If you're new here, you may want to learn what this site is about. I encourage you to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Jeff V. sent me an article last Christmas, but I never got a chance to mention it. I’m making amends today.
Three years ago at Slate Magazine, Steven E. Landsburg wrote an article in praise of misers: “What I like about Scrooge”. Though the piece is funny, its message is very serious: saving is a good thing and ought to be rewarded.
In this whole world, there is nobody more generous than the miser — the man who could deplete the world’s resources but chooses not to. The only difference between miserliness and philanthropy is that the philanthropist serves a favored few while the miser spreads his largess far and wide.
If you build a house and refuse to buy a house, the rest of the world is one house richer. If you earn a dollar and refuse to spend a dollar, the rest of the world is one dollar richer — because you produced a dollar’s worth of goods and didn’t consume them.
This makes a certain sort of sense, I must admit. You earn money through your efforts. But when you delay spending this money, you’re essentially providing your services for free (at least until the money is spent).
Landsburg’s conclusion busts me up, but maybe that’s just because I’m a money geek and a lit geek:
Great artists are sometimes unaware of the deepest meanings in their own creations. Though Dickens might not have recognized it, the primary moral of A Christmas Carol is that there should be no limit on IRA contributions.
I’ll never look at Scrooge the same way again…
[Slate: What I love about Scrooge]
.jpg "The Money Blog Network - Improving your bottom line")
December 15th, 2007 at 5:16 am
I agree.
What’s the point of the limit?
December 15th, 2007 at 5:39 am
That’s funny. I guess Scrooge isn’t so bad after all.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:06 am
The article presents an interesting and novel viewpoint on Dickens, but people are always free to spend and save in whatever proportion they want. You don’t need to have an IRA to save money. IRA contributions just reduce the taxes you owe.
The limit is in place because (at least with the current U.S. system of primarily taxing income) it doesn’t seem very practical to be able to collect a lot of taxes if there were no limit. People who make $10 million per year could essentially defer nearly all of their taxes indefinitely if there were no IRA limit. If you look at aggregate tax statistics of who pays what, who saves what, who spends what, etc, it is hard to imagine that tax receipts would be even half the current level if everyone could essentially deduct all their savings before calculating their taxes.
Because of the amount I save, I am someone who would benefit tremendously from big increases in the IRA limit. But as a matter of fairness and practicality, I don’t see how having no IRA limit would work without either restructuring the federal tax system to tax other things like consumption or assets, or else by drastically cutting the size of the government. Both options are essentially political questions, and as I’m an entirely apolitical person and also perceive this blog to be such, I’ll just leave it at that!
Having said all that, I totally do agree that there is a big problem with over-consumption in this country, and savings is unfortunately no longer considered a virtue of any sort. A lot of people save zero (or close to it) and that is a serious problem on many levels. However, the tax code already provides incentives for savings by deducting more than $20,000 per year per wage earner through 401(k) and IRA accounts, yet many seemingly can’t or don’t take advantage of the existing incentives, so I doubt raising the limit substantially will suddenly change a lot of behavior among people who currently are saving very little.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:12 am
I love this! Thanks JD
December 15th, 2007 at 6:18 am
Landsburg’s articles often offer a contrarian, novel, or at least interesting angle.
As a working poor person, I have long noted that minimum wage workers produce cheap goods and services the middle class takes for granted.
How much would your Big Mac cost if it was produced at living wages or union scale?
I have also noted that the poor often make life better for others by conserving scarce resources. Your gas guzzler and McMansion drive up the cost of energy, while I do not drive a car and get by with 300 sq feet of space: You (generic you) impose costs on me that I do not impose on you.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:20 am
That was some pretty interesting logic, but I disagree. Scrooge was collecting rent from people, so I don’t know how earning money from rent would make the world richer if he’s simply collecting from something that’s long been built. He seems to be a miser from residuals rather than “giving to the world.”
December 15th, 2007 at 7:21 am
I’ve thought about this for a long time: You can’t “give” unless you have surplus. Tiny Tim wouldn’t have gotten the operation except Scrooge saved.
If you consume everything you earn, then you are a “net zero”. Everybody dies, estates typically turn over in three generations, and it’s these surpluses that provide the base for so many charitable causes.
It’s irrelevant that some rich don’t share: It’s their money, and their decision. But, they’ll still die without having consumed that which they’ve built, and it’s more likely that the surplus resources will be spread to social causes (some of which may be “good”).
So, the more rich people, the better. The more saving, the better. People that consume all they take in (no matter the amount) have no standing to criticize others that generate surplus that the earner did not consume.
In reference to tax reform, it’s bad for society to punish “work” (which is what you’re doing with “income” tax). Much better would be to tax consumption — i.e., a sales tax. That’s the point of the “FairTax” (which I think is a great idea):
http://www.fairtax.org
The problem is that government can’t “fiddle” with the rules on a sales tax like it can on income tax (rewarding friends and punishing enemies). So, politically, tax reform (e.g., FairTax) is good for the people and bad for the government leaders.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:21 am
I’ve been considering buying The Total Money Makeover for a cousin graduating high school this spring. He’s totally ignorant when it comes to finances (and his parents are, too). He does show an interest in the subject, but buys into the myths regarding debt - you know, everyone has a car payment, everyone has credit cards to have nice things, etc.
Based on your article, would you recommend a different title for him?
December 15th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Saving doesn’t make the world richer, just you. It is consumption that puts that money into someone else’s pocket so that they have the opportunity to spend or save. Consumption is what makes the economy grow. I’m not advocating 100% consumption, but some is necessary.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:15 am
“Saving doesn’t make the world richer, just you.”
I think that’s a bit over-simplified. Saving puts money into the capital market, which *does* make the world richer. If you don’t believe me, have a look at countries without good capital liquidity (which is essential for business growth).
Yes, I agree that spending drives the economy, and benefits both the seller and buyer. In this conversation, though, we’re talking about spending to benefit another person (e.g., charity) as opposed to spending benefiting the earner (e.g., consumption).
