Work/College/Finance

[IlliniKrush]

As far as not being able to take money with you, that's a very slippery slope. It's all about budgeting like Rock said, and actually sticking to the budget. Knowing what you can spend on bulls*** per month and that's that. Having an 8 month emergency fund. Funding a RETIREMENT ACCOUNT. I feel way too many young people today think that's something you worry about later, when in reality you must worry about it now. Then they'll never be able to retire, or run out of money when they do. It's all about thinking long-term in today's minute-to-minute, "I can afford this now so will," society.

[Balta1701]

http://boingboing.net/2011/09/22/cost-of-r...8Boing+Boing%29

 

 

Child care costs are out of control. Taxes, especially property taxes, have gotten out of control.

 

I'm sort of in half agreement with Y2HH here. My wife and I are a good case study for why this society is so f***ed up. We both have graduate degrees (she has a masters in literature, i have a juris doctor). That's about 150k in student loan debt. That's about 1200-1300 a month simply in student loans. Add to that a mortgage and a car payment, and even though we're both making good money, raising this new child of ours will be difficult. We don't go on vacation, we don't spend "lavishly." Yes, we have smart phones and cable bills, but frankly that's a drop in the bucket compared to other major costs of life.

 

The fact is the poor don't pay their share (taking more than they give), the rich escape paying their share, so the gov't continues to suck the teet of middle class America, which is why this economy is stagnant and people are as depressed as they are about the future.

The numbers in this graph are not adjusted for inflation. Using the handy BLS inflation adjustor, I was able to quickly calculate that $165,000 in 2000 dollars is equivalent in purchasing power to $220,000 in today's dollars. Thus, child care costs are not out of control, they have effectively tracked inflation over the past 12 years, to within a variance of 2%.

 

Furthermore, property taxes have, over the last 50 years, averaged about 3.5% of national income. That number has trended down slightly over time. If you can find a 2009 version it could possibly increase because of plummeting national income due to the recession, but the data does not show that there has been a substantial increase in property tax rates or collections over time, rather the data show the reverse. Some of that decrease may be due to the state of California's insane property tax system coming on line in the 1980s and screwing with the national average.

[Y2HH]

The numbers in this graph are not adjusted for inflation. Using the handy BLS inflation adjustor, I was able to quickly calculate that $165,000 in 2000 dollars is equivalent in purchasing power to $220,000 in today's dollars. Thus, child care costs are not out of control, they have effectively tracked inflation over the past 12 years, to within a variance of 2%.

 

Furthermore, property taxes have, over the last 50 years, averaged about 3.5% of national income. That number has trended down slightly over time. If you can find a 2009 version it could possibly increase because of plummeting national income due to the recession, but the data does not show that there has been a substantial increase in property tax rates or collections over time, rather the data show the reverse. Some of that decrease may be due to the state of California's insane property tax system coming on line in the 1980s and screwing with the national average.

 

Chicago property taxes have soared the last few years consecutive.

 

In 2009, my property taxes were 1900$. They are now 3800$. That's a massive increase.

[RockRaines]

Chicago property taxes have soared the last few years consecutive.

 

In 2009, my property taxes were 1900$. They are now 3800$. That's a massive increase.

Cost of living in Chicago is out of control. Our taxes on groceries are twice that of other areas, our gas is incredibly high and we pay out the ass on our property taxes. I dont even know how anyone could smoke in Chicago, there are 5 extra dollars alone in taxes.

[Jenksismyhero]

Chicago property taxes have soared the last few years consecutive.

 

In 2009, my property taxes were 1900$. They are now 3800$. That's a massive increase.

 

I was going to say, I don't need a graph. I can look at my property tax history.

[Jenksismyhero]

The numbers in this graph are not adjusted for inflation. Using the handy BLS inflation adjustor, I was able to quickly calculate that $165,000 in 2000 dollars is equivalent in purchasing power to $220,000 in today's dollars. Thus, child care costs are not out of control, they have effectively tracked inflation over the past 12 years, to within a variance of 2%.

 

Furthermore, property taxes have, over the last 50 years, averaged about 3.5% of national income. That number has trended down slightly over time. If you can find a 2009 version it could possibly increase because of plummeting national income due to the recession, but the data does not show that there has been a substantial increase in property tax rates or collections over time, rather the data show the reverse. Some of that decrease may be due to the state of California's insane property tax system coming on line in the 1980s and screwing with the national average.

 

How do you know it didn't take into account inflation? It doesn't say either way, so I assumed the Dept. of Ag was smart enough to take it into consideration if they were going to report such a big increase in costs.

 

Edit: and didn't I just read that purchasing power and median income levels over the last 20 years haven't kept up with the rate of inflation? So isn't that the double whammy?

