What's life like with 100K/year or more?

[Sam]

Sorry if your opinion doesn't jive with mine. I've obviously had an unusual experience, definitely not typical.

There you go. I agree with you on the unusual, atypical experience. Congrats on your success and experience.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I think the old saying that "the more you make, the more you spend" rings true here and people take advantage of more disposable income like the good, media-conditioned consumers that they are without really thinking about it.

After I went 100% out on my own (1987) my income had some huge
peaks and valleys. I only cracked 100K a couple of years when I was working and our lifestyle really never changed at all, no matter if the
income was up or down. If it was up it got spent and if it was down
far enough (there was always a point below which I felt uncomfortable
lifestyle-wise) I would borrow my way back up to where I felt comfortable.

Real life example: In 1993, just after I ERed (first time) I was working
part time as a tax accountant. Maybe my total income (all sources)
was 20K. About the first thing I did after I went back to work in 1994
was buy a Cadillac. That's just the way I lived back then. Make it
and spend it.

JG

 

[retire@40]

...Maybe my total income (all sources) was 20K. About the first thing I did after I went back to work in 1994 was buy a Cadillac. That's just the way I lived back then. Make it
and spend it.

JG

I knew a guy that only made $2,000 a year and bought a Caddy.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I knew a guy that only made $2,000 a year and bought a Caddy.

Pimp start-up?

JG

 

[shiny]

Or at least eligible for "Pimp my Ride"!

 

[kcowan]

"Thinking, planning, focusing on the future, checking the competition, schmoozing bankers and others who can influence the business is work of a different color but work none the same."

is easier than

"digging ditches, loading trucks, assembling widgets, crunching numbers, testing products, making sales calls, etc."

The CEO you describe is in a large corporation and has to keep the board members behind him, keep the bankers confident, keep the market happy with company performance. In a smaller company, CEO/President are combined and have operational responsibilities too. They will make sales calls to stay in tune with their customers (and their competition). They will mentor their direct reports to improve overall leverage. They will be searching for replacements when their good (mentored) people get recruited away. Or when they need more executives because of company growth.

True that their backs will not hurt at the end of the shift unless they pull it on the links.

 

[Running_Man]

Insert Quote
Quote from: CybrMike on October 12, 2006, 10:29:55 PM
"Thinking, planning, focusing on the future, checking the competition, schmoozing bankers and others who can influence the business is work of a different color but work none the same."

is easier than

"digging ditches, loading trucks, assembling widgets, crunching numbers, testing products, making sales calls, etc."

The CEO you describe is in a large corporation and has to keep the board members behind him, keep the bankers confident, keep the market happy with company performance. In a smaller company, CEO/President are combined and have operational responsibilities too. They will make sales calls to stay in tune with their customers (and their competition). They will mentor their direct reports to improve overall leverage. They will be searching for replacements when their good (mentored) people get recruited away. Or when they need more executives because of company growth.

True that their backs will not hurt at the end of the shift unless they pull it on the links.

I have a clear view of what life is like for top executives, for a Fortune 500 company. The number one item on their mind is to maximise their income primarily through stock options and retirement plans. If you think not watch any company that has a stock price dropping when the market is rising. Virtually all of them will restructure and have layoffs which will include reduced employee benefits. The number one reason for a rise in pension costs in the past years are executive pensions which are 10-20 times more generous for top management than the plans being eliminated for the ditch diggers. The value of retaining talent so you don't have to "nuture future employeees" is great indeed. Everything else is secondary, all meetings, actions are taken with the stock price in mind. Mentoring their reports is a by-product of their actions not an intent. CEO's name each other to board of directors of other companies especially after they retire. It is a club and requires little real work.

I have no problem with what the CEO's make it is America go for it if you want. But to suggest that $100,000 after tax is not that much money means you have no view or compassion for the average person on this Earth nor the ability to help society better itself. In a heartbeat you will cut 30 employees in an IT department to go to an Indian IT outfit if the financials are correct and will demonstrate increased profitability that can reflect in a stock price.

This topic has been sufficiently depressing to read. Assumming you have enough to build an annual income of $100,000 after tax and feel it is not quite enough because you enjoy your Lexus and lake house and would like to continue to fly 1st class? God help you all.

 

[WFL]

I recently read Stumblling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert. You can see the Amazon reviews here:
http://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Hap...3330/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1863618-4377536?ie=UTF8

The book is about how well people are able to predict what will make them happy.
It addresses why the fancy new car is satisfying, but only for a short while.

It's a handy book for anyone who wants to FIRE and I think that a lot of the LBYMers seem to know this stuff instinctively. The rest of us learn it along the way.