December 15th, 2007 at 9:37 am
“May I live simply that others may simply live”
Gandhi
December 15th, 2007 at 9:48 am
@Jason #8 The best book I’ve ever read about youth and money is Get A Financial Life by Beth Koblinger. I’m sure you can find it at your library. Read it, and if you agree with me, buy it for him. And maybe a copy for his parents.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Much better would be to tax consumption — i.e., a sales tax. That’s the point of the “FairTax” (which I think is a great idea):
Too bad that under the “FairTax” some forms of consumption are more equal (and thus not taxed) than others.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:55 am
@ Minimum Wage:
What are you talking about?
December 15th, 2007 at 11:16 am
What does it sound like I’m talking about? Under the “FairTax” some forms of consumption are taxed and others are not taxed.
Which means it redistributes income from the taxed class to the untaxed class.
December 15th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
There’s a house for sale down the block. Under the “FairTax” if you buy it, there is no tax. I can’t buy it, and if I rent it, I would have to pay tax up the wazoo indefinitely. Is that Fair?
December 15th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Jason #8: Of the financial books I’ve read, the one I think would most have influenced me at the age of 18 is “The Richest Man in Babylon” by George S. Clason. It’s not really a recipe for becoming rich, more for becoming financially free (i.e. not a financial slave), and it is more motivational than providing an actual plan.
But it would have profoundly influenced me at that age I think.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
“…Under the “FairTax” some forms of consumption are taxed and others are not taxed.”
“Which means it redistributes income from the taxed class to the untaxed class.”
All taxes do this. We’re only discussing what we penalize. I don’t think you should penalize work (e.g., the income tax).
The FairTax (a national sales tax) taxes all new production (like the European Value Added Tax, “VAT”). It does not tax things that were already taxed (e.g., nothing at a garage sale would be taxed).
All systems have pros/cons. Both FairTax or Flat Tax are infinitely superior to the current system (that merely rewards friends and punishes enemies, and confuses everyone). Much efficiency is gained by going to a simpler system.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
It does not tax things that were already taxed (e.g., nothing at a garage sale would be taxed).
If you buy an existing home, your purchase is not taxed - the home was already raxed.
Fair enough.
If I rent an existing home - buying it is not an option for me - my rent is taxed up the wazoo indefinitely - never mind that the home was already taxed.
How is that Fair?
December 16th, 2007 at 5:25 am
If I rent an existing home - buying it is not an option for me - my rent is taxed up the wazoo indefinitely - never mind that the home was already taxed.
Some argue renting is superior to buying (because you avoid maintenance, property taxes, market risk, cash illiquidity, etc.) None of that relates to sales tax.
Both rent rates and new/used home purchase prices are market set, and I don’t understand why “renting” implies you’re paying more taxes than owning (under the FairTax). Rent rates simply allow the landlord to cover costs with marginal profit — they aren’t set because of taxes.
I must have missed something?
December 16th, 2007 at 6:32 am
My wife has often accused me of being Scrooge, so I guess I can identify with him (she’s the spender, I’m the saver).
Best Wishes,
D4L
December 16th, 2007 at 7:27 am
@ Minimum Waqe
For some reason my other response was never posted.
But, you’re wrong.
You won’t pay sales tax when you rent a home. Sales taxes are only applied to…Sales.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Some argue renting is superior to buying (because you avoid maintenance, property taxes, market risk, cash illiquidity, etc.) None of that relates to sales tax.
Since EVERY homeowner has the option of renting, and since more than two-thirds of Americans own their homes, prevailing public opinion overwhelmingly considers owning to be superior to renting. If it were a political contest, owning would win in a landslide exceeding LBJ proportions.
As for property taxes, in most states, property taxes are higher on rental property than on owner-occupied homes of equal value. For example, in Michigan, the school operating property tax rate on rentals is FOUR TIMES the rate on owner-occupied homes.
Landlords MUST be able to recover ALL their costs - including property taxes - PLUS make an acceptable profit, or else they will sell their rentals and put their money in a different (and profitable) investment. Since I have never known of a massive sell-off of rental properties, I assume that landlords must generally be enjoying acceptable profits. Certainly a number of books have been published and sold on building wealth through owning rental property.
Note that the higher property taxes on rentals, by imposing higher operating costs on landlords than on homeowners, allow homeowners to pay higher prices than landlords for homes on the market, thereby reducing the rental supply and contributing to higher rents through supply shortfall.
FairTax supporters have a moral obligation to level the property tax playing field.
Until the recent housing bubble, median monthly housing cost was greater for renters than for homeowners, even though renters get much less (and inferior)( housing than homeowners, and renters have only about 40 percent of median homeowner income. (I haven’t seen the most recent numbers, but I assume the median cost is now higher for homeowners, since millions of new homeowners have taken on high payments.) Historically, home prices have advanced and ownership has been a safe (if unglamorous and unspectacular) investment while renters have borne greater risks.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:36 am
>i?You won’t pay sales tax when you rent a home. Sales taxes are only applied to…Sales.
You need to research the FairTax before you make such a claim.
Services as well as goods are taxed under the FairTax. (Otherwise the tax rate would have to be staggering.) Rent is considered a service under the FairTax.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:27 am
@ Minimum Wage:
My point is that it doesn’t make much of a difference.
In today’s terms, you are paying rent with after tax dollars. You need to make 20-30% more than your rent to pay for it.
In Fairtax terms, you are paying rent with pre-tax dollars. You need to spent 20-30% more on your rent to pay for it.
Whats the difference?
The difference is that you get to choose how your money is spent. Want to pay less? Rent cheaper! Want to pay nothing? Buy a used house!
But saying that the fair tax will screw up renting situations is bogus. It ends up being the same thing.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:46 am
@Kevin: Minimum Wage earners have to pay 20-30% in taxes on their income? Where?
December 16th, 2007 at 11:51 am
@ Justin:
I’m lost.
Where did I say that?
I was talking to the person on this site named “Minimum Wage”
I think you are confused.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:55 am
The user Minimum Wage is coming from the perspective of earning minimum wage, obviously. So saying he will be taxed at 20-30% anyway is wrong.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
@ Justin:
It still doesn’t matter because he will receive the prebate.
Besides–why are we talking about people who make minimum wage like they’re important? You have to be a loser to make minimum wage in America and there aren’t enough minimum wage earners to try and plan a new tax system around them.