Edited June 12, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[iamshack]

Some things have gone up, others have gone down.

 

Our grandparents and great-grand parents often spent 30-40% of their income just on food.

 

I probably spend 5%?

[Balta1701]

How do you know it didn't take into account inflation? It doesn't say either way, so I assumed the Dept. of Ag was smart enough to take it into consideration if they were going to report such a big increase in costs.

 

Edit: and didn't I just read that purchasing power and median income levels over the last 20 years haven't kept up with the rate of inflation? So isn't that the double whammy?

Because I can check. Here's the 2000 Department of Agriculture report on that issue, giving the number $165,630 in 2000 dollars. When you want to report a "Cost of raising a kid is skyrocketing!" number, you never adjust for inflation because that makes your story weaker. Standard press trick, can give you a free front page article every couple years when the DOA releases that report.

 

However, you are correct that median income has stagnated in this country since the late 1970's/early 1980's, while productivity, GDP, and earnings of the wealthiest americans have skyrocketed (all of which I consider linked). Median income has basically been flat when adjusted for inflation. Note that we're saying median income...the reason to do that number is that the distribution has changed so dramatically at the very top that the mean income gets skewed.

 

I would consider that one of the biggest economic failures of the past 35 years of economic policy.

[Chisoxfn]

As far as not being able to take money with you, that's a very slippery slope. It's all about budgeting like Rock said, and actually sticking to the budget. Knowing what you can spend on bulls*** per month and that's that. Having an 8 month emergency fund. Funding a RETIREMENT ACCOUNT. I feel way too many young people today think that's something you worry about later, when in reality you must worry about it now. Then they'll never be able to retire, or run out of money when they do. It's all about thinking long-term in today's minute-to-minute, "I can afford this now so will," society.

Here's a question (maybe personal) but what does everyone think is the right amount to set aside for retirement. 10%, 15%, 25%? Curious to see.

[Chisoxfn]

The numbers in this graph are not adjusted for inflation. Using the handy BLS inflation adjustor, I was able to quickly calculate that $165,000 in 2000 dollars is equivalent in purchasing power to $220,000 in today's dollars. Thus, child care costs are not out of control, they have effectively tracked inflation over the past 12 years, to within a variance of 2%.

 

Furthermore, property taxes have, over the last 50 years, averaged about 3.5% of national income. That number has trended down slightly over time. If you can find a 2009 version it could possibly increase because of plummeting national income due to the recession, but the data does not show that there has been a substantial increase in property tax rates or collections over time, rather the data show the reverse. Some of that decrease may be due to the state of California's insane property tax system coming on line in the 1980s and screwing with the national average.

I think California is the fairest of all. Why should you have to pay taxes based upon the current market value of the property. That would force massive amount of people who bought when they could afford (whose income never really increased) who'd be forced to sell based upon current prices.

[RockRaines]

Here's a question (maybe personal) but what does everyone think is the right amount to set aside for retirement. 10%, 15%, 25%? Curious to see.

I've seen my father's retirement account halve with the economy so I save about 15% in cash and 10% in 401k

[Balta1701]

I think California is the fairest of all. Why should you have to pay taxes based upon the current market value of the property. That would force massive amount of people who bought when they could afford (whose income never really increased) who'd be forced to sell based upon current prices.

That also creates a huge number of messy situations, like houses that have ballooned in value to be worth millions of dollars who pay less than what you pay. It dramatically reduces mobility because people can't afford to move within the state of California if they have to re-assess their property taxes. It has already helped feed two separate housing bubbles.

 

Edit: oh, and I forgot somehow about the whole mess where the State winds up having to fill the gap created by the low property taxes on homes, which pushes up sales taxes and income taxes, has produced multiple budget messes in the last decade, and now has wound up leaving the state so poor that the UC system is now more expensive than Harvard. That comes directly from the property tax system, because so much of state tax collections go to fill that gap.

[southsider2k5]

Chicago property taxes have soared the last few years consecutive.

 

In 2009, my property taxes were 1900$. They are now 3800$. That's a massive increase.

 

The graph cut off almost 10 years ago, so it doesn't take that time period into account.

[Chisoxfn]

I've seen my father's retirement account halve with the economy so I save about 15% in cash and 10% in 401k

Is the 15% you save specifically for retirement or for other purposes as well? I would think 25% would put you in a pretty sweet spot when you retire.

 

Personally I put 15% in my 401K (as does the wife and then get a little bit more as a result of the Company match). As a whole, we live off of one income with the rest going into savings. Additionally, I've been banking my last couple raises/bonuses vs. increasing my spending costs, which has been pretty sweet. Would love to be super aggressive saving when I'm young, since if I've never seen the money or gotten used to having it in my paycheck, then in theory, I won't really be missing it.

