The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: Bearblastbeats on January 16, 2018, 12:18:51 PM
-
it blows my mind. I see on here with sometimes close to 200k. How? What do you do and what am I not doing? lol.
-
Step 1) Identify a career where salaries that high are the norm.
Step 2) Become qualified for one of those careers.
Step 3) Profit.
-
Step 1) Identify a career where salaries that high are the norm.
Step 2) Become qualified for one of those careers.
Step 3) Profit.
Pretty much that.
-
Where you are also matters. You can have the same job and the salary will vary quite a bit depending on location. But yeah, target the higher grossing careers.
-
Step 1) Identify a career where salaries that high are the norm.
Step 2) Become qualified for one of those careers.
Step 3) Profit.
2.5. Be prepared to spend a lot of time working your way up to that salary. Not everyone is starting out at $100k.
-
That's it? That's the secret?
-
Step 1) Identify a career where salaries that high are the norm.
Step 2) Become qualified for one of those careers.
Step 3) Profit.
Step 4:
Be willing to change jobs to get bigger bumps (<- this is my problem. Yes I am over $100k but easily $30k underpaid).
-
OK but which careers are these? I imagine doctor, law firm partner, people who work in finance? What else?
-
OK but which careers are these? I imagine doctor, law firm partner, people who work in finance? What else?
Engineers, medical professionals, consultants, investors, business owners to name a few more.
-
Graduated college in 2011 with an engineering degree. Got first real job in January 2012.
Started out at 50k, climbed an average of ~10k per year and broke 100k for the first time this year with a big unexpected bonus (gross 116k).
I feel like I've gotten lucky although I have worked hard / outperformed my peers to get here.
My wife on the other hand went through medical school accumulating 6 figures of debt and will be making marginally more than me (~120k) in the second half of 2018 once she finishes her residency.
If she was an engineer we might be FIRED by now.............
Another big one is sales. If you are good at sales (and can stomach it) you can make much more than 100k.
-
This is in Canada but my husband makes that being a Flight Service Specialist with NavCanada. Took him a while to get there and had to live up north for a while. But only requires their specialized courses, not any other post-secondary.
-
IT jobs.....
and I'm betting lots of electricians and plumbers can make that.....lots of folks don't know how to do stuff like that.
-
Step 1) Identify a career where salaries that high are the norm.
Step 2) Become qualified for one of those careers.
Step 3) Profit.
Step 4:
Be willing to change jobs to get bigger bumps (<- this is my problem. Yes I am over $100k but easily $30k underpaid).
I've changed my job about 4 times in my engineering career and only make $60k now. :/ I can't complain though.
-
PharmD, Nurse specialists ($100k includes OT), Law, Investment banking, Dentist, IT specialists, Software developers, Sales specialists especially when they're managers/GMs, lots of small and medium businesses. There are hundreds of jobs that make 6 figures, I don't get the point of asking which careers. Google could help you out in that regard.
Now how to get to 6 figures within a particular path is a question that takes more detail. Biglaw and IB folks make that right out of college but you need to intern and land those coveted spots. Almost any doctor will make 6 figures as soon as they start proper doctorin'.
I make mid 200k in IT, I just job hopped every couple of years taking increasingly more challenging *AND* more specialized spots each time. Got a very difficult professional certification as well. Started at 30 years old and had my first 6 figure salary at 36. Took another 6 to hit 200k total comp.
-
Keep in mind too, a lot of these careers require a massive upfront investment of money and/or time to get there. DH and I together make over $100k, but we also have a combined 11 years of undergrad (3 BS degrees) and 3 years of graduate level schooling (1 MS degree), and have paid massive amounts in tuition over the years (and that was WITH a full ride scholarship for 4 of the undergrad years).
So in your calculations, just be sure you look at debt to earnings ratios. Careers like doctors, vets, and lawyers especially come out looking less rosy after these calculations.
FWIW, husband is an engineer, I'm a nurse.
ETA: oh yeah, and be willing to move. We've moved for school programs and work multiple times. And be willing to commute, and hustle, to get those jobs. Husband works 24+ hour shifts every few months. For over a year, I was doing 4 15 hour days per week. We've had our commuter car for 13 months, and it already has 26k work miles on it.
-
Union and municipality jobs - in blue states. Public safety jobs - in blue states. Jobs whose pay is linked to municipal or public safety jobs. Jobs that allow overtime. NYPD earn $90k (without overtime) in year 5 and they only need two years of college. That is $100k by age 25. Everyone tied to the NYPD pay scale follows in lockstep.
Salaries in HCOL areas are 30% higher than salaries in LCOL areas. In HCOL areas $200k is the new $100k. $100k was a big deal in the 1990s but no longer.
-
Tax accounting. Congress keeps us employed and makes it nice and complicated so the earnings potential is there.
-
Really easy to make $100k as an engineer. $200k? That's not quite as easy but still doable especially if you're in a high COL area.
-
OK but which careers are these? I imagine doctor, law firm partner, people who work in finance? What else?
Actually, $100k isn't a huge amount these days (just like being a millionaire ain't what it used to be). There's a BIG list of professions (white or blue collar, working for the man or self-employed, etc.) that will get you that in a relatively short amount of time (30s). Just google "highest paying jobs" or similar.
That said, for the sake of your happiness and well being, DON'T just pick a career path based on money! That's what MMM did: picked a career he hated (though I won't pretend to know his reasons for picking that career). His real solution wasn't what he preaches, his real solution was to switch careers to something he DOES like.
-
Where I live (near Washington, DC), $100k salary is probably a bit below average.
-
I didn't have a college degree and temped for a couple of years, making between $12-20/hr. Within a decade my base salary was over $100k. Earlier than that if you include bonus comp. Combination of luck, talent, and strategic networking. Living in NYC also helped, as my salaries would not have been as high in many other locations.
I got some professional certifications, worked hard, switched jobs internally and externally, and was naturally talented at a couple things. I weaseled my way into one job after a year-long campaign to get the job description changed from bachelor's degree required to preferred.
I could have gotten to six figures much faster if I had focused less on being perfect at my job and more on making personal connections with those around me.
-
I started taking flying lessons at age 15, went to college and taught others to fly for the grand sum of about $12k/yr between 22-24. My first airline job paid me $22,500 in 2005. They now start around $55-$60k as there is a shortage of guys. I had my first five figure (over $10k) month when I was 26 but income has fluctuated greatly as the recession hit me with a huge pay cut. Took another 60k pay hit in 2014, but income has recovered. Gross around $160k now with 16% DC 401k. Unless the bottom falls out should be around 200k in a couple years around 40 (wow that sounds old!!).
Nice thing is the schedule is easy and gets better over time.
-
I followed a pretty boring formula: study engineering at a top state school. Summer internships. Full time offer after graduation. Got master’s while working, did development program at work, job rotations, mentors, and worked my butt off (though efficiently, not long hours). I jumped on opportunities to apply for management positions and promotions. Oh yes, and I did all of this in a HCOL area where salaries are also high.
Summary: hard work, good education, make the most of opportunities, good location
-
Finance professions will give you $100k+ if you stick at it. But with the rider that you do have to give up the additional hours and take the increased stress.
It does require a long term commitment. You can't simply up and quit every 8 months because you get bored, or need to "go find yourself" or whatevs. Flakey personalities aren't going to be around long enough to get those increases.
Same with any other profession really.
Summary: hard work, good education, make the most of opportunities, good location
+1
-
Graduated college in 2011 with an engineering degree. Got first real job in January 2012.
Started out at 50k, climbed an average of ~10k per year and broke 100k for the first time this year with a big unexpected bonus (gross 116k).
I feel like I've gotten lucky although I have worked hard / outperformed my peers to get here.
I would say this is not the norm and depends both on industry and location. Some fields and locations this just isn't feasible to climb this fast. How much overtime were you working for these? How many promotions and new positions?
-
OK but which careers are these? I imagine doctor, law firm partner, people who work in finance? What else?
I'm in tech.
-
Keep in mind too, a lot of these careers require a massive upfront investment of money and/or time to get there. DH and I together make over $100k, but we also have a combined 11 years of undergrad (3 BS degrees) and 3 years of graduate level schooling (1 MS degree), and have paid massive amounts in tuition over the years (and that was WITH a full ride scholarship for 4 of the undergrad years).
Yes, these sorts of salaries vary a lot in terms of degrees/time/training required to get the positions, and also whether the OP is asking about starting salaries versus mid or late career salaries.
DH is a research scientist working for the feds. In order to even qualify for his position he needed a PhD minimum (although, in his particular branch of research, no one gets a PhD without a Master's first, so essentially it required BSci, MSci, and then PhD degrees). Then for the majority of positions he wanted, he also needed to have done a post-Doc project.
DH went through school very fast, in relative terms, but that was still a 12 year commitment prior to starting his career.
His starting salary after all those qualification hoops was a hair over 50K.
He's making over 100K/year NOW, but it took some major performance raises and quite a few intervening years to get there. Plus, the federal pay scale maxes out at around 160K, even for the most superstar of federal scientists. But he didn't go into this field for the pay.
ETA: We know several IT/computer engineering people who were making close to 100K coming out of college with a Bachelor's, though that field has probably tightened up in the intervening years.
-
idk how people on here seem to do it so quickly.
KC metro here 28yo, I've been a Sys Admin for 5~ years and make roughly 70 with some nice benefits. Just need more certs + time I spose. Feels like I will top out around 80-90 though unless I get some more specific skill set (anyone have a suggestion on this btw?!)
All of my big advancements have come from moving jobs. Maybe thats the secret :P, attain job, attain skills/exp, get new job, rinse and repeat :P.
-
Healthcare Sr. Project Manager. No degree.
-
I've changed my job about 4 times in my engineering career and only make $60k now. :/ I can't complain though.
What kind of engineering do you do? How many years of experience do you have?
-
Step 1) Identify a career where salaries that high are the norm.
Step 2) Become qualified for one of those careers.
Step 3) Profit.
Yep. Passed a bunch of actuarial exams.
-
idk how people on here seem to do it so quickly.
KC metro here 28yo, I've been a Sys Admin for 5~ years and make roughly 70 with some nice benefits. Just need more certs + time I spose. Feels like I will top out around 80-90 though unless I get some more specific skill set (anyone have a suggestion on this btw?!)
All of my big advancements have come from moving jobs. Maybe thats the secret :P, attain job, attain skills/exp, get new job, rinse and repeat :P.
My thoughts exactly.
I never finished my bachelors, only have an associates and a few certs. I spent the last 7 years hopping and climbing up. When I did my last hop I went from working as an architectural associate making $37k, to a project engineer at $47k. Since I've been at my current job, My first two raises were quite generous (both at 9%+). I'm going on my 4th year and am up for another raise and review. I'm at $60k now and should expect at least 2% or more hopefully.
If I were to include my bonuses as well as the money from flooring installing on most weekends and money from my music career, I would guess I'm close to $100K. Let's just say I've never really worried about money because I can always make more.
-
idk how people on here seem to do it so quickly.
KC metro here 28yo, I've been a Sys Admin for 5~ years and make roughly 70 with some nice benefits. Just need more certs + time I spose. Feels like I will top out around 80-90 though unless I get some more specific skill set (anyone have a suggestion on this btw?!)
All of my big advancements have come from moving jobs. Maybe thats the secret :P, attain job, attain skills/exp, get new job, rinse and repeat :P.
http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/kansas-city-mo/secaucus-nj/70000
Simply relocating and getting a new job in a HCOL area would probably get you a 6-figure salary.
-
I've changed my job about 4 times in my engineering career and only make $60k now. :/ I can't complain though.
What kind of engineering do you do? How many years of experience do you have?
Yeah, what industry and years experience and qualifications make a huge difference. Next year will probably be the first year DH goes over $100k solo, and he has his masters and PE and works for a consulting firm. Depending on when you count his work experience starting, he has either 7 or 9 years experience.
-
Graduated college in 2011 with an engineering degree. Got first real job in January 2012.
Started out at 50k, climbed an average of ~10k per year and broke 100k for the first time this year with a big unexpected bonus (gross 116k).
I feel like I've gotten lucky although I have worked hard / outperformed my peers to get here.
I would say this is not the norm and depends both on industry and location. Some fields and locations this just isn't feasible to climb this fast. How much overtime were you working for these? How many promotions and new positions?
I graduated in 2003 at $55k and hit $100k in 2007 with a EE degree. For me the key was to move from tier 2 automotive supplier to a small-business aerospace company. I switched to the energy industry in 2008 and took a small pay cut for the move but was back above $100k the next year. That's base salary, bonuses would be on top of that. My other half makes a whole ton more money than me but she's not in engineering.
Seems like in engineering your salary shoots up quick but then levels off unless you go into management. My wife, in business, was slower to move up than I was but has since left me in the dust. I'm ok with it.
-
Sales, sales, sales, sales. Including staffing/recruiting.
Or start a service business in the trades - electrician, hvac, or plumbing.
Or a lot of other positions that we represent and place.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I've changed my job about 4 times in my engineering career and only make $60k now. :/ I can't complain though.
What kind of engineering do you do? How many years of experience do you have?
TBH, I'm not even a 'real' engineer because I'm not licensed. However, I would be Industrial Engineer in this position. We design and program conveyor layouts, robotics, automation.. Some of us here have Bachelors. We have one Electrical Engineer who does the programming. I have an associates in Architecture and Civil Engineering but I've built houses most of my life. They took me in because I'm a whiz at most CADD software and I use those transferable skills mainly in the project management side of my work.
I do know that the salesmen at my work make well over $100K and probably even $200. One project manager who works here makes over $100k, He even makes more than my Engineering Manager. (He's not too happy about it).
-
Spouse and I are both electrical engineers, both went to a great state school (minimal debt in my case, none in his because GI bill). We live in a HCOL area. He graduated college 1998, I in 2000. Our salaries are 153k (his) 120k (mine...yes, same degree from same school, working at same company, and I still only make 78% of what he does. Thankfully my current supervisor has worked hard the last few years to make it a smaller gap after I moved over to management). Neither of us work overtime at this point in our careers. I have gone into management but still make less than he does; that tends to vary depending on the company.
Other people I know who make the same (or more) are: Ph.D scientists working in industry (not sure how research compares), manufacturing engineers, IT company owners, program management/planning (often with a technical background although one I know who broke into six digits works for a local construction company), airline pilot, sales, medical field (a friend of ours is an MRI tech and he makes more than I do but works a lot of overtime, I know someone making upwards of 90k but not quite 100k in accounting within a medical group, mostly managing the finance office now).
-
idk how people on here seem to do it so quickly.
KC metro here 28yo, I've been a Sys Admin for 5~ years and make roughly 70 with some nice benefits. Just need more certs + time I spose. Feels like I will top out around 80-90 though unless I get some more specific skill set (anyone have a suggestion on this btw?!)
All of my big advancements have come from moving jobs. Maybe thats the secret :P, attain job, attain skills/exp, get new job, rinse and repeat :P.
Additional certs/licenses will be the way to keep climbing the salary ladder. Just more time studying and taking tests to make more money.
Not sure exactly what your duties are, but the Cisco certifications might help you advance your career further.
-
I learned on a career webinar yesterday that 8% of American workers earn $100k+ per year. It would be interesting to know what percentage of these workers live in HCOL areas.
-
I make $100k+ in a HCOL area (DC) as a non-profit director. For reference, $20K was my entry-level salary in the field about 20 years ago. For me, it's been a matter of being willing to move into more stressful managerial roles. I haven't enjoyed it much (hence, the desire to FIRE), but that's certainly where the money is.
-
idk how people on here seem to do it so quickly.
Because this community is self-selected and generally blows the general population out of the water on every development metric, and unlike real life, aren't shy to broadcast their achievements. So it feels like everyone is killing it.
-
idk how people on here seem to do it so quickly.
KC metro here 28yo, I've been a Sys Admin for 5~ years and make roughly 70 with some nice benefits. Just need more certs + time I spose. Feels like I will top out around 80-90 though unless I get some more specific skill set (anyone have a suggestion on this btw?!)
All of my big advancements have come from moving jobs. Maybe thats the secret :P, attain job, attain skills/exp, get new job, rinse and repeat :P.
http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/kansas-city-mo/secaucus-nj/70000
Simply relocating and getting a new job in a HCOL area would probably get you a 6-figure salary.
Yeah would be something I would consider if I had a bit different of a situation (family and such). Still seems some here manage it even in the midwest (which is probably just them being awesome =] ).
idk how people on here seem to do it so quickly.
KC metro here 28yo, I've been a Sys Admin for 5~ years and make roughly 70 with some nice benefits. Just need more certs + time I spose. Feels like I will top out around 80-90 though unless I get some more specific skill set (anyone have a suggestion on this btw?!)
All of my big advancements have come from moving jobs. Maybe thats the secret :P, attain job, attain skills/exp, get new job, rinse and repeat :P.
Additional certs/licenses will be the way to keep climbing the salary ladder. Just more time studying and taking tests to make more money.
Not sure exactly what your duties are, but the Cisco certifications might help you advance your career further.
Scheduled to do my VCP this year and my CCNA next year, my work wants me to be a generalist though... which probably isnt ideal for long term salary.
The strategy part of careers and specific careers is something that doesn't get discussed enough imo. It is quite a useful skill (that I'm not great at), that often isn't purposefully thought about.
-
$3.17 investment in house cleaning. No degree, no nothing.... just worked hard. Got my 1st worker kind of quick and it snowballed from there. Sometimes I wish I hadn't of sold it.... then a few hours later I sober up (actually I don't drink, just being funny). :)
There is a guy that used to go down to Louisiana and buy shrimp. Brought it back and sold it on the corner. Before too long he had almost every chef in town asking him to bring back different things from the coast. Now he makes a hefty amount selling wholesale & retail and has even opened a few seafood restaurants. But it all started with 1 cooler of shrimp.
I think nowadays it's easier to make a hefty amount of money than it used to be.
Are you interested in making a lot of money or being a millionaire? Most millionaires are just regular people. Teachers rank #4 on the millionaire list just so you know. <<< This list isn't released yet but I think it will be this year. So as you see, it doesn't take a huge salary, it just takes a plan.
-
Ph.D. in a STEM field = $$$
-
idk how people on here seem to do it so quickly.
Because this community is self-selected and generally blows the general population out of the water on every development metric, and unlike real life, aren't shy to broadcast their achievements. So it feels like everyone is killing it.
Hah yes, I spose this is a big part of that. And I'm on these forums with all you special folk ;)! Surely that must mean good things for my future!
-
For us--it's a combination of 0 undergrad debt, being professionals, and living in a HCOL area. We were both lucky enough to get through private undergrad with a combination of scholarships and parents.
I make around $175K all in (part of that is annual bonus) as an in-house attorney. It's actually just slightly less than I made 9 years ago at my first fancy law firm job. But, over time, I traded $$$ for better work/life and more interesting work. Very happy with that decision. Also note--around $150K in law school debt. The high interest we paid down fast. The low interest, we're paying down on schedule.
My husband is right around $100K as an electrical engineer with a BS. He worked his way up--his first job started at about $45K in 2005. Also got a nice but not life changing $35K payout when his company got bought.
-
<--US military officer. 4-year degree (subject matter immaterial). Starting salary in 2003 was $24k before allowances. Fast forward to today after a few promotions my base salary is $94k, plus $24k in untaxed allowances.
-
Merchant Mariner. 120k this year for working 5 months. When times were better I made 180k for 6 months. Even unlicensed mariners can come close to 6 figures for 6 months of work per year, which is the fairly typical schedule.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Mechanical Engineer at 120k in an extremely LCOL area. Had an interview in HCOL and told them 160k was my minimum.
-
If you don't mind staring at a computer all day, software engineering in the bay area is a solid way to earn more than $100k. I was recently helping a friend get his first programming job. He probably spent a few months looking and landed an entry-level position that pays him $120k. He is a recent college graduate.
Salaries in the range of $80k - $400k aren't unheard of out here for software engineers, I think. Some people make more than that, too. My salary is $350k/yr with ~5 years of professional experience, although I got pretty lucky finding this gig. Before moving to the bay area I was making < $100k in the same line of work.
Shit.
I really wish I liked programming...
-
Luck.
People like to be in command and contribute lot more to their abilities than would be fair. This forum is a selection of survivors within a select group of high earners. It's not a reflection of reality.
Everyone that was around me when I started my business is either dead, bankrupt or employed by me now. There have been dozens of situations where it could have turned out either way for me, too, and there will be man more in the future.
It's a bit different for the US, though not by that much. Six digits put you into the top 2% here in Germany. To balance your view lok what it takes to get into the top 5% in other areas, such as football, IQ, grades, universities, body size, playing dart... It's really not different for income.
-
Luck.
People like to be in command and contribute lot more to their abilities than would be fair. This forum is a selection of survivors within a select group of high earners. It's not a reflection of reality.
Everyone that was around me when I started my business is either dead, bankrupt or employed by me now. There have been dozens of situations where it could have turned out either way for me, too, and there will be man more in the future.
It's a bit different for the US, though not by that much. Six digits put you into the top 2% here in Germany. To balance your view lok what it takes to get into the top 5% in other areas, such as football, IQ, grades, universities, body size, playing dart... It's really not different for income.
A huge part of it is luck, yes. Motivation is also a factor.
-
I graduated in 2003 at $55k and hit $100k in 2007 with a EE degree. For me the key was to move from tier 2 automotive supplier to a small-business aerospace company. I switched to the energy industry in 2008 and took a small pay cut for the move but was back above $100k the next year. That's base salary, bonuses would be on top of that. My other half makes a whole ton more money than me but she's not in engineering.
I think your key was company hopping to a small business without all the overhead expenses. I usually had head hunters offering $20-30k bump in pay if I jumped to a small aerospace company (I've been big aerospace my whole life), but the job security was non existent and lots of unpaid overtime expected. EE also seems to start higher than other fields although I think CS with software Dev can pass it in 5-10 years if they are really good.
-
I graduated in 2003 at $55k and hit $100k in 2007 with a EE degree. For me the key was to move from tier 2 automotive supplier to a small-business aerospace company. I switched to the energy industry in 2008 and took a small pay cut for the move but was back above $100k the next year. That's base salary, bonuses would be on top of that. My other half makes a whole ton more money than me but she's not in engineering.
I think your key was company hopping to a small business without all the overhead expenses. I usually had head hunters offering $20-30k bump in pay if I jumped to a small aerospace company (I've been big aerospace my whole life), but the job security was non existent and lots of unpaid overtime expected. EE also seems to start higher than other fields although I think CS with software Dev can pass it in 5-10 years if they are really good.
It def helped me move up quicker than I might have otherwise. But that said, after my initial $15k drop when I switched over to a my current huge energy company I have since moved up to about 150k which is more than I was making in aerospace. And my company is very large with rather rigid salary structures. Much better job security though. And even a cash pension! The small aerospace was too stressful for me after four years and non-stop travel with minimal job security. But it was cool R&D work that was cutting edge. Such is life.
-
My degree is in Scientific and Technical Communication, but I currently create business documentation. I work from home, make over 100k/yr with 6+ weeks vacation, and live in a LCOL town. It's a very sweet gig.
-
It def helped me move up quicker than I might have otherwise. But that said, after my initial $15k drop when I switched over to a my current huge energy company I have since moved up to about 150k which is more than I was making in aerospace. And my company is very large with rather rigid salary structures. Much better job security though. And even a cash pension! The small aerospace was too stressful for me after four years and non-stop travel with minimal job security. But it was cool R&D work that was cutting edge. Such is life.
Wow that is pretty nice. I find the pay in the aerospace/defense industry to be unusually low for the work. Perhaps the price to pay for working on cool, fun things that move fast and go boom.
-
Luck.
People like to be in command and contribute lot more to their abilities than would be fair. This forum is a selection of survivors within a select group of high earners. It's not a reflection of reality.
Everyone that was around me when I started my business is either dead, bankrupt or employed by me now. There have been dozens of situations where it could have turned out either way for me, too, and there will be man more in the future.
It's a bit different for the US, though not by that much. Six digits put you into the top 2% here in Germany. To balance your view lok what it takes to get into the top 5% in other areas, such as football, IQ, grades, universities, body size, playing dart... It's really not different for income.
A huge part of it is luck, yes. Motivation is also a factor.
Absolutely. You need luck and opportunity. Working hard and efficient makes it's easier to become rich, but there's no guarantee.
-
A huge part of it is luck, yes. Motivation is also a factor.
Absolutely. You need luck and opportunity. Working hard and efficient makes it's easier to become rich, but there's no guarantee.
I agree that it takes working hard, recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities, and some luck. I would add "don't be dick" because really no one likes to work with an asshole.
-
You could join the military. With BAH most of my friends (15ish years in, officers) are clearing $100K now. Even more when they get deployed especially the pilots.
My husband left the air force, and we'd have a lot more money if he hadn't. Oh well, money isn't everything.
-
OK but which careers are these? I imagine doctor, law firm partner, people who work in finance? What else?
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/occupation-finder.htm?pay=%2475%2C000+or+more&education=&training=&newjobs=&growth=&submit=GO
-
Programmer here, doing $500k per year total comp. Look at firms that make a high amount of profit per employee (http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-facebook-alphabet-most-profitable-companies-per-employee-2017-12). These firms and their competitors are likely to be paying very well. Note that the more capital intensive a firm is, the less true my claim is, all other things being equal.
-
idk how people on here seem to do it so quickly.
Because this community is self-selected and generally blows the general population out of the water on every development metric, and unlike real life, aren't shy to broadcast their achievements. So it feels like everyone is killing it.
Thanks for voicing this. I feel like whenever I talk about income on this site, everyone freaks out at me that I should be making more. I'm making $77k at age 30 with a useless liberal arts BA and an even more specifically useless liberal arts MS. Considering a lot of people who graduated from my grad program are making less than $50k in NYC, I don't think I'm doing that bad. Plus I married an engineer and half the engineers' wives I know stay at home, so I'm really out-earning my cohort...
-
Thanks for voicing this. I feel like whenever I talk about income on this site, everyone freaks out at me that I should be making more. I'm making $77k at age 30 with a useless liberal arts BA and an even more specifically useless liberal arts MS. Considering a lot of people who graduated from my grad program are making less than $50k in NYC, I don't think I'm doing that bad. Plus I married an engineer and half the engineers' wives I know stay at home, so I'm really out-earning my cohort...
I have never seen anyone "freak out" about someone making $77k. I'm sorry that happened to you, and I pledge to call it out if I ever see it happen.
I think it's a well known statistical phenomenon that in some types of surveys, the results are very skewed by what people feel comfortable reporting. Those who make more speak up more than those who make less. Same way sometimes those who are dissatisfied speak more than the rest about what is dissatisfying to them.
It's also absolutely true that luck is a huge component to making these types of salaries. Even if you get an education in CS, nobody is guaranteed a job at Google or Facebook. Business majors don't automatically land a job at Goldman, and even those who do have a pretty high probability of washing out. People will cite work ethic or intelligence, but having those things is in and of itself lucky. Not to mention the systemic effects that lead to these kind of opportunities.
-
I write software (think websites) and made a little over $200,000 last year. I do it by contracting, billing per hour, and loading up on as much work as possible.
Early on in my career I went from...
35k for 3 months
42k for 7 months
55k for 6 months- raised to 65k for 3 months
98k for 6 months - started consulting
160k
152k
Then it stayed up there in that range. Occasionally bumping over 200k
Job hopping is the absolute gold mine, at least in engineering. I had a senior level job around 2 to 3 years from my first job (but only 6 months out of college because I was hired as a freshman for full time software development)
I find that I am naturally good at it. So not all will see the same results.
-
In my experience, there was both hard work and luck, but mostly luck. I got hired into a management track fellowship straight out of grad school in 2010. That was a pretty lousy job market year, so I was thrilled to have any decent job, much less one with serious opportunity for advancement. I started at $49K when I was 23, moved around a couple of times internally to my organization, and crested six figures when I was 29. There was some hard work involved there. I built a good reputation for myself, sought out career advancement, generally took tougher assignments when they came around.
But there was a lot of luck, much of which I would call privilege, including (but not limited to):
Parents who valued education, taught me, guided me through the college application process and paid for my undergrad
Having access to good, public education as a child
Being white, straight, cis, and able-bodied
Having mentors who encouraged me to apply for the fellowship, served as references, and gave me advice on how to get it
Having parents who let me live with them while I pursued unpaid internships in college, which looked good on my resume when I applied for said fellowship
Having the means to fly to the other side of the country on short notice to interview for said job
Having the means to relocate to the other side of the country at the drop of a hat
Having a supportive partner who helped me in my career (he found one of my internal advancement opportunities and got my resume in the right place)
Having a (very old) car that parents gifted me that got me to and from work the first several years of my career
Having access to reliable birth control, which allowed me to focus on my career in my twenties, rather than child-bearing
-
Step 1) Identify a career where salaries that high are the norm.
Step 2) Become qualified for one of those careers.
Step 3) Profit.
In my case it was more like:
Step 1) Spend 10+ years getting a PhD (in a field at the intersection of STEM and social science)
Step 2) Get a moderately paying job in academia
Step 3) When the academic thing doesn't work out, get a totally unrelated job at a 40% pay cut
Step 4) Get a job in a field related to my degree (as a practitioner, rather than an academic) earning about what I did in my academic job
Step 5) Perform really well and become critical to my organization, leading them to preemptively throw money and promotions at me so I don't leave
For me, at least, it was far from being a straight linear path, but I eventually ended up in a good place.
-
idk how people on here seem to do it so quickly.
Because this community is self-selected and generally blows the general population out of the water on every development metric, and unlike real life, aren't shy to broadcast their achievements. So it feels like everyone is killing it.
Thanks for voicing this. I feel like whenever I talk about income on this site, everyone freaks out at me that I should be making more. I'm making $77k at age 30 with a useless liberal arts BA and an even more specifically useless liberal arts MS. Considering a lot of people who graduated from my grad program are making less than $50k in NYC, I don't think I'm doing that bad. Plus I married an engineer and half the engineers' wives I know stay at home, so I'm really out-earning my cohort...
Yes, NYC is not known for it's high pay for a LA degree. My wife's first job was at the Metropolitan Museum Of Art and once she worked there she can get a job anywhere in the world. So she got tired of NYC and moved where she could make 4x what she was making at the MET. She loves working at museums. No way I could drag her away. I'm sure she will work at one until the day she dies.
-
Yes, NYC is not known for it's high pay for a LA degree. My wife's first job was at the Metropolitan Museum Of Art and once she worked there she can get a job anywhere in the world. So she got tired of NYC and moved where she could make 4x what she was making at the MET. She loves working at museums. No way I could drag her away. I'm sure she will work at one until the day she dies.
I think this is true of nonprofit anywhere, that it's traditionally a gentlemen's/heiress's field (noblesse oblige and all that), with the assumption (reality?) of family money and other support. There's still a huge pool of that in NYC, and plenty of other folks willing to scrape by to be able to work in the arts.
As far as LA backgrounds go, one can do just fine in media and advertising, and all kinds of design and merchandising.
-
My husband makes that much because:
1. He was a good student in high school
2.He did a lot of mechanical, motor, construction etc stuff in his down time. So he knew alot about how things work
3. He got a job at the railroad coal docks, and one of his jobs was to 'lift a coal car with a machine, pour the coal into a ship - more mechanical, motor stuff
4 Got laid off ,and watched the want ads for something.
5. Saw a refinery nearby was hiring.
6. Has a calm, intelligent, confident demeanor, so not only knew all that stuff, but interviewed well.
7. Worked his way through the refinery, so, again, knew his stuff, so got a position in the control room
ok, he started in '92
Another example, our son:
1. Did well in school
2. joined the Navy and tested into the nuclear propulsion, was in for 6 years, awards along the way
3. Came home, within 6 mos the same refinery was hiring. He got an interview because of his accomplishments, not his Dad
4. Left with his Mom and Dad's blessings, making about 90,000
Summed up - do well whatever you do, know it, give an appearance of being calm and confident that you know your stuff, watch for openings in your field. Also, be willing to put in the years needed to know your stuff, and to be dependable
we are in a LCOL area, midwest
-
I write software (think websites) and made a little over $200,000 last year. I do it by contracting, billing per hour, and loading up on as much work as possible.
Early on in my career I went from...
35k for 3 months
42k for 7 months
55k for 6 months- raised to 65k for 3 months
98k for 6 months - started consulting
160k
152k
Then it stayed up there in that range. Occasionally bumping over 200k
Job hopping is the absolute gold mine, at least in engineering. I had a senior level job around 2 to 3 years from my first job (but only 6 months out of college because I was hired as a freshman for full time software development)
I find that I am naturally good at it. So not all will see the same results.
If you don't mind me asking, what kind of website work and what kind of hourly rate?
I'm thinking about trying to expand my contracting side hustle this year.
-
It's kinda snarky, but pragmatically applicable...
Pay attention to details - like, don't write "$100+" when you mean "$100K+".
-
idk how people on here seem to do it so quickly.
Because this community is self-selected and generally blows the general population out of the water on every development metric, and unlike real life, aren't shy to broadcast their achievements. So it feels like everyone is killing it.
People who are killing it are making $500k per spouse per year. In the county where I live, middle class couples are making about $125k each
-
In the mid 80's I worked at a Community College I.T. Dept in DC area while working on a Business BS. $18K
1988 After getting BS, got a job with a Gov't contractor on a DOD PC contract $34K then to 37K. Right after leaving, all others were laid off.
1991 Got a job with a Point of Sale Vendor in R&D for $45K Got my CS degree during the first 1.5 years there with 4.0 avg. Systems / network work.
2001 Over the 10 years there, I got into Software Test mgmt and then into dept mgmt. Ending at 80K. Laid off.
2001 3 wks later, got a job for an internet hosting company managing load testing $80K in a Prof Svcs Group
Eventually moved into general work in that dept, then into Operations, then assigned to Unix website work for a large customer, eventually getting
assigned just to that customer for past 5+ years (when I was able to work from home.)
Had several years recently with no pay increase once I hit the band's salary max around $125K (but they had a 10% bonus and 6% 401K match.)
Also around 2014/15 they started paying O.T. ($90/hr) and I was able to knock $166K off my house loan in 2 years.)
In Sept, 2017, division got sold to another firm and I have a new employer at same salary. I'm 57 now and wondering if I'll get laid off this year and just retire.
During my career, I was lucky to have been able to continuously work. Jumping from 18K to 34K was big. I was laid off in 2001 but got a job immediately from a coworker's husband. Before 2001 I was lucky to get 2 promotions back to back, taking my salary from 60 to 80K. After 2001, I was saved three times from layoffs by other people who wanted me around.
-
Get an MBA. Starting salary for new grads from the top 25 schools is well over $100k. Granted many of these are also in HCOL area. However, police and fire in my local big city (HCOL) can make around $100k after 5-10 years, some times a lot more including OT. These do pretty much require a college degree, as well.
-
Step 1) Identify a career where salaries that high are the norm, typically in a HCOL area..
Step 2) Become qualified for one of those careers.
Step 2.5) Be a top performer / put in the hard work and hours then switch companies
Step 3) Profit.
FTFY
Also, if someone (employer, customers, etc) are willing to pay you $100K+ its because your created > $100K in value for them. As an example, one of the professions not listed is supply chain / purchasing. A typical purchasing manager may make $90-150K depending on performance, tenure, responsibilities, etc. but is tasked with lowering (read: negotiating) costs by a factor of 3-20x what they are paid ($500K-$3MM savings for the company per yr). There's a clear value proposition for the employer to pay someone that much.
This.
The path to high earnings isn't always straight, but there are some key steps too. In my case, I chose practicality. I wanted to be a writer, I went into marketing instead since I could use the writing skills without the sacrifice of the starving artist. I worked really, really, really hard. I got to the office early. I left late. I always put my hand up. I proved my worth, and did more than I was asked and than my job description demanded. I also found champions. If you don't have people in positions of power that are taking note of all the good work you're doing and singing your praises, you can get left behind. I was strategic with the jobs I selected. I changed jobs every 12-24 months early on. I diversified my skill set. I moved to the dream city in my profession, to get it on my resume, before moving back. I also fell in love with and married someone who had a similar view to work, life and ambition that I did.
Getting to $200K is a challenge, and while I could see the path to it (particular sector, particular size of company, particular lack of worklife balance) the path I chose took me to six figures by 30 and I'm happy with it. I'll write that novel when I'm FI. ;)
-
1. Educate yourself, not just about your chosen field, but also: how business works, how people work and how you can improve your work
2. Look for opportunities at your work and constantly think of how you can bring value to the company, then do that, bring value
3. Document your successes
4. Be good to people at work, up, down and across and build relationships
5. Ask for raises and promotions and back it up with evidence of the value you bring
6. Be willing to apply for new roles that are more aligned with your value
7. Be focused on continually enhancing your career
8. Be someone that people can trust
9. Learn about the other parts of the company and stay curious
10. Over-deliver and under-promise and be the person who isn’t ever afraid to roll up their sleeves and do what others won’t and if that isn’t appreciated or valued, move on
-
Network engineer, but I travel and work OT to make just over $100K. It took several job and location moves to arrive here. I live in a LCOL area and telecommute when I'm not on travel.
-
Step 1) Identify a career where salaries that high are the norm.
Step 2) Become qualified for one of those careers.
Step 3) Profit.
In my case it was more like:
Step 1) Spend 10+ years getting a PhD (in a field at the intersection of STEM and social science)
Step 2) Get a moderately paying job in academia
Step 3) When the academic thing doesn't work out, get a totally unrelated job at a 40% pay cut
Step 4) Get a job in a field related to my degree (as a practitioner, rather than an academic) earning about what I did in my academic job
Step 5) Perform really well and become critical to my organization, leading them to preemptively throw money and promotions at me so I don't leave
For me, at least, it was far from being a straight linear path, but I eventually ended up in a good place.
This seems like quite an interesting path, and somewhat similar to the path I'm on!
Currently, I'm doing a PhD making between 55K and 60k depending on the current exchange rate (Norway has great salaries for PhDs, which is why I chose to come here) and I'm gaining skills that will be applicable to a broad variety of fields. I plan on going into industry after this in geochemistry or environmental/industrial hygiene. You can stay in academia and make 100k once you reach associate/full professor, but I've seen too many people get pushed around by the tenure system to go down that long path myself.
I'd say that getting a PhD in a somewhat specialized STEM field, where you'll learn skillsets that are broadly applicable in industry, is actually a pretty good option if engineering/software/IT type jobs don't interest you. A somewhat longer road to 100K than some IT friends I know, but if you are interested in science it can be a rewarding career path. If you have an in-demand skillset, industry will throw money at you to try and lure you in and retain you.
I would not recommend medical school though (saw a few people mention that), unless you're truly passionate about medicine. I was thinking about that as an undergrad myself, but I was not really into it beyond the "I'm good at science/biochemistry and doctors make a lot of money" thought process. I have had a few friends go that route, and let me tell you, doctors deserve waaayyyy more compensation than they're given for the shit they have to put up with in the U.S. medical system. Most doctors now only make 100-150K a year unless you're in a speciality like Surgery or Derm, and most are 200-300K in debt coming out. With the hours they pull and stress they're under, plus the hassle of dealing with the general population when they're at their worst (sick and in pain), there's much easier ways to make 100k without the school debt or stress.
-
RNs in the bay areas easily make 100k+ working 3x 12-hour shifts per week. First year RNs make somewhat less but the payscale climbs quickly. Any job in healthcare in the bay area, as long as you are willing to pick up OT like a boss.
It really depends on the place and employer, though. At my first job in healthcare, I was making minimum wage with no opportunity for OT (they'd rather be short) and no raises (ah, gotta love retail).
At my other former position, I was making $100k with my high school diploma (which the salary is still, apparently, below the poverty line depending on the part of the bay). But I also picked up 16 hour shifts 3 or 4 days in a row, would average 60 to 90 hours a week, and worked up to 40 days in a row at a time. I took 1 month off for vacation, and a few week-long vacations as well.My base pay was about 45k, so I was racking up 55k in extra shifts and OT. Honestly I should have flunked out of high school. I don't believe in the US education system, but I had some professors who had good faith in me. And then I landed this gig with the best management ever who also had good faith in me. And outperform I did.
Then, there were layoffs. So now I work for an apathetic gumshoe. Ah, life.
In healthcare, definitely consider that layoffs happen for entry-level positions though. Unless you are an RN, you are expendible.
-
Salary in isolation doesn't tell you much:
- higher earners may have very high student debt
- may in a VHCOL area (where the high paying jobs are)
- may live in a higher taxed country/area
I am a UK doctor and often look across the pond at doctors salaries in awe. But then I find out that many have 250 - 500k dollars in debt (my education was completely free).
I'm sure US doctors are still fall richer than their UK counterparts though, eventually! My first job as a doctor in 2001 paid 22,000 pounds per year, and that was with lots of night shifts and weekends, but again I got free accommodation etc so you need to take these things into account.
-
For me, it was
1) Making a wise choice in career selection (I'm a tax accountant).
2) Be willing to take on increasing levels of leadership and responsibility.
3) Perform well at whatever you do.
4) Unique to my career . . . . get out of public accounting and go to industry. More money to be made there!
Jennifer
-
Electrical engineering degree from low cost state school. Starting salary was $79k in the energy industry designing control systems for refineries and chemical plants.
In my business, changing jobs is the best way for big salary bumps. I’ve seen many jump to 100k pretty quickly if they do good work.
-
Tax accounting. Congress keeps us employed and makes it nice and complicated so the earnings potential is there.
Isn't this the truth?? I swear tax reform alone will keep me employed for the next several years. Trying to figure out what the hell Congress intended when they wrote half this crap is a full time job!!
-
Where I live (near Washington, DC), $100k salary is probably a bit below average.
Dead wrong. Nowhere near that.
-
I agree that it takes working hard, recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities, and some luck. I would add "don't be dick" because really no one likes to work with an asshole.
Then how are so many of them employed making 100k? ;)
-
Attending physician salaries in the U.S. aren't typically as anemic as some of these responses suggest, although it's true there are plenty of doctors (particularly in peds and family medicine) who are quite underpaid.
Some surveys:
https://www.medscape.com/slideshow/compensation-2017-overview-6008547
https://www.medscape.com/slideshow/young-physician-compensation-2017-6008749
But HomeSweetLab is right that you need a bigger reason than money to pursue medicine. The admissions process is also geared at weeding out applicants whose primary motivations are financial.
-
Where I live (near Washington, DC), $100k salary is probably a bit below average.
Dead wrong. Nowhere near that.
They probably meant in professional careers, so removing all the minimum wage workers from the calculation.
DC does have the greatest average salary in the US.
-
OK but which careers are these? I imagine doctor, law firm partner, people who work in finance? What else?
THIS THIS THIS THIS!
I work in insurance underwriting and just job hopped for a 30%+ raise, currently making $108k base with 14% bonus. I started my career in the same field but an entry level position 10 years ago making $36,000. I've switched jobs on average every 3 years, usually getting a signing bonus each time, because the particular underwriting that I do is highly specialized and experienced people are in high demand across the industry. Typically when I switch jobs I trade up both for a fancier title and a raise in the neighborhood of 20-30% (that's just on the base, not including the bonus there).
Once you settle in somewhere, you can pretty much kiss big raises goodbye. Unless your current employer is forced to compete heavily to attract and retain talent, they'll typically throw a 3% COL raise at you each year and call it good, and maybe promote you every 5-7 years. At least that's what I saw in the insurance industry.
Job hop your way up the ladder.
-
OK but which careers are these? I imagine doctor, law firm partner, people who work in finance? What else?
THIS THIS THIS THIS!
I work in insurance underwriting and just job hopped for a 30%+ raise, currently making $108k base with 14% bonus. I started my career in the same field but an entry level position 10 years ago making $36,000. I've switched jobs on average every 3 years, usually getting a signing bonus each time, because the particular underwriting that I do is highly specialized and experienced people are in high demand across the industry. Typically when I switch jobs I trade up both for a fancier title and a raise in the neighborhood of 20-30% (that's just on the base, not including the bonus there).
Once you settle in somewhere, you can pretty much kiss big raises goodbye. Unless your current employer is forced to compete heavily to attract and retain talent, they'll typically throw a 3% COL raise at you each year and call it good, and maybe promote you every 5-7 years. At least that's what I saw in the insurance industry.
Job hop your way up the ladder.
I don't think I'll expect a significant raise this year. I also am not sure where I could make as much money as I do here, somewhere else. Not even my manager and some of our best talent makes 100k here.
-
Unless your current employer is forced to compete heavily to attract and retain talent, they'll typically throw a 3% COL raise at you each year and call it good, and maybe promote you every 5-7 years. At least that's what I saw in the insurance industry.
Job hop your way up the ladder.
I'm in (non-teaching) education field- I wish I could get 3%! 1% seems to be the most common.
I did job hop my way to both the best company in the field and a good salary; it would be hard for me to hop anywhere else now though. But I'm OK with that. I'm happy with my (sub $100k) salary, and more focused on life balance and enjoying my job now.
-
Where I live (near Washington, DC), $100k salary is probably a bit below average.
Dead wrong. Nowhere near that.
Think again, friend. It's expensive here, because people are making a lot of money.......
"The income per capita is $92,468, which includes all adults and children. The median household income is $183,738."
Take the kids out, and the average is above $100k.
http://www.bestplaces.net/economy/zip-code/virginia/mclean/22101
-
idk how people on here seem to do it so quickly.
KC metro here 28yo, I've been a Sys Admin for 5~ years and make roughly 70 with some nice benefits. Just need more certs + time I spose. Feels like I will top out around 80-90 though unless I get some more specific skill set (anyone have a suggestion on this btw?!)
All of my big advancements have come from moving jobs. Maybe thats the secret :P, attain job, attain skills/exp, get new job, rinse and repeat :P.
http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/kansas-city-mo/secaucus-nj/70000
Simply relocating and getting a new job in a HCOL area would probably get you a 6-figure salary.
Yeah would be something I would consider if I had a bit different of a situation (family and such). Still seems some here manage it even in the midwest (which is probably just them being awesome =] ).
I am in the KC metro area and just accepted a job offer for just shy of $100k and a potential 10% annual bonus. I am assuming with just average raises over the next few years my base will touch that $100k level.
I have also been in my career field (environmental compliance) for over a decade, have a BS, working on an MS, and this was a huge jump for me (30+%). I almost didn't even apply because I thought the job description was too much of an overreach for me. Sometimes you just have to take a chance and reach a little higher than you think you are ready for and take on more responsibility.
-
idk how people on here seem to do it so quickly.
KC metro here 28yo, I've been a Sys Admin for 5~ years and make roughly 70 with some nice benefits. Just need more certs + time I spose. Feels like I will top out around 80-90 though unless I get some more specific skill set (anyone have a suggestion on this btw?!)
All of my big advancements have come from moving jobs. Maybe thats the secret :P, attain job, attain skills/exp, get new job, rinse and repeat :P.
http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/kansas-city-mo/secaucus-nj/70000
Simply relocating and getting a new job in a HCOL area would probably get you a 6-figure salary.
Yeah would be something I would consider if I had a bit different of a situation (family and such). Still seems some here manage it even in the midwest (which is probably just them being awesome =] ).
I am in the KC metro area and just accepted a job offer for just shy of $100k and a potential 10% annual bonus. I am assuming with just average raises over the next few years my base will touch that $100k level.
I have also been in my career field (environmental compliance) for over a decade, have a BS, working on an MS, and this was a huge jump for me (30+%). I almost didn't even apply because I thought the job description was too much of an overreach for me. Sometimes you just have to take a chance and reach a little higher than you think you are ready for and take on more responsibility.
Thats awesome :), congrats.
-
If someone (employer, customers, etc) are willing to pay you $100K+ its because [you] created > $100K in value for them. As an example, one of the professions not listed is supply chain / purchasing. A typical purchasing manager may make $90-150K depending on performance, tenure, responsibilities, etc. but is tasked with lowering (read: negotiating) costs by a factor of 3-20x what they are paid ($500K-$3MM savings for the company per yr). There's a clear value proposition for the employer to pay someone that much.
Programmer here, doing $500k per year total comp. Look at firms that make a high amount of profit per employee (http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-facebook-alphabet-most-profitable-companies-per-employee-2017-12). These firms and their competitors are likely to be paying very well. Note that the more capital intensive a firm is, the less true my claim is, all other things being equal.
Lots of good comments, but these two stuck out and rang true for me. If you want to take home $X/yr, find a way to create 3*$X/yr in value for someone. You can do it directly as a business owner, or indirectly as an employee. If you're doing it as an employee, obstinate's guidance is sound if a high income is your #1 motivator.
For me, I always wanted to find financial security and was fortunate enough to find it via a path that I genuinely enjoy (computer programming and later, managing in the field).
-
Where I live (near Washington, DC), $100k salary is probably a bit below average.
Dead wrong. Nowhere near that.
It's certainly not near 100k/person average, but the DC area does have the highest median household income in the US at $93k (https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/09/21/the-dc-area-has-the-highest-median-income-in-the-us-again/).
-
On the luck comments, I'm surprised to hear people on this forum of all places attribute so much to chance. Especially lumping in the bundle of pros and cons that EVERYONE gets to start out with. While some draw a better hand than others I strongly believe how you play that hand makes all the difference in where you end up.
-
My monthly salaries have always been above $100.
-
The largest part is having the chance to live or move to a country with high incomes. Even in the developed world, the US is one of the very few were people routinely earn 6 figures a year.
-
On the luck comments, I'm surprised to hear people on this forum of all places attribute so much to chance. Especially lumping in the bundle of pros and cons that EVERYONE gets to start out with. While some draw a better hand than others I strongly believe how you play that hand makes all the difference in where you end up.
There's an incredible amount of luck in life. Sure, you must prepare and work hard, but if you lived your life 100x the same way, you'd experience a wild spread of outcomes. Sometimes you'd get cancer; sometimes you'd have a kid with special needs; sometimes your company would go bankrupt; other times it would be profitable and be sold for 100x trailing earnings.
Don't downplay the effort, blood, sweat, and tears required to be successful in a distinguished way. That's sound advice and something for others to model, because these inputs are the best thing they can do to help themselves.
At the same time, don't overplay how much control you have over outcomes and exclude the effect of variability aka "luck". Do that and the people who end up on top (like many of us) can take an excessively entitled and frankly, selfish view that they 100.00% "deserve" their outcome and that those who experienced worse outcomes also 100.00% "deserve" their outcome.
-
I made $60,000 in 1986 repairing VCRs, that's equivalent to $134,000 today.
VCRs went the way of buggy whips and I have never even got close to that since.
In fact I averaged $11,848 from 1995 thru 2002 non inflated dollars.
But still made it well past an MMM Financial Independence.
Just keep moving forward.
-
I write software (think websites) and made a little over $200,000 last year. I do it by contracting, billing per hour, and loading up on as much work as possible.
Early on in my career I went from...
35k for 3 months
42k for 7 months
55k for 6 months- raised to 65k for 3 months
98k for 6 months - started consulting
160k
152k
Then it stayed up there in that range. Occasionally bumping over 200k
Job hopping is the absolute gold mine, at least in engineering. I had a senior level job around 2 to 3 years from my first job (but only 6 months out of college because I was hired as a freshman for full time software development)
I find that I am naturally good at it. So not all will see the same results.
If you don't mind me asking, what kind of website work and what kind of hourly rate?
I'm thinking about trying to expand my contracting side hustle this year.
I do a lot of .NET, though lately its all been moving to JS frameworks like AngularJS I work full time at this, but side gigs are around (though less supply)
Rates are generally >$60/H (maybe over $100 in certain cases)
-
One Path:
1. Choose to become a software engineer (study CS, EE, or learn on your own)
2. Put your ass out there and get a job, any job
3. Bust your ass during work and on your own time learning new stuff and getting better
4. Apply for better paying jobs in HCOL areas
5. Cross your fingers, pray to your gods, throw pennies into the fountains at the mall, whatever
6. Repeat
Step three is optional if you are incredibly lucky.
I think a lot of people underestimate how much serendipity has to do with success. You end up being on the right project in the right team in the right company in the right city.
-
One Path:
1. Choose to become a software engineer (study CS, EE, or learn on your own)
2. Put your ass out there and get a job, any job
3. Bust your ass during work and on your own time learning new stuff and getting better
4. Apply for better paying jobs in HCOL areas
5. Cross your fingers, pray to your gods, throw pennies into the fountains at the mall, whatever
6. Repeat
Step three is optional if you are incredibly lucky.
I think a lot of people underestimate how much serendipity has to do with success. You end up being on the right project in the right team in the right company in the right city.
In my case, I sold a car to the right person and 4 years later he hooked me up with a job.
You never know.
-
A master's in computer science (specialized in AI/machine learning) got me over $100k for my first job out of grad school. Most people couldn't get that degree from that university though. Hell, most people get turned away from that program in the first place.
My first time over $100k though was through a little software & database consulting firm I started. I didn't do all that much, just some basic programming, some database administration at night, and lots of talking to people. 25 hours a week got me ~$140k. That put me through grad school and kept me in beer money.
In the old days, when I worked as a bouncer in places of ill repute, I knew a couple of dancers who were taking home $200k a year. One of them actually saved most of her cash and retired after 3 years in the game. That was probably the first time I ever thought about early retirement.
-
Tax accounting. Congress Lobbyists and special interests keeps us employed and makes it nice and complicated so the earnings potential is there.
Fixed for you :P
But more on topic, I gross around $90k/year doing various side hustles. I have a degree in geology and I don't use it for what it's intended for. My "side hustles" are:
1. Owning a rental property (43k/year)
2. Selling things on Amazon.com ($36k/year)
3. Being a musician ($9k/year)
4. Sales consultant for a small business ($3k/year)
Granted, with things like a rental property there's a lot of overhead, so only a fraction of my income is actual profit. And I don't have a bunch of nice job benefits like health insurance. But altogether, I can't complain since my expenses are super low and I'm saving money. Another thing is these are only mini hustles, I work for 25-30 hours a week but if I did and should hustle more I can improve on all of these.
-
On the luck comments, I'm surprised to hear people on this forum of all places attribute so much to chance. Especially lumping in the bundle of pros and cons that EVERYONE gets to start out with. While some draw a better hand than others I strongly believe how you play that hand makes all the difference in where you end up.
Obviously, what you do with the hand you're dealt in life is important. Hard work and ingenuity and resilience are necessary for a successful life no matter where you start.
But, from my experience, luck also plays a role and it's important to acknowledge that. For example, I had a close friend from college who graduated the same year I did. I went directly into law school, he worked for a year before going to law school--both very valid (and common) choices. Because of that year difference, I interviewed for summer internships in the fall of 2006 when law firms were still hiring A TON of new associates. I got my first job offer as a result of that internship in fall of 2007 and started in fall of 2008. By getting my foot in the door, I was able to prove myself and ride out the recession pretty much unscathed. Actually, because I was making really good money and still had my student level lifestyle, I was able to invest at a historic low point in the stock market and achieve some awesome gains early on.
He had a totally different experience. He was interviewing for internships in 2007, meaning that when it came time for him to get an offer, the world (and the legal industry in particular) had changed dramatically. He did not have the same job opportunities I did, and ended up having to wait a year to get a full time job. By then, salaries had declined as well.
If I'd been born a year later and made the exact same decision, I would have totally been in his shoes. I'm sure I would have been ok, but I probably would have had a different career trajectory.
The fact that I was able to get in when I did? Pure. Luck.
-
I worked in the auto industry for 10 years.... I always assumed if I made 40k I would be set after making that for 10 years I knew it was not gonna cut it. Spent the last 5 years going to school for a Computer information systems degree. Graduated december 2015 and had a job the month before graduation as an entry level database developer 50k (basically pushed a button on an application someone else made) within the first year was up to 55k felt this was too slow for what I had taken on so I started looking 7 months ago I made a move to another entry Level Database position with a 30%+ increase im now right under 73k but will also get a 5% bonus.
I am not that close to the 100k like you were looking for but I am in a LCOL area and without trying too much could see being near it in the next year or 2. I am 32 years old. However, I am weird and found that at the pay I have now I can fund all of the retirement I want and live how I want so I focus a lot more on work life balance which is amazing here. I can work from home 3 days a week or go full remote if I wanted. So as tempting as it is to keep busting my ass and climb for the magical 100k I will probably just see what happens.
-
On the luck comments, I'm surprised to hear people on this forum of all places attribute so much to chance. Especially lumping in the bundle of pros and cons that EVERYONE gets to start out with. While some draw a better hand than others I strongly believe how you play that hand makes all the difference in where you end up.
Obviously, what you do with the hand you're dealt in life is important. Hard work and ingenuity and resilience are necessary for a successful life no matter where you start.
But, from my experience, luck also plays a role and it's important to acknowledge that. For example, I had a close friend from college who graduated the same year I did. I went directly into law school, he worked for a year before going to law school--both very valid (and common) choices. Because of that year difference, I interviewed for summer internships in the fall of 2006 when law firms were still hiring A TON of new associates. I got my first job offer as a result of that internship in fall of 2007 and started in fall of 2008. By getting my foot in the door, I was able to prove myself and ride out the recession pretty much unscathed. Actually, because I was making really good money and still had my student level lifestyle, I was able to invest at a historic low point in the stock market and achieve some awesome gains early on.
He had a totally different experience. He was interviewing for internships in 2007, meaning that when it came time for him to get an offer, the world (and the legal industry in particular) had changed dramatically. He did not have the same job opportunities I did, and ended up having to wait a year to get a full time job. By then, salaries had declined as well.
If I'd been born a year later and made the exact same decision, I would have totally been in his shoes. I'm sure I would have been ok, but I probably would have had a different career trajectory.
The fact that I was able to get in when I did? Pure. Luck.
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."
-
On the luck comments, I'm surprised to hear people on this forum of all places attribute so much to chance. Especially lumping in the bundle of pros and cons that EVERYONE gets to start out with. While some draw a better hand than others I strongly believe how you play that hand makes all the difference in where you end up.
Obviously, what you do with the hand you're dealt in life is important. Hard work and ingenuity and resilience are necessary for a successful life no matter where you start.
But, from my experience, luck also plays a role and it's important to acknowledge that. For example, I had a close friend from college who graduated the same year I did. I went directly into law school, he worked for a year before going to law school--both very valid (and common) choices. Because of that year difference, I interviewed for summer internships in the fall of 2006 when law firms were still hiring A TON of new associates. I got my first job offer as a result of that internship in fall of 2007 and started in fall of 2008. By getting my foot in the door, I was able to prove myself and ride out the recession pretty much unscathed. Actually, because I was making really good money and still had my student level lifestyle, I was able to invest at a historic low point in the stock market and achieve some awesome gains early on.
He had a totally different experience. He was interviewing for internships in 2007, meaning that when it came time for him to get an offer, the world (and the legal industry in particular) had changed dramatically. He did not have the same job opportunities I did, and ended up having to wait a year to get a full time job. By then, salaries had declined as well.
If I'd been born a year later and made the exact same decision, I would have totally been in his shoes. I'm sure I would have been ok, but I probably would have had a different career trajectory.
The fact that I was able to get in when I did? Pure. Luck.
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."
I was one of the people citing luck. I don't mean that I am unworthy (I think I'm pretty smart; I objectively work hard; I set myself up to be successful when the opportunities arose, as tooqk4u22 alludes).
I simply mean that I recognize that I have a lot advantages that set me up to be successful--to be in the right rooms, have the right credentials, be taken seriously. Certainly, people without my advantages have achieved as much and much more than I have. I just acknowledge my road was smoother, which may've allowed me to get to a higher paying job at a younger age.
