Well, if you look at the demographics....in 1960s there were 10 people working for every SS receipient. By the 1990s, it was down to 3-4 workers per retiree

Now it is 2.9 workers for everyone receiving SS benefits. Think about that for a while. If you are working, all your SS you pay in go out immediately to fund someone's SS income - well, if you are average. If you are high earner, you max out and pay a bit more......remember, a lot of folks are making $20,000 to $50,000 and their SS contributions aren't all that great.

There is no lock box filled with magic money. It's filled with IOUs, and the government will have to borrow trillions more to pay those IOUs off to pay for benefits for a while. For just a while. "


SS was pay as you go from inception until 1983; in other words, there was never a lockbox. Only since 1983 has SS revenue be sufficiently in excess to buy other government paper ("the 'IOU's' your reference").

Regards, JAFO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
In addition to being incredibly conservative, the 4% rule does not consider other sources of income you have and the timing of when each source begins. For example, some may retire at age 60, but not have access to Social Security or a pension until a few years later. Why scrimp by only withdrawing 4% of your portfolio while waiting for Social Security?

How can it NOT consider any other sources of income you have if you calculate them? For example, if you need $80K, and get a $30K pension and $35K SS benefit, you need another $15K. That can come from rent on an apartment building you own, or 4% of your portfolio, or something else.

If you want to retire at age 60 but will wait until, say, age 67 to get full SS benefits, you might want to put $245K (35x7) in bonds to spend down as SS "replacement" until FRA, and withdraw 4% of the portfolio that excludes the $245K set aside to be spent over the next seven years.

When one spouse dies, the survivor will get reduced SS. Many pensions have reduced benefit for survivor when the survivor isn't the one getting the pension. There should be some reduced expenses for the survivor, but it's easy to see that being more than offset by the reduced income. I bring all that up to point out the the 4% SWR doesn't account for that stuff either...and how could it? But you can set up a spreadsheet or some other kind of analysis to assess the withdrawal needed for different assumptions and see if those numbers are reasonable.

I heard on the radio that you can count on a 6% return from a such-and-such portfolio, so drawing 6% means you never even touch the principal. Good luck if you believe that! And it may be that some people even retire at just the right time that it turns out that they really get a 6% rate...but you'd better not count on it.

My secondary goal is to leave some money to my kids after my wife and I are gone. But my biggest goal is to not run out of money. Working an extra year during my peak earning years is better than finding out at age 70 that I'm on too steep of a glide path, and that I need to earn money when my health and earning ability aren't as good. Years down the road, someone may see that he/she/they have TOO MUCH money. Although they could have retired a bit earlier, they couldn't have know it at that time. But that extra work has resulted in an excess wad of money. They can splurge on one of those vacations where the grandparents buy everyone's tickets, or they can endow a scholarship, or whatever. As much as I don't want to work lots longer than necessary, I REALLY don't want to leave working for pay too soon and have to make up ground later. So if using the 4% is too conservative, I'll have to dry my tears with $100 bills some day. It's not like you have to sign a paper saying you'll only spend $X per year...when you find you have more than the worst case analysis predicted, you can spend more.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Whether I agree or disagree, this political comment is really likely to create a flame war in a place where politics don't belong. It already has way more recs than other things in the thread...

Please let's not let RI go the way of other boards.

ThyPeace, yes, I reported it. Sorry.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Whether I agree or disagree...

Apparently you’re the only one with a major problem as this DID NOT start a flame war, it is over a week and a half old and, despite have a lot of recs, was otherwise being ignored. All you’ve done is gone into hysterics where other people have moved on and ignored SG’s jeremiad.

It was a dead parrot.

CLF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"
It was a dead parrot.

CLF "

********************************************

Are you sure it wasn't just pining?

Howie52
Lovely plumage though.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Rec if only for the dead parrot reference. Hallelujah!

"If you hadn't nailed him to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!"
"This is an ex parrot!!"

"If you want to get anything done in this country you've got to argue until you're blue in the mouth."

FC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Are you sure it wasn’t just pining?

Nope. I’ve seen pining Norwegian Blues in the wild. Trust me on this when I say they’re not covered with maggots and smelling of decomp.

Instead, they sing of lumberjacking, cross-dressing and hanging out in bars.

CLF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Liberals who believe that pretending Trump and his supporters have a valid point when they use fake news and alternative facts to rationalize the terrible things they are doing to our government are complicit in the act.