The point is moot. This is a waste of time.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
@Kevin: Nice. Good to know you’re such a caring person.
Tell me something, do you take lessons in being so arrogant and out of touch?
December 16th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
FairTax supporters often don’t take into account the tax preferences afforded rental property.
My landlord gets a “depreciation” writeoff on his taxes even though his rental property is appreciating in value. This tax writeoff allows my landlord to enjoy a positive cash flow while actually REDUCING his taxes.
Under the FairTax, the income tax goes away, and with it, the rental property tax breaks also disappear. When the tax breaks disappear, it’s unlikely that rents will fall.
So instead of my current after-tax “cost” of 20 percent, under the FairTax the after-tax cost of my rent will be more like 30 percent (29-point-something, more precisely).
December 16th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
[...] -What I Like About Scrooge @ Get Rich Slowly [...]
December 16th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
@ Justin:
I’m just telling the truth of the matter. It isn’t arrogant and out of touch; it’s simply the facts.
The Fair Tax does more for the poor than any tax code or welfare system ever has.
But the truth remains, there is no reason why anyone should be making minimum wage in this country.
December 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
FairTax supporters have a moral obligation to level the property tax playing field.
I really don’t understand this shift in the discussion. The current system is inefficient and punishes people who work. The FairTax is simply a revenue-neutral way to shift Federal revenue from income taxes to a national sales tax.
This “preferential fiddling” with the real estate market is part of the current bubble (costs were not tied to risks). Renters in this recent chapter came out *way* ahead of owners, so I really don’t see any “moral obligation” to give renters anything. (Sometimes renters win, sometimes owners win.)
Each individual makes his own decision: If you prefer to rent, or own, that’s your decision. Even if you make minimum wage (about 2.7% of all hourly paid workers), you can do either — people do it every day.
December 16th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
The current system punishes people who work hard and cannot buy a house. The FairTax does the same thing.
The current tax preferences enjoyed by homeowners - the tax penalties suffered by renters - won’t go away under the FairTax, and will be made even worse.
You say “Each individual makes his own decision.” If this were truly the case, I would not have a complaint.
My grip[e is precisely that I doDO NOT have a choice, since buying a home is not now, nor has ever been, an option for me. I’m unwilling to support signing up for a tax penalty for not being able to do something the tax code encourages.
December 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
But the truth remains, there is no reason why anyone should be making minimum wage in this country.
That is doubtful. Millions of Americans earn minimum wage, it’s hard to imagine that all of them CHOOSE to earn such a low wage.
Where I work, we have three college graduates earning minimum wage. Itr’s not just for teenagers any more!
December 16th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Let’s take an objective look.
I am well into middle age, I have a dead-end minimum wage job with no advancement path, I have no career-related experience, my resume is useless (see previous), I am overweight, I have bad credit, I have nothing to wear to a job interview, I don’t have a car or a drivers license (so many jobs are simply not available to me). Can you think of any reasons an employer would pay me more than minimum wage?
December 16th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
How much does a minimum wage worker earn per year?
December 16th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
@ People who say it’s not a choice to make minimum wage:
It’s your choice because making minimum wage is a sum of the life choices you have made to the point you’re at.
You aren’t making the choice now–but you DID make the choice in your past multiple times with your behavior and choices.
It isn’t the employers fault that you aren’t worth more than minimum wage, it’s your fault.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Let’s take an objective look.
I am well into middle age, I have a dead-end minimum wage job with no advancement path, I have no career-related experience, my resume is useless (see previous), I am overweight, I have bad credit, I have nothing to wear to a job interview, I don’t have a car or a drivers license (so many jobs are simply not available to me). Can you think of any reasons an employer would pay me more than minimum wage?
I applaud your honesty (it’s a favorite trait when I find it in another).
If you had bought a house in the last few years, odds are you would have been far worse off than you are now (houses weren’t worth the price for which they sold, and owners are now “stuck”). Renting can be fine, as demonstrated in the last few years (you’re coming out ahead, even though it sounds like you don’t think you are).
None of your situation can be fixed through the tax code. That’s merely how government raises money.
You’re going to need to make your own happiness. For example, I’ve long thought about working retail in an aquarium store (it would be not much better than minimum wage, minimal experience required).
If you need money (e.g., you have dependents), you may need to consider two jobs. I’ve worked two (or more) full-time jobs for years. Many people do. You can live on that and raise kids on that. It may not be fun, but it’s done all the time. There’s lots in life that brings great joy that doesn’t require much money.
If life really *is* this hopeless, then you’re merely saying it’s someone else’s job to give you what you need. That’s charity. Federal charity is welfare programs (many exist), and private charity has many forms (from soup kitchens to free job training). However, these will never make you happy, and probably won’t give you what you need (because they will never understand you well enough to give you what’s most important to you).
If you trust in the government (or ANY institution) to make all your decisions and give you what you need, you will only end up betrayed and unhappy. No one but me can determine that I’d be happy working retail in an aquarium store.
It’s possible you can be happy keeping bees with the monks on some mountain top somewhere. There, minimum wage is irrelevant. You really need to decide what is important (to you).
I hope this isn’t callous and flippant. IMHO, you can achieve anything that you decide is really important.
My caring and supportive thought: Don’t view yourself as a victim. Only you can be in charge of your life. You can’t abdicate your life’s choices to another, or you waste all your talents betray all your aspirations.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
It’s your choice because making minimum wage is a sum of the life choices you have made to the point you’re at.
You aren’t making the choice now–but you DID make the choice in your past multiple times with your behavior and choices.
It isn’t the employers fault that you aren’t worth more than minimum wage, it’s your fault.
Hmmm, I chose NOT to use drugs, NOT to do crime, I chose to stay in school, where I had excellent grades and test scores, graduating in the top 5 percent of my class. I’m not sure what “bad” decisions I have made.
And I think I’d do a better job than a lot of the people I see getting hired. In other words, I think I’m worth more than they are. I’m certainly willing to go head-to-head with them to see who is more productive. But employers do a better job of hiring the best job-seeker, rather than the person who would best do the job. And employers certainly deserve to be blemed for that.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
And I think I’d do a better job than a lot of the people I see getting hired. In other words, I think I’m worth more than they are. … But employers do a better job of hiring the best job-seeker, rather than the person who would best do the job.