 

[CybrMike]

he he, I meant show how a CEO's job is not that tough. Next time your in Indy you should stop by the office.

I live an hour north of you and would gladly become a student...show me
how to make 100k/year. I don't have anything to offer in return though.

 

[modlair]

A bit of math shows that spending 100K per year means the person has about a 2.2 million nest egg at 4ish%.

It is maybe intriguing to note that the nestegg approach is about the only way this will happen. A pure pension approach will take a tax hit and so to get 100K of spending money would require 180K or more of pension. Not too many of those around. Even with a dual pension family it is 90K each.

Hell, even the airline pilots got slashed under that. I think their top guys are getting 70K from the pension agency after their airlines shut them off. I wonder how that works and whether or not the pension agency can cut them again.

 

[scrubradio]

he he, I meant show how a CEO's job is not that tough. Next time your in Indy you should stop by the office.

I knew presicely what you meant. I was having fun as well as working
to create any opportunities that I could for myself

 

[LOL!]

A bit of math shows that spending 100K per year means the person has about a 2.2 million nest egg at 4ish%.

It is maybe intriguing to note that the nestegg approach is about the only way this will happen. A pure pension approach will take a tax hit and so to get 100K of spending money would require 180K or more of pension. Not too many of those around. Even with a dual pension family it is 90K each.

A simple TaxTurbo run of a married filing jointly under age 65 each with $90,000 pension or total of $180K and not itemizing generates about $36,000 in tax. That leaves about $144K in spending money. If the couple has a lower pension but qualified dividends and long term capital gains to make up the difference, the tax is even lower.

If their total pension was $120K, they would pay about $20K in income tax leaving them with $100K.

Once again, if pension was lower and dividendends+cap gains higher, they would pay less tax. For example, pension of $100K, qualified dividend of $20K, tax is only $17,236.

There are a couple reasons I ran the numbers: (1) It reflects our nest egg and expenses and (2) taxes often seem to be exaggerated around here.

I'm glad I don't need $180K before-tax in retirement to fund our lifestyle.

 

[Martha]

But to suggest that $100,000 after tax is not that much money means you have no view or compassion for the average person on this Earth nor the ability to help society better itself. In a heartbeat you will cut 30 employees in an IT department to go to an Indian IT outfit if the financials are correct and will demonstrate increased profitability that can reflect in a stock price.

I have a friend who is CEO of a company that employs about 300 people. He is also the majority stock holder and the company is private. He would make a lot more money if he off-sourced his manufacturing to china and cut his US employees down to 20-30. He won't. He feels a duty to his employees and his community. His product is more expensive than his competitors but he has developed a reputation for the highest quality and has a strong brand. He could get rich but that isn't his priority. And he is having fun at what he does too.

 

[Patrick]

I have a friend who is CEO of a company that employs about 300 people. He is also the majority stock holder and the company is private. He would make a lot more money if he off-sourced his manufacturing to china and cut his US employees down to 20-30. He won't. He feels a duty to his employees and his community. His product is more expensive than his competitors but he has developed a reputation for the highest quality and has a strong brand. He could get rich but that isn't his priority. And he is having fun at what he does too.

Quite a commendable approach when so many are outsourcing overseas to save a few bucks. Kudos to him!

 

[Sam]

I have a friend who is CEO of a company that employs about 300 people. He is also the majority stock holder and the company is private. He would make a lot more money if he off-sourced his manufacturing to china and cut his US employees down to 20-30. He won't. He feels a duty to his employees and his community. His product is more expensive than his competitors but he has developed a reputation for the highest quality and has a strong brand. He could get rich but that isn't his priority. And he is having fun at what he does too.

I had the pleasure of working for Wang Labs from 1985 to 1990. It was run by Dr. Wang himself (he owned 50+% of the stock). Although no longer a small company back then, Dr. Wang showed and demonstrated great care for the welfare of his employees. He was loved, respected, and revered by the employees. In 1988, he transferred control to his son, who hired a professional bean-counter shortly afteward. Morale went down along with productivity, creativity, loyalty... After 2 years in that depressing environment, I left.

 

[Spanky]

Quite a commendable approach when so many are outsourcing overseas to save a few bucks. Kudos to him!

It's hoped that this is the trend.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Quite a commendable approach when so many are outsourcing overseas to save a few bucks. Kudos to him!

Yeah, I think it is just fine. About as rare as an honest politician, but fine
nonetheless.

JG

 

[Spanky]

I had the pleasure of working for Wang Labs from 1985 to 1990. It was run by Dr. Wang himself (he owned 50+% of the stock). Although no longer a small company back then, Dr. Wang showed and demonstrated great care for the welfare of his employees. He was loved, respected, and revered by the employees. In 1988, he transferred control to his son, who hired a professional bean-counter shortly afteward. Morale went down along with productivity, creativity, loyalty... After 2 years in that depressing environment, I left.

It's too bad that Wang has fallen on way side.

 

[audreyh1]

I recently read Stumblling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert. You can see the Amazon reviews here:
http://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Hap...3330/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1863618-4377536?ie=UTF8

The book is about how well people are able to predict what will make them happy.
It addresses why the fancy new car is satisfying, but only for a short while.

It's a handy book for anyone who wants to FIRE and I think that a lot of the LBYMers seem to know this stuff instinctively. The rest of us learn it along the way.

Maybe LBYMers just pay attention to what really makes them happy and what disappoints. Maybe they notice how fleeting some types of happiness actually are.

Maybe that's why non-LBYMers think living below one's means is just impossible - they don't pay attention to their real life experience.

(Although personally I think it's more about being able to prioritize and choose wisely. When you consciously look at the tradeoffs you are making it sure takes the sting out of choosing).

Audrey

 

[Gone4Good]

It's hoped that this is the trend.

Is it?

Consider the implications if the majority of corporations in the US sacrificed efficiency and profitability for the sake of employing more people. The knee jerk reaction is that it would be all milk and honey. The unfortunate reality is that the whole of the US would eventually end up looking a lot like General Motors.

An individual company in a niche business with a strong brand can, for a time, ignore economics and overpay and over-employ its workers. Eventually, though, another company will look to capture those excess profits for themselves forcing the benevolent company to either change or go bankrupt.

Although this may sound lamentable, this "creative destruction" forces greater output per worker which is the bed rock upon which national wealth is created - without which we would all still be scratching out meager livings on a farm. Be thankful for the profit motive. We are all wealthier and more comfortable because of it (even those folks losing jobs to competition).

 

[Patrick]

We are all wealthier and more comfortable because of it (even those folks losing jobs to competition).

This statement is totally illogical. How can folks standing in lines for unemployment and welfare be wealthier and more comfortable?

 

[Leonidas]

Is it?

Consider the implications if the majority of corporations in the US sacrificed efficiency and profitability for the sake of employing more people. The knee jerk reaction is that it would be all milk and honey. The unfortunate reality is that the whole of the US would eventually end up looking a lot like General Motors.

I have to agree with your post, although I think that executive compensation/pensions are too often ridiculously high.

Interesting thought - As investors we reward the CEO's of companies that cut costs, increase productivity/profitability and reward us with higher valuations and dividend payments. The more stock we buy the higher the valuations of the stock in those companies and that equals more financial incentives for the CEO.

As a regular guy who worked all his life and is looking forward to a pension, I look at CEO's who outsource jobs and raid pension plans as rat bastards. When I'm wearing my "investor" hat I don't care how much the CEO makes, or what the employment or pension costs are other than how they affect the company's financial picture. I'm a little conflicted, but it's not something that keeps me awake at night.

A golf buddy owns a company that outsources some of their manufacturing work to India. I asked him about that and he said that he would be out of business if it were not for the cheap labor costs he gets through outsourcing. He employs people in the U.S., Canada and Australia and says that while he "could" employ more people in those countries if he did his manufacturing there, he would wind up laying all of his employees off when he went out of business. "I send my low skill demand to India where they do it for less than a tenth of what I would have to pay for it here, and I keep highly skilled workers in higher paying jobs. It makes sense to me."

 

[youbet]

I look at CEO's who outsource jobs and raid pension plans as rat bastards.

Yep, they're doing what they gotta do, but they're rat bastards just the same!

 

[Gone4Good]

This statement is totally illogical. How can folks standing in lines for unemploymnet and welfare be wealthier and more comfortable?

The answer to your question is that the unemployed worker in the US (and any other developed capitalist system) still has a higher standard of living then most other people in the world. It is economic dynamism and free competition that allows the wealth creation that elevates standards of living . . . even for those who are temporarily disadvantaged by change.

 

[Gone4Good]

I have to agree with your post, although I think that executive compensation/pensions are too often ridiculously high.

The executive compensation system in the US is undeniably broken, lacking any meaningful checks or balances. This is an inefficiency that should be fixed - but not necessarily by government. It is the job of shareholders to assert their authority as owners of the company to rein in executive pay. In recent years shareholders have become increasingly activist and, one hopes, will eventually take up the issue.

Your broader point is absolutely correct. In talking about these issues many folks often lose sight of the forest for the trees. The forest being a dynamic, free-market that increases national wealth and strives for full employment against the individual "trees" that are temporarily displaced as a result of progressive change.