-
Just as a reality check you also need to consider the amount you can save too. I could make more at a different company, but many of those are in HCOL areas which would eat up a big chunk of the increase.
Percentage-wise, I know I'm able to save more at my current location.
Dollar-wise, I'm guessing I'd break even +/- $5K.
-
I agree that it takes working hard, recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities, and some luck. I would add "don't be dick" because really no one likes to work with an asshole.
Then how are so many of them employed making 100k? ;)
It's not impossible for unpleasant people to earn a good salary, but consider this:
You are in a position to give someone in your department a promotion
You have 2 equally qualified and competent candidates
One of the candidates is obnoxious and causes problems on every team he is assigned to
The other candidate builds strong team relationships wherever he goes.
Which one will you promote?
Or the other scenario, budgets have been cut and you need to let one member of your team go.
They are all equally skilled and competent, but one is an a-hole.
Which one will you let go?
In the long run it pays to develop good interpersonal skills, it gives you an edge over unpleasant competitors.
-
My degree is in Scientific and Technical Communication, but I currently create business documentation. I work from home, make over 100k/yr with 6+ weeks vacation, and live in a LCOL town. It's a very sweet gig.
Mind if I ask what “business documentation” consists of? I’m a technical writer in a HCOL area, and it’s OK for now. But for the future, I’d like to work remotely from a less HCOL without taking a huge cut in salary and benefits. I’d love to ask you more about what you do, if that’s OK.
-
Does this forum have multi quote ability? :D
I'm not saying that there isn't an element of chance involved with doing well. The example above about entering a market in one year vs another is a great example. What I'm saying is that challenges *AND good fortune happen to everyone to varying degrees. But someone that has a good strategy and is consistent about working that plan will almost always end up in a SIGNIFICANTLY better position than someone who doesn't. And *IF* your plan includes a career that has higher earning potential I'd say that the $100k mark is nearly inevitable rather than something that truly takes everything coming together like making it to the NFL, NBA, CEO of a fortune 500, etc.
-
My degree is in Scientific and Technical Communication, but I currently create business documentation. I work from home, make over 100k/yr with 6+ weeks vacation, and live in a LCOL town. It's a very sweet gig.
Mind if I ask what “business documentation” consists of? I’m a technical writer in a HCOL area, and it’s OK for now. But for the future, I’d like to work remotely from a less HCOL without taking a huge cut in salary and benefits. I’d love to ask you more about what you do, if that’s OK.
I'm also curious about this.
-
I make around 125k in a medium cost of living area.
To give an example, I would say my job is similar to managing a customer service/training department at a VP or department head-type level. Worked my way up to that over nearly two decades in my career and a master's degree.
-
I agree that it takes working hard, recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities, and some luck. I would add "don't be dick" because really no one likes to work with an asshole.
Then how are so many of them employed making 100k? ;)
It's not impossible for unpleasant people to earn a good salary, but consider this:
You are in a position to give someone in your department a promotion
You have 2 equally qualified and competent candidates
One of the candidates is obnoxious and causes problems on every team he is assigned to
The other candidate builds strong team relationships wherever he goes.
Which one will you promote?
You promote the jerk to get him out of your office or off your team. It happens all the time. That is how I had the worst boss ever. The other department even confessed to it.
-
I'm an accounting manager at a company (not a public firm). I got an undergrad in accounting, got my CPA, then went back and got my MBA. I had strong work ethic and a positive attitude, which got me promoted to manager. (Which by the way, I 'm the pleasant person that does work well with others and brings a team together...so don't worry, you CAN still be a "nice guy" and get promoted).
I didn't necessarily pick my profession thinking I'd get to this salary, but hard work paid off. (I"m in Kentucky, btw, which is LCOL).
I agree with the previous posters that said to research careers and their expected salary and go from there. However, don't pick something just because it makes a lot. IMO, being miserable would not be worth a high salary.
Good luck to you!
-
Its not necessarily always the field you choose, but what you do once you are in it (outside of doctors, big law, etc). If you always want to be an individual contributor, you will find a ceiling at some point. Those that take on big assignments, a large workload, and especially management roles get the highest salaries. Taking on large projects like being part of an acquisition team can also be a big springboard to a higher paying role (also usually moving into management). Being a manager of managers (ie a director) and then an executive get you
Being willing to relocate and take on short to mid-term roles or just moving can also make a big difference. I got a 30% raise to transfer in the same role, but with a few more responsibilities from Kansas City to California and the cost of living was actually flat!
Another way is to be part of the corporate part of a large business. Moving to headquarters can be a big boost (though in my example above I moved away from Headquarters and 2 years later was out of the loop and my group was eliminated, so there is always some risk).
-
Here was my wife's luck. She went in for a telemarketing job. The guy doing the interview read her application and asked, with her education why she wasn't working at a museum! She explained that she would love to but didn't know how to go about it. He made a call while she was sitting right there. He told her to go over to the Metropolitan Museum Of Art (NYC). And told her who to speak with. That got her a job in the mail room.... just like in Secret To My Success with Michael J Fox, well, kinda. And then she was promoted from within because she had the education to back her. Now that right there is luck!
-
Spouse and I are both electrical engineers, both went to a great state school (minimal debt in my case, none in his because GI bill). We live in a HCOL area. He graduated college 1998, I in 2000. Our salaries are 153k (his) 120k (mine...yes, same degree from same school, working at same company, and I still only make 78% of what he does. Thankfully my current supervisor has worked hard the last few years to make it a smaller gap after I moved over to management). Neither of us work overtime at this point in our careers. I have gone into management but still make less than he does; that tends to vary depending on the company.
Other people I know who make the same (or more) are: Ph.D scientists working in industry (not sure how research compares), manufacturing engineers, IT company owners, program management/planning (often with a technical background although one I know who broke into six digits works for a local construction company), airline pilot, sales, medical field (a friend of ours is an MRI tech and he makes more than I do but works a lot of overtime, I know someone making upwards of 90k but not quite 100k in accounting within a medical group, mostly managing the finance office now).
I guess it's reassuring to know that I'm not the only one? Subtract 8 years to your college grad years (we are older), except our gap is even worse. My husband makes more than yours but I make less than you. In my industry I am well aware that my salary is 77% of the median at my level. Oh that was before my promotion. :(
-
The average salary in the engineering company I work for is about $90K and we are located in the southeast (relatively low cost of living). We are mostly civil engineers and do consulting for government (i.e. State Departments of Transportation and Water Utilities). Salaries can go up to about $160K plus bonuses. Bonuses can range from $3K to over $100K. Starting salaries are in the upper 50's with a BS degree. The key to the higher salaries is be able to win work for the company.
-
My degree is in Scientific and Technical Communication, but I currently create business documentation. I work from home, make over 100k/yr with 6+ weeks vacation, and live in a LCOL town. It's a very sweet gig.
Mind if I ask what “business documentation” consists of? I’m a technical writer in a HCOL area, and it’s OK for now. But for the future, I’d like to work remotely from a less HCOL without taking a huge cut in salary and benefits. I’d love to ask you more about what you do, if that’s OK.
I'm also curious about this.
Sure it's okay. I'm currently working for a Fortune 5 company helping business people document their business processes and associated business policies. I started as a technical writer and gradually took on more business writing as opportunities presented themselves. Then I moved into business analysis, another writing job that straddles the communication gap between IT folks and business folks. That's where I learned to document business processes and people seem to like how I do it so that's mostly what I do now. I need to quote Malkynn here
Being awesome means that when a whole new department opens up and they need to staff it that someone will likely speak up and say “Joe Awesome is a great team member, let’s put him on project amazing”
Because that's how I got my current position on an awesome new team documenting "project amazing"
Here's a good article about business analysis that might interest you. They don't mention technical writing as a career path to business analysis but it certainly worked well for me.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/040915/what-business-analyst-and-how-much-do-they-make.asp (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/040915/what-business-analyst-and-how-much-do-they-make.asp)
-
Being a selfish dick can actually help you climb the ladder or make more money, but being friggin’ awesome will always result in better more dynamic opportunities if you are open to them.
Being a dick means you may be able to sabotage someone and climb over them to the next rung on the ladder. Being awesome means that when a whole new department opens up and they need to staff it that someone will likely speak up and say “Joe Awesome is a great team member, let’s put him on project amazing”
Good point, I tend to choose the less traveled "awesome and amazing" path so I see jerks being weeded out or pruned severely while the awesome folks I prefer to work with advance into more amazing awesomeness. If I was on the more conventional "climb the ladder at any cost" path I might see more jerks doing well.
-
You promote the jerk to get him out of your office or off your team. It happens all the time. That is how I had the worst boss ever. The other department even confessed to it.
Yes, I've seen that too. I'm sorry you had to deal with the fallout. I would say in today's climate it doesn't make financial sense for any organization to risk the legal complications inherent in allowing a jerk to create a hostile work environment.
-
I did it without a college degree or trades training, so basically no out of pocket cost, here is how.
-Get an unpaid internship (foot in the door to the industry, did this in highschool)
-Ask to get hired on part time after 3 months of kicking butt and working hard
-Ask for a raise every 6 mo to a year
-Ask what you can do to get a bigger better raise next time(set goals)
-Deliver and get the raise
-Look for positions that offer high pay in your industry
-Figure out the skills required to get those jobs
-Use your current employment to train and build skills for those jobs, if not available switch jobs to where they are.(resume build)
-Move out of state if required but only for big increases in pay or to increase skills.
-Ask for raises, or seek out another position that comes with pay increase
-etc
Don't ever take a job just for the money, make sure you are learning skills that make you more valuable. Always have an eye on 5 years out and learn skills that increase your worth to an employer.
-
My experience:
-Stared out right out of college at an average paying job with a stable employer right out of college, making $36K/year, in 1998.
-Put in 10 years with various promotions, and went back for an evening/weekend MBA. Employer paid about $10K of the out of pocket. Stayed at my employer for both that, and overall career stability.
-After MBA, transitioned to different types of roles at same company, for more money & more responsibility
-Left company after 18ish years for a move to the Bay Area (for husband's job). Secured a new job at approximately same salary, higher stock options.
-Have been with current company for 4.5 years, and have come close to doubling overall comp, through salary & stock.
Net/net:
-I stayed at my employers for a long period of time. This works well if you're a top performer, and you get stock options. The time/duration for stock matters a lot.
-Have always been in the top 5-10% of all employees. Depending on how you're comp'd, this makes all the difference.
-Work in a field with transferable skills, but highly specialized knowledge built over the last 10 years.
-20+ years in tech/management
-Live in a VHCOL
-
There is some luck but there is also taking advantage of the situation when it arises. If you let that lucky break pass you by, you are shit out of luck.
There is also complaining on the internet. I don't know anyone who makes 100 grand doing that.
-
I wouldn't say it takes luck. It does take being brave and being willing to seek out different employment, move your family, etc.
That can be hard.
I've moved a few times in my life and double my starting salary in 10 years. I got a 50k/yr raise to move to a HCOLA. It depends what you are willing to do and how much upward mobility you allow yourself to have. If you are stuck in the same city and state as you grew up in because of spouse, family, fear, whatever - you are missing out on a lot of opportunity.
-
Do not get a PhD, and then do not become a civil servant.
*adding myself to the list of underpaid people doing it wrong.
-
I agree that it takes working hard, recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities, and some luck. I would add "don't be dick" because really no one likes to work with an asshole.
Then how are so many of them employed making 100k? ;)
It's not impossible for unpleasant people to earn a good salary, but consider this:
You are in a position to give someone in your department a promotion
You have 2 equally qualified and competent candidates
One of the candidates is obnoxious and causes problems on every team he is assigned to
The other candidate builds strong team relationships wherever he goes.
Which one will you promote?
You promote the jerk to get him out of your office or off your team. It happens all the time. That is how I had the worst boss ever. The other department even confessed to it.
When my kids were young there was an elementary class teacher that was terrible, the school put up with her until they had the chance to give a glowing reference letter to another local school, that then hired her. It was a subject of much joking among the teachers for a time after that.
As in, be careful or you'll get a glowing reference letter! :-)
-
There is some luck but there is also taking advantage of the situation when it arises. If you let that lucky break pass you by, you are shit out of luck.
There is also complaining on the internet. I don't know anyone who makes 100 grand doing that.
Yes, the ability to recognize luck when it comes your way a skill worth cultivating. I remember having a conversation with an old friend once and talking about how lucky I've been in my life. He paused before answering, then stated matter-of-factly "um, I've known you a long time and I can honestly say you've had more bad luck than almost anyone I know. You just never let it stop you."
He was right of course, I simply don't dwell on misfortune. I focus on the good fortune and build around it.
-
My degree is in Scientific and Technical Communication, but I currently create business documentation. I work from home, make over 100k/yr with 6+ weeks vacation, and live in a LCOL town. It's a very sweet gig.
Mind if I ask what “business documentation” consists of? I’m a technical writer in a HCOL area, and it’s OK for now. But for the future, I’d like to work remotely from a less HCOL without taking a huge cut in salary and benefits. I’d love to ask you more about what you do, if that’s OK.
I'm also curious about this.
Sure it's okay. I'm currently working for a Fortune 5 company helping business people document their business processes and associated business policies. I started as a technical writer and gradually took on more business writing as opportunities presented themselves. Then I moved into business analysis, another writing job that straddles the communication gap between IT folks and business folks. That's where I learned to document business processes and people seem to like how I do it so that's mostly what I do now. I need to quote Malkynn here
Being awesome means that when a whole new department opens up and they need to staff it that someone will likely speak up and say “Joe Awesome is a great team member, let’s put him on project amazing”
Because that's how I got my current position on an awesome new team documenting "project amazing"
Here's a good article about business analysis that might interest you. They don't mention technical writing as a career path to business analysis but it certainly worked well for me.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/040915/what-business-analyst-and-how-much-do-they-make.asp (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/040915/what-business-analyst-and-how-much-do-they-make.asp)
Thank you, @Parizade ! That sounds really interesting, including the way you worked yourself into it. I'm good at documenting processes, so this sounds worth pursuing.
-
Sales
If you want the simplest (but rarely easiest) entry point into the six figure world, learn how to sell.
I would wager my left testicle that the average income for the top 25% of direct B2B sales team members for the fortune 2000 is north of $200k/yr. With the top 10% pulling in north of $500k/yr.
-
Sales
If you want the simplest (but rarely easiest) entry point into the six figure world, learn how to sell.
I would wager my left testicle that the average income for the top 25% of direct B2B sales team members for the fortune 2000 is north of $200k/yr. With the top 10% pulling in north of $500k/yr.
Truth. I've known a few folks taking in ~$25MM a year in sales.
-
Sales
If you want the simplest (but rarely easiest) entry point into the six figure world, learn how to sell.
I would wager my left testicle that the average income for the top 25% of direct B2B sales team members for the fortune 2000 is north of $200k/yr. With the top 10% pulling in north of $500k/yr.
Truth. I've known a few folks taking in ~$25MM a year in sales.
Income or revenue they bring to the business? If income, that's insane. Our top guys make $1m/year
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
Thank you, @Parizade ! That sounds really interesting, including the way you worked yourself into it. I'm good at documenting processes, so this sounds worth pursuing.
You're welcome Nora, I hope it works out for you!
-
Helpdesk person>take tests, get certified>System Administrator>get better certs>gain experience>$100k.
If you are in the DC area or want to work on government contracts, get a security clearance.
-
I write software (think websites) and made a little over $200,000 last year. I do it by contracting, billing per hour, and loading up on as much work as possible.
Early on in my career I went from...
35k for 3 months
42k for 7 months
55k for 6 months- raised to 65k for 3 months
98k for 6 months - started consulting
160k
152k
Then it stayed up there in that range. Occasionally bumping over 200k
Job hopping is the absolute gold mine, at least in engineering. I had a senior level job around 2 to 3 years from my first job (but only 6 months out of college because I was hired as a freshman for full time software development)
I find that I am naturally good at it. So not all will see the same results.
If you don't mind me asking, what kind of website work and what kind of hourly rate?
I'm thinking about trying to expand my contracting side hustle this year.
I do a lot of .NET, though lately its all been moving to JS frameworks like AngularJS I work full time at this, but side gigs are around (though less supply)
Rates are generally >$60/H (maybe over $100 in certain cases)
Thanks for the details. My side hustle has been .net for $85hr mostly for a single company. I am going to try to ramp up hours this year to increase the 1099 income an take advantage of the favorable tax treatment. For me, adding the side hustle hours is more effective then working harder at day job or job hopping at this point in my career.
-
I made the bulk of my salary in Oil. Started out offshore some countries that made the "s**thole" list decreed by the GodEmperortm. Note: I do not agree with his classification scheme.
It was right after the recession, pay was crap to begin with but rose quite a bit by the time I left field behind for an office job.
To put it to scale in a very convoluted manner: At the time, an oilman's salary was a few multiples of the country's personal median income, my offshore compensation was a few multiple of an oilman's salary.
12-16 hour days, 6 weeks rotations, extremely unreliable internet, sharing a room with people. Extreme heat/humidity, loud noises at all times except in sleeping quarters (sometimes even in sleeping quarters), class 4 swell and sea state every other day with occasional class 6.
I left for an office job after about a year and took a ~70% pay cut (ie, I was making an average oilman's salary). Luckily, oil went to 100 and stayed there for multiple years. By 2014, a new hire with MSc was making around 90k, and bonuses were quite generous. I was involved with some bigger projects and my bonus was almost 100% of my salary.
Same story with wife, she started her last job with over 80k in salary (bonus extra) back in 2010, by 2014 she was making close to what I was making when I was offshore. It was a crazy time and it did not last, but could come back, who knows.
Our office job? We looked at computer screens to identify prospects to drill for oil (not unlike technical analysis using charts), but most days we just pressed buttons to make pretty displays (seismic).
-
OK but which careers are these? I imagine doctor, law firm partner, people who work in finance? What else?
Marketing and/or sales. If you are the person who brings in the money, you will get some of that money.
-
I thought of another way to make $100k/yr - start at the bottom and work your way up. I know a guy who is a regional VP for an international hotel chain making $200k+/yr (he is probably 36 y/o or so) who started out working the front desk for a local hotel while he was in college, then he switched over to management after getting his BA.
-
Depending on your mindset and risk tolerance, the path to making 100k+ isn’t in words like “career” and “salary” it’s in assets, and business, and profits- running a business isn’t for everyone but if you want to get to 100k quickly identify what sort of business you’d go all in on and focus 100% on that, you can make a great living doing anything there is no shortage of money to be made you just have to figure out how to make your share. Not saying working a job won’t get you there but working for your self is the fast tract and you can make it happen.
-
~$400k lawyer here.
Put me into the "what I have is 98% attributable to luck" way of thinking.
-
Started at 250k as a software engineer after a PhD, now 370k. Closing in on $1M savings after 3.5 years of work is great!
See "So Good They Can't Ignore You" by Cal Newport.
Be willing to relocate (country, HCOL area) and/or put everything else on hold if necessary.
Luck factor:
I had the best opportunities when I took some time off during my PhD to step back, work on myself, get motivated, and figure things out. Once I had a clear path / vision, it became obvious what the next steps would be to get closer to my goal and stumble into more opportunities. You have to be like a lion hunter for a few years, always looking for an opportunity, jumping on it as soon as you see it, etc., and I'm talking intermediate steps, not just the final job. You'll figure it out as you go but it takes resources and focus. Of course you can say the hunter is lucky to stumble onto its prey but attitude changes everything. There ARE jobs/food everywhere -- up to you to find them. If you're born in the US and had the means to get an education, you got the luck part down already. If you're a 25 y.o. male in the US who can't stop jerking off yet is earning <100k, bad luck isn't your biggest problem.
-
Helpdesk person>take tests, get certified>System Administrator>get better certs>gain experience>$100k.
If you are in the DC area or want to work on government contracts, get a security clearance.
Change System Admin to Network Engineer and that's been my career for the last 10 years. It's really that easy, especially if you're willing to move and job hop.
-
OK but which careers are these? I imagine doctor, law firm partner, people who work in finance? What else?
My partner is manager in a warehouse, with a team of about 6 people.
As a teacher, after about 9years my pay scale will rach $100k (we start on $65k & goes up each year)
-
If you don't mind living in Australia, miners get paid over $200k to drive trucks. No education required.
http://www.satnews.com/story.php?number=1885553132 (http://www.satnews.com/story.php?number=1885553132)
-
A career field that seems to be a bit 'hidden' is Research and Development for food companies. I stumbled upon a job as a technician and stayed at that job with a major food company for 18 years. From day one they bumped up my hourly pay and each year the raises were significant and received 3 promotions over the years. I was an hourly employee and made a lot of money. Saved a lot too. They would fly me all over the place to do work and I would get double time on Sunday to fly from NY to CA! Didn't have to do a lick of work! Travel pay, can't beat that! There are a lot of careers within food companies. Food scientists, Project managers, Pilot lab supervisors, Engineers, Flavor scientists, Nutrition areas, Chemistry departments, Microbiology departments, FDA specialists, USDA specialists. You can start at the bottom and work up to a fantastic career. There is LOTS of money to be made. I learned so much and loved my job. Plus, every year we had summer interns which is another way to get your foot in the door. If they love you as an intern, there is a good chance they may hire you when you graduate college. There are a lot of food companies that are great to work for. Benefits are outstanding. It is constant learning because research and development requires learning new methods, new ingredients, new equipment, new techniques. The food industry is constantly changing with new trends and diet changes. Check it out.
-
See "So Good They Can't Ignore You" by Cal Newport.
I second that recommendation.
-
I was a mid-career hire at a Fortune 50 company. Started at ~ $35k/year in 2005 and slowly worked my way up. They paid for me to go back to school and get my degree and I moved into supervision in 2013 and crossed the $100k/year threshold a couple of years ago.
-
Garbage men and police officers in my home town make over $100k per year.
Edit: In fact, here’s an article from the newspaper on this from almosta decade ago. I assume the number of police paid over $100k has only increased. https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/most-li-cops-earn-more-than-100-000-annually-1.1451151
Edit 2: apparently it’s not even strange for garbage men to make over $100k. It’s an unpleasant job and they have to pay a lot to attract people.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/24/news/economy/trash-workers-high-pay/index.html
-
Well,
I can tell you from my experience how I got to 100k and how my husband did:
Me:
Undergraduate in Human Resource Management- worked as an HR Assistant the whole time and networked my ass off
Job search in an academic/ biotech area of the country: Landed as HR Generalist Making 25k
then, found that I loved the Training and Development aspect and I was reasonably good at it.
Interviewed for another Generalist job, talking about how much I loved training and they offered me a training job instead (35k)- worked there for 6 years while completing my Masters in Learning and Development. Ended at 55k.
Changed industries to Pharma (look for growing industries)- salary jumped to 68k- worked for 2 years then jumped to another pharma as a manager (salary went to 75k)- worked there for 9 years always seeking opportunity to add value/ innovation- hit 100k with a promotion in my 5th year. Has gone up from there and I've changed companies again since then. Hoping this will be my last one until FIRE.
Husband:
Double majored in Undergrad- computer science/ computer engineering
started with a tech company at 50k- has worked for them as a very high performer for 15 years (of course through MANY) acquisitions. It is tech afterall. Is now at 145k. Still an individual contributor but is near the top of the Technical Track where he's happy to stay. He has no desire to manage people.
-
Someone told me Walmart store managers make over $100K. Not sure if that is true or not but if so, it is a slap in the face of the 'little people' that barely make minimum wage. I have a friend who works at a WM and they were/are hiring an HR manager from within. No experience necessary! Can you imagine that? So anyone could apply and if the store manager likes you, you are given the job! I have only known HR managers to have college degrees! WM doesn't want to pay high wages so any dude will do!
-
Easily can make well into 6 figures as a freight broker. High stress though and have to be able to take no for an answer and make tons of phone calls.
-
I started out working on my tools in constructions. Over a couple years I got some certifications. I made 50-60k my first couple years, then continued to increase. The year I turned 26 I was at 120k, 27 at 190k, 28 at 240k. This past year at 29 I only made 80k, but I also only worked 4.5 months and traveled North America/abroad the rest of the time. December I started a new job and my take home is around $17k/mo.
I should note - I do contract work - so I work a job, then get laid off. I do typically get good benefits and a 401k. I also work a ton of hrs. In 2016 I had 900 hrs of overtime by mid November, then took the last 6 weeks off. Right now I’m alternating 72/82 hr work weeks. While I’m not that passionate about what I do, and in many aspects severely behind in a technical aspect (excel at some parts, suck at others) I make up for it in all the “softer” aspects of my career. I can write reports much better than most (in my industry) - I understand how all the systems work, great at problem solving and creating procedures to fix issues. I’m typically very good with working with people. Despite all my hrs I haven’t had a sick day in about 7 years, and I do everything that’s asked and follow up. I’m also good with people when I need to be. I currently manage 20 others, most 15-20 years older than me. On previous jobs I’ve been promoted over my much, much older peers.
I think there’s far more to being successful than just intelligence. Just because you’re smart, if no one likes working with you, being around you, you might likely struggle unless you’re insanely good. It’s surprising how many people in the work place are just kind of miserable to be around.
-
Sales
If you want the simplest (but rarely easiest) entry point into the six figure world, learn how to sell.
I would wager my left testicle that the average income for the top 25% of direct B2B sales team members for the fortune 2000 is north of $200k/yr. With the top 10% pulling in north of $500k/yr.
Truth. I've known a few folks taking in ~$25MM a year in sales.
Income or revenue they bring to the business? If income, that's insane. Our top guys make $1m/year
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Income. Their MO is usually to come back in from rehab, spend 22 hours a day on the phone for 6 months, and go back to rehab. When they're on, they're on. Then the coke runs out.
-
I am in the KC metro area and just accepted a job offer for just shy of $100k and a potential 10% annual bonus. I am assuming with just average raises over the next few years my base will touch that $100k level.
I have also been in my career field (environmental compliance) for over a decade, have a BS, working on an MS, and this was a huge jump for me (30+%). I almost didn't even apply because I thought the job description was too much of an overreach for me. Sometimes you just have to take a chance and reach a little higher than you think you are ready for and take on more responsibility.
Would you mind sharing more details about what type of environmental compliance? It's a huge field with widely varying salaries.
-
In my career field (commercial real estate appraisal) I could certainly make $100k and some of my co-workers do. However, it's 100% commission and based on how much you can bill. I've just never been able to crank out reports like some of my co-workers so I only make about $60k. I'm currently looking to change careers as I know that this is just no longer a good fit for me. I'm too focused on producing that A+ quality work every time even when B- would do 90% of the time. Consequently it takes me 30-40 hours to do what some of my co-workers can knock out in 20-25 hours.
I had some interest from a large accounting firm in the bay area a few years ago and the starting salary would have been about $100-110k but with the cost of living it would not have been worth it. 4-Bedroom house here is $1,200/month and I have a 30-minute commute. There it would probably be $4,000/month and an hour-commute, plus more going to local, state, and federal taxes.
-
EE degree - hit 6 figures in base plus bonus this year been over 110k for a while with retirment contributions from my company - i will likely make over 160k in the next 2 years not counting retirment and will be over 200k in 4-5 years just in time to hang up the ties and jackets.
-
Being a lineman for a utility company. I know a guy who worked there cradle to grave and made tons of money. Lots of OT and even traveled to different parts of the country to do work when devastating storms hit areas. I believe years ago when a hurricane hit Puerto Rico they sent his crew there and even transported their trucks.
-
Step 1) Identify a career where salaries that high are the norm.
Step 2) Become qualified for one of those careers.
Step 3) Profit.
I would also add:
Step 4) Work your ASS off!
Every job I ever had (from retail to cleaning toilets to my current IT job), I started each job on Day 1 with the goal to be indispensable and if not well liked at least well respected.
I accomplished by volunteering for the crap shifts, projects, tasks, etc. If it was something other people complained about and didn't want, I volunteered to take it on. While doing it, I didn't complain, but also made sure I did it so well people took notice. It wasn't long before I earned a strong reputation at being able to do and handle any task put before me. While I was not always promoted (something I don't necessarily want), I have at times over the course of my career received bonuses upwards of $30k in a single quarter. My only regret was not discovering MMM during those times because I squandered that money.
Because of this I am held in high esteem within my company, even though I am not a manager. I'm given nice bonuses & stock options (not $30k but it is a different company). Best of all is the ability to pretty much set my own hours and work from home 100% of the time. I also get a chance to collaborate with some of the best brains in my company.
-
I am a material scientist and plastics engineer. Degrees are BS chemical engineer and MS plastics engineer. I have not entered the management ranks. Unlike many plastics engineers, I have worked with a wide variety of materials and several process methods. I am a technical generalist who can solve problems in a lot of different areas. I do not have the depth of knowledge of a PhD, but their expertise tends to be a lot narrower. You might need 10 of them to cover my breadth of knowledge. I just broke 6 figures a few years ago, and I feel average, or slightly below average, for someone with 30 years experience. My first real job paid $25k.
-
I agree with MrsDinero! The best job I had I started as a temp. I did every crap job that no one liked to do. I didn't like it but I smiled doing the crap jobs! I would offer to do anything crappy. I am not a boot licker but it does show you are a team player and willing to work in the trenches and do the job well and not half ass. Be organized, be cheerful, work hard, do more than others and you will be recognized. I eventually was hired as a permanent employee and was given more and more responsibilities and no longer did the grunt work. Also, be willing to learn new things, take on new responsibilities, offer suggestions but don't be a know it all. One of the biggies, is make your boss look good at all times. His/her plate is very full. If you can do some things for them in the background, do it. Some bosses will reward you for this, others will take advantage. In the long run, you will be golden and everyone will see your efforts and request you do work for them. Eventually, you will move on to bigger and better things. One of my bosses who prior to being my boss kept leaving crap for me to clean up. I had an issue with her just doing work and expecting me to clean up after her. We all cleaned up after ourselves unless it was our boss then we cleaned up for them. She had a hissy fit and we were on a non talking status...Then, OMG, she became my supervisor! Well, we had a rocky start but I worked hard to please her and she appreciated that she could depend on me to do things without even asking me. Our relationship became golden. She has told me a ton of times how much she appreciated my efforts and she said I set the gold standard for others who followed after me when the company moved to another state. That meant a lot to me! Also, my words of wisdom are, be careful who you piss off because they might become your boss some day! LOL!
-
Personally I’m a CPA and work for the Feds in DC area. That automatically qualifies you for 6 figs after 3/4 years.
However in Baltimore, Principals in the City school system are making $125k to $150k plus! Assistants principals are in that range too!
-
30 year claims adjuster and I make closer to 150K than 100K. But I started in Seattle in a training program at 20K during the 1980s. I also made a big mistake and stayed there almost 15 years. To make more money I jumped ship and they moved me to the East Coast. I am really good at what I do :) and add value all day long. I am very specialized and I just moved to an even more specialized job at same company but a way to get another bump. Keep a positive attitude and ask for jobs with heavy lifting and the money will come. I was not interested in management but another way to make more.
-
All of these stories are very motivating. Unfortunately they are motivating me to retire sooner, instead of work harder.
Lick that boot! Get down in the trenches and get dirty! Smile and volunteer for crap jobs! Put in long hours with no expectation of reward! Surely someone will eventually toss you some table scraps, right?
No thanks. Do you want to cater to the king's whims to avoid having to eat rice and beans, or do you want to eat rice and beans to avoid having to cater the king's whims? At some point, my dignity is worth more than your paycheck.
-
I started taking flying lessons at age 15, went to college and taught others to fly for the grand sum of about $12k/yr between 22-24. My first airline job paid me $22,500 in 2005. They now start around $55-$60k as there is a shortage of guys. I had my first five figure (over $10k) month when I was 26 but income has fluctuated greatly as the recession hit me with a huge pay cut. Took another 60k pay hit in 2014, but income has recovered. Gross around $160k now with 16% DC 401k. Unless the bottom falls out should be around 200k in a couple years around 40 (wow that sounds old!!).
Nice thing is the schedule is easy and gets better over time.
Similar story for me. After college and all my ratings I instructed at a university flight program making ~$18-20k for two years, though the free health insurance was nice.
Made the jump to a regional airline and got stuck as a first officer for 8 years. Made about $27k my first year but had to jump to avoid a furlough I could see coming after a change in business strategy. New airline paid me about $23k my first year. That’s right when the economy tanked and the mandatory retirement age was moved from 60 to 65. Very little movement the next few years and my pay gradually crept up from $35k to $60k over the next six years.
Finally I got to upgrade to captain and in my first full year grossed $103k plus a 5% 401k match. Finally over $100,000!! Woohoo! Then I got hired at one of the major airlines. First year I grossed about $80k with a 16% 401k contribution. I could have made more if I had lived near my base, but my initial base was almost completely across the country from where I live so picking up extra flying was difficult. In my second year now and I’ll probably gross ~$130k plus that 16% in my retirement. $150-160k next year is probable. I could make probably another $15k by bidding onto a larger aircraft but I’d have to work more weekends and holidays than staying on the shrimp of the fleet.
-
When I lived in Seattle I knew a pilot that had ultimate seniority. He would fly to Asia - walk around for 3 hours and then fly back. He made boatloads of money and that got him his hours for the entire month. He was about 55 years at the time.
-
Colleague of mine, same cert and education, straight out of college got a job as a clinical lab scientist in a MCOL town in California. Have a microbiology BS then 1 year internship certification. It's not unheard of to get 150k out there based on recent indeed job postings. I'm considering moving now haha....
An example of the "lower" paid jobs. https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=2b3de97221a4273f&from=tp-serp&tk=1c458pom15ukhbq4
-
When I lived in Seattle I knew a pilot that had ultimate seniority. He would fly to Asia - walk around for 3 hours and then fly back. He made boatloads of money and that got him his hours for the entire month. He was about 55 years at the time.
There’s still some cushy trips on the international wide body fleets but nothing like that. Most are gone around 12 days a month.
-
All of these stories are very motivating. Unfortunately they are motivating me to retire sooner, instead of work harder.
Lick that boot! Get down in the trenches and get dirty! Smile and volunteer for crap jobs! Put in long hours with no expectation of reward! Surely someone will eventually toss you some table scraps, right?
No thanks. Do you want to cater to the king's whims to avoid having to eat rice and beans, or do you want to eat rice and beans to avoid having to cater the king's whims? At some point, my dignity is worth more than your paycheck.
I don't see how working hard is below your dignity?
I have never been a boot licker and there have been times where I certainly was not well liked. Despite that no one could ever say anything about my work ethic, which also translates into my personal life and integrity.But I have escaped many rounds of layoffs because the company didn't want to lose me. I have gotten salary increases when I turned in my resignation letter.
-
I am in the KC metro area and just accepted a job offer for just shy of $100k and a potential 10% annual bonus. I am assuming with just average raises over the next few years my base will touch that $100k level.
I have also been in my career field (environmental compliance) for over a decade, have a BS, working on an MS, and this was a huge jump for me (30+%). I almost didn't even apply because I thought the job description was too much of an overreach for me. Sometimes you just have to take a chance and reach a little higher than you think you are ready for and take on more responsibility.
Would you mind sharing more details about what type of environmental compliance? It's a huge field with widely varying salaries.
I started out cleaning up highway and oil field releases, I went into consulting, then heavy manufacturing environmental compliance. The new shiny job is at the corporate level providing support to a couple different facilities. I basically make sure that the company I am working for is complying with all of their environmental permits and any regulations that apply to them, along with keeping an eye out for new/proposed regulations.
-
All of these stories are very motivating. Unfortunately they are motivating me to retire sooner, instead of work harder.
Lick that boot! Get down in the trenches and get dirty! Smile and volunteer for crap jobs! Put in long hours with no expectation of reward! Surely someone will eventually toss you some table scraps, right?
No thanks. Do you want to cater to the king's whims to avoid having to eat rice and beans, or do you want to eat rice and beans to avoid having to cater the king's whims? At some point, my dignity is worth more than your paycheck.
Nothing wrong with that want. The idea is to get your salary up so you can accelerate FIRE. We’re just sharing what we’ve done in that regard. I deal with some politics, but never have licked anyone’s boots. Only time I feel I sacrificed my dignity was when I went from a $110k job to a $80k job because that job was going to put me in an environment that I knew would progress my career (and it did, while I managed to increase it to $120k in 3 months).
-
Nothing wrong with that want. The idea is to get your salary up so you can accelerate FIRE. We’re just sharing what we’ve done in that regard.
I didn't mean to denigrate anyone's hard earned success. I've been there.
It's just that at this point in my career, so near the end, the idea of taking on additional suffering to get more money seems antithetical to my long term goals. I can barely hold it together in my boring office job, not sure I could smile while taking on other people's crapwork anymore.
The advice here is sound, for an enthusiastic young employee Iooking to climb the ladder. That's just not me, these days. I am tired and jaded by office life, and disillusioned with managers that care more about perception than production. The politics blows. Even aspirational organizations have internal decay.
-
You could join the military. With BAH most of my friends (15ish years in, officers) are clearing $100K now. Even more when they get deployed especially the pilots.
My husband left the air force, and we'd have a lot more money if he hadn't. Oh well, money isn't everything.
Had I stayed in the Navy, or even transitioned to civilian at my organization, I'd be making $30-50k more a year than I am now.
Then again, if I were paid the median for my job at my level of experience, the same would be true.
-
All of these stories are very motivating. Unfortunately they are motivating me to retire sooner, instead of work harder.
Lick that boot! Get down in the trenches and get dirty! Smile and volunteer for crap jobs! Put in long hours with no expectation of reward! Surely someone will eventually toss you some table scraps, right?
No thanks. Do you want to cater to the king's whims to avoid having to eat rice and beans, or do you want to eat rice and beans to avoid having to cater the king's whims? At some point, my dignity is worth more than your paycheck.
I relate to this as I just got a "promotion" without a pay raise, for a position where I am already underpaid by over 30%. A few folks (VPs, directors) "This is such a great opportunity! Much more visibility! Working for the President!"
Sure. Yeah. More work. Still have to do old job too until new guy up to speed. Even then they took 4 positions and now have 3 people. I'm supposed to bust my ass even more for no raise? Last raise was 6 years ago.
My spouse and I used to be pretty close to each other in pay. He's 2 years older with an extra degree. He now makes almost $60k more than I do. Eff this.
-
My father and younger brother are both electricians. Brother just turned 30. Both started apprenticeships as soon as they finish school. They'd complain as first and second year apprentices that their wages weren't that high, but they were earning about the same as a PhD student stipend; plenty for a kid living at home anyway.
My brother was on $100k as soon as his four years of apprenticeship were up.
Both are on $130k-$160k per year. They could earn more if they worked overtime or looked for higher paying jobs, eg Minesite FIFO.
Of course their superannuation payments are also stellar. In Aus the minimum employer contribution is currently 9.5%. So if you earn more, you super more...
Meanwhile, I now earn a little over half what my brother does, working for a University, the leading expert in my field. Oh well.
-
All of these stories are very motivating. Unfortunately they are motivating me to retire sooner, instead of work harder.
Lick that boot! Get down in the trenches and get dirty! Smile and volunteer for crap jobs! Put in long hours with no expectation of reward! Surely someone will eventually toss you some table scraps, right?
No thanks. Do you want to cater to the king's whims to avoid having to eat rice and beans, or do you want to eat rice and beans to avoid having to cater the king's whims? At some point, my dignity is worth more than your paycheck.
I relate to this as I just got a "promotion" without a pay raise, for a position where I am already underpaid by over 30%. A few folks (VPs, directors) "This is such a great opportunity! Much more visibility! Working for the President!"
Sure. Yeah. More work. Still have to do old job too until new guy up to speed. Even then they took 4 positions and now have 3 people. I'm supposed to bust my ass even more for no raise? Last raise was 6 years ago.
My spouse and I used to be pretty close to each other in pay. He's 2 years older with an extra degree. He now makes almost $60k more than I do. Eff this.
Yep. That's when you take the resume you've built at your current job and go elsewhere for a ridiculous raise.
I was significantly underpaid at my last company and quit. It's better now. :)
-
I don't quite make $100k, but expect to within the next few years. I'm in higher ed admin (think program manager, etc. for large top-ranked universities) in HCOL. I'm a handful of years out from college and these positions don't require any special degree or anything--just really good organization and communication skills.
-
I didn't finish college.
The keys for me were:
1) Network and surround yourself with successful people in whatever field you're looking to get into (imo the most important factor)
2) Get a job somewhere that you will have the ability to gain marketable skills
3) Be on the lookout for either moving up, or moving to a better opportunity in another company. In my case, I was getting offers of 2X what I was currently earning, and my employer would then counter to keep me. If you have gained marketable skills, they will want to keep you especially if you're getting offers from competitors.
This is what I did, and it led me from starting at ~ 80 K in total compensation in 2012, to ~ 150 K in 2014, to now 1M+/year with my own business. The 3 factors above were the sole contributors. The business required a good partner (see 1.) It also required specific skills (see 2).
-
Sol, I am not trying to say to bow to the man or lick their boots. When I got that job I was around 34 years old with no college education in a very technical environment. I had to go the extra mile to prove that I was worthy and to get a full time position. Many educated people look down on those who have no degree. I do think in some instances I outshined some with degrees. I do not put those down who have degrees and if things were different I kind of wish I did have a degree because I could have excelled extremely well. But, I did the best I could and in the end I was making mid $60K and cranked up my 401K big time. The company treated me very well and my severance package was 6 months full salary and 3 more months half salary. I was able to save 22% of my salary in 401K and worked there 18 years. It took a while to build up to 22% but each year I cranked it up when I got a raise.
-
Do you want to cater to the king's whims to avoid having to eat rice and beans, or do you want to eat rice and beans to avoid having to cater the king's whims? At some point, my dignity is worth more than your paycheck.
The main reason I love working for myself. Much better income and I become the king.
-
All of these stories are very motivating. Unfortunately they are motivating me to retire sooner, instead of work harder.
Lick that boot! Get down in the trenches and get dirty! Smile and volunteer for crap jobs! Put in long hours with no expectation of reward! Surely someone will eventually toss you some table scraps, right?
No thanks. Do you want to cater to the king's whims to avoid having to eat rice and beans, or do you want to eat rice and beans to avoid having to cater the king's whims? At some point, my dignity is worth more than your paycheck.
I relate to this as I just got a "promotion" without a pay raise, for a position where I am already underpaid by over 30%. A few folks (VPs, directors) "This is such a great opportunity! Much more visibility! Working for the President!"
Sure. Yeah. More work. Still have to do old job too until new guy up to speed. Even then they took 4 positions and now have 3 people. I'm supposed to bust my ass even more for no raise? Last raise was 6 years ago.
My spouse and I used to be pretty close to each other in pay. He's 2 years older with an extra degree. He now makes almost $60k more than I do. Eff this.
Yep. That's when you take the resume you've built at your current job and go elsewhere for a ridiculous raise.
I was significantly underpaid at my last company and quit. It's better now. :)
Exactly this!
In my career, I take on the responsibility (and ideally the job title) even without the raise, do it for a reasonable amount of time (3 months to a year) and then go somewhere else to start at that new level of responsibility and pay. It is so much easier to get serious bumps when you change jobs early in your career.
My specific path went like:
22: Coordinator @ $30K
23-25: Associate @ $42K
26-28: Specialist @ $54K to (promotion) Manager at $70K to (relocation) Director at $99K
29+: $100K+ as heads of departments at various companies.
Now that I'm at a position where I'm comfortable with my salary, I've made choices that aren't as directly tied to salary (ie picking a lower base and more equity, or choosing to stick in a more interesting industry rather than chasing a $20K bump.)
-
Someone told me Walmart store managers make over $100K. Not sure if that is true or not but if so, it is a slap in the face of the 'little people' that barely make minimum wage. I have a friend who works at a WM and they were/are hiring an HR manager from within. No experience necessary! Can you imagine that? So anyone could apply and if the store manager likes you, you are given the job! I have only known HR managers to have college degrees! WM doesn't want to pay high wages so any dude will do!
Overall WM store manager making over $100k is quite reasonable, if not low. Figure $50MM in revenue per year for a store, ~200 employees, ~25 lower level supervisors to oversee... Doesn't sound like enough.
-
Other people I know who make the same (or more) are: Ph.D scientists working in industry (not sure how research compares),
PhD in academia (ie tenure) is NOT an easy or well-compensated track. Spend 5 years getting a PhD, several years as a post-doc, then most get stuck at adjunct. Even if you make it onto a tenure track, the compensation isn't great compared to industry.
-
All of these stories are very motivating. Unfortunately they are motivating me to retire sooner, instead of work harder.
Lick that boot! Get down in the trenches and get dirty! Smile and volunteer for crap jobs! Put in long hours with no expectation of reward! Surely someone will eventually toss you some table scraps, right?
No thanks. Do you want to cater to the king's whims to avoid having to eat rice and beans, or do you want to eat rice and beans to avoid having to cater the king's whims? At some point, my dignity is worth more than your paycheck.
I'm sitting in bed right now taking a break from finishing up the week's work. Normally I'd do my 9am meeting on the way up to go snowboarding but my old man back has been acting up so I'll probably just migrate to the desk for that meeting and then ride my cushy beach cruiser to the pool for a swim. Supposed to be powder dumps all next week so I'll go whatever day works. :D
I didn't take shit jobs coming up, I took interesting specialized jobs that mentally lazier people were afraid to tackle because they usually required learning something. I love learning things. I never licked boots either, I offer enthusiasm and work ethic which are GOOD things. I never sat around hoping for scraps, I looked for opportunities and took them, if I wasn't valued I went somewhere else. And it has paid off with a great lifestyle and pretty amazing pay rate that will allow me to check out of this work thing a lot sooner than most.
Sorry about your cynicism, sounds like you might have done better self employed. Hope you get to check out soon and are happier for it.
BTW-Others mentioned the book 'So good they can't ignore you' and I echo that as well as Tim Ferris' 'The 4-hour workweek'. Both good mindset books even if 4hww is somewhat dated.
-
You could join the military. With BAH most of my friends (15ish years in, officers) are clearing $100K now. Even more when they get deployed especially the pilots.
My husband left the air force, and we'd have a lot more money if he hadn't. Oh well, money isn't everything.
Had I stayed in the Navy, or even transitioned to civilian at my organization, I'd be making $30-50k more a year than I am now.
Then again, if I were paid the median for my job at my level of experience, the same would be true.
Within 2 years of getting out of the Navy (E-6 then) I was over $100k without a degree. I could be making much more if I was willing to move again to change companies (little upward mobility available here) but I'm not willing to do that right now.
-
All of these stories are very motivating. Unfortunately they are motivating me to retire sooner, instead of work harder.
Lick that boot! Get down in the trenches and get dirty! Smile and volunteer for crap jobs! Put in long hours with no expectation of reward! Surely someone will eventually toss you some table scraps, right?
No thanks. Do you want to cater to the king's whims to avoid having to eat rice and beans, or do you want to eat rice and beans to avoid having to cater the king's whims? At some point, my dignity is worth more than your paycheck.
In a lot of ways I think this site will make you lazy if you're not already at the six figure level. The resident guru quit at 30 and has made significantly more money since quitting than he ever did while working. Doesn't exactly motivate me to work harder and longer - it motivates me to work more efficiently and quit sooner! The site is all about maximizing efficiency which at some point makes you realize that you can avoid making $50/hr if you avoid a lifestyle that would require such a salary.
Finding the motivation to kiss a bunch of asses to get to that point just isn't there when you realize that your compatriots are not competing for the same jobs to retire but to afford expensive things and gain prestige. This site is also generally a self-selecting group of introspective people more focused on the internal than external who are constantly surrounded by people solely focused on the aforementioned trivialities (to us): prestige, achievement, materials. If your goal is to retire or just avoid bullshit work then your tolerance for bullshit is very low and you just don't have the same mindset as someone who is oblivious to all of this.
I started becoming extremely lazy once I hit a decent level of "security". When I know I'm never going to want an expensive lifestyle, I'm both not in a rush to get anywhere fast and not motivated to climb a stupid unnecessary career ladder.
Regarding luck/hard work: the notion of free will is laughable. Your whole life is determined the moment you're born: IQ, physical appearance, parents, mental stability, physical capabilities, personality, surrounding environment, etc. All of those play a significant factor in what you're capable of and all of those are things you don't choose. Obviously attitude makes a difference but even your attitude is beyond your control since your attitude about life has everything to do with your environment and the aforementioned qualities. But, the good news I guess is that I think nearly everyone is far more capable than they think they are.
-
Exactly this!
In my career, I take on the responsibility (and ideally the job title) even without the raise, do it for a reasonable amount of time (3 months to a year) and then go somewhere else to start at that new level of responsibility and pay. It is so much easier to get serious bumps when you change jobs early in your career.
My specific path went like:
22: Coordinator @ $30K
23-25: Associate @ $42K
26-28: Specialist @ $54K to (promotion) Manager at $70K to (relocation) Director at $99K
29+: $100K+ as heads of departments at various companies.
Now that I'm at a position where I'm comfortable with my salary, I've made choices that aren't as directly tied to salary (ie picking a lower base and more equity, or choosing to stick in a more interesting industry rather than chasing a $20K bump.)
I'll chime in with my progression- I was also a single mom mostly without child support from age 20-33:
Age 17-23: Less than $25k (Military + 3 side jobs: retail, janitor, furniture mover) <---This is a long and involved story.
Age 23-29: I went to work for an IT consulting firm and my salary started at $65k and ended at $77k. I survived 5 rounds of layoffs, before I decided the consulting firm was sinking and left. I had a mentor who got out of the military before me. She worked with me on my negotiation skills. They originally offered me $40k. With her help I got them to $65k.
Age 29-31: I worked as a contractor at a financial firm making around $115k.
Age 31-35: $85-99k. I accepted an offer of full time at the financial firm. I did this because they were reducing their contract staff and there were projects starting that would be great experience on my resume. At age 34 they started laying off people. I survived 4 rounds and then the last round, the annihilated the entire department (500 people).
Age 35-41 (present): $115k-$126k: Software Consultant. Love my job and the company I work for. I've moved around a couple of times within the company and traveled a LOT! Now work from home 100%.
-
It's really encouraging to see the wide spread of career choices that have enabled people to out-earn the average American worker. Everyone thinks of doctors, lawyers, bankers, and engineers when they think of 100K+ salaries, but in many cases, it's simply a matter of choosing a career path that suits your own strengths, being flexible with job opportunities and locations, and being reasonably competent at your job. Some good ol' fashioned dumb luck and social connections are helpful as well (I have benefitted from all of the above).
I'm a forester. I did not go to forestry school because I thought I would end up earning $100K+. I just went because I enjoyed it. Turns out, there is tremendous demand for foresters who excel in mathematics/statistics and/or have experience in computer programming. Forestry is big business, and wherever there are large sums of money changing hands, there are people who are willing to pay good salaries to competent employees. I lucked into a job as an analyst with a big timber company (a job that I was not qualified for) a few years ago, simply because the job had been open for so long and there weren't any qualified candidates, and I had the gall to apply and was able to convince them that I could learn. They provided a juicy salary bump and on-the-job training. A couple years later, I moved into a senior analyst role at another company, with another nice salary bump. Et voila, suddenly I'm over $100K.
There are other roles in my industry (or any other industry) that offer similar or better salaries, but my interests/skill sets/disposition are simply not appropriate for those roles: procurement/sales, logistics, and management all affect the bottom line to such a degree that they command good wages. My older brother works for an auto parts distributor and makes >$100K as a logistics manager. My younger brother has a degree in agriculture and probably makes closer to $200K as a chemical sales rep. None of us has stereotypical "high-earning" degrees, but we all eventually made it into a career path that suits our own personal strengths, which I think is the most important key.
-
In my career field (commercial real estate appraisal) I could certainly make $100k and some of my co-workers do. However, it's 100% commission and based on how much you can bill. I've just never been able to crank out reports like some of my co-workers so I only make about $60k. I'm currently looking to change careers as I know that this is just no longer a good fit for me. I'm too focused on producing that A+ quality work every time even when B- would do 90% of the time. Consequently it takes me 30-40 hours to do what some of my co-workers can knock out in 20-25 hours.
I work in commercial real estate as well, and I don't know how appraisers really make money at all. The cost of appraisals has just been beaten down too far, I know a lot of it is boilerplate but good god it's a lot of work for little money.
I have found the right place for me, insurance company lending provides a good income, good work/life balance, and stability that other sides of the business simply don't. Could I join a mortgage banking company, go commission based and make 4x what I do here? Sure. Would it add 10x the stress? definitely.
-
I think that entry level BigLaw salaries in major cities is about $180k. And their bonus structure it very generous. That said, you have to put in three years at law school (and pay tuition for that). And generally, to get a BigLaw position, you need to go to a top school or graduate at the top of your class in a non-top school. Also, it's soul sucking. So you really need to love the law to do it.
-
you need to go to a top school or graduate at the top of your class in a non-top school. Also, it's soul sucking. So you really need to love the law to do it.
It's not just law. In my experience, our very top graduates in every field get pulled into soul sucking jobs that eventually teach them to hate the very thing they loved enough to become a top graduate. Competition is fierce at the top.
That's the nature of our modern capitalist labor market, though. If you're going to work for somebody else, they will incentive you work as hard as possible. Because of overhead and insurance costs, it's more cost effective to pay one person to do the work of three than it is to pay three people to each work a casual 40.
-
you need to go to a top school or graduate at the top of your class in a non-top school. Also, it's soul sucking. So you really need to love the law to do it.
It's not just law. In my experience, our very top graduates in every field get pulled into soul sucking jobs that eventually teach them to hate the very thing they loved enough to become a top graduate. Competition is fierce at the top.
That's the nature of our modern capitalist labor market, though. If you're going to work for somebody else, they will incentive you work as hard as possible. Because of overhead and insurance costs, it's more cost effective to pay one person to do the work of three than it is to pay three people to each work a casual 40.
FWIW, in my experience, a pretty small percentage of people go to law school because they love the law. For one thing, no one can actually know they like the law/want to be a lawyer until they've had some experience with it, because only about 5% of legal jobs have any translation at all into what most people think "being a lawyer" is. So, people that go to law school are often going strictly for the paycheck/"what else am I going to do with my [insert worthless undergrad degree]" solution. For those of us who are incredibly lucky enough to come out of that with a job that lets us pay off our 160k+ loans (I guess more people over $200k today), we deserve all the pain we've inflicted on ourselves. I actually feel quite lucky that the legal field actually grew on me AFTER I got the job: my happiness in the job has increased over the starting line instead of decreased (though 50% of every day is still utterly miserable).
-
you need to go to a top school or graduate at the top of your class in a non-top school. Also, it's soul sucking. So you really need to love the law to do it.
It's not just law. In my experience, our very top graduates in every field get pulled into soul sucking jobs that eventually teach them to hate the very thing they loved enough to become a top graduate. Competition is fierce at the top.
That's the nature of our modern capitalist labor market, though. If you're going to work for somebody else, they will incentive you work as hard as possible. Because of overhead and insurance costs, it's more cost effective to pay one person to do the work of three than it is to pay three people to each work a casual 40.
Sol, I know you have discussed your frustration at work a bit on this forum, but I'm wondering...do you no longer have the opportunity to do field work? I believe you and my husband are in the same agency, and he also gets extremely frustrated at times with federal red tape, time-sucking 'training' requirements, constant grant-writing and fundraising, and political bs. But he does still really enjoy aspects of his job, which make him unlikely to quit as long as he can keep doing them. Chief among the enjoyable parts is getting out to do field work on his own projects, on big collaborative projects, and with graduate students. Some years and some projects are more enjoyable than others, of course. Is that not possible in your particular position? And if it were, would you be more inclined to keep working?
-
Sol, I know you have discussed your frustration at work a bit on this forum, but I'm wondering...do you no longer have the opportunity to do field work? I believe you and my husband are in the same agency, and he also gets extremely frustrated at times with federal red tape, time-sucking 'training' requirements, constant grant-writing and fundraising, and political bs. But he does still really enjoy aspects of his job, which make him unlikely to quit as long as he can keep doing them. Chief among the enjoyable parts is getting out to do field work on his own projects, on big collaborative projects, and with graduate students. Some years and some projects are more enjoyable than others, of course. Is that not possible in your particular position? And if it were, would you be more inclined to keep working?
No, I don't get to do field work. We're far too cost conscious for that; why pay a PhD's hourly wage to dig a hole or drive a boat when there are gs-4 summer interns available? I only get paid to use my big brain, not my strong back.
I get penalized for sitting on thesis committees, so I've stopped doing it. I get penalized for organizing conferences, serving on the boards of professional organizations, or running the CFC. I've even been penalized for stepping up to take on a new program when management specifically asked me to, because I was later told it had been outside my area of expertise and so wasn't relevant experience.
I am an interchangeable cog in a vast federal machine. My job duties and performance rubrik are exact (though largely irrelevant) and anything outside of those narrow categories is discouraged. There is no room for growth, no path to promotion, no rewards for branching out. I sit in a cubicle with a big crank that needs turning, so I come in every day and try to summon the will to turn it. Find money, do work, publish results. Now turn it again, same as last time. Keep your head down, don't look up.
And now that I've successfully turned this thread into sol's personal bitchfest journal, maybe you understand both my desire to get out and my responses to all of the hard working overachievers in this thread. My office isn't high enough up that I could parachute out the window like BG, but my exit plan is still in motion. Buckling down to fight for a promotion is not in my future, here. At best, I could learn to embrace my fate as an interchangeable cog.
-
All of these stories are very motivating. Unfortunately they are motivating me to retire sooner, instead of work harder.
Lick that boot! Get down in the trenches and get dirty! Smile and volunteer for crap jobs! Put in long hours with no expectation of reward! Surely someone will eventually toss you some table scraps, right?
No thanks. Do you want to cater to the king's whims to avoid having to eat rice and beans, or do you want to eat rice and beans to avoid having to cater the king's whims? At some point, my dignity is worth more than your paycheck.
I relate to this as I just got a "promotion" without a pay raise, for a position where I am already underpaid by over 30%. A few folks (VPs, directors) "This is such a great opportunity! Much more visibility! Working for the President!"
Sure. Yeah. More work. Still have to do old job too until new guy up to speed. Even then they took 4 positions and now have 3 people. I'm supposed to bust my ass even more for no raise? Last raise was 6 years ago.
My spouse and I used to be pretty close to each other in pay. He's 2 years older with an extra degree. He now makes almost $60k more than I do. Eff this.
Yep. That's when you take the resume you've built at your current job and go elsewhere for a ridiculous raise.
I was significantly underpaid at my last company and quit. It's better now. :)
Exactly this!
In my career, I take on the responsibility (and ideally the job title) even without the raise, do it for a reasonable amount of time (3 months to a year) and then go somewhere else to start at that new level of responsibility and pay. It is so much easier to get serious bumps when you change jobs early in your career.
My specific path went like:
22: Coordinator @ $30K
23-25: Associate @ $42K
26-28: Specialist @ $54K to (promotion) Manager at $70K to (relocation) Director at $99K
29+: $100K+ as heads of departments at various companies.
Now that I'm at a position where I'm comfortable with my salary, I've made choices that aren't as directly tied to salary (ie picking a lower base and more equity, or choosing to stick in a more interesting industry rather than chasing a $20K bump.)
It might be time to shop around again. Last time I did the job market wasn't awesome - I interviewed a couple of places. The job I wanted they didn't get (they never filled the position, then decided they wanted a VP, didn't fill that either, closed the position entirely, then re-opened it again in the Bay Area. Then got bought. A friend of mine still there ... not very happy? But says "it's a paycheck!")
