Are you middle class?

[Diamonds]

I don't know many 18 year olds making $36k

 

Yeah, I was thinking the source was speaking more about post-college grad.

[kirks5oh]

Surprised to see Wisconsin middle of the pack.

[Tractor]

There's a lot of problems with those numbers.

 

A lot of problems with the X x age thing too. That formula works fine for my wife, she's in banking and successful at it, gets promotions, etc. For me, a skilled trade it doesn't work. Early on your making good money for your age, but as you age you make less because promotions don't exist and the pay doesn't increase other than annual raises.

[Shmaa]

Middle class...$40,000-$400,000/yr

 

It's not easy to make it to the next level

[cstmg8]

There's a lot of problems with those numbers.

 

A lot of problems with the X x age thing too. That formula works fine for my wife, she's in banking and successful at it, gets promotions, etc. For me, a skilled trade it doesn't work. Early on your making good money for your age, but as you age you make less because promotions don't exist and the pay doesn't increase other than annual raises.

Hear what you're saying, but doesn't mean the theory is bad. Doesn't it stand to reason that a job with no advancement is less valuable/appealing long term? Doesn't mean it won't support you well, just that you won't be as comfortable/well off as some of your peers may be.

If you lived correctly and within your means, in theory you'd have things paid for and little debt/bills later in life, just not "class" advancement.

[Diamonds]

There's a lot of problems with those numbers.

 

A lot of problems with the X x age thing too. That formula works fine for my wife, she's in banking and successful at it, gets promotions, etc. For me, a skilled trade it doesn't work. Early on your making good money for your age, but as you age you make less because promotions don't exist and the pay doesn't increase other than annual raises.

 

Dude, the system is the system