[RockRaines]

Is the 15% you save specifically for retirement or for other purposes as well? I would think 25% would put you in a pretty sweet spot when you retire.

 

Personally I put 15% in my 401K (as does the wife and then get a little bit more as a result of the Company match). As a whole, we live off of one income with the rest going into savings. Additionally, I've been banking my last couple raises/bonuses vs. increasing my spending costs, which has been pretty sweet. Would love to be super aggressive saving when I'm young, since if I've never seen the money or gotten used to having it in my paycheck, then in theory, I won't really be missing it.

I put roughly half of it for retirement cash and the other half in a "staging" savings account for emergencies etc that I can touch, the other half I cannot access readily.

[SnB]

I used to work in one of our client's offices where 90% of the employees didn't go to college. Let me tell you, there is a MAJOR difference between 20 somethings w/ degrees and 20 somethings w/o degrees. Not in intelligence per se, but in how they conduct themselves and certain life decisions that are made. We couldn't organize a happy hour on a certain friday because it wasn't their payday. Most of them didn't have $100 to their name.

 

As others have said, you pretty much need that piece of paper to have a half decent shot at getting where you want to be in life.

[Texsox]

I wonder what everyone majored in when they went to high school.

 

For many positions a college degree fulfills the same role. College isn't a vocational school, it isn't always a job training program. Some employers are looking for employees who have a deeper and wider range of knowledge than a HS graduate. Those future employees demonstrated they can world to achieve a longer term goal, voluntarily. It can be easy, very easy, it can also be very affordable.

 

I'm certain that America's future is more dependent on a higher skilled, higher trained workforce than a less educated one. We will lose our asses to China and other less skilled countries for those jobs. We need to leverage our education system into a stronger future. Instead we seem to be trying to lower our incomes and lower our standard of living.

[Jenksismyhero]

I wonder what everyone majored in when they went to high school.

 

For many positions a college degree fulfills the same role. College isn't a vocational school, it isn't always a job training program. Some employers are looking for employees who have a deeper and wider range of knowledge than a HS graduate. Those future employees demonstrated they can world to achieve a longer term goal, voluntarily. It can be easy, very easy, it can also be very affordable.

 

I'm certain that America's future is more dependent on a higher skilled, higher trained workforce than a less educated one. We will lose our asses to China and other less skilled countries for those jobs. We need to leverage our education system into a stronger future. Instead we seem to be trying to lower our incomes and lower our standard of living.

 

100% agree. We need to shift our post-high school education model to something that's not dominated by the liberal arts schools. They are good for social development, terrible for career development.

[iamshack]

100% agree. We need to shift our post-high school education model to something that's not dominated by the liberal arts schools. They are good for social development, terrible for career development.

It should be shifted before that actually, into high schools. And it is in some areas. There are quite a few high schools out here that focus much more on trades than on college prep.

[Soxbadger]

Its not the system, its the people.

 

Most American's have amazing opportunities to do whatever they desire. They have the freedom to make mistakes, choose s***ty majors and drift through college expecting that there will be a handout at the end of the day for the money they spent.

 

Well that just isnt it how it works.

 

As for making things in High School shifted, what does that even mean? We start weeding out the intelligence class versus the worker class?

 

College was created to learn high level ideas. It wasnt created so that people can have a well paying job. At some point that has been lost, you should go to college to learn, not a stepping stone to making money.

[iamshack]

Its not the system, its the people.

 

Most American's have amazing opportunities to do whatever they desire. They have the freedom to make mistakes, choose s***ty majors and drift through college expecting that there will be a handout at the end of the day for the money they spent.

 

Well that just isnt it how it works.

 

As for making things in High School shifted, what does that even mean? We start weeding out the intelligence class versus the worker class?

 

College was created to learn high level ideas. It wasnt created so that people can have a well paying job. At some point that has been lost, you should go to college to learn, not a stepping stone to making money.

Yeah, and it was originally something that only the most privileged people could do.

 

That is no longer its purpose.

[Steve9347]

Some things have gone up, others have gone down.

 

Our grandparents and great-grand parents often spent 30-40% of their income just on food.

 

I probably spend 5%?

Stop eating McDonald's!

[Soxbadger]

Then what is its purpose?

 

You cant teach someone how to make money.

[iamshack]

Stop eating McDonald's!

I haven't eaten McDonald's in years and years...

 

I prepare almost all of my own meals myself.

[Balta1701]

I know it doesn't apply to all careers, but at least in the field I'm in, I firmly believe there's a huge advantage to a "classical" education, in terms of actually starting to understand how to think and react to opinions, arguments, data, etc.