UCLA professor says he's homeless due to low pay
1–10 of 122 posts
Re: UCLA professor says he's homeless due to low pay
#2All ideas of fair pay aside (which I agree that he should get a raise!)
I don’t understand how he couldn’t afford $2,500 per month on $70,000 per year. Wouldn’t his take home per month be around $4,000-4,500?
Not that it would be easy to live on the remainder necessarily …. But I know I have at one point lived on $2,800 per month while paying $1,200. (In a lower cost of living area ).
Re: UCLA professor says he's homeless due to low pay
#3All ideas of fair pay aside (which I agree that he should get a raise!) I don’t understand how he couldn’t afford $2,500 per month on $70,000 per year. Wouldn’t his take home per month be around $4,000-4,500? Not that it would be easy to live on the remainder necessarily …. But I know I have at one point lived on $2,800 per month while paying $1,200. (In a lower cost of living area ).
> I don’t understand how he couldn’t afford $2,500 per month on $70,000 per year.
People are just terrible at personal finance. I have friends that earn $300K that have no savings.
I suggest watching the YouTube channel Caleb Hammer if you want to truly understand how easy it is for some people to overspend and go into debt.
Re: UCLA professor says he's homeless due to low pay
#4Technically he’s a lecturer not a professor. Generally lecturers are treated like trash.
Re: UCLA professor says he's homeless due to low pay
#5All ideas of fair pay aside (which I agree that he should get a raise!) I don’t understand how he couldn’t afford $2,500 per month on $70,000 per year. Wouldn’t his take home per month be around $4,000-4,500? Not that it would be easy to live on the remainder necessarily …. But I know I have at one point lived on $2,800 per month while paying $1,200. (In a lower cost of living area ).
I thought it was a bit odd that he only seems to be considering living in Westwood.
I checked out the site referenced, and there's suburbs reasonably close with average rents 30-40% lower than that suburb. That's within a ~45 min. bus ride, according to Google.
Also damn, there's even free wifi on some of those buses.
Re: UCLA professor says he's homeless due to low pay
#6(Brit here). I'm not saying it's a huge salary at all but $70k is around $4500/mo after tax. If his rent was $2500, that leaves $2000 for everything else, which doesn't seem to equal homeless? Paycheck to paycheck probably I guess. What am I missing?
Re: UCLA professor says he's homeless due to low pay
#7This is a physicist who could likely make much more in the private sector. That's a compromise I've had to make too. I spend my weekdays doing work that I have little interest in and has less chance of improving the human condition, but it let me buy a house and pay the taxes and fees. If I instead choose to do what I'm interested in I'd be lucky to afford renting a room in someone else's house.
I admire the guy for choosing to do more important work and making sacrifices to do it. But I'm not owed a decent salary in return for following my own dreams rather than my employer's dreams. Nobody is.
Re: UCLA professor says he's homeless due to low pay
#8This is a physicist who could likely make much more in the private sector. That's a compromise I've had to make too. I spend my weekdays doing work that I have little interest in and has less chance of improving the human condition, but it let me buy a house and pay the taxes and fees. If I instead choose to do what I'm interested in I'd be lucky to afford renting a room in someone else's house. I admire the guy for…
Of course you are correct, nobody is ever promised anything like the ability to fulfill their dreams or to live a decent quality of life. But maybe the universities could pay them a living wage for teaching six classes a week.
Re: UCLA professor says he's homeless due to low pay
#9Man with highly educated background ignores basic economic situation that also affects millions of other people.
Slow news day.
Re: UCLA professor says he's homeless due to low pay
#10This is a physicist who could likely make much more in the private sector. That's a compromise I've had to make too. I spend my weekdays doing work that I have little interest in and has less chance of improving the human condition, but it let me buy a house and pay the taxes and fees. If I instead choose to do what I'm interested in I'd be lucky to afford renting a room in someone else's house. I admire the guy for…
>But I'm not owed a decent salary in return for following my own dreams rather than my employer's dreams. Nobody is.
Of course. On the other hand, one has to wonder which of this two occupations helps humanity more, and it's this the one that's paid better. And if not, should we rethink the way we reward work to prioritize things that help society instead.