It sounds like you’re not comfortable or versed in selling yourself. Yes, I’ve seen outstanding performers who could not or did not promote themselves. At some level, though, you’re going to have to show what you can do, or persistence will someday get you into a job where you can perform at your capability.
Most fundamentally:
The best way to be paid more than minimum wage is to be worth more than minimum wage.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
there is something seriosuly flawed with this article and i must admit it has a certain crazy socialist bent which assumes all the products and services on this earth are somehow finite.
while i agree witht the ’scroogist’ philosophy this person has obiviously never heard of the multiplier effect. by saving a dollar and not spending it, you’re effectively denying (for that amount of time) your fellow society something in the order of 7-8 dollars in income.
i like how he conviniently ignores the idea that if there’s no demand there is no goods or services. got to admit didn’t bother reading past that point.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
None of your situation can be fixed through the tax code. That’s merely how government raises money.
FairTax supporters often claim that more people will be able to buy a home under the FairTax; I tell them there is NO conceivable tax or economic scenario under which I will be able to buy a home, and I certainly don’t want to get stuck paying the “renter penalty” built into the FairTax. For many lifetime renters, the excess FairTax they pay on housing will represent the difference between enjoying a modest retirement and never being able to retire at all.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
If you had bought a house in the last few years, odds are you would have been far worse off than you are now (houses weren’t worth the price for which they sold, and owners are now “stuck”). Renting can be fine, as demonstrated in the last few years (you’re coming out ahead, even though it sounds like you don’t think you are).
Actually, I live in an area with sustained net in-migration, where home prices have not collapsed. The house in which I live is now worth about 30 percent more than it sold for four years ago. (I tried to buy it at the time but of course couldn’t come up with the money, so I get to pay more in the long run.)
Rents are going up here as well as home prices: rents went up 6 percent last year, and are projected to rise 8 percent this year and an additional 6 percent next year.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
The march of technology closes some doors (buggy makers) and opens others: today I can become an angry blogger (heh) and get paid for it. It’s an amazing concept, unthinkable ten yars ago. And it has not escaped my notice that this line of work fits in perfectly with my schedule.
One of my “job” constraints is that I don’t have a car, so many jobs are simply not accessible. It’s a lot harder to keep two jobs withoput a car, since you need to travel to Job 1, travcel to Job 2, and then travel home when you’re done working. That is mighty difficult to work into a transit schedule.
But as a blogger, there is No Travel Needed (apologies to NCN) plus it’s perfect for those times when I have a couple hours but not enough time to work a job shift.
So in the end, my decision to stay in school and get great grades (love that alliteration) will be vindicated.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
The best way to be paid more than minimum wage is to be worth more than minimum wage.
That’s not how it works in the minimum wage world. The best, most productive hamburger flipper in the world probably earns only a few cents more than the worst hamburger flipper, controlling for differences in local market wages).
When I delivered pizzas, I was consistently among the most productive drivers, yet all the drivers were paid minimum wage.
My boss was constrained by cost limits dictated from the bosses above him, so he was unable to pay his best performers what they were worth. Also, he was paid a base salary plus percentage of store profit, and was so absorbed in his quest to amass enough money to buy his own franchise that he did not hesitate to cut costs, even at the cost of long-term profit decline. (He intended to have his own franchise - and be gone from that store - by the time the bottom line was hurt. But the bean counters caught on and fired him.)
December 16th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
First, you say “that’s not how it works in the minimum wage world” with regards to being worth more than minimum wage. Actually, that is how it works. As an employer, I pay my employees what they’re worth. If they’re worth more than minimum wage, I pay them that. If they’re not, I don’t. (Actually, if they’re not, I try to get rid of them.)
Before I owned a business, I worked many minimum wage jobs myself. Sometimes I never was offered a raise, but sometimes I was. You know what? The times I wasn’t offered a raise, I didn’t deserve one. And any time I worked my ass off, I got a raise. I got a raise once in a restaurant where nobody else that worked there could ever remember anyone getting a raise. (At least among waitstaff.) Why? Because I worked hard, was smart, and didn’t cause a fuss. I was a model employee, and it was worth my boss’s while to go to his boss to fight for me. (Again — this didn’t happen at all my minimum wage jobs. Sometimes I wasn’t worth minimum wage, and I know it.)
What’s more, even if you work someplace that can’t pay more than minimum wage, if you’re a valuable employee, managers have a tendency to grant unofficial perks. They’re more lenient with breaks, give better scheduling, overlook stuff that disappears. I’ve seen good employees get away with stuff that bad employees would be fired for.
Finally, let’s not forget my profile of who earns the minimum wage:
Most people don’t see a minimum wage job as an end, but as a means to an end.
You, Minimum Wage, are the exception and not the rule. It seems clear that there’s something you’re not telling us. I suspect that you know very well why you’re paid minimum wage, and that the reason is very much within your control. I’m not saying this is true for everyone, but I suspect it’s true of you.
Again, I understand that there are some people trapped in minimum wage. But most people who earn that are in transition. And of those that aren’t, I suspect most of the rest have some sort of story that would make it clear why they don’t earn more.
I’d be curious, MW, for you to tell us why you think that’s all you earn. But phrase it in terms of your decisions and your self, not in terms of others.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I guess I can refine my observation:
I spent many years living in a college town, with a huge surplus of high-turnover educated cheap non-breadwinner labor. A lot of the students I worked with were there to earn beer money, I was there to pay the rent and keep food on the table. Since high turnover was inevitable, there seemed to be little concern for keeping the best workers. Also, these were all cortporate fast food outlets - none were mom-and-pop sole proprietors, where bean counters kept a close eye on costs and sales.
I spent one summer flipping hamburgers in Detroit, which sadly had a severe shortage of good workers. I got a 6 percent raise in my first three weeks. (This boss was also fired by the bean counters.)