Please stop believing that you have the moral authority to police the boards. That would seem to be as arrogant an act as Trump believing that he has the authority to police the press.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"Liberals who believe that pretending Trump and his supporters have a valid point when they use fake news and alternative facts to rationalize the terrible things they are doing to our government are complicit in the act. "

*************************************************

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Howie52
Who suggests those who thrive on political diatribes really need
some quality time in a nice comfy chair.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Howie52
Who suggests those who thrive on political diatribes really need
some quality time in a nice comfy chair.

**********************************

Not only the comfy chair -- but soft cushions too.

culcha
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Liberals who believe .....

Why, why, why? TP had already been chastised and an attempt had been made to defang the whole thing.

You could have just sung of the joys of cutting down trees, wearing women’s clothing and hanging out in bars. Now all you’ve done is make the Norwegian Blue a character in a zombie movie.

CLF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Why, why, why?

Because ThyPeace has apparently taken it on herself to police my posts. This is not the first and as was mentioned, it was already a dead thread. Her preaching to me is slightly insulting - especially on a post like the one she targeted which was really factual. It just used blunt language . . . you know . . . the kind you hear from adults in many places in life.

Your further preaching just places you in the same boat. Why? Why? Why? are you adding to this? What vested interest do you have in defending or attacking either of the posts? Isn't it true ThyPeace nailed your head to a coffee table?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
By the way, ThyPeace. Thank-you for spotlighting this post. I have been traveling for a few weeks and had forgotten all about it. In case people forgot, here's what is posted upthread:
_________________________________
In addition to being incredibly conservative, the 4% rule does not consider other sources of income you have and the timing of when each source begins.

It does if you consider them. It's not difficult to calculate your required withdrawal for living expenses beyond your guaranteed retirement income streams.

For example, some may retire at age 60, but not have access to Social Security or a pension until a few years later. Why scrimp by only withdrawing 4% of your portfolio while waiting for Social Security?

I think one reason why people do not tend to include future SS benefits in their planning is because . . . Republicans seem to want to take it away. When I see Trump and his 40% of US voters who support him acting like a mob with pitchforks burning down our government institutions so that Trump can get another tower with his name on it, I worry about the future of SS too.

Stupid people have taken over the government and they seem determined to prove just how stupid they are.
_______________________________

I think the answer is very legitimate and important to understand. There are lot's of investors who don't consider SS benefits in their retirement calculations because they don't want to depend on them until they are actually showing up as real payments. There is perceived risk that the investor has very little control over in counting on this program. There is no shortage of politicians who have indicated they would like to reduce benefits, tax benefits more, or shut the program down completely. I think nearly all of those politicians are GOP. Voters who support this party are placing their own benefits in greater risk and getting nothing in return. Yet this same party has taken control of all branches of the federal government. You may not like the word "stupid" used to describe this behavior, but it seems pretty accurate to me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Actually, a dead parrot remains dead.

Nailed to the perch.

Howie52

Note that this is not complimentary - to the parrot or the
seller of the same old approaches to sales.

Being absurd is fun and so is sarcasm - not recognizing that the
coin of the absurd has two sides tends to be a bit sadder when one
takes the time to ponder.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Note that this is not complimentary - to the parrot or the
seller of the same old approaches to sales.

Being absurd is fun and so is sarcasm - not recognizing that the
coin of the absurd has two sides tends to be a bit sadder when one
takes the time to ponder.


-------------------

To cryptic for me...

To some extent, all posting on these boards is performance art. Posters combine visual descriptions with dramatic performance. Many posters have specific voices and approaches - some unique, some not so much. Sometimes the art is recognized and appreciated by others, sometimes not so much. Some of the art has a serious message on a serious topic. Some of it is intended as humor. There are a few posters who engage in vandalism of the art of other posters, but that can backfire on them.

Some posters create very little art but seem to have decided to take on a roll of art critic. So here are some of my favorite quotes about art critics:

The artist is the only one qualified to criticize his art, because only the artist knows what he was trying to express and how satisfied he is with the attempt.

Focus on critics of your own generation. The geezers can’t do much for you.

Hold on and never, ever, think of the market [rec count?] in your studios [posts].

The critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
sg: I think the answer is very legitimate and important to understand. There are lot's of investors who don't consider SS benefits in their retirement calculations because they don't want to depend on them until they are actually showing up as real payments.

I go one step further. I calculate the present value of my SS and any pensions and add them as a "footnote" to my "current value". Sort of a "feel good" exercise.

CNC
... "lot's"? What's a "lot's"?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What's a "lot's"?

