Awkward Wealth

[Major Tom]

So-to be clear-you are saying an average starting wage of $45k is unacceptably low?

Riiight.

I'd be interested to see a bit more data, rather than just an average starting wage. Averages, as I think most of us know, don't really tell us a lot. There could be a small number of grads making a lot, and a lot making a little - or they could all be making around 45K. I'd be interested to see the distribution of wages for recent grads - including those who, for whatever reason, are not working.

The arguments (I use that term loosely) that purplesky is attempting to make are (obviously) merely opinions until backed up with data from a credible source.

 

[hakuna matata]

It would not impress me because I can buy Patek watch as well as BMW in cash. I would HATE to look rich. It is impractical.......

Taking a quick peruse through your prior posts I see you don't seem to mind owning a vacation home...isn't that a bit snobbish too? Only people I know who own vacation homes are rich people right? Who needs two homes? Owning a vacation home that sits vacant a lot of the time, well now that is impractical. I saw it all the time in my architectural practice. People wanted a million dollar condo in Vail that sat there vacant all year long except for one week during Christmas.

Personally I don't see having a vacation home, or a second home, or a fancy vacation, or a watch or a fancy car as impractical or showing off. Each person has money to be spent the way they choose. Who am I to judge how they choose to do that, I am quite certain someone here (or in real life) would think how I choose to spend my money is wrong--but f*** them is all I have to say!

 

[Hamlet]

There is a world of difference between the early 90s recession and the recent one. We are six years into this, and the job market still has not recovered for the under-25 crowd--

Unemployment and the class of 2014: How bad is the job market for new college grads?

Six years after the 90s recession we had one of the best job markets in history. Pretty much anyone who could fog a mirror could get a job.

Look at the charts in that link and tell me that recent college graduates aren't facing a tougher environment than their counterparts in the 90s.

In addition the cost of college has skyrocketed in real terms, so the level of debt required to get that degree has gone up dramatically. I went to the U of Minn in the early 90s, and the cost of tuition was ~$3000/year. Today it is about $12000/year. That means that the cost of going to the U of Minn has more than doubled after inflation-adjustment.

You and I faced two years or so of a crappy job market before entering one of the best job markets possible. Recent graduates have faced six years and counting, and are doing it with much more student debt than people in our generation needed.

The millenials are facing a legitimately raw deal compared to us and the boomers.

Yep, if you graduated into a recession, it sucks. I came out in the tail end of the early 90s recession and suffered for it as well. I delivered pizza for a while after graduating, then worked 3 or 4 sh!tty jobs (including the only job I was ever fired from) until the economy improved enough that people like early/mid 20s me could start getting a decent job. We moved to get to a much bigger job market and ended up living almost 2 years in my parents' house as a married couple (a joy, I can tell you). But you know what? I kept testing the market, going back to school at night, saving my pennies and being aggressive about moving on when a better opportunity showed up. Today's (spoiled) millenials will eventually get there, too. The ones with an ounce of common sense and drive will get there faster than their layabout peers that the media loves to highlight with all the sob stories.

 

[Andre1969]

I just thought of one moment of "awkward wealth" that backfired a bit. When my wife and I were going through our marital problems and on the brink of divorce, her mother got involved, talked to a lawyer, and mentioned "Oh, and he has FIVE cars!" I think the divorce lawyer saw dollar signs, and immediately said "Well, that's going to change". The soon-to-be ex-wife relayed this information to me, as if to be a threat.

But then I told her to remind this lawyer that those cars consist of (1) a 1957 DeSoto that's titled and registered in my grandmother's name, because I couldn't afford to insure it when I bought it; (2) a beat-up $400 1969 Pontiac Bonneville that's dead in my grandmother's yard...come tow it away and it's yours!; (3) a 1967 Pontiac Catalina convertible that overheats, doesn't have working a/c or heat, and has a hole in the roof so it needs to be kept indoors or it will lose its value VERY quickly; (4) a 1968 Dodge Dart with over 300,000 miles on it; and (5) a 1988 LeBaron that I bought from my uncle, for her to drive, for $2000...but still owed my uncle the whole $2000 for!

I also mentioned that we were pushing $26,000 in credit card debt at the time, and I had no equity whatsoever in my condo. Needless to say, once he discovered those little details, it didn't take that lawyer very long to lose interest in the case...

 

[eta2020]

Taking a quick peruse through your prior posts I see you don't seem to mind owning a vacation home...isn't that a bit snobbish too? Only people I know who own vacation homes are rich people right? Who needs two homes? Owning a vacation home that sits vacant a lot of the time, well now that is impractical. I saw it all the time in my architectural practice. People wanted a million dollar condo in Vail that sat there vacant all year long except for one week during Christmas.

Personally I don't see having a vacation home, or a second home, or a fancy vacation, or a watch or a fancy car as impractical or showing off. Each person has money to be spent the way they choose. Who am I to judge how they choose to do that, I am quite certain someone here (or in real life) would think how I choose to spend my money is wrong--but f*** them is all I have to say!

You are correct. My reply was inappropriate.......

BTW vacation house will not loose 10%-20% of its value the day you buy it. But if one finds enjoyment in life in buying X or Y they should go for it

 

[MichaelB]

Not sure which of these two links are most appropriate, so I'm posting both.

.
.
AT LAST THE 1948 SHOW - Brooke-Taylor, Chapman, Cleese, Feldman - Four Yorkshiremen - YouTube

.
.
Argument Clinic - Monty Python's The Flying Circus - YouTube

 

[Andre1969]

You are correct. My reply was inappropriate.......

BTW vacation house will not loose 10%-20% of its value the day you buy it. But if one finds enjoyment in life in buying X or Y they should go for it

If you have a vacation home, you're not really flashing your wealth to others, unless you're constantly bringing it up in conversation and bragging about it. Nobody sees it, except for the neighbors, and anybody you happen to invite to it.

But, more people are going to notice a flashy car, because they'll see you in it on a regular basis. And an expensive watch? Well that's literally wearing your wealth on your sleeve!

 

[eta2020]

If you have a vacation home, you're not really flashing your wealth to others, unless you're constantly bringing it up in conversation and bragging about it. Nobody sees it, except for the neighbors, and anybody you happen to invite to it.

But, more people are going to notice a flashy car, because they'll see you in it on a regular basis. And an expensive watch? Well that's literally wearing your wealth on your sleeve!

Ohh and I would add I use 2 months in summer when I work remotely from Europe. So it is not sitting vacant all year long.

It is in town where I was born. It really is more of the emotional thing then anything else.

 

[Sarah in SC]

My vote is for argument clinic, Michael.

 

[ERD50]

My vote is for argument clinic, Michael.

Well, in that case, my vote is for "The Four Yorkshiremen"!

Wait, this isn't an argument, it's merely contradiction! ....

-ERD50

 

[hakuna matata]

You are correct. My reply was inappropriate.......

BTW vacation house will not loose 10%-20% of its value the day you buy it. But if one finds enjoyment in life in buying X or Y they should go for it

no worries--just ribbing you a little. I think we all have things we buy that others would roll their eyes at. My best friend has a beautiful vacation home that I wouldn't touch with a 10' pole but he is happy with it. I am sure he thinks my beer making stuff is just a total waste of money (but he always seems to want to drink my beer!

Now in full disclosure I have a BMW--but it is a 2001 530i that I paid $7000 for and now has 101,000 miles on it. I just like the way it drives and I doubt I lost any money on it the day I bought it.

 

[Walt34]

Somehow, I doubt this guy feels awkward about buying 30 Rolls Royce cars: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chine...-195431205.html;_ylt=AwrBEiJs3BlUoQgAMVqTmYlQ

He's definitely in in the "If you got it, flaunt it" camp.

 

[aja8888]

Awkward wealth?

I just spent the last two days in the Amish counties of Pennsylvania. I have not seen one BMW or Lexus but sure have seen a lot of very nice farms.

 

[aja8888]

I just thought of one moment of "awkward wealth" that backfired a bit. When my wife and I were going through our marital problems and on the brink of divorce, her mother got involved, talked to a lawyer, and mentioned "Oh, and he has FIVE cars!" I think the divorce lawyer saw dollar signs, and immediately said "Well, that's going to change". The soon-to-be ex-wife relayed this information to me, as if to be a threat.

But then I told her to remind this lawyer that those cars consist of (1) a 1957 DeSoto that's titled and registered in my grandmother's name, because I couldn't afford to insure it when I bought it; (2) a beat-up $400 1969 Pontiac Bonneville that's dead in my grandmother's yard...come tow it away and it's yours!; (3) a 1967 Pontiac Catalina convertible that overheats, doesn't have working a/c or heat, and has a hole in the roof so it needs to be kept indoors or it will lose its value VERY quickly; (4) a 1968 Dodge Dart with over 300,000 miles on it; and (5) a 1988 LeBaron that I bought from my uncle, for her to drive, for $2000...but still owed my uncle the whole $2000 for!

I also mentioned that we were pushing $26,000 in credit card debt at the time, and I had no equity whatsoever in my condo. Needless to say, once he discovered those little details, it didn't take that lawyer very long to lose interest in the case...

Question...which cars did the ex get?

 

[Live And Learn]

No need to be ashamed (or proud) of such possessions. Ultimately we are all alive for a short time, and 'you can't take it with you'. If owning and using fine quality goods gives you pleasure and you can afford the expense, why not?

Some might argue that you are a victim of marketing, and insufficiently aware of the 'hedonic adaptation' phenomenon; but even if that is true, it is not apparent that your tastes/choices hurt anyone else (the 'comments' on this blog entry debate at some length the 'morality' of luxury purchases. The arguments of "Derek" - who suggests that treating oneself to a $109 notebook is entirely indefensible in a world where so many have so little - seem to me to be specious and superficial, but we all have our opinions …).

Of course, if a person goes around gratuitously flaunting their expensive stuff, or rubbishing other people's cheaper possessions, that would be deplorable; but there is no evidence of any such conduct on LARS' part.

I agree with pb4uski: merely because someone prefers nice things doesn't necessarily imply that they are 'showing off'. Sometimes what is presumed to be conspicuous consumption is no more than private enjoyment.

It's also noteworthy that a pricey car/boat/house/watch/whatever may be less expensive for a UHNWI than a cheap alternative is for a middle class person: it's all relative.

Thank you for this post. Very nicely written.

Totally agree that everything is relative. Maybe the BMW driver can afford a Massareti (sp?) cash, but is living below their means ? Seriously - who cares.

The issue is when someone flaunts wealth in the face of those who do not have -- "hey, look at my shopping cart full of stuff you can't afford - no milk, bread and eggs here ! BTW - where's the caviar (ya know, fish eggs ?)?" FUEGO may not have been "showing off" but I can see how he would feel awkward in that moment in front of someone he personally knew could not afford what he was buying. I'm a wimp and would have avoided having the lady anywhere near my shopping cart and I never wold have asked her to help me find a relatively expensive item. But that's just me.

 

[purplesky]

So-to be clear-you are saying an average starting wage of $45k is unacceptably low?

Riiight.

No I didn't say that. But I will say that a college grad with 50k or more in student loan debt(many kids do) will be paying for that loan for many years unless they move into their parents basement and throw all their cash at that loan for 5 years.

The thing is. Many college grads are making much less than 45k and they will not be buying houses or investing anytime soon.

The point is for many kids college is now a bad investment. College is great for certain degrees. In 1990 any college degree would work. Corporate America was hiring.

The H1B visa is just one example of how college grads are getting screwed and I see it first hand. 2 workers from India will work 16 hour days keeping wages artificially low so why hire some American college kid who is too expensive.

And to be honest 45k doesn't seem like a very good return on investment if I am spending 100k to get it.

What do you think the chances are of a Student loan bailout?

If you look at wages vs student loan debt/college costs I say a bailout might just happen sooner than later.

Apparently some people on this forum are very wealthy and in a bubble.

Somebody on here claims that the "lost generation" or "The lost decade" was invented by the media.

 

[eta2020]

Thank you for this post. Very nicely written.

Totally agree that everything is relative. Maybe the BMW driver can afford a Massareti (sp?) cash, but is living below their means ? Seriously - who cares.

That is all fine....but if you happen to wear 100k watch don't assume that somebody else who wears 10 dollar Seiko can not easily afford your watch. Maybe just maybe somebody else not care about wearing 100k watches.

Maybe just maybe, the guy/gal driving a better (or way better) car (or house or suit, etc.) than you simply made more money than you and can easily afford to buy what he/she wants.

Wonder who you think my Patek watch is to impress...

 

[Keim]

I'd be interested to see a bit more data, rather than just an average starting wage. Averages, as I think most of us know, don't really tell us a lot. There could be a small number of grads making a lot, and a lot making a little - or they could all be making around 45K. I'd be interested to see the distribution of wages for recent grads - including those who, for whatever reason, are not working.

The arguments (I use that term loosely) that purplesky is attempting to make are (obviously) merely opinions until backed up with data from a credible source.

Read the article I linked. It does give a bit more of a breakdown, by type of major. Not what you are after, but good grist for the mill nonetheless.

 

[Keim]

...The thing is. Many college grads are making much less than 45k and they will not be buying houses or investing anytime soon...

True. $45k is the average income out of school. By definition that means that many people make less. And many others make more.

That is how averages work.

 

[Walt34]

True. $45k is the average income out of school. By definition that means that many people make less. And many others make more.

That is how averages work.

Yes. DW ran into a former classmate (DW got her BA at age 53) who also has a BA, don't know what the major is. Anyway, her friend is working at the college now. On the custodial staff.

 

[purplesky]

True. $45k is the average income out of school. By definition that means that many people make less. And many others make more.

That is how averages work.

So I mentioned in a earlier post that I heard Ric Edelman(9/6 podcast) talking about the job market for college grads. He talked about this study The Federal reserve bank of New York released. http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci20-1.pdf

There was an article also in the Wall street journal about this study.

According to Ric Edelman and the NYfed study, College grads make an avg. of 48k while high school grads only make 25k.

BUT roughly a quarter of college grads who have jobs are making the same money as high school grads make.
So its the underemployment rate thats the problem for college grads and it just keeps getting worse.
According to Ric Edelman and the study the underemployment rate of college grads is 46% and higher than ever. 1 out of 2 college graduates is underemployed.
They are making no more money than high school grads are making.

Out of every 100 kids who enter college 40 do not graduate. 60% pass rate.

Of the 60 who do graduate 15 of them will only make what a high school grad makes.

So what college costs about 50k 100k 150k? Lots of cash to spend for not enough high income jobs?

I am not trying to argue. I just heard about this study and its interesting.

The real issue is that the level of underemployment has increased for college grads.

 

[aja8888]

So I mentioned in a earlier post that I heard Ric Edelman(9/6 podcast) talking about the job market for college grads. He talked about this study The Federal reserve bank of New York released. http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci20-1.pdf

There was an article also in the Wall street journal about this study.

According to Ric Edelman and the NYfed study, College grads make an avg. of 48k while high school grads only make 25k.

BUT roughly a quarter of college grads who have jobs are making the same money as high school grads make.
So its the underemployment rate thats the problem for college grads and it just keeps getting worse.
According to Ric Edelman and the study the underemployment rate of college grads is 46% and higher than ever. 1 out of 2 college graduates is underemployed.
They are making no more money than high school grads are making.

Out of every 100 kids who enter college 40 do not graduate. 60% pass rate.

Of the 60 who do graduate 15 of them will only make what a high school grad makes.

So what college costs about 50k 100k 150k? Lots of cash to spend for not enough high income jobs?

I am not trying to argue. I just heard about this study and its interesting.

The real issue is that the level of underemployment has increased for college grads.

The thing about these studies is they assume that people that manage to get out of college are like robots and all have what it takes to get jobs.

I have seen drug addicts get through college as long as they got someone to pay. There are a lot of people who get degrees and can't even bag groceries, let alone make it in a job that requires actually producing something. There are also a lot of graduates who don't want jobs (we have one in our family) and find a spouse or live in to pay the bills.

I firmly believe that if a person who has goals, some smarts, ambition and spark, can go through college these days and find a great job.

And what does Rick Edleman have to do with this topic? I thought he was a FA shark type?

 

[EastWest Gal]

Awkward wealth?

I just spent the last two days in the Amish counties of Pennsylvania. I have not seen one BMW or Lexus but sure have seen a lot of very nice farms.

Just stop by a physician's parking lot at one if the hospitals around here...that's where I 'm working right now. But the BMWs aren't mine. I have a Prius. I hope you enjoyed your trip.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Keim]

This reads suspiciously like a standard bell curve to me.

So I mentioned in a earlier post that I heard Ric Edelman(9/6 podcast) talking about the job market for college grads. He talked about this study The Federal reserve bank of New York released. http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci20-1.pdf

There was an article also in the Wall street journal about this study.

According to Ric Edelman and the NYfed study, College grads make an avg. of 48k while high school grads only make 25k.

BUT roughly a quarter of college grads who have jobs are making the same money as high school grads make.
So its the underemployment rate thats the problem for college grads and it just keeps getting worse.
According to Ric Edelman and the study the underemployment rate of college grads is 46% and higher than ever. 1 out of 2 college graduates is underemployed.
They are making no more money than high school grads are making.

Out of every 100 kids who enter college 40 do not graduate. 60% pass rate.

Of the 60 who do graduate 15 of them will only make what a high school grad makes.

So what college costs about 50k 100k 150k? Lots of cash to spend for not enough high income jobs?

I am not trying to argue. I just heard about this study and its interesting.

The real issue is that the level of underemployment has increased for college grads.

 

[brewer12345]

And what does Rick Edleman have to do with this topic? I thought he was a FA shark type?

He is also a fundamentalist nutjob who reportedly fires any staffers who deviate at all from his idea of biblically appropriate behavior, infiltrates ex employee online groups, and brings guns to meetings where he talks about the importance of loyalty to him and his company. A very credible source, dontchaknow?