There are three college graduates where I work now; we are all paid minimum wage. My current employer also has high turnover but he also seems to have little difficulty hiring a continual stream of good workers at low wages. I think I am once again in an area with a labor surplus.
I mentioned this elsewhere, but in my earlier rant I forgot to mention that I need dental work; (So many things to rant about, sometimes I lose track.) I think this is a major factor in my unemployability.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
@Minimum Wage:
I don’t recall ever being asked about needed dental work in a job interview. Why is that even an issue?
Are you to lead us to believe that your employers are making you show them your teeth before they’ll hire you?
If you need dental work — well, that’s sad news. However, it’s totally irrelevant to you getting in there and busting it to raise your income.
I think the major factor in your unemployability is your fondness for ranting.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
If someone missing a front tooth walks into a job interview, do you think that the interviewer would not be concerned?
December 17th, 2007 at 3:12 am
The bottom line is that you can’t help those that can’t help themselves.
Minimum Wage, if you are near or in a college town, you might be able to get dental work at a dental school. It’s much cheaper and the dental students need people with dental problems. It’s another option for you, but I think you’d rather spend your time at the library posting comments since I’m assuming you don’t have a computer/internet access at home.
You’re smart enough to know how to get out of your situation.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:14 am
@ Minimum Wage:
Here is the hard truth. And I’m telling you because it appears nobody has told you yet.
I’m not being an ass. You can take this or leave it, but it is my honest opinion.
You will never do anything with your life until you stop living as a victim.
It’s that plain and simple. Every post you make has VICTIM written all over it. Like life just continues to screw you over.
You don’t realize just how much control over your life you could have if your mindset was different (this is the problem with most minimum wage workers, not just you).
December 17th, 2007 at 6:41 am
So if I apply for jobs and don’t get hired - my resume doesn’t evewn get me an interview, so in those cases, appearance isn’t even an issue - it’s all in my head (mindset)?
December 17th, 2007 at 6:45 am
So if I apply for jobs and don’t get hired - my resume doesn’t evewn get me an interview, so in those cases, appearance isn’t even an issue - it’s all in my head (mindset)?
It means you’re not offering value.
Find a job where you do, or change your attitude to show the value you’re offering.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
@ JD I like that you point out the “unofficial perks” because those make a big difference. At my part time job, I make more than minimum wage, and have gotten raises, but am worth more than the position pays. I know I could find a better position and make more, but I like that position, and am paid correctly for the little work I really do there. I do extra as well because I am capable of it, but they can’t give me a raise since the job requirements don’t dictate a hire pay. instead, I get the exact schedule want, I get the freedom to do as I please as long as my work gets done, I take long paid breaks when there is coverage, and managers buy me lunch pretty frequently. I get to mess around with my co-workers and can usually get them out of trouble, and the only time I have ever gotten “in trouble” was when I went over time…and that consisted of getting a write up (required by company policy) and was never mentioned again.
As far as making minimum wage being a choice, it absolutely is. There is a reason I am 22 and make 50+k a year and it isn’t luck. I work my ass off to be the best at what I do. I haven’t worked a minimum wage job since my sophomore year in high school and that was as a telemarketer. I get raises fast and have been in jobs where i have made more than my immediate supervisors because I was better at our job then them. The point is, you work hard, and are actually good at what you do (this is key, because I could work hard and still suck at something) and you will be paid more to do it.
You also have to realize that certain jobs only require so much skill to do. Like my current part time job does not require at 40k per year salary, so there is no way they are going to pay it. So even if I was the best at what I do there, I will only get what the job dictates is a good pay.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
it means you’re not offering value.
And exactly how the heck would I do that? We don’t have performance evaluations or any benchmarks to go by, so no employee has a good sense of the value they are producing.
All we know for sure is that our employer spends roughly half the year (a couple weeks at a time) globetrotting, so we are confident that we produce substantial profit, but we are not in a position to quantify it. (Circulating rumors place last year’s profit in the neighborhood of $3 million, but that is conjecture.)
Since we don’t have the means to pin down our value, and since there is a nearly total disconnect between my skills and my experience, I don’t know how to convey value to a prospective employer. I can certainly claim on a resume to have certain skills, but if they have never been used on the job, employers discount them to something approaching zero.
And if I can’t get a job in which I can use my skills, I’m never going to be able to use those skills to get a good job.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Where I work, everyone - as far as we know - is paid within 20 cents of minimum wage. (There are a few oldtimers paid this, the rest of us get minimum.) As far as any of us have been able to tell, superior performance won’t get you a raise, and mediocre performance won’t get you a wage cut.
Since I regularly handle cash, getting a similar job elsewhere (which doesn’t really appeal to me) would require a credit check (which seems to be standard in retail these days), and I have terrible credit I cannot fix on a minimum wage income from student loan debt and an uninsured extended hospitalization and illness, so that’s not a likely option.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
…it means you’re not offering value.
And exactly how the heck would I do that?
Are you sure you’re not a 15-year old trying to create excuses for why you returned home after curfew, with a big dent in the car?
Don’t “guess” the employer is getting rich because you show up someplace, and use that as rationale you are worth more. Even if he were getting rich because of you, that’s not relevant. You are only worth the market clearing price for the skills you offer.
Do stuff. Show the results of what you do. Find someone who will pay you for that.
This is done every day by 17-year old kids. There’s no excuse for you to not figure that out.
Or, if nobody will recognize your “mad skilz”, do hourly contract work. You can CERTAINLY mow lawns part-time, like 12-year olds do after school.
If you don’t know how to do anything, and can’t show any results for what you do, then yes, you’re forever doomed to minimum wage from the guy dumb enough to hire you.
Minimum wage isn’t a magic thing, though. That number is irrelevant. As soon as your employer figures out you’re not worth minimum wage, you should be fired.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Don’t “guess” the employer is getting rich because you show up someplace, and use that as rationale you are worth more. Even if he were getting rich because of you, that’s not relevant. You are only worth the market clearing price for the skills you offer.