Ahhhhhh . . . look for the hidden existential meaning in that particular "'". This was an important action post representing many layers of social upheaval and . . .

Ohhhh, nevermind. Clearly a dumb typo.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
... "lot's"? What's a "lot's"?

His wife became a pillar of salt. I thought everybody knew that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
His wife became a pillar of salt.

Then his daughters got him drunk and had sex with him. Lot was the head of a seriously dysfunctional family.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3...



CLF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I think one reason why people do not tend to include future SS benefits in their planning is because . . . Republicans seem to want to take it away. When I see Trump and his 40% of US voters who support him acting like a mob with pitchforks burning down our government institutions so that Trump can get another tower with his name on it, I worry about the future of SS too.

Stupid people have taken over the government and they seem determined to prove just how stupid they are.

...

I think the answer is very legitimate and important to understand. There are lot's of investors who don't consider SS benefits in their retirement calculations because they don't want to depend on them until they are actually showing up as real payments.


I think the message is important, concerns over the viability of SS, but the political delivery weakens it considerably and is unnecessary. Before the Republican party got taken over by the party of Trump, it was the closest fit for me, though I am not a social conservative but a fiscal conservative. Sadly, I no longer have a party. That said, I used to believe it would be the Nanny State that would set up SS for means testing and eliminate our access to it because we had scrimped and saved and invested to a point where we no longer were dependent on it. It is likely to go for those of us who have prepared and it will be both parties that do this because they are too scared and too inept to take action soon enough to save the program. There are no longer two parties IMO, just a bunch of self interested politicians who will do whatever it takes to keep power. They are all Trump in varying degrees, with possibly a few OK people in there who are quickly becoming disillusioned and either quitting or retrenching for some future date when the odds are not completely against them.

We are not counting on SS, but will certainly not turn it away.

IP,
finding it very hard to plan for the future when the gov't constantly changes the rules of the game, but realizing that is how they keep us dependent
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
His wife became a pillar of salt. I thought everybody knew that.

There are those who have a different view.

I'm reminded of Paul Lynde's answer on the old Hollywood Squares game show: when the host asked Paul, "what did Lot's wife change into when she looked back on the evil cities of Sodom and Gomorrah," he responded, "a leather jumpsuit."

Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
finding it very hard to plan for the future when the gov't constantly changes the rules of the game, but realizing that is how they keep us dependent

Even this is something of a political statement of a real issue. The rules of the game do indeed keep changing, but it is not just the government that changes them.

When I started working, the story was that I should get a job with a company that had a pension. I did that. Then I changed jobs for a variety of reasons, including a pension that would be better by the time I retired. 5 years later, my new employer froze the pension at the amounts earned to that date, plus a 20% kicker. I now collect that pension, which is based on 6 years of employment (I worked there almost 25 years) and the average of my three highest years' salary through 1996. No adjustment for inflation, but inflation adjustments were never part of the pension game.

When my employer had the meeting telling us the pension would be frozen, I went back to my desk and went online (internet was new, back then) to change my 401(k) contribution to 16%. At the time, 16% was the max contribution allowed by the plan. Other employees asked, "How can you afford to contribute 16% to your 401(k)?" My stock response was, "How can I afford *not* to?"

So . . . today, people my daughter's age (low 30s) say Social Security will go away before they ever collect it. Guess what? People my age said the same thing when I was in my 20s and 30s. The game has changed, and the biggest changes aren't things that I could have anticipated. Some of the changes come from the government, some don't. Some have been detrimental to me, some have been beneficial to me; but we don't seem to talk about the beneficial changes. (Roth IRAs, anyone? Then back door contributions for higher income people? Both those things came from the government.) But whether the changes are good, bad, or just changes; whether they come from the government, private industry, or simply a changing economy; I have to deal with all of them. That's how the game is played.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"When I started working, the story was that I should get a job with a company that had a pension. I did that."

Way back when, when I first started working, I had a job that had a pension - and other benefits like tuition help, .....but like many pension plans back then, you had to have years of vesting to get into the pension plan......and that company, later I learned, had 'hire and fire cycles' for engineers - get the product line design, and half the people or more went out the door. Me included.

Second company was GE. Worked for them 12 1/2 years - qualified for 11 years of pension.....then went on to work for another company. Decided to keep my pension money in their plan (could have taken a distribution, but no where to roll it over to at that time. 401Ks hadn't started (1983 when I left - got nuked by Neutron Jack of GE when he shut down 2/3rds of engineering in Mobile Radio.