The other place was very eager to hire me...with a pay cut, a loss in vacation of 15 days a year, and poor benefits. "But we have such a hard time hiring people ... um ... like you!" (Meaning with 15-20 years experience and middle aged. News flash, people ...ahem...my age with children aren't going to take a pay cut AND lose 3 weeks of vacation a year.) Funny they got bought and the new company has completely taken over the old culture so...it's an option.
I should really get off my butt and work on it. It's a small town, with not many companies in my area of expertise. I just got moved into a Project Manager position, so the question is do I absorb all the experience that I can first? At least I know people everywhere. And they mostly like me and my work ethic and capabilities. I get calls all the time to move to TX, Carlsbad, or Los Angeles to work. Which...not gonna happen.
-
You could join the military. With BAH most of my friends (15ish years in, officers) are clearing $100K now. Even more when they get deployed especially the pilots.
My husband left the air force, and we'd have a lot more money if he hadn't. Oh well, money isn't everything.
Had I stayed in the Navy, or even transitioned to civilian at my organization, I'd be making $30-50k more a year than I am now.
Then again, if I were paid the median for my job at my level of experience, the same would be true.
Within 2 years of getting out of the Navy (E-6 then) I was over $100k without a degree. I could be making much more if I was willing to move again to change companies (little upward mobility available here) but I'm not willing to do that right now.
I'm on a FB page for former nukes who are job hunting. It's very encouraging as far as salaries go.
-
Sol, I know you have discussed your frustration at work a bit on this forum, but I'm wondering...do you no longer have the opportunity to do field work? I believe you and my husband are in the same agency, and he also gets extremely frustrated at times with federal red tape, time-sucking 'training' requirements, constant grant-writing and fundraising, and political bs. But he does still really enjoy aspects of his job, which make him unlikely to quit as long as he can keep doing them. Chief among the enjoyable parts is getting out to do field work on his own projects, on big collaborative projects, and with graduate students. Some years and some projects are more enjoyable than others, of course. Is that not possible in your particular position? And if it were, would you be more inclined to keep working?
No, I don't get to do field work. We're far too cost conscious for that; why pay a PhD's hourly wage to dig a hole or drive a boat when there are gs-4 summer interns available? I only get paid to use my big brain, not my strong back.
I get penalized for sitting on thesis committees, so I've stopped doing it. I get penalized for organizing conferences, serving on the boards of professional organizations, or running the CFC. I've even been penalized for stepping up to take on a new program when management specifically asked me to, because I was later told it had been outside my area of expertise and so wasn't relevant experience.
I am an interchangeable cog in a vast federal machine. My job duties and performance rubrik are exact (though largely irrelevant) and anything outside of those narrow categories is discouraged. There is no room for growth, no path to promotion, no rewards for branching out. I sit in a cubicle with a big crank that needs turning, so I come in every day and try to summon the will to turn it. Find money, do work, publish results. Now turn it again, same as last time. Keep your head down, don't look up.
Ugh. I hear you on the bolded stuff. The federal promo system for scientists is just batshit-crazy. In DH's position, he's REQUIRED to have grad students and to teach some classes and to serve in other professional and academic capacities such as on boards, as journal AE and/or reviewers, etc. Or else he can be demoted or fired. But those requirements count for NOTHING other than checking a "meets basic obligations'' box when it comes to his performance raises. To get raises, it's more or less just publications that count, even though fully 50% of his job duties are tangential or unrelated to that. Sometimes we're amazed he's been promoted at all. But your situation sounds much worse. And we've heard similar stories from feds at research stations, etc.
-
It's not just law. In my experience, our very top graduates in every field get pulled into soul sucking jobs that eventually teach them to hate the very thing they loved enough to become a top graduate. Competition is fierce at the top.
That's the nature of our modern capitalist labor market, though. If you're going to work for somebody else, they will incentive you work as hard as possible. Because of overhead and insurance costs, it's more cost effective to pay one person to do the work of three than it is to pay three people to each work a casual 40.
FWIW, in my experience, a pretty small percentage of people go to law school because they love the law. [...]
I've found this to be true in my experience as well (and I'm a glaring example myself), but I think it's largely a function of the very phenomenon sol described, only the brain drain is occurring at an earlier stage of the process. Our modern capitalist labor market has created compensation incentives that pull high achievers into the field of law (and, to an even greater extent, the field of finance) and away from other pursuits that may reflect their true passions (and which, not incidentally, probably also have greater utility for society at large, even if not valued that way by the free labor market).
And now that I've successfully turned this thread into sol's personal bitchfest journal
On the bright side, your loss is our gain, to the extent that your career dissatisfaction drives you to spend more time here. I know I'm not alone in counting your writing among the best on the internet, and that delightful entry in your bitchfest journal was a gem among gems!
-
I’m in sales but it took me about 7 years to break $200k in a year. The first year I think I made $15k. You have to start low and work hard
-
you need to go to a top school or graduate at the top of your class in a non-top school. Also, it's soul sucking. So you really need to love the law to do it.
It's not just law. In my experience, our very top graduates in every field get pulled into soul sucking jobs that eventually teach them to hate the very thing they loved enough to become a top graduate. Competition is fierce at the top.
That's the nature of our modern capitalist labor market, though. If you're going to work for somebody else, they will incentive you work as hard as possible. Because of overhead and insurance costs, it's more cost effective to pay one person to do the work of three than it is to pay three people to each work a casual 40.
FWIW, in my experience, a pretty small percentage of people go to law school because they love the law. For one thing, no one can actually know they like the law/want to be a lawyer until they've had some experience with it, because only about 5% of legal jobs have any translation at all into what most people think "being a lawyer" is. So, people that go to law school are often going strictly for the paycheck/"what else am I going to do with my [insert worthless undergrad degree]" solution. For those of us who are incredibly lucky enough to come out of that with a job that lets us pay off our 160k+ loans (I guess more people over $200k today), we deserve all the pain we've inflicted on ourselves. I actually feel quite lucky that the legal field actually grew on me AFTER I got the job: my happiness in the job has increased over the starting line instead of decreased (though 50% of every day is still utterly miserable).
Yup, totally agree. I started at BigLaw (in a secondary market) to help pay some bills. Discovered that I'm pretty good at it and like it more than I probably would like any other job. Ten years later and they made me partner, so I've stuck around. I believe pretty strongly that it's hard to love something you're not good at, and most first years suck at being lawyers. So I tell junior associates to wait a few years until they are actually relatively good at their jobs to determine how much they hate being a lawyer. And yes, 50% of my day is still pretty crappy.
-
All of these stories are very motivating. Unfortunately they are motivating me to retire sooner, instead of work harder.
Lick that boot! Get down in the trenches and get dirty! Smile and volunteer for crap jobs! Put in long hours with no expectation of reward! Surely someone will eventually toss you some table scraps, right?
No thanks. Do you want to cater to the king's whims to avoid having to eat rice and beans, or do you want to eat rice and beans to avoid having to cater the king's whims? At some point, my dignity is worth more than your paycheck.
I relate to this as I just got a "promotion" without a pay raise, for a position where I am already underpaid by over 30%. A few folks (VPs, directors) "This is such a great opportunity! Much more visibility! Working for the President!"
Sure. Yeah. More work. Still have to do old job too until new guy up to speed. Even then they took 4 positions and now have 3 people. I'm supposed to bust my ass even more for no raise? Last raise was 6 years ago.
My spouse and I used to be pretty close to each other in pay. He's 2 years older with an extra degree. He now makes almost $60k more than I do. Eff this.
Sounds like good reasons to walk, IMO. Do you have FU money?
-
It's not just law. In my experience, our very top graduates in every field get pulled into soul sucking jobs that eventually teach them to hate the very thing they loved enough to become a top graduate. Competition is fierce at the top.
That's the nature of our modern capitalist labor market, though. If you're going to work for somebody else, they will incentive you work as hard as possible. Because of overhead and insurance costs, it's more cost effective to pay one person to do the work of three than it is to pay three people to each work a casual 40.
I was at the top of the class in school. Ironically, I've noticed that the higher up the food chain I move in my industry, the less pressure I face. Part of that is my career path. I've moved into analytics, as opposed to sales/procurement/management, which is almost always a pressure cooker. However, I think my industry (forestry) is simply more relaxed than many others. I've never been expected to work more than 40 hours a week, but I've spent many weeks working less. Still make a damn good living.
-
Well, crap.
This thread has put me over the edge* and had me actually poking around for open positions near me, and I found an Associate Director position that looks interesting, actually fits my experience pretty well (if a bit of a stretch) breaks the $100k mark and would roughly double my salary (currently well under $100k) - and because it's another State position, I could keep the same approximate pension date. It's going to be a longer commute, but not a horrible one.
I haven't put together a resume since 2004.
*I've been pretty annoyed at my work lately.
-
My path:
14-17- worked at a grocery store 5.15-6/hr= 6k a year or so
18-19- Army Reserves, about 18k/year
19-23- College, worked 30hr/week 17/hr as a respiratory tech, also got scholarships, made about 30k/year.
23-27- Med School, on active duty, made about 60k/year as officer O1.
27-33- Residency, on active duty, made about 80k/yr as 03.
33- present= 170k yr as active duty O4. Also have a side hustle that makes an extra 30-50k/yr, basically doing the same thing I do for the Army.
All numbers are pre-tax. Took a long time to work up to 6 figures....
-
I'll agree with some other posts that you need to focus on something that interests you and do very well in that field. For me, I received a JD but decided I didn't want to practice law. I decided instead to try a career in higher education, which many of my friends and family could not understand. I always loved higher ed and wanted to help young people get a chance in life. I started a university job after the recession making only 35K but luckily the housing market sucked and I bought a foreclosure. I fixed up the house, got a raise to about 48K and then got noticed by an elite school that offered me about 90K. I had to sell the first house to move but made money on it. Within two years at the elite school I was making about 115K and I now get approached by other schools and search firms. I just started talking to another school last week that is very interested in me and pays about 160K. The funny thing is, I'll probably turn them down. I'd rather take a pay cut and go to a smaller school where I can make a bigger impact for people. I never thought I'd be considered for a job making 160K and now that I am, I realize I don't want it. I don't care about the money or the prestige. That's what you can do when you build wealth and have a sense of your purpose in this world.
-
$200K+ lucky man here.
College kick-out
$16K deli work
$22K IT work
$28K Insurance work
$36K Insurance work
Finish up that English Degree
LUCK
$150K Insurance work
Hard work, realignment of priorities
$200k+ Insurance management work
-
One word:
plastics tech. Job-killing robots (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/robots-and-their-impact-on-the-future/) ain't going to program themselves, you know *.
Seriously, though: I think software development is one of the most well-trodden of the highly paid professions out there right now -- and for the most part it doesn't require post-graduate education or extensive accredidation. You do need to have a passion for it, though.
BTW: I find a certain cosmic balance in the fact that this and the leaving a high paying job (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/how-many-of-you-have-actually-left-a-high-paying-job-prior-to-fi/msg1863034/?topicseen#msg1863034) thread are two of the most currently active on the forum.
* uh... until they do... and then we're all hosed.
-
My old net income of around 8,000-9,000 a month (with half of that as tax free stipends) functionally put me above $100,000 gross. I hated that job, never actually made it to 6 figures because I kept taking weeks off. Now I’m getting a $50,000 per year job instead (plus some side hustles which should bring in another 10k.)
Path:
Age 18-21 college and part time secretarial work
21-23 grad school and part time tutoring and also cashier/ice cream scooper
23: first real job in healthcare! $32 an hour at a horrible nursing home
23-24: jumped ship to a slightly better nursing home and a raise to $34/hr
24-26: started travel healthcare job (horrible) netting 8-9k per month, about $53 per hour (great)
26: independent contracting now making $75-100 per hour but working less hours. Soon to get another full time job in new industry for less pay.
All my raises happened from quitting old jobs and starting new ones! But I have learned that more money= more problems and stress and that I value a supportive boss and a casual workplace. I relate so much to Sol for feeling like an interchangeable cog in the widget making machine that is federal policy.
-
One word: plastics tech. Job-killing robots (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/robots-and-their-impact-on-the-future/) ain't going to program themselves, you know *.
Seriously, though: I think software development is one of the most well-trodden of the highly paid professions out there right now -- and for the most part it doesn't require post-graduate education or extensive accredidation. You do need to have a passion for it, though.
BTW: I find a certain cosmic balance in the fact that this and the leaving a high paying job (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/how-many-of-you-have-actually-left-a-high-paying-job-prior-to-fi/msg1863034/?topicseen#msg1863034) thread are two of the most currently active on the forum.
* uh... until they do... and then we're all hosed.
My husband just left a 10-year career in consulting engineering to go back to school for statistics and machine learning, and now is some kind of 'functional programmer' for a big data analytics company. First job in a new carer with no formal software development experience, and making $70K. I have no doubt he'll be making double my $110K within a couple of years when he's programming the robots.
-
Another approach at this -- especially when you are very early in your career -- is look at positions where you can make $1M plus and work backwards. Even if you don't make $1M, you'll still be better off. You also need to marry this with what you want to do.
-
You also need to marry
This snippet is technically another possible pathway to earning 100k+/yr. It seems to have worked for Melania, for example.
-
Academia could work, once upon a time. Wouldn’t suggest it now unless you’re so passionate to do it that you have no choice.
-be top 10% undergrad
-compete for grad school admission and $. Win.
-repeat each year for scholarship funding, for 6 -7 years
-compete for post-doc $, move to wherever to accept.
-compete, eventually, for tenured jobs, move wherever to accept.
-compete to become tenured, then to get annual performance raises.
In 7-10 years after that, profit!
OTOH if it’s the kind of work you need to do in life, ain’t no other life that will support you while doing it, at any level. And if you hang in there you will become well compensated. Like so many stories here: excel, persist, profit. It’s just a matter of different time scales.
-
My path in a HCOL area:
- Picked a major that I liked that paid well (Computer Science / Software Engineering).
- Graduated in 2007 with BS in CS from a state school.
- Started working with base salary of $60k (had offer before I graduated).
- Salary cut to $57K during recession.
- Stayed at company for 9 years to eventually be making $94.5K.
- Jumped ship for $105K at a company that had substantially higher bonuses.
- Jumped ship again for $125K to go back to first company (converted bonuses into base salary).
- Just got a raise to $128.5K
From starting school to having a $100K base salary took me ~15 years.
EDITed to add: If I was going to start again today, and I didn't want to do software, I would strongly consider becoming a nurse anesthetists.
-
Academia could work,
I suspect that the percentage of people who are successful after setting out to make 100k in academia is significantly lower than the percentage of people who are successful after setting out to make 100k in engineering or programming or even nursing. Academia has an incredibly high failure rate. There just aren't that many jobs available nationwide, and there are tons of new people competing for them every year. Not recommended.
Thinking about this thread question from the practical perspective numbers game, what jobs are abundant and easiest to get? Just because every single nfl player makes more than 100k does not mean anyone would recommend it as a career path, because getting that job is nigh impossible. Ditto for surgeons.
And from that perspective, I'm guessing that the most abundant 100k job in the country is something boring like "manager" or "supervisor" and is therefore largely independent of industry choice. Go to work for a large corporation. Work hard, be dependable, slowly climb the corporate ladder, graduate from doing the work to supervising the people who do the work, and bam you're there.
Looking around my upper middle class enclave, I assume basically everyone makes approximately that much money. Lots of my neighbors are dentists. Title insurance. Retired police officers, a pilot, a small business owner, a nurse, and lots and lots of people who are managers and supervisors in different industries.
-
I am really good at what I do and work in a field (software) where being really good at what I do adds a lot of value to my company.
-
Academia could work,
I'm guessing that the most abundant 100k job in the country is something boring like "manager" or "supervisor" and is therefore largely independent of industry choice. Go to work for a large corporation. Work hard, be dependable, slowly climb the corporate ladder, graduate from doing the work to supervising the people who do the work, and bam you're there.
Totally agree. And I am one of them. Nevertheless, some industries pay better than the other.
-
Sales is obviously one area where income can be well over $100k. If you're selling appliances or used cars you probably won't make $100k but if you're selling pharmaceuticals, business equipment, real estate, etc. there are plenty of top salespeople making hundreds of thousands. I have an uncle who sells mattresses and while I have no idea what his income is, judging by the kind of lifestyle his family has maintained for many years I'd say he's got to be at least around $100k, if not more.
I work in the commercial real estate industry and the top people in my office have made over $500k in their best years. One in particular went from a year making $500k to 18 months with zero income during the recession. He sells large apartment complexes ($20-50 million) and even though the commission may only be 1% or less, and get split up, that could still be $50,000 - $100,000 net to him for a single deal that might have taken a few months. Do a few of those in a year and you're doing pretty well.
-
Academia could work,
I'm guessing that the most abundant 100k job in the country is something boring like "manager" or "supervisor" and is therefore largely independent of industry choice. Go to work for a large corporation. Work hard, be dependable, slowly climb the corporate ladder, graduate from doing the work to supervising the people who do the work, and bam you're there.
Totally agree. And I am one of them. Nevertheless, some industries pay better than the other.
Ditto both points. I'd put tech on the list of industries that pay well
-
You can certainly stumble into six figure by working your way up as many here have. It sounds like many people weren't necessarily looking for six figures, they were just constantly bettering themselves, working hard, and looking for/being open to opportunities.
The fastest way to get to six figures though would be to "become so good they can't ignore you" as someone else already mentioned. Develop skills that have the potential to pay six figures and that's much quicker than trying to game the system by working your way up from a low paying entry level job. So basically, this thread could have ended at the first reply. Work on attracting people versus chasing people. If you work on yourself, opportunities will come naturally.
-
The fastest way to get to six figures though would be to "become so good they can't ignore you" as someone else already mentioned.
Fastest? I don't think so. Most reliable, maybe, but also the least likely to make you $500k/year or more.
I think owning a small business is probably faster. It also has a high risk of making much less, and some chance to make much more.
-
Try having lunch with those above you and your peers, but always try to have regular outings with those above you, don't leave them out. This can help you move up and/or get better raises.
-
The fastest way to get to six figures though would be to "become so good they can't ignore you" as someone else already mentioned.
Fastest? I don't think so. Most reliable, maybe, but also the least likely to make you $500k/year or more.
I think owning a small business is probably faster. It also has a high risk of making much less, and some chance to make much more.
Agreed. To make the maximum money, you need to work for yourself. You'll never make the maximum if you are working for a boss (or several bosses). Those who take risks can reap the rewards. Or get crushed.
-
Not sure how this evolved from earning $100k to earning the maximum possible. Two very different goals. Plenty of jobs earn $100k entry level or after a couple years. You can google for them. They range from unskilled to post grad educational levels. If you want max riches you need to be in sales or owning part of a scalable business.
Remember “those who specify” do not typically get rich. “Those who sell” can earn income limited only by their skill, drive, and determination.
-
it blows my mind. I see on here with sometimes close to 200k. How? What do you do and what am I not doing? lol.
I am in this well paid category and my secret to success has been to A. Be good at my job. B. Be reliable at my job. C. Stick with it for the seniority. D. Move to where the good jobs exist.
-
Random garbage men make 100k.... that’s not really a high income threshold anymore. If I planned on living in my hometown my entire life, I would have gotten a job as a garbage man and made 100k (you actually get more for being the guy driving the truck) and then make extra whenever the town needs all hands on deck to plow for a major snow storm.
Real high income thresholds are $250k+ per spouse. You’re killing it if you make 500k+ per spouse.
-
Salaries tend to obey the laws of supply and demand, so if there is high demand for a skill that few people can supply, then companies are willing to pay a lot of money for it. Conversely, if a ton of people can do the job, then it's not going to be highly paid.
To that end, my own electrical engineering career which pays $250k+ was the result of a few things:
1. I realized in college that most electrical engineering students were being lied to when they were told "analog is dead". Humans are analog, we interact with the world through analog means (sound, light, pressure, temperature, etc.). So for every 100% digital component in a system (embedded processor, micro, or other) there is a whole host of analog components which must convert the analog world into a string of 0's and 1's for that digital component to work on. I really liked analog circuit design and worked very hard in school to learn as much as I could in this area.
2. Towards the end of my master's degree, when I was starting the job hunt, it became immediately obvious that my theory was correct. Semiconductor companies were desperate to find candidates that could design and build high-performance mixed-signal systems, but were finding hoards of EEs that only wanted to code. I had my choice of jobs from several companies. I should note that among the specific industries needing EEs, semiconductor development tends to be higher pressure, but the pay is higher as a result. Starting pay: $75k
3. I chose a job with a great ratio of salary to cost of living. In my experience there was no need to live in California to make a great salary. I started in Dallas and then jumped on a great opportunity in Tucson. At this job, I worked hard to learn as much as I could, volunteered for opportunities, and did extra things that weren't required, like writing articles for external publications, filming instructional videos, sponsoring and mentoring university senior design projects. Pay grows over 5 years from $75k to about $150k (including stock compensation, profit sharing, bonuses).
4. Up to this point in my career I had become very good at practicing "empathy" for customers. That is, I would put myself in their shoes and imagine what challenges they were facing and wonder if my company had the right products to solve their problem? Furthermore, would our website recommend the right product to solve that problem? For this reason, my company gave me the opportunity to move into new product development. Previously I had only been supporting products that were developed by others. This is a higher risk position, because it involves convincing the company to invest a lot of time and money into turning your ideas into products. If those products fail the company loses money, competition gains ground, people lose jobs. For the higher level of risk, my pay grew to about $200k including base salary and all incentives.
5. My products do exceedingly well in the market. Who would have thought that listening to your customers, doing your best to understand their challenges and concerns, and then thinking long and hard about how you can solve their problem with a product that's both profitable for you but still within their budget, would be successful? These products also are developed on-time and on or under budget, because if you aren't a dick to your coworkers and appreciate their hard work, they'll really shine for you. For these reasons I was promoted to manage all new product development for my team and pay grew accordingly to the current $250k+ level.
5+ I admit my product developments tend to be riskier. I'm willing to push the boundaries of what's "possible" and do something that's never been tried before because I don't care if I get fired. I've got enough money saved up to survive for a while. This is where FIRE can really support your existing career. Technology advancement requires people willing to take risk, but engineers like me take intelligent risks and always have a backup plan.
TLDR: Identify an under-served need in the job market, become good at it. Chose a job that let's you flex your muscles in your role, go above and beyond to bring value to your team and your company, and do your best to understand your customers and what they care about. Volunteer for new opportunities and be willing to take some risks to go to the next level. Don't step on people on your climb up, respect everyone around you as a valuable connection you may need help from some day.
-
Short story for me was to leave nonprofit sector and join huge corporate company. Not what I had envisioned a couple of decades ago, but that's life. In my HCOL area, education level and at my age, I'm actually an underachiever salary-wise.
-
Join the Navy as a nuclear operator - get out after 6 yrs - go to work in practically any tech industry for $100K+
For real though I'm a senior reactor operator at research facility so it's pretty cake.
Don't want to join the military for 6 years? Go online, learn about electricity. Pay $600, take a NERC exam. Become a transmission system operator.. If you get a cert first you won't need any experience to get hired at most utility companies. You'll make <$100K for your 6-12 mo. training period & then >$100K after that.
Like working outside? Go to community college & get into their linemen's program.......become a lineman or substation worker in an area that has bad weather.
-
Don't want to join the military for 6 years? Go online, learn about electricity. Pay $600, take a NERC exam. Become a transmission system operator.. If you get a cert first you won't need any experience to get hired at most utility companies. You'll make <$100K for your 6-12 mo. training period & then >$100K after that.
How competitive is the market for this line of work? Are they in need of bodies? May recommend this to my brother who complains his job doesn't pay enough. I checked in his area and a local community college does offer a program. It's a fulltime program though and my brother couldn't afford to ditch his current to go to school fulltime.
-
Don't want to join the military for 6 years? Go online, learn about electricity. Pay $600, take a NERC exam. Become a transmission system operator.. If you get a cert first you won't need any experience to get hired at most utility companies. You'll make <$100K for your 6-12 mo. training period & then >$100K after that.
How competitive is the market for this line of work? Are they in need of bodies? May recommend this to my brother who complains his job doesn't pay enough. I checked in his area and a local community college does offer a program. It's a fulltime program though and my brother couldn't afford to ditch his current to go to school fulltime.
There aren't a ton of job openings and there are a lot of people with power industry (civilian and/or military) that apply for the jobs that do come open. That's my impression from seeing people post those type jobs up on groups for Navy Nuclear Trained operators looking for work.
-
Don't want to join the military for 6 years? Go online, learn about electricity. Pay $600, take a NERC exam. Become a transmission system operator.. If you get a cert first you won't need any experience to get hired at most utility companies. You'll make <$100K for your 6-12 mo. training period & then >$100K after that.
How competitive is the market for this line of work? Are they in need of bodies? May recommend this to my brother who complains his job doesn't pay enough. I checked in his area and a local community college does offer a program. It's a fulltime program though and my brother couldn't afford to ditch his current to go to school fulltime.
Well you've asked one question & quoted a different part of my answer :)
Utility work is competitive. It's a trade like being a plumber or mechanic and you have to work your way up from being an apprentice. How difficult it is to get into depends on your location. Some places are exceedingly difficult to get hired into and some aren't. My hometown is practically always hiring because the pay isn't competitive to a major utility, but you get the same education & experience & then it's easy to jump ship as an experienced person.... Which is why they're always hiring.
Becoming a transmission operator is easier if you can pass the certification first. If you're not certified then you're in competition with the military & other experienced people, but if you are certified, it's only difficult if you're intent on living in a certain area. If you can take a job at a location that has difficulty getting people then you can gain experience & move where you want later. You do have to pass what is basically a psychological profile at most companies as well in order to get hired.
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.” Sometimes the advice on here to cut your own hair or touch up your roots makes me laugh. I did some of that when I was younger and it is not going to work in Boston or New York. You are also not going to get away with thrift store clothes. You don’t have to have a lot but they need to be quality. I buy suits from Banana Republic and can often get on great sales. Trendy cuts and 100 percent wool with stretch. Sign up for their e-mails. They also have talls and petites. I changed my hair once and the first thing jealous boss asked me was whether I was after her job!
-
Being physically fit and the right weight for your height is vitally important. I am in my mid-50s soon to be late 50s and come across much younger when people who don’t know me meet me. That is why I was able to get my recent promotion without the managers thinking I have one foot out the door. The people around me who look like that are going no where fast.
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.”.... You are also not going to get away with thrift store clothes.
That's odd. The nicest clothes I have are from the thrift store. Guess I'll never make it :)
-
Random garbage men make 100k.... that’s not really a high income threshold anymore. If I planned on living in my hometown my entire life, I would have gotten a job as a garbage man and made 100k (you actually get more for being the guy driving the truck) and then make extra whenever the town needs all hands on deck to plow for a major snow storm.
Real high income thresholds are $250k+ per spouse. You’re killing it if you make 500k+ per spouse.
lol w/e. Partly depends on where you live I suppose, but even then...this is a ridiculous thing to say.
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.” Sometimes the advice on here to cut your own hair or touch up your roots makes me laugh. I did some of that when I was younger and it is not going to work in Boston or New York. You are also not going to get away with thrift store clothes. You don’t have to have a lot but they need to be quality. I buy suits from Banana Republic and can often get on great sales. Trendy cuts and 100 percent wool with stretch. Sign up for their e-mails. They also have talls and petites. I changed my hair once and the first thing jealous boss asked me was whether I was after her job!
All depends not only on where you are but, more importantly, what field you're in.
Some careers bring with them an expectation of presentation (The Millionaire Next Door covered this pretty well).
I work in a creative field (not in Boston or New York). I once worked with a guy who showed up in a suit on his first day. When our boss saw him he laughed and told him no one trusts an artist in a suit. "Looking the part" can be important, but it doesn't always mean spending more money. It all depends on what that part is.
I've cut my own hair for the past 20+ years, worn t-shirts and jeans to work pretty much every single day, and make well over 100K.
I don't doubt that your experience in your particular field is accurate - but just wanted to point out that there are many different ways to get to a six figure income, and the particulars of each will most likely be dictated by what field and city it is in.
One size definitely does not fit all.
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.” Sometimes the advice on here to cut your own hair or touch up your roots makes me laugh. I did some of that when I was younger and it is not going to work in Boston or New York. You are also not going to get away with thrift store clothes. You don’t have to have a lot but they need to be quality. I buy suits from Banana Republic and can often get on great sales. Trendy cuts and 100 percent wool with stretch. Sign up for their e-mails. They also have talls and petites. I changed my hair once and the first thing jealous boss asked me was whether I was after her job!
Wellll it's all about the job and the environment, isn't it? I'm in Boston and just crossed the $100K mark (still can't believe it!) as a software developer. I have long salt-and-pepper hair (I do get it cut professionally because I like getting my hair cut and, obviously, I can afford it). I haven't worn a suit since I was applying to librarian jobs (my previous career, almost ten years ago). I've only seen my CEO wear a suit a handful of times. Right now I'm wearing leggings, a nice t-shirt, and a cardigan and I'm probably in the top 25% of the company in terms of how well I'm dressed.
My coat is J. Crew but I got it used ;) But definitely sign up for the emails if you want to shop at Banana Republic: there will ALWAYS be a 40%-off sale or coupon if you wait long enough.
My personal job/income history:
Pre/during college: small amounts of retail work
1999: Graduated college
1999-2002? Lab technician/research assistant - started out making ~$18K in Virginia, later made maybe $24K in Masssachusetts, some unemployment, second jobs, temping, and a stint at Target in between main jobs
2002: Decided to get my masters in Library Science (went part-time while working two jobs, finished in 2006)
2002-2010: Library paraprofessional jobs - ~$35K, plus a second job at a museum; probably averaged $40K all around during this period
2010: Got a professional librarian job in a a lower-COLA, $45K
2013: Decided to retrain as a software developer; quit my job, took two months off and then went to a 10-week software bootcamp
2013-present: Working as a software developer; I started at $60K and am now at $100K
For me, it really was all about choosing the right career.
-
As I said you have to look the part. :). If you work in IT you would want to figure out what the bosses are wearing and do that. I go to a lot of meetings with judges and lawyers and have to wear suits. No offense to people who shop at thrifts but to fit my body type I have to buy special sizes and BR fits the bill. We are giving advice to people that want to make bigger bucks and this is a fact of life that cannot be overlooked.
-
My path to a high paying job was having data analysis and coding skills (though I don't work in tech). In grad school I had a choice to go in a less mathy/technical direction, but I realized that the majority of people are terrified of anything that involves math, and so I decided to force myself to take the more difficult path so that I would be more employable. It has definitely paid off.
Something else that has helped me - not only do I have technical skills, but I also have the communication skills to explain what I'm doing to a non-technical audience. This has proved equally valuable in my line of work.
Note that I never made more than 30K a year until I was in my early 30s, though...
-
Become a licensed HVAC technician. Today my Hub got a postcard from a local HVAC company soliciting for employees. Hub is licensed in CT with an S1 HVAC license. All kinds of bennies, vacation, 401k, cell phone and most employees make $100K a year.
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.” Sometimes the advice on here to cut your own hair or touch up your roots makes me laugh. I did some of that when I was younger and it is not going to work in Boston or New York.
That's one reason I enjoy CA, none of that matters. All that matters is what you can do. My old boss, who is worth north of 100 M dresses like your average person on the street. It's very difficult to tell what people are worth or earn here based on appearance/clothes. Even attorneys and bankers don't wear suits here. I guess it's an East Coast/West Coast thing.
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.” Sometimes the advice on here to cut your own hair or touch up your roots makes me laugh. I did some of that when I was younger and it is not going to work in Boston or New York.
That's one reason I enjoy CA, none of that matters. All that matters is what you can do. My old boss, who is worth north of 100 M dresses like your average person on the street. It's very difficult to tell what people are worth or earn here based on appearance/clothes. Even attorneys and bankers don't wear suits here. I guess it's an East Coast/West Coast thing.
It's the same for Arizona, I wear jeans to work every day. But I do admit that it depends greatly on your field. Engineers are usually skeptical of anyone in a suit
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.” Sometimes the advice on here to cut your own hair or touch up your roots makes me laugh. I did some of that when I was younger and it is not going to work in Boston or New York.
That's one reason I enjoy CA, none of that matters. All that matters is what you can do. My old boss, who is worth north of 100 M dresses like your average person on the street. It's very difficult to tell what people are worth or earn here based on appearance/clothes. Even attorneys and bankers don't wear suits here. I guess it's an East Coast/West Coast thing.
It's the same for Arizona, I wear jeans to work every day. But I do admit that it depends greatly on your field. Engineers are usually skeptical of anyone in a suit
I have noticed that the higher-ups tend to wear fancier jeans than the rest of us, often paired with dressier shoes. It's a subtle difference but there is still some status signalling going on there.
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.” Sometimes the advice on here to cut your own hair or touch up your roots makes me laugh. I did some of that when I was younger and it is not going to work in Boston or New York.
That's one reason I enjoy CA, none of that matters. All that matters is what you can do. My old boss, who is worth north of 100 M dresses like your average person on the street. It's very difficult to tell what people are worth or earn here based on appearance/clothes. Even attorneys and bankers don't wear suits here. I guess it's an East Coast/West Coast thing.
It's the same for Arizona, I wear jeans to work every day. But I do admit that it depends greatly on your field. Engineers are usually skeptical of anyone in a suit
I have noticed that the higher-ups tend to wear fancier jeans than the rest of us, often paired with dressier shoes. It's a subtle difference but there is still some status signalling going on there.
In healthcare it's scrubs vs. business professional, sometimes adding a white coat (even if not an MD)
-
Even attorneys and bankers don't wear suits here. I guess it's an East Coast/West Coast thing.
By most standards the east coast is definitely much more image conscious. It's a combination of vanity and insecurity, in my experience. People who lack self confidence in their own abilities will try to compensate by putting on a costume to trick people into thinking they are more competent than they really are.
The west coast is less quick to judge people based on costumes, perhaps because they have their own sort of well recognized fake image problem. Dyed hair and a fake tan are just the west coast version of a suit and tie, and they're driven by the same desire to put up a certain image. The difference is that the west coast desired image is sort of youthful and relaxed, and the east coast desired image is all wrapped up in undeserved self importance.
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.” Sometimes the advice on here to cut your own hair or touch up your roots makes me laugh. I did some of that when I was younger and it is not going to work in Boston or New York.
That's one reason I enjoy CA, none of that matters. All that matters is what you can do. My old boss, who is worth north of 100 M dresses like your average person on the street. It's very difficult to tell what people are worth or earn here based on appearance/clothes. Even attorneys and bankers don't wear suits here. I guess it's an East Coast/West Coast thing.
depends. Lawyers that are often in court will either wear suits every day or wear slacks and a nice shirt, and leave 2-3 suits in the office. If a lawyer went to court without a suit, he could be sanctioned by the court and directed to pay a fine. I had the horrible experience of seeing someone fail to wear a suit jacket. The judge stopped a hearing to lecture the young attorney on basic professionalism. Frankly, the failure to dress for the occasion is mind blowing. I think it’s actually well summed up with this YouTube clip.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x_9hYMVVv_Q
-
Frankly, the failure to dress for the occasion is mind blowing.
Interesting, I find it mind blowing to find those who focus more on what they wear than on performance.
In my experience, the real high end pros in most fields don't care about appearances. It's usually the wannabes that do.
-
My most standards the east coast is definitely much more image conscious. It's a combination of vanity and insecurity, in my experience. People who lack self confidence in their own abilities will try to compensate by putting on a costume to trick people into thinking they are more competent than they really.
Agreed, very much this. We call them monkey suits. I'm very weary working with any professional that appears to be trying too hard with his/her appearance. In my field people won't even work with you if you are over dressed.
-
Frankly, the failure to dress for the occasion is mind blowing.
Interesting, I find it mind blowing to find those who focus more on what they wear than on performance.
In my experience, the real high end pros in most fields don't care about appearances. It's usually the wannabes that do.
Most fields, yes. There are exceptions (court rooms, for example).
-
Frankly, the failure to dress for the occasion is mind blowing.
Interesting, I find it mind blowing to find those who focus more on what they wear than on performance.
In my experience, the real high end pros in most fields don't care about appearances. It's usually the wannabes that do.
Most fields, yes. There are exceptions (court rooms, for example).
Indeed, lawyering still requires suits.
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.” Sometimes the advice on here to cut your own hair or touch up your roots makes me laugh. I did some of that when I was younger and it is not going to work in Boston or New York.
That's one reason I enjoy CA, none of that matters. All that matters is what you can do. My old boss, who is worth north of 100 M dresses like your average person on the street. It's very difficult to tell what people are worth or earn here based on appearance/clothes. Even attorneys and bankers don't wear suits here. I guess it's an East Coast/West Coast thing.
It's the same for Arizona, I wear jeans to work every day. But I do admit that it depends greatly on your field. Engineers are usually skeptical of anyone in a suit
I live in the UAE which is extremely hot for most of the year. I work for a government oil company and everyone has to wear professional clothes, men have to wear ties. No leggings, jeans or sweat pants allowed. Local people (Emiraties) have to wear their traditional dress, kandora (white robe) for men, and abaya for woman (black robe). Women put on a lot make up and wear expensive shoes along with expensive bags. Everything here is about appearances. My 2008 Honda CRV is looking too old next to their BMWs, Mercedes, even some guys have Ferraris and Lamborghinis.
-
I sold my soul to the devil(current/forever employer) at the ripe ole age of 22. In return I made over 100k my first year with out a college degree. Most people would say my schedule sucks, but hey I make it work. Last month I managed to only work 13 days and for the past year the most days I've worked in a whole month was 16. So I kind of laugh to myself when people around me claim they'd never be able to put up with my schedule as they drive to work 5 days a week. No thanks
-
I have several friends who are all worth several million and I can't think of one that dresses like people think they would. My one friend owned a high profile racecar and when we would see him on tv we would always comment on his shoes because he wore the same worn out pair of tennis shoes for atleast 3-4 years. I went to a viewing tonight of our one older friend.... most everyone there was loaded and I was the only one dressed up at all (that's because that's the way I was raised). I'm usually in an old t-shirt and jeans like they were. I think maybe the people who think you need to dress the part either aren't there yet or have some type of problem deep down where they need to look the part. Same with cars & houses. Maybe they are there money-wise but not maturity-wise.
-
$200K++ in tech, specifically leadership in the UX/product mgmt space. Wear whatever I want, usually nice(r) leggings and a sweater or cardigan except when I know I have to meet with a senior exec. and then I might wear nicer pants and a better pair of shoes. I would never be caught dead looking like I'm in banking or law, I'd kill myself. I am on the east coast.
Keys for me:
- Lucky that UX/product types are in as high demand and nearly as high paying as software engineering
- Willingness to quickly move into and move up management to make big bucks even if I don't like it
- Fell into a blue chip at the right time in 2008 and have made out like a bandit in stock in big bull run
I also never made much money - never more than $50K/year - until I was 35 and finally landed in just the right field, at just the right company at just the right age for it all to come together to make hay.
-
That's it? That's the secret?
No they are all having you on, for only $29.99 I will mail you my book about the actual secret, and if you subscribe for another $59.99 I will make you a gazillionaire.
Seriously though, it is as straightforward as what you are being told, it will take a few years of diligent effort regardless, whether in school or on the job.
-
You can dress like a slob but overcome appearances with hard work and brains. You can act and sound like fool and try to hide behind a suit. But if you are sharp, well organized and sharp looking in your environment (whether that means a suit or a crisply pressed jump suit), you will feel and do better.
I work for a megacorp where the neckties faded out around the time I was hired. Things went downhill from there and I see quasi-grunge outfits these days which frankly look ridiculous. My last four bosses included one who wore hiking boots and lumberjack shirts, another in sports team jerseys, a lady attorney who stepped from the pages of Vogue and the current one who wears a different $3000 suit with tie and cuff links five days per week. The underdressers were underperformers and the last two really, really have their act together. Mr Suit is an incredible executive who is also perfectionist who, for example, won’t drink from a plastic water bottle or cup at work, or allow a single stray paper on his desk. He is the smartest and hardest working boss I have had. He outdresses most people he meets. He also outworks and outthinks them. He definitely outspends them!
-
Yes I was on the Microsoft campus for a Toastmasters meeting and one of the upper executives was wearing a ratty T-shirt and holey jeans. I am sure he made a lot of money back in the 90s. He looked 25. Must have compensated by being super smart. But you don’t have to be him to make a lot of money. But you do need to look like you care enough about yourself to project a certain image. For me it was a total turnoff.
-
And he must have known that day he would be interacting with the insurance people down the street. He obviously did not care.
-
Become a licensed HVAC technician. Today my Hub got a postcard from a local HVAC company soliciting for employees. Hub is licensed in CT with an S1 HVAC license. All kinds of bennies, vacation, 401k, cell phone and most employees make $100K a year.
Oh, I forgot, and a $5,000 sign on bonus! This is the second offer from two different companies in just 3 months time. Both offered sign on bonus and $100K a year plus bennies.
-
$100k is basically $50/hr. Many skills can bill that and more (plumbers, electricians, etc). Of course you can't be set up in some employment situation where you have a boss keeping half, though thats usually the best way to get some experience and a steady paycheck until you pull it off.
Nursing is one of those few things that seems to have high pay and flexibility of where you live and low risk steady paycheck working for an employer that makes enough to get rich while also paying you well (the medical field).
A good salesman's upside is only limited to their actual ability at what they do as long as they are wiling to move around to find the job that is smart enough to appreciate and compensate their ability.
-
You can dress like a slob but overcome appearances with hard work and brains. You can act and sound like fool and try to hide behind a suit. But if you are sharp, well organized and sharp looking in your environment (whether that means a suit or a crisply pressed jump suit), you will feel and do better.
I agree that environment counts, but in technical fields a suit is usually frowned upon. They pay me to do math. Neckties clearly interfere with mathematical abilities.
At some jobs, the image IS the job. A lawyer is representing, so how they look absolutely matters. I understand the need for a particular costume for lawyers, and police officers, and real estate agents. If being visible IS your job, then you should absolutely dress for it. Even I dress up to look the part of the expert on days when I'm on tv or when I stand on a stage and talk to the public, but otherwise my jobs is to think hard, give good advice, and not be seen. Tshirts are fine for that.
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.” Sometimes the advice on here to cut your own hair or touch up your roots makes me laugh. I did some of that when I was younger and it is not going to work in Boston or New York.
That's one reason I enjoy CA, none of that matters. All that matters is what you can do. My old boss, who is worth north of 100 M dresses like your average person on the street. It's very difficult to tell what people are worth or earn here based on appearance/clothes. Even attorneys and bankers don't wear suits here. I guess it's an East Coast/West Coast thing.
It's the same for Arizona, I wear jeans to work every day. But I do admit that it depends greatly on your field. Engineers are usually skeptical of anyone in a suit
I live in the UAE which is extremely hot for most of the year. I work for a government oil company and everyone has to wear professional clothes, men have to wear ties. No leggings, jeans or sweat pants allowed. Local people (Emiraties) have to wear their traditional dress, kandora (white robe) for men, and abaya for woman (black robe). Women put on a lot make up and wear expensive shoes along with expensive bags. Everything here is about appearances. My 2008 Honda CRV is looking too old next to their BMWs, Mercedes, even some guys have Ferraris and Lamborghinis.
The guy at the Doha, Qatar airport who checks visas and passports drives a Ferrari. We were informed that the Emirati troops guarding our compound outside of Dubai made more money than our colonel. Alongside the lesson in local economics, it was also a warning not to confuse our professional/social status in the US with what we could expect to accomplish in the Gulf. We had Thanksgiving dinner with a group of American families in Kuwait who do 6-12 month tours working the oilfields. These were already 6-figure managers who nearly doubled their salaries doing this rotation.
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.” Sometimes the advice on here to cut your own hair or touch up your roots makes me laugh. I did some of that when I was younger and it is not going to work in Boston or New York. You are also not going to get away with thrift store clothes. You don’t have to have a lot but they need to be quality. I buy suits from Banana Republic and can often get on great sales. Trendy cuts and 100 percent wool with stretch. Sign up for their e-mails. They also have talls and petites. I changed my hair once and the first thing jealous boss asked me was whether I was after her job!
I'm in the office at my $200k+ job right now. :D
-
Luck and being friendly.
-
Even attorneys and bankers don't wear suits here. I guess it's an East Coast/West Coast thing.
By most standards the east coast is definitely much more image conscious. It's a combination of vanity and insecurity, in my experience. People who lack self confidence in their own abilities will try to compensate by putting on a costume to trick people into thinking they are more competent than they really are.
The west coast is less quick to judge people based on costumes, perhaps because they have their own sort of well recognized fake image problem. Dyed hair and a fake tan are just the west coast version of a suit and tie, and they're driven by the same desire to put up a certain image. The difference is that the west coast desired image is sort of youthful and relaxed, and the east coast desired image is all wrapped up in undeserved self importance.
I'm not really sure if it's vanity/ insecurity, but more "this is how it's always been".
When I lived in DC, the requirement was to dress nice at work. I was in the military but worked at one of the few places where we did not wear uniforms. So, at my office men were required to wear ties and slacks, and women whatever the equivalent was. I started in skirts and dresses but by year 5 was down to dress pants and blouses. Men complained about the ties. Whatever. Within a few years of leaving, they went more casual, no ties. That was the 1990s, who knows where they are now. Many people we interacted with were military and they were in uniform. So, in DC "everyone" dressed like that.
In California, my first job was way more casual (manufacturing) - jeans and t-shirts, even sweats, because who sees what you are wearing in a bunny suit anyway? Now 20 years later it's even more casual - shorts and flip flops if you aren't in the fab. Of course, weather plays a role. It's nice year round here, where in DC, wearing a suit would keep you warm right now.
I hate shopping, so recently I found myself wearing my nice dress slacks from 5-10 years ago. Relatively timeless, though the flare at the ankle changes a lot for women, and I don't much care. My current jeans were either too big or wearing out. Funny the looks you get in engineering when you start wearing slacks. "Where's the interview?" I've now moved "up" the chain a bit, so it doesn't hurt to dress a little nicer when the board members are in town.
-
This discussion is reminding me of: http://theoatmeal.com/pl/minor_differences5/suit (http://theoatmeal.com/pl/minor_differences5/suit)
-
There's really only 4 assets in the financial space:
1. Paper assets (stock market)
2. Real estate
3. Business
4. Employment
All of those have income limitations except for one: Business. Business is the one category where the financial upside is unlimited.
And a business works because you solve another person/business problem who is willing and able to pay. Here's a great article on how to find a profitable business idea: https://growthlab.com/my-checklist-for-finding-a-profitable-business-idea/
Another great place to learn about turning up the income side of FI is at Brennan Dunn's Double Your Freelancing free course. It's unbelievably valuable. www.doubleyourfreelancing.com
PM me if you want to talk more about your situation and where you're trying to go.
-
Thought of you all today when I read that hamburger shop managers make $160,000 per year on average with no diploma required. Could be a good retirement side hustle if you have the energy. I believe there may be a dress code in case that is an issue for you.
http://www.businessinsider.com/in-n-out-employee-pay-2018-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/in-n-out-employee-pay-2018-1)
-
All the dress code discussion makes me smile....I work from home, normally in my pajamas.
Working from home worth a lot of money in my opinion.
-
All the dress code discussion makes me smile....I work from home, normally in my pajamas.
Working from home worth a lot of money in my opinion.
-
There's really only 4 assets in the financial space:
1. Paper assets (stock market)
2. Real estate
3. Business
4. Employment
All of those have income limitations except for one: Business. Business is the one category where the financial upside is unlimited.
And a business works because you solve another person/business problem who is willing and able to pay. Here's a great article on how to find a profitable business idea: https://growthlab.com/my-checklist-for-finding-a-profitable-business-idea/
Another great place to learn about turning up the income side of FI is at Brennan Dunn's Double Your Freelancing free course. It's unbelievably valuable. www.doubleyourfreelancing.com
PM me if you want to talk more about your situation and where you're trying to go.
You forgot number 5, spamming.
-
You forgot number 5, spamming.
Haha, post of the day. Thank you for that.
-
Sales....
I am in the minority I am sure. High School grad, started my own manufacturer rep firm 21 years ago with a partner.
It's a good gig but it certainly doesn't bring income in quickly. Typically as a rep, you are on commission for everything you sell. I am in tech, selling services for printed circuit board assembly, commission is 3.5%. Other services like metal fabrication, cable assemblies etc, commission is higher 5-7%.
So developing a few lines, you can make a very nice living. Sales is the easiest way to earn a nice living without having to take on a mountain of student loans.
-
Admittedly did not read the 6 pages before me but I work a job where most wouldn't expect 6 figures. Just crossed the 6 figure mark after 10 years of being a police officer. The 5 years before were all hovering around 90K. I do have a Master's Degree, but that only influences pay a bit. Someone could make the same in my department with just two years of undergrad. And it's a sweet/fun job, so that's cool.
-
Admittedly did not read the 6 pages before me but I work a job where most wouldn't expect 6 figures. Just crossed the 6 figure mark after 10 years of being a police officer. The 5 years before were all hovering around 90K. I do have a Master's Degree, but that only influences pay a bit. Someone could make the same in my department with just two years of undergrad. And it's a sweet/fun job, so that's cool.
In the NYC suburbs, police commonly make six figures. That’s a job that depends heavily on geography to determine salaries.
-
I work in Tech in a medium COL area, and find that salaries here top out around $150k, aside from upper management -- which I wouldn't consider 'Tech' based on the businesses here. Seeing what folks in SV & elsewhere are making makes me question sticking around vs. relocating.
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.” Sometimes the advice on here to cut your own hair or touch up your roots makes me laugh. I did some of that when I was younger and it is not going to work in Boston or New York. You are also not going to get away with thrift store clothes. You don’t have to have a lot but they need to be quality. I buy suits from Banana Republic and can often get on great sales. Trendy cuts and 100 percent wool with stretch. Sign up for their e-mails. They also have talls and petites. I changed my hair once and the first thing jealous boss asked me was whether I was after her job!
I'm in the office at my $200k+ job right now. :D
At least it is not ratty :)
-
You should not overlook the value of “looking the part.” Sometimes the advice on here to cut your own hair or touch up your roots makes me laugh. I did some of that when I was younger and it is not going to work in Boston or New York. You are also not going to get away with thrift store clothes. You don’t have to have a lot but they need to be quality. I buy suits from Banana Republic and can often get on great sales. Trendy cuts and 100 percent wool with stretch. Sign up for their e-mails. They also have talls and petites. I changed my hair once and the first thing jealous boss asked me was whether I was after her job!
I'm in the office at my $200k+ job right now. :D
At least it is not ratty :)
I just got that shirt, it hasn't had a chance to get ratty yet. :)
Some people in my office look like homeless people TBH, they're taking west coast casual a little too far.
-
Sales profession has made me over 100k most of the last 20 years. I am thankful I did not adopt the flashy lifestyle to go with it, and invested instead. :)
-
After 4 years in the Air Force I found out my same job paid over 6 figures as a civilian. I was lucky that I had a lot of friends who were already out and working for companies that were hiring.
-
How about how NOT to make $100,000 a year..... worry about or have the goal of making minimum wage.
-
Union job with excellent benefits plus OT can easily get you there.
Also a City Government job with years of service can get you a high salary either just below $100K or more. Plus you may also still get a pension and lots of other great perks such as 12 paid sick days a year and low health care costs.
-
In California, my first job was way more casual (manufacturing) - jeans and t-shirts, even sweats, because who sees what you are wearing in a bunny suit anyway? Now 20 years later it's even more casual - shorts and flip flops if you aren't in the fab.
When I started working in a fab (early 90s), us engineers still had to wear shirt & tie underneath the cleanroom suits. Was pretty much gone by the mid 90s though.
-
In California, my first job was way more casual (manufacturing) - jeans and t-shirts, even sweats, because who sees what you are wearing in a bunny suit anyway? Now 20 years later it's even more casual - shorts and flip flops if you aren't in the fab.
When I started working in a fab (early 90s), us engineers still had to wear shirt & tie underneath the cleanroom suits. Was pretty much gone by the mid 90s though.
Looks like I just made it! First fab job 1997.
-
Academia could work,
I'm guessing that the most abundant 100k job in the country is something boring like "manager" or "supervisor" and is therefore largely independent of industry choice. Go to work for a large corporation. Work hard, be dependable, slowly climb the corporate ladder, graduate from doing the work to supervising the people who do the work, and bam you're there.
Any pharma sales reps in this thread...? I feel like you have to certain kind of personality (and perhaps age/look) for that type of job for sure.
Totally agree. And I am one of them. Nevertheless, some industries pay better than the other.
Ditto both points. I'd put tech on the list of industries that pay well
-
All the dress code discussion makes me smile....I work from home, normally in my pajamas.
Working from home worth a lot of money in my opinion.
That's fabulous! Is the beer tasty?
(wfh but actually got dressed today, jeans and a nice sweater)
-
All the dress code discussion makes me smile....I work from home, normally in my pajamas.
Working from home worth a lot of money in my opinion.
That's fabulous! Is the beer tasty?
(wfh but actually got dressed today, jeans and a nice sweater)
Really good beer. Most of the craft IPAs in the PacNW are pretty high alcohol, like 8.5-9%. The work from home stuff is 4.2%, perfect for working on bikes. New drivetrain and new brakes. Damn, I guess that technically means I *WAS* working from home instead of slacking. :(
-
Admittedly did not read the 6 pages before me but I work a job where most wouldn't expect 6 figures. Just crossed the 6 figure mark after 10 years of being a police officer. The 5 years before were all hovering around 90K. I do have a Master's Degree, but that only influences pay a bit. Someone could make the same in my department with just two years of undergrad. And it's a sweet/fun job, so that's cool.
Wait! You're saying that "being a police officer" is "a sweet/fun job"? Care to elaborate?
Edited to fix wonky quoting.
-
Jaguar can reply with his thoughts, but a good friend of mine just switched careers at 40 and is now highway patrol. He *LOVES* his new job compared to his former career which he described as soul crushing. He patrols an area by himself. No boss looking over his shoulder. While he does pull over and write tickets it's generally just speeders. He responds to accidents more than anything else (mountain ski town) and that of course is a situation where you're there to bring order to chaos and help out on what is someone's worst day in a while. His wife and kid are proud of him. He's got a job for life and great bennies. Obviously results might vary if you were a cop in Compton or something. :D
-
Perhaps you didn't realize, but you completely contradicted yourself in two adjacent posts:
Interesting, I find it mind blowing to find those who focus more on what they wear than on performance.
In my experience, the real high end pros in most fields don't care about appearances. It's usually the wannabes that do.
Agreed, very much this. We call them monkey suits. I'm very weary working with any professional that appears to be trying too hard with his/her appearance. In my field people won't even work with you if you are over dressed.
Appearance does matter. But it's not a single appearance (ie a suit) - it's wearing what is appropriate for the work location and local culture.
-
Jaguar can reply with his thoughts, but a good friend of mine just switched careers at 40 and is now highway patrol. He *LOVES* his new job compared to his former career which he described as soul crushing. He patrols an area by himself. No boss looking over his shoulder. While he does pull over and write tickets it's generally just speeders. He responds to accidents more than anything else (mountain ski town) and that of course is a situation where you're there to bring order to chaos and help out on what is someone's worst day in a while. His wife and kid are proud of him. He's got a job for life and great bennies. Obviously results might vary if you were a cop in Compton or something. :D
Highway patrol is much different than being a police officer. My husband was an officer and he responded to calls of suicide, children being abused etc. Many days involved him performing a welfare check only to find the person deceased for several days. The final straw was him responding to a 911 call at his parents home and finding his father passed away on the kitchen floor. Obviously not everyone (hopefully no one) will be in that situation, but "sweet/fun" is the last thing I would characterize the job as. Also, it's almost impossible to get in without certain qualifications, at least the area that OP is in.
-
Replying to a few different people so I won't quote anyone in particular.
First I'll start with whoever was talking about officers that make around 100K in the NYC suburbs..The price of living in the northeast is obviously crazy and it is fairly obvious that the 100K goes a lot further down here in LCOL Texas.
On the sweet/fun part: The job is awesome! In 10 years I have worked Patrol, Gangs, and now Human Trafficking. I get paid what I consider way too much to investigate crimes and put really bad people in jail for decades. I get to use intelligence, people skills, acting and outside of the box thinking plus I do not have anyone micromanaging me, which is a plus. Add in the fact that I get 4 weeks of vacation time that I have to use every year, plus another 6 weeks of vacation time that if I don't use keep accruing and it's super sweet. Add in that at 25 years on the job (I'll be 47), I get paid 55% of my salary for the rest of my life and then I just feel spoiled.
I am very lucky in that I sincerely enjoy my job. At the end of a 2 week vacation, or even a weekend, I'm still excited to head to work. That being said, I can't wait until retirement.
-
In response to the OP:
Take out student loans and work in finance/tech/law/consulting/medicine in a HCOL city, and voilà, you're making six figures. This is a pretty stupid thing to do IMO, but it's an almost surefire route to +$100k if you're fairly intelligent and hard working.
Personally, I went to law school, took out huge loans to do so, and make a lot more than $100k while living in a HCOL city. It is easily the worst decision of my life. Prior to law school, I was debt-free and living a Mustachian life before MMM (the blog at least) existed. I was saving +50% of take-home pay on a $35k salary fresh out of college. Had a 401(k) but wasn't maxing it out admittedly. Now I'm a debt slave who has to work long hours at a stressful but boring job. And some odd circumstances have caused my student loans to balloon out of "reasonable amount to pay off" territory.
My friend who got kicked out of law school after his first year is in *way* better financial shape than me, LOL. He had a rough go for a few years, then found a sales job and is killing it. He has a rental property and an AirBnb property along with $150k - $250k salary for about 30 hours of work per week, nearly all of it from home.
The point? Find a way to make "+$100k" that doesn't involve trading time for money. That's a sucker's game, especially if your personality is the type that draws you to Mustachianism. I know a few people who truly live to work and relish spending 60+ hours a week in the office, but few people can maintain that for very long, and really, why would you want to? Start a business, buy assets, learn sales, etc.
-
The point? Find a way to make "+$100k" that doesn't involve trading time for money. That's a sucker's game, especially if your personality is the type that draws you to Mustachianism. I know a few people who truly live to work and relish spending 60+ hours a week in the office, but few people can maintain that for very long, and really, why would you want to? Start a business, buy assets, learn sales, etc.
It’s definitely a trade off. Started at $100k+ in a mid-sized firm in a LCOL suburban town several years ago. Should be at $200k+ in a few more years. Didn’t have much debt out of law school, so I’ve been able to build my equity. Even though I generally enjoy the work, a 2000 billable hour requirement is a drag. No way around it working at a typical firm. In-house would be a bit more palatable, but income would definitely drop.
-
In response to the OP:
Take out student loans and work in finance/tech/law/consulting/medicine in a HCOL city, and voilà, you're making six figures. This is a pretty stupid thing to do IMO, but it's an almost surefire route to +$100k if you're fairly intelligent and hard working.
Personally, I went to law school, took out huge loans to do so, and make a lot more than $100k while living in a HCOL city. It is easily the worst decision of my life. Prior to law school, I was debt-free and living a Mustachian life before MMM (the blog at least) existed. I was saving +50% of take-home pay on a $35k salary fresh out of college. Had a 401(k) but wasn't maxing it out admittedly. Now I'm a debt slave who has to work long hours at a stressful but boring job. And some odd circumstances have caused my student loans to balloon out of "reasonable amount to pay off" territory.
My friend who got kicked out of law school after his first year is in *way* better financial shape than me, LOL. He had a rough go for a few years, then found a sales job and is killing it. He has a rental property and an AirBnb property along with $150k - $250k salary for about 30 hours of work per week, nearly all of it from home.
The point? Find a way to make "+$100k" that doesn't involve trading time for money. That's a sucker's game, especially if your personality is the type that draws you to Mustachianism. I know a few people who truly live to work and relish spending 60+ hours a week in the office, but few people can maintain that for very long, and really, why would you want to? Start a business, buy assets, learn sales, etc.
A lot of people that do things like law school do so because starting a business isn't really in the cards for them (of course, people who don't end up getting firm jobs find out the hard way that they're suddenly starting a business after all). The "start your own business!" thing is sometimes hard for me to swallow--I cannot fathom trying to have my own business, I have no ideas whatsoever for what such a business would be, etc. I'll continue hacking away at my firm job for lack of any real alternatives and save some money for the inevitable day where that's no longer an option. Not a great plan, I realize, but eh.
-
Replying to a few different people so I won't quote anyone in particular.
First I'll start with whoever was talking about officers that make around 100K in the NYC suburbs..The price of living in the northeast is obviously crazy and it is fairly obvious that the 100K goes a lot further down here in LCOL Texas.
On the sweet/fun part: The job is awesome! In 10 years I have worked Patrol, Gangs, and now Human Trafficking. I get paid what I consider way too much to investigate crimes and put really bad people in jail for decades. I get to use intelligence, people skills, acting and outside of the box thinking plus I do not have anyone micromanaging me, which is a plus. Add in the fact that I get 4 weeks of vacation time that I have to use every year, plus another 6 weeks of vacation time that if I don't use keep accruing and it's super sweet. Add in that at 25 years on the job (I'll be 47), I get paid 55% of my salary for the rest of my life and then I just feel spoiled.
I'm sure you work hard and also in a dangerous profession, thank you.
But if anyone wonders why goverments are broke, just look at this.
He get's paid a high wage for working an 80% schedule, 10 paid weeks (off).
He didn't say, but gov jobs usually have a great health insurance plan.
And then to support him with 55% of his salary for what could easily be 35 years probably
with health insurance, when he has paid nothing into it, is just legislators giving away
other peoples money, Taxpayers money.
/rant is over/
-
I joined the Navy at 19 and entered the nuclear power program. At 25, I got out and got a job as a nuclear equipment operator (non-control room operator at a power plant). At 28, I broke 100k for the first time and never looked back. That was 20 years ago. Now, I make 200k per year and live in a LCOL area. If I applied myself, I could double that but I don't work all that hard and have a lot of other interests. I am planning to retire in a year or two.
FWIW, I have two degrees but got them later in life for my own purposes, they have no impact on my salary.
-
Hard work ethic. Above average intelligence/skill. Relationships/political capital. Ambition. Luck.
Possessing any two of these could propel one into a high salary.
-
Replying to a few different people so I won't quote anyone in particular.
First I'll start with whoever was talking about officers that make around 100K in the NYC suburbs..The price of living in the northeast is obviously crazy and it is fairly obvious that the 100K goes a lot further down here in LCOL Texas.
On the sweet/fun part: The job is awesome! In 10 years I have worked Patrol, Gangs, and now Human Trafficking. I get paid what I consider way too much to investigate crimes and put really bad people in jail for decades. I get to use intelligence, people skills, acting and outside of the box thinking plus I do not have anyone micromanaging me, which is a plus. Add in the fact that I get 4 weeks of vacation time that I have to use every year, plus another 6 weeks of vacation time that if I don't use keep accruing and it's super sweet. Add in that at 25 years on the job (I'll be 47), I get paid 55% of my salary for the rest of my life and then I just feel spoiled.
I'm sure you work hard and also in a dangerous profession, thank you.
But if anyone wonders why goverments are broke, just look at this.
He get's paid a high wage for working an 80% schedule, 10 paid weeks (off).
He didn't say, but gov jobs usually have a great health insurance plan.
And then to support him with 55% of his salary for what could easily be 35 years probably
with health insurance, when he has paid nothing into it, is just legislators giving away
other peoples money, Taxpayers money.
/rant is over/
I absolutely paid into my government/law enforcement retirement plan. 10 weeks off is insane, though. Apparently I was working in the wrong state.
-
I absolutely paid into my government/law enforcement retirement plan.
I've never understood why some people hate pensions or think they are some kind of gift. Of course I pay into it, both directly out of each paycheck and indirectly with my ~30%-below-market-rate government job.
Just imagine how much earlier you could retire if you saved an additional 30% of your pay! That's approximately how much later I can retire because I work for a federal agency.
-
Replying to a few different people so I won't quote anyone in particular.
First I'll start with whoever was talking about officers that make around 100K in the NYC suburbs..The price of living in the northeast is obviously crazy and it is fairly obvious that the 100K goes a lot further down here in LCOL Texas.
On the sweet/fun part: The job is awesome! In 10 years I have worked Patrol, Gangs, and now Human Trafficking. I get paid what I consider way too much to investigate crimes and put really bad people in jail for decades. I get to use intelligence, people skills, acting and outside of the box thinking plus I do not have anyone micromanaging me, which is a plus. Add in the fact that I get 4 weeks of vacation time that I have to use every year, plus another 6 weeks of vacation time that if I don't use keep accruing and it's super sweet. Add in that at 25 years on the job (I'll be 47), I get paid 55% of my salary for the rest of my life and then I just feel spoiled.
I'm sure you work hard and also in a dangerous profession, thank you.
But if anyone wonders why goverments are broke, just look at this.
He get's paid a high wage for working an 80% schedule, 10 paid weeks (off).
He didn't say, but gov jobs usually have a great health insurance plan.
And then to support him with 55% of his salary for what could easily be 35 years probably
with health insurance, when he has paid nothing into it, is just legislators giving away
other peoples money, Taxpayers money.
/rant is over/
We do have pretty great, and cheap insurance as well. As far as the pension and retirement is concerned: First, I hope that it's more than 35 years. Second, we are not offered health insurance through our job upon retirement so we end up paying a ton when we do retire. Third, and probably most importantly that we actually pay 10.25% from every cent we make into the pension fund. Fourth, most departments around the country are nothing like this compared to pay, paid time off, and even pensions.
-
Replying to a few different people so I won't quote anyone in particular.
First I'll start with whoever was talking about officers that make around 100K in the NYC suburbs..The price of living in the northeast is obviously crazy and it is fairly obvious that the 100K goes a lot further down here in LCOL Texas.
On the sweet/fun part: The job is awesome! In 10 years I have worked Patrol, Gangs, and now Human Trafficking. I get paid what I consider way too much to investigate crimes and put really bad people in jail for decades. I get to use intelligence, people skills, acting and outside of the box thinking plus I do not have anyone micromanaging me, which is a plus. Add in the fact that I get 4 weeks of vacation time that I have to use every year, plus another 6 weeks of vacation time that if I don't use keep accruing and it's super sweet. Add in that at 25 years on the job (I'll be 47), I get paid 55% of my salary for the rest of my life and then I just feel spoiled.
I'm sure you work hard and also in a dangerous profession, thank you.
But if anyone wonders why goverments are broke, just look at this.
He get's paid a high wage for working an 80% schedule, 10 paid weeks (off).
He didn't say, but gov jobs usually have a great health insurance plan.
And then to support him with 55% of his salary for what could easily be 35 years probably
with health insurance, when he has paid nothing into it, is just legislators giving away
other peoples money, Taxpayers money.
/rant is over/
I absolutely paid into my government/law enforcement retirement plan. 10 weeks off is insane, though. Apparently I was working in the wrong state.
While the LEOs do get a moderately better deal - I work for Texas and I'm paying nearly 10% of my salary into the pension, the salary is at least 25% lower than industry, and I'm paying nearly $600/month for decent-not-great (80/20 coverage, $25/$40 copays) health insurance for a family of 3. While there is a 401k available there is no matching.
If you don't work for the State until close to when you draw the pension, you pretty much get screwed. There is no inflation adjustment. If you cash it out instead of waiting, you have gotten a mere 2% interest on that contribution they took from your paycheck. The requirements to start drawing the pension have become more and more onerous for anyone starting after August 31, 2009.
It can be a good deal if you work for the State until you retire, especially if you are grandfathered in.
-
Replying to a few different people so I won't quote anyone in particular.
First I'll start with whoever was talking about officers that make around 100K in the NYC suburbs..The price of living in the northeast is obviously crazy and it is fairly obvious that the 100K goes a lot further down here in LCOL Texas.
On the sweet/fun part: The job is awesome! In 10 years I have worked Patrol, Gangs, and now Human Trafficking. I get paid what I consider way too much to investigate crimes and put really bad people in jail for decades. I get to use intelligence, people skills, acting and outside of the box thinking plus I do not have anyone micromanaging me, which is a plus. Add in the fact that I get 4 weeks of vacation time that I have to use every year, plus another 6 weeks of vacation time that if I don't use keep accruing and it's super sweet. Add in that at 25 years on the job (I'll be 47), I get paid 55% of my salary for the rest of my life and then I just feel spoiled.
I'm sure you work hard and also in a dangerous profession, thank you.
But if anyone wonders why goverments are broke, just look at this.
He get's paid a high wage for working an 80% schedule, 10 paid weeks (off).
He didn't say, but gov jobs usually have a great health insurance plan.
And then to support him with 55% of his salary for what could easily be 35 years probably
with health insurance, when he has paid nothing into it, is just legislators giving away
other peoples money, Taxpayers money.
/rant is over/
I absolutely paid into my government/law enforcement retirement plan. 10 weeks off is insane, though. Apparently I was working in the wrong state.
While the LEOs do get a moderately better deal - I work for Texas and I'm paying nearly 10% of my salary into the pension, the salary is at least 25% lower than industry, and I'm paying nearly $600/month for decent-not-great (80/20 coverage, $25/$40 copays) health insurance for a family of 3. While there is a 401k available there is no matching.
If you don't work for the State until close to when you draw the pension, you pretty much get screwed. There is no inflation adjustment. If you cash it out instead of waiting, you have gotten a mere 2% interest on that contribution they took from your paycheck. The requirements to start drawing the pension have become more and more onerous for anyone starting after August 31, 2009.
It can be a good deal if you work for the State until you retire, especially if you are grandfathered in.
My health care was cheap/excellent (single) - no idea what family plans cost. I think my pension contribution was 11% and I didn't have a 401k (I don't think it was offered but I can't say with 100% certainty).
NH retirement used to be awesome - 20 years and out. Then when I got in, it was something like 23 + minimum age, and I think now it's 26 years + minimum age? Unsure anymore, as it's been a long time...
-
Replying to a few different people so I won't quote anyone in particular.
First I'll start with whoever was talking about officers that make around 100K in the NYC suburbs..The price of living in the northeast is obviously crazy and it is fairly obvious that the 100K goes a lot further down here in LCOL Texas.
On the sweet/fun part: The job is awesome! In 10 years I have worked Patrol, Gangs, and now Human Trafficking. I get paid what I consider way too much to investigate crimes and put really bad people in jail for decades. I get to use intelligence, people skills, acting and outside of the box thinking plus I do not have anyone micromanaging me, which is a plus. Add in the fact that I get 4 weeks of vacation time that I have to use every year, plus another 6 weeks of vacation time that if I don't use keep accruing and it's super sweet. Add in that at 25 years on the job (I'll be 47), I get paid 55% of my salary for the rest of my life and then I just feel spoiled.
I'm sure you work hard and also in a dangerous profession, thank you.
But if anyone wonders why goverments are broke, just look at this.
He get's paid a high wage for working an 80% schedule, 10 paid weeks (off).
He didn't say, but gov jobs usually have a great health insurance plan.
And then to support him with 55% of his salary for what could easily be 35 years probably
with health insurance, when he has paid nothing into it, is just legislators giving away
other peoples money, Taxpayers money.
/rant is over/
I absolutely paid into my government/law enforcement retirement plan. 10 weeks off is insane, though. Apparently I was working in the wrong state.
While the LEOs do get a moderately better deal - I work for Texas and I'm paying nearly 10% of my salary into the pension, the salary is at least 25% lower than industry, and I'm paying nearly $600/month for decent-not-great (80/20 coverage, $25/$40 copays) health insurance for a family of 3. While there is a 401k available there is no matching.
If you don't work for the State until close to when you draw the pension, you pretty much get screwed. There is no inflation adjustment. If you cash it out instead of waiting, you have gotten a mere 2% interest on that contribution they took from your paycheck. The requirements to start drawing the pension have become more and more onerous for anyone starting after August 31, 2009.
It can be a good deal if you work for the State until you retire, especially if you are grandfathered in.
My health care was cheap/excellent (single) - no idea what family plans cost. I think my pension contribution was 11% and I didn't have a 401k (I don't think it was offered but I can't say with 100% certainty).
NH retirement used to be awesome - 20 years and out. Then when I got in, it was something like 23 + minimum age, and I think now it's 26 years + minimum age? Unsure anymore, as it's been a long time...
I think it’s 25 now. The family plan was excellent while we were on it, which wasn’t long. My husband was offered a 401k and 457. I don’t remember about matching though.
-
I absolutely paid into my government/law enforcement retirement plan.
I've never understood why some people hate pensions or think they are some kind of gift. Of course I pay into it, both directly out of each paycheck and indirectly with my ~30%-below-market-rate government job.
Just imagine how much earlier you could retire if you saved an additional 30% of your pay! That's approximately how much later I can retire because I work for a federal agency.
Most federal government employees earn more than they would in the private sector according to the CBO. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=812526&utm_campaign=Express_2017-04-25_14%3a30 Only people with professional degrees (M.D., J.D., Ph.D., etc.) earn less, on average, working for the government relative to the private sector. But for this last group, they probably earn more on an hourly basis. And if you monetized the ability to work fixed hours, not work on weekends, and take real vacation, holiday, and sick days (things many private sector professionals can't do), the balance would again tip in favor of federal employees.
I'm willing to believe that you are one of the "underpaid" individuals. Really, I am. But you are in a distinct minority.
And as to your question, people hate public employee pensions because they are always underfunded, so taxpayers end up paying for them, but they don't get the (extremely generous) benefits themselves.
-
And as to your question, people hate public employee pensions because they are always underfunded, so taxpayers end up paying for them, but they don't get the (extremely generous) benefits themselves.
+1 to the real reason why public pensions get so much flak.
-
And as to your question, people hate public employee pensions because they are always underfunded, so taxpayers end up paying for them, but they don't get the (extremely generous) benefits themselves.
+1 to the real reason why public pensions get so much flak.
I serve in the Army National Guard and the percentage of government workers there is well above average as it's hard to tell a private employer "I need to take three weeks off because a slot just opened up for a school I need for promotion". Through a connection there I received an offer for a state job (the hiring manager asked for my resume and wrote the job description to fit). I ended up turning it down as it would have meant a drop in pay from about $55k to about $40k. I tried to negotiate and I think they came up $1.00 per hour. A few guys who were also state employees told me how great the pension was and how it would make up for any decrease in pay.
I've seen how underfunded the state pension plan is. I don't plan to entrust my retirement to that. Not to mention working 25 years for the state is not exactly my life's goal.
-
I wondered the same thing. I started my career making around $25k, during those years 50k would have been awesome and 100k unfathomable.
I spent a few years happy with where I was, but knew it wasn't sustainable long term. So I tried to find out what the "high paying" jobs were in the industry I was in. I found out what those jobs were, and made it my mission to get there.
Long story short, I got there. It was a long series of "I want to do ________" and talking to a lot of people about it. Can't stress that enough. Find out what you want to do, then lobby the shit out of it.
However, be careful! When I finally got "the job" at 125k+ year (coming from less than 50) I felt absolutely rich and spent money like it was going out of style. I bought cars, clothes, apartments, etc. It got so bad that I was in worse debt making the bigger money than I was previously. Hence the "Lifestyle Deflation" username.
But the relentless pursuit of career goals is still worthwhile. I've continued that and it's worked well. Just be careful you don't inflate your lifestyle when you get more money than you thought possible!
-
By the way, the relentless pursuit of a position works!
Let's say you want to be CEO of a $1 billion+ company. Making great money, controlling the direction for a large organization, being "the guy" who is responsible for everything. Let's say this is what you want to do, and you're willing to do everything it takes to get there.
But there are only a few thousand of these jobs in the US. And you will be competing with the best of the best to get there. It will take rising up through the ranks of individual contributor, to management levels, to executive levels, and beyond. Everyone who has the same ambition will be fighting for the same roles, all the way up.
The most relentless will win. So if you have big ambitions, you can't be afraid to be relentless. Do what it takes to win -- if that means moving to other companies, getting X degree, doing what you perceive to be ridiculously self-promoting things, do them. Life is short, self-promote the hell out of the great things you do.
My ambition in life is to be said CEO, and you can be damn sure I'm doing these things every day to get there. And I will get there. I don't know exactly the method in which it'll happen, or where it'll be, but I have zero doubt that it'll happen.
My short-term plan is to rise in rank at a megacorp, likely to director level (2-4 years), then take a higher role (VP) at a smaller company (1-2 years). From there, I will be able to get an equal VP spot at a large company (2-3 years), then move into a CxO role at a smaller company (1-2 years).
At that point I will likely take a SVP/President role at a large company (1-2 years) and then become CEO of a smaller company (3-5 years). Then I'll take my success as the CEO of the smaller company to become the CEO of the larger company.
This plan puts me as the CEO of a large company in ~17 years or so, at around age 50. Will it happen exactly as planned? Probably not. But I know where I'm heading. Do you?
-
Are you sure you are on the right forum?
-
Are you sure you are on the right forum?
100% yes. The beauty of my upward-or-bust strategy is that if there's too much bullshit/politics/etc at whatever level you're at, you can always FIRE.
And if you can take it, there's a lot of money to be made, perhaps for a Fat-FIRE. Or you can always go back to whatever level you're comfortable at to finish your career. Many options.
-
Sure, I guess if you honestly enjoy putting in the long hours and playing the corporate politics needed to get to that level, knock yourself out. If there's really nothing that would bring you greater happiness than seeing your name before the letters "CEO" on a business card printed by a major corporation, I wish you all the best. If only we could all see our futures as clearly.
For me, given my spending patterns I would have an eight-digit net worth perhaps ten years into your 17-year plan. Before even reaching that point I would be doing some serious soul searching about whether advancing further in my career was really the way I wanted to spend my finite time on this planet.
-
quick note on my pension: We have the rule of 70. In order to draw your pension, your age plus years of service has to equal 70 or more. I joined at 22 so at 46 I'll have 24 years on. 46 plus 24 equals 70 so I'd be able to leave and draw pension. we get 2.25% for the first 20 years and an added 2% pension every year we work after that. We also have a 457 plan as well, which is maxed out and can be drawn whenever we leave.
-
By the way, the relentless pursuit of a position works!
Let's say you want to be CEO of a $1 billion+ company. Making great money, controlling the direction for a large organization, being "the guy" who is responsible for everything. Let's say this is what you want to do, and you're willing to do everything it takes to get there.
But there are only a few thousand of these jobs in the US. And you will be competing with the best of the best to get there. It will take rising up through the ranks of individual contributor, to management levels, to executive levels, and beyond. Everyone who has the same ambition will be fighting for the same roles, all the way up.
The most relentless will win. So if you have big ambitions, you can't be afraid to be relentless. Do what it takes to win -- if that means moving to other companies, getting X degree, doing what you perceive to be ridiculously self-promoting things, do them. Life is short, self-promote the hell out of the great things you do.
My ambition in life is to be said CEO, and you can be damn sure I'm doing these things every day to get there. And I will get there. I don't know exactly the method in which it'll happen, or where it'll be, but I have zero doubt that it'll happen.
My short-term plan is to rise in rank at a megacorp, likely to director level (2-4 years), then take a higher role (VP) at a smaller company (1-2 years). From there, I will be able to get an equal VP spot at a large company (2-3 years), then move into a CxO role at a smaller company (1-2 years).
At that point I will likely take a SVP/President role at a large company (1-2 years) and then become CEO of a smaller company (3-5 years). Then I'll take my success as the CEO of the smaller company to become the CEO of the larger company.
This plan puts me as the CEO of a large company in ~17 years or so, at around age 50. Will it happen exactly as planned? Probably not. But I know where I'm heading. Do you?
I love your outlook. If you're goal is truly to become CEO of a large company you have a solid plan, and it certainly improves your odds of succeeding.
My goal was to never be a CEO but, rather, a VP at a medium size company. I had a similar plan as you, and it worked out perfectly. I was Manager at small company at 28, Director at small company at 32, Director at larger company at 37, VP at small company at 40, VP at medium size company at 45, and VP at a larger company at 50.
I never wanted to rise to CEO because with few exceptions, CEO's seem to be miserable. In general, they have few true friends, are workaholics, have shitty family lives, and have shitty ethics. Of course, some are not like that, and I hope you're one of them.
Good luck.
-
Maybe someone has already mentioned this, but not everyone has the grey matter ( IQ) to be a good IT person, lawyer, doctor. No matter how hard-working they might be.
I was a decent, competent programmer in my working days, but it was often a struggle, Took work home and worked for free just to finish on time, when the assignment was tough. But I survived.
Point is, make sure you are naturally gifted in that high-paying field before you spend the bucks to get training. And please note that even if you do well in training, the field you train for may be much tougher in the actual doing of the job than the training was.
Not saying I would have been better off in a different field, but I noticed some other programmers having a much easier time of it, always finishing early, never stressing out, asking for more challenging assignments. G*d-darned naturally gifted jerks!
-
I noticed some other programmers having a much easier time of it, always finishing early, never stressing out, asking for more challenging assignments. G*d-darned naturally gifted jerks!
I am very strongly of the opinion that no one is ever "gifted" at a learned skill. Every single human baby is born useless, and we all have to learn how to do absolutely everything. Talent is something you earn with long practice, not something you are born with.
You can be gifted with physical traits, like height or big hands, that make some skills easier. A talented basketball player was not born knowing how to dunk and neither were you. Everyone starts out the same. "Talent" is the result of your life experience, not the cause of it.
My kids sometimes try to tell me they are bad at something because they are not talented, not gifted, not as good as other kids. And without a single exception thus far, the other person who they think is unfairly gifted has actually put in thousands of hours of passionate practice to acquire the skill that they envy. My 14 year old is just now, for the first time, finally figuring out that hard work pays off in ways that make him look talented to other kids.
-
I noticed some other programmers having a much easier time of it, always finishing early, never stressing out, asking for more challenging assignments. G*d-darned naturally gifted jerks!
I am very strongly of the opinion that no one is ever "gifted" at a learned skill. Every single human baby is born useless, and we all have to learn how to do absolutely everything. Talent is something you earn with long practice, not something you are born with.
You can be gifted with physical traits, like height or big hands, that make some skills easier. A talented basketball player was not born knowing how to dunk and neither were you. Everyone starts out the same. "Talent" is the result of your life experience, not the cause of it.
My kids sometimes try to tell me they are bad at something because they are not talented, not gifted, not as good as other kids. And without a single exception thus far, the other person who they think is unfairly gifted has actually put in thousands of hours of passionate practice to acquire the skill that they envy. My 14 year old is just now, for the first time, finally figuring out that hard work pays off in ways that make him look talented to other kids.
It's worth recognizing that by the time most people are self-aware enough to understand this, they have most of their childhood behind them.
I tend to find slackmax's attitude worth thinking through. Everyone has natural inclinations towards various things, perhaps resulting from their childhood, how they were parented, or just the things they gravitated to throughout their life.
Finding a career that has activities you are either gifted in or drawn to out of curiosity is a major boon for overall life satisfaction.
It's far easier to cultivate and grow skills in areas you have personal interest in, too.
-
Ph.D. in a STEM field = $$$
This + luck/serendipity. In addition to the PhD I have really worked on my skills in data analysis and programming (which has recently turned into the buzzwords of Data Science, Machine Learning/AI). I'm also lucky enough to be in a low cost of living area and make between $160-$170k after bonus and equity. According to the CNN COLA calculator it would be the equivalent to over $400k in the San Fran area.
Honestly never thought I would be where I'm at less than 5 years after finishing a PhD, but I will take it :)
-
This makes me want to start a thread with polls on "what's your SF salary?" and "what's your <small town in midwest> salary?" :)
-
This makes me want to start a thread with polls on "what's your SF salary?" and "what's your <small town in midwest> salary?" :)
COL calculator says I'd have to get $232k/yr to equal what I make here...which is more than double, and I'm 15 minutes from Manhattan.
Damn.
-
This makes me want to start a thread with polls on "what's your SF salary?" and "what's your <small town in midwest> salary?" :)
I feel like some standard is needed given the discrepancy in cost of living across the US. I chose San Fran because many of the big data jobs are popping up there and our company has a campus out there. But yeah, NYC, DC, Chicago, etc. are all viable comp options for a thread. I think it can also help people put into perspective that $60k in a place like Kansas City, MO is a decent chunk of change when you compare the cost of living of KC vs. a place like Washington DC.
-
Alrighty I created it for the fun of it - https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/poll-what-is-your-sf-salary/
-
I noticed some other programmers having a much easier time of it, always finishing early, never stressing out, asking for more challenging assignments. G*d-darned naturally gifted jerks!
I am very strongly of the opinion that no one is ever "gifted" at a learned skill. Every single human baby is born useless, and we all have to learn how to do absolutely everything. Talent is something you earn with long practice, not something you are born with.
You can be gifted with physical traits, like height or big hands, that make some skills easier. A talented basketball player was not born knowing how to dunk and neither were you. Everyone starts out the same. "Talent" is the result of your life experience, not the cause of it.
My kids sometimes try to tell me they are bad at something because they are not talented, not gifted, not as good as other kids. And without a single exception thus far, the other person who they think is unfairly gifted has actually put in thousands of hours of passionate practice to acquire the skill that they envy. My 14 year old is just now, for the first time, finally figuring out that hard work pays off in ways that make him look talented to other kids.
Sure but you can be gifted with more than big hands or being 8 feet tall. You can also be gifted with a better performing brain (ie higher IQ) - while everyone is born knowing nothing and have to learn everything there is a great variance in each persons ability to learn. Some brains still operate with an abacus and others act like the latest CPU. So don't think for a minute that this doesn't come into play. Also, my personal CPU (brain) may be more suited to math and another may be more suited to art....so they might have the same computing power, the outcomes can be very different depending on the task.
But to your point, a person who is gifted will likely not achieve much without effort (might be better than the average person but that's about it). Conversely, no matter how hard a person works/practices/studies they will never be as good as the gifted one, especially if the gifted one puts in some work too.
-
The thing with the Cost of Living Calculator, you have to see how they are calculating it (the breakdown).
I did a category comparison, and I think for mustachians the difference is not going to be anywhere close to an average person, as they already optimize all the categories regardless of where they live. Sure, there are some uncontrollables, but even when I looked at say housing for example, it does not create as drastic of a difference in total cost as the calculator is coming up with. I live in a very HCOL area and for fun compared what the yearly cost differences would be if I lived in an extremely low cost of living area, and while the difference was nothing to sneeze at, it wasn't even close to what the calculator claimed.
-
The thing with the Cost of Living Calculator, you have to see how they are calculating it (the breakdown).
I did a category comparison, and I think for mustachians the difference is not going to be anywhere close to an average person, as they already optimize all the categories regardless of where they live. Sure, there are some uncontrollables, but even when I looked at say housing for example, it does not create as drastic of a difference in total cost as the calculator is coming up with. I live in a very HCOL area and for fun compared what the yearly cost differences would be if I lived in an extremely low cost of living area, and while the difference was nothing to sneeze at, it wasn't even close to what the calculator claimed.
I've found that if you maintain the same standard of living it's pretty close to accurate.
The problem is that it's not reasonable to do this in many cases. My 2500ish square foot 1/3 acre lot house backing to a park/woods which cost $230k in the Midwest with a ~5 min commute would be absurdly expensive to have in SF area. But.. that would compensate pretty well with the $100k+ in additional salary it says I need to make there.
-
Okay, yes that makes sense.
It's just a bit misleading to me as I know I will adjust my living situation based on where I live.
For example, here near the beach, it makes absolutely no sense to purchase a property, so you rent. Sure, if I insisted on buying precisely the same type of house I would in Columbus, OH, yeah the calculator would probably be dead on.
That said, I compared my current situation (renting an apartment) with the low cost of living areas, and while the rent was pretty substantial, that was the only category (other than taxes) that impacted my cost of living that was worth noting. The salary difference it was projecting based on this was not even close to accurate. I was somewhat interested in this because I can geo-arbitrage my work (i work from home), but the quality of life to me is too important to do so, and the difference in cost is not substantial enough.
-
Replying to a few different people so I won't quote anyone in particular.
First I'll start with whoever was talking about officers that make around 100K in the NYC suburbs..The price of living in the northeast is obviously crazy and it is fairly obvious that the 100K goes a lot further down here in LCOL Texas.
On the sweet/fun part: The job is awesome! In 10 years I have worked Patrol, Gangs, and now Human Trafficking. I get paid what I consider way too much to investigate crimes and put really bad people in jail for decades. I get to use intelligence, people skills, acting and outside of the box thinking plus I do not have anyone micromanaging me, which is a plus. Add in the fact that I get 4 weeks of vacation time that I have to use every year, plus another 6 weeks of vacation time that if I don't use keep accruing and it's super sweet. Add in that at 25 years on the job (I'll be 47), I get paid 55% of my salary for the rest of my life and then I just feel spoiled.
I'm sure you work hard and also in a dangerous profession, thank you.
But if anyone wonders why goverments are broke, just look at this.
He get's paid a high wage for working an 80% schedule, 10 paid weeks (off).
He didn't say, but gov jobs usually have a great health insurance plan.
And then to support him with 55% of his salary for what could easily be 35 years probably
with health insurance, when he has paid nothing into it, is just legislators giving away
other peoples money, Taxpayers money.
/rant is over/
The typical sheriff or fire department retiree in our county retires after 30 years. That's age 50-55, and their pensions are around $180-240k a year, when you add up pension + medical care. Often these guys are retired and collecting pensions for longer than they were working. It's nuts. Mostly because they are underfunded, and we have to cut county and city services to pay for them.
Has to change, and pretty quickly!
-
The thing with the Cost of Living Calculator, you have to see how they are calculating it (the breakdown).
I did a category comparison, and I think for mustachians the difference is not going to be anywhere close to an average person, as they already optimize all the categories regardless of where they live. Sure, there are some uncontrollables, but even when I looked at say housing for example, it does not create as drastic of a difference in total cost as the calculator is coming up with. I live in a very HCOL area and for fun compared what the yearly cost differences would be if I lived in an extremely low cost of living area, and while the difference was nothing to sneeze at, it wasn't even close to what the calculator claimed.
I've found that if you maintain the same standard of living it's pretty close to accurate.
The problem is that it's not reasonable to do this in many cases. My 2500ish square foot 1/3 acre lot house backing to a park/woods which cost $230k in the Midwest with a ~5 min commute would be absurdly expensive to have in SF area. But.. that would compensate pretty well with the $100k+ in additional salary it says I need to make there.
This is what I've noticed too. I think the assumption that all Mustachians are 100% optimal is a little extreme. If I wanted to be perfectly optimal I would sell my 2.2k sq ft home that my family of 4 lives in and move into a 1.2k sq ft home. But, while that would be optimal I don't know that my wife would like raising two kids in that small of a space. So while, one could change from a 2.2k sq ft house to a 1k sq ft apartment if they moved and only end up paying 2-3x more for housing :) that wouldn't be a completely equivalent exchange. There are also non-monetary things to consider that factor into the time = money motto. For example, I have friends that work in NYC and bought a home over an hour outside of NYC for the space they wanted. They commute up to 2 hours each day. My commute in bad traffic is 20 minutes each way, if I hit it right I can get from my house to the parking lot in about 12 minutes. It's definitely different lifestyles though and it is possible to live well below the suggested cost of living for any given area if you would like to.
-
I am very strongly of the opinion that no one is ever "gifted" at a learned skill. Every single human baby is born useless, and we all have to learn how to do absolutely everything. Talent is something you earn with long practice, not something you are born with.
You can be gifted with physical traits, like height or big hands, that make some skills easier. A talented basketball player was not born knowing how to dunk and neither were you. Everyone starts out the same. "Talent" is the result of your life experience, not the cause of it.
My kids sometimes try to tell me they are bad at something because they are not talented, not gifted, not as good as other kids. And without a single exception thus far, the other person who they think is unfairly gifted has actually put in thousands of hours of passionate practice to acquire the skill that they envy. My 14 year old is just now, for the first time, finally figuring out that hard work pays off in ways that make him look talented to other kids.
See the book Talent is overrated.
Agree that practice is the most important factor, but being gifted just means having a personality that makes practice more enjoyable, more tolerable, or more rewarding. E.g. you're introverted and OCD, you'll like solving math problems for hours on end without stopping, and you'll eventually get skilled. Some people would get sick doing that, so practice is such a grudge to them. Athletes need much practice but those with better health will be able to push further without issues.
-
The idea that inherent traits, 100% luck, don't have material impact on success is ridiculous. As others have said, IQ, size, certain aspects of athletic prowess that are genetic rather than trained, eyesight, hearing. Massive benefits associated with being born into a family without food scarcity. Educated family. Not having a parent die early. Systemic benefits for white men. Access to a strong school system. Exposure to violence at home early in life. Money scarcity at home early in life. It goes on and on and on.
Now, it doesn't do much good to throw one's hands up in the air and say that it's not worth trying because everything is up to luck anyway. You can be born with every advantage and fall on your face for lack of putting in any elbow grease. You can overcome having started further behind than others--plenty of people do that every day. Some obstacles are more difficult to overcome than others and, at the extreme, some obstacles are impossible to overcome. So celebrate how your hard work contributed to your success, but acknowledge the role that luck played in your success. People that don't acknowledge the significant role luck and genetics plays are fooling themselves (and others, often enough).
-
You can also be gifted with a better performing brain (ie higher IQ) - while everyone is born knowing nothing and have to learn everything there is a great variance in each persons ability to learn. Some brains still operate with an abacus and others act like the latest CPU. So don't think for a minute that this doesn't come into play. Also, my personal CPU (brain) may be more suited to math and another may be more suited to art....
I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent. At one hour old, no healthy child is any smarter than any other healthy child.
By the time you start school there are absolutely differences. Some kids will have done four years of Montessori preschool and some will have watched four years of cartoons, but those are also life experiences and not the result of innate talent.
The key point here is to recognize that when a student (or employee) struggles, it is not because they are dumb. We all start out dumb. It is only because they lack the required practice or experiences to achieve subject mastery. I guarantee you that the NFL quarterback has thrown more paases than you before his first day on the job, and run more laps and drills, and spent more time in the weight room than you. He's not "gifted" unless his one-hour-old self showed the same gift. The same is true for efficient computer programmers or kids who breeze through AP chemistry. They all learned and you can too.
Talent is earned. Talent is just skill made to look easy by practice. If you want to be good at something, stand up and put in the hard time instead of lamenting your apparent lack of natural gifts. "I'm not gifted" is an excuse repeated by people who don't believe in their own ability to succeed.
-
You can also be gifted with a better performing brain (ie higher IQ) - while everyone is born knowing nothing and have to learn everything there is a great variance in each persons ability to learn. Some brains still operate with an abacus and others act like the latest CPU. So don't think for a minute that this doesn't come into play. Also, my personal CPU (brain) may be more suited to math and another may be more suited to art....
I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent. At one hour old, no healthy child is any smarter than any other healthy child.
By the time you start school there are absolutely differences. Some kids will have done four years of Montessori preschool and some will have watched four years of cartoons, but those are also life experiences and not the result of innate talent.
The key point here is to recognize that when a student (or employee) struggles, it is not because they are dumb. We all start out dumb. It is only because they lack the required practice or experiences to achieve subject mastery. I guarantee you that the NFL quarterback has thrown more paases than you before his first day on the job, and run more laps and drills, and spent more time in the weight room than you. He's not "gifted" unless his one-hour-old self showed the same gift. The same is true for efficient computer programmers or kids who breeze through AP chemistry. They all learned and you can too.
Talent is earned. Talent is just skill made to look easy by practice. If you want to be good at something, stand up and put in the hard time instead of lamenting your apparent lack of natural gifts. "I'm not gifted" is an excuse repeated by people who don't believe in their own ability to succeed.
I'm not sure I agree. There are some things I've done that I learned incredibly quickly. Horseback riding and fencing come to mind. There are some things that are hard for me, but I work my ass off to learn it anyway - e.g. dance. I can absolutely tell that I have a natural ability to learn some things easier than others.
-
I would disagree about the Talent portion. Take Leo Messi and Christiano Ronaldo for instance. Messi is a natural born talent while Ronaldo put in a shitload of hard work to achieve similar results imo. The two play different styles of the game, but Messi is the one that makes it look effortless.
-
You can also be gifted with a better performing brain (ie higher IQ) - while everyone is born knowing nothing and have to learn everything there is a great variance in each persons ability to learn. Some brains still operate with an abacus and others act like the latest CPU. So don't think for a minute that this doesn't come into play. Also, my personal CPU (brain) may be more suited to math and another may be more suited to art....
I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent. At one hour old, no healthy child is any smarter than any other healthy child.
By the time you start school there are absolutely differences. Some kids will have done four years of Montessori preschool and some will have watched four years of cartoons, but those are also life experiences and not the result of innate talent.
The key point here is to recognize that when a student (or employee) struggles, it is not because they are dumb. We all start out dumb. It is only because they lack the required practice or experiences to achieve subject mastery. I guarantee you that the NFL quarterback has thrown more paases than you before his first day on the job, and run more laps and drills, and spent more time in the weight room than you. He's not "gifted" unless his one-hour-old self showed the same gift. The same is true for efficient computer programmers or kids who breeze through AP chemistry. They all learned and you can too.
Talent is earned. Talent is just skill made to look easy by practice. If you want to be good at something, stand up and put in the hard time instead of lamenting your apparent lack of natural gifts. "I'm not gifted" is an excuse repeated by people who don't believe in their own ability to succeed.
Setting aside the premise (that I think is extremely dubious but I don't have ready research one way or the other) that all "cognitively normal" people start at the same baseline, are you really going to blame the kid that gets a terrible start (watching cartoons all day) for the fact that the kid got a terrible start? Much of that "terrible start" stuff cannot be overcome, and goes directly back into the "luck" bucket from the perspective of that kid. (The fact that it's attributable to a failure of the parents, or perhaps the fact that both parents are minimum wage workers having to work multiple jobs, or there's just a single parent, or, or, or, has nothing to do with whether it's bad luck from the kid's perspective.)
-
You can also be gifted with a better performing brain (ie higher IQ) - while everyone is born knowing nothing and have to learn everything there is a great variance in each persons ability to learn. Some brains still operate with an abacus and others act like the latest CPU. So don't think for a minute that this doesn't come into play. Also, my personal CPU (brain) may be more suited to math and another may be more suited to art....
I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent. At one hour old, no healthy child is any smarter than any other healthy child.
By the time you start school there are absolutely differences. Some kids will have done four years of Montessori preschool and some will have watched four years of cartoons, but those are also life experiences and not the result of innate talent.
The key point here is to recognize that when a student (or employee) struggles, it is not because they are dumb. We all start out dumb. It is only because they lack the required practice or experiences to achieve subject mastery. I guarantee you that the NFL quarterback has thrown more paases than you before his first day on the job, and run more laps and drills, and spent more time in the weight room than you. He's not "gifted" unless his one-hour-old self showed the same gift. The same is true for efficient computer programmers or kids who breeze through AP chemistry. They all learned and you can too.
Talent is earned. Talent is just skill made to look easy by practice. If you want to be good at something, stand up and put in the hard time instead of lamenting your apparent lack of natural gifts. "I'm not gifted" is an excuse repeated by people who don't believe in their own ability to succeed.
There are definitely genetic factors involved in things like cognitive ability. There have been plenty of studies that have provided evidence supporting that statement.
Here are a few that come to mind:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nn758
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2740717/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4006996/
There are definitely extremely strong influences coming from ones environment as well, but I don't think there is enough evidence to suggest every single cognitively normal baby has an identical baseline cognitive ability and the rest is up to their environment. The last study does a good job of discussing the interaction between genetics and environment, which provides evidence that the better your environment the more important the genetic differences become.
-
You can also be gifted with a better performing brain (ie higher IQ) - while everyone is born knowing nothing and have to learn everything there is a great variance in each persons ability to learn. Some brains still operate with an abacus and others act like the latest CPU. So don't think for a minute that this doesn't come into play. Also, my personal CPU (brain) may be more suited to math and another may be more suited to art....
I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent.
How are you defining this? If you use IQ as a proxy I would imagine one standard deviation from the mean would suffice (85 to 115)? Or do you just mean "not severely damaged brains" in which case it's like everyone above a 70?
It's an interesting claim but I will disagree. I get that people learn in different ways but my experience as a trainer/supervisor provides a good lab setting to watch different people try tasks that are completely new and I would say there are absolutely brain differences within normal brains. Disclaimer: maybe some of the people I've assumed were normal brained people are indeed cognitively below average which would explain the disparate differences in grasping concepts and applying it to work.
-
You can also be gifted with a better performing brain (ie higher IQ) - while everyone is born knowing nothing and have to learn everything there is a great variance in each persons ability to learn. Some brains still operate with an abacus and others act like the latest CPU. So don't think for a minute that this doesn't come into play. Also, my personal CPU (brain) may be more suited to math and another may be more suited to art....
I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent. At one hour old, no healthy child is any smarter than any other healthy child.
By the time you start school there are absolutely differences. Some kids will have done four years of Montessori preschool and some will have watched four years of cartoons, but those are also life experiences and not the result of innate talent.
The key point here is to recognize that when a student (or employee) struggles, it is not because they are dumb. We all start out dumb. It is only because they lack the required practice or experiences to achieve subject mastery. I guarantee you that the NFL quarterback has thrown more paases than you before his first day on the job, and run more laps and drills, and spent more time in the weight room than you. He's not "gifted" unless his one-hour-old self showed the same gift. The same is true for efficient computer programmers or kids who breeze through AP chemistry. They all learned and you can too.
Talent is earned. Talent is just skill made to look easy by practice. If you want to be good at something, stand up and put in the hard time instead of lamenting your apparent lack of natural gifts. "I'm not gifted" is an excuse repeated by people who don't believe in their own ability to succeed.
This doesn't make sense to me. What about high reactive vs. low reactive individuals? Studies suggest this is due to amygdala biology (from birth) and the two groups perceive data differently and interact with their environments very differently. You might argue that a high reactive person technically has the same intelligence as a low reactive person, but their experience in life is going to be drastically different and they are not going to be naturally successful at the same things as a low reactive person, nature vs. nurture. It's the reason I'm on the verge of a nervous breakdown prior to a big speech and my low(er) reactive wife loves it and kicks ass. I *can* give a good speech, but it requires easily 20x more practice than my wife and I have to memorize every word I am going to say, where she can just flow with it and it's 100% natural. She's got better biology for it. It doesn't matter how many speeches I give, that's the way I'm wired.
As for physical ability, I'm not sure you're arguing it but genetics obviously play a huge role in athletic success. Skeletal structure, joint mobility, muscle attachments, coordination. I'll go with something I'm very familiar with and is very obvious - bodybuilding. You can take all the steroids you want and if you train 6 hours a day and never get injured you'll still never look anything like a Schwarzenegger, Coleman, or Wheeler. Because they're just better, and nothing you could ever do in the world would be able to make up for that. Those dudes got lucky in the genetic lottery and took advantage of it.
-
I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent. At one hour old, no healthy child is any smarter than any other healthy child.
By the time you start school there are absolutely differences. Some kids will have done four years of Montessori preschool and some will have watched four years of cartoons, but those are also life experiences and not the result of innate talent.
You are conflating exposure to development opportunities with ability to retain/absorb/learn things. I 100% agree that when comparing people of similar traits, or even those within a reasonable factor (maybe +/- 15% however you measure that), then effort and exposure (environment) matter more. But there genetic makeup (whether intelligence or physical attributes) matter - and a one hour hold baby may appear equal but the DNA would probably suggest otherwise. And keep in mind that the brain isn't fully developed until after teens.
The key point here is to recognize that when a student (or employee) struggles, it is not because they are dumb. We all start out dumb. It is only because they lack the required practice or experiences to achieve subject mastery. I guarantee you that the NFL quarterback has thrown more paases than you before his first day on the job, and run more laps and drills, and spent more time in the weight room than you. He's not "gifted" unless his one-hour-old self showed the same gift. The same is true for efficient computer programmers or kids who breeze through AP chemistry. They all learned and you can too.
Pretty sure I could have thrown 1,000,000 passes a day, every day, and I still wouldn't be quarterback (let alone NFL) material. Sure, I can and do understand the how to throw it, the mechanics, the physics, even the wind.....but for some reason I just couldn't throw it the same way. Also not being 6'4" kind of hurts my chances....and there is the mental. Tom Brady is as good as he is because of practice and ability....he is not the fastest or most athletic. But his processing ability is above all others. Oh yeah...he is 6'4"
Talent is earned. Talent is just skill made to look easy by practice. If you want to be good at something, stand up and put in the hard time instead of lamenting your apparent lack of natural gifts. "I'm not gifted" is an excuse repeated by people who don't believe in their own ability to succeed.
Yes. There are plenty of people out there that wasted their talent (lazy) and/or didn't have the opportunity (environmental exposure). But you are crazy if you think pure ability/talent/genetics play no role.
-
Agree that there *IS* such a thing as talent/genetics/ability. And this matters at the very upper level of performance. See the NFL example below. (Russell Wilson isn't even 6' and has a ring BTW, haha!) Not everyone can perform at that level despite putting in x amount of reps, hours, etc. because EVERYONE at that level is doing the same but is also genetically gifted in some way.
But nearly everyone can perform to a good highschool or state athlete level with a lot of drive, coaching, reps, etc. And I believe making $100k is more analogous to the good highschool/state athlete than it is to the TRULY elite level where you've only got 1700 or so people selected from a population greater than 300 million.
I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent. At one hour old, no healthy child is any smarter than any other healthy child.
By the time you start school there are absolutely differences. Some kids will have done four years of Montessori preschool and some will have watched four years of cartoons, but those are also life experiences and not the result of innate talent.
You are conflating exposure to development opportunities with ability to retain/absorb/learn things. I 100% agree that when comparing people of similar traits, or even those within a reasonable factor (maybe +/- 15% however you measure that), then effort and exposure (environment) matter more. But there genetic makeup (whether intelligence or physical attributes) matter - and a one hour hold baby may appear equal but the DNA would probably suggest otherwise. And keep in mind that the brain isn't fully developed until after teens.
The key point here is to recognize that when a student (or employee) struggles, it is not because they are dumb. We all start out dumb. It is only because they lack the required practice or experiences to achieve subject mastery. I guarantee you that the NFL quarterback has thrown more paases than you before his first day on the job, and run more laps and drills, and spent more time in the weight room than you. He's not "gifted" unless his one-hour-old self showed the same gift. The same is true for efficient computer programmers or kids who breeze through AP chemistry. They all learned and you can too.
Pretty sure I could have thrown 1,000,000 passes a day, every day, and I still wouldn't be quarterback (let alone NFL) material. Sure, I can and do understand the how to throw it, the mechanics, the physics, even the wind.....but for some reason I just couldn't throw it the same way. Also not being 6'4" kind of hurts my chances....and there is the mental. Tom Brady is as good as he is because of practice and ability....he is not the fastest or most athletic. But his processing ability is above all others. Oh yeah...he is 6'4"
Talent is earned. Talent is just skill made to look easy by practice. If you want to be good at something, stand up and put in the hard time instead of lamenting your apparent lack of natural gifts. "I'm not gifted" is an excuse repeated by people who don't believe in their own ability to succeed.
Yes. There are plenty of people out there that wasted their talent (lazy) and/or didn't have the opportunity (environmental exposure). But you are crazy if you think pure ability/talent/genetics play no role.
-
I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent. At one hour old, no healthy child is any smarter than any other healthy child.
Studies on identical twins separated at birth suggest that intellectual function is mostly genetic and highly heritable - specifically, how certain parts of our brain develop (Brocas and Wernickes areas -- which control language development, and the frontal region, which, among other things, plays a huge role in cognition). These specific areas of the brain show a 95-100% correlation between one identical twin and the other – they are essentially the same. Fraternal twins on the other hand, show only a 60-70% correlation.
-
I would disagree about the Talent portion. Take Leo Messi and Christiano Ronaldo for instance. Messi is a natural born talent while Ronaldo put in a shitload of hard work to achieve similar results imo. The two play different styles of the game, but Messi is the one that makes it look effortless.
I'd say that highlight Sol's point, rather than the other way round. Messi lacks many of the natural physical attributes of a great player - he's tiny due to a growth hormone deficiency and gets injured easily.
Messi famously grew up in a family where he played constantly from toddlerhood with his older brothers and his cousins (professional players.) He joined his local club when he was aged 4, where his father was a coach. He joined one of the top Argentinian clubs when he was 6 and his whole family was relocated to Barcelona when he was 11. He's spent pretty much his whole life playing.
-
There is also another element and that is common sense. Some people are full of common sense and some have none whatsoever. How many times have you heard of extremely rich, successful talented people who buy all kinds of luxury items such as mansions here and in Europe, jets, big party boats, luxury cars. Each mansion requires a full staff to take care of inside and ground maintenance. They buy jewels and have hanger on buddies and women who are their best friends that need money. Next thing you know these talented people are broke and work flipping burgers. All their friends are gone too.
Common sense applies to everyone. I have seen people who live from paycheck to paycheck put money into vending machines as soon as they get to work, then for lunch, then for snacks during the day. Probably $10 a day for crap. Instead of planning ahead and pack food for work to avoid the machines. Then they whine they have no money. Then there are the people that get a refund from their taxes and run right to Walmart to spend it rather than put it in a rainy day fund or at the very least stock up on non perishable foods.
-
I think the first step towards earning a $100K + salary is working on your attention to detail and proof-reading. If you don't, you could be stuck in the $100+ salary forever.
-
I think the first step towards earning a $100K + salary is working on your attention to detail and proof-reading. If you don't, you could be stuck in the $100+ salary forever.
I think someone made this joke one each page thus far. Also, I'm not getting paid to post here so tbh idgaf. Thanks for your input.
-
I think the first step towards earning a $100K + salary is working on your attention to detail and proof-reading. If you don't, you could be stuck in the $100+ salary forever.
I think someone made this joke one each page thus far. Also, I'm not getting paid to post here so tbh idgaf. Thanks for your input.
Why would someone even need attention to detail or proofreading when they have a volunteer editorial staff on every forum on the internet? Those people are probably honing their skills so they can make $100k+ doing it professionally. :D
-
I think the first step towards earning a $100K + salary is working on your attention to detail and proof-reading. If you don't, you could be stuck in the $100+ salary forever.
I think someone made this joke one each page thus far. Also, I'm not getting paid to post here so tbh idgaf. Thanks for your input.
There's no need to be snippy when people make jokes, even when they're at your expense.
But you've identified one alternative strategy. If you're not interested in working super hard to raise your salary, maybe you should identify a job that doesn't pay very well but allows you lots of freedom to do whatever you want, like goof off.
Some of us call that job "early retirement" but it usually requires working pretty hard to earn a high salary, first.
-
(responding to this idea more than this particular quote, since several of you expressed the same opinion)
Sure but you can be gifted with more than big hands or being 8 feet tall. You can also be gifted with a better performing brain (ie higher IQ) - while everyone is born knowing nothing and have to learn everything there is a great variance in each persons ability to learn.
I recognize that I'm going to be a minority opinion on this topic, and I'm okay with that.
I think that your "ability to learn" is a learned skill, too, just like everything else. Every baby is born without it. We all have to learn how to do it. I agree there are differences, but those differences are the product of your experiences and not your innate abilities.
In general, everything except your physical traits is a learned skill. Dancing is learned, and there is no "gene" for being a good dancer. Reading is learned. Study skills and deductive reasoning are learned. Persuasive writing is learned. None of these things are abilities you are born with. Every single person has to learn them, and some people learn them more thoroughly than others. The differences are not genetic, they're behavioral.
To believe otherwise is to flirt with racism and eugenics. If you honestly believe that some people are naturally superior to others by virtue of their birthright, then it's not much a stretch to believe that whole genetic classes of people are superior to other genetic classes of people. I think we've collectively put that argument to bed, as a society, by recognizing that "race" is just as much a social construct as it is a biological one. Your genes determine the way you look, not who you are.
Genes code for proteins. That's ALL they do. There is no gene for intelligence, or musical ability, or a love of the sea. These things are entirely environmental, because there is no mechanism for storing them in your DNA. I think most people too easily fall prey to the convenient misconception that their "genes" somehow define them and predetermine their traits and abilities, and that's basically bullshit on every level. You are born with DNA that determines the way your physical body grows, not what you do with it, so if we're talking about something you "do" with your body then we're talking about a learned skill that is not inheritable. If we're talking about what your body "is" then there's probably a genetic component, though even there I think we all recognize that physical traits (like muscle size or endurance or coordination) can be trained over time.
Anytime you look at your own failures and blame your DNA, you're embracing a lame excuse. Your DNA doesn't make you sleep in on Monday mornings and miss work. Your DNA can't make you a bad computer programmer. It can't make you a bad dancer, or a bad reader, or a bad father. That's all on you.
Obviously, I make exceptions for real disabilities. If you're born paralyzed, your ability dance will be impaired. If you're born with Downs Syndrome, your reading and reasoning skills will top out earlier than most.
You are conflating exposure to development opportunities with ability to retain/absorb/learn things.
I'm not conflating them, which implies accidental confusion, I'm deliberately suggesting they are the same thing. Your ability to retain/absorb/learn things is the product of your developmental opportunities. Kids who attend preschool do better in high school, not because they are smarter but because they have learned how to learn at an early stage of their development. Kids who attend 3rd grade football camp are more likely to end up in the NFL, not because they are genetically superior but because they get their fundamentals down early. You can absolutely learn how to learn, by building a base of the required prerequisite skills. That learning starts the day you're born, but we all start from the same place.
-
(responding to this idea more than this particular quote, since several of you expressed the same opinion)
Sure but you can be gifted with more than big hands or being 8 feet tall. You can also be gifted with a better performing brain (ie higher IQ) - while everyone is born knowing nothing and have to learn everything there is a great variance in each persons ability to learn.
I recognize that I'm going to be a minority opinion on this topic, and I'm okay with that.
I think that your "ability to learn" is a learned skill, too, just like everything else. Every baby is born without it. We all have to learn how to do it. I agree there are differences, but those differences are the product of your experiences and not your innate abilities.
In general, everything except your physical traits is a learned skill. Dancing is learned, and there is no "gene" for being a good dancer. Reading is learned. Study skills and deductive reasoning are learned. Persuasive writing is learned. None of these things are abilities you are born with. Every single person has to learn them, and some people learn them more thoroughly than others. The differences are not genetic, they're behavioral.
To believe otherwise is to flirt with racism and eugenics. If you honestly believe that some people are naturally superior to others by virtue of their birthright, then it's not much a stretch to believe that whole genetic classes of people are superior to other genetic classes of people. I think we've collectively put that argument to bed, as a society, by recognizing that "race" is just as much a social construct as it is a biological one. Your genes determine the way you look, not who you are.
Genes code for proteins. That's ALL they do. There is no gene for intelligence, or musical ability, or a love of the sea. These things are entirely environmental, because there is no mechanism for storing them in your DNA. I think most people too easily fall prey to the convenient misconception that their "genes" somehow define them and predetermine their traits and abilities, and that's basically bullshit on every level. You are born with DNA that determines the way your physical body grows, not what you do with it, so if we're talking about something you "do" with your body then we're talking about a learned skill that is not inheritable. If we're talking about what your body "is" then there's probably a genetic component, though even there I think we all recognize that physical traits (like muscle size or endurance or coordination) can be trained over time.
Anytime you look at your own failures and blame your DNA, you're embracing a lame excuse. Your DNA doesn't make you sleep in on Monday mornings and miss work. Your DNA can't make you a bad computer programmer. It can't make you a bad dancer, or a bad reader, or a bad father. That's all on you.
Obviously, I make exceptions for real disabilities. If you're born paralyzed, your ability dance will be impaired. If you're born with Downs Syndrome, your reading and reasoning skills will top out earlier than most.
You are conflating exposure to development opportunities with ability to retain/absorb/learn things.
I'm not conflating them, which implies accidental confusion, I'm deliberately suggesting they are the same thing. Your ability to retain/absorb/learn things is the product of your developmental opportunities. Kids who attend preschool do better in high school, not because they are smarter but because they have learned how to learn at an early stage of their development. Kids who attend 3rd grade football camp are more likely to end up in the NFL, not because they are genetically superior but because they get their fundamentals down early. You can absolutely learn how to learn, by building a base of the required prerequisite skills. That learning starts the day you're born, but we all start from the same place.
You're running into the teeth of scientific research here, so we're not just talking about one opinion vs. another, though the research isn't conclusive. Drawing a line straight to racism and eugenics: people used bad science to go there. That doesn't mean traits aren't inheritable on a genetic level, it means that (a) there's no tie between race and any meaningful non-physical trait and (b) with respect to eugenics, we have decided as a society that it's horrifying to ACT ON IT. I don't think there's a scientific view that it isn't possible to "breed your way to a more intelligent species," it's that we've decided that would be monstrous and so we don't do that.
(Of course, "we" did, in fact, do that, in terms of getting from early primates to humans.)
Stepping away from that aspect of things, though, this distinction that you're drawing between learned skills and innate characteristics isn't a realistic one. A lot of these "learned skills" are going to be "learned," or not, when a kid is way too young to have any influence whatsoever over it. From the kid's perspective, it's just as innate as anything else. If a kid ends up woefully behind in ability to learn, etc., because the kid has inadequate life experiences, that's not on the kid, and only so much of that can reasonably be overcome. So it falls into the luck bucket, right along with innate characteristics.
Absolutely the case that a lot of poor circumstances can be overcome. But if we're talking about baselines, the idea that kid with proper circumstances growing up doesn't start way, way ahead of kid with awful circumstances--in a way that effectively mimics a much higher innate IQ for the fortunate kid--is not realistic.
-
I mean, it's a nice idea and all -- the blank slate concept. I can appreciate it from an idealist standpoint.
But one cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence from scientific studies on twins. Scientists estimate 50% of intelligence is due to genetics.
-
I don't think there's a scientific view that it isn't possible to "breed your way to a more intelligent species," it's that we've decided that would be monstrous and so we don't do that.
(Of course, "we" did, in fact, do that, in terms of getting from early primates to humans.)
The quantum physicist David Deutsch in his book The Beginning of Infinity makes a compelling argument that, in essence, we are already as intelligent as it is possible for an entity to be. We have evolved into entities that are capable of creating explanatory knowledge, what he calls "universal explainers." We can understand anything and everything. This is a capability unique among known life forms, so the difference between us and our evolutionary ancestors (and all extant other forms of life on earth, our evolutionary cousins) is a difference in kind, and not merely a difference in degree. It is not possible, he argues, for there to be aspects of reality that we are qualitatively unable to understand; to say otherwise is a claim that there are aspects of reality that are simply inexplicable--or, in other words, is an appeal to the existence of the supernatural. It follows that it is not possible to breed (or otherwise create) an entity that has more innate intelligence than each of us (with normal cognitive function) already has.
-
Dancing is learned, and there is no "gene" for being a good dancer. Reading is learned. Study skills and deductive reasoning are learned. Persuasive writing is learned. None of these things are abilities you are born with. Every single person has to learn them, and some people learn them more thoroughly than others. The differences are not genetic, they're behavioral.
To believe otherwise is to flirt with racism and eugenics. If you honestly believe that some people are naturally superior to others by virtue of their birthright, then it's not much a stretch to believe that whole genetic classes of people are superior to other genetic classes of people. I think we've collectively put that argument to bed, as a society, by recognizing that "race" is just as much a social construct as it is a biological one.
No flirtation*. I'm 100% fine with other humans having more physical ability and/or better mental faculties than myself regardless of study/training/practice. That doesn't mean I think they deserve more rights/freedoms than I do. Also, if there are people I am "better" than with regard to mental and physical capacities/realities I do not deserve anything different. We're all human. We deserve the same rights by the law and in controlling how our genes are passed/not-passed on to new generations.
*-I guess it depends on your definition of eugenics. As a microcosm, we as individuals already consciously and subconsciously tend to pair with mates that have characteristics we find attractive or at least we do not select mates that we find the least attractive. i.e. On an individual level we are already trying to non-randomly breed with the best characteristics. The 'attractive' characteristics are then more likely to pass on to a new generation and so on. But if this is natural and not state-imposed, I'm not going to say that is anything close to eugenics.
For some reason I feel like watching Idiocracy or reading The Selfish Gene right now...
-
I recognize that I'm going to be a minority opinion on this topic, and I'm okay with that.
No disagreement there.
I think that your "ability to learn" is a learned skill, too, just like everything else. Every baby is born without it. We all have to learn how to do it. I agree there are differences, but those differences are the product of your experiences and not your innate abilities.
The capacity and ability to learn is as innate as it gets, IQ is one measurement. I agree that effort/practice will enhance learning. Tell me you have never been in a class where there was one person that had to study for hours or days on end and there was another that basically absorbed it with little effort? I person with a low IQ can compensate but it will be much more difficult than the person with the high IW>
In general, everything except your physical traits is a learned skill. Dancing is learned, and there is no "gene" for being a good dancer. Reading is learned. Study skills and deductive reasoning are learned. Persuasive writing is learned. None of these things are abilities you are born with. Every single person has to learn them, and some people learn them more thoroughly than others. The differences are not genetic, they're behavioral.
Again, that is not the issue of disagreement. All these things and almost all things are learned skills as you say.....the ability to learn and as an offshoot the predisposition of strengths (left brain vs. right brain/math vs. language) are the disagreement.
To believe otherwise is to flirt with racism and eugenics.
Really? First racism has nothing to do with it - that is bias/prejudice against race and that's it. Has nothing to do with other physical or mental attributes...and certainly not learning or IQ. Eugenics - sure it can be done.
If you honestly believe that some people are naturally superior to others by virtue of their birthright, then it's not much a stretch to believe that whole genetic classes of people are superior to other genetic classes of people. I think we've collectively put that argument to bed, as a society, by recognizing that "race" is just as much a social construct as it is a biological one. Your genes determine the way you look, not who you are.
Yes, I honestly believe that but not for as broadly as you imply...unless we go back to the eugenics part. I absolutely believe that there are classes of people that have genetic superiority for some things but not all things - there are people better at logic, math, strength, sensory, whatever....but the lack or are average in other areas. So not enough to be a dominant class of people. That said, the smartest people are aware of this and engage people of varying strengths to aggregate a class of superiority - some might call it civilization.
Anytime you look at your own failures and blame your DNA, you're embracing a lame excuse. Your DNA doesn't make you sleep in on Monday mornings and miss work. Your DNA can't make you a bad computer programmer. It can't make you a bad dancer, or a bad reader, or a bad father. That's all on you.
Maybe, but it certainly can put a ceiling on many of those things. But now I need to go correct my failures and work hard to become the leading scorer in the NHL, play in next years superbowl, win a nobel prize for some unfounded yet to be thought breakthrough in astrophysics, and excel at salsa. Whew - I am going to be busy for the next 12 months.
Obviously, I make exceptions for real disabilities. If you're born paralyzed, your ability dance will be impaired. If you're born with Downs Syndrome, your reading and reasoning skills will top out earlier than most.
Why would there be exceptions....by your very definition anybody can learn anything, including the ability to learn itself, all it takes is work.
-
If you honestly believe that some people are naturally superior to others by virtue of their birthright, then it's not much a stretch to believe that whole genetic classes of people are superior to other genetic classes of people. I think we've collectively put that argument to bed, as a society, by recognizing that "race" is just as much a social construct as it is a biological one. Your genes determine the way you look, not who you are.
Yes, I honestly believe that but not for as broadly as you imply...unless we go back to the eugenics part. I absolutely believe that there are classes of people that have genetic superiority for some things but not all things - there are people better at logic, math, strength, sensory, whatever....but the lack or are average in other areas. So not enough to be a dominant class of people. That said, the smartest people are aware of this and engage people of varying strengths to aggregate a class of superiority - some might call it civilization.
The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites. I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).
-
The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites. I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).
Do you make the same argument about white hockey players?
Because to my eye, sport specific athletic ability is a cultural phenomenon. Black communities play basketball from an early age, and see it as a viable career path, so they dominate the sport. White communities play at power from an early age, so they are more likely to become lawyers and judges. I don't believe that black people are incapable of being judges or hockey players, and I don't believe that white people are incapable of being basketball players or sprinters. I think these activities, like race itself, are complicated interactions of cultural inertia and not cleanly defined genetic traits. There is always a spectrum, and the correlation between traits and race is an arbitrary division.
I do believe that some ethnicities are more likely to have physical traits that allow them to excel at the highest levels of a physical activity. I don't believe the same is true for mental activity, because the brain is much more strongly controlled by environment than genetics. And remember that this discussion started with a claim that someone was genetically ill suited to computer programming. Bollocks.
-
If you honestly believe that some people are naturally superior to others by virtue of their birthright, then it's not much a stretch to believe that whole genetic classes of people are superior to other genetic classes of people. I think we've collectively put that argument to bed, as a society, by recognizing that "race" is just as much a social construct as it is a biological one. Your genes determine the way you look, not who you are.
Yes, I honestly believe that but not for as broadly as you imply...unless we go back to the eugenics part. I absolutely believe that there are classes of people that have genetic superiority for some things but not all things - there are people better at logic, math, strength, sensory, whatever....but the lack or are average in other areas. So not enough to be a dominant class of people. That said, the smartest people are aware of this and engage people of varying strengths to aggregate a class of superiority - some might call it civilization.
The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites. I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).
-
The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites. I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).
Do you make the same argument about white hockey players?
Because to my eye, sport specific athletic ability is a cultural phenomenon. Black communities play basketball from an early age, and see it as a viable career path, so they dominate the sport. White communities play at power from an early age, so they are more likely to become lawyers and judges. I don't believe that black people are incapable of being judges or hockey players, and I don't believe that white people are incapable of being basketball players or sprinters. I think these activities, like race itself, are complicated interactions of cultural inertia and not cleanly defined genetic traits. There is always a spectrum, and the correlation between traits and race is an arbitrary division.
Agree with this but just when I think you are coming back to reality.....
I do believe that some ethnicities are more likely to have physical traits that allow them to excel at the highest levels of a physical activity. I don't believe the same is true for mental activity, because the brain is much more strongly controlled by environment than genetics. And remember that this discussion started with a claim that someone was genetically ill suited to computer programming. Bollocks.
......You jump right out again. Don't get me wrong, reality is certainly less fun so why you don't to be here.
-
I did not read every post, so am responding to OP.
I have been in the IT field and am a bit over $160K in base at this point.
This is after 25 years in the field, so as some have said, does not happen overnight, thought it did happen for me pretty quickly. I was over $100K in about 7 years.
It takes work. No one is going to pay you that amount of money for long without giving them benefit. Certainly it might be possible to hop jobs every 2-3 years until they figure out you are not worth the money and you need to go fool someone else, but to sustain it it helps to have an excellent work ethic (I work until the job is done, not worry about the clock, but that does not imply working 60+ hours per week. I average 45-50 hours.), excellent communication skills, negotiation skills, and constant learning. I still read multiple books a year about business. My special niche is that I work hard to tie business and IT together. I saw some people talking about being in tech but maxing out at $80-$120K as developers or technicians. That again is because the benefit they provide cannot be leveraged beyond an individual contributor. Best developer in the world can only write so much code in a year. But a solid leader who can replicate their capabilities in business alignment, customer service etc. across a whole team now makes multiple people better and valuable to the organization. In my field I still seem to be a bit of unicorn in being capable of simply and clearly articulating how any project can benefit the organization. Other business executives like that clarity, and they are willing to pay for it. But yes, I know business, accounting, IT, psychology and a few other disciplines pretty well, and it takes a lot of dedication to get to intermediate level or above (that's when you can start to sound competent to someone else in the field that is not your primary) in anything.
I also have moved for jobs a few times, and I saw willingness to move as a way to get there. Could I have done it without that? I think so, but it was certainly less difficult this way. Especially when you are recruited far enough to be offered a relocation package, they do not usually do that for low paying jobs. But it takes a unique skill set to interest someone to also pay $30K+ to move you and your family on top of your salary, so you are back to the paragraph above on how you get there.
So that's how I got there and stay there.
-
The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites. I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).
Do you make the same argument about white hockey players?
Because to my eye, sport specific athletic ability is a cultural phenomenon. Black communities play basketball from an early age, and see it as a viable career path, so they dominate the sport. White communities play at power from an early age, so they are more likely to become lawyers and judges. I don't believe that black people are incapable of being judges or hockey players, and I don't believe that white people are incapable of being basketball players or sprinters. I think these activities, like race itself, are complicated interactions of cultural inertia and not cleanly defined genetic traits. There is always a spectrum, and the correlation between traits and race is an arbitrary division.
I do believe that some ethnicities are more likely to have physical traits that allow them to excel at the highest levels of a physical activity. I don't believe the same is true for mental activity, because the brain is much more strongly controlled by environment than genetics. And remember that this discussion started with a claim that someone was genetically ill suited to computer programming. Bollocks.
Comparing hockey to sprinting isn't a valid comparison, in my opinion. I think sprinting speed is more of a natural trait (which can also be improved upon with training) while sports (like hockey, basketball, or any other sport) are a combination of skills and natural traits. However, sports are a lot easier to play if you also have the right traits. I don't think black kids are so much better at basketball simply because they spend that much more time practicing than white kids. To me, it's crazy to think that genetics doesn't play a role in this. I played basketball until the sun went down growing up, but I was never going to be as good as the kids who were faster and taller than me.
-
The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites. I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).
Do you make the same argument about white hockey players?
Because to my eye, sport specific athletic ability is a cultural phenomenon. Black communities play basketball from an early age, and see it as a viable career path, so they dominate the sport. White communities play at power from an early age, so they are more likely to become lawyers and judges. I don't believe that black people are incapable of being judges or hockey players, and I don't believe that white people are incapable of being basketball players or sprinters. I think these activities, like race itself, are complicated interactions of cultural inertia and not cleanly defined genetic traits. There is always a spectrum, and the correlation between traits and race is an arbitrary division.
I do believe that some ethnicities are more likely to have physical traits that allow them to excel at the highest levels of a physical activity. I don't believe the same is true for mental activity, because the brain is much more strongly controlled by environment than genetics. And remember that this discussion started with a claim that someone was genetically ill suited to computer programming. Bollocks.
Comparing hockey to sprinting isn't a valid comparison, in my opinion. I think sprinting speed is more of a natural trait (which can also be improved upon with training) while sports (like hockey, basketball, or any other sport) are a combination of skills and natural traits. However, sports are a lot easier to play if you also have the right traits. I don't think black kids are so much better at basketball simply because they spend that much more time practicing than white kids. To me, it's crazy to think that genetics doesn't play a role in this. I played basketball until the sun went down growing up, but I was never going to be as good as the kids who were faster and taller than me.
I mean, I played a lot of volleyball in my day. Practiced a ton, was pretty good at it too. Fast, accurate and all that.
But in the end...I'm still 5'2". Even with nice big thighs and a good vertical...at the end of the day, I'm still 5'2".
-
The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites. I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).
Do you make the same argument about white hockey players?
Because to my eye, sport specific athletic ability is a cultural phenomenon. Black communities play basketball from an early age, and see it as a viable career path, so they dominate the sport. White communities play at power from an early age, so they are more likely to become lawyers and judges. I don't believe that black people are incapable of being judges or hockey players, and I don't believe that white people are incapable of being basketball players or sprinters. I think these activities, like race itself, are complicated interactions of cultural inertia and not cleanly defined genetic traits. There is always a spectrum, and the correlation between traits and race is an arbitrary division.
I do believe that some ethnicities are more likely to have physical traits that allow them to excel at the highest levels of a physical activity. I don't believe the same is true for mental activity, because the brain is much more strongly controlled by environment than genetics. And remember that this discussion started with a claim that someone was genetically ill suited to computer programming. Bollocks.
There have been a least a couple studies on this. They found that blacks tend to have longer legs (higher waists) for a given overall body height. They also tend to have a smaller limb cross section. This translates into a higher center of gravity. And because sprinting is basically a controlled fall, a higher center of gravity means the legs have a higher turnover (to "control" the fall), so blacks have a natural speed advantage. And because whites have a longer torso for a given overall body height, this gives them an advantage in competitive swimming - because swimming is basically riding a wave and a longer torso makes this more effective.
Anyway, I'm still hung up on introvert vs. extrovert, or high reactive vs. low reactive. These are demonstrable traits that you are born with and can't change. So right there we have differences in the brains of individuals from birth. I admit I've been reading these posts a bit slack jawed.
-
Ignoring genetic aspects that now seem to be the primary point of the thread, it takes a willingness to continue to apply your strengths. This site has a lot of accounting/IT/Engineer types, so good at math, willing to put in the effort to continue to learn more about how things work and put the time into solving problems. If you want a good salary, this is probably needed. If you want to really make money, you should own a business or several.
Personally I'm ~$250k-$300k in total comp annually in a technical leadership role (employee of a large company). Being a bit vague to preserve my anonymity: My skill is that I understand what the tech people do, I understand the business, and I can explain to business people how applying what the tech people do will make them more money, and I couple that with detailed timeframes, investment costs and tracking reports so they can visualize the payoff early after delivery. I started my career at $35k 20 years ago. I was always able to speak to the business people, so once I got all the credentialing I needed, I ended up in management. I don't do much if any tech work anymore, but I continually monitor multiple work streams, approve governmental regulatory submissions where its my name on the form, keep up my continuing education and maintain client relationships. I work an average day of 8am-6pm including a working lunch and 1-2 hours every weekend, not counting the random emails I get about this or that topic which require immediate replies. When I started my day was 6:30 to 3:30 at the office, followed by 2-3 hours of industry related study each night. I did that for the first 10 years or so. Now I get most of my education through conferences and reading while traveling and through my clients.
-
megapost incoming...
People that don't acknowledge the significant role luck and genetics plays are fooling themselves (and others, often enough).
I acknowledge that luck plays a huge role. In general, I think the role played by genetics is vastly overstated.
Let's review what your DNA does: it tells your body what proteins to produce. That's it. There is a protein that makes eyes blue, so there's a gene for that. There is no protein for being tall, so there is no gene for that. Height, like intelligence, is the result of the complicated interplay between thousands of different genes (and epigenetic factors) and your environment, specifically your childhood nutrition, sleep, and hormone levels and the way they all alter gene expression. The DNA is just the blueprint. The child of the two tallest people on the planet will not grow up tall if you starve him. Environment and experience absolutely count for height and intelligence WAY more than they count for eye color, because eye color is genetically determined and height and intelligence are only genetically available, not specified. Individuals can fall far outside of their parental average, for all kinds of reasons.
One of which is luck. When I started out by saying that talent is finely honed skill, I meant talent for things that can be learned. Having blue eyes is not a talent. Being good at math is a talent, but it is a talent that anyone can learn with enough dedicated practice, because it is a learned skill. There is no genetic component to mathematical ability. If your brain works like an average brain, you can learn math.
A baby has blue eyes on day one. That's genetics. He is not good at music or cooking or sailing on day one, because those are all learned skills. There is no way for protein synthesis to make you good at music or cooking or sailing, so they have no genetic component. This makes the test easy; can you identify the trait when the person is an hour old? If not, it's probably not genetic.
There are some things I've done that I learned incredibly quickly. Horseback riding and fencing come to mind.
I don't dispute that people learn different skills at different rates. I'm arguing that how quickly you learn a skill is entirely based on how well you have previously mastered the prerequisite skills that come before. You're going to learn to unicycle much faster if you're already competent on a bike and a tightrope. You're going to learn the oboe much faster if you're already practiced at cello and piano. For basic coordination skills like fencing, how quickly you learn in grade school is largely based on how much time you spent play sword fighting on playgrounds as a toddler. Ever meet a 15 year old kid who can't throw a football? Did you think it was because his genes prevented him from learning? I think it's because he never spent a thousand hours throwing footballs.
are you really going to blame the kid that gets a terrible start (watching cartoons all day) for the fact that the kid got a terrible start? Much of that "terrible start" stuff cannot be overcome, and goes directly back into the "luck" bucket from the perspective of that kid.
Of course I do not blame the unlucky kid who got a bad start. I also don't blame his genetics. I blame his experiences, which in the case of this example are unlucky ones.
my experience as a trainer/supervisor provides a good lab setting to watch different people try tasks that are completely new and I would say there are absolutely brain differences within normal brains.
NO TASK is completely new. Everything you've ever done is based on something you've done or seen before, or you wouldn't know how to try it.
I've taught over a hundred different people how to juggle. Some of them learned quick, some of them learned slow, but everyone with two working arms can learn. How quickly you learn is based on how comfortable you are with balls, which generally means kids who played a ballsport in school learn quick and kids who didn't learn slow. Baseball players learn faster than lacrosse players, who learn faster than kids from the band, who learn faster than kids who only watch cartoons. There is always a foundation of required skills that you have to master before you can move on to something new.
This is how pedagogy works. If you have a student who doesn't understand math facts, they are going to struggle with algebra. If he can't do algebra, he won't get trig. Without trig he'll fail calculus. But if you find a kid who is failing calculus, that doesn't mean he was born genetically incapable of doing calculus. It means his teachers failed to give him the required building blocks to help him along the required path. You can just give him an F and say he's dumb, but a better answer is to find out where his deficiencies are and address those first, then later you can come back to calculus if necessary.
The same process is true for anything you learn, including being an NFL quarterback. The fact that some people get there faster is entirely due to their particular developmental pathway. They got the fundamentals down right the first time, early, with lots of reps and professional guidance, and that allowed them to move on to footwork and reads and play calling. No baby is ever born knowing how to call plays. Everyone learns. Because there is no protein that codes for play calling ability, there is no genetic component to play calling ability. If you are a "talented" play caller who makes it look easy, it is only because you are incredibly skilled. Not because of your DNA. Talent is earned, not born.
bodybuilding. You can take all the steroids you want and if you train 6 hours a day and never get injured you'll still never look anything like a Schwarzenegger, Coleman, or Wheeler. Because they're just better, and nothing you could ever do in the world would be able to make up for that. Those dudes got lucky in the genetic lottery and took advantage of it.
I'm not sure bodybuilding is a skill, and so I don't think you can be talented at it. You might as well have a "who's tallest" contest. Genes matter in physical traits, not learned skills, and even then they are strongly influenced by environment (in this case diet, training, and roids).
I don't remember the research supporting the presupposition that all morphologically normal infant brains are the same and have the exact same plasticity.
Did I say that? I said talent isn't genetic, and that newborn babies have no skills.
I agree that newborns are not born with identical plasticity. If your momma does crack, you're starting out at a handicap. I don't blame genetics for that, I blame your (prenatal) environment just like I do for most everything else about your brain.
Brains are incredibly complicated. They evolve and adapt over time in response to your environment WAY more dramatically than a bodybuilder's physique does to his. Kids kept locked up in cages turn out stunted, even if they are born with totally normal brains. Kids born to crack moms can turn out totally normal, with the right care. Even people who sustain massive head trauma can adapt entirely new pathways to work around the missing portions of their brains, just like some crash victims can learn to walk again. Masai warrior kids raised in NYC develop a NYC accent and taste in music. Your brain is probably the least genetically predetermined thing about you!
Tom Brady is as good as he is because of practice and ability....he is not the fastest or most athletic. But his processing ability is above all others. Oh yeah...he is 6'4"
Right! He's talented because he works hard, not because he was born that way. Ask Michael Jordan what he thinks about the role of hard work in his success. The role of genetics is vastly overstated by the general public, who mostly don't really understand what DNA is or what it does anyway.
Brady's talent is earned, with practice, not born to him. So is Russel Wilson's, and his early career stats are eclipsing Brady's even though he's only 5'11".
Studies on identical twins separated at birth suggest that intellectual function is mostly genetic and highly heritable
Twin research is seriously suspect, not least because it is blatantly unethical to do the experiments correctly. Separated twins still share identical environments for at least 9 months, and usually longer, and are then most commonly raised in very similar circumstances, in terms of language and education and prosperity, if for no other reason that we don't let Australian aborigines adopt white babies from Ohio. The sample sizes in twin studies are so laughably small as to make any conclusions little more than WAGs. Several of the most well known practitioners are well known racists who used their work to support ridiculous ideas about white superiority. But the work is still sexy and the ideas reinforce our own latent stereotypes, which is why you seem them in popular science articles whenever one comes out.
Color me unimpressed, when it comes to twin studies. Don't be fooled just because you saw it on Oprah.
You're running into the teeth of scientific research here,
How do you figure? I have yet to see any reputable science that reliably ties skills learned as an adult to a person's DNA.
Remember that we're talking about "talent" here, not eye color. I know that physical traits are heritable, but skills are not traits. Skills are learned. When you look at an Olympic athlete and say "Wow she's really talented" what you are really saying is that this person makes their skill look effortless, which is because she's practiced it an insane amount of time. She wasn't born good at gymnastics. Anyone can learn.
You don't look at an 85 pound 15 year old girl with no gymnastics training and call her talented, even if she is an identical twin with a gold medalist. Her physical size and shape are not talents.
Stepping away from that aspect of things, though, this distinction that you're drawing between learned skills and innate characteristics isn't a realistic one. A lot of these "learned skills" are going to be "learned," or not, when a kid is way too young to have any influence whatsoever over it. From the kid's perspective, it's just as innate as anything else.
I think the distinction is still absolutely sound. I'm not ascribing blame to it, just describing it.
I don't blame a kid who wasn't taught how to read. I'm saying that his inability to read is not because he's genetically incapable of it. His talent for reading is entirely a product of his life experiences, not his protein synthesis as dictated by his DNA.
Racists believe it's his DNA. They spent three centuries arguing that black people were designed by God to be strong but subservient, that they were too dumb to learn to read through no fault of their own and nothing could ever be done about it. They couldn't be taught anything except manual labor, because their heritage predetermined their abilities. Can we all now agree that's total bullshit? Even after centuries of unnatural selection through forced eugenics programs (aka breeding), black people can still learn to read! And do other smart people stuff! The human mind is remarkably responsive to developmental environment.
The difference is that a man raised in slavery may struggle to learn to read as an adult, but his children will be totally fine if they are raised correctly. The son's "talent" for reading is 100% environmentally determined, not genetically determined. The talent is earned by practice. You are not born with it or without it.
I'm shocked that anyone would seriously disagree with that assessment in 2018. 2017 (nazis!) made it a little more believable, unfortunately, but still upsetting.
The capacity and ability to learn is as innate as it gets, IQ is one measurement.
I don't think so. I think that early early childhood cognitive development is hugely influenced by things most people don't even think about, like how much parents speak with their baby, and how much time a baby spends crawling/climbing/running instead of sitting/laying, and exposure to properly balanced nutrients and environmental contaminants (don't eat paint chips, kids), and how much time is spent playing with other kids vs watching tv. I agree that there are differences in the ability to learn (not the same thing as what an IQ test measures, of course), I just think most parents are taking the easy and reassuringly pleasant cop-out by assuming their actions don't matter. Everything matters! Every time you tell your kid to go away so you can play on your phone you're cognitively impairing your child's development. Every time you serve McDonalds for dinner you're impacting the way their body grows.
Your DNA is given to you, so it is innate. But it's just the book of possible blueprints, not the finished product. How you live absolutely determines which page you're using to build your body and mind. The fact that you personally have little control over many of these early life decisions does not mean the page was irrevocably chosen at conception.
I agree that effort/practice will enhance learning. Tell me you have never been in a class where there was one person that had to study for hours or days on end and there was another that basically absorbed it with little effort?
I used to be that kid!
So of course I have. So has my 14 year old who got a D on his first honors chemistry test and then came home and told me he was dumb because his buddy John is just naturally smart and he got an A on the same test. Then he spent two months studying chemistry every night, and now my kid has an A and John has a B+, and suddenly the idea of "talent" makes a lot more sense to my son. Talent is earned with practice. It is not god-given. It is not destiny. It is the product of your life choices and experiences.
John got an A on his first chem test because John's parents used to drill him on science last year, so he had a good foundation of prerequisite skills. My son wasn't as far along that path yet, and now he is. He made up the difference with effort. He learned chemistry, and in the process learned that talent can be acquired.
He went through the exact same process when he first joined the swim team. Slowest kid in the pool, came home and told me he'll never be any good because there were kids two years younger than him who turned in faster times. A year later he's put in a thousand hours at the pool and his time are dropping with every single meet, and he's no longer the slowest kid in the pool. As it turns out, hard work pays off! His 14-year-old mind is blown.
He no longer blames his genetics for a bad lap time or a D on a chemistry test, and you shouldn't either. You are not a bad computer programmer because you are dumb, you are bad because you haven't yet learned how to be as good as someone else who HAS learned it. Don't passively accept your fate as if it cannot be changed, and don't blame your supposed bad luck for not being talented. Do the work. Get talented through practice. You (and here I mean the generic you) can learn.
To tie this back in to the topic at hand, don't believe anyone here who tells you can't earn $100k/yr if you're not naturally suited to it. You are naturally suited to any damn thing you decide to be suited to. You get to pick what kind of person you are, and what kind of jobs you like. Nobody in America is destined to be poor, and the idea that a person is incapable of success because of the their birthright seems pretty offensive to modern American ideals.
-
Replying to a few different people so I won't quote anyone in particular.
First I'll start with whoever was talking about officers that make around 100K in the NYC suburbs..The price of living in the northeast is obviously crazy and it is fairly obvious that the 100K goes a lot further down here in LCOL Texas.
On the sweet/fun part: The job is awesome! In 10 years I have worked Patrol, Gangs, and now Human Trafficking. I get paid what I consider way too much to investigate crimes and put really bad people in jail for decades. I get to use intelligence, people skills, acting and outside of the box thinking plus I do not have anyone micromanaging me, which is a plus. Add in the fact that I get 4 weeks of vacation time that I have to use every year, plus another 6 weeks of vacation time that if I don't use keep accruing and it's super sweet. Add in that at 25 years on the job (I'll be 47), I get paid 55% of my salary for the rest of my life and then I just feel spoiled.
I'm sure you work hard and also in a dangerous profession, thank you.
But if anyone wonders why goverments are broke, just look at this.
He get's paid a high wage for working an 80% schedule, 10 paid weeks (off).
He didn't say, but gov jobs usually have a great health insurance plan.
And then to support him with 55% of his salary for what could easily be 35 years probably
with health insurance, when he has paid nothing into it, is just legislators giving away
other peoples money, Taxpayers money.
/rant is over/
The typical sheriff or fire department retiree in our county retires after 30 years. That's age 50-55, and their pensions are around $180-240k a year, when you add up pension + medical care. Often these guys are retired and collecting pensions for longer than they were working. It's nuts. Mostly because they are underfunded, and we have to cut county and city services to pay for them.
Has to change, and pretty quickly!
This is what I was hinting at. In my city, the police force eats up one third of the city's entire annual budget. Here's the rub: they believe they are being unfairly treated because the police force should get 50% of the budget. I can't even...
Related story: my friend's husband graduated from Harvard Kennedy School. One of his classmates is the City Manager of a nearby town. Recently they had a conversation (as related by my friend), along the lines of how they'd done everything wrong. If they'd only joined the Fire or Police Department right out of high school or a couple years of junior college, they'd be retired by now and collecting nice, guaranteed pensions with full benefits. Sad, but probably true.
-
To tie this back in to the topic at hand, don't believe anyone here who tells you can't earn $100k/yr if you're not naturally suited to it. You are naturally suited to any damn thing you decide to be suited to. You get to pick what kind of person you are, and what kind of jobs you like. Nobody in America is destined to be poor, and the idea that a person is incapable of success because of the their birthright seems pretty offensive to modern American ideals.
This! I grew up in a poor area and spent several years working for myself in a tiny, remote ski town (=long stretches of time with no income). We had a low to moderate income so when we rejoined the real world and had to get jobs in a bigger tourist area (small beach city) I had no idea what to expect and figured only the few make high salaries. We started out fairly low $40k each, but I lucked into a job with a consulting company 2 years later at $75k. Each year I got the max raise allowed and got promoted. I'm now at $100k plus bonus and have received bonuses every single year, even years that company wide bonuses were not paid. I saved them $2M by changing the way we do business in my small area? You bet leadership knew about it. I could make more if I switched jobs, but working from home is invaluable to me. I have a degree and work in recruiting. I'm amazed at how high salaries are in recruiting in some industries, primarily pharma and consulting.
-
I'm returning to my main tech career path (at least for the moment) after an adventure in consulting and an attempted startup, currently making about $120k. That's right where I was ~4 years ago when I decided I needed to make a change.
How I got there was a bit convoluted. I have a BS in Psychology from a small liberal arts college, with a double major in Philosophy and minors in physical sciences, Theology, and Women's Studies. (My classmates said I had a BS in BS). I had no idea what I wanted to do when I grew up, partly due to being good at everything I had tried (paradox of choice) and also being completely ignorant about what options were out there, I think due to growing up in a poor area and never even meeting a wealthy person who wasn't a doctor or lawyer.
I started out in public policy, doing statistical analysis of prison data for the Texas criminal justice system. This mostly involved programming, which I found I had a knack for, and so moved into the programming team. This was in 1998, when anyone who could write HTML could get a job as a programmer. Being able to actually code put me in demand -- but I was still working in the government, so pay was low. Around this time I got homesick for Buffalo. That led to jobs in tech support, network administration, and then project management. My salary really didn't take off until then, but was still only $50k or so, until I moved into people management on the technical side of things. That turned out to be where the real value of my skillset came in. Like @caracarn I'm able to communicate the value of IT to the business side, and also to straddle the line between software development and IT, which is the frontier of process improvement nowadays (devops, anyone?).
My limiting factor, though, has been an unwillingness to relocate in pursuit of more money and higher ladder rungs. Well, at least since 2003 or so. Part of this is due to my desire to maintain family connections, and part is due to a true affection for this region. The time I spent in Austin and DC were fun, but served to reinforce my decision to remain here.
That being said, I'm at something of an inflection point, career-wise, and thinking about options. Knowing that I can pull in six figures here in a reasonably LCOL (aside from NY's taxes) is comforting, but the idea that I'm leaving money on the table that would accelerate FIRE makes me think.
Tl;DR, you can get into IT with even the most liberal arts of degrees -- or none at all, and make 6 figures in a cheaper market. It might take a while to get there, though, if you don't want to move to where the jobs are.
-
There are actually people here that think genetics don't impact a person's ability to learn?? I'll go let my cousin know that.. unfortunately, he won't understand what I'm saying because genetics cursed him with a brain unable to learn or progress past about a 1st grade level.
Other people have much higher mental capacities including their innate ability to learn. Some get it to an "average" degree, some get it to a large degree, and some (like my cousin) have very little ability to learn because of their genetics.
I challenge anyone to teach my cousin to juggle. Get back to me after you've given up....
-
To tie this back in to the topic at hand, don't believe anyone here who tells you can't earn $100k/yr if you're not naturally suited to it. You are naturally suited to any damn thing you decide to be suited to. You get to pick what kind of person you are, and what kind of jobs you like. Nobody in America is destined to be poor, and the idea that a person is incapable of success because of the their birthright seems pretty offensive to modern American ideals.
This! I grew up in a poor area and spent several years working for myself in a tiny, remote ski town (=long stretches of time with no income). We had a low to moderate income so when we rejoined the real world and had to get jobs in a bigger tourist area (small beach city) I had no idea what to expect and figured only the few make high salaries. We started out fairly low $40k each, but I lucked into a job with a consulting company 2 years later at $75k. Each year I got the max raise allowed and got promoted. I'm now at $100k plus bonus and have received bonuses every single year, even years that company wide bonuses were not paid. I saved them $2M by changing the way we do business in my small area? You bet leadership knew about it. I could make more if I switched jobs, but working from home is invaluable to me. I have a degree and work in recruiting. I'm amazed at how high salaries are in recruiting in some industries, primarily pharma and consulting.
I agree. I think its downright hard not to be able to make $100k at some point throughout your career. Your willingness to work, learn, move, etc. are all that is needed. When I hire junior people I basically tell them just by showing up you are almost guaranteed to get into the top 20% of household income (which is a bit above $100k) at some point. Put in some work and effort, be personable and respectful then top 10% is pretty easy, be a little more political and strategic then top 5% is fairly achievable. After that it becomes exponentially more difficult but not impossible to move up the percentages.
-
There are actually people here that think genetics don't impact a person's ability to learn?
To be fair, I'm not 100% convinced that sol isn't just a sentient right-wing caricature of a leftist.
-
I challenge anyone to teach my cousin to juggle. Get back to me after you've given up....
Leave your armless cousin out of this!!! :)
-
I think its downright hard not to be able to make $100k at some point throughout your career.
Wait, what about people who lack the genetic makeup that codes for a six-figure-earner phenotype?
There are actually people here that think genetics don't impact a person's ability to learn?
To be fair, I'm not 100% convinced that sol isn't just a sentient right-wing caricature of a leftist.
To be even fairer, jlcnuke is clearly arguing against a strawman position that neither sol nor anyone else in this thread actually adopted.
-
I'll go let my cousin know that.. unfortunately, he won't understand what I'm saying because genetics cursed him with a brain unable to learn or progress past about a 1st grade level.
I have relatives with a variety of genetic disabilities, like extra chromosomes. I think I've made sufficient allowances in this discussion for people like that. Also people born paralyzed, who will find it harder to learn to dance. I'm not talking about disabilities, I'm talking about the abilities of average people being vastly underestimated by virtually everyone. For those folks, their genetics just aren't nearly as important as most people believe.
Remember that genetics confers physical traits. Only. They are the protein instruction sheet, but how your body reads and interprets and implements that sheet is not set in stone. Your body responds to your environment, and your mind responds even more dramatically than that. Different genes are turned on and off over the course of your life. Some are expressed more strongly than others for reasons not contained in your DNA. And, most importantly to my point, most of things that people tried to blame on genetics two pages ago (like computer programming ability) are not encoded in genetics at all. They are learned skills, and there is no mechanisms for storing learned skills in your DNA. It just doesn't work that way.
Some scientists USED to believe that, I suppose. Before Darwin, there was a serious argument that giraffes had long necks because mommy and daddy giraffe stretched their necks over their lifetimes and then passed that stretchiness on to their children. We now know that genetics doesn't work that way. Your lifetime of accumulated experiences/skills/traits is not passed on to your children based on your lifestyle, it is only passed on in the genes you inherited from your own parents. You can not make your children stronger by working out before they are born. Trait selection is 100% based on mate selection.
-
I agree that effort/practice will enhance learning. Tell me you have never been in a class where there was one person that had to study for hours or days on end and there was another that basically absorbed it with little effort?
I used to be that kid!
So of course I have. So has my 14 year old who got a D on his first honors chemistry test and then came home and told me he was dumb because his buddy John is just naturally smart and he got an A on the same test. Then he spent two months studying chemistry every night, and now my kid has an A and John has a B+, and suddenly the idea of "talent" makes a lot more sense to my son. Talent is earned with practice. It is not god-given. It is not destiny. It is the product of your life choices and experiences.
John got an A on his first chem test because John's parents used to drill him on science last year, so he had a good foundation of prerequisite skills. My son wasn't as far along that path yet, and now he is. He made up the difference with effort. He learned chemistry, and in the process learned that talent can be acquired.
He went through the exact same process when he first joined the swim team. Slowest kid in the pool, came home and told me he'll never be any good because there were kids two years younger than him who turned in faster times. A year later he's put in a thousand hours at the pool and his time are dropping with every single meet, and he's no longer the slowest kid in the pool. As it turns out, hard work pays off! His 14-year-old mind is blown.
He no longer blames his genetics for a bad lap time or a D on a chemistry test, and you shouldn't either. You are not a bad computer programmer because you are dumb, you are bad because you haven't yet learned how to be as good as someone else who HAS learned it. Don't passively accept your fate as if it cannot be changed, and don't blame your supposed bad luck for not being talented. Do the work. Get talented through practice. You (and here I mean the generic you) can learn.
Again the argument is not that work/effort isn't needed.....even for gifted people. Slower people just have to work harder, but if the genetically talented person who has a higher learning ability applies just the same effort as the slower person, then they will excel more than the other person. So your son who had to work really hard to get the A compared to the higher learning student who got a B doing nothing - it stands to reason that the B student with effort would easily get an A and more likely would be in an honors or accelerated class so your son wouldn't even have the comparison. In some regard, the smarter students underperformance created drive in your son.
I really need to exit this as I am worried you will start trying to convince me the world is flat.
-
....I'm talking about the abilities of average people being vastly underestimated by virtually everyone. For those folks, their genetics just aren't nearly as important as most people believe.
Focus on this....if you compare average people with average people then yes the genetic predisposition doesn't come into play. So you are saying a person with an IQ of 90-110 who works hard will out perform a person with an IQ of 90-110 who doesn't.....got it, we agree then. Then there is the above average and gifted people - but still same concept, a person with an above average IQ of 150 who works hard will outperform a person with an above average IQ of 150 who doesn't work hard. We should be able to agree on that too.
So the disagreement is that given same effort and circumstance you don't believe a person of average IQ 90-110 will under perform a person with an IQ of 150......and sir is preposterous.
-
Slower people just have to work harder, but if the genetically talented person who has a higher learning ability applies just the same effort as the slower person, then they will excel more than the other person.
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll just highlight that these two kids are not, themselves, smart or dumb or slow or fast. These are not attributes of their identity, these are descriptor of how well they have learned a specific skill set. Racists tend to believe that success and failure are god-given destinies that define who you are, rather than something you earn.
How much effort you have to put in order to get an A in chemistry is very much like how much effort you have to put in to run a 12k race. If you are grossly out of shape, the race will be hard for you. This does not mean you "can't" do it as an integral and unchangeable feature of your character, it means you haven't been training for the past year to get in shape for it. If you had been training, you could run it. Every biologically normal healthy person can run a 12k. Some of them just need years and years of training to lose 300 pounds first, and some of them could do it today because they've already put in years of training.
And just like with the 12k being good prep for a marathon, a kid who has been training on high school chemistry knowledge will be a in a better position to then train on a topic like mineralogy, which is heavily based on chemistry. If he learns mineralogy easily, it is not because he is gifted but because he has put in the time to get himself to the place where he is adequately prepared to take the next step. If he doesn't learn it easily, it is not because his genes have held him back. It is because his experiences held him back.
The same argument applies all the way down to babies. You don't learn chemistry without knowing how to read, you don't learn reading without letters, you don't learn letters without singing the alphabet song, you don't learn to sing without playing with your parents and friends. At each step, there is a required skill that must be mastered first. This is the fundamental underpinning of all modern educational research. We learn best when we are best prepared for it. Preparation comes from other learning.
So when you talk about "higher learning ability" what I see is "better foundational preparation" and what a racist see is "superior white genes". Which are you?
Blaming genetics for differences in learning ability is to support the antiquated notion that some classes of people deserve their poverty because they are born inferior, instead of recognizing that their poverty is the result of systemic discrepancies in opportunity and experiences. Kids from Detroit, as a class, don't get lower test scores than kids from Seattle because of their genes. They get lower test scores because they have not been afforded the same chances that kids from Seattle have. If you could covertly swap every kid in Seattle with a kid in Detroit on the day of their birth, the outcomes in each city would not change much.
-
I'll go let my cousin know that.. unfortunately, he won't understand what I'm saying because genetics cursed him with a brain unable to learn or progress past about a 1st grade level.
I have relatives with a variety of genetic disabilities, like extra chromosomes. I think I've made sufficient allowances in this discussion for people like that. Also people born paralyzed, who will find it harder to learn to dance. I'm not talking about disabilities, I'm talking about the abilities of average people being vastly underestimated by virtually everyone. For those folks, their genetics just aren't nearly as important as most people believe.
Remember that genetics confers physical traits. Only. They are the protein instruction sheet, but how your body reads and interprets and implements that sheet is not set in stone. Your body responds to your environment, and your mind responds even more dramatically than that. Different genes are turned on and off over the course of your life. Some are expressed more strongly than others for reasons not contained in your DNA. And, most importantly to my point, most of things that people tried to blame on genetics two pages ago (like computer programming ability) are not encoded in genetics at all. They are learned skills, and there is no mechanisms for storing learned skills in your DNA. It just doesn't work that way.
Some scientists USED to believe that, I suppose. Before Darwin, there was a serious argument that giraffes had long necks because mommy and daddy giraffe stretched their necks over their lifetimes and then passed that stretchiness on to their children. We now know that genetics doesn't work that way. Your lifetime of accumulated experiences/skills/traits is not passed on to your children based on your lifestyle, it is only passed on in the genes you inherited from your own parents. You can not make your children stronger by working out before they are born. Trait selection is 100% based on mate selection.
To be fair, I'm not 100% convinced that sol isn't just a sentient right-wing caricature of a leftist.
Based on our previous discussions, it does not surprise me to learn that Mississippi Mudstache believes that a person's DNA determines their destiny. We have a long history of me being publicly appalled by MM's blatant racism. I will wear those insults as a point of pride, considering the source. I also enjoy using science to make the KKK angry, on occasion.
There is scientific evidence that genetics do store knowledge/skills in some species (including humans) and generally referred to as "genetic memory" iirc, and those scientist's work (such as Dr. Darold Treffert, Dr. Steven Pinker, Brian Butterworth, Nobel Prize winner Marshall Nivenberg, etc) directly refutes your assertion to the contrary. Now, if your credentials in the study of human genetics and learning exceed those of people with accolades such as a multiple PHd's in associated fields, actually being a professor of cognitive neuropsychology and related fields, a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, etc....please let me know so I can consider your opinion just as valid as those of people who have such accolades.
I am, additionally, saying that the innate learning capacity of one person can be such that they never are able to learn "XYZ" concept, regardless of their environment/conditioning/etc. simply because their mind doesn't have the capacity to understand it.
-
my experience as a trainer/supervisor provides a good lab setting to watch different people try tasks that are completely new and I would say there are absolutely brain differences within normal brains.
NO TASK is completely new. Everything you've ever done is based on something you've done or seen before, or you wouldn't know how to try it.
I've taught over a hundred different people how to juggle. Some of them learned quick, some of them learned slow, but everyone with two working arms can learn. How quickly you learn is based on how comfortable you are with balls, which generally means kids who played a ballsport in school learn quick and kids who didn't learn slow. Baseball players learn faster than lacrosse players, who learn faster than kids from the band, who learn faster than kids who only watch cartoons. There is always a foundation of required skills that you have to master before you can move on to something new.
This is how pedagogy works. If you have a student who doesn't understand math facts, they are going to struggle with algebra. If he can't do algebra, he won't get trig. Without trig he'll fail calculus. But if you find a kid who is failing calculus, that doesn't mean he was born genetically incapable of doing calculus. It means his teachers failed to give him the required building blocks to help him along the required path. You can just give him an F and say he's dumb, but a better answer is to find out where his deficiencies are and address those first, then later you can come back to calculus if necessary.
The same process is true for anything you learn, including being an NFL quarterback. The fact that some people get there faster is entirely due to their particular developmental pathway. They got the fundamentals down right the first time, early, with lots of reps and professional guidance, and that allowed them to move on to footwork and reads and play calling. No baby is ever born knowing how to call plays. Everyone learns. Because there is no protein that codes for play calling ability, there is no genetic component to play calling ability. If you are a "talented" play caller who makes it look easy, it is only because you are incredibly skilled. Not because of your DNA. Talent is earned, not born.
I'm saying we have finite resources in the workplace and while, yes everyone could get good at certain things (to make that 100k!!!) after varying amounts of time, the time for some to get to that point is incredibly inefficient whereas for others they are worth the investment. I think this is partially based on our brains. Some just have higher ceilings/floors than others with all the practice/experience in the world.
If you disagree and think that's wrong - I applaud your optimism and patience if you work with low-performing workers and am potentially jealous of your much higher workplace budget.
Curious - do you feel memory capacity is 100% trainable for all "normal" humans or is there variation? That is, do you think all normal humans could be trained to have the same memory capacity. If so, do you think it would take each human an equal amount of time to get there?
-
The same argument applies all the way down to babies. You don't learn chemistry without knowing how to read, you don't learn reading without letters, you don't learn letters without singing the alphabet song, you don't learn to sing without playing with your parents and friends. At each step, there is a required skill that must be mastered first. This is the fundamental underpinning of all modern educational research. We learn best when we are best prepared for it. Preparation comes from other learning.
Ok that's great but how do you explain children who were treated as similarly as could be by their parents but once they get just beyond the "being read to stage and learning to read on their own", one child becomes a voracious reader and devours everything in the house and a good chunk of the local library while the other child doesn't mind reading but would much rather be shooting a basketball or playing with toys. Is that really 100% attributable to experience? The experiences were nearly the same.
Yes, the motivated reader's experiences are now different from their toy-preferring sibling and their trajectories may very well be different but how is that possible if they started from the same place and their brains are the same?
-
So the disagreement is that given same effort and circumstance you don't believe a person of average IQ 90-110 will under perform a person with an IQ of 150......and sir is preposterous.
I think you're putting WAAAAY too much credence in IQ tests. You think that number means anything other than how many right answers you got on a test?
Tests can be studied. The relevant material can be learned. I didn't score top 0.5% on the SAT because I'm smarter than 99.5% of the population, I scored well because I studied the test and learned how to beat it. It's a skill like any other.
IQ is not a measurement like height and weight. It is not a discrete quantity that can be measured. It's a skill like your time in the mile run, and it can be trained like any other skill. How efficiently you train it, just like the run, is based on how well you have previously trained the required base skills.
I have obviously made allowances here for physical defects. If you are born with a malformed heart or a missing limb, your mile run time can still be trained but will top out much sooner. Your brain is much more adaptably flexible than is your body, though, and it can compensate for all kinds of wild deficiencies.
-
I think its downright hard not to be able to make $100k at some point throughout your career.
Wait, what about people who lack the genetic makeup that codes for a six-figure-earner phenotype?
There are actually people here that think genetics don't impact a person's ability to learn?
To be fair, I'm not 100% convinced that sol isn't just a sentient right-wing caricature of a leftist.
To be even fairer, jlcnuke is clearly arguing against a strawman position that neither sol nor anyone else in this thread actually adopted.
Yes, his argument (which was, in sum: I have a cousin with an intellectual disability, therefore innate intelligence cannot be equal among all people) is a bit of a strawman. But just because he used an example on the tail end of the bell curve does not mean that the bell curve does not exist. I am sympathetic to sol's argument, but it sounds more like faith-based wishful thinking when compared against the scientific literature.
-
There is scientific evidence that genetics do store knowledge/skills in some species (including humans) and generally referred to as "genetic memory"
You have grossly misrepresented this research.
Your genetic memory does not include C++ computer programming. It includes things like breathing and suckling, and even then the "memory" isn't actually a chemical storage web in your brain the way a normal memory is, but rather the most obvious and efficient use of structural features that are encoded by your DNA. We all have genetic memory for walking on our feet instead of our hands, for example, and a person raised without any human contact would "remember" to walk on their feet without anyone teaching them. This does NOT make it akin to a learned skill like juggling or chemistry tests, and it's ludicrous that you would suggest otherwise.
I am, additionally, saying that the innate learning capacity of one person can be such that they never are able to learn "XYZ" concept, regardless of their environment/conditioning/etc. simply because their mind doesn't have the capacity to understand it.
Lots of people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism) agree with you! Like antebellum American slave owners! And Nazis!
-
There is scientific evidence that genetics do store knowledge/skills in some species (including humans) and generally referred to as "genetic memory"
You have grossly misrepresented this research.
Your genetic memory does not include C++ computer programming. It includes things like breathing and suckling, and even then the "memory" isn't actually a chemical storage web in your brain the way a normal memory is, but rather the most obvious and efficient use of structural features that are encoded by your DNA. We all have genetic memory for walking on our feet instead of our hands, for example, and a person raised without any human contact would "remember" to walk on their feet without anyone teaching them. This does NOT make it akin to a learned skill like juggling or chemistry tests, and it's ludicrous that you would suggest otherwise.
I am, additionally, saying that the innate learning capacity of one person can be such that they never are able to learn "XYZ" concept, regardless of their environment/conditioning/etc. simply because their mind doesn't have the capacity to understand it.
Lots of people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism) agree with you! Like antebellum American slave owners! And Nazis!
Congratulations on going there... Lol
I'm not surprised you haven't read the research though... Maybe some day you'll know what your talking about (I won't hold me breath waiting).
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
-
I used to work with a bunch of scientists. Very few were 'normal'. By that I mean, they were so smart that stuff like common sense flew out the window. Some were very quirky or their personalities were off. They could do a very involved experiment and rattle off theories but doing something simple like tying their shoes was just not on their radar screen. I always said to be that smart something has to give. I did happen to meet one genius scientist that was perfectly normal, played all kinds of sports and was very athletic. He was an exception to the rule of no common sense. Unfortunately he was killed in a tragic accident much too young.
-
the time for some to get to that point is incredibly inefficient whereas for others they are worth the investment.
This part I agree with. There are real differences in the real world. If a person isn't taught how to read until they are 80, they are unlikely to ever win a Pulitzer Prize. Mastering skills at the appropriate stage of development is absolutely essential to continued future growth. In a business environment, this often means cutting loose the people who don't bring the required skills with them.
I'm just saying that this lack of skills is not the fault of their genetics, but of their environment. Nobody is born knowing how to read. We all have to learn. Reading is 100% a "nurture" skill instead of a "nature" skill. Almost everything is, but the American public is still dreamily in love with the notion of "inherent abilities" they get from widely discredit "research" by admitted racists in the early 20th century. Here in the real world, we've made huge strides in understanding genetic expression in the past 20 years and it has basically upended all of our previous understanding about genetic control of your abilities.
Curious - do you feel memory capacity is 100% trainable for all "normal" humans or is there variation? That is, do you think all normal humans could be trained to have the same memory capacity. If so, do you think it would take each human an equal amount of time to get there?
If you started at conception with genetically normal zygotes, and tested them before medically-related declines later in life? Almost certainly. The human mind is incredibly flexible and responsive to the way it is used and trained. The fact that some people get shitty training does not mean their memory (or their station in society) was fixed for them, no matter what they do.
-
just because he used an example on the tail end of the bell curve does not mean that the bell curve does not exist.
Oooh, so close. I have been patiently waiting for someone to mention Charles Murray's 1994 book "The Bell Curve" which explicitly makes the argument that many people here are making: that racism and deliberately enforced inequality are justified features of our society because genes determine destiny.
Go ahead and google it if you're not familiar. The whole brouhaha is strangely reminiscent of Donald Trump's rhetoric, and more relevant today than ever. For example, Murray absolutely loves the idea of restricting immigration from shithole countries, because he thinks those people are genetically inferior and will only drag America down into the gutter if they are allowed to interbreed their inferior genes with our superior American ones.
The book has been widely discredited from multiple angles, of course, so I'm kind of surprised to see the same arguments repeated here. He used a similar approach, which basically boils down to "look at the data, blacks are clearly inferior" without making any attempt to ascertain WHY test scores are lower in any given subpopulation. He, like many of you, assumes it is genetic and not environmental or sociological factors that limit the success of minorities.
More to your point, I'm not arguing that there is no distribution of abilities. I'm arguing that most people incorrectly attribute this distribution to genetics instead of training. The Olympic gymnast example above is perhaps illustrative: how good of a gymnast you are is basically 100% determined by how much gymnastics training you have. A person with the perfect genetic makeup and no training has NO talent for gymnastics. The "talent" portion, which is what started this tangent, is entirely learned. Not inherited. Not genetic.
-
I used to work with a bunch of scientists. Very few were 'normal'.
I have also known a bunch of these folks. I thought I was basically the smartest person I had ever met, until I got to college and met people who obviously put me to shame.
But their quirkiness supports my point, I think. If you're the kind of kid who spent his entire high school career reading applied math textbooks and then wrote a rap song about Green's theorem and branch cuts, you probably didn't make a lot of room for learning about how to comb your hair or ask a cute girl to prom. You applied yourself to a different subset of topics. Your experiences and training determined your "talent" for applied math, and your lack of talent saxaphone and poetry. Because talent is earned with practice. You aren't born knowing Green's theorem any more than you're born knowing how to ask a girl to prom. These things are learned skills, not encoded in your DNA.
And because they are learned skills, and not encoded in your DNA, they can be trained and developed over time just like any other talent. If you already know how to ask someone out, you can still learn applied math. You have not been doomed to never understand math just because you haven't learned it yet. Your genes are not handicapping you from learning more math.
My only request is that we stop trying blame our genetics for our own failures. Your genes are way less important than you think.
-
But just because he used an example on the tail end of the bell curve does not mean that the bell curve does not exist. I am sympathetic to sol's argument, but it sounds more like faith-based wishful thinking when compared against the scientific literature.
When it comes to innate intelligence (defined as "the inherent capacity to learn or understand"), the very notion that there is a spectrum among unimpaired human brains is a dangerous claim requiring extraordinary evidence, which, to the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge, does not exist (though sol's knowledge in this area is obviously much stronger, and he appears to agree). Does the weight of the evidence contradict the claim that every unimpaired human brain is a computer capable of understanding anything and everything?
-
just because he used an example on the tail end of the bell curve does not mean that the bell curve does not exist.
Oooh, so close. I have been patiently waiting for someone to mention Charles Murray's 1994 book "The Bell Curve" which explicitly makes the argument that many people here are making: that racism and deliberately enforced inequality are justified features of our society because genes determine destiny.
Oh for fuck's sake. I did not "mention" his book. I have not read it, but I am aware of it and also of its failings. Nobody here is making the point that you claim they are making. Please do not confuse my use of a scientific term with a widely discredited, pseudoscientific book. Your eagerness to associate anyone who disagrees with you with racists and Nazis is not helping your case.
Sol, you argue as though you believe that anyone who dares to question your dogma is destined to follow down the path of racism and eugenics. Is it okay for me to believe - not just to say it, but to truly fucking believe - that all people are created equal in worth, even if not in ability? I think we're done here, because I don't care for any more of my words to be processed through your little Nazi-shaped Play-Doh mold.
-
Oh for fuck's sake. I did not "mention" his book.
No, of course not. I mentioned it, because I think it's relevant to the topic at hand. The criticisms of that book are the same criticisms I have advanced in this thread against the people (almost everyone?) that have argued that their talents are genetically determined. Your talents are not genetically determined!
Let's not turn this into a different debate without a good reason. We got onto this lengthy tangent because someone suggested that earning $100k just wasn't in the cards for some people in this thread, regardless of how hard they work. I disagree with that assessment. I suspect you do too.
From there, the argument seems to have expanded as people rushed to defend the idea that you just can't make $100k no matter what you do. I suspect that's partly because some of us (myself included) don't make that much and publicly admitting that we don't make that much because of our choices is personally painful. Much easier to say "I'm just not cut out for it" or "I can't do it because of my genetic background" or "I'm not responsible for my own failures."
Of course, the flip side of that argument is that if you DO make that much, you either believe it is because you are naturally deserving and worthy by virtue of your genetic makeup, or you believe it's because you worked hard and earned it. The distinction applies to your successes as well as your failures.
I have not read it, but I am aware of it and also of its failings. Nobody here is making the point that you claim they are making.
I believe you when you say that YOU are not making that point, but I think some folks here certainly are. jlcnuke, for example, said (http://said) that some people are genetically incapable of learning some things. This is the exact same argument used by the Bell Curve, and by early American proponents of slavery who argued that African slaves were suited to (and even preferred!) a life of slavery, and by German sociologists who argued that gypsies were (through no fault of their own) a blight on their Aryan vision of progress.
Sol, you argue as though you believe that anyone who dares to question your dogma is destined to follow down the path of racism and eugenics. Is it okay for me to believe - not just to say it, but to truly fucking believe - that all people are created equal in worth, even if not in ability?
In this particular case, I think that the commonly held view among Americans about the influence of genetics on abilities is wrong. It is based on decades-old research and not supported by the modern field of genetics.
As to what you personally believe, of course its fine for you to believe anything you like. You can truly believe anything (and so can I) and you can express those views here or elsewhere as you see fit (and so can I) and sometimes your views and my views aren't going to align and that's okay too. I started out by admitting that most people don't share or even understand the modern interpretation of gene expression. I'm merely highlighting that your learned skills and abilities are not nearly as genetically controlled as you seem to think they are, which is a (slightly) different argument than the one about a person's "worth."
To recap, I'm not saying that everyone is genetically identical. I'm saying that each individual's DNA is non-deterministic of their abilities, because DNA is not a rote program that specifies who you are. Parts of it get turned on and off all the time in response to your environment. None of it records what you learn in life. It is only a book of possibilities, not a prescription for what you will do in life. There is no DNA sequence for talent because talent is solely a learned skill, earned with experience.
-
Oh for fuck's sake. I did not "mention" his book.
I believe you when you say that YOU are not making that point, but I think some folks here certainly are. jlcnuke, for example, said (http://said) that some people are genetically incapable of learning some things. This is the exact same argument used by the Bell Curve, and by early American proponents of slavery who argued that African serves were suited to a life of slavery, and by German sociologists who argued that gypsies were a blight on their Aryan vision of progress.
Sol, you argue as though you believe that anyone who dares to question your dogma is destined to follow down the path of racism and eugenics. Is it okay for me to believe - not just to say it, but to truly fucking believe - that all people are created equal in worth, even if not in ability?
I this particular case, I think that the commonly held view among Americans about the influence of genetics on abilities is wrong. It is based on decades-old research and not supported by the modern field of genetics.
As to what you personally believe, of course its fine for you to believe anything you like. You can truly believe anything (and so can I) and you can express those views here or elsewhere as you see fit (and so can I) and sometimes your views and my views aren't going to align and that's okay too. I started out by admitting that most people don't share or even understand the modern interpretation of gene expression. I'm merely highlighting that your learned skills and abilities are not nearly as genetically controlled as you seem to think they are, which is a (slightly) different argument than the one about a person's "worth."
See, you keep going to racism and eugenics. The simple facts, however, show that people learn at different rates, ranging from "very quickly" to "they will never learn some things". Much of that is determined by genetics and can be completely independent of race and/or sex. That has nothing to do with Nazi's or slavery or any such thing, it's just the facts. I think that's why you qualify most of your statements such as "not nearly as genetically controlled"... because you know that genetics does play a part and it can result in people being much better at something or not being able to do something at all.
That's a far cry from "everyone gets where they get to because of genetics", or "well, I didn't get good at it so I can't do it", or any such frivolous nonsense. The fact remains that genetics impacts a person's ability to learn and that impact can go from "this person can learn anything very quickly" all the way down to "due to their genetics, this person will never master even basic speech" as well as the full spectrum in-between. Modern research still supports that to be true (and it doesn't care what race you are etc).
-
The simple facts, however, show that people learn at different rates, ranging from "very quickly" to "they will never learn some things".
Maybe you missed the discussion above about pedagogy?
I recognize that people learn new skills at different rates. I disagree that this difference is due to protein synthesis (aka "genes").
For a non-impaired human brain, how quickly you learn a new skill is entirely based on how prepared you are to learn it, which is based on how well you have mastered the prerequisite skills. That's true at every level from babbling to quarterbacking.
There is no gene for musical ability, or geometry proofs, or a fascination with outer space. These things are purely 100% learned behaviors, not genetic. If you are good or bad at any of them, you cannot blame your DNA. You can blame bad luck, or bad early childhood experiences, or competition from other skills that commanded your attention, but not your DNA.
Much of that is determined by genetics and can be completely independent of race and/or sex.
Thank you for making this salient point. Genetic diversity is vast. We've now sequenced enough different kinds of people to recognize that what we typically call "races" may contain far more genetic variation within the group than between groups. It's a relatively small number of genes that dictate physical appearances.
Which is part of the reason why so much of this debate is frustrating to me. Almost nobody outside of this one little slice of the scientific community has any real understanding of the amazing discoveries we've made about genetics in the past 20 years. And yet people still have strongly held beliefs about human genetic fitness, based on outdated research from people with ugly social agendas. It's time to let it all go.
-
So the disagreement is that given same effort and circumstance you don't believe a person of average IQ 90-110 will under perform a person with an IQ of 150......and sir is preposterous.
I think you're putting WAAAAY too much credence in IQ tests. You think that number means anything other than how many right answers you got on a test?
It's intended as an example not confirmation that IQ and the tests are the end all be all, it is simply one commonly accepted indicator of intelligence that most people are aware of.
IQ is not a measurement like height and weight. It is not a discrete quantity that can be measured. It's a skill like your time in the mile run, and it can be trained like any other skill. How efficiently you train it, just like the run, is based on how well you have previously trained the required base skills.
You keep saying this......that genetics is only for the physical attributes. Hate to break the news to you, but the brain is a physical attribute. Some people are born with Yugo and some with a Ferrari... most are born with camry/accord. What don't you get.....
the time for some to get to that point is incredibly inefficient whereas for others they are worth the investment.
This part I agree with.
Good, move along...because Sol your position is clearly inline with this statement as you are not getting the point and your position is so misaligned with reality.
-
your position is so misaligned with reality.
Which part?
Let me try to consolidate a long and diverse debate down to a few key points. Please tell me which ones you disagree with.
1. Computer programming, like most skills, is a learned behavior.
2. Learned behaviors must be learned with practice.
3. If you are talented at something, it is because you have learned it really well.
That about sums it up, I think. Everything else here is just some variation of that three step logic chain. Which one of those is "misaligned with reality"?
edit:
4. being talented at something is a great way to earn $100k/year at it, if that wasn't explicit enough.
-
Please make a new thread to discuss whatever you want to call your discussion, thank you.
I'm here to learn how to make 100K+ salary =)
-
Please make a new thread to discuss whatever you want to call your discussion, thank you.
I'm here to learn how to make 100K+ salary =)
Join the Navy with a contract to become a nuclear operator. Become a Navy nuclear operator. Get out of the Navy with a bunch of knowledge and experience. Make $100k+ :)
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
-
[MOD NOTE:
Let's take the off topic discussion about genes and inheritance somewhere else and keep this thread on topic.
Thanks
Toque]
-
[MOD NOTE:
Let's take the off topic discussion about genes and inheritance somewhere else and keep this thread on topic.
Thanks
Toque]
Seriously?
I think we've done a pretty good job of keeping this tangent relevant to the question at hand. It started with the assertion that some people couldn't make $100k, and we've been talking about why we each think that is true or not true.
Are we seriously moderating topics now for adding that kind of nuance to these discussions? Are threads only allowed to discuss the narrowest possible interpretation of the question in the thread title? Are we going to start moderating all of the cryptocurrency threads too, if someone doesn't like hearing dissenting opinions about how awesome/stupid bitcoin is?
-
To the OP, you just have to figure out what works for you. For me, it worked in the house cleaning business. There are some people that can't make $100 a day in the house cleaning business but it worked for me and I ended up making a boat load of profit over the years. And now I am in the used washer & dryer business. I've just kept busy with this business only selling every now and then until late last year. So for last year I made a taxable income of just over $50,000. This year I am on track to make $72,000 taxable income. I work about 30 hours a week at most. So if I worked 40+ hours a week, I could probably break $100,000 a year.
If you are a person that has to work for someone else, then you probably needed to start at a job that has good potential and climb the ladder of success. If you eventually want to have your own business..... it will not come over night or within the first year or two. Usually, it takes time no matter how you end up there. I like for others to make me money (even though I need to stay a little busy) so my eventual goal was to have others doing the work while I spent the profit and amazingly, it worked out for me.
-
it blows my mind. I see on here with sometimes close to 200k. How? What do you do and what am I not doing? lol.
Did you ask for it? Ask for it. Seriously, I have worked with people doing essentially the same work and sitting next to me in an identical cubicle that I was making 40% more than because I asked for it when starting the job and they didn't.
-
2. Learned behaviors must be learned with practice.
3. If you are talented at something, it is because you have learned it really well.
A lot of people say they'd rather be a hard worker than extremely talented because they can always work theirselves to where they want to be but the talented person may be lazy. But screw that - I'd rather be talented and hard working. People obviously have natural aptitudes and you can't teach everything. And as far as hard work goes, if you're naturally good at something then you're more likely to continue doing it whereas if it's a huge mountain to overcome to even become moderately good, you're more likely to give up. I agree that hard work is more valuable than talent in the long run, but you can't dismiss the amazing benefits of being naturally talented.
That about sums it up, I think. Everything else here is just some variation of that three step logic chain. Which one of those is "misaligned with reality"?
The fact that even if you work extremely hard and/or are talented at something doesn't guarantee you will ever become good enough to make $$$ at that thing? Again, hard work I agree is the number one component but it is no guarantee.
-
Color me unimpressed, when it comes to twin studies. Don't be fooled just because you saw it on Oprah.
This is a really insulting ad hominem logical fallacy. Relying on ad hominem attacks undermines any respect we have for you and good points you might make. You're better than that.
The research is actually quite extensive, see here (with citations)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/
-
Relying on ad hominem attacks undermines any respect we have for you
One of us must be misunderstanding what an ad hominem attack is. I'm not attacking Oprah. I thought I pretty clearly spelled out some of my reservations about twin studies, and you are free to disagree with any of those arguments.
And second, somebody respects me? I'm touched by your kind words. Around my house, all I get are rolled eyeballs and deep sarcastic sighs.
-
Relying on ad hominem attacks undermines any respect we have for you
One of us must be misunderstanding what an ad hominem attack is. I'm not attacking Oprah.
Implying sarcastically that someone's argument is derived from what they saw on Oprah is indeed an ad hominem fallacy. It's a tactic frequently used when one doesn't have a good reasonable argument to make. It appears to me you don't need to rely on such immature remarks. If you can refer us to any scientific studies with citations to support your position that intelligence is not heritable, I'd be happy to take a look. It's an area that I find very fascinating, and have read quite a bit on. Would love to see studies that contradict the science that has been done.
-
Let's remember what we're really talking about here: whether or not some people are genetically prevented from being good enough at something to earn $100k/year at it.
I have obviously made exceptions for people born with disabilities. But outside of that? I don't believe that some people are genetically entitled to earn $100k/year, or that some people are genetically prevented from doing so. I believe that $100k is a mark that is achievable by any cognitively normal human being in the modern US economy, with hard work and dedication, if given the proper opportunities.
Lots of people apparently disagree with me in this thread, but do you any of you disagree with that paragraph? Do you honestly believe that your genes determine your tax bracket? That some people are born too stupid, regardless of their education or upbringing, to ever make $100k?
If so, do you believe those people are more likely to have a different skin tone than you do? Is it clear yet why I find that argument offensive?
-
Why do you keep bringing skin color into this discussion? We are talking about heritability of intelligence.
-
I think he's equating racism to being prejudice against people based on their ability. Sure, they're related (insofar as a racist might think they're related), but racism is a huge step in the wrong direction from acknowledging that people are born with different natural capabilities. He's saying that if you live in a world where you believe that people are born with varying degrees of intelligence and capability then you must believe that people born of certain colors are more superior than others. Which is absolutely stupid. Yes there are certainly racists who believe white people as a race are superior in all natural ability to other races, but that isn't the point as that's on a WHOLE different level. Ability is not illegal to discriminate against - ability is the root of capitalism. So yes, people discriminate based on ability everyday and those people are put on pedestals and paid more. And, as I said earlier, it's easier for some to make it to the top than others both due to being born with natural aptitude and also the simple fact that the harder something is for you, the less likely you are to do it.
Also - you also can't just use "stupid" and "disability" as a black and white approach to support your argument that people are more or less the same. Intelligence and disabilities both are a giant spectrum and people may be highly functioning in some areas but lacking in others.
Basically, if you believe that everyone is born with the same capability in life and we're all just subjects of our environment then I don't know what to tell you. There's plenty of evidence for this to not be the case, both scientifically and anecdotally throughout your own life. Yes, the world rewards people who are both naturally talented and hard working. But hard work alone doesn't guarantee anything as people are not the "blank slate" you think they are.
I almost feel like this is such a basic thing to understand and accept that sol may be trolling. Or maybe it's a defense mechanism. To truly accept that people are different and born with different capability is to suggest that you don't have nearly as much control over your own life as you think you do. I mean if you weren't able to choose your physical and mental capabilities and birth then what part of you is really you?
-
Well put.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
-
Why do you keep bringing skin color into this discussion? We are talking about heritability of intelligence.
No, we are not. YOUmight be talking about the heritability of intelligence, if you've decided to change the conversation. I'm talking about the question that started this conversation, which was whether or not "talent" is something that is predetermined at conception, or something you earn with hard work. I have argued that whenever you look at someone and say "Wow, she's really talented" what you are really saying is that she is very skilled. You are not commenting on her genes. You are not commenting on how quickly she became skilled. You are only commenting on her current abilities. Her current abilities were earned with hard work.
I have been called talented, upon rare occasion. At no point did I ever think it was because of my genetics. I worked hard to become skilled, and if I can do something that looks difficult for you and make it look easy, it is not because I am naturally gifted. It is because I have practiced long and hard to be better at it than you are.
And I have reminded people of the association of genetics with skin color because it precisely highlights the very problem with the argument that talent is genetic. Your physical appearance is (mostly) genetic, but your physical appearance does not determine your skill level. Talent is skill level, not appearance (professional models and such largely excepted). If you are the kind of person who believes that a person's abilities are determined by their genes, then you are a hair's width away from being a person who believes that a person's abilities are determined by their ethnicity, and we generally call that racism.
-
Mozart could play songs by ear on the piano by age three, was composing by age four, and was performing for royalty by age 12. Do you honestly believe that he had no innate, biological advantage that contributed to his musical genius? Some people are simply more gifted than others, allowing for certain talents to come more easily.
-
I think he's equating racism to being prejudice against people based on their ability.
That's close, but not quite what I'm aiming for. I actually support discriminating against people based on their ability. Don't admit stupid people to Harvard. Don't put weaklings on your Olympic team.
I'm saying that those differences in ability are not nearly as genetically predetermined as most people assume they are. They are not entirely in your control either, but your affinity for Mozart over Jay-Z is not fixed at the moment of conception. You are the product of a million random chances that have influenced your early childhood development patterns and rates. You will reach adulthood with different learned skills than what other adults have learned. Those differences are NOT GENETIC.
Why is this part so hard? There is no genetic mechanism to store musical ability, or mathematical ability. Like virtually evert "talent", these are mental traits developed as your brain developed. Your brain is a constantly changing organ that is continuously flooded with extraordinary amounts of data you can't even consciously perceive. It does things you don't do on purpose. It responds to your environment in ways you can't see and certainly don't understand. It makes some of you shy and some of you enthusiastically bad singers some of you play too much dungeons and dragons, and NONE of that is stored in your genes.
I'm just repeating myself now, of course. I recognize and accept differences in abilities. I'm just saying that the common perception that these differences are inherent, instead of environmental, is completely without evidence. The supporting evidence is anecdotal at best, and has always been suspect because it was promoted by people with repugnant social agendas that colored their interpretations. Are you really surprised that white american sociologists is the 1950s thought that white people were genetically superior to black people? Do you accept their findings at face value?
Sure, they're related (insofar as a racist might think they're related), but racism is a huge step in the wrong direction from acknowledging that people are born with different natural capabilities.
I even accept that people are born with different natural capabilities! Such as they are, I suppose, since newborns have almost no abilities to speak of. But newborns are not blank slates, they have had nine VERY important months of environmental influences. I think it's well established that the pregnancy is a complicated process in which mom's diet and sleep and chemical exposure and even her mood play a huge roll on her developing fetus. We're each enormously vulnerable to environment during those nine months.
He's saying that if you live in a world where you believe that people are born with varying degrees of intelligence and capability then you must believe that people born of certain colors are more superior than others.
No, I'm saying over and over again that if you live in a world where genetics predetermines a person's abilities, then it's a tiny tiny step from there to also living in a world where race predetermines a person's abilities, since genetics and race are absolutely correlated. That latter is called racism, and it is widely used (by racists) to convince other people (generally non-racists) that their racist beliefs are acceptable because the must be at least partly true. You don't need to fall for that. Your genes are not determinative of your abilities. They're only partly determinative of your possible range of physical traits (muscle size, endurance, height, etc.) which can STILL be dramatically influenced by your environment (diet, training, etc). Effectively zero percent of human beings out of seven billion are currently bumping up against their maximum genetic potential.
If we're still talking about "talent" and whether or not a person can be genetically unable to earn $100k/year, then I think the assertion that a person's genetic or ethnic background can prevent them from achieving that level of success is pretty ridiculous. There are all kinds of other reasons a person might be unable to reach $100k, but "genes" isn't one of them unless they have conferred a disability.
people are not the "blank slate" you think they are.
Definitely not at birth. Do you make the same case at the moment of conception?
Do you make the same case if we're talking about the hypothetical future child of two black parents vs two white parents? Because I believe that if you could extract those minutes-old impregnated eggs and implant them in the other couple's womb, and then somehow obscure the skin color, the genetically black child raised by white parents and the genetically white child raised by black parents will both be the product of their environment. If one couple is rich and the other is poor, that will matter. If one couple is healthy and the other is sick, that will matter. Religion, diet, neighborhood, nap times, preschool activities, ALL of that matters in determining which child is more successful more than the effectively blank slate they were each given by their parents. Your genes can give you disabilites, but for otherwise normal healthy humans the human brain blueprint in your DNA and in my DNA is basically identical, no matter what race you are. Brains just aren't that different on their own, they are different based on how they are used. It's literally an adaptive organ, that's what it's for. It changes as needed.
-
Mozart could play songs by ear on the piano by age three, was composing by age four, and was performing for royalty by age 12. Do you honestly believe that he had no innate, biological advantage that contributed to his musical genius?
Yes. More specifically, I believe that Mozart had no genetic talent for music, because DNA doesn't work that way. It cannot pass on knowledge about how to play the harpsichord. DNA tells your body what proteins to make, and there are no proteins for music composition. That's a learned skill, a higher brain function, synthesized by forming intricate electrochemical connections in your developing brain we call memories and habits and skills. Your DNA only gives you the blank slate on which the brain can make those connections, not the connections themselves.
I also believe that Mozart's father was an egotistical and authoritarian professional music teacher, who set out to deliberately create a music prodigy. He started his training literally at birth. Baby Mozart had more musical education before he would walk than most people get in an entire lifetime. You don't think that matters? Do you think all of Mozart's brothers and sisters were also genetically gifted with music, since they shared his genes, and would have been just as musically brilliant if they had been raised by a bricklayer?
Whenever you see a person with incredible skill, it is psychologically easy (and protective of our own egos) to explain away their preternatural abilities by assuming that person was gifted by God with talent that you are not. It lets you off the hook for not being raised by a drill sergeant music teacher, but you don't need to be let off the hook. Mozart's entire childhood was focused on music. He didn't get to watch cartoons AT ALL. Two year old Wolfgang didn't get to paint pictures or play ring around the rosie. He earned that talent, at his father's demanding instruction. He became a prodigy because of his experiences, not his genes.
You'll hear the same story from every other prodigy. Without exception, they seem to feel they have earned their skills with hard work. They are better because they worked harder than the competition. That's how you get to be the best.
And you don't even need to be "the best" in order to earn $100k/year. Generally competent is probably sufficient, if you are fortunate enough to have above average opportunities. As your circumstances get more an more unfortunate, it probably requires greater and greater levels of hard work to get there.
-
How do you make $100k+ salaries? The answer is easy: Plastics.
-
Mozart could play songs by ear on the piano by age three, was composing by age four, and was performing for royalty by age 12. Do you honestly believe that he had no innate, biological advantage that contributed to his musical genius?
Yes. More specifically, I believe that Mozart had no genetic talent for music, because DNA doesn't work that way. It cannot pass on knowledge about how to play the harpsichord.
I never said anything about being born with talent or knowledge. I said biological advantage. Not all brains are the same, just as all hearts aren't the same...or lungs...or eyes...etc. etc. It is an organ.
Any further discussion on this is pointless. We might as well be arguing that the world is flat.
-
A decade and change as a chemist (perhaps a bit more) will get you there in the pharmaceutical industry. If you have a science degree, passing the patent bar exam to become a patent agent can get you there. Oil industry also pays well, but government pays way better than any industry.
-
A decade and change as a chemist (perhaps a bit more) will get you there in the pharmaceutical industry. If you have a science degree, passing the patent bar exam to become a patent agent can get you there. Oil industry also pays well, but government pays way better than any industry.
I guess that depends what you do. There is no way govt. would ever match where I’m at (salary wise) 4 years out of grad school, especially given where I live.
-
Sol, I think at this point everyone is looking for the research backing your opinion that everyone is born with equal cognitive ability or abilities in general (beyond abnormalities).
Here’s another nature study... I’ve read recently on the subject. I. Sure you have an equal quality peer reviewed journal article suggesting your POV.looking forward to reading it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2017121
-
your opinion that everyone is born with equal cognitive ability or abilities in general (beyond abnormalities).
I'm starting to get frustrated that people keep putting words in my mouth. How many different ways do I have to deny that? I don't believe that people have the same abilities. I believe that DNA does not confer learned skills.
If you have any evidence that your DNA can teach you how to play piano, that would be awesome. Also surprising. But I'm skeptical it exists, because piano is a learned skill. Learned skills are learned with experience. You cannot be born knowing how to play piano.
Talents are learned skills. Set aside what you believe about a person's genetically-limited abilities for a moment and focus on the actual point that started this discussion: talent is skill and skills are learned instead of genetic. Your DNA does not make you a good musician or mathematician or computer programmer. Only your experiences can do that. You've been consistently ignoring that central argument. Everyone has.
Now, for your amusement, we can move on to the separate and only tangentially related argument that you have somehow extracted out of the previous paragraph and distorted into something larger.
Intelligence is not like eye color. It is not the direct result of a specific gene or set of genes. The function of your brain is fundamentally different from the function of your heart or your eye, because the association between the physical structure of a healthy brain and the intelligence in a healthy brain is basically nonexistent. You can't look at a brain and see how smart it is in the same way you can look at a heart and see how healthy it is. Intelligence doesn't exist in the same way that a physical measurement exists. It only exists in the self-organizing and recursive sets of connections between neurons, and we all have approximately the same number of neurons, which at birth are connected in approximately the same way (ie. poorly). From there, we all start making those connections in response to our environments, molding our brains and forming intelligence. Your DNA is no longer involved when you are choosing a college major, or learning to juggle chain saws, or going in to work late on Monday morning. Those things are a function of how your brain is connected, not what raw materials it was given. Those connections were formed over your lifetime of experiences. They are not genetic, they are learned.
You can have the best genes in the world at the moment of you conception, and if your pregnant mom smokes crack then locks you in her basement after you're born and only feeds you dog food and never speaks to you until you are 15, you're going to be retarded. Your brain will not develop properly. You will have no talents. Genes just don't matter as much to intelligence as they do to eye color, because your intelligence is not set at birth the way your eye color is. It is a constantly evolving feature of your neurological organization, which is a product of your experiences.
This is not the same as saying that everyone is equally intelligent, because that is obviously stupid and I'm not sure why everyone keeps accusing me of believing it. You're hung up on an argument I haven't made, and you're ignoring the arguments I have made.
And more to the point, earning $100k/year (am I the only person here still talking about the thread topic?) is not impossible for you because of your DNA. Your income is a function of your skill set, and your skills are all learned behaviors. Your DNA does not and cannot control whether you are good at music vs math vs history vs design. Only you do that. If you want to learn something, you have to work at it. Don't throw up your hands and declare failure before you start because you believe you are genetically unable to learn. That's selling yourself short.
-
I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent. At one hour old, no healthy child is any smarter than any other healthy child.
Perhaps it was this statement? Implying all children are born with the equal capacity to learn things as quickly as others. So, if you don’t have an IQ of 170 it’s not becuase of your genetic makeup it’s strictly because your parents didn’t teach the IQ test to you well enough. I’ll tell my lifelong friends the reason I have a PhD and they barely graduated HS is because they just didn’t try hard enough (despite the fact that the only time in my life I ever spent more than a couple hours studying for a test was comps).
But, getting back on topic. Yes I agree with you that it doesn’t require one specific skill set to make $100k. There are many paths. I know linesmen that make right around that in the Midwest after a decent chunk of overtime. Where I think we disagree is the assumption that everyone is born with the capacity to learn something at the same rate. There are people who can grasp concepts much more quickly than others and because of that learn more quickly than others. That isn’t something you just practice at and learn. It’s largely innate. I’m sure you remember the kid that got As in college without buying the textbook and the other kid that studied for 20 hours a week for the same class to get Bs. Should we just tell the latter to suck it up and just try harder?
-
^^^^ it was precisely that statement
I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent. At one hour old, no healthy child is any smarter than any other healthy child.
that led to the discussion of cognitive function heritability. Then what followed was a lot of poor logic and reasoning along with very bizarre logical fallacies about skin color:
I'm saying over and over again that if you live in a world where genetics predetermines a person's abilities, then it's a tiny tiny step from there to also living in a world where race predetermines a person's abilities, since genetics and race are absolutely correlated
This is not a logical statement, and the conclusions drawn are quite poor. Race and skin color are genetic, but it does not follow that cognitive function is tied to either. This statement also makes the common logical fallacy that we are claiming genetics predetermines abilities (This is a "Strawman Fallacy" and a"Hasty Generalization Fallacy"). To the contrary, no one has made this claim. No one has made any statement that genetics determines 100% of what we are. This is the third logical fallacy made.
No scientific studies cited to support any of these positions. At this point it's difficult to take any of Sol's opinions on this matter with any kind of seriousness due to poor logic, poor assumptions, multiple fallacies, and no citations.
-
I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent. At one hour old, no healthy child is any smarter than any other healthy child.
Perhaps it was this statement? Implying all children are born with the equal capacity to learn things as quickly as o
Ah, now I see. You think that when I said "smarter" I was referring to the rate at which people learn, and that this rate is what makes a person talented? Apparently I've not been clear enough in explaining that learned skills have to be learned, and cannot be inherited.
I think I can safely stand by that original statement, because a one hour old baby is not smart in any sense of the word. Babies are not smart! Will fail every possible IQ test. They don't even know how to hold the pencil. No smarts at all. Purely instinctual. Not talented. Has the potential for growth, but that is very much not the same thing as being talented.
If you accept that a baby has to learn how hold the pencil and not poop itself while drooling on the test, why do you think it is born knowing how to pick the right answers? That's being pretty generous. Everything about your intelligence is learned. Your DNA only contains a few hundred MB of data, but your brain holds terabytes. Your intelligence is part of the terabytes, not the megabytes.
To now abandon this relevant point, and move on to the interpretation you seem to be focused on, do you think the rate at which people learn new information is coded in their genes? If so, please just come right out and say it. I'd like to see someone defend that idea, rather than just attacking the converse.
Because I think it makes some significant assumptions about what learning is and how it happens.
I think that intelligence is a learned skill. It can be trained, just like your time in the mile run can be trained. It changes over your life. You may be given a limit/maximum by your genes, but almost nobody is actually operating at that limit, and you will never know what your personal limit is until you bump up against it. Your current personal best mile run time is not an inherited feature.
But, getting back on topic. Yes I agree with you that it doesn’t require one specific skill set to make $100k.
Yay, common ground!
Do you also agree with me when I argued with the people who have asserted that a person who is cognitively normal but from unfortunate genetic background is just unable to learn some things? Or do you agree with them, that your DNA can make you bad at specific learned skills like computer programming?
-
As mentioned earlier, I am 29 and have had a couple years over $200k. My current job, making the equivalent of about $300k with overtime, I got based off an over the phone interview from an online job posting. They had zero clue what race I am. I have an associates degree and some certs, and am far from being book/technical smart in my field.
One could argue me being a white male has helped me along the way, sure, but only at a much deeper level.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, I’m not even that intelligent. I got a 20 on my ACT’s and struggled in college, dropping out for a tech school and eventually getting my associates once I was already into my career. I’ve been diagnosed with learning disabilities during an 8 hour testing session I did with a psychologist.
The reasons why I am successful, again, as mentioned, are because of OTHER skills. I show up to work every day and on time (haven’t had a sick day in 8 years.) I am good with understanding people. I am excellent in following up and prioritizing tasks. I currently have over 20 people working for me (I’m the site head of our department) and am starting to feel my management skills excel as well. I can write decent reports, and at least dance around the technical issues I don’t know so I don’t look stupid lol. I’m also just passionate in general about doing my job and meeting every requirement.
It’s far from being book smart. If you’re super smart and not successful, there are other reasons for it, beyond bad luck. I’ve worked with smart people who no one likes. They suck talking with people, they can’t follow up on issues, etc. or - they might be book smart but chose career paths that didn’t have many successful options.
I don’t love my job. I’d rather do a LOT of things. I’m good at it though and it pays well for my age. It’s never been something I’ve been passionate about, but a niche was there and I found it.
-
Color me unimpressed, when it comes to twin studies. Don't be fooled just because you saw it on Oprah.
This is a really insulting ad hominem logical fallacy. Relying on ad hominem attacks undermines any respect we have for you and good points you might make. You're better than that.
The research is actually quite extensive, see here (with citations)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/
The assortative mating section was fascinating.
-
it blows my mind. I see on here with sometimes close to 200k. How? What do you do and what am I not doing? lol.
Sales. My dad used to tell me "you could retire at 50 if you would just go into sales... I resisted for years because gross, I wasn't a "salesperson".
Yes I am. Thanks, dad.
-
To be a successful sales person you have to have the right personality. I could never do that! I hated selling girl scout cookies and magazines when I was a kid. Later on in life I had a job that was in a hospital and I had to check in surgery patients. OMG, I hated that! It was like working at Disney world ticket booth. Herds and herds of people, their children, husbands, relatives all day long. Previously I worked in research and development and worked with people but we worked on projects and did experiments. I never realized it takes a special type of person to deal with the public. Some of the people I worked with in the hospital loved working with people. I despised it! Put me in a room, give me something to do and shut the door.
-
it blows my mind. I see on here with sometimes close to 200k. How? What do you do and what am I not doing? lol.
Here's how I did it.
I went and got a B.S. in a hard sciences.
Then I went and got a professional degree.
I took a job that required very specialized training and was provided that training.
I started in the mid 5-figures, and then after about 5 years I was able to crack into 6 figures annually while including bonuses and overtime.
Then at 10 years in, I have a significant amount of experience and know-how and a six figure salary to match.
I would say that the job market is like any other and is subject to supply and demand. But certain entrenched moats can make it difficult for new entrants to provide more supply to meet demand, so price for labor will be maintained at a higher level.
Take law for instance. In the U.S. one essentially has to commit to 7 years of higher education: four year B.A or B.S, and then 3 years for a J.D. The group of people who would put up with that is automatically thinned out. Next there is the bar exam -- not everyone takes nor passes this eliminating more people from the profession. And the bar is state specific so that a lawyer who is a lawyer in IL cannot automatically move to NY and hang out a shingle at will. And then on top of this there is specialization: a corporate real estate attorney will normally specialize in that field and won't take personal injury case on contingency and visa-versa. Oh, and legal work is usually difficult to do well. So if you are in NY and have a specific complicated (or even not so complicated) legal matter you are going to have to buy the time from one of the relatively few available attorneys to have your matter dealt with competently. Although there are ethical restrictions on charging exorbitant legal fees, an attorney's time will normally be billed out at basically the highest that can be charged for it in the market. Since the labor market is artificially protected from being flooded, the price will be high.
Alternatively.... if you have a silver tongue, go into sales.
Who defines exorbitant? :P
-
There are many paths to getting to an >$100k salary. You'll really have to find your own, plot your own steps to getting there, and then perform the actions necessary to follow that plan. Whether or not you make it is really up to you and partially to opportunities and environment.
Here's how I got here (>$100k take home pay, & incredible benefits, US military officer), but it was a mostly random path:
In school I read books instead of talking to people. I did my homework and tried to do well on tests.
In High School I found out there was a program where I could go to the local community college for free and it would count as both high school and college credit. I wanted the freedom of not being in high school so I applied and was accepted.
Military recruiters came to our high school and gave us all the ASVAB. I did as best I could on it. (There were no military plans in my future, but I like succeeding on tests, just like I like getting the right answers on Jeopardy or solving the puzzle on Wheel of Fortune.)
In college I did all the homework and studying I needed to do to get good grades. Since I was already in class, I tried to learn the content. I think this was a different mentality than other students in the class.
I got bored after 3 semesters of community college, so I enlisted in the Army. My ASVAB score was high enough that I could get any job I wanted. I picked Counterintelligence.
After six years and two frustrating Iraq deployments I decided I didn't want to be in the Army anymore. I got out and went to a vocational school for Electrician, using the GI Bill. In my class I had a 4.0 because of all the people there, I was taking Electrician courses to be a good electrician and planned on making money using that info...so why not learn it all? Others in the class showed up inconsistently, barely paid attention, and their electrical work looked like shit.
Between my previous college credits and my Army training I was able to CLEP one more class and get my AA degree (only took 8 years!).
I worked as an electrician for a few years, and during the housing crash decided I'd go get my bachelor's degree using the rest of my GI Bill instead of waiting for the electrical work to dry up.
I found a school (Prescott College) that had a degree in "Wilderness Leadership". I played outside for 2.5 years on the government's dime and got a bachelors degree for it. Best years of my life!
When I graduated I worked a shitty job, but did well at it because that's what I do. I applied for Officer Training School, two years in a row, got picked up after the second year.
Now I've been in the Air Force for 5+ years, making far more than I'm worth.
I think it's too simplistic to pin my success on any one thing like IQ, white male privilege, DNA, or hard work... I've had the abilities to succeed at what I do, but my mentality to do well at anything I do, and to try to learn whenever I'm in school (even when I hate school) has also contributed to where I'm at now. Maybe some of it is due to how I try to use correct grammar/spelling in online forums; using they're, their, and there properly; knowing how to use an apostrophe; and other skills that require caring and attention to detail.
On the flip side, there are so many examples of people who want to be rich and successful and fit and strong and skinny, but if you start to mention any of the actions required for them to achieve success you immediately get excuses. And there's the reason... you can't be/have what you want because you "need", or "can't". Guess you'll always fall short then.
Also, there are many who make >$100k who aren't very smart, or hardworking... but they've found a way to succeed. People skills can get you there too. Can you negotiate? Can you build relationships with people? Can you sell an idea or product?
-
Put me in a room, give me something to do and shut the door.
Amen brother. People are why I refuse to go into any managerial or supervisory roles and I fully acknowledge and accept the cap this attitude places on my earnings.
-
it blows my mind. I see on here with sometimes close to 200k. How? What do you do and what am I not doing? lol.
Mine was kind of different than JLee and Driftwood but there are some common themes . I was not academically inclined (lack of focus/application/authority issue) but I would say I have decent intelligence. Along the way there were a whole lot of twists and turns. Worked for a few years after high school then went to Not Top Notch U and waited tables along the way. Let's just say I wasn't on anyone's list of expecting me to hit $100k (before, during or after college), but I did....starting pay at company out of college was about $27k (less than I made before college...I killed it - haha, what an investment) and within 6 years at same company hit that mark - was in three different business groups and different parts of the country at times.
What do I think made the difference.....I worked really hard, I always sought to expand my knowledge and network, I took chances such as moving and wasn't always a yes man (although that backfired too but mostly net positive), and contrary to my grades in high school and community college was smart so I learned things easily, and work in a big industry that has a typical pyramid shape (ie there is always a ladder to climb if you want too and a competitor willing to pay more for your skills as they develop).
I wish I had a silver tongue though, that would be nice. I wish I could say "I wish applied myself earlier" but I can't - bc I am who am and where I am for a reason.
I think it's too simplistic to pin my success on any one thing like IQ, white male privilege, DNA, or hard work... I've had the abilities to succeed at what I do, but my mentality to do well at anything I do, and to try to learn whenever I'm in school (even when I hate school) has also contributed to where I'm at now. Maybe some of it is due to how I try to use correct grammar/spelling in online forums; using they're, their, and there properly; knowing how to use an apostrophe; and other skills that require caring and attention to detail.
On the flip side, there are so many examples of people who want to be rich and successful and fit and strong and skinny, but if you start to mention any of the actions required for them to achieve success you immediately get excuses. And there's the reason... you can't be/have what you want because you "need", or "can't". Guess you'll always fall short then.
Also, there are many who make >$100k who aren't very smart, or hardworking... but they've found a way to succeed. People skills can get you there too. Can you negotiate? Can you build relationships with people? Can you sell an idea or product?
This. I sum it up as people should leverage their core strengths and work to develop their weaknesses.
-
CPA's at CPA firms start out with low salaries, $60kish but they get good raises each year. After 5 or so years they are above $100k. I have averaged 18% raises over the past 24 years. That will not continue as I am hitting the cap for my firm. Most likely I will be getting 5% raises.
-
it blows my mind. I see on here with sometimes close to 200k. How? What do you do and what am I not doing? lol.
This question reappears every few months. Would it be wise to start a new forum category for "mentoring" and have individual threads within the category focus on certain careers? then everyone with knowledge of that career could offer specific advice and those seeking that knowledge could peruse the threads and ask questions.
In numerous discussions like this, I've offered that I think Project Planning and Scheduling is a very low-barrier, low-cost, high-reward career that can be self-taught. But I've provided details so many times both in the forums and in PMs that I'm now tired of re-writing it. And I never know if someone follows the advice or how it pans out. Some people like it and some don't, so I don't think it's for everyone, but I do think just about anyone is capable of learning it on their own. How "good" you get at it depends on how much effort you put in, what resources you use, etc.
-
it blows my mind. I see on here with sometimes close to 200k. How? What do you do and what am I not doing? lol.
This question reappears every few months. Would it be wise to start a new forum category for "mentoring" and have individual threads within the category focus on certain careers? then everyone with knowledge of that career could offer specific advice and those seeking that knowledge could peruse the threads and ask questions.
In numerous discussions like this, I've offered that I think Project Planning and Scheduling is a very low-barrier, low-cost, high-reward career that can be self-taught. But I've provided details so many times both in the forums and in PMs that I'm now tired of re-writing it. And I never know if someone follows the advice or how it pans out. Some people like it and some don't, so I don't think it's for everyone, but I do think just about anyone is capable of learning it on their own. How "good" you get at it depends on how much effort you put in, what resources you use, etc.
The idea of mentoring is a good one, because I found great value in having a mentor mid-way through my career. She really helped me look at my job, desires, and path effectively. She also was not in the same field as I. What she did was ask me questions that I had to figure out for myself. For example, do I want to feel like I made a difference in the world today? Or do I want to chase the paycheck?
While it probably is possible to do both, in my experience, the two do not go together.
-
Take law for instance. In the U.S. one essentially has to commit to 7 years of higher education: four year B.A or B.S, and then 3 years for a J.D. The group of people who would put up with that is automatically thinned out. Next there is the bar exam -- not everyone takes nor passes this eliminating more people from the profession. And the bar is state specific so that a lawyer who is a lawyer in IL cannot automatically move to NY and hang out a shingle at will. And then on top of this there is specialization: a corporate real estate attorney will normally specialize in that field and won't take personal injury case on contingency and visa-versa. Oh, and legal work is usually difficult to do well. So if you are in NY and have a specific complicated (or even not so complicated) legal matter you are going to have to buy the time from one of the relatively few available attorneys to have your matter dealt with competently. Although there are ethical restrictions on charging exorbitant legal fees, an attorney's time will normally be billed out at basically the highest that can be charged for it in the market. Since the labor market is artificially protected from being flooded, the price will be high.
Law schools have been churning out almost 2:1 new attorneys:jobs for decades now.
Back in 2012, the average income for a solo attorney was $49,000. That is not the STARTING average income, it is the average for all solo attorneys.
http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-class-lawyers-are-a-dying-breed-2015-6
I know in the movies all lawyers are upper middle class or rich, but in the real world it is not so.
-
The simplest way to make $100K is to be really, really good at solving a problem a significant amount of people have. If that is your job, people will pay you a lot of money to do it, which is how I have been able to do that quite well (exceed that pay rate) for over fifteen years.
-
Take law for instance. In the U.S. one essentially has to commit to 7 years of higher education: four year B.A or B.S, and then 3 years for a J.D. The group of people who would put up with that is automatically thinned out. Next there is the bar exam -- not everyone takes nor passes this eliminating more people from the profession. And the bar is state specific so that a lawyer who is a lawyer in IL cannot automatically move to NY and hang out a shingle at will. And then on top of this there is specialization: a corporate real estate attorney will normally specialize in that field and won't take personal injury case on contingency and visa-versa. Oh, and legal work is usually difficult to do well. So if you are in NY and have a specific complicated (or even not so complicated) legal matter you are going to have to buy the time from one of the relatively few available attorneys to have your matter dealt with competently. Although there are ethical restrictions on charging exorbitant legal fees, an attorney's time will normally be billed out at basically the highest that can be charged for it in the market. Since the labor market is artificially protected from being flooded, the price will be high.
Law schools have been churning out almost 2:1 new attorneys:jobs for decades now.
Back in 2012, the average income for a solo attorney was $49,000. That is not the STARTING average income, it is the average for all solo attorneys.
http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-class-lawyers-are-a-dying-breed-2015-6
I know in the movies all lawyers are upper middle class or rich, but in the real world it is not so.
Lawyers also have the highest rates of depression, substance abuse, and suicide among any similar profession. Being a lawyer is bad for you.
-
CPA's at CPA firms start out with low salaries, $60kish but they get good raises each year. After 5 or so years they are above $100k. I have averaged 18% raises over the past 24 years. That will not continue as I am hitting the cap for my firm. Most likely I will be getting 5% raises.
So you are making 53 times your starting salary? Mazel tov!
-
CPA's at CPA firms start out with low salaries, $60kish but they get good raises each year. After 5 or so years they are above $100k. I have averaged 18% raises over the past 24 years. That will not continue as I am hitting the cap for my firm. Most likely I will be getting 5% raises.
So you are making 53 times your starting salary? Mazel tov!
Actually 51. The numbers start gettting crazy. It has been a great career.
-
Technology sales. Started entry level with a bachelors in 2010. $35k+ a very small bonus. Stayed at that company 4 years and climbed into mid-high 5 figures.
This was a small company and I was thrown into tons of projects I was wildly unqualified for because we were short handed. Ended up doing everything from software contracts, server and storage procurement, to managing staffing vendors for project work. It was all over the place. I mostly faked it until after about 2 years of frantically trying to figure out what to do, I just knew what to do from experience.
At the end of that 4th year was recruited by a competitor for a significant salary increase with higher bonus potential.
Have only dipped below $100k once in 4 years since and typically earn mid-100s w/ $200k potential if everything were to go perfectly one year.
Not even remotely close to being slick, fast talking, flashy or anything close. However, I do get along very well with IT and Finance folks who are most of my direct clients. They are almost always very bright interesting people.
I read white papers constantly and make sure to have exceptional knowledge around my product and they type of requirements clients hire us to address.
tl;dr - Find a small software or software consulting that's hiring for any low level job related to bringing in revenue. Volunteer to do everything you can and learn as you go. Maybe change companies once or twice and wake up 4-5 year later earning a very good living.
-
Spouse and I are both electrical engineers, both went to a great state school (minimal debt in my case, none in his because GI bill). We live in a HCOL area. He graduated college 1998, I in 2000. Our salaries are 153k (his) 120k (mine...yes, same degree from same school, working at same company, and I still only make 78% of what he does. Thankfully my current supervisor has worked hard the last few years to make it a smaller gap after I moved over to management). Neither of us work overtime at this point in our careers. I have gone into management but still make less than he does; that tends to vary depending on the company.
Other people I know who make the same (or more) are: Ph.D scientists working in industry (not sure how research compares), manufacturing engineers, IT company owners, program management/planning (often with a technical background although one I know who broke into six digits works for a local construction company), airline pilot, sales, medical field (a friend of ours is an MRI tech and he makes more than I do but works a lot of overtime, I know someone making upwards of 90k but not quite 100k in accounting within a medical group, mostly managing the finance office now).
You're 2 years behind him. You shouldn't make the same.
-
Be an Actuary! Low unemployment rate, fairly low stress jobs, $100k+ easy once you get credentialed - the only kicker is all the exams. It's not so bad though (she says now that she's on a study break).
-
Spouse and I are both electrical engineers, both went to a great state school (minimal debt in my case, none in his because GI bill). We live in a HCOL area. He graduated college 1998, I in 2000. Our salaries are 153k (his) 120k (mine...yes, same degree from same school, working at same company, and I still only make 78% of what he does. Thankfully my current supervisor has worked hard the last few years to make it a smaller gap after I moved over to management). Neither of us work overtime at this point in our careers. I have gone into management but still make less than he does; that tends to vary depending on the company.
Other people I know who make the same (or more) are: Ph.D scientists working in industry (not sure how research compares), manufacturing engineers, IT company owners, program management/planning (often with a technical background although one I know who broke into six digits works for a local construction company), airline pilot, sales, medical field (a friend of ours is an MRI tech and he makes more than I do but works a lot of overtime, I know someone making upwards of 90k but not quite 100k in accounting within a medical group, mostly managing the finance office now).
You're 2 years behind him. You shouldn't make the same.
Uhh...after my decades in the engineering field...
two years =/= $33k
If you have a very generous company with high raises, at that level, 2 years = 10% (maybe 12%) = $120k -> 134.4k.
So that's still a delta of *almost* $20k, for not having a penis.
-
So that's still a delta of *almost* $20k, for not having a penis.
The free market solution here is obvious: you know you can buy penises for way less than $20k, right?
Wait, does it have to be attached in order to work?
-
Spouse and I are both electrical engineers, both went to a great state school (minimal debt in my case, none in his because GI bill). We live in a HCOL area. He graduated college 1998, I in 2000. Our salaries are 153k (his) 120k (mine...yes, same degree from same school, working at same company, and I still only make 78% of what he does. Thankfully my current supervisor has worked hard the last few years to make it a smaller gap after I moved over to management). Neither of us work overtime at this point in our careers. I have gone into management but still make less than he does; that tends to vary depending on the company.
Other people I know who make the same (or more) are: Ph.D scientists working in industry (not sure how research compares), manufacturing engineers, IT company owners, program management/planning (often with a technical background although one I know who broke into six digits works for a local construction company), airline pilot, sales, medical field (a friend of ours is an MRI tech and he makes more than I do but works a lot of overtime, I know someone making upwards of 90k but not quite 100k in accounting within a medical group, mostly managing the finance office now).
You're 2 years behind him. You shouldn't make the same.
Uhh...after my decades in the engineering field...
two years =/= $33k
If you have a very generous company with high raises, at that level, 2 years = 10% (maybe 12%) = $120k -> 134.4k.
So that's still a delta of *almost* $20k, for not having a penis.
Or for having different responsibilities/roles/titles. A 2 year difference could also mean one person was hired under a generous administration and one wasn't -- my current employer's HR department lowballed me by $38k (I had director-level input on how to begin salary negotiations and it was wayyy off of reality). I ended up at 77.6% of what the department head said I should be looking for.
A good friend of mine was hired about three years prior and they bent the rules to pay him more than ordinarily allowed for the position. That isn't the case anymore!
-
So that's still a delta of *almost* $20k, for not having a penis.
The free market solution here is obvious: you know you can buy penises for way less than $20k, right?
Wait, does it have to be attached in order to work?
I think so, yes. But as I don't have one... :)
-
Or for having different responsibilities/roles/titles. A 2 year difference could also mean one person was hired under a generous administration and one wasn't -- my current employer's HR department lowballed me by $38k (I had director-level input on how to begin salary negotiations and it was wayyy off of reality). I ended up at 77.6% of what the department head said I should be looking for.
A good friend of mine was hired about three years prior and they bent the rules to pay him more than ordinarily allowed for the position. That isn't the case anymore!
Well the different responsibilities is obvious, but I'm going to assume the OP to that particular comment was taking that into account.
A piece of anec-data from my own industry, where they do industry-wide salary surveys based on job title, industry, area of expertise, and years of experience shows approximately a $13k to $17k gap between men and women, at my particular years of experience and job title. (It was $17k in 2013-14 and had dropped to $13k a couple of years ago).
Other industry-wide surveys (across many engineering disciplines) show a gap starting in year 1 or year 2.
But her emails!!
-
Or for having different responsibilities/roles/titles. A 2 year difference could also mean one person was hired under a generous administration and one wasn't -- my current employer's HR department lowballed me by $38k (I had director-level input on how to begin salary negotiations and it was wayyy off of reality). I ended up at 77.6% of what the department head said I should be looking for.
A good friend of mine was hired about three years prior and they bent the rules to pay him more than ordinarily allowed for the position. That isn't the case anymore!
Well the different responsibilities is obvious, but I'm going to assume the OP to that particular comment was taking that into account.
A piece of anec-data from my own industry, where they do industry-wide salary surveys based on job title, industry, area of expertise, and years of experience shows approximately a $13k to $17k gap between men and women, at my particular years of experience and job title. (It was $17k in 2013-14 and had dropped to $13k a couple of years ago).
Other industry-wide surveys (across many engineering disciplines) show a gap starting in year 1 or year 2.
But her emails!!
They presumably have different roles in different departments, given the distinction between managerial role and presumably non-managerial for the SO.
I'm not saying there's not a pay gap - just pointing out there are many factors beyond "we work at the same company."
-
CPA's at CPA firms start out with low salaries, $60kish but they get good raises each year. After 5 or so years they are above $100k. I have averaged 18% raises over the past 24 years. That will not continue as I am hitting the cap for my firm. Most likely I will be getting 5% raises.
Holy crap, Batman....good for you, I mean even if you started at $30k 24 years ago that means you are raking in $1.5mil a year. Damn!!!!!!!
-
CPA's at CPA firms start out with low salaries, $60kish but they get good raises each year. After 5 or so years they are above $100k. I have averaged 18% raises over the past 24 years. That will not continue as I am hitting the cap for my firm. Most likely I will be getting 5% raises.
Holy crap, Batman....good for you, I mean even if you started at $30k 24 years ago that means you are raking in $1.5mil a year. Damn!!!!!!!
I think it's more likely that he started as a $3,000/year intern and now makes a healthy professional salary.
-
CPA's at CPA firms start out with low salaries, $60kish but they get good raises each year. After 5 or so years they are above $100k. I have averaged 18% raises over the past 24 years. That will not continue as I am hitting the cap for my firm. Most likely I will be getting 5% raises.
Holy crap, Batman....good for you, I mean even if you started at $30k 24 years ago that means you are raking in $1.5mil a year. Damn!!!!!!!
I was fortunate to become an owner in the firm. I started out in the $25k+ range. I am hitting the caps for my position, so I will be getting smaller raises each year until I pull the plug.
I love my career. Very entrepreneurial, work with a lot of smart people, very flexible, and it pays well. I currently take six weeks PTO, have a completely flexible schedule, work from home 90% of the time, have great teams in various states, and have the ability to define my work to be successful. A lot of this has occurred in the past three years as I decided to either retire or create an environment that I loved. My practice has had 20% growth a year since finding MMM and restructuring my career to work less and to minimize the areas that don't fulfill me. My other goal is to assist a few more of my team to become a partner before I retire.
SOL had some great older philosophical posts about "Is Your Stache Evil" or something like that. I highly recommend everyone to read them. They impacted me in that I believe that I can make a difference by donating to charity and helping out our four children. I believe that income inequality and technology are going to impact our children in ways that I can not fully understand. My ability to help them by paying for braces, college, down payments on a house, etc. is important to me. I love my career, and if I work an extra year I can make a huge difference in their lives and the charities that we gift. Every year that I work, I can fund 7 figure charitable donations.
I also spend a ton on Scotch, food, trips, housing, outings and other frivolous things. My wife has threated to contact MMM to strip my forum access as I am a poser compared to all of you. With that being said because the income, I have been able to save in excess of 70% of my take home for the past decade(lots of lifestyle inflation and children expenses). These forums have helped in focusing our spending on the things that we value. We try to be thoughtful in our purchases, but if I posted our budget it would have to be in the anti-mustachian Wall of Shame thread.
-
Where I live (near Washington, DC), $100k salary is probably a bit below average.
Dead wrong. Nowhere near that.
Think again, friend. It's expensive here, because people are making a lot of money.......
"The income per capita is $92,468, which includes all adults and children. The median household income is $183,738."
Take the kids out, and the average is above $100k.
http://www.bestplaces.net/economy/zip-code/virginia/mclean/22101
DMV resident here and wow.. even with my bonus I'm still only making $72k and I've been with my company for about 5 years now. Granted, I wasn't a STEM major. Just generic business.
it blows my mind. I see on here with sometimes close to 200k. How? What do you do and what am I not doing? lol.
This question reappears every few months. Would it be wise to start a new forum category for "mentoring" and have individual threads within the category focus on certain careers? then everyone with knowledge of that career could offer specific advice and those seeking that knowledge could peruse the threads and ask questions.
In numerous discussions like this, I've offered that I think Project Planning and Scheduling is a very low-barrier, low-cost, high-reward career that can be self-taught. But I've provided details so many times both in the forums and in PMs that I'm now tired of re-writing it. And I never know if someone follows the advice or how it pans out. Some people like it and some don't, so I don't think it's for everyone, but I do think just about anyone is capable of learning it on their own. How "good" you get at it depends on how much effort you put in, what resources you use, etc.
This is a good idea. I'll be reading through your older posts for the details. Currently in a "glorified admin" PM/PA role. Really wanted to break six figures by the time I hit 30 but that's unlikely.
Glad to read through this thread to get some insight as to how to reach a six figure salary, so thanks OP! I've always wondered the same too. Especially living in the DMV and wondering who the hell buys all these McMansions (I know who). My peer group does not make 100K+ despite being (all 3): corporate drones for various BigCorps, college educated white collar workers, in our late 20s/early 30s (experienced).
-
I still think it should be viewed as not a simple task to get to six figures by your early 30s. This is a shift I've seen over the last few decades and it intrigues me from the basics of supply and demand. You would think from a very basic understanding of economics when the median HOUSEHOLD income is well below six figures that even someone with rudimentary intelligence could determine that means that $100K+ jobs are not prevalent enough for everyone to just get there with 10 years of work. When the average if in the low 70s and the median is in the mid 50s, basic math will tell you that many more people are below $100K than are above it. So having you and 3 of your friends not there by your 30s is not a failure, it's just part of the process. Patience and perspective seems to have been lost in the last 15 years and I'm not sure why, but everyone comes out of college with an expectation of making $100K and for many jobs that's just not going to happen. For the others it still takes a lot more than just getting older and thinking it is an entitlement of a certain job.
-
I still think it should be viewed as not a simple task to get to six figures by your early 30s. This is a shift I've seen over the last few decades and it intrigues me from the basics of supply and demand. You would think from a very basic understanding of economics when the median HOUSEHOLD income is well below six figures that even someone with rudimentary intelligence could determine that means that $100K+ jobs are not prevalent enough for everyone to just get there with 10 years of work. When the average if in the low 70s and the median is in the mid 50s, basic math will tell you that many more people are below $100K than are above it. So having you and 3 of your friends not there by your 30s is not a failure, it's just part of the process. Patience and perspective seems to have been lost in the last 15 years and I'm not sure why, but everyone comes out of college with an expectation goal of making $100K and for many jobs that's just not going to happen. For the others it still takes a lot more than just getting older and thinking it is an entitlement of a certain job.
Agreed. It's very nice to have goals to work towards isn't it? Even if you fail, you still tried.
-
I still think it should be viewed as not a simple task to get to six figures by your early 30s. This is a shift I've seen over the last few decades and it intrigues me from the basics of supply and demand. You would think from a very basic understanding of economics when the median HOUSEHOLD income is well below six figures that even someone with rudimentary intelligence could determine that means that $100K+ jobs are not prevalent enough for everyone to just get there with 10 years of work. When the average if in the low 70s and the median is in the mid 50s, basic math will tell you that many more people are below $100K than are above it. So having you and 3 of your friends not there by your 30s is not a failure, it's just part of the process. Patience and perspective seems to have been lost in the last 15 years and I'm not sure why, but everyone comes out of college with an expectation of making $100K and for many jobs that's just not going to happen. For the others it still takes a lot more than just getting older and thinking it is an entitlement of a certain job.
It's worth pointing out that the median/average household incomes are across all demographics.
In my experience, this board is highly biased toward the more educated end of the spectrum. Not even half of the American working population has college degree. Around 10% don't have a high school education. Keep in mind the demographic differences of this board with the statistics that drive the income.
-
I still think it should be viewed as not a simple task to get to six figures by your early 30s. This is a shift I've seen over the last few decades and it intrigues me from the basics of supply and demand. You would think from a very basic understanding of economics when the median HOUSEHOLD income is well below six figures that even someone with rudimentary intelligence could determine that means that $100K+ jobs are not prevalent enough for everyone to just get there with 10 years of work. When the average if in the low 70s and the median is in the mid 50s, basic math will tell you that many more people are below $100K than are above it. So having you and 3 of your friends not there by your 30s is not a failure, it's just part of the process. Patience and perspective seems to have been lost in the last 15 years and I'm not sure why, but everyone comes out of college with an expectation of making $100K and for many jobs that's just not going to happen. For the others it still takes a lot more than just getting older and thinking it is an entitlement of a certain job.
It's worth pointing out that the median/average household incomes are across all demographics.
In my experience, this board is highly biased toward the more educated end of the spectrum. Not even half of the American working population has college degree. Around 10% don't have a high school education. Keep in mind the demographic differences of this board with the statistics that drive the income.
I can appreciate that, but there are plenty of college educated folks around that still do not have the mindset to make $100K. It is not an automatic with a degree either, and getting out of that, "it's easy and I earned it because I went to college" is a good thing to strive for to not be upset if it does not happen.
-
Or for having different responsibilities/roles/titles. A 2 year difference could also mean one person was hired under a generous administration and one wasn't -- my current employer's HR department lowballed me by $38k (I had director-level input on how to begin salary negotiations and it was wayyy off of reality). I ended up at 77.6% of what the department head said I should be looking for.
A good friend of mine was hired about three years prior and they bent the rules to pay him more than ordinarily allowed for the position. That isn't the case anymore!
Well the different responsibilities is obvious, but I'm going to assume the OP to that particular comment was taking that into account.
A piece of anec-data from my own industry, where they do industry-wide salary surveys based on job title, industry, area of expertise, and years of experience shows approximately a $13k to $17k gap between men and women, at my particular years of experience and job title. (It was $17k in 2013-14 and had dropped to $13k a couple of years ago).
Other industry-wide surveys (across many engineering disciplines) show a gap starting in year 1 or year 2.
But her emails!!
Guess I'll throw my own piece of 'anec data' in.
I don't doubt I've had an unusual career and its trendy to play the unfair wage gap, but for me, I've seen more of the opposite... Women tend to get paid more.
At the moment, I only have access to 6 salaries who work for me. I know you know what's coming. Guess who is paid the MOST? Its a person who doesn't have the MOST experience and actually has the exact same responsibility of others. Yes, this person does NOT have a penis.
Admittedly the gap is 'only' 10-15% higher. So...$15k penalty for having a penis?
That's be fun on its own, but in reality, the main driving force for the discrepency is that this person negotiated and got her higher dollar amount up front. Others just had less demands AND/OR we were a little LESS desperate to fill a seat at a particular time.
Interestingly though, our company is not shy about willful 'reverse' discrimination. We are regularly 'encouraged' to select female candidates 'wherever possible'.
The same 'stuff' occurred at my last company. We should have had a slogan 'opportunities for ovaries'. Penis? Sorry...not manager material...
All discrimination has always annoyed me to the core, but maybe its not as one-sided as some would like to believe.
Perhaps my anec-data will provide some solace for those non-penis folk here who are raging at the 'man'. Trust me, I've raged at the 'woman'. You're not alone...they do it to all of us!
-
I can appreciate that, but there are plenty of college educated folks around that still do not have the mindset to make $100K. It is not an automatic with a degree either, and getting out of that, "it's easy and I earned it because I went to college" is a good thing to strive for to not be upset if it does not happen.
In 2017 the median year income for a college graduate was 61k - https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_001.htm
Keep in mind that's individual, not household.
-
I can appreciate that, but there are plenty of college educated folks around that still do not have the mindset to make $100K. It is not an automatic with a degree either, and getting out of that, "it's easy and I earned it because I went to college" is a good thing to strive for to not be upset if it does not happen.
In 2017 the median year income for a college graduate was 61k - https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_001.htm
Keep in mind that's individual, not household.
I did. The thread is not "How does my household make $100K+" it is individual, and 61K is a far cry from $100K and therefore means about 75-80% of the people will make less than that.
-
I can appreciate that, but there are plenty of college educated folks around that still do not have the mindset to make $100K. It is not an automatic with a degree either, and getting out of that, "it's easy and I earned it because I went to college" is a good thing to strive for to not be upset if it does not happen.
In 2017 the median year income for a college graduate was 61k - https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_001.htm
Keep in mind that's individual, not household.
I did. The thread is not "How does my household make $100K+" it is individual, and 61K is a far cry from $100K and therefore means about 75-80% of the people will make less than that.
Career paths determine your potential. If you are a forklift driver, you are going to have a lot of difficulty making $100k in 10 years unless you own a piece of the company.
If you are a high performing engineer, accountant, lawyer, scientist, doctor, sales person, and most professionals you will be making $100k+ in 10 years. If you are not on that trajectory and you feel that you are a high performer, then it may be time to re-evaluate your options. Moving to where the job is valued, changing careers, getting an education that is valued, may need to occur to make six figure type salaries. In the CPA world, everyone is making $100k in ten years and some are making $250k+ based on how strong they are and their geographic location.
-
Or for having different responsibilities/roles/titles. A 2 year difference could also mean one person was hired under a generous administration and one wasn't -- my current employer's HR department lowballed me by $38k (I had director-level input on how to begin salary negotiations and it was wayyy off of reality). I ended up at 77.6% of what the department head said I should be looking for.
A good friend of mine was hired about three years prior and they bent the rules to pay him more than ordinarily allowed for the position. That isn't the case anymore!
Well the different responsibilities is obvious, but I'm going to assume the OP to that particular comment was taking that into account.
A piece of anec-data from my own industry, where they do industry-wide salary surveys based on job title, industry, area of expertise, and years of experience shows approximately a $13k to $17k gap between men and women, at my particular years of experience and job title. (It was $17k in 2013-14 and had dropped to $13k a couple of years ago).
Other industry-wide surveys (across many engineering disciplines) show a gap starting in year 1 or year 2.
But her emails!!
They presumably have different roles in different departments, given the distinction between managerial role and presumably non-managerial for the SO.
I'm not saying there's not a pay gap - just pointing out there are many factors beyond "we work at the same company."
agreed. i make about right in between EEs Salary in the couple i originally quoted with many less years in the working world - graduated college with a EE in 2010. and i have a female counterpart who is 1 year ahead of me at this company that makes more than me by 20-30% and another who is two years ahead who makes what i'll guess is 60-100% more than i do. i have a male counterpart 1 year ahead who makes less than the female who is 1 year ahead. my company have obviously taken the pay gap way too far and now by being a white male i'm being discriminated against!!! gotta love bite sized anecdotal data!
-
I can appreciate that, but there are plenty of college educated folks around that still do not have the mindset to make $100K. It is not an automatic with a degree either, and getting out of that, "it's easy and I earned it because I went to college" is a good thing to strive for to not be upset if it does not happen.
In 2017 the median year income for a college graduate was 61k - https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_001.htm
Keep in mind that's individual, not household.
I did. The thread is not "How does my household make $100K+" it is individual, and 61K is a far cry from $100K and therefore means about 75-80% of the people will make less than that.
According to this chart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Income_distribution) over 9% of Americans make over 100k individually. They link to tons of census docs if you are interested.
Given that includes ALL Americans and the self selection on these boards (ie I've yet to see very many people here who work at minimum wage jobs..), it's not surprising that 100k+ salaries here would appear fairly common. Especially if you look into the education and socioeconomic demographics of this forum.
-
Or for having different responsibilities/roles/titles. A 2 year difference could also mean one person was hired under a generous administration and one wasn't -- my current employer's HR department lowballed me by $38k (I had director-level input on how to begin salary negotiations and it was wayyy off of reality). I ended up at 77.6% of what the department head said I should be looking for.
A good friend of mine was hired about three years prior and they bent the rules to pay him more than ordinarily allowed for the position. That isn't the case anymore!
Well the different responsibilities is obvious, but I'm going to assume the OP to that particular comment was taking that into account.
A piece of anec-data from my own industry, where they do industry-wide salary surveys based on job title, industry, area of expertise, and years of experience shows approximately a $13k to $17k gap between men and women, at my particular years of experience and job title. (It was $17k in 2013-14 and had dropped to $13k a couple of years ago).
Other industry-wide surveys (across many engineering disciplines) show a gap starting in year 1 or year 2.
But her emails!!
They presumably have different roles in different departments, given the distinction between managerial role and presumably non-managerial for the SO.
I'm not saying there's not a pay gap - just pointing out there are many factors beyond "we work at the same company."
agreed. i make about right in between EEs Salary in the couple i originally quoted with many less years in the working world - graduated college with a EE in 2010. and i have a female counterpart who is 1 year ahead of me at this company that makes more than me by 20-30% and another who is two years ahead who makes what i'll guess is 60-100% more than i do. i have a male counterpart 1 year ahead who makes less than the female who is 1 year ahead. my company have obviously taken the pay gap way too far and now by being a white male i'm being discriminated against!!! gotta love bite sized anecdotal data!
Did y'all miss the part of the "anec-data" that's based on regular, industry-wide surveys that match title, years of experience, and duties?
-
In IT world, it would be odd if you don't make >100K salary. I am a development resource manager so I can see all the salaries. Pretty much anyone who is remotely senior in programming and development makes more than 100K.
My good friend's husband came from another country. He used to be a waiter. When he arrived, he had to live off his American wife while working at the Mall's information booth making minimum wage. So I convinced him to get a two year tech certificate. He did. Got his first job down the street from me as a junior developer making 60K. 3 years later he was making $85K and his wife (my friend) quit her job to have a baby for the family. Now he is making over $100K. Now I call that the "American Dream".
-
200k is pretty average around the seattle area for code monkeys. No need to go to high school or college if you have grit and can self teach. A good 2/3rds of the jobs only care about your ability to answer puzzles on a whiteboard and you have a decent personality. Recent ChooseFI podcast that goes over this and what a waste college is to technology workers.
-
I do think it is important to note a shade of difference here. If the "IT world" means you work for a company whose primary business is technology (that's what it sells to its customers) that is where what you say applies. I have worked in the IT world in businesses who do not do tech (on purpose because I have no desire for 12+ hours days pounding out work to meet crazy release schedules) as their customer focus (read manufacturing and retail) and none of our developers make $100K. Even our Development Manager is under than number. I've got one developer for our ERP that makes a hair above $100K, but he's got 20 years experience.
So just being transparent for those who might jump on the supposed gravy train of IT, that this is a niche issue. I think to make those numbers you need to be in high tech, likely for companies where your job stability if not very strong, where the hours are long and the stress is high. And I think that applies to a lot of jobs. No one pays you $100K because it is easy to do.
-
A good 2/3rds of the jobs only care about your ability to answer puzzles on a whiteboard and you have a decent personality.
And can you share how many of these are with startups that will be out of funding in 2-3 years?
-
A good 2/3rds of the jobs only care about your ability to answer puzzles on a whiteboard and you have a decent personality.
And can you share how many of these are with startups that will be out of funding in 2-3 years?
None... I do not know many people who are working at startups, the place is full of big names like google, facebook, amazon, microsoft, valve, zillow, expedia, etc. For 20 years experience a decent developer around here is easily clearing 300k or more. Many have side hustles too if they are good and can pad it with another 100 to 200k. If this is a Seattle or Bay area thing only (which maybe it is, I don't know) I HIGHLY recommend you move if 100k is the top end if you are in this field. We are hiring no experience people for over 100k. Another thing the long hours are a choice. Most people I work with at most put in 8 hours a day and come and go as they please for appoinments, kids soccer games, etc. I am not saying it was not hard to become good and it can be stressful at times... but wow, what a great industry to be in if you can tolerate being a desk jockey.
I understand how these numbers can sound unbelievable if you do not live here. It would sound crazy and absurd to me too if I was an outsider. My family outside the area just has no concept on how much money you can make coding in seattle or the bay area. Probably the same thing in other fields if you are in the right industry and area you can make crazy good money as well.
Edit: I will say however, having a college degree we set aside about 1/3rd of the jobs just for college interns and they get faught over by many tech companies with multiple offers before they graduate. You do not have to go thru the same difficult interviews everyone else does, it is a smoother transition into the company. If you are terrible at interviews but a good student, college still can be ok. I just hate that everyone is becoming a slave before they enter the workforce getting into massive debt that is not needed if they get creative. Start as early as possible, invest as much as you can, and in 10 years you will probably be beating the majority of college grads who are the same age as you.
-
A good 2/3rds of the jobs only care about your ability to answer puzzles on a whiteboard and you have a decent personality.
And can you share how many of these are with startups that will be out of funding in 2-3 years?
None... I do not know many people who are working at startups, the place is full of big names like google, facebook, amazon, microsoft, valve, zillow, expedia, etc. For 20 years experience a decent developer around here is easily clearing 300k or more. Many have side hustles too if they are good and can pad it with another 100 to 200k. If this is a Seattle or Bay area thing only (which maybe it is, I don't know) I HIGHLY recommend you move if 100k is the top end if you are in this field. We are hiring no experience people for over 100k. Another thing the long hours are a choice. Most people I work with at most put in 8 hours a day and come and go as they please for appoinments, kids soccer games, etc. I am not saying it was not hard to become good and it can be stressful at times... but wow, what a great industry to be in if you can tolerate being a desk jockey.
I understand how these numbers can sound unbelievable if you do not live here. It would sound crazy and absurded to me too if I was an outsider. My family outside the area just has no concept on how much money you can make coding in seattle or the bay area. Probably the same thing in other fields if you are in the right industry and area you can make crazy good money as well.
I'm happy where I'm at. Been out in the Seattle and Bay Area for work a few times and just not places I'd enjoy living. I know some people who work at those companies and while the hours are not there the pressure for throughput is intense so yes you usually need to be a rock star. I must say very surprised that they are hiring no experience people at any level. Given the cachet for the right person to be in those companies I'm sure they have people beating down the doors to work there. I'm guessing there has to be a huge fallout rate (90%+) of those no experience developers that do not make the cut, so you get paid well for maybe a year, then you are out of a job and living in Seattle or the bay area.
-
I must say very surprised that they are hiring no experience people at any level. Given the cachet for the right person to be in those companies I'm sure they have people beating down the doors to work there. I'm guessing there has to be a huge fallout rate (90%+) of those no experience developers that do not make the cut, so you get paid well for maybe a year, then you are out of a job and living in Seattle or the bay area.
You still have to pass the interview which weeds out about 90% of the applicants. Spend 3 to 6 months on https://www.interviewbit.com/ and you will have most of the skills you need to get thru the interview. And if you were able to pass those questions even if you use very little of that information on the job, you have the grit needed to self teach on the job to deliver various projects for the most part. The majority of my skills came after I got the job, not before. The only hard part was the interview questions which I rarely use any of that knowledge on a day to day basis and I just crammed those for a few months before the interview.
-
I HIGHLY recommend you move if 100k is the top end if you are in this field. We are hiring no experience people for over 100k.
This advice is spot on. I don't think people appreciate the value of moving to where the jobs are located. MMM moved from Canada to pursue better opportunities. He busted his ass to get promotions and raises. He then moved to where he wanted to live.
Those saying that it is not possible, are not using your MMM logic. It is very possible and almost impossible to not make $100k after 10 years if you are smart, hard working, and move to where the money is. You are Mustachians!!
If the thread was how do people make $500k+ per year, I think that would generate more interesting and challenging ways to turbo charge your career. $100k is too easy, if you are willing to flex your Mustachian ways.
-
I HIGHLY recommend you move if 100k is the top end if you are in this field. We are hiring no experience people for over 100k.
This advice is spot on. I don't think people appreciate the value of moving to where the jobs are located. MMM moved from Canada to pursue better opportunities. He busted his ass to get promotions and raises. He then moved to where he wanted to live.
Those saying that it is not possible, are not using your MMM logic. It is very possible and almost impossible to not make $100k after 10 years if you are smart, hard working, and move to where the money is. You are Mustachians!!
If the thread was how do people make $500k+ per year, I think that would generate more interesting and challenging ways to turbo charge your career. $100k is too easy, if you are willing to flex your Mustachian ways.
I agree with you that the power of moving is highly underestimated and that there will be areas where it's "easy" to get to a $100k salary (usually with corresponding increased COL though). However I think you take it too far by saying that it's almost impossible to not make $100k after 10 years if you're moving where the money is.
Not every field of work has the same timeline to 100k, if this timeline exists at all. So if you picked the wrong college degree or just have a lack of talent for [insert high paying field of choice] you'd first need to get another degree to be able to get your desired job in one of those areas.
Then there's the big question of "do you even want to live there?". Now I'm a person that's very fond of moving, but I don't want to live anywhere. Sure I could've become a semi-self-taught bioinformatician, move to the bay area and make a killing. However that means that I'd have to live in an area where I don't want to live far from family. I know this is to a certain extent what MMM did, but it's not for everyone.
Also, I don't know how you grew up, but for many people from lower income families $100k DOES seem like a long stretch away and almost impossible. In my country/continent $100k salaries are hard to come by so I'm still surprised by the numbers I find here sometimes.
What I like about the example of $100k is that it's not impossibly high and that there's many ways to get there.
- Certain fields of work you're most likely to get to it (medical doctor, big law)
- Work hard in a good market (currently seen in many trades/carpentry jobs)
- Have your own business/be a contracter for a high hourly rate
- "Just" move over to a HCOL tech startup hotspot where they hire college grads with the right degree for $100k straight out of school.
So if "just move" doesn't apply to you, there's still plenty of other ways to reach a $100k in another area (probably also with lower COL).
$500k salaries are rare even in the highest cost of living areas and will require you to combine multiple of those strategies and/or start a very succesful business. I'd still be very happy to read the responses onto that though for inspiration :)
-
Not every field of work has the same timeline to 100k, if this timeline exists at all. So if you picked the wrong college degree or just have a lack of talent for [insert high paying field of choice] you'd first need to get another degree to be able to get your desired job in one of those areas.
I believe the Mustachian way is to be nimble, creative and entrepreneurial. If you are in year 2 of your career and realize that you picked the wrong field. Go back to school and get a degree that pays more. If you finished a degree, then you have tons of overall credits so now you need to get the credits for the education that you think that will be better off in the future.
I also think that most trades can easily make more than $100k at year 10 in the right areas. There are building booms in many parts of the country. If you work your butt off for four years learning a skill, you can then start your own business. Our builder has no college education and conservatively makes high six figures and most likely low 7 figure in building a few custom homes a year.
Mustachians don't shoot for mediocre work. If you are a car mechanic, become the best car mechanic in the area. Demand great pay or start your own shop. If you have a great reputation by connecting to every person that brings their car to the shop, then you will draw people from far and away.
Also, if you are a hard charging, smart creative person you will be in management by year 10 at most organizations. Potentially, upper management if you have been killing it for a decade.
I also think there are tons of side hustles that can bring in $25k a year without too much additional effort. Being nimble and entrepreneurial, can take you into these areas.
I was not talking about making $100k right out of college. Even though there are tons of careers that do make a $100k in the right areas with the right knowledge. It was focusing on making $100k after 10 years.
I truly believe that everyone can make $100k if they are willing to put in the hard work, move to where the jobs are, take some educated chances, be willing to go backwards to go forwards, etc. Follow in MMM footsteps. He did not put in 8 hours days and then go home and watch TV. He was building spec homes, starting a blog, and growing other passions that pay.
-
Nurse
ER= extra
Night shift=extra
preceptor=extra
charge= not there yet but will be extra
1 day of overtime in the off season
2 days of overtime in season
Around $120k
Point is I've nearly doubled my salary cause i'm willing to do things that others do not.
I did have to job hop a little to find an employer who paid more generously than others in the area, and i do have to travel 35min to work when there is a hospital that i can see out my window.
-
I do think it is important to note a shade of difference here. If the "IT world" means you work for a company whose primary business is technology (that's what it sells to its customers) that is where what you say applies. I have worked in the IT world in businesses who do not do tech (on purpose because I have no desire for 12+ hours days pounding out work to meet crazy release schedules) as their customer focus (read manufacturing and retail) and none of our developers make $100K. Even our Development Manager is under than number. I've got one developer for our ERP that makes a hair above $100K, but he's got 20 years experience.
So just being transparent for those who might jump on the supposed gravy train of IT, that this is a niche issue. I think to make those numbers you need to be in high tech, likely for companies where your job stability if not very strong, where the hours are long and the stress is high. And I think that applies to a lot of jobs. No one pays you $100K because it is easy to do.
I work for one of the big west coast tech companies in the seattle area and want to give some perspective on this just as effigy does above so you know he's not just talking out of his ass. ;)
I'm a senior engineer on the infrastructure side of things and design/build some of the worldwide IT infra for 'big tech', we make similar $$ to what effigy quotes. And like he says it sounds absurd and unreal but it's no lie. Just about everyone in the building makes over $100k, Sr level high 100's to mid 200's. Principal level mid 200's-low 300's total comp. I hope he's talking total comp, otherwise I should learn to slang some code. :D
Every once in a while there will be a troubleshooting incident or a site deployment that goes long but that is pretty rare. 8-10 is the norm where I work and the schedule is very flexible around family or life stuff. I WFH 2-3 times a week and choose my own hours for the most part. I know people working at all the top 5 and this is pretty normal. AMZN I think is the exception, but even there it's team specific. If you're working on a sweatshop team people either jump teams or jump ship to Redmond. ;)
In terms of pressure, I mean how do you define that? Of course there are timelines and big projects but that's why you go to work for big tech. We design for big capacity and redundancy, high risk changes are vetted technically and go through a review process. And by the time you've got 10+ years in your field you ought to know WTF you're doing and not be freaking out about launching something. I'm definitely not stressed out or under extreme pressure all the time. Sure there are occasional incidents but that's true of any job. If you're under constant high pressure/high stress situations then you're doing it wrong.
Just wanted to throw this out so that people don't have the wrong idea in their head about having to sacrifice too much for this type of job. There are WAY worse jobs for worse money.
-
I think highly paid jobs are basically the payoff from a long, expensive period of study & internship and the housing-cost offset that is required to entice someone to take a job in a high housing-cost locale relative to a normal-cost locale. Add I would add that later in a career, it is the payoff from the stress of working very hard to show oneself as worthy of moving up the career ladder.
The great thing about being a Moustacher is that since the power-stroke time of life (i.e., working) is much shorter, so all that essentially built-up equity would be wasted relative to someone on a more normal career-life trajectory.
-
All interesting points, and was nice to hear why my software from those companies to so darn expensive. I make well over $100K and hit that number about 6 years out of college working in IT in manufacturing, but it look a lot of branding in that space to get myself known by the business as someone they could count on and who could deliver on the big projects. I also saw lots of aspiring colleagues flame out and not make it anywhere near the sun.
It is hard for me to wrap my head around how simple you all make it seem of in those areas, but obviously several of you are doing it and saying it is almost automatic out there, so it shows the truth of the result. Just amazing that those companies too that type of money around to people. I do wonder how your verison of "not so hard" would compare to other areas of the country, meaning I wonder how much of that is bias built on the fact that those west cost cultures are built around people being pretty busy, so a Mustachian really just taking things simply would seem super relaxing compared to all the stuff going on. After all, we've also seen the articles from ex-Googlers, Facebookers and Amazoners who talk about the hellish conditions they left. Glad it is working out so well for you guys. Sounds like it is a lot of fun for you and that's wonderful. Thanks for offering perspective on the ground there. I'm too much of a people person to have enjoyed the prospect of coding all day long. I moved out of that space pretty quickly, but I certainly have seen the consistent position of developer in the Top 10 jobs for a long, long time and understand in hiring some developers how much demand there is in that space. Certainly would have to drive up salaries and in those spaces where there is even more shortage it looks like it drives things up even more. Good for you guys.
ETA: I also agree the willingness to move and live in certain places plays a role. I have spent enough time out in the Bay Area to know I would not do well there. Just does not align in a way to make me happy. Just as I've spent enough time in NYC to know the same about that place. I think it would be frustrating if I was on this hamster wheel of wanting to maximize income, but I'm OK with where I'm at and the weather I enjoy more and the plethora of people who mesh well with my personality versus feeling like a fish out of water in those other locations makes my happy where I am. I think MMM was blessed to find a place he could make good money (I also do not recall MMM saying he made $100K at his job, I think he said he was in the 90s). and that also aligned with his lifestyle. Seattle and CA are just not those for me.
-
All interesting points, and was nice to hear why my software from those companies to so darn expensive. I make well over $100K and hit that number about 6 years out of college working in IT in manufacturing, but it look a lot of branding in that space to get myself known by the business as someone they could count on and who could deliver on the big projects. I also saw lots of aspiring colleagues flame out and not make it anywhere near the sun.
It is hard for me to wrap my head around how simple you all make it seem of in those areas, but obviously several of you are doing it and saying it is almost automatic out there, so it shows the truth of the result. Just amazing that those companies too that type of money around to people. I do wonder how your verison of "not so hard" would compare to other areas of the country, meaning I wonder how much of that is bias built on the fact that those west cost cultures are built around people being pretty busy, so a Mustachian really just taking things simply would seem super relaxing compared to all the stuff going on. After all, we've also seen the articles from ex-Googlers, Facebookers and Amazoners who talk about the hellish conditions they left. Glad it is working out so well for you guys. Sounds like it is a lot of fun for you and that's wonderful. Thanks for offering perspective on the ground there. I'm too much of a people person to have enjoyed the prospect of coding all day long. I moved out of that space pretty quickly, but I certainly have seen the consistent position of developer in the Top 10 jobs for a long, long time and understand in hiring some developers how much demand there is in that space. Certainly would have to drive up salaries and in those spaces where there is even more shortage it looks like it drives things up even more. Good for you guys.
ETA: I also agree the willingness to move and live in certain places plays a role. I have spent enough time out in the Bay Area to know I would not do well there. Just does not align in a way to make me happy. Just as I've spent enough time in NYC to know the same about that place. I think it would be frustrating if I was on this hamster wheel of wanting to maximize income, but I'm OK with where I'm at and the weather I enjoy more and the plethora of people who mesh well with my personality versus feeling like a fish out of water in those other locations makes my happy where I am. I think MMM was blessed to find a place he could make good money (I also do not recall MMM saying he made $100K at his job, I think he said he was in the 90s). and that also aligned with his lifestyle. Seattle and CA are just not those for me.
Just a few more comments:
About the not that hard thing. You have to be intelligent, self-disciplined (to a point) and good at what you do to make the higher level positions/incomes listed. But assuming you are you don't have to hit the lottery, just do a good job and play the game. I think the point is these jobs are not C level positions that very few can attain with connections, education, politics, etc. You don't have to kill yourself or others to land them. :D
I don't understand the comment about West coast culture built around being busy. I'm definitely a west coast guy (PacNW and Norcal) but have worked all around the country. IMO west coast is WAY more laid back than midwest (work hard boyscout culture) or especially east coast (busy blunt culture).
You gotta realize not all of WA or CA are bustling big cities. Moving for career is one thing, but it doesn't mean you have to live in a city. I can visit a city but F no am I living in one. Here is my town:
(http://christinekipp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/neighborhoods-carnation.jpg)
-
All interesting points, and was nice to hear why my software from those companies to so darn expensive. I make well over $100K and hit that number about 6 years out of college working in IT in manufacturing, but it look a lot of branding in that space to get myself known by the business as someone they could count on and who could deliver on the big projects. I also saw lots of aspiring colleagues flame out and not make it anywhere near the sun.
It is hard for me to wrap my head around how simple you all make it seem of in those areas, but obviously several of you are doing it and saying it is almost automatic out there, so it shows the truth of the result. Just amazing that those companies too that type of money around to people. I do wonder how your verison of "not so hard" would compare to other areas of the country, meaning I wonder how much of that is bias built on the fact that those west cost cultures are built around people being pretty busy, so a Mustachian really just taking things simply would seem super relaxing compared to all the stuff going on. After all, we've also seen the articles from ex-Googlers, Facebookers and Amazoners who talk about the hellish conditions they left. Glad it is working out so well for you guys. Sounds like it is a lot of fun for you and that's wonderful. Thanks for offering perspective on the ground there. I'm too much of a people person to have enjoyed the prospect of coding all day long. I moved out of that space pretty quickly, but I certainly have seen the consistent position of developer in the Top 10 jobs for a long, long time and understand in hiring some developers how much demand there is in that space. Certainly would have to drive up salaries and in those spaces where there is even more shortage it looks like it drives things up even more. Good for you guys.
ETA: I also agree the willingness to move and live in certain places plays a role. I have spent enough time out in the Bay Area to know I would not do well there. Just does not align in a way to make me happy. Just as I've spent enough time in NYC to know the same about that place. I think it would be frustrating if I was on this hamster wheel of wanting to maximize income, but I'm OK with where I'm at and the weather I enjoy more and the plethora of people who mesh well with my personality versus feeling like a fish out of water in those other locations makes my happy where I am. I think MMM was blessed to find a place he could make good money (I also do not recall MMM saying he made $100K at his job, I think he said he was in the 90s). and that also aligned with his lifestyle. Seattle and CA are just not those for me.
Just a few more comments:
About the not that hard thing. You have to be intelligent, self-disciplined (to a point) and good at what you do to make the higher level positions/incomes listed. But assuming you are you don't have to hit the lottery, just do a good job and play the game. I think the point is these jobs are not C level positions that very few can attain with connections, education, politics, etc. You don't have to kill yourself or others to land them. :D
I don't understand the comment about West coast culture built around being busy. I'm definitely a west coast guy (PacNW and Norcal) but have worked all around the country. IMO west coast is WAY more laid back than midwest (work hard boyscout culture) or especially east coast (busy blunt culture).
You gotta realize not all of WA or CA are bustling big cities. Moving for career is one thing, but it doesn't mean you have to live in a city. I can visit a city but F no am I living in one. Here is my town:
(http://christinekipp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/neighborhoods-carnation.jpg)
Oooh. Pretty.
In my experience, East Coast is way more hard core than west coast. Comparing DC and CA here.
-
Wife and I are both over $100k base, plus 10%+ (depending on company performance) bonus (HHI of ~$250k before bonuses). We both work in corporate finance for big companies (F250). We're an interesting case study because we've been working almost the exact same amount of time (~12 years, we are in our mid 30s), in the same field, with similar degrees (her finance, me accounting, I have an MBA but no CPA, she has no advanced degrees). Our titles are both "manager"; she manages of a team of 7 and me a team of 5. I have worked for 5 companies in 12 years (two 5 year stints, 2 short stints, plus 6 months and counting at my current employer). She worked for 2 companies total (~4 years at one and ~8 at the other current one). I believe my moving around/job hopping has contributed to my currently earning ~$15k more than her, plus I have the MBA (from a local, not prestigious school). Most of our friends work similar corporate jobs, and I would be shocked if any of them make less than $100k, except for the ones who are elementary school teachers (HS teachers with 10 years in are over $100k here). We're in a mid/high COL area outside Chicago (high taxes, but COL is not as bad as East/West coasts).
-
After all, we've also seen the articles from ex-Googlers, Facebookers and Amazoners who talk about the hellish conditions they left.
You realize that just the 3 companies you cited employ tens of thousands of regular programmers, right? Not executives or particularly senior people, just bread and butter employees.
It'd be shocking if there weren't any disgruntled ex-employees willing to write about their experience.
-
You realize that just the 3 companies you cited employ tens of thousands of regular programmers, right?
For perspective, Facebook has about 25k employees, google has about 62k employees, and amazon... wait for it... over a half million.
People talk about these three companies like they are roughly the same size, but in reality Facebook is basically a mom and pop store compared to amazon.
-
You realize that just the 3 companies you cited employ tens of thousands of regular programmers, right?
For perspective, Facebook has about 25k employees, google has about 62k employees, and amazon... wait for it... over a half million.
People talk about these three companies like they are roughly the same size, but in reality Facebook is basically a mom and pop store compared to amazon.
How many of the Amazon jobs are fulfillment/blue collar/hourly type though? I'll bet if you compared apples:apples in terms of white collar/professional/tech jobs, Amazon isn't that different than FB/Google. Most of Amazon's headcount is just labor supporting their physical product given that Google and FB products are mostly virtual.
-
I make north of $100k and I have a little side gig that pulls in an extra $20k. DW makes a little north of $50k. Compared to other folks that's not really a shit-ton of money. The arbitrage for us is living in a LCOL metro area, so we can live comfortably middle class and save a lot more than we could in California, NY, NJ, Connecticut, etc.
-
Coincidentally, I just saw this article pop up...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/16/us-cities-with-the-most-six-figure-salaries-available.html
-
I work for one of the big west coast tech companies in the seattle area and want to give some perspective on this just as effigy does above so you know he's not just talking out of his ass. ;)
I'm a senior engineer on the infrastructure side of things and design/build some of the worldwide IT infra for 'big tech', we make similar $$ to what effigy quotes. And like he says it sounds absurd and unreal but it's no lie. Just about everyone in the building makes over $100k, Sr level high 100's to mid 200's. Principal level mid 200's-low 300's total comp. I hope he's talking total comp, otherwise I should learn to slang some code. :D
Those numbers actually sound kind of low for total comp at the major west coast tech companies. I'm a mid-level SRE at Google and make a little over $200k/yr total comp not including extra on-call compensation. If we have Principle Engineers making under $500k total comp, then something is going very wrong.
As far as work conditions go, working at Google feels fairly laid back to me. I have my complaints, and work certainly tends to pile up until it becomes stressful unless you manage expectations and limit the work in progress queue well, but it's generally very 9-5ish unless I'm on-call, which I'm compensated for as well (in either dollars or extra PTO, my choice).
-
You realize that just the 3 companies you cited employ tens of thousands of regular programmers, right?
For perspective, Facebook has about 25k employees, google has about 62k employees, and amazon... wait for it... over a half million.
People talk about these three companies like they are roughly the same size, but in reality Facebook is basically a mom and pop store compared to amazon.
How many of the Amazon jobs are fulfillment/blue collar/hourly type though? I'll bet if you compared apples:apples in terms of white collar/professional/tech jobs, Amazon isn't that different than FB/Google. Most of Amazon's headcount is just labor supporting their physical product given that Google and FB products are mostly virtual.
Amazon's workforce is skewed toward the lower end of the payscale, since in many ways they are a logistics company that happens to have a good website, make original content, and oh yeah, offer cloud services that power a good chunk of the internet.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/30/technology/google-median-salary-rank-facebook-amazon-apple/index.html
(http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/30/technology/google-median-salary-rank-facebook-amazon-apple/index.html)
-
You realize that just the 3 companies you cited employ tens of thousands of regular programmers, right?
For perspective, Facebook has about 25k employees, google has about 62k employees, and amazon... wait for it... over a half million.
People talk about these three companies like they are roughly the same size, but in reality Facebook is basically a mom and pop store compared to amazon.
How many of the Amazon jobs are fulfillment/blue collar/hourly type though? I'll bet if you compared apples:apples in terms of white collar/professional/tech jobs, Amazon isn't that different than FB/Google. Most of Amazon's headcount is just labor supporting their physical product given that Google and FB products are mostly virtual.
Amazon's workforce is skewed toward the lower end of the payscale, since in many ways they are a logistics company that happens to have a good website, make original content, and oh yeah, offer cloud services that power a good chunk of the internet.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/30/technology/google-median-salary-rank-facebook-amazon-apple/index.html
(http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/30/technology/google-median-salary-rank-facebook-amazon-apple/index.html)
From the info Bezos recently released on Prime members and their recent quarterly earnings we also know the 50% of their revenue comes from simply having people pay for a service, which is a nice gig if you can get it.
-
Coincidentally, I just saw this article pop up...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/16/us-cities-with-the-most-six-figure-salaries-available.html
These lists really aren't that helpful unless you take COL into account. For example, $100k in Dallas, TX is equivalent to ~$178k in Boston, ~$189k in NY, and ~$280k in SF.
-
Those numbers actually sound kind of low for total comp at the major west coast tech companies. I'm a mid-level SRE at Google and make a little over $200k/yr total comp not including extra on-call compensation. If we have Principle Engineers making under $500k total comp, then something is going very wrong.
As far as work conditions go, working at Google feels fairly laid back to me. I have my complaints, and work certainly tends to pile up until it becomes stressful unless you manage expectations and limit the work in progress queue well, but it's generally very 9-5ish unless I'm on-call, which I'm compensated for as well (in either dollars or extra PTO, my choice).
PacNW or Bay? PacNW runs lower but COL is as well.
-
Get a job with a Research and Development company. People in that industry get paid extremely well.
-
PacNW or Bay? PacNW runs lower but COL is as well.
Bay Area. CoL is quite high, but San Jose (where I live) is still a bit less than San Francisco which is what a lot of people seem to compare to for the BA.
Even at the CoL differences though, it's close to a wash at entry/mid-level and senior/staff/principle sounds low at ~$300k.
-
PacNW or Bay? PacNW runs lower but COL is as well.
Bay Area. CoL is quite high, but San Jose (where I live) is still a bit less than San Francisco which is what a lot of people seem to compare to for the BA.
Even at the CoL differences though, it's close to a wash at entry/mid-level and senior/staff/principle sounds low at ~$300k.
I still believe this has to be company dependent. Our LA office did not have salaries much higher than our midwest offices for the same positions. We had people fighting to move from LA to our midwest office so they could actually live on the salary they made versus struggling out in LA.
-
I still believe this has to be company dependent. Our LA office did not have salaries much higher than our midwest offices for the same positions. We had people fighting to move from LA to our midwest office so they could actually live on the salary they made versus struggling out in LA.
For sure, though there's deeper issues than pay-at-position-X in play at least at Google. IIRC, there's a CoL adjustment that has slightly more for the Bay Area and NYC, though it's not too big and purchasing power-wise you're better off in, e.g. Chicago. But that's only true at any given moment in time. The larger pay issue is that advancement tends towards the Bay Area and NYC, because those are the biggest offices and generally have the bigger projects/more influential teams/etc (at least in the US). Standard corporate politics type stuff. For example, I'm on a high-profile infrastructure team that would be hard to match at another office, and while Google tries to be really fair about stuff, it's still an organization made up of humans. I imagine a similar phenomena might happen at other companies, where the location pay disparity is ultimately driven more by the positions available than pay for a given position.
For someone trying to FI, the optimal path (with respect to Google) is probably taking a job at a major office and then transfer to, say, Boulder or Chicago, after getting up a few rungs and locking in a solid base salary + equity set up. Of course, that depends on your personality too. I don't find the Bay Area particularly stressful, but it seems like it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
-
PacNW or Bay? PacNW runs lower but COL is as well.
Bay Area. CoL is quite high, but San Jose (where I live) is still a bit less than San Francisco which is what a lot of people seem to compare to for the BA.
Even at the CoL differences though, it's close to a wash at entry/mid-level and senior/staff/principle sounds low at ~$300k.
I still believe this has to be company dependent. Our LA office did not have salaries much higher than our midwest offices for the same positions. We had people fighting to move from LA to our midwest office so they could actually live on the salary they made versus struggling out in LA.
That may be true if you transferred within the company, but I find it hard to believe they were able to hire people into the company from the local economy in LA if they were paying significantly under market wages.
-
Just want to get back to the total comp thing. How are you defining total? Are you including RSUs with a vesting schedule? Or just base + bonus?
-
PacNW or Bay? PacNW runs lower but COL is as well.
Bay Area. CoL is quite high, but San Jose (where I live) is still a bit less than San Francisco which is what a lot of people seem to compare to for the BA.
Even at the CoL differences though, it's close to a wash at entry/mid-level and senior/staff/principle sounds low at ~$300k.
I still believe this has to be company dependent. Our LA office did not have salaries much higher than our midwest offices for the same positions. We had people fighting to move from LA to our midwest office so they could actually live on the salary they made versus struggling out in LA.
That may be true if you transferred within the company, but I find it hard to believe they were able to hire people into the company from the local economy in LA if they were paying significantly under market wages.
All our LA people were hired there, so I'd have to assume they were market wages, which is why it is stunning to me to see these kinds of numbers because our CA office was in no way paying those salaries and we had no issue finding people.
-
All our LA people were hired there, so I'd have to assume they were market wages, which is why it is stunning to me to see these kinds of numbers because our CA office was in no way paying those salaries and we had no issue finding people.
Again, I don't believe it is industry or geographically isolated. For those in a high demand industry it is a slam dunk day one. For others it is more than doable if you are smart, hardworking, willing to relocate, move jobs, etc.
I know a dump truck driver that makes six figures and he is not in a major city. Virtually, all police officers make greater than six figures after 10 years and they are also eligible for a great pension. Fire and other services as well.
Any senior level construction person would be making six figures after a decade because there is a building boom in many places across the US and World.
If you are able and willing to move to where the jobs are then I don't see much of a hurdle to hitting six figures.
Based on your posts I would think that you should be looking for a career at a different company. The unemployment rate is ridiculously low right now. A smart, hard working person should be bringing home significantly more compensation than you are currently making.
-
Just want to get back to the total comp thing. How are you defining total? Are you including RSUs with a vesting schedule? Or just base + bonus?
Me, I assume? Base + Bonus + RSUs, annualized basis. My vesting is quarterly, no cliff, and gets refreshed with a new 4-year grant after end-of-year performance reviews. I don't hold on to my shares (and will be enrolling in auto-sale once I'm able to), and since they're in a liquid publicly traded company, they're basically cash albeit subject to some market variance between grant and vest time.
I would not count RSUs/options in my total comp if I were at a startup without a public share market.
Are you talking only base + bonus? That would definitely lower the numbers a bit. Comp is designed long-term around RSUs, as the increasing refreshes mean that RSUs match and potentially exceed the base salary, particularly at higher levels where RSU grants outpace salary bumps.
-
I worked in Food Research and Development for a super large corporation that is world wide. I was a low man on the totem pole and made $60K+. I didn't start off making that much but was there for many years. There were food scientists, microbiologists, technologists, engineers, project managers, head of R&D, and many other positions. Those people made big, big bucks. It was a Monday thru Friday job for the most part. I used to travel a lot and would leave for my destination mostly on Sundays and got paid double time to fly on a plane across the country. Sometimes I would travel with my boss and with my double time I think I made more than them per hour! However, I was hourly and they were salary so they didn't get any extra money but could take comp time. R&D typically had DEEP pockets and you could buy just about anything you wanted for the lab. No questions asked. Raises were always very generous and I was promoted twice. Loved that job but they moved out of my state and I decided not to move. I also worked for another R&D company but it was a crappy company and they were teeter tottering financially. Horrible environment. The pay was decent, benefits were good, not great. I hung in there because of 'my age' until they laid off 5 of us. They were not a big corporation. They were just one small company of about 50 people. If you go for R&D look for the big ones like P&G, Cocoa Cola, Pepsi, General Mills and many others. The smaller companies struggle with money and selling their inventions or products. The only good thing about one of these small crap companies is a stepping stone for a new college graduate. They can suck up technology like a sponge and stick around for a year or so then bail for a better company. That is what I would do. Unless the small crap company has a real breakthrough, there is no future there. With an international company you can have opportunities to work in other countries for a few years. This is a real career booster. When you return to the states after an assignment, there is usually always a promotion for you.
As a side note, I would also suggest that you learn a second and third language. This is another thing that will help you up the ladder. French, Spanish and Chinese would be my choices.
-
Just want to get back to the total comp thing. How are you defining total? Are you including RSUs with a vesting schedule? Or just base + bonus?
Me, I assume? Base + Bonus + RSUs, annualized basis. My vesting is quarterly, no cliff, and gets refreshed with a new 4-year grant after end-of-year performance reviews. I don't hold on to my shares (and will be enrolling in auto-sale once I'm able to), and since they're in a liquid publicly traded company, they're basically cash albeit subject to some market variance between grant and vest time.
I would not count RSUs/options in my total comp if I were at a startup without a public share market.
Are you talking only base + bonus? That would definitely lower the numbers a bit. Comp is designed long-term around RSUs, as the increasing refreshes mean that RSUs match and potentially exceed the base salary, particularly at higher levels where RSU grants outpace salary bumps.
Yes, I was talking base + bonus, sorry for the confusion. I guess I should include RSUs for long term employees (Sr/Principal level) since they're not so much in danger of hopping somewhere else and having to ramp up a vest schedule. I just have that mode of thinking because I've known quite a few folks lured to AMZN with what looks like on paper a generous comp package but heavily loaded with RSUs. A year or two later they're sick of 12-14 hour days and don't even care about 'losing' that stock.
-
Yes, I was talking base + bonus, sorry for the confusion. I guess I should include RSUs for long term employees (Sr/Principal level) since they're not so much in danger of hopping somewhere else and having to ramp up a vest schedule. I just have that mode of thinking because I've known quite a few folks lured to AMZN with what looks like on paper a generous comp package but heavily loaded with RSUs. A year or two later they're sick of 12-14 hour days and don't even care about 'losing' that stock.
Ah yes, the schedule and risk of losing them is a definite factor. Quarterly vesting (and will likely bump to monthly next year), no cliff means it's not really a risk in the same way for me, since they basically pay out alongside salary. Note that this is true in general at Google.
I've heard from several former-Amazon folks here that Amazon likes to backload the RSU schedule, so that job hopping is much more likely to cause a loss there. You're probably right to consider them differently when that's true or if similar risks are part of the contract.
-
All our LA people were hired there, so I'd have to assume they were market wages, which is why it is stunning to me to see these kinds of numbers because our CA office was in no way paying those salaries and we had no issue finding people.
Again, I don't believe it is industry or geographically isolated. For those in a high demand industry it is a slam dunk day one. For others it is more than doable if you are smart, hardworking, willing to relocate, move jobs, etc.
I know a dump truck driver that makes six figures and he is not in a major city. Virtually, all police officers make greater than six figures after 10 years and they are also eligible for a great pension. Fire and other services as well.
Any senior level construction person would be making six figures after a decade because there is a building boom in many places across the US and World.
If you are able and willing to move to where the jobs are then I don't see much of a hurdle to hitting six figures.
Based on your posts I would think that you should be looking for a career at a different company. The unemployment rate is ridiculously low right now. A smart, hard working person should be bringing home significantly more compensation than you are currently making.
I assume you must be talking about LA, because if not, LOLOLOLOL.
https://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/police-officer-Salary-Details.aspx?&yearsofexperience=12
-signed, a former LEO
-
[I assume you must be talking about LA, because if not, LOLOLOLOL.
https://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/police-officer-Salary-Details.aspx?&yearsofexperience=12
-signed, a former LEO
You should never use salary.com for salary information. That site is not accurate.
What city are you in?
With overtime, businesses hiring you for special events, longevity bonuses, education bonuses, and every other bonus that you would qualify for if you were there for 10+ years then you should easily be making $100k if you are located in a reasonable sized town. Again moving may be in many people's best interest. Many/most of these positions are also eligible for a very sweet pension. In Seattle it is 60% of your salary cost adjusted for life. These pensions are probably worth another 1/3 of your compensation if you figured out the value.
http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2017/05/the_25_towns_with_the_highest_police_salaries_in_nj.html
https://www.seattle.gov/police/police-jobs/salary-and-benefits
https://everettwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1050/Recruitment-Brochure-PDF
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Human_Resources/2018_POLICE_wage_schedule.pdf
Virtually everyone on the LAPD makes over $100k. http://salaries.scpr.org/list?commit=Search&page=50&query=police+sergeant&utf8=%E2%9C%93
-
I work for one of the big west coast tech companies in the seattle area and want to give some perspective on this just as effigy does above so you know he's not just talking out of his ass. ;)
I'm a senior engineer on the infrastructure side of things and design/build some of the worldwide IT infra for 'big tech', we make similar $$ to what effigy quotes. And like he says it sounds absurd and unreal but it's no lie. Just about everyone in the building makes over $100k, Sr level high 100's to mid 200's. Principal level mid 200's-low 300's total comp. I hope he's talking total comp, otherwise I should learn to slang some code. :D
Those numbers actually sound kind of low for total comp at the major west coast tech companies. I'm a mid-level SRE at Google and make a little over $200k/yr total comp not including extra on-call compensation. If we have Principle Engineers making under $500k total comp, then something is going very wrong.
As far as work conditions go, working at Google feels fairly laid back to me. I have my complaints, and work certainly tends to pile up until it becomes stressful unless you manage expectations and limit the work in progress queue well, but it's generally very 9-5ish unless I'm on-call, which I'm compensated for as well (in either dollars or extra PTO, my choice).
Those numbers big_slacker quoted are dead on with my company, we probably work at the same one... I know we are underpaid compared to a few other companies (including me). Yes I was talking total compensation. I REALLY enjoy my worklife balance (4 real hours of work required) here however, the network of people I know, and the location (can bike in from my home on a bike trail mostly), I hate interviewing, and the place just seems like my second home now so I rather just ride out my final years until FI here. I HIGHLY recommend you try to get into the higher paying tech companies first if you are planning on moving here. Total compensation is key vs salary so keep that in mind.
-
[I assume you must be talking about LA, because if not, LOLOLOLOL.
https://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/police-officer-Salary-Details.aspx?&yearsofexperience=12
-signed, a former LEO
You should never use salary.com for salary information. That site is not accurate.
What city are you in?
With overtime, businesses hiring you for special events, longevity bonuses, education bonuses, and every other bonus that you would qualify for if you were there for 10+ years then you should easily be making $100k if you are located in a reasonable sized town. Again moving may be in many people's best interest. Many/most of these positions are also eligible for a very sweet pension. In Seattle it is 60% of your salary cost adjusted for life. These pensions are probably worth another 1/3 of your compensation if you figured out the value.
http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2017/05/the_25_towns_with_the_highest_police_salaries_in_nj.html
https://www.seattle.gov/police/police-jobs/salary-and-benefits
https://everettwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1050/Recruitment-Brochure-PDF
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Human_Resources/2018_POLICE_wage_schedule.pdf
Virtually everyone on the LAPD makes over $100k. http://salaries.scpr.org/list?commit=Search&page=50&query=police+sergeant&utf8=%E2%9C%93
You said "virtually all police officers" -- not "virtually all HCOL police officers." There are plenty of places where that is possible, but "virtually all" is laughable.
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/patrol-officer/salary
https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-pay-police-officers-highest-lowest-salaries.html/?a=viewall
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333051.htm
-
You said "virtually all police officers" -- not "virtually all HCOL police officers." There are plenty of places where that is possible, but "virtually all" is laughable.
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/patrol-officer/salary
https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-pay-police-officers-highest-lowest-salaries.html/?a=viewall
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333051.htm
In five minutes I listed a number of small and lower cost of living cities(Everett, Edmonds, WA). If you would like to provide your exact city, we can pull the data from that city. Mustachians after 10 years would not be mediocre. They would be in the top 10% as they would be pulling down overtime, promotions, and side hustles. I stand by my comment that virtually all police officers make more than $100k if they are doing what a normal Mustachian would do. If they are located in a dying city where someone could not make that type of money, then I would repeat what I have said in virtually every post on this topic. "You may need to move"
If you are in Los Angeles, Seattle, Silicon Valley, you should be touching on $150k - $200k after 10 years.
Spokane info from 2014 - Type in police sergeant or whatever you think would be a typical title after 10 years.
http://www.spokesman.com/data/city-employee-salaries/
Here is Tacoma, Wa 2017 - http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/databases/article25876201.html
Spokane, Everett, Tacoma are not high cost of living areas in Washington State. Easy to make $100k in any of these cities with overtime, longevity, education, and side hustles.
If people are living in towns that are not prosperous, then it might be time to move.
-
You said "virtually all police officers" -- not "virtually all HCOL police officers." There are plenty of places where that is possible, but "virtually all" is laughable.
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/patrol-officer/salary
https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-pay-police-officers-highest-lowest-salaries.html/?a=viewall
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333051.htm
In five minutes I listed a number of small and lower cost of living cities(Everett, Edmonds, WA). If you would like to provide your exact city, we can pull the data from that city. Mustachians after 10 years would not be mediocre. They would be in the top 10% as they would be pulling down overtime, promotions, and side hustles. I stand by my comment that virtually all police officers make more than $100k if they are doing what a normal Mustachian would do. If they are located in a dying city where someone could not make that type of money, then I would repeat what I have said in virtually every post on this topic. "You may need to move"
If you are in Los Angeles, Seattle, Silicon Valley, you should be touching on $150k - $200k after 10 years.
Spokane info from 2014 - Type in police sergeant or whatever you think would be a typical title after 10 years.
http://www.spokesman.com/data/city-employee-salaries/
Here is Tacoma, Wa 2017 - http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/databases/article25876201.html
Spokane, Everett, Tacoma are not high cost of living areas in Washington State. Easy to make $100k in any of these cities with overtime, longevity, education, and side hustles.
If people are living in towns that are not prosperous, then it might be time to move.
You and I clearly have very different definitions of what "virtually all" means. I think it means virtually all, and you think it means cherry-picked coastal cities.
A 10+ year officer with a bachelor's degree makes $66,669.44 plus OT (average OT is $5k) in Nashville TN: http://www.nashville.gov/Police-Department/Get-Involved/Become-a-Police-Officer/Pay-Scale-and-Benefits.aspx
If you want to add a laundry list of clarifiers and ifs and shoulds, then obviously it's absolutely possible to reach that salary in 10 years. I take issue with your claim of "virtually all" -- it's simply wrong, as demonstrated by any number of readily available statistics.
This is your exact claim:
Virtually, all police officers make greater than six figures after 10 years
No. No, they do not.
-
You and I clearly have very different definitions of what "virtually all" means. I think it means virtually all, and you think it means cherry-picked coastal cities.
A 10+ year officer with a bachelor's degree makes $66,669.44 plus OT (average OT is $5k) in Nashville TN: http://www.nashville.gov/Police-Department/Get-Involved/Become-a-Police-Officer/Pay-Scale-and-Benefits.aspx
If you want to add a laundry list of clarifiers and ifs and shoulds, then obviously it's absolutely possible to reach that salary in 10 years. I take issue with your claim of "virtually all" -- it's simply wrong, as demonstrated by any number of readily available statistics.
This is your exact claim:
Virtually, all police officers make greater than six figures after 10 years
No. No, they do not.
These people are pulling down $40k plus in overtime.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/investigations/2018/04/03/nashville-police-overtime-costs-soar-assume-bigger-role-securing-entertainment-events/446974002/
You also listed compensation for a police officer vs. a sergeant. A good Mustachian would be pulling down above average overtime, pulling down some off-duty gigs, and would be promoted to Sergeant. This would put their base compensation at $80k+ and they would be above average and bring in $20k+ of overtime and off duty work, which would put them over $100k before the pension benefit that they are earning which is most likely valued at $30k+ a year. So conservatively, they would be earning $130k in total compensation in Nashville. If they don't feel like they can reach these levels, then they would be looking to a place more prosperous or figure out why they are not getting promoted or getting the overtime that the high achievers are getting.
I am not talking about a slacker police office. I am talking about a Mustachian. They would look at all potential opportunities.
What is the value of their retirement plan? That alone put them at $100k before overtime.
-
You and I clearly have very different definitions of what "virtually all" means. I think it means virtually all, and you think it means cherry-picked coastal cities.
A 10+ year officer with a bachelor's degree makes $66,669.44 plus OT (average OT is $5k) in Nashville TN: http://www.nashville.gov/Police-Department/Get-Involved/Become-a-Police-Officer/Pay-Scale-and-Benefits.aspx
If you want to add a laundry list of clarifiers and ifs and shoulds, then obviously it's absolutely possible to reach that salary in 10 years. I take issue with your claim of "virtually all" -- it's simply wrong, as demonstrated by any number of readily available statistics.
This is your exact claim:
Virtually, all police officers make greater than six figures after 10 years
No. No, they do not.
These people are pulling down $40k plus in overtime.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/investigations/2018/04/03/nashville-police-overtime-costs-soar-assume-bigger-role-securing-entertainment-events/446974002/
You also listed compensation for a police officer vs. a sergeant. A good Mustachian would be pulling down above average overtime, pulling down some off-duty gigs, and would be promoted to Sergeant. This would put their base compensation at $80k+ and they would be above average and bring in $20k+ of overtime and off duty work, which would put them over $100k before the pension benefit that they are earning which is most likely valued at $30k+ a year. So conservatively, they would be earning $130k in total compensation in Nashville. If they don't feel like they can reach these levels, then they would be looking to a place more prosperous or figure out why they are not getting promoted or getting the overtime that the high achievers are getting.
I am not talking about a slacker police office. I am talking about a Mustachian. They would look at all potential opportunities.
What is the value of their retirement plan? That alone put them at $100k before overtime.
Pension value was not included in the initial claim, as your specific phrasing was "Virtually, all police officers make greater than six figures after 10 years and they are also eligible for a great pension." Key word being "and," not "including."
If you said "a good mustachian working 60+ hours a week, pulling down some off-duty gigs, and getting promotions, and then moving to other cities to meet an income target" instead of "virtually all", then I wouldn't be posting here at all.
But here we are.
-
in the City of Albuquerque the second highest earner for 2017 was a patrol officer making $165k, only the chief administrative officer made more ate $180k. Of the top 250 earners in the city about half are police and the bottom of that list is in the high 90s. http://cognospublic.cabq.gov/cabqcognos/cgi-bin/cognos.cgi?b_action=cognosViewer&ui.action=run&ui.object=%2fcontent%2ffolder%5b%40name%3d%27Transparency%27%5d%2freport%5b%40name%3d%27Top%20Earners%20of%20the%20City%20of%20Albuquerque%20List%27%5d&ui.name=Top%20Earners%20of%20the%20City%20of%20Albuquerque%20List&run.outputFormat=&run.prompt=true
Overtime and double time pay really add up, especially if it's an officer that spends a lot of time in court - for instance if they're on the DWI task force.
The base pay for a police officer first class is $26.44/year.
The opportunity to retire with 90% of your top pay and the ability to retire after 25 years of dedicated service.
We will pay you a $5,000 bonus for successfully joining one of the best law enforcement agencies in the country. Just successfully complete our academy and on-the-job training and the hiring bonus is yours!
http://apdonline.com/salary.aspx
They are hurting for bodies though. My brother-in-law recently retired from there and they're under a DOJ consent order due to various excessive force and officer involved shootings. So, not necessarily a great place to work but if you're willing to work overtime obviously you can make $100k. They have something like 800-900 officers so roughly 10-15% are making over $100k, most of which are not sergeants, lieutenants, commanders, etc.
-
in the City of Albuquerque the second highest earner for 2017 was a patrol officer making $165k, only the chief administrative officer made more ate $180k. Of the top 250 earners in the city about half are police and the bottom of that list is in the high 90s. http://cognospublic.cabq.gov/cabqcognos/cgi-bin/cognos.cgi?b_action=cognosViewer&ui.action=run&ui.object=%2fcontent%2ffolder%5b%40name%3d%27Transparency%27%5d%2freport%5b%40name%3d%27Top%20Earners%20of%20the%20City%20of%20Albuquerque%20List%27%5d&ui.name=Top%20Earners%20of%20the%20City%20of%20Albuquerque%20List&run.outputFormat=&run.prompt=true
Overtime and double time pay really add up, especially if it's an officer that spends a lot of time in court - for instance if they're on the DWI task force.
The base pay for a police officer first class is $26.44/year.
The opportunity to retire with 90% of your top pay and the ability to retire after 25 years of dedicated service.
We will pay you a $5,000 bonus for successfully joining one of the best law enforcement agencies in the country. Just successfully complete our academy and on-the-job training and the hiring bonus is yours!
http://apdonline.com/salary.aspx
They are hurting for bodies though. My brother-in-law recently retired from there and they're under a DOJ consent order due to various excessive force and officer involved shootings. So, not necessarily a great place to work but if you're willing to work overtime obviously you can make $100k. They have something like 800-900 officers so roughly 10-15% are making over $100k, most of which are not sergeants, lieutenants, commanders, etc.
Yeah, it's certainly possible if you work for a department that has unrestricted overtime opportunities. Some of these guys are turning 3000+ hours a year...it's insane!
-
in the City of Albuquerque the second highest earner for 2017 was a patrol officer making $165k, only the chief administrative officer made more ate $180k. Of the top 250 earners in the city about half are police and the bottom of that list is in the high 90s. http://cognospublic.cabq.gov/cabqcognos/cgi-bin/cognos.cgi?b_action=cognosViewer&ui.action=run&ui.object=%2fcontent%2ffolder%5b%40name%3d%27Transparency%27%5d%2freport%5b%40name%3d%27Top%20Earners%20of%20the%20City%20of%20Albuquerque%20List%27%5d&ui.name=Top%20Earners%20of%20the%20City%20of%20Albuquerque%20List&run.outputFormat=&run.prompt=true
Overtime and double time pay really add up, especially if it's an officer that spends a lot of time in court - for instance if they're on the DWI task force.
The base pay for a police officer first class is $26.44/year.
The opportunity to retire with 90% of your top pay and the ability to retire after 25 years of dedicated service.
We will pay you a $5,000 bonus for successfully joining one of the best law enforcement agencies in the country. Just successfully complete our academy and on-the-job training and the hiring bonus is yours!
http://apdonline.com/salary.aspx
They are hurting for bodies though. My brother-in-law recently retired from there and they're under a DOJ consent order due to various excessive force and officer involved shootings. So, not necessarily a great place to work but if you're willing to work overtime obviously you can make $100k. They have something like 800-900 officers so roughly 10-15% are making over $100k, most of which are not sergeants, lieutenants, commanders, etc.
Albuquerque has a particularly high crime rate and is one of the harder cities to be a police officer in, so I wonder if those numbers are higher than the national average.
-
I've always been curious about this myself. I don't know anyone in "real life" who makes $100k. When I graduated high school, everyone I knew was working fast food or retail, making less than 20k a year, full-time. Fast forward to today and everyone I know typically earns between $30k - $40k. As the "college grad" among the bunch, I'm the "high earner" at $50k.
-
I've always been curious about this myself. I don't know anyone in "real life" who makes $100k. When I graduated high school, everyone I knew was working fast food or retail, making less than 20k a year, full-time. Fast forward to today and everyone I know typically earns between $30k - $40k. As the "college grad" among the bunch, I'm the "high earner" at $50k.
What part of the country are you in?
-
What part of the country are you in?
Northern California, near San Francisco.
Which means I'm probably theoretically surrounded by 100k salaries, I just don't know those people. We don't move in the same circles or they don't self-identify as such. Most of my friends are office clerks, receptionists or admin assistants, customer service reps, shift managers at retail, unemployed, or on disability (or on disability as a form of very-long term employment.) I also of course know a few fellow librarians and library technicians.
-
I'm in education and continuous professional development, doing good work, moving where the opportunities are, and being able to endure more rigors than the average person can put one in the $100,000+ bracket overseas. That can be $100,000+ tax free in some places.
-
I'm in education and continuous professional development, doing good work, moving where the opportunities are, and being able to endure more rigors than the average person can put one in the $100,000+ bracket overseas. That can be $100,000+ tax free in some places.
Can you elaborate a little bit? What kind of education? Private school? College? Corporate training? What subject?
-
I'm in education and continuous professional development, doing good work, moving where the opportunities are, and being able to endure more rigors than the average person can put one in the $100,000+ bracket overseas. That can be $100,000+ tax free in some places.
Can you elaborate a little bit? What kind of education? Private school? College? Corporate training? What subject?
I started out as an English teacher with no experience and a BA, got into a Uni, then got an MEd and teacher's license, changed to a better paying uni in another country, got an MBA, and then moved to another country to train company employees. It's my field now.
Most others followed some sort of similar path, and at this level it is the same faces wherever I work, interview, or attend a conference or hiring fair, etc. If I started out again, I might take a different path but am quite sure that by following the same principles that I would end up in a decent situation again. The thing is, it is not quick or easy. I think it will take most about 10-15 years to get to the higher rungs of their game even if they make good moves and get their ducks in a row.
-
PharmD, Nurse specialists ($100k includes OT), Law, Investment banking, Dentist, IT specialists, Software developers, Sales specialists especially when they're managers/GMs, lots of small and medium businesses. There are hundreds of jobs that make 6 figures, I don't get the point of asking which careers. Google could help you out in that regard.
Now how to get to 6 figures within a particular path is a question that takes more detail. Biglaw and IB folks make that right out of college but you need to intern and land those coveted spots. Almost any doctor will make 6 figures as soon as they start proper doctorin'.
I make mid 200k in IT, I just job hopped every couple of years taking increasingly more challenging *AND* more specialized spots each time. Got a very difficult professional certification as well. Started at 30 years old and had my first 6 figure salary at 36. Took another 6 to hit 200k total comp.
How did you get into IT at 30?
-
PharmD, Nurse specialists ($100k includes OT), Law, Investment banking, Dentist, IT specialists, Software developers, Sales specialists especially when they're managers/GMs, lots of small and medium businesses. There are hundreds of jobs that make 6 figures, I don't get the point of asking which careers. Google could help you out in that regard.
Now how to get to 6 figures within a particular path is a question that takes more detail. Biglaw and IB folks make that right out of college but you need to intern and land those coveted spots. Almost any doctor will make 6 figures as soon as they start proper doctorin'.
I make mid 200k in IT, I just job hopped every couple of years taking increasingly more challenging *AND* more specialized spots each time. Got a very difficult professional certification as well. Started at 30 years old and had my first 6 figure salary at 36. Took another 6 to hit 200k total comp.
How did you get into IT at 30?
Welcome to the forum, @samanil. You've necroposted on an old thread. According to his profile, big_slacker left the building in March of 2019. Hopefully, he made it to FIRE and hit the road, never to be heard from again.
-
My wife makes $100k working for the city as an engineer at the local wastewater treatment plants.
-
Welcome to the forum, @samanil. You've necroposted on an old thread. According to his profile, big_slacker left the building in March of 2019. Hopefully, he made it to FIRE and hit the road, never to be heard from again.
I hope that was the outcome :)
Is necroposting bad form?
-
No. It's good to revive old topics, jogs the memory.
-
You and I clearly have very different definitions of what "virtually all" means. I think it means virtually all, and you think it means cherry-picked coastal cities.
Strangely, that's where most of the population is. Near the coasts.
Okay, I'm inland in Austin - at 10 years experience, you have to be a pretty poor officer to fail to at least advance to Corporal, which would get you to ~$100k.
Even with zero advancement, 10 year officer pay would be $85,724 + $1,284 longevity pay. Having a couple of certifications is good for another $1,200. There are a variety of other incentives which add thousands more (bilingual, degree, etc) Overtime is very common - 75% of the "top overtime earners" for all of City of Austin were APD.
I seriously doubt very many APD officers with 10 years on the job get less than $100k.
-
Welcome to the forum, @samanil. You've necroposted on an old thread. According to his profile, big_slacker left the building in March of 2019. Hopefully, he made it to FIRE and hit the road, never to be heard from again.
I hope that was the outcome :)
Is necroposting bad form?
Not necessarily @samanil. Necroposting by someone with less than 5 posts that include a link is definitely bad form. I just replied because I'm an old timer and I knew the person you asked is not currently active. Also, if you want to get someone's attention, you can quote them, or you can batsignal them by putting an @ symbol before their name. If you're wondering if someone's active, just click on their name and look at their stats.
In general, I'm a fan of necroposts, because I always love when someone comes back and updates their story. Hmmm, maybe @big_slacker will see this...
-
Identify a high-paying career path, get necessary certifications, volunteer for high-profile work and apply to better roles when they open up.
I shifted into IT about 4 years ago. My starting salary was $45k, which rose quickly with certifications and promotions. Now I'm almost at $100k, and should break over that in a few months. Not very complicated.
-
I'm in a career that does not traditionally make above 90-100 but I make 150. I'm also female which makes it tougher. Here's what I did. I'm in HR.
1. I got a college degree, did a bunch of internships and networked. I started as an HR Assistant for 25k (in 2000).
2. Then I was an HR Generalist for 2 years (35k).
3. Then got my Master's in HR Development (through company's tuition reimbursement). I then specialized in Learning and Development which is a higher paying arm of HR. Started at 50k.
4. Then jumped from manufacturing to Pharmaceuticals. Started there at 65k, ended at 80k (also had bonus opportunity there).
5. Then jumped to a clinical trials organization as a L&D Manager- started at 85k, worked there for 10 years, ended at 110k.
6. Then had a Director opportunity starting at 115k. After 1 year in the job, they promoted an unqualified person to take half that job b/c he is the CEOs friend. So, I negotiated a new job title and additional job responsibilities as Sr. Director of Organizational Development. They needed me more than I needed them so they took it. That boosted me to 120,000 plus 35% bonus opportunity and got it. Now, a couple of years later, I've gotten a couple of raises and now site at $131,000. I'm still in this job.
So- key points: what can you specialize in that is higher paying? What industries can you approach that are higher paying? Get an advanced degree only if it will gain you entry to more $. Negotiate like hell.
-
You and I clearly have very different definitions of what "virtually all" means. I think it means virtually all, and you think it means cherry-picked coastal cities.
Strangely, that's where most of the population is. Near the coasts.
Okay, I'm inland in Austin - at 10 years experience, you have to be a pretty poor officer to fail to at least advance to Corporal, which would get you to ~$100k.
Even with zero advancement, 10 year officer pay would be $85,724 + $1,284 longevity pay. Having a couple of certifications is good for another $1,200. There are a variety of other incentives which add thousands more (bilingual, degree, etc) Overtime is very common - 75% of the "top overtime earners" for all of City of Austin were APD.
I seriously doubt very many APD officers with 10 years on the job get less than $100k.
Well damn, this is an old post. Remember we're talking specifically about "virtually all" police.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/23/police-officer-salary-state/#540ba28d2010
The national average annual wage of an police officer is $67,600, according to the BLS, a little over $15,000 more than average annual salary for all occupations, $51,960. Depending on the state, however, the average salary of a police officer can vary significantly. Police officer wages are heavily dependent on the cost of living in each state.
Below is a list of the top-10 highest-paying states for police officers:
California average police officer salary: $105,220
Alaska average police officer salary: $87,870
New Jersey average police officer salary: $86,840
Washington average police officer salary: $80,200
Hawaii average police officer salary: $78,720
Illinois average police officer salary: $78,350
New York average police officer salary: $77,490
Colorado average police officer salary: $75,720
Delaware average police officer salary: $73,740
Nevada average police officer salary: $73,660
10 States Where Police Officers Earn the Least Money
The bottom-10 states where police officers make the least money are heavily concentrated in the U.S. South, where cost of living is lower compared to the nation overall. In Mississippi, the lowest-paying state, police officers earn over $31,000 less than the national average wage. It should be noted, however, that only 16 states have police officer salaries that are higher than the national average.
Here's a look at the bottom-10 states for police officer salaries:
Mississippi average police officer salary: $36,290
Arkansas average police officer salary: $40,570
Louisiana average police officer salary: $42,470
South Carolina average police officer salary: $43,520
West Virginia average police officer salary: $44,450
Georgia average police officer salary: $44,700
Tennessee average police officer salary: $45,370
Alabama average police officer salary: $46,510
Kentucky average police officer salary: $46,720
North Carolina average police officer salary: $47,340
Average pay for the town I live in is $106k. It's absolutely possible, but it's not "virtually all" unless you don't care what words mean. If that's the case, there's no point in me continuing to talk about it.
-
I've gone into great detail in the past extolling specific aspects of project management as a career, but over the past few years, I realize that my career trajectory (and others' whom I've coached) had a few simple things that made it much easier. So I'll be really cynical and state my current view.
1. Find a job with a government contractor. They get paid when they put bodies in seats, so they're not overly careful about making sure people are truly qualified. There are some totally unqualified people getting paid a lot of money.
2. Learn how to do that job while you're getting paid to do it. Look around and find out what job you actually would rather do. If you like the path you're on, use your benefits to get training and certifications.
3. After a year or two, leave that company and get a job with a competitor. Don't hop unless you get 10-20% increase. The only time you can really get a salary increase with a government contractor is when you start. Rate increases are built into the contract, so you're not going to get rich staying with one company. Feel free to go back to them after 2 or 3 job-hops.
4. join industry groups to network. Volunteer with them doing as much or as little as you wish. I became very well known in my industry by volunteering for industry groups, even though I cherry-picked the easiest jobs and never did anything that required much time or thought.
5. You do have to try -- work hard and smart, especially during the first few months of any new job. Be a problem solver, not a problem creator.
-
Federal gov't hires for almost every imaginable profession and college degree. Go to USAjobs. Currently hiring is low and jobs have been cut quite a bit, and departures haven't been replaced, in the last 4 years. But they will have to start hiring a lot soon since somone has to do the work of all the ppl they lost. A change of administration will open the flood gates to gov't work.
Most of what you need to know, like program specific skills, they will teach you. and once you are in gov't you can qualify for internal fed jobs with other agancies to climb the pay scale. Pay varies with location. Look at OPM website for GS payscales--that's general service. Most analyst positions go up to a GS-12, but you may start at a GS 7 and get a grade increase every year, and then raises with step increases every year or two. Really, no matter your major, there is a federal job for it.
-
Federal gov't hires for almost every imaginable profession and college degree. Go to USAjobs. Currently hiring is low and jobs have been cut quite a bit, and departures haven't been replaced, in the last 4 years. But they will have to start hiring a lot soon since somone has to do the work of all the ppl they lost. A change of administration will open the flood gates to gov't work.
Most of what you need to know, like program specific skills, they will teach you. and once you are in gov't you can qualify for internal fed jobs with other agancies to climb the pay scale. Pay varies with location. Look at OPM website for GS payscales--that's general service. Most analyst positions go up to a GS-12, but you may start at a GS 7 and get a grade increase every year, and then raises with step increases every year or two. Really, no matter your major, there is a federal job for it.
Except that USAjobs is a black hole of sadness where resumes go to die. My husband has been applying for over four years with a USAjobs tailored resume (checked by countless other government employees who agree that it’s written properly and well) and has made it to a real human phone interview only once. They promoted from within instead. He’s applied from GS 5 on up. I’m starting to think no one gets hired unless they know someone.
-
Federal gov't hires for almost every imaginable profession and college degree. Go to USAjobs. Currently hiring is low and jobs have been cut quite a bit, and departures haven't been replaced, in the last 4 years. But they will have to start hiring a lot soon since somone has to do the work of all the ppl they lost. A change of administration will open the flood gates to gov't work.
Most of what you need to know, like program specific skills, they will teach you. and once you are in gov't you can qualify for internal fed jobs with other agancies to climb the pay scale. Pay varies with location. Look at OPM website for GS payscales--that's general service. Most analyst positions go up to a GS-12, but you may start at a GS 7 and get a grade increase every year, and then raises with step increases every year or two. Really, no matter your major, there is a federal job for it.
Except that USAjobs is a black hole of sadness where resumes go to die. My th has been applying for over four years with a USAjobs tailored resume (checked by countless other government employees who agree that it’s written properly and well) and has made it to a real human phone interview only once. They promoted from within instead. He’s applied from GS 5 on up. I’m starting to think no one gets hired unless they know someone.
I'd agree with this. There are very few job openings that are open to everyone. Most are reserved for govt employees, spouses, veterans, etc.
That's why I suggest contractor. There are jobs that need to be filled, but it's very hard to get a foot in the door as a fed. extremely easy as a contractor.
-
Average pay for the town I live in is $106k. It's absolutely possible, but it's not "virtually all" unless you don't care what words mean. If that's the case, there's no point in me continuing to talk about it.
You stripped out a super important qualifier: A minimum of 10 years' experience. For APD, 10 years means >$35k more than starting pay.
I'm also a bit dubious that the BLS "wage" numbers accurately capture normal incentive pay and overtime rather than just base wages. This is typically a significant amount of money for police officers.
-
OK but which careers are these? I imagine doctor, law firm partner, people who work in finance? What else?
Oilfield. My only 6-fig job was fracking field engineer after like 5 months of experience. Work outside, live in a man camp, F-you at your company-assigned best friends for 84 hours a week. There were men out there who didn't pass high school clearing 100k. If you keep your back straight and wear your PPE like a non-idiot, the only downside is there is no job security. One wrong step (literally, putting your foot in the wrong place) can get you fired.
That was years ago when oil was expensive. If you want to work in the oilfield now, you will have to wait patiently for somebody to start hiring again.
-
I’m in an oil refinery in Canada. All overtime is double time after 38 hrs and 1000+ Hours ot is common. We have hourly union operators making 300k with a 2 year diploma. Even the contract laborers moving barrels with forklifts are making 6 figures. The only workgroups that are under 100k are junior white collar (engineering) jobs and health and safety (non union).
-
Federal gov't hires for almost every imaginable profession and college degree. Go to USAjobs. Currently hiring is low and jobs have been cut quite a bit, and departures haven't been replaced, in the last 4 years. But they will have to start hiring a lot soon since somone has to do the work of all the ppl they lost. A change of administration will open the flood gates to gov't work.
Most of what you need to know, like program specific skills, they will teach you. and once you are in gov't you can qualify for internal fed jobs with other agancies to climb the pay scale. Pay varies with location. Look at OPM website for GS payscales--that's general service. Most analyst positions go up to a GS-12, but you may start at a GS 7 and get a grade increase every year, and then raises with step increases every year or two. Really, no matter your major, there is a federal job for it.
Except that USAjobs is a black hole of sadness where resumes go to die. My th has been applying for over four years with a USAjobs tailored resume (checked by countless other government employees who agree that it’s written properly and well) and has made it to a real human phone interview only once. They promoted from within instead. He’s applied from GS 5 on up. I’m starting to think no one gets hired unless they know someone.
I'd agree with this. There are very few job openings that are open to everyone. Most are reserved for govt employees, spouses, veterans, etc.
That's why I suggest contractor. There are jobs that need to be filled, but it's very hard to get a foot in the door as a fed. extremely easy as a contractor.
That's not a bad option, but hasn't panned out for us either. He is a veteran, with related preferences. He tried going the contractor route for a while, but everyone wants you to have a clearance first. His clearance expired some years ago.
To the topic, I think that the government is a great way to go if you can get in. It can just be really hard to get in.
-
Federal gov't hires for almost every imaginable profession and college degree. Go to USAjobs. Currently hiring is low and jobs have been cut quite a bit, and departures haven't been replaced, in the last 4 years. But they will have to start hiring a lot soon since somone has to do the work of all the ppl they lost. A change of administration will open the flood gates to gov't work.
Most of what you need to know, like program specific skills, they will teach you. and once you are in gov't you can qualify for internal fed jobs with other agancies to climb the pay scale. Pay varies with location. Look at OPM website for GS payscales--that's general service. Most analyst positions go up to a GS-12, but you may start at a GS 7 and get a grade increase every year, and then raises with step increases every year or two. Really, no matter your major, there is a federal job for it.
Except that USAjobs is a black hole of sadness where resumes go to die. My th has been applying for over four years with a USAjobs tailored resume (checked by countless other government employees who agree that it’s written properly and well) and has made it to a real human phone interview only once. They promoted from within instead. He’s applied from GS 5 on up. I’m starting to think no one gets hired unless they know someone.
I'd agree with this. There are very few job openings that are open to everyone. Most are reserved for govt employees, spouses, veterans, etc.
That's why I suggest contractor. There are jobs that need to be filled, but it's very hard to get a foot in the door as a fed. extremely easy as a contractor.
That's not a bad option, but hasn't panned out for us either. He is a veteran, with related preferences. He tried going the contractor route for a while, but everyone wants you to have a clearance first. His clearance expired some years ago.
To the topic, I think that the government is a great way to go if you can get in. It can just be really hard to get in.
I lucked out by getting hired as an intern first. After 8 years I’m a GS-13 and make over $100k. As a side note - the agency I work for hires from the outside for all of our GS11 or 12 positions, because those are the lowest non-intern GS positions within our agency. Lots of those hired are contractors assigned to our agency first, or have veteran’s preference, or peace corp experience, but we also get quite a few who aren’t in any of those categories and simply make it through the application and interview process. Your resume is step one, and then on the vacancy questions (we call the program “easy liar”) you have to choose “expert” for every answer or you won’t make it through to an interview. Even for internal promotions/hiring we have tons of employees who would do a great job who don’t get an interview because of those damn multiple choice questions.
-
Federal gov't hires for almost every imaginable profession and college degree. Go to USAjobs. Currently hiring is low and jobs have been cut quite a bit, and departures haven't been replaced, in the last 4 years. But they will have to start hiring a lot soon since somone has to do the work of all the ppl they lost. A change of administration will open the flood gates to gov't work.
Most of what you need to know, like program specific skills, they will teach you. and once you are in gov't you can qualify for internal fed jobs with other agancies to climb the pay scale. Pay varies with location. Look at OPM website for GS payscales--that's general service. Most analyst positions go up to a GS-12, but you may start at a GS 7 and get a grade increase every year, and then raises with step increases every year or two. Really, no matter your major, there is a federal job for it.
Except that USAjobs is a black hole of sadness where resumes go to die. My th has been applying for over four years with a USAjobs tailored resume (checked by countless other government employees who agree that it’s written properly and well) and has made it to a real human phone interview only once. They promoted from within instead. He’s applied from GS 5 on up. I’m starting to think no one gets hired unless they know someone.
I'd agree with this. There are very few job openings that are open to everyone. Most are reserved for govt employees, spouses, veterans, etc.
That's why I suggest contractor. There are jobs that need to be filled, but it's very hard to get a foot in the door as a fed. extremely easy as a contractor.
That's not a bad option, but hasn't panned out for us either. He is a veteran, with related preferences. He tried going the contractor route for a while, but everyone wants you to have a clearance first. His clearance expired some years ago.
To the topic, I think that the government is a great way to go if you can get in. It can just be really hard to get in.
I lucked out by getting hired as an intern first. After 8 years I’m a GS-13 and make over $100k. As a side note - the agency I work for hires from the outside for all of our GS11 or 12 positions, because those are the lowest non-intern GS positions within our agency. Lots of those hired are contractors assigned to our agency first, or have veteran’s preference, or peace corp experience, but we also get quite a few who aren’t in any of those categories and simply make it through the application and interview process. Your resume is step one, and then on the vacancy questions (we call the program “easy liar”) you have to choose “expert” for every answer or you won’t make it through to an interview. Even for internal promotions/hiring we have tons of employees who would do a great job who don’t get an interview because of those damn multiple choice questions.
This is the bizarre part to me. So many people have recommended lying, but he just can't see doing that. He can answer a lot of questions at the highest level but rarely every single one. He does get referred a lot, but it usually stops there. Do you tell people to lie, or do they kicked out of the process for lying?
-
Average pay for the town I live in is $106k. It's absolutely possible, but it's not "virtually all" unless you don't care what words mean. If that's the case, there's no point in me continuing to talk about it.
You stripped out a super important qualifier: A minimum of 10 years' experience. For APD, 10 years means >$35k more than starting pay.
I'm also a bit dubious that the BLS "wage" numbers accurately capture normal incentive pay and overtime rather than just base wages. This is typically a significant amount of money for police officers.
What percentage constitutes "virtually all" in your mind?
-
Federal gov't hires for almost every imaginable profession and college degree. Go to USAjobs. Currently hiring is low and jobs have been cut quite a bit, and departures haven't been replaced, in the last 4 years. But they will have to start hiring a lot soon since somone has to do the work of all the ppl they lost. A change of administration will open the flood gates to gov't work.
Most of what you need to know, like program specific skills, they will teach you. and once you are in gov't you can qualify for internal fed jobs with other agancies to climb the pay scale. Pay varies with location. Look at OPM website for GS payscales--that's general service. Most analyst positions go up to a GS-12, but you may start at a GS 7 and get a grade increase every year, and then raises with step increases every year or two. Really, no matter your major, there is a federal job for it.
Except that USAjobs is a black hole of sadness where resumes go to die. My th has been applying for over four years with a USAjobs tailored resume (checked by countless other government employees who agree that it’s written properly and well) and has made it to a real human phone interview only once. They promoted from within instead. He’s applied from GS 5 on up. I’m starting to think no one gets hired unless they know someone.
I'd agree with this. There are very few job openings that are open to everyone. Most are reserved for govt employees, spouses, veterans, etc.
That's why I suggest contractor. There are jobs that need to be filled, but it's very hard to get a foot in the door as a fed. extremely easy as a contractor.
That's not a bad option, but hasn't panned out for us either. He is a veteran, with related preferences. He tried going the contractor route for a while, but everyone wants you to have a clearance first. His clearance expired some years ago.
To the topic, I think that the government is a great way to go if you can get in. It can just be really hard to get in.
I lucked out by getting hired as an intern first. After 8 years I’m a GS-13 and make over $100k. As a side note - the agency I work for hires from the outside for all of our GS11 or 12 positions, because those are the lowest non-intern GS positions within our agency. Lots of those hired are contractors assigned to our agency first, or have veteran’s preference, or peace corp experience, but we also get quite a few who aren’t in any of those categories and simply make it through the application and interview process. Your resume is step one, and then on the vacancy questions (we call the program “easy liar”) you have to choose “expert” for every answer or you won’t make it through to an interview. Even for internal promotions/hiring we have tons of employees who would do a great job who don’t get an interview because of those damn multiple choice questions.
Sounds like the hiring process is completely fucked and is engineered to actually get terrible, lying candidates instead of good ones that are honest and hard working.
It sounds almost as dumb as the customer satisfaction surveys where anything less than a 10 is a fail.
-
Federal gov't hires for almost every imaginable profession and college degree. Go to USAjobs. Currently hiring is low and jobs have been cut quite a bit, and departures haven't been replaced, in the last 4 years. But they will have to start hiring a lot soon since somone has to do the work of all the ppl they lost. A change of administration will open the flood gates to gov't work.
Most of what you need to know, like program specific skills, they will teach you. and once you are in gov't you can qualify for internal fed jobs with other agancies to climb the pay scale. Pay varies with location. Look at OPM website for GS payscales--that's general service. Most analyst positions go up to a GS-12, but you may start at a GS 7 and get a grade increase every year, and then raises with step increases every year or two. Really, no matter your major, there is a federal job for it.
Except that USAjobs is a black hole of sadness where resumes go to die. My th has been applying for over four years with a USAjobs tailored resume (checked by countless other government employees who agree that it’s written properly and well) and has made it to a real human phone interview only once. They promoted from within instead. He’s applied from GS 5 on up. I’m starting to think no one gets hired unless they know someone.
I'd agree with this. There are very few job openings that are open to everyone. Most are reserved for govt employees, spouses, veterans, etc.
That's why I suggest contractor. There are jobs that need to be filled, but it's very hard to get a foot in the door as a fed. extremely easy as a contractor.
That's not a bad option, but hasn't panned out for us either. He is a veteran, with related preferences. He tried going the contractor route for a while, but everyone wants you to have a clearance first. His clearance expired some years ago.
To the topic, I think that the government is a great way to go if you can get in. It can just be really hard to get in.
I lucked out by getting hired as an intern first. After 8 years I’m a GS-13 and make over $100k. As a side note - the agency I work for hires from the outside for all of our GS11 or 12 positions, because those are the lowest non-intern GS positions within our agency. Lots of those hired are contractors assigned to our agency first, or have veteran’s preference, or peace corp experience, but we also get quite a few who aren’t in any of those categories and simply make it through the application and interview process. Your resume is step one, and then on the vacancy questions (we call the program “easy liar”) you have to choose “expert” for every answer or you won’t make it through to an interview. Even for internal promotions/hiring we have tons of employees who would do a great job who don’t get an interview because of those damn multiple choice questions.
Sounds like the hiring process is completely fucked and is engineered to actually get terrible, lying candidates instead of good ones that are honest and hard working.
It sounds almost as dumb as the customer satisfaction surveys where anything less than a 10 is a fail.
There are certain certifications that are very popular with the US Government. In order to get the certification, you must have 4-5 years of experience in multiple areas. This certification is often listed as required for entry level positions.
The only people who can make it through the computer-based questionnaire are liars.
-
Federal gov't hires for almost every imaginable profession and college degree. Go to USAjobs. Currently hiring is low and jobs have been cut quite a bit, and departures haven't been replaced, in the last 4 years. But they will have to start hiring a lot soon since somone has to do the work of all the ppl they lost. A change of administration will open the flood gates to gov't work.
Most of what you need to know, like program specific skills, they will teach you. and once you are in gov't you can qualify for internal fed jobs with other agancies to climb the pay scale. Pay varies with location. Look at OPM website for GS payscales--that's general service. Most analyst positions go up to a GS-12, but you may start at a GS 7 and get a grade increase every year, and then raises with step increases every year or two. Really, no matter your major, there is a federal job for it.
Except that USAjobs is a black hole of sadness where resumes go to die. My th has been applying for over four years with a USAjobs tailored resume (checked by countless other government employees who agree that it’s written properly and well) and has made it to a real human phone interview only once. They promoted from within instead. He’s applied from GS 5 on up. I’m starting to think no one gets hired unless they know someone.
I'd agree with this. There are very few job openings that are open to everyone. Most are reserved for govt employees, spouses, veterans, etc.
That's why I suggest contractor. There are jobs that need to be filled, but it's very hard to get a foot in the door as a fed. extremely easy as a contractor.
That's not a bad option, but hasn't panned out for us either. He is a veteran, with related preferences. He tried going the contractor route for a while, but everyone wants you to have a clearance first. His clearance expired some years ago.
To the topic, I think that the government is a great way to go if you can get in. It can just be really hard to get in.
I lucked out by getting hired as an intern first. After 8 years I’m a GS-13 and make over $100k. As a side note - the agency I work for hires from the outside for all of our GS11 or 12 positions, because those are the lowest non-intern GS positions within our agency. Lots of those hired are contractors assigned to our agency first, or have veteran’s preference, or peace corp experience, but we also get quite a few who aren’t in any of those categories and simply make it through the application and interview process. Your resume is step one, and then on the vacancy questions (we call the program “easy liar”) you have to choose “expert” for every answer or you won’t make it through to an interview. Even for internal promotions/hiring we have tons of employees who would do a great job who don’t get an interview because of those damn multiple choice questions.
Sounds like the hiring process is completely fucked and is engineered to actually get terrible, lying candidates instead of good ones that are honest and hard working.
It sounds almost as dumb as the customer satisfaction surveys where anything less than a 10 is a fail.
There are certain certifications that are very popular with the US Government. In order to get the certification, you must have 4-5 years of experience in multiple areas. This certification is often listed as required for entry level positions.
The only people who can make it through the computer-based questionnaire are liars.
It is definitely a fine line, and the official guidance is not to lie. We are told to be very creative in thinking outside the box about situations we have been in / projects we have worked on so our resume backs up what we answer on those questions. They do cross-reference, so if you just lie and say “expert” on every question but your resume doesn’t back it up, you won’t get through. This is why the average “successful” Fed resume is 10 pages long, not the private sector standard of 1-2. You have to actually use the wording from the questions in your resume when describing the projects you have worked on. One time I applied for a different job within my agency and didn’t back up my answers with my resume and didn’t get through to an interview. However, my current job has been my career goal with this agency since I started working here and I specifically went out of my way for the first 6 years I worked there to learn everything I could and work on as many projects as I could that make me the ideal candidate for this job. When the opening came up it wasn’t difficult at all to think of ways where I could truthfully answer the questions and the application was a breeze. I got the job ahead of many candidates who had been at the agency 10+ years longer than me and I am the youngest person anyone knows to have ever had this job in our region. It is a perfect fit for me and my skill set and I have flourished while doing it. I love my job.
So, I definitely think the hiring process is bunch of bureaucratic nonsense and in their quest to be perfectly fair without any form of discrimination they have lost their way a bit and made it so muddy and difficult that almost no one gets through. On the other side, I can see how someone who is easily able to answer the questions without the tiniest bit of lying would really be the ideal candidate for a job.
-
The best way to get to multiple six figures without going into debt/years of school is Sales.
I'm not talking about used car salesmen here, but sales functions within the commercial arms of Fortune 500 companies.
My career has been in this area and has covered medical device, specialty chemicals, and biotechnology.
Pros: High degree of autonomy, clear understanding of value creation for self/firm, new experiences constantly, significant visibility in company
Cons: Absolute accountability in a way most roles can't imagine, high pressure, travel can be 80% at times, customers can be pricks
Benefits: Two types of comp packages are typical; 1.)low base (70-90k) with uncapped commission structure (think 20% of gross sales over target) with total comp realistically hitting 300k+ in good years. 2.) high base (120-150k) with capped bonus/commission structure with total comp hitting 200k+. Type one is typically for business that aren't market leaders and require more of a hunter mentality. Other benefits- all these roles usually come with a company car/stipend, home office allowance (internet, phone, etc.), and standard mega corp benefits/retirement packages.
Often these roles have titles like: Account Manager, Business Development Manager, Commercial Director.....they're all ways of avoiding saying salesman....at the end of the day nearly every product you see/touch has to be sold by someone and that person is typically getting a cut.
-
...
So, I definitely think the hiring process is bunch of bureaucratic nonsense and in their quest to be perfectly fair without any form of discrimination they have lost their way a bit and made it so muddy and difficult that almost no one gets through. On the other side, I can see how someone who is easily able to answer the questions without the tiniest bit of lying would really be the ideal candidate for a job.
Completely agree with this statement.
You're also the only person I've ever known who knew exactly what job they wanted (and were right about it) years before they had it. I've basically just floundered and wound up where the path took me. Then I wove a backstory about how I used all these different job skills to get to where I am. I thought most people did that. Congratulations on your much more direct path (and on loving it once you got there)!
-
...
So, I definitely think the hiring process is bunch of bureaucratic nonsense and in their quest to be perfectly fair without any form of discrimination they have lost their way a bit and made it so muddy and difficult that almost no one gets through. On the other side, I can see how someone who is easily able to answer the questions without the tiniest bit of lying would really be the ideal candidate for a job.
Completely agree with this statement.
You're also the only person I've ever known who knew exactly what job they wanted (and were right about it) years before they had it. I've basically just floundered and wound up where the path took me. Then I wove a backstory about how I used all these different job skills to get to where I am. I thought most people did that. Congratulations on your much more direct path (and on loving it once you got there)!
Thank You! I think I got really lucky with my whole situation. I applied for an intern position with the contracting division and during my 2nd round interview (with our director and the regional head of our agency) they left the room, came back in, and with a giant smile said that they absolutely loved me but thought I would hate my job if I was in contracting. They said they didn't think that job was for me, but they wanted me and my talents in the region and they were just about to open up an intern position in portfolio management, and they would like me to consider that position instead. I had absolutely no idea what any of of those divisions did (I was in grad school at the time) so I said sure. I was a general portfolio intern so I took on projects from all of the different areas within the portfolio management division and discovered that my current position is exactly what I wanted to do. When my internship ended they offered me a full time position, but not this one because I could only be given a GS-12 and this was a GS-13 so I took the position they gave me and worked my way toward this one. Considering that I had no idea what this position was, or even what this agency actually did, when I initially applied for my internship I think I got extremely lucky!
FYI - When I applied to this position I had gone to my school's job fair and just applied to every paid internship I could possibly stretch myself as qualified for. I had no idea this agency even existed before I applied! I think I applied to 25 jobs and I got 3. I was able to work it out so I actually did all 3 over that summer, and I was surprised that the intern position with this agency wasn't a set summer internship for a given # of weeks, but a full time position that I would keep until I graduated and was either offered or not offered a full position with the agency.
-
...
So, I definitely think the hiring process is bunch of bureaucratic nonsense and in their quest to be perfectly fair without any form of discrimination they have lost their way a bit and made it so muddy and difficult that almost no one gets through. On the other side, I can see how someone who is easily able to answer the questions without the tiniest bit of lying would really be the ideal candidate for a job.
Completely agree with this statement.
You're also the only person I've ever known who knew exactly what job they wanted (and were right about it) years before they had it. I've basically just floundered and wound up where the path took me. Then I wove a backstory about how I used all these different job skills to get to where I am. I thought most people did that. Congratulations on your much more direct path (and on loving it once you got there)!
Make it two - I targeted my current job title and division about 2 years before applying. Made sure to get appropriate training and experience in advance.
-
You and I clearly have very different definitions of what "virtually all" means. I think it means virtually all, and you think it means cherry-picked coastal cities.
Strangely, that's where most of the population is. Near the coasts.
Okay, I'm inland in Austin - at 10 years experience, you have to be a pretty poor officer to fail to at least advance to Corporal, which would get you to ~$100k.
Even with zero advancement, 10 year officer pay would be $85,724 + $1,284 longevity pay. Having a couple of certifications is good for another $1,200. There are a variety of other incentives which add thousands more (bilingual, degree, etc) Overtime is very common - 75% of the "top overtime earners" for all of City of Austin were APD.
I seriously doubt very many APD officers with 10 years on the job get less than $100k.
Do you recommend the police officer career path? Is this something one could get into in their early 30s?
-
I’m in an oil refinery in Canada. All overtime is double time after 38 hrs and 1000+ Hours ot is common. We have hourly union operators making 300k with a 2 year diploma. Even the contract laborers moving barrels with forklifts are making 6 figures. The only workgroups that are under 100k are junior white collar (engineering) jobs and health and safety (non union).
Didn't the refineries shut down? What do you do there?
-
Nope, still running. As long as people are driving were running. Right now I am a console operator but pre-Covid did planning for maintenance turnarounds.
-
I am currently an apprentice lineman ( I build high voltage power lines) working in CA I made over 200k I am in the IBEW ( electrical workers union) CA has some of the highest pay in the nation but I know plenty of guys all over the USA easily making over 100k. This is doing contract work not necessarily working for the local power company. The power company usually limits their guys to 40 hrs plus call outs. Most of the contract jobs I’ve been only have been for anywhere from 50-100 hours a week. Worked 7/16s for a few months straight. Being an apprentice i basically have to work when I’m told. But once I become a journeyman lineman I’ll be able to pick the jobs I want to work on with a little more control. Talked with quite a few guys who come out to CA to work for 6 months of the year then go home and enjoy the other 6 months.
-
Accounting and Finance jobs not hard to make $100,000. Staff accounting jobs start between $50,000 - $60,000 at my company and can work your way up to managing an accounting team and easily make over $100,000. Many in our Financial Planning and Analysis department make over $100,000. Most have about 10 years of experience
and are very good with data analysis and technology. Our tax accountants/managers all make over $100,000 and a big demand for good tax accountants. I work in financial planning and analysis but if I had to do it over again would have focused on tax.
-
Originally I was in R&D, took 16 years to pass $100k, but it was a smaller company that did not pay super highly. I also had to basically spend until age 30 in "education" for the job, including a post-doctoral position. The upside to a STEM job like that is pretty good job security, the down side is not a lot of upward mobility pay-wise unless you are in a really hot field and can job hop, or go into management or marketing.
I'm now in more of a specialty area that combines technical and business knowledge, and is significantly more lucrative. If you can combine STEM/programming knowledge with business, financial, and sales/marketing kinds of areas the pay is likely to be a lot better.
I think the two keys to making a lot of money in a job are;
1. It has to be something that is fairly time consuming and/or hard to learn. If they can train you in a week, they aren't going to pay that much. With some of the government stuff, the time consuming part is figuring out how to navigate the system to get in.
2. It has to make someone ELSE even more money. It might take me 10 years to learn how to build a 1/20 scale model of the Eiffel tower from toothpicks, but that doesn't mean someone will pay me $100k/year to do it.
-
Business analytics with a graduate degree in statistics, technical skill w database queries and automation.
As requested below, modifying to add I work a 40 hr wk.
-
Originally I was in R&D, took 16 years to pass $100k, but it was a smaller company that did not pay super highly. I also had to basically spend until age 30 in "education" for the job, including a post-doctoral position. The upside to a STEM job like that is pretty good job security, the down side is not a lot of upward mobility pay-wise unless you are in a really hot field and can job hop, or go into management or marketing.
I'm now in more of a specialty area that combines technical and business knowledge, and is significantly more lucrative. If you can combine STEM/programming knowledge with business, financial, and sales/marketing kinds of areas the pay is likely to be a lot better.
I think the two keys to making a lot of money in a job are;
1. It has to be something that is fairly time consuming and/or hard to learn. If they can train you in a week, they aren't going to pay that much. With some of the government stuff, the time consuming part is figuring out how to navigate the system to get in.
2. It has to make someone ELSE even more money. It might take me 10 years to learn how to build a 1/20 scale model of the Eiffel tower from toothpicks, but that doesn't mean someone will pay me $100k/year to do it.
It helps to pick an industry that has barriers to entry or high amounts of regulation because that way you are not competing with a million others (including new immigrants). If your industry is one where there is a lot of price competition, it is going to be very hard for you to make any meaningful amount of money.
-
Federal gov't hires for almost every imaginable profession and college degree. Go to USAjobs. Currently hiring is low and jobs have been cut quite a bit, and departures haven't been replaced, in the last 4 years. But they will have to start hiring a lot soon since somone has to do the work of all the ppl they lost. A change of administration will open the flood gates to gov't work.
Most of what you need to know, like program specific skills, they will teach you. and once you are in gov't you can qualify for internal fed jobs with other agancies to climb the pay scale. Pay varies with location. Look at OPM website for GS payscales--that's general service. Most analyst positions go up to a GS-12, but you may start at a GS 7 and get a grade increase every year, and then raises with step increases every year or two. Really, no matter your major, there is a federal job for it.
Except that USAjobs is a black hole of sadness where resumes go to die. My th has been applying for over four years with a USAjobs tailored resume (checked by countless other government employees who agree that it’s written properly and well) and has made it to a real human phone interview only once. They promoted from within instead. He’s applied from GS 5 on up. I’m starting to think no one gets hired unless they know someone.
I'd agree with this. There are very few job openings that are open to everyone. Most are reserved for govt employees, spouses, veterans, etc.
That's why I suggest contractor. There are jobs that need to be filled, but it's very hard to get a foot in the door as a fed. extremely easy as a contractor.
That's not a bad option, but hasn't panned out for us either. He is a veteran, with related preferences. He tried going the contractor route for a while, but everyone wants you to have a clearance first. His clearance expired some years ago.
To the topic, I think that the government is a great way to go if you can get in. It can just be really hard to get in.
It is hard to get in lately, since there has been very little hiring during the new adminstration. It's a cycle. In the next few years there will have to be a flood of hirings to replace all the ppl who left and haven't been replaced. That's how it's been for the 22 yrs I've been in gov't. Also, some agencies have tons of positions, like SSA, so they need to hire more. Once you get in, it's so much easier to move to other agencies.
And yes you do have to say you are an expert in everything, but your resume does have to back this up with the same language used in the announcement.
-
Lots of jobs mentioned are including overtime or super long hours, 80-100. That's more like having two jobs at 50K per job. I don't think the nature of the question is, "How can I work as much as possible to make as much money as possible?" I know that doctors and laywers make tons of dough but they also work long hours. It's great to know where the good gigs are but it would be helpful to know, who's working a 40 to 45 hour gig and making 100K. Gov't definitly. Depends on where you live and what agency you are with of course but here is the NY/NJ pay scale. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/NY.pdf
After 5 yrs a GS12 will making 100K. If you start at a GS7 you can get to a 9, then 11, then 12 so in 8 yrs you'd be making 100K. (lots of positions skip GS10) You get a sideways raise every yr to a step 4 then they slow down. Tak a gov't job if you can get one, then you can jump agencies and positions.
-
Accounting and Finance jobs not hard to make $100,000. Staff accounting jobs start between $50,000 - $60,000 at my company and can work your way up to managing an accounting team and easily make over $100,000. Many in our Financial Planning and Analysis department make over $100,000. Most have about 10 years of experience
and are very good with data analysis and technology. Our tax accountants/managers all make over $100,000 and a big demand for good tax accountants. I work in financial planning and analysis but if I had to do it over again would have focused on tax.
Can you say what type of company/size and location? Large metro area?
-
Accounting and Finance jobs not hard to make $100,000. Staff accounting jobs start between $50,000 - $60,000 at my company and can work your way up to managing an accounting team and easily make over $100,000. Many in our Financial Planning and Analysis department make over $100,000. Most have about 10 years of experience
and are very good with data analysis and technology. Our tax accountants/managers all make over $100,000 and a big demand for good tax accountants. I work in financial planning and analysis but if I had to do it over again would have focused on tax.
+1 to finance and accounting jobs. Not every business needs an engineer but they all need accountants. If you are one of those who is both analytical but also has emotional intelligence you can go far in management.
I work in local government as a finance director at just over $100k. Underpaid for the responsibility and number of reports but it's all about the benefits, pension, job security, and work/life balance. Work over 40 hours? Uh no. If I did it would be banked as comp time which I could use later for PTO.
If I super hustled I could make more in the corporate world I am sure but it's not worth it. I feel very blessed.
-
Lots of jobs mentioned are including overtime or super long hours, 80-100. That's more like having two jobs at 50K per job. I don't think the nature of the question is, "How can I work as much as possible to make as much money as possible?" I know that doctors and laywers make tons of dough but they also work long hours. It's great to know where the good gigs are but it would be helpful to know, who's working a 40 to 45 hour gig and making 100K. Gov't definitly. Depends on where you live and what agency you are with of course but here is the NY/NJ pay scale. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/NY.pdf
After 5 yrs a GS12 will making 100K. If you start at a GS7 you can get to a 9, then 11, then 12 so in 8 yrs you'd be making 100K. (lots of positions skip GS10) You get a sideways raise every yr to a step 4 then they slow down. Tak a gov't job if you can get one, then you can jump agencies and positions.
I'm a GS-12 and I'd have to be Step 10 to make $100k in my area, or a GS-13 Step 4. But then again median home price is still in the mid 200s whereas I'm sure NJ is much higher. Plus higher much higher property taxes (about 2.5% of home value vs. about 1% in my area).
I was in a career field (commercial real estate appraisal) where you could make $100k or more pretty normally. But probably not in 40 hours a week, 9-5. That was one reason I made a change, it's nice to just put in my 40 hours and leave work at work.
-
Accounting and Finance jobs not hard to make $100,000. Staff accounting jobs start between $50,000 - $60,000 at my company and can work your way up to managing an accounting team and easily make over $100,000. Many in our Financial Planning and Analysis department make over $100,000. Most have about 10 years of experience
and are very good with data analysis and technology. Our tax accountants/managers all make over $100,000 and a big demand for good tax accountants. I work in financial planning and analysis but if I had to do it over again would have focused on tax.
Can you say what type of company/size and location? Large metro area?
Fortune 500 company in a low cost of living large midwest metro area.
-
Lots of jobs mentioned are including overtime or super long hours, 80-100. That's more like having two jobs at 50K per job. I don't think the nature of the question is, "How can I work as much as possible to make as much money as possible?" I know that doctors and laywers make tons of dough but they also work long hours. It's great to know where the good gigs are but it would be helpful to know, who's working a 40 to 45 hour gig and making 100K. Gov't definitly. Depends on where you live and what agency you are with of course but here is the NY/NJ pay scale. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/NY.pdf
This is definitely an important aspect to consider. Different people make different types of sacrifices to earn higher incomes.
I was at a wedding last week and a childhood friend told me he works at a plastic molding company operating the machinery, and he made over $100k last year working long hours and no formal training. He’s 30 and I think he was at around $25/hr,
I think it’s important for people to realize that far more people CAN make $100k+/yr however it also takes SACRIFICE that they may not understand.
Sometimes I see people complain about their wage, but then they refuse to work over 40 hrs, relocate, etc.
I’m 32 with an associates degree and this year I’ll make the equivalent of $400k+ (my take home will be around $305k). With that in mind, I’ve averaged 55-ish hours this year, and most years far more. I’ve also moved to 8 different states in the last dozen years constantly finding the best contracting position. There’s a lot of people who won’t work 60, 70, 80 hr weeks, and sometimes that is what it takes to get into the higher paying positions. Same goes for people who aren’t willing to move for better career opportunities.
-
Lots of jobs mentioned are including overtime or super long hours, 80-100. That's more like having two jobs at 50K per job. I don't think the nature of the question is, "How can I work as much as possible to make as much money as possible?" I know that doctors and laywers make tons of dough but they also work long hours. It's great to know where the good gigs are but it would be helpful to know, who's working a 40 to 45 hour gig and making 100K. Gov't definitly. Depends on where you live and what agency you are with of course but here is the NY/NJ pay scale. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/NY.pdf
This is definitely an important aspect to consider. Different people make different types of sacrifices to earn higher incomes.
I was at a wedding last week and a childhood friend told me he works at a plastic molding company operating the machinery, and he made over $100k last year working long hours and no formal training. He’s 30 and I think he was at around $25/hr,
I think it’s important for people to realize that far more people CAN make $100k+/yr however it also takes SACRIFICE that they may not understand.
Sometimes I see people complain about their wage, but then they refuse to work over 40 hrs, relocate, etc.
I’m 32 with an associates degree and this year I’ll make the equivalent of $400k+ (my take home will be around $305k). With that in mind, I’ve averaged 55-ish hours this year, and most years far more. I’ve also moved to 8 different states in the last dozen years constantly finding the best contracting position. There’s a lot of people who won’t work 60, 70, 80 hr weeks, and sometimes that is what it takes to get into the higher paying positions. Same goes for people who aren’t willing to move for better career opportunities.
What do you do for work?
-
Lots of jobs mentioned are including overtime or super long hours, 80-100. That's more like having two jobs at 50K per job. I don't think the nature of the question is, "How can I work as much as possible to make as much money as possible?" I know that doctors and laywers make tons of dough but they also work long hours. It's great to know where the good gigs are but it would be helpful to know, who's working a 40 to 45 hour gig and making 100K. Gov't definitly. Depends on where you live and what agency you are with of course but here is the NY/NJ pay scale. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/NY.pdf
This is definitely an important aspect to consider. Different people make different types of sacrifices to earn higher incomes.
I was at a wedding last week and a childhood friend told me he works at a plastic molding company operating the machinery, and he made over $100k last year working long hours and no formal training. He’s 30 and I think he was at around $25/hr,
I think it’s important for people to realize that far more people CAN make $100k+/yr however it also takes SACRIFICE that they may not understand.
Sometimes I see people complain about their wage, but then they refuse to work over 40 hrs, relocate, etc.
I’m 32 with an associates degree and this year I’ll make the equivalent of $400k+ (my take home will be around $305k). With that in mind, I’ve averaged 55-ish hours this year, and most years far more. I’ve also moved to 8 different states in the last dozen years constantly finding the best contracting position. There’s a lot of people who won’t work 60, 70, 80 hr weeks, and sometimes that is what it takes to get into the higher paying positions. Same goes for people who aren’t willing to move for better career opportunities.
Yeah, the part about sacrifice is true. I now only work about 35-40 hours per week, but in the past I regularly did 50-60 hours a week. But it's not even just about the hours of work, it's the stress - of having to do well throughout university and law school, of having to compete with other ambitious people, having to get up early or stay up late to read a trial brief etc etc
A lot of people say they are willing to work hard for a high income but then they are not willing to do what it actually takes - which in my case was to sometimes work 15 hour days under the stress of having to run a trial.
-
This thread is so old, I may have said this before, but it bears repeating. You don't have to make $100K to get to FIRE. I never did. DH never did. Together we're FI and I RE'd three weeks after we got married almost eight years ago, so there was really no period where we were both contributing to a huge combined number.
Except last year, we blew it. We flipped a house, which is our idea of fun, and it pushed our gross income over $200K for the year, even after we stuffed the max into DH's 401k. We were shocked that we couldn't do a Roth. What?? We even had to defer the deductions on our rentals. Huh?
Kind of funny that the big bucks came well after FI(us)& RE(me). It was kind of a one off and not likely to be repeated, especially because DH can retire in about six months and probably will. I doubt we'll tackle such a huge flip again.
-
Lots of jobs mentioned are including overtime or super long hours, 80-100. That's more like having two jobs at 50K per job. I don't think the nature of the question is, "How can I work as much as possible to make as much money as possible?" I know that doctors and laywers make tons of dough but they also work long hours. It's great to know where the good gigs are but it would be helpful to know, who's working a 40 to 45 hour gig and making 100K. Gov't definitly. Depends on where you live and what agency you are with of course but here is the NY/NJ pay scale. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/NY.pdf
This is definitely an important aspect to consider. Different people make different types of sacrifices to earn higher incomes.
I was at a wedding last week and a childhood friend told me he works at a plastic molding company operating the machinery, and he made over $100k last year working long hours and no formal training. He’s 30 and I think he was at around $25/hr,
I think it’s important for people to realize that far more people CAN make $100k+/yr however it also takes SACRIFICE that they may not understand.
Sometimes I see people complain about their wage, but then they refuse to work over 40 hrs, relocate, etc.
I’m 32 with an associates degree and this year I’ll make the equivalent of $400k+ (my take home will be around $305k). With that in mind, I’ve averaged 55-ish hours this year, and most years far more. I’ve also moved to 8 different states in the last dozen years constantly finding the best contracting position. There’s a lot of people who won’t work 60, 70, 80 hr weeks, and sometimes that is what it takes to get into the higher paying positions. Same goes for people who aren’t willing to move for better career opportunities.
What do you do for work?
Oil & Gas - new construction. I’m part of the management team.
-
Lots of jobs mentioned are including overtime or super long hours, 80-100. That's more like having two jobs at 50K per job. I don't think the nature of the question is, "How can I work as much as possible to make as much money as possible?" I know that doctors and laywers make tons of dough but they also work long hours. It's great to know where the good gigs are but it would be helpful to know, who's working a 40 to 45 hour gig and making 100K. Gov't definitly. Depends on where you live and what agency you are with of course but here is the NY/NJ pay scale. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/NY.pdf
This is definitely an important aspect to consider. Different people make different types of sacrifices to earn higher incomes.
I was at a wedding last week and a childhood friend told me he works at a plastic molding company operating the machinery, and he made over $100k last year working long hours and no formal training. He’s 30 and I think he was at around $25/hr,
I think it’s important for people to realize that far more people CAN make $100k+/yr however it also takes SACRIFICE that they may not understand.
Sometimes I see people complain about their wage, but then they refuse to work over 40 hrs, relocate, etc.
I’m 32 with an associates degree and this year I’ll make the equivalent of $400k+ (my take home will be around $305k). With that in mind, I’ve averaged 55-ish hours this year, and most years far more. I’ve also moved to 8 different states in the last dozen years constantly finding the best contracting position. There’s a lot of people who won’t work 60, 70, 80 hr weeks, and sometimes that is what it takes to get into the higher paying positions. Same goes for people who aren’t willing to move for better career opportunities.
Yeah, the part about sacrifice is true. I now only work about 35-40 hours per week, but in the past I regularly did 50-60 hours a week. But it's not even just about the hours of work, it's the stress - of having to do well throughout university and law school, of having to compete with other ambitious people, having to get up early or stay up late to read a trial brief etc etc
A lot of people say they are willing to work hard for a high income but then they are not willing to do what it actually takes - which in my case was to sometimes work 15 hour days under the stress of having to run a trial.
Exactly. Not to mention, you work 60 hrs a week and you’re really earning 1.5x as much experience. Even though I only have around 12 actual years of experience, my knowledge base would be more comparable to someone with 18 years experience at 40 hours a week.
Lot of people complain about their income, but once you start telling them to work an extra 20 hours/wk or to move across the country, there’s usually an excuse that comes up, and a lot more complaints..
-
What do you do for work?
Oil & Gas - new construction. I’m part of the management team.
With the current bust likely to be extended and many companies having drastically cut back new construction, you might want to think about transferring over to wind farm construction. Presuming you're upstream, that is.
-
English major checking in here: be the person people want to promote. Solve problems before people know they exist, pitch solutions across the org, solve people problems within your group and with other groups so you are the one people trust/ confide in when issues arise. Be the person who speaks out at meetings. Help the boss look good and help your group look good and be successful. Before you know it people start to see you as the authority and you’re the obvious choice to lead. A director level just about anywhere in the US should hit 100k, I believe? I’m sure in some industries it’s easier to rise there faster. I’ve had good luck with newer or fast growing companies as they constantly need to add new directors as they figure things out.
I’ve never had to work particularly long hours, for the record. A good thing about moving up the ladder is being able to set the strategy, pace, staffing. And get rid of silly inefficiencies. If you’re doing something really valuable for the org/industry no one cares how many hours it takes. After 40 hrs you’re not getting most people’s best work anyway...
-
Lots of jobs mentioned are including overtime or super long hours, 80-100. That's more like having two jobs at 50K per job. I don't think the nature of the question is, "How can I work as much as possible to make as much money as possible?" I know that doctors and laywers make tons of dough but they also work long hours. It's great to know where the good gigs are but it would be helpful to know, who's working a 40 to 45 hour gig and making 100K. Gov't definitly. Depends on where you live and what agency you are with of course but here is the NY/NJ pay scale. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/NY.pdf
This is definitely an important aspect to consider. Different people make different types of sacrifices to earn higher incomes.
I was at a wedding last week and a childhood friend told me he works at a plastic molding company operating the machinery, and he made over $100k last year working long hours and no formal training. He’s 30 and I think he was at around $25/hr,
I think it’s important for people to realize that far more people CAN make $100k+/yr however it also takes SACRIFICE that they may not understand.
Sometimes I see people complain about their wage, but then they refuse to work over 40 hrs, relocate, etc.
I’m 32 with an associates degree and this year I’ll make the equivalent of $400k+ (my take home will be around $305k). With that in mind, I’ve averaged 55-ish hours this year, and most years far more. I’ve also moved to 8 different states in the last dozen years constantly finding the best contracting position. There’s a lot of people who won’t work 60, 70, 80 hr weeks, and sometimes that is what it takes to get into the higher paying positions. Same goes for people who aren’t willing to move for better career opportunities.
Yeah, the part about sacrifice is true. I now only work about 35-40 hours per week, but in the past I regularly did 50-60 hours a week. But it's not even just about the hours of work, it's the stress - of having to do well throughout university and law school, of having to compete with other ambitious people, having to get up early or stay up late to read a trial brief etc etc
A lot of people say they are willing to work hard for a high income but then they are not willing to do what it actually takes - which in my case was to sometimes work 15 hour days under the stress of having to run a trial.
Exactly. Not to mention, you work 60 hrs a week and you’re really earning 1.5x as much experience. Even though I only have around 12 actual years of experience, my knowledge base would be more comparable to someone with 18 years experience at 40 hours a week.
Lot of people complain about their income, but once you start telling them to work an extra 20 hours/wk or to move across the country, there’s usually an excuse that comes up, and a lot more complaints..
Yep. You also see this in ppl who are retired and broke but don't seeing moving to another part of the country or another country altogether as an option. Maybe you want to stay close to your kids. But if they want you close, they should poney up. If not, move to Costa Rica and live it up rather than be broke in the Bronx. They feel stuck but they are the glue!
Unless I hated my job, I would rather get an additional gig part time or more, and keep my current job rather than change jobs altogether to work longer hours for more money. But either is an option.
-
Does anyone here make over $200k in a business where they own all (or at least a majority of) the equity?
Yep. I'm an independent consultant, formed as an S-Corp. My AGI last year was $272,000. I also save $63K in 401k each year + $7K in roth.
-
Does anyone here make over $200k in a business where they own all (or at least a majority of) the equity?
I wholly owned and ran a business for 10 years and profit fluctuated greatly, but on average increased over time. There were a couple years below $100k (a good bit less than I was making at my previous job), some around $200k, couple closer to 400k and even one year that realized $1M+. I don't miss it one bit, even if I was willing to continue working the crazy hours the risk was always there. E.g., if my big year had happened when the covid shutdown occurred, and my primary client that year didn't pay, I could have lost near a million instead of making a million, something that was always in the back of my mind given I'd often have to wait and complain for many months to receive large payments past due.
I happily collect a paycheck for work at an hourly rate now as I wind down to RE.
-
What do you do for work?
Oil & Gas - new construction. I’m part of the management team.
With the current bust likely to be extended and many companies having drastically cut back new construction, you might want to think about transferring over to wind farm construction. Presuming you're upstream, that is.
I have pretty mixed experience in midstream, downstream (refineries), power plants, chemical plants, and a nuclear plant.
The current bust is certainly hurting. If needed within the next year or two I’ll likely cruise FI and just work a few months a year to make ends meet. There’s frequent high hour, short term jobs that always pop up for routine maintenance at refineries at power plants.
Upstream is the first area taking the major blows, the rest will continue to slow down in the following years.
-
Does anyone here make over $200k in a business where they own all (or at least a majority of) the equity?
Yep. I'm an independent consultant, formed as an S-Corp. My AGI last year was $272,000. I also save $63K in 401k each year + $7K in roth.
That's awesome. What field do you consult in?
A very boring niche part of project management that no one else likes to do. Because so few people like to do it, few train to do it well. There are many very successful people in my field without college educations. On the other hand, if I wanted to do my same job as a government employee, I do not qualify because my B.S. isn't in mathematics or statistics.
-
Ohio certainly doesn't have the greatest incomes. In Columbus it seems pretty common to be making roughly 100k. In Columbus, there are a lot of insurance, tech, healthcare, banking, government, fashion, and higher education jobs that pay around that if you put in your time (~5 to 10 years). It does seem that requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree. In government, healthcare and higher education that most likely requires an advanced degree. The fashion industry seems to be hurting pretty bad right now here. The big fashion/retail companies are shedding jobs.
-
Ohio certainly doesn't have the greatest incomes. In Columbus it seems pretty common to be making roughly 100k. In Columbus, there are a lot of insurance, tech, healthcare, banking, government, fashion, and higher education jobs that pay around that if you put in your time (~5 to 10 years). It does seem that requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree. In government, healthcare and higher education that most likely requires an advanced degree. The fashion industry seems to be hurting pretty bad right now here. The big fashion/retail companies are shedding jobs.
We lived near columbus for 5 years, on the east side. A ton of people had jobs at the big retailers. I was always amazed at how oblivious they were to the direction those companies were heading...... In person retail is shrinking, rounds and rounds of layoffs, and people could not see the writing on the wall.
Meanwhile part of the reason we left is H worked for the only major employer in his area and we decided it was too risky.
We are both engineers, make over 100, but didn't get there for ~8 years. I average 45 hours a week, H a little more, but we both were pretty intentional about not going into direct manufacturing support so we had lower hours. The manufacturing engineers are in on Saturdays, staying until 8 at night, etc.
-
Ohio certainly doesn't have the greatest incomes. In Columbus it seems pretty common to be making roughly 100k. In Columbus, there are a lot of insurance, tech, healthcare, banking, government, fashion, and higher education jobs that pay around that if you put in your time (~5 to 10 years). It does seem that requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree. In government, healthcare and higher education that most likely requires an advanced degree. The fashion industry seems to be hurting pretty bad right now here. The big fashion/retail companies are shedding jobs.
We lived near columbus for 5 years, on the east side. A ton of people had jobs at the big retailers. I was always amazed at how oblivious they were to the direction those companies were heading...... In person retail is shrinking, rounds and rounds of layoffs, and people could not see the writing on the wall.
Meanwhile part of the reason we left is H worked for the only major employer in his area and we decided it was too risky.
We are both engineers, make over 100, but didn't get there for ~8 years. I average 45 hours a week, H a little more, but we both were pretty intentional about not going into direct manufacturing support so we had lower hours. The manufacturing engineers are in on Saturdays, staying until 8 at night, etc.
A few of my friends have made it through the early rounds of pandemic or overall retail trend related layoffs, but they are pretty worried about future layoffs. A few acquaintances have already been laid off, apparently.
-
I started a pool service & repair business.
-
Does anyone here make over $200k in a business where they own all (or at least a majority of) the equity?
Yep. I'm an independent consultant, formed as an S-Corp. My AGI last year was $272,000. I also save $63K in 401k each year + $7K in roth.
Don't forget the HSA and an Accountable Plan if you can make it work with your accountant/business situation! I am in a similar situation with an income in the same ballpark before we started the transition to early retirement.
As far as OP's question:
We reached FI in 2018 (how to become a millionaire in 10 years (https://www.tictoclife.com/how-to-become-a-millionaire/) (or less!)) on an average salary of $77K for each of us through that time. I left corporate life in 2012 and haven't worked more than about 1200 hours/year since.
My other half is a PharmD who has made >$100K each year that she's been a full-time pharmacist, but that's after paying down nearly $200K of student loan debt + interest.
I have a bachelor's in communication (as in, interpersonal communication). I've never used the degree to support a job's criteria directly. The first time I made about $100K was 2011 working in digital strategy.
Here's what I've done that kept me in the >$100K bracket:
- Web development
- Web design/UX
- DevOps
- Digital strategy
- Business: digital strategy consulting
- Business: inventory sourcing for a niche hobby
We've been very fortunate to reach FI and starting our transition to early retirement (though in a pandemic!).