I’m not guessing anything. We all KNOW when our employer is on a cruise, or hopping the British Isles, so this part is common knowledge. All I really know is that my employer appears to be making enough money to keep up his hectic travel schedule. Anything beyond that is unsubstantiated rumor, but perception can’t be simply dismissed as irrelevant.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I’m not guessing anything. We all KNOW when our employer is on a cruise, or hopping the British Isles, so this part is common knowledge. All I really know is that my employer appears to be making enough money to keep up his hectic travel schedule. Anything beyond that is unsubstantiated rumor, but perception can’t be simply dismissed as irrelevant.
Irrelevant. If I can hire another guy to do what you do, but cheaper, you’re not worth what you’re being paid now.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Again, we don’t have the means to quantify the results of what we do. I’m very good at upselling promotional items, but that’s not sumething for which I have a number to report.
On weekends I end up doing the work that my co-workers won’t do. They don’t have to do it because they have figured out that there is no manager coming in on Sat and Sun to check up on their stocking and cleaning.
And if I have bad (and unfixable) credit and appearance problems, I’m not going to get the job in the first place.
How many middle-aged hamburger flippers have you seen? The first places went to when I was able to return to work were fast food joints. And none of them were interested. I knew that guys my age don’t make good co-workers in a team environment dominated by teenagers, so I wasn’t surprised. But that’s another reality I have to deal with.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Irrelevant. If I can hire another guy to do what you do, but cheaper, you’re not worth what you’re being paid now.
If my enployer can get all this productivity for minimum wage, a whole lot of people are way overpaid.
Either that of my employer is very good at finding productive workers with problems that keep them out of higher-paying jobs.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Sounds like value and productivity don’t really get you a higher wage if valuable productive bodies are at surplus.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Nobody is going to convince this victim that it’s him and not life.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
So what should I do about it?
December 17th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
I don’t understand this mentality that if someone is telling you about the obstacles he is facing, he’s playing the victim. It is not playing the victim to sum up what is going on in your particular situation. This is MW’s reality. Period. And he’s honest about not knowing how to get out of his situation. Are the rest of you seriously trying to tell the class that you automatically knew how to get ahead in life without anyone coaching you whatsoever? Because if you are, you’re either blind or the best liars I have ever seen. Not that it’s counting much from where I’m sitting, because I know you’re lying.
Oh, right, you worked hard. Well, it sounds like MW is working hard too, unless he is also lying, and it’s amazing to me that nobody is catching this. They’re too busy calling him a victim.
I guess the big question is, What do you do when you work your ass off and nobody will pay you enough to live on? The reason we have minimum-wage jobs is that some people are desperate enough to have to take them. What do we do about that? People have got to have money to live. Some jobs don’t pay that amount. How do we change that?
God forbid we should ask that question because it’s playing victim. Or else “you’re being a victim” is Scroogespeak for “I don’t know the answer but I’m too big a jerk to admit it, so I’ll take my ignorance out on you.” You know, that goes farther than the Democrats ever go towards fomenting class wars in this country.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Aaand, can we stop pretending a flat tax is a great idea? You think the income tax “punishes” people for working (oh, that’s funny–it taxes capital gains as well), but the sales tax punishes people for buying things as well, and if you have a lower income, the punishment is all the more severe.
I used to live in a state with a base sales tax rate so high that where I was locally it was around nine percent. This included food. There I was between jobs, donating plasma so I wouldn’t starve or be too much of a burden on my roommate, and nine percent of my food bill was going to the damn city, county, and state. $2.70 out of a $30 food bill was a whole gallon of milk back then.
I eventually got a job but I was still going around praying my car wouldn’t break down because I was clearing maybe $280 a week average in a city where the median income was about $40k. Not minimum wage, just production work and when we ran out of stuff to produce for the night, work was over.
I didn’t know the things about money back then that I know now. And eventually my car broke down and my roommate decided not to renew the lease all in the same two-month period, and there was no way I could afford to live on my own. I’ve been going downhill financially ever since.
It isn’t enough to tell people they’re just being victims. The simple point is that being poor is expensive, and you have NO wiggle room for mistakes. Once you’ve made the first one, should Murphy come knocking, you’re screwed. The first mistake costs you, then something bad happens, then you can’t afford to pay for that either, and you just keep losing ground.
I wish there were a website that would offer useful advice for people on the bottom rungs of the ladder. Really. The Tightwad Gazette is helpful in some ways but it’s also growing outdated in terms of specific advice. Because we sure don’t need to hear what losers we are just because we aren’t 25 and making $50k a year. What we need is to hear how to be 34 and finally able to pay the bills on our own without having to go to anyone else with our hands out.
Hm. Maybe I should start that site. *shrug*
December 17th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
@ Dana:
He’s being a victim because he has an excuse for EVERYTHING people tell him. And when I say EVERYTHING, I’m not exaggerating.
“Aaand, can we stop pretending a flat tax is a great idea? You think the income tax “punishes” people for working (oh, that’s funny–it taxes capital gains as well), but the sales tax punishes people for buying things as well, and if you have a lower income, the punishment is all the more severe.”
1. I’d rather punish spending than punish earning as it makes more sense and doesn’t hurt our economy the way taxing income does.
2. People get to choose how much they spend–it’s not smart to make them choose to earn less to pay less taxes.
3. The Fair Tax does not tax the poor AT ALL!
4. We aren’t talking about a flat tax.
“I used to live in a state with a base sales tax rate so high that where I was locally it was around nine percent. This included food. There I was between jobs, donating plasma so I wouldn’t starve or be too much of a burden on my roommate, and nine percent of my food bill was going to the damn city, county, and state. $2.70 out of a $30 food bill was a whole gallon of milk back then.”
So what? This has nothing to do with the Fair Tax.
“I eventually got a job but I was still going around praying my car wouldn’t break down because I was clearing maybe $280 a week average in a city where the median income was about $40k. Not minimum wage, just production work and when we ran out of stuff to produce for the night, work was over.”
So what?
“I didn’t know the things about money back then that I know now. And eventually my car broke down and my roommate decided not to renew the lease all in the same two-month period, and there was no way I could afford to live on my own. I’ve been going downhill financially ever since.”
So what? This has nothing to do with the Fair Tax.
“It isn’t enough to tell people they’re just being victims.”
Sure it is. The victim mentality is what holds almost ALL poor people back.
“The simple point is that being poor is expensive, and you have NO wiggle room for mistakes.”
And it’s nobody’s fault but yours.
“Once you’ve made the first one, should Murphy come knocking, you’re screwed. The first mistake costs you, then something bad happens, then you can’t afford to pay for that either, and you just keep losing ground.”
Have you ever heard of an emergency fund?
“I wish there were a website that would offer useful advice for people on the bottom rungs of the ladder. Really. The Tightwad Gazette is helpful in some ways but it’s also growing outdated in terms of specific advice. Because we sure don’t need to hear what losers we are just because we aren’t 25 and making $50k a year. What we need is to hear how to be 34 and finally able to pay the bills on our own without having to go to anyone else with our hands out.”
Living frugally isn’t going to make your life better. Doing something to make yourself more valuable in the workforce is, and that starts with deciding not to be a victim.
“Hm. Maybe I should start that site. *shrug*”
Go for it!
Now–back to the Fair Tax…
December 18th, 2007 at 11:38 am
“The simple point is that being poor is expensive, and you have NO wiggle room for mistakes.”
And it’s nobody’s fault but yours.
I would say government deserves some blame here.
The house I live in was for sale several years ago. I could have afford to buy it aqt the time, IF it had been available as a stand-alone. (There are two houses on the lot, and the lot could not be split legally, and I couldn’t afford to buy both houses.)
You might say our middle class housing satandards are a good thing, but I would rather have the option of living in “substandard” housing and saving money in the process. Housing is an obvious example of an area where the poor don’t get to choose how much they spend.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Sure it is. The victim mentality is what holds almost ALL poor people back.
I apply for jobs, I don’t get hired. There’s nothing on my application that says VICTIM.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:55 am
The “government” deserves blame?
Your first step in this insanity of yours is to take responsibility. So one day when you stop whining and take the hours and pages of advise directed at you and do something, YOU will get the credit.
I think you enjoy being a victim. I really do. Why do you continue to post if you don’t take any of the ideas and tips? And if you don’t like any of the 45,987 pieces of wisdom you have evoked, why do you come back for more?
One day you may accomplish something and would be nice if that day came soon for the rest of us. I think we would all be willing to pay you off to stop this BS.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
The “government” deserves blame?
Government forces me to spend more on housing than I would choose to spend in a free market.
In a free market, I would now own the house I live in, thereby locking in a fixed-rate payment and avoiding rent increases, plus building home equity and wealth.
Seems obvious, unless you believe a free market really exists in housing, and that I merely “chose” to pass up the opportunity to buy the house I live in when it was on the market.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Your first step in this insanity of yours is to take responsibility. So one day when you stop whining and take the hours and pages of advise directed at you and do something, YOU will get the credit.
Hey, I *tried* to buy this house when it was on the market. The only thing stopping me was government. So how is my failure to buy the house a result of my lack of taking responsibility?
How do you accomplish something without money? How do I provide value to an employer if I’m not hired?
December 19th, 2007 at 5:57 am
The government does what? It forces you to spend more on housing? What on freakin’ earth is going on here?
When will you stop? You are full of piss poor excuses.
You got to keep on dancing man. I came from NOTHING and if I toiled into self-pity all day like you, I would still be living in the projects playing video games all day. Instead I took advice, shut my mouth when people gave me the advice and did something with it.
You sir have received the most attention and most posts for your sob story and you are still posting the same 5th grade BS you have been posting for years now like you are new around here. SHAME ON YOU FOR WASTING EVERYONE’S TIME. Go elsewhere, if the excellent advice people give you every day isn’t good enough for you or your IQ is too small to do something with it.
SHAME ON YOU.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Actually, the unfair tax structure set is place by the government does favor owning. That is hard to argue.
Why can you deduct interest paid on a mortgage but not on a car? (For the record, I’m not in favor of deductions for either) Why don’t you have to pay taxes on capital gains from a sold residence but not from stocks?
This is a totally different scenario from the split lot Minimum Wage complains about, but I was just saying…
December 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I agree with Matt: I’d prefer no tax deductions for a house (or a car).
Technically, mortgage tax deductions merely lower the cost of ownership, with the net effect of raising home prices (because they are worth more as a result of the tax credit). That also makes home ownership more sensitive to interest rates (people *used* to want to pay off homes). IMHO, the intended and un-intended consequences is not good for society.
Still, even with the mortgage deduction, that doesn’t always make home ownership a good idea (the current boom/bust being a good example, not to mention property taxes, maintenance, insurance, and other liabilities).
December 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
@Minimum Wage
You have a point about the government regulation preventing your lot from being split. There are a LOT of dumb government regulations out there (many of them supposedly to support the lower classes) that keep minimum wage and low earners back. It would not surprise me if this one was damaging to your situation too.
Here’s the thing, though. You’ve been talking about how you can’t manage to get a job, and you list a number of potential reasons: your appearance, a potential market of surplus labor, lack of a car. Yet you mentioned the possibility of blogging for money. Isn’t this a way to help yourself? There are at least a few markets (web design, for example) that you don’t need transportation for… don’t even need in-person visits for. (And yes, I do buy your appearance argument to SOME degree… studies show that attractive people are more likely to get jobs.) Other people have mentioned the possibility of getting a second job. Mow lawns, shovel sidewalks, walk dogs… there are a ton of odd jobs out there to find that most people really don’t want to do. You do seem to have at least some free time, given how many comments you post here. Technology is one thing you can teach yourself, and it’s a good market to be in (don’t believe all you hear about the dot com bust or outsourcing taking all THAT fun away). You could potentially take an extra job or two, then put the income into fixing your teeth and losing weight (eating healthier?). Then with a renewed sense of purpose and confidence, set out looking for jobs again… or continue to make the extra money and little by little save and move to a part of the country where either the cost of living is lower or the demand for your particular skills, whatever you may have, is higher.
It’s not that I don’t have compassion for your situation. I do! It sounds like you have caught some tough breaks. But there is truth in the statements that people are making: you consider yourself a victim. Everyone, EVERYONE has choices. Not everyone has great choices, but everyone has them. If you were absolutely determined to make a better life for yourself, there is very little that could stop you from doing just that.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Another note, MW, that will hopefully be helpful: sending out a resume is rarely enough to get a job. Follow up by calling, be friendly and remind them of your name. Find a way to stand out from the crowd. Even if you don’t have experience in something, emphasize your good qualities and stress that you will work hard to learn as quickly as possible. Smile a lot, regardless of your need for dental work. (By the way, the more self-concious you feel about your appearance, the more likely it is that it will affect your getting hired. If you show that it doesn’t bother you and display confidence and a go-getter attitude, you have a better chance of getting a potential employer to see past your appearance and to your potential worth.)
Also, a lot of cities have free career clinics. Try looking one up! They may be able to help.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
The government does what? It forces you to spend more on housing? What on freakin’ earth is going on here?
I’ll go further than that. Ever read Thomas Sowell. As a world-class black conservative economist, he nails economic issues like nobody else can or will.
In Markets and Minorities (1981), Sowell devoted a chapter to housing, complete wqith the kind of graphs you saw in Econ 101.
Sowell demonstrated that government zoning and housing policies effectively redistribute income from (lower income) renters to (higher income) owners.
Don’t take my word for it, I have a solid source.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I would still be living in the projects playing video games all day.
Poor people don’t need housing projects. They need a free market in housing. The private sector is perfectly able to provide all the housing the poor need, if government would just stop making it do darned expensive to build housing.
Ever heard of development fees, impact fees, building permit fees, red tape, bureaucratic delay, NIMBYs, and all the embedded costs of new construction? Jack Kemp had a lot to say on this back in the 1980s.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Why can you deduct interest paid on a mortgage but not on a car? (For the record, I’m not in favor of deductions for either) Why don’t you have to pay taxes on capital gains from a sold residence but not from stocks?
Interest on consumer debt (e.g. car loans) used to be deductible. Sales taxes also used to be deductible, with a standard allowance based on your income and your state (so that you didn’t have to actually save all your receipts, although you still had the option of keeping the receipts and taking a larger deduction if appropriate.
Those deductions went away around the late 70s, and the tax breaks for homeownership were expanded.
Homeowners, and their Realtor (R) advocates, are 800-pound gorillas of American politics. Most politicians shamelessly pander to homeowner interests, and it’s hard to say no to a huge bloc of voters and campaign contributors - even when a lot of homeowners are at fault, as with the current subprime bailout.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Still, even with the mortgage deduction, that doesn’t always make home ownership a good idea (the current boom/bust being a good example, not to mention property taxes, maintenance, insurance, and other liabilities).
The Realtors (R) wouldn’t like it if anyone proposed getting rid of the homeowner deductions. While the deductions reduce the net cost of buying a home, they also pad Realtors’ pockets by promoting higher sales prices, which is the basis of their commissions. It might make plenty of sense (I think existing homeowners should be grandfathered to keep their deductions), but it would be virtually impossible politically.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
You have a point about the government regulation preventing your lot from being split. There are a LOT of dumb government regulations out there (many of them supposedly to support the lower classes) that keep minimum wage and low earners back. It would not surprise me if this one was damaging to your situation too.
It can get complicated, but a lot of regulations are designed or intended to help people OTHER than the “obvious” or ostensible beneficiaries.
Historically, union contracts were based on some multiple of the minimum wage, so when unions say they support a higher minimum wage for the working poor, they are being disingenuous. It’s the UNIONS which benefit most from increasing the minimum wage.
Similarly, a lot of “dumb” housing and zoning regulations are designed for the benefit of existing property owners, who can enjoy rising property values without worrying that a developer will put in a trailer park or tiny houses for poor people like me. In most parts of the country, it’s a lot easier to get approval to build an upscale subdivision than to build anything that might be viewed as downscale housing. That’s why apartments and trailer parks, when they exist, are usually located in the “wrong” neighborhoods.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
In response to comment #82, sales tax is deductible, isn’t it? This deduction was revived a few years back, and I’m almost certain that they extended it to cover 2007 (it was set to expire at the end of 2006). You have a choice between sales tax and state tax, and you can use a tabled value instead of saving receipts if you wish.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
In response to comment #82, sales tax is deductible, isn’t it?
Um, yes and no. I didn’t address this in the previous post because I didn’t want to make it longer than it already was.
A few states have no income tax and a high sales tax. These states thought it was unfair that residents of other states could deduct income taxes but their residents couldn’t deduct thair sales taxes.
So, a few years ago (2000-ish?) Congress made sales taxes deductible for residents of states without an income tax. Sales taxes remain non-deductible for residents of states with an income tax.
Complicated, isn’t it?
December 19th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
re: #86. If you have sales tax and income tax you can choose between them. You can’t deduct them both, but you can deduct the higher one.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
re: #86. If you have sales tax and income tax you can choose between them. You can’t deduct them both, but you can deduct the higher one.
Ah, thank you, I totally didn’t know you could shooae one or the other.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I worked a cloe-to-minimum wage job (as a security guard) for just over 12 months … but spent that time studying.
Then I got a marginally better paid job which I held down for just over 3 years … during which time my salary went from c. $20k p.a to $28k p.a
It was clear that although I was getting the experience I needed, I wasn’t advancing anywhere, and part of that was a lack of certifiations/qualifications. So I quit my day-job and lived on my savings for 9 months while I did some industry-standard certifications (I had saved $15k over the previous 3.5 years … which is good considering I had only earned $84k BEFORE tax).
I was given a 3-month contract before I even completed the course ($35k “pro-rata”), and was hired directly from there to where I’m working now (hired at €40k). The 4th “anniversary” of being hired by that company has just come and gone. I’ve been promoted three times, and now earn just over $60k
Looking back, I recognize that I should have “moved on” from that first job I got after the first year … or at very least used the time to study and do additional relevant courses and certifications … I was working for a University!
However, setting that aside … since I left that job and started studying, I have never STOPPED studying for more than a couple of months at a time - and I would attribute a lot of my personal success to the confidence and recognition that this brings.
Yes - it can be expensive to study … but it’s more expensive to do menial work for minimum wage indefinitely!
December 20th, 2007 at 11:10 am
What would you have done if you had no savings and could not afford the certifications?