So it was off to another company for 17 years. They had a pension plan when I got there, but around 1990, the tax laws changed, and they converted to a 401K. For folks meeting a certain formula (age plus years of service >= 55, you could stay in the pension plan. I missed it by 2 years) they could remain in and get yearly credits. So I had my 'pension credits' rolled over into a 401K. If you did get a pension from this company, they would buy an annuity in the month you retired. No inflation, no nothing.

Left there after 17 years - retired early at 52.5

The GE pension could be left there until 60, when it no longer earned any benefits. It was based, naturally, upon salary of last year and years of credits. Wasn't all that much in actual 'cash value' they would have given me so let it sit until 60. Then took it at 60 as it wouldn't go up any, and it wasn't inflation protected.

My dad retired from Ma Bell with 44 years of service. He started at age 16, and had 3 years credited for service during WW2. Received 44% of his last year's salary and he received a nice 'promotion' the last year as a kicker.

- -----


"So . . . today, people my daughter's age (low 30s) say Social Security will go away before they ever collect it. Guess what? People my age said the same thing when I was in my 20s and 30s. The game has changed, and the biggest changes aren't things that I could have anticipated."

If you look at the number of workers supporting each retiree, and the increase in lifespan of retirees, the problem is obvious.

THere isn't enough money to pay for all the promises, and as 'liberals' load more and more onto SS Disability rolls, it gets even worse. Now folks collect for 30-40-50-60 years.

Without significant increases, there won't be money to pay for it all.

Worse, now SS is 'dipping into the IOUs'. Which means, of course, the government has to BORROW money to pay back those IOUs running up the national debt so it can pay current retirees.

I am quite sure there will be some 'means testing' in the future. THose who save will be penalized. Those who don't will still get their 'normal' SS.

- - ----

So folks BETTER save if they want more than 'low level' retirement.

Most companies don't have pensions.

Even new hires at 'government jobs' are now often looking at 401Ks.

The days when you even spend 10-20 years at a company are likely long gone. Even in the old days, 70% of retirees DID NOT HAVE pensions. They either worked for themselves, farmed, worked part time, worked for small businesses, partnerships, etc.

Here...well, SS and my teeny GE pension pay about 80% of my basic living expenses. I'm LBYM, so I don't blow a lot of money. House was long ago paid for. No income taxes in TX. With my mandatory IRA RMDs, I'm more than happy without having to touch the 'nest egg' other than collect dividends and interest.

All I can say to Millennials is INVEST on your own. 401K and mutual funds.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
today, people my daughter's age (low 30s) say Social Security will go away before they ever collect it. Guess what? People my age said the same thing when I was in my 20s and 30s.


A guy jumped off the top of the Empire State Building. As he passed the 5th floor he was heard to say "So far, so good!"
Math is incontrovertible. What cannot go on forever...won't.

As Hemingway wrote: “How did you go bankrupt?"
"Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”



The game has changed, and the biggest changes aren't things that I could have anticipated.
Of course. The future is always hard to predict.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I agree, the big changes aren't the ones we anticipate. I also thought there was a risk SS might be gone by the time I retired. Instead it was half my expected pension that disappeared. Fortunately I'd invested well. While I miss that significant lost pension benefit, I've been enjoying retirement for 18 years and will likely make it to my goal of living to 100 without financial difficulty.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
The game has changed, and the biggest changes aren't things that I could have anticipated.


Well . . . sure. If you could anticipate them, then you would have planned for them, so they wouldn't be big changes.

But this reminds me of when I hear people respond to someone who has experienced something bad with, "Who ever told you the world was going to be fair?"

That's not really relevant to anything. No one ever said the world would be fair, but that sure as heck doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for fairness. Nothing in the world can ever improve if you simply shrug off every unfair event and change with acceptance "because no one ever said the world would be fair".

Social Security is a program that keeps over half of the elderly in the US from living below the poverty level. Losing it is a very big change - much bigger than what any single corporation will do with their pensions. And the government we elect can make it better, keep it solvent, reduce its effectiveness, or destroy it. It matters if we place a Party in power that wants to destroy it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I also thought there was a risk SS might be gone by the time I retired. Instead it was half my expected pension that disappeared.

We don't count on our pensions either, other than the ones we already took the lump sum for and rolled into a TIRA. We figure between SS and Pension we'll get at least 50%, but not counting on it.

