Can someone pull the plug on the FAAST team

[alaskaflyer]

Most federal employee wages and salaries are not "indexed." Heck I doubt most public employees are indexed. CPI or some other inflationary indicator is just a talking point to use when setting rates.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Ben, your a good guy and I like you but I have to call:

Bull ****!

The director of parks doesn't make that much and the highest pension the gov has ever had (other than congress/senate/supreme court and presidents) is about 50% of income at retirement. It used to be about 60% but has been dwindled down.

This is all publicly-available information. You are both wrong

The Director of the National Park Service, some associate directors, regional directors, and superintendents of the four largest parks (in terms of budget and payroll) are SES and make over six figures in positions that are roughly analogous to corporate VPs or top level managers making above $200k IMO.

Edit:burp the rest no one cares.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Off topic-

I'm not supporter of public employees but they are not the problem. They do not make too much money. The rest of us make too little. The problem is that the middle class has been earning a dwindling income (inflation corrected) since 1970. It is invisible to us other than we just have to work harder to have less.

Since Gov employees are indexed (their raises year over year) their meager salaries have kept pace with inflation (maybe not but more so then the rest of us) so now they look like Royalty in the employed world where gov jobs have always been paid less than everyone else. That is one reason they have been given better than average benefits to begin with. No where better, can we see the difference of what we make and what we should be making than by comparing the Federal employee wages with our own.

We, the rest of the middle class, now make much less than our parents did (on average in 1970). Thus we as a group, now pay less taxes because of our lower incomes. 70's were the beginnings of two income homes, now we live below the 70's even with our two income families.

By bitching and pulling on the government employees, I see us grabbing and pulling the other guys (who we perceive to have a better deal than the average man Union workers, Government workers, Railroad workers, Aerospace workers, oil field workers and the like) back into the alligator pit with us. IMO we should let them climb out and find ways politically to correct the situation for all of us. We should be focused on processes that promote all of us to make more money and be paid what we are worth.

Granted we as a group of aviators and owners already make more than average but those average guys do not hardly make a living wage today. This is one problem.

A federal law enforcement officer making GS-9 wages in 1960 would have earned about $6,430 annually as base pay, starting out. Several historical inflation calculators show that is around $50,000 in today's dollars. In 2012 that same pay grade earns about $49,000 in base pay unless they are in a high cost metro area or OCONUS. Worse retirement package than 1960. Slightly better benefits due to legislation since then. Much more expensive employee portion of insurance now than then.

This is rough of course - there are variables especially for law enforcement and firefighters that make a direct comparison difficult. Grade changes, the way that overtime is accounted, etc. but I just wanted to show the comparison to inflation. Not indexed but Congress and the Executive branch keep it close, at least over time.

I agree with much of your sentiment above. This country does need to have a much more lucid discussion about our propensity to have the middle class "race to the bottom." I came from a family that was boom bust boom bust due to the field my father was in and it shaped my perceptions and my preferences for more stability in my life even if the grass sometimes appears greener in the private sector. Well, that, and my chosen field doesn't really exist in the private sector.

 

[Jay Honeck]

So a task that by its nature can't be quantified into some arbitrary large number of objective performance parameters in your mind and happens to call for a normal work schedule somehow is translated into salary requirements on that basis alone?

That's one of the most unintentionally funny (and poignant) posts I've ever seen from a government worker.

Yes, Alaska, in the real world that is PRECISELY how we decide what a job is worth. We analyze the goal, decide if it's worth pursuing, and then we fund it precisely not one penny higher then the minimum amount it will take to get the job done.

If that means a pimply faced newly minted multimedia or business grad can do the job for $38K, that's what the job is "worth".

We then aggressively assess the performance of the individual, and constantly reassess the worthiness of the goal. If the goal becomes less than worthy, or if other priorities take precedence -- like, for example, the budget -- we eliminate the job.

It is truly frightening when we occasionally catch an unintentional glimpse of how you guys view the workplace. It's no wonder we're bankrupt. :banghead:

 

[Jay Honeck]

The biggest resistance, bar the earmark boondoggles, I got was in the same positions in Corporate America. Changing anything that was useless work was met with hues and cries louder than I ever heard in the USAF.

Certainly big corporations can be as intransigent as the government, but this is of no concern to me. Those people don't work for me, and if Procter & Gamble becomes too wasteful I will simply stop buying Tide, and will sell my stock.

Government employees work for me, and I pay them. This makes their every move -- or lack of movement -- my concern.

 

[murphey]

Very close friend retired from one of the IG's (30 & 55, translation: 30 years of work and age 55). Monthly income is $3500 and reasonably good medical coverage. Not fantastic coverage, but reasonably good.

 

[docmirror]

What Jay said.

I'm in networking, which is both highly competitive, and can be very profitable. We just went through a round of lay-offs. You would think as an employee, I would boo-hoo the loss of my fellow compatriots on the work force.

Hardly, in fact, I don't think my company cut enough. If the next round gets me(it won't because I'm doing about 46% margin), I would be sad, and then I'd go out and hustle up some work. I'm sure every employee that was let go thought that they were worth every penny. Fact is they weren't or they would still be there.

We are raking in money hand over fist, and paying a lot of money out to our shareholders. That is the way capitalism intended it to be. My good buddy pilot is a network admin for the state. Every time we talk I just sit there, mouth agape at all the wasted time, money, effort, skill set, and machinery. It is truly, mind-blowing.

Another data point I just recalled. The Round Rock school district just got every teacher, admin, and manager a new NetBook. They had some Dell's, but they were two years old -- boo hoo, so they all got brand new Apple's. Everyone of them, and on my company I'm using a Dell D630 which is at least three years old, cause I don't want to cost my company extra money for what I need to do my job.

I've never met anyone in govt in the past 10 years that has any clue about cost effectiveness. This includes the FAA. Charity starts at home, so I say start cutting, I'll let you know when to stop.

 

[murphey]

Eliminate the Dept of Education, EPA, DEA, DHS, DOE to start with plus all the other government agencies that have duplication.

Gotta start somewhere.

Don't forget the DOD. Why does each service, in fact subsets of each service, have separate and distinct procurement policies & procedures?

Why does DHS, DOE and DOD (and others) all have incredibly well-defined security policies (e.g. security clearances) yet DOD clearance is not accepted by DOE or DHS or....? Work in multiple Departments, must have separate clearances which means separate investigations to discover the same information.

 

[docmirror]

Certainly big corporations can be as intransigent as the government, but this is of no concern to me. Those people don't work for me, and if Procter & Gamble becomes too wasteful I will simply stop buying Tide, and will sell my stock.

Government employees work for me, and I pay them. This makes their every move -- or lack of movement -- my concern.

Tide, or other detergent is a discretionary use of funds. Welfare, Section 8, AFDC, WIC, or any of the thousands of other programs - not so much. I don't get to fund only those dept that I think have value. If I stop funding them, armed men will use guns to put me in prison.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Off topic-

I'm not supporter of public employees but they are not the problem. They do not make too much money. The rest of us make too little. The problem is that the middle class has been earning a dwindling income (inflation corrected) since 1970. It is invisible to us other than we just have to work harder to have less.

Gosh, that's an easy softball over the middle of the plate. What changed from the 1950s, 60s, 70s, to now?

Um, women entering the workforce? As with any other commodity, what happens to its value when the supply doubles? Does its value get cut in half?

Yup. It's Econ 101, kids. When I was growing up in the 60s, women stayed home to raise families. I remember feeling sorry for families whose moms "had to work to make ends meet". They didn't see it as "freedom" or "liberation", that's for sure.

Labor is no different than gold, oil, or any other commodity. Double the supply, and the price plummets. The best thing that EVER happened to corporate profits was women entering the workplace.

 

[Everskyward]

When I was growing up in the 60s, women stayed home to raise families. I remember feeling sorry for families whose moms "had to work to make ends meet". They didn't see it as "freedom" or "liberation", that's for sure.

So you don't think it's possible that some women with children had a career because they found it more fulfilling than staying at home?

 

[Jay Honeck]

So you don't think it's possible that some women with children had a career because they found it more fulfilling than staying at home?

Oh, absolutely! Lots of women love to work, and see raising families as menial labor that can be farmed out to "the help".

Which changes precisely nothing about my point: in a very short time we doubled the labor force, effectively cutting our individual value in half. It was the best thing that ever happened to corporate America, and is a primary reason for middle class wages not keeping pace with inflation.

 

[Everskyward]

Oh, absolutely! Lots of women love to work, and see raising families as menial labor that can be farmed out to "the help".

Was that meant as some sort of dig?

Which changes precisely nothing about my point: in a very short time we doubled the labor force, effectively cutting our individual value in half. It was the best thing that ever happened to corporate America, and is a primary reason for middle class wages not keeping pace with inflation.

What you are not taking into consideration is that we have and want far more luxuries and conveniences than families did in the 60s. If we wanted to go back to the lifestyle of the 60s it could probably still be done on one middle-class income.

 

[docmirror]

What you are not taking into consideration is that we have and want far more luxuries and conveniences than families did in the 60s. If we wanted to go back to the lifestyle of the 60s it could probably still be done on one middle-class income.

It would seem that way, from all the gadgetry many people have today. But - when I look at two close indicator of discretionary spending today and in the 60s it is not so.

Private plane construction peaked I think in the very early 70s, but I'm not going to look it up. Surely the late 60s was a heyday of activity in building GA planes compared to today even if we take the LSA fad into account.

Pleasure boat building also peaked(per capita) in the late 60s. We may in fact build more pleasure boats today, but on a per cap basis the 50-60s and early 70s were great times for trailer boats, and small yachts. I would suspect that campers/motorhomes would show a similar trend.

Hotel and motel construction was booming, Disneyland, Vegas baby, international travel for pleasure, and a host of other activities that were all discretionary seem to have done very well in the late 50s to the early 70s. Some of it was due to the age bubble, but my generation went through that bubble and we don't have the same free-spending potential as they did back then.

One of the main contributors to that decline is the vast and every growing involvement of the various govts in our lives, and pocketbooks. Sure, tax rates may have been higher for some back then, but actual fed/state total govt spending as a % of GDP was much, much lower. The biggest thing on the table back then was NASAs mission to the moon, and the cold war. To Paraphrase Archie Bunker, paraphrasing Lee Adams: 'Those were the days'.

The country has grown, things are bigger, faster, more advanced and it should be expected that a certain growth in govt would accompany that. No question we couldn't do with the same actual spending that we did in the 60s. But if we look at historical relationship of national GDP to fed spending, the past 8 years has been a disaster, and the coming 5 years will be our doom. It doesn't take a mathematics degree to figure out that exponential spending cannot continue.

 

[timwinters]

Back to FAAST...

I went to their "The Day The Music Died" seminar last night at KCGI.

I want my 4 hours back.

Really.

It was that bad.

It was the worst FAAST seminar I've been to thus far, and I've been to some bad ones.

My benchmark is that if I take just one thing away from a seminar that helps me then it was worth it. That didn't happen last night and hasn't on a couple of other occasions either.

 

[alaskaflyer]

That's one of the most unintentionally funny (and poignant) posts I've ever seen from a government worker.

Yes, Alaska, in the real world that is PRECISELY how we decide what a job is worth. We analyze the goal, decide if it's worth pursuing, and then we fund it precisely not one penny higher then the minimum amount it will take to get the job done.

If that means a pimply faced newly minted multimedia or business grad can do the job for $38K, that's what the job is "worth".

We then aggressively assess the performance of the individual, and constantly reassess the worthiness of the goal. If the goal becomes less than worthy, or if other priorities take precedence -- like, for example, the budget -- we eliminate the job.

It is truly frightening when we occasionally catch an unintentional glimpse of how you guys view the workplace. It's no wonder we're bankrupt. :banghead:

I was asking about quantity of parameters which is how you couched your comment.

And I will assume by your answer that no, you don't know how a job is graded in the government. If you did you wouldn't have bothered with your blather above.

 

[steingar]

Back to FAAST...

I went to their "The Day The Music Died" seminar last night at KCGI.

I want my 4 hours back.

Really.

It was that bad.

I have always been very critical of the mechanics of those talks, though my comments have consistently fallen on deaf ears. I have not found very many to be overly useful, and no longer go out of my way to listen to them.

 

[Everskyward]

It would seem that way, from all the gadgetry many people have today. But - when I look at two close indicator of discretionary spending today and in the 60s it is not so.

Don't you remember when it was common for kids to share a bedroom, even into their teens? Families only had one car. I was one of the few kids who had ever been on an airliner and nobody I knew owned their own airplane. I didn't grow up in a disadvantaged area either, it was solidly middle-class suburbia.

 

[X3 Skier]

Why does DHS, DOE and DOD (and others) all have incredibly well-defined security policies (e.g. security clearances) yet DOD clearance is not accepted by DOE or DHS or....? Work in multiple Departments, must have separate clearances which means separate investigations to discover the same information.

I wondered that when I applied for GOES (Trusted traveler) to expedite trips thru US Customs and Immigration. Even though I have had a TS/SBI/SCI from the DOD for almost 30 years, I still had to fly to Atlanta for an Interview that took all of 5 Minutes. Even so, the result is great as I can breeze thru in less than 2 Minutes vs standing in line For up to an hour. Great Government program for overseas travel.

Cheers

 

[timwinters]

It would seem that way, from all the gadgetry many people have today. But - when I look at two close indicator of discretionary spending today and in the 60s it is not so.

Don't you remember when it was common for kids to share a bedroom, even into their teens? Families only had one car. I was one of the few kids who had ever been on an airliner and nobody I knew owned their own airplane. I didn't grow up in a disadvantaged area either, it was solidly middle-class suburbia.

The percentage of total income that a bank was willing to loan on a home mortgage was far lower back then also. Hence more disposable income because people were far less leveraged in their house back in the '60s and '70s.

And, yes, I too remember quite a few families that only had one car and the kids shared rooms, including mine, though dad had a company car, that helped.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I know plenty of people who are one-income nuclear families, because of their kids - including me and mine for the near-to-mid future - and the majority who I know are solidly middle class making in the mid five figures or maybe even less. While it might now be out of the ordinary experience of some, in my world it isn't uncommon. A lot of people read The Two Income Trap and took it to heart maybe

 

[hindsight2020]

I know plenty of people who are one-income nuclear families for their kids - including me and mine for the near-to-mid future - and the majority who I know are solidly middle class making in the mid five figures or maybe even less. While it might now be out of the ordinary experience of some, in my world it isn't uncommon. A lot of people read The Two Income Trap and took it to heart maybe

Indeed. Our young growing family is single income currently. I've always made it a point to be able to substantiate my aggregate livelihood on one income. I do make a comfortable living; when I was making 45K no way I would have attempted to have a family. I needed double that before I felt comfortable pursuing a family.

I do not think it is unreasonable to live on one income and pocket the second, which is probably what we'll do when the wife begins drawing a paycheck of consequence. I do concede someone has to make a high five figure income for it to work. Two people making a combined 80K are nowhere near in the same boat of stability as one person making 80K, which is the point of the Two Income Trap by the way.

Most people in America do not subscribe to that mentality however. It is somewhat more monastic a lifestyle than most people aspire to, to have a one income lifestyle. I personally don't get the idea or value overpriced housing choices (particularly post-boomers era, where real estate will never triple in value in 10 years) , even from a school district argument. I also hold little emotional stock in a house as a principle; to me they are simply a utility, so going cheap on it doesn't fundamentally upset my daily life. But going cheap on housing and transportation apparently constitutes a grave indignity to most Americans, regardless of their houshold income. That seems like a self-inflicted hardship to me.


Managing to go cheap on housing, healthcare and education is the way to be able to have a financialy stressless life in America and not feel everytime your job circumstances hiccup due to the economy that your life is going to spiral out of control every time. Most Americans are so stretched thin it's pathetic.

 

[hindsight2020]

Oh, absolutely! Lots of women love to work, and see raising families as menial labor that can be farmed out to "the help".

Which changes precisely nothing about my point: in a very short time we doubled the labor force, effectively cutting our individual value in half. It was the best thing that ever happened to corporate America, and is a primary reason for middle class wages not keeping pace with inflation.

I empathize with the argument you're making. It is with absolute certainty that the entrance of women into the labor force en masse in the 70s, combined with the bait and switch of being compensated in the form of lines of credit in the 80s, that fundamentally changed the dynamics of labor shortage in this Country, which is the main reason for the relative personal purchasing power Americans enjoyed for 150 years.

However, by callously pointing out the factually obvious, you still dismiss the perspective of a female that wishes to be vocationally ambitious. As much as I think women's scoffing of the classical gender role is a contributing factor to our social deficit, I cannot in good conscience tell a woman to stay at home and not pursue her vocational desire to her heart's content. That would be hypocritical. Additionally, my mother was able to work a full career as a civil servant (lawyer) and raise two children alongside my father. She didn't make the asinine stay-at-home mommy argument of "my child rearing duties would be equivalent to a six figure income job" that many on that camp make and consequently give the classic gende role camp a lack of credibility.

If I were you I would accept women's entrance into the labor force as a sunk cost and stop adjudicating morality to that social dynamic. You'd be better off figuring out how to go cheap on housing, healthcare and education to be able to afford the pursuit of your own happiness in this Country. Or move as required to find it.

 

[JB1842]

A big difference between now and in the 50' and 60's is back then, people bought a house and stayed in it. Too many people today bought into this "starter house" business and contributed to the subprime mortgage problems.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Was that meant as some sort of dig?

What you are not taking into consideration is that we have and want far more luxuries and conveniences than families did in the 60s. If we wanted to go back to the lifestyle of the 60s it could probably still be done on one middle-class income.

What you say may be true but it misses the point. Compare our income to the rest of the economy not how many TV's we had to 1960.

Everyone in the US has increased their standard of living, the middle class just less so than others. Thus we can see that Gov employees marginally keep pace so we can use their income as a sort of base or index. If your job paid 2.4x a government employee in 1960 and today it pays only .94x that same gov employee then you can see that your job did not keep pace with the growth and prosperity in the USA that others have.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Indeed. Our young growing family is single income currently. I've always made it a point to be able to substantiate my aggregate livelihood on one income. I do make a comfortable living; when I was making 45K no way I would have attempted to have a family. I needed double that before I felt comfortable pursuing a family.

I do not think it is unreasonable to live on one income and pocket the second, which is probably what we'll do when the wife begins drawing a paycheck of consequence. I do concede someone has to make a high five figure income for it to work. Two people making a combined 80K are nowhere near in the same boat of stability as one person making 80K, which is the point of the Two Income Trap by the way.

Most people in America do not subscribe to that mentality however. It is somewhat more monastic a lifestyle than most people aspire to, to have a one income lifestyle. I personally don't get the idea or value overpriced housing choices (particularly post-boomers era, where real estate will never triple in value in 10 years) , even from a school district argument. I also hold little emotional stock in a house as a principle; to me they are simply a utility, so going cheap on it doesn't fundamentally upset my daily life. But going cheap on housing and transportation apparently constitutes a grave indignity to most Americans, regardless of their houshold income. That seems like a self-inflicted hardship to me.


Managing to go cheap on housing, healthcare and education is the way to be able to have a financialy stressless life in America and not feel everytime your job circumstances hiccup due to the economy that your life is going to spiral out of control every time. Most Americans are so stretched thin it's pathetic.

I used to believe that too but after the crisis of 2008 I heard on tv that almost half the homes in the USA are owned out right with no debt. Before that I thought I was the exception.

Being self employed nearly my whole working life, I had times where I made good money only to follow with very lean times. So last time I had a good run of luck I paid off both houses, paid cash for my airplane(s), toys, cars, vans and even expanded by business with 100% cash equity. It is very good for me that I avoided the temptation to buy 4800 sqft house I no longer need as I have no one home living with me, or BMW, or Finance the new Cirrus. As has happened in the past 2008 my income contracted but an rather extreme amount. My lifestyle stayed the same (with the exception that I am not looking to buy a twin with as much enthusiasm).

I think all this housing troubles were pretty much caused by only 8-10% of buyers and speculators and that magnified by derivatives and credit default swaps which was the biggest ponzi scheme in the world.

 

[Everskyward]

Everyone in the US has increased their standard of living, the middle class just less so than others. Thus we can see that Gov employees marginally keep pace so we can use their income as a sort of base or index. If your job paid 2.4x a government employee in 1960 and today it pays only .94x that same gov employee then you can see that your job did not keep pace with the growth and prosperity in the USA that others have.

Not sure what you are getting at here. If in 1960 a similar private sector job paid 2.4x of an equivalent government job then the government worker was underpaid. At .94x it's pretty much at parity which is about what it should be. Note that I have no problem with what government workers, or pretty much anyone else, makes.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

A big difference between now and in the 50' and 60's is back then, people bought a house and stayed in it. Too many people today bought into this "starter house" business and contributed to the subprime mortgage problems.

While there may have been some of that, I don't think the problem was the poor people buying beginner houses. It was the speculators and yuppies who were over leveraged.

I think what happens is that you see everyone buying bigger and bigger newer homes, you live in a 1000' home and hope to someday move out of it to something a bit larger but your best friends have all upgraded three times in 12 years to a 3000' 5 bedroom house, along with that housing costs per ft was going up almost 10% a year so you felt you were being left behind so you push yourself into thinking if I do not buy a bigger home now, I am forever stuck in a too small home.. Then there were the house flippers....got their tit stuck in the ringer.

Be careful what you wish for. Better to own a 1000' home then finance a 3000' home. Financing is just another lordship you have to work for.

Even before we were able to pay cash for everything we made the decision to use financing in a way that we can maintain our home/cars on a single salary so when and if either of us lost our job, got hurt and out of work for more than six months we could survive. This allowed us to always have disposable income when we both worked. Also allowed me to go back to school for an MBA after my son was born, and helped finance the start up of my business.

 

[JB1842]

While there may have been some of that, I don't think the problem was the poor people buying beginner houses. It was the speculators and yuppies who were over leveraged.

I think what happens is that you see everyone buying bigger and bigger newer homes, you live in a 1000' home and hope to someday move out of it to something a bit larger but your best friends have all upgraded three times in 12 years to a 3000' 5 bedroom house, along with that housing costs per ft was going up almost 10% a year so you felt you were being left behind so you push yourself into thinking if I do not buy a bigger home now, I am forever stuck in a too small home.. Then there were the house flippers....got their tit stuck in the ringer.

Be careful what you wish for. Better to own a 1000' home then finance a 3000' home. Financing is just another lordship you have to work for.

Even before we were able to pay cash for everything we made the decision to use financing in a way that we can maintain our home/cars on a single salary so when and if either of us lost our job, got hurt and out of work for more than six months we could survive. This allowed us to always have disposable income when we both worked. Also allowed me to go back to school for an MBA after my son was born, and helped finance the start up of my business.

You are correct. I'm looking at buying a house this year. Fighting with the wife over how much to spend, she wants to look at more expensive houses with all the upgrade. Even though we can afford a large expensive home, I don't want one. I would rather get a older, smaller house and upgrade it over time. Plus the more money I spend on housing, the less there is for flying.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Couldn't agree more. The problem is a structure that is akin to oligarchy.

I'm new here so hope you don't mind me wading into this one...

Welcome.

BTW-agreed.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

You are correct. I'm looking at buying a house this year. Fighting with the wife over how much to spend, she wants to look at more expensive houses with all the upgrade. Even though we can afford a large expensive home, I don't want one. I would rather get a older, smaller house and upgrade it over time. Plus the more money I spend on housing, the less there is for flying.

Bravo!

Yes, we took several family vacations every year, we had long weekend trips for breaks between the vacations, we rented a hotel on some weekend when we couldn't get away. We never had to look at the checking balance to determine if we could go out with friends or for dinner or Sunday brunch. So buying half the house you can afford gives you twice the life you would have if you bought the larger house with little disposable income left. Statistics say that within 6 months of buying a house you will buy at least one new car and new furniture so there is another hit built into the decision.

I'd try to talk her into a small acreage on the outskirts of town that would be easy to buy and pay off then put an addition, swimming pool enclosure and giant barn/shop later down the years when your income blossoms.

If your choice of locations doesn't permit acreage then buy a large dated ranch with unfinished basement. Or even a new Ranch house with basement rough in only. You can finish it later to build equity.

On weekends which you can't fly, you can run the electric yourself, plumb down stairs bathroom, drywall and paint it yourself doubling your total living area. Home depot has weekend seminars to tell you everything you need to do. It is all very doable. Anyone smart enough to get a pilots license can finish a garage or basement with minor guidance from HD. Even if only for a pool table or game room.

That is a couple if ways I would go with it.

 

[JB1842]

Bravo!

Yes, we took several family vacations every year, we had long weekend trips for breaks between the vacations, we rented a hotel on some weekend when we couldn't get away. We never had to look at the checking balance to determine if we could go out with friends or for dinner or Sunday brunch. So buying half the house you can afford gives you twice the life you would have if you bought the larger house with little disposable income left. Statistics say that within 6 months of buying a house you will buy at least one new car and new furniture so there is another hit built into the decision.

I'd try to talk her into a small acreage on the outskirts of town that would be easy to buy and pay off then put an addition, swimming pool enclosure and giant barn/shop later down the years when your income blossoms.

If your choice of locations doesn't permit acreage then buy a large dated ranch with unfinished basement. Or even a new Ranch house with basement rough in only. You can finish it later to build equity.

On weekends which you can't fly, you can run the electric yourself, plumb down stairs bathroom, drywall and paint it yourself doubling your total living area. Home depot has weekend seminars to tell you everything you need to do. It is all very doable. Anyone smart enough to get a pilots license can finish a garage or basement with minor guidance from HD. Even if only for a pool table or game room.

That is a couple if ways I would go with it.

I would rather have a smaller house for more property. Or buy the property now, and then build on in a few years.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I empathize with the argument you're making. It is with absolute certainty that the entrance of women into the labor force en masse in the 70s, combined with the bait and switch of being compensated in the form of lines of credit in the 80s, that fundamentally changed the dynamics of labor shortage in this Country, which is the main reason for the relative personal purchasing power Americans enjoyed for 150 years.

However, by callously pointing out the factually obvious, you still dismiss the perspective of a female that wishes to be vocationally ambitious. As much as I think women's scoffing of the classical gender role is a contributing factor to our social deficit, I cannot in good conscience tell a woman to stay at home and not pursue her vocational desire to her heart's content. That would be hypocritical. Additionally, my mother was able to work a full career as a civil servant (lawyer) and raise two children alongside my father. She didn't make the asinine stay-at-home mommy argument of "my child rearing duties would be equivalent to a six figure income job" that many on that camp make and consequently give the classic gende role camp a lack of credibility.

If I were you I would accept women's entrance into the labor force as a sunk cost and stop adjudicating morality to that social dynamic. You'd be better off figuring out how to go cheap on housing, healthcare and education to be able to afford the pursuit of your own happiness in this Country. Or move as required to find it.

You seem to have mistaken my pointing out the facts of our currently devalued labor force as meaning that I think we should somehow push women back into the kitchen. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Until we bought our most recent business my wife always had a career outside the home. When the kids were little she did go to part-time work, which enabled her to spend more time with them during their formative years, but she always kept her toe in medical technology, and I was fine with that.

What I always marvel at, however, are those who refuse to acknowledge the simple economic truth of what has taken place in America. With twice as many workers in competition for jobs, OF COURSE wages were suppressed. And corporate America lapped it up.

So, where are we? Where once women CHOSE to work outside the home as a form of enlightenment and freedom, now they MUST work outside the home in order to make ends meet. Many women I know view this Catch-22 situation as bittersweet, and rightfully so.

 

[RotorAndWing]

What I always marvel at, however, are those who refuse to acknowledge the simple economic truth of what has taken place in America. With twice as many workers in competition for jobs, OF COURSE wages were suppressed. And corporate America lapped it up.

Depends upon your chosen career field. Some of us choice careers that paid very lucrative and that not everyone on the street could or even want to do.

As individuals we all make our choices.

As someone here on this board likes to say "Choose Wisely"......

 

[Jay Honeck]

Depends upon your chosen career field. Some of us choice careers that paid very lucrative and that not everyone on the street could or even want to do.

As individuals we all make our choices.

As someone here on this board likes to say "Choose Wisely"......

Of course we're talking about the economy as a whole, not individual parts. There will always be highly specialized, high-paying jobs that few can do.

Even with those jobs, however, we now have women competing for them where before we did not. This competition naturally works to keep wages lower.

If one reads the tea leaves, however, this current situation may soon be coming to an end. With Baby Boomers retiring en masse, and a smaller generation coming up behind it, a skilled labor shortage is brewing. This will put upward pressure on wages, as companies compete for the best and brightest.

 

[denverpilot]

If one reads the tea leaves, however, this current situation may soon be coming to an end. With Baby Boomers retiring en masse, and a smaller generation coming up behind it, a skilled labor shortage is brewing. This will put upward pressure on wages, as companies compete for the best and brightest.

I think your leaf reading is missing that there will be roughly 20% fewer buyers of the products and services that needed those skilled jobs.

It all interrelates.

 

[docmirror]

From what I've seen of the 99%ers, we're going to have about 80% increase in unemployable derelicts. So - those that can do, will be a hot commodity. My kids are already looking at jobs that start in the $80k and up range. Mostly because the competition are not interested in working, or working just long enough to qualify for unemployment.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I think your leaf reading is missing that there will be roughly 20% fewer buyers of the products and services that needed those skilled jobs.

It all interrelates.

True, but that doesn't happen all at once. For at least 20 years, there's going to be a butt-load of non-working baby-boomers, buying everything from Depends to Poly-Grip to tablets.

The next, smaller generation is going to have a better time of it...for a while anyway. Then the cycle winds down...unless immigration continues to grow.

 

[denverpilot]

True, but that doesn't happen all at once. For at least 20 years, there's going to be a butt-load of non-working baby-boomers, buying everything from Depends to Poly-Grip to tablets.

The next, smaller generation is going to have a better time of it...for a while anyway. Then the cycle winds down...unless immigration continues to grow.

I still disagree. You said skilled labor. None of those items you mentioned requires that.

The manufacturing of new and interesting durable goods drives really skilled labor needs.

And immigration... I don't see us closing off borders ever, so that's a given. As long as there's a better life here than wherever people come from, they'll keep coming, just like my great-great-grandfather. Can't blame 'em either.

You think they're going to double my wife's salary to care for the overload of drooling seniors in nursing homes, because she's got 30-40 years in by then? That's a laugh. They'll just pile the caseload on and tell her to make the five minutes per patient allowed by government funding to really count. She'll make a decent wage, but not something anyone can get rich quick on in a fiat-currency based inflationary consumer market. Whether or not she gets rich slow is more of a budgetary thing and whether she chooses to live life now or later.

My sis is 30. She has a Masters degree from a well-known architecture school. (The smart one in the family, we all joke...) She just got her first real salaried job in her chosen field last year. She had to settle for working for government, reviewing plans and keeping people from destroying historic landmarks in your home State. Not exactly being utilized to her full potential, but she's happy to finally have a job with benefits.

I don't see that as a skilled labor need/boom. Maybe you mean two more generations after her? Kids in grade school now?

 

[alaskaflyer]

I still disagree. You said skilled labor. None of those items you mentioned requires that.

The manufacturing of new and interesting durable goods drives really skilled labor needs.



I don't see that as a skilled labor need/boom. Maybe you mean two more generations after her? Kids in grade school now?

Is what you do skilled labor? What your sister does isn't skilled labor?