This feels a lot like the lectures these people are tired of. "Why didn't you pick a higher-paying career, why did you go to college if you couldn't afford it, why not cut out all unnecessary expenses and stop seeing your friends". Yes, all these people could probably make different choices to save a bit more money, but a) min-maxing life like that sucks, and b) most people constantly giving this advice didn't do tha…
I am certain that people who want to read an article with this title are convinced that life has dealt them an unfair hand, and are willing to ignore or dismiss every example to the contrary. ...as this author has almost systematically done. It's not really a "lecture" when I'm just re-stating the facts in the story, is it?
> It's not really a "lecture" when I'm just re-stating the facts in the story, is it?
If that was indeed what you were doing, no. But that was not what you were doing.
The first example is a junior level social worker -- that's fine, but come now: we all know that social work is not a high-paying industry. The second example is a lady with 76k in debt, who has managed to pay down nearly 70% of it . Somehow this doesn't qualify as savings to the author. The third woman actually makes a lot (they won't say how much) and has "achieved financial stability" (thus undermining the thesis…
> For the very last example, we have a 28-year-old man, earning well below average in NYC (90k a year), who nonetheless saves $2,000 a month. I'm sensing a bias here.
$90k a year is definitely not "well below average in NYC" - median household income is only $70k a year! (1)
I am currently in my mid/late 20s and living in Latvia (Eastern Europe). After getting my Bachelor's and Master's degrees from a local university, working for about 5 years with gradually increasing salaries/hours (started while studying), saving and/or investing on average around 50% of what I make, I have about 50'000 Euros saved up. It's better than some of my peers, worse than people in the more wealthy countries…
I am overjoyed to hear that you are able to take sabbatical to upskill. That is a dream of mine… unfortunately I’m burned out from the slog of living paycheck to paycheck. 28 y/o. Worked three jobs prior to COVID. All three jobs evaporated in the same week. Moved from Midwest to California seeking opportunity. Now I’m serving a low-tier IT role making 55K in SoCal and it’s… really depressing honestly. I feel like I’m…
The following might sound a ridiculous suggestion but is the kind of thing I did in my 20s at times. Could you drastically cut your cost of living for a temporary period, in order to, while working, pay off bills / get some savings, and/or, when not working, do a sabbatical and up-skill? I mean by doing something radical like, live in a tent for the summer, house-sit, work a few hours at a backpackers hostel in return for somewhere to sleep, live in an old bus or trailer somewhere - some rather basic accommodation that only a young-ish person can really cope with that is super cheap. Maybe somewhere connected to a farm where there's some free or cheap food. Maybe live on rice, beans, tortillas, pasta and basic fruit and veg for a bit? Or if that all sounds too wild or unrealistic, how are your qualifications? Could you study part-time for a decent university qualification if you haven't already got one, via a state uni possibly distance or possibly local? Or merely a shorter bootcamp and make sure you shine at it? Might be a slog but it'd pay off in time. I don't think you are stuck actually because you are gainfully employed in the tech sector , you've got the crucial foot in the door, its a matter really of getting capability of programming and then demonstrating that to the right people. Being poorly paid but in the right industry I think has a definite light at the end of the tunnel. Good luck :)
> The first example is a junior level social worker -- that's fine, but come now: we all know that social work is not a high-paying industry. This is an unfair dismissal. Most industries are not high paying, therefore most workers are not earning enough to save. You're basically saying "they're not saving because they're not earning more!" Also, what is your proposed solution here? To stop having social workers? > so…
> Also, what is your proposed solution here? To stop having social workers? Training for a job that pays below what you need to live comfortably is a choice. You may feel passionate enough about that job that you are willing to accept the consequences of a low salary. If you are not, then you should not train to do that job. I do sympathize, as it's essentially impossible for a 16- or 17-year-old to fully understand…
Like any industry social work has a ladder and options including getting licensed as an lcsw and doing more profitable private therapy or even being head of hospital departments or other administration tasks. You certainly have the lower paying end as well but no it’s not a poverty guarantee.
Unions & collective bargaining is another option - depending on the profit margins of the companies involved. Basically, if social workers collectively refused to work for the current pay, either social work would be eliminated (unlikely), or pay would rise - either through government subsidies, or at the expense of profit margins.
True. I wonder if social workers would find themselves in the "not allowed to strike" group of government employees.
A lot of social workers are not government employees, there are a bunch of private counseling practices, NGOs, and hospital systems and the like that employ social workers as well. (I’m only familiar with the situation in the US)
But I think your point stands even aside from any regulatory specifics. Asking social workers to strike for better wages is essentially asking some of the most vulnerable in our society (e.g. kids in the foster system) to bear the brunt of our collective underinvestment in meeting their needs. I think that’s less acceptable of an impact compared to stressing out some BigCorp’s bottom line in the case of Amazon or Starbucks and similar
Would you give that money to the abused/neglected kids that social workers protect, or the parents that are abusing/neglecting them? Who would be in charge of identifying who gets that money and managing the systems that distribute that money and would they get paid more than the social workers that got fired?
I would do a negative income tax basically at the lowest earnings (that is they basically get graduated credits). I'd simplify the tax code so we'd only need half the IRS or less and then repurpose some of them to making sure the negative income tax is refunded. Unemancipated children would not be included in the refund. My prediction is especially neglect but also abuse are often symptoms of poverty and insufficient…
Is nobody else going to tell this guy that the earned income tax credit already exists?
"I don't want to see you, I don't want to hear from you."
People in the US seem to just hate poor people
You're too kind. It's not hate. It's contempt.
I've decided that many Americans believe that the definition of "freedom" is "freedom from having to even think about people who are outside of my family/social group". The homeless person on the street isn't a tragedy because human beings shouldn't have to sleep on the street, it's a tragedy because I have to see it and think about it.
>Reduce expenses to live within your means Which is cool until the point that rents take up 100% of your income and then you're screwed. Let's imagine a world where almost everyone makes $7 an hour. You would expect pricing in the world to reflect that and housing to fit in that budget. But now in that world you create a small percentage of people that can print as much money as they want. These people that print as…
True, but many people look back and say “back in the day people could do X” and cherry pick. What they ignore is how long people lived at home for, how many people jumped immediately into marriage. This whole business of everyone having their own place is not sustainable, despite what we see in TV.
Interesting thing I learned during the pandemic: There are actually countries where more people live alone than in the United States. In particular, in Sweden, the vast majority of all unattached adults, even young ones, live alone, without roommates. So, I have to push back against the idea that a permanent housing shortage forcing people into multi-person living arrangements is the natural default.
Tbh most of the people at work whose relationships I know about are with someone who also works at FAANG or a FAANG-alike. Lots of 2 SWE couples.
Yep. Although, statistically - this isn’t true. They’re not the majority since women make up only 20% of the Eng workforce. Leaving 3x as many men leftover.
most likely, there are a lot of men who aren't in relationships but want one.
> The first example is a junior level social worker -- that's fine, but come now: we all know that social work is not a high-paying industry. This is an unfair dismissal. Most industries are not high paying, therefore most workers are not earning enough to save. You're basically saying "they're not saving because they're not earning more!" Also, what is your proposed solution here? To stop having social workers? > so…
> Also, what is your proposed solution here? To stop having social workers? Training for a job that pays below what you need to live comfortably is a choice. You may feel passionate enough about that job that you are willing to accept the consequences of a low salary. If you are not, then you should not train to do that job. I do sympathize, as it's essentially impossible for a 16- or 17-year-old to fully understand…
> Training for a job that pays below what you need to live comfortably is a choice. You may feel passionate enough about that job that you are willing to accept the consequences of a low salary. If you are not, then you should not train to do that job.
My problem with this is that there are a lot of jobs in the US that are important (physical therapists, speech language pathologists, some nursing positions, pharmacy techs, educators) that are getting to be not worth paying for the training. You don't make enough to money to pay it back.