The thing that kills me are the unintended consequences to regulations. Medicare was a great idea for many but it let companies off the hook for retiree health care. Most companies no longer offer it and those that do phase it out when the employee hits 65. That's going to leave me scrambling for health care for 4 years in about 10 years with who knows what sort of pre-existing conditions that may now not get covered, even though I've never been without health care coverage. Of course they are still charging us the extra taxes on investments that were supposed to go towards helping to pay for the ACA.

May wind up working part time at the wine section of Wegmans when I turn 61 so I can get coverage. Either way it's a great excuse to continue researching all the wines.

IP,
sipping on a very nice Cabernet Sauvignon at the moment
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Social Security is a program that keeps over half of the elderly in the US from living below the poverty level. Losing it is a very big change ...

It will never be eliminated for the grasshoppers. Too many of them and they are part of the demographic that votes. But the Ants having prepared on their own will have it means tested away.

Our oldest is already paying max SS right out of college. We've have had the frank discussion about our thoughts on others providing for retirement via SS and pensions and have encouraged him to be over prepared. At 23 he is already maxing out his 401K, Roth IRA and investing additional funds. Definitely a good area for redundancy.

IP,
wondering frankly when the changes will be made to make taxes on Roth accounts a thing
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Our oldest is already paying max SS right out of college
——————————-
Really? What does he do?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 19
IP: "Medicare was a great idea for many but it let companies off the hook for retiree health care. Most companies no longer offer it and those that do phase it out when the employee hits 65."

Is that true? My understanding was that less than half of retirees over 65 had health insurance prior to 1965. This is just a random cite I found, but I have read it elsewhere in the past:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/HealthCareEarly1960s.pdf

If that is true, Medicare did not cause the problem. It was passed to address a problem that already existed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Cyber security. Paid to hack companies and tells them how to fix their issues.

Got the Google Scholarship in high school where I learned his nickname was Master Hacker. I chose not to inquire as to how he got that nick name.

Was already making big bucks on coops after his freshman year. It's good to have a hobby.

IP
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
inparadise: "Our oldest is already paying max SS right out of college."


If you do not mind, what did he major in and what kind of work does he do? Starting salary of 128k+ is not typical for many right out of college.

Regards, JAFO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Starting salary of 128k+ is not typical for many right out of college.

Had 4 semesters of applicable coop experience. No matter what the field, IMO coops are the best way to show you can be an adult in the workforce right out of school. As to knowledge, he was given 5 skills tests as part of the interview process which started in January of his last semester. In the field of cyber security they care way more about what you know than the degree you have. No degree? No problem if you pass the skills tests.

IP
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
JAFO writes,

Starting salary of 128k+ is not typical for many right out of college.

</snip>


Here's a Berkeley software engineering grad making twice that out of the box.

I'm a 21-year-old software engineer in Berkeley, California, who makes $260,000 — here's what I spend in a week
http://www.businessinsider.com/software-engineer-with-260k-s...

</snip>


... and truck drivers are getting $140,000/yr in Midland TX -- of course, you have to live in Midland.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
wow, is she for real? Zara dress for $76.00 expensive?..on her salary and perks? Obviously did it all wrong in my youth ?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That’s a really weird blog entry. Color me suspicious with all of the product references....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
agreed...........more I thought about this the more ridiculous it became.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"and truck drivers are getting $140,000/yr in Midland TX -- of course, you have to live in Midland.

intercst "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

trucking is a hard business - but you relaly do not have to live in Midland, Tx.
to drive out of Midland Tx.

Howie52
A cousin of mine once drove a truck - he lived in Va. but was never home.
You can get local delivery trucking but the money is less. best money comes
from Hazmat services from what I read on the topic when I was still looking for
work.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Howie52 writes,

"and truck drivers are getting $140,000/yr in Midland TX -- of course, you have to live in Midland.

intercst "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

trucking is a hard business - but you relaly do not have to live in Midland, Tx.
to drive out of Midland Tx.

</snip>


It's $140,000/yr for driving a well servicing truck within a 100 mi radius of Midland. This isn't long haul trucking.

The problem is apartment rentals in Midland are very expensive with the shale oil boom.

An Exxon friend of mine said his petroleum engineer grandson got a 20% bonus to accept a job in Midland. Years ago, I got a 30% bonus when I worked in Norway and 25% for London.

intersct
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Wradical,

inparidse wrote, Our oldest is already paying max SS right out of college

To which you replied, Really? What does he do?

The limit ($128,700) really isn't all that much. At least not in some areas of the country.

I'm certain some new college recruits at Microsoft in sought-after fields like AI make more than that. Most engineering positions in the Seattle area pay at least $100K/year, which isn't far off from that limit.

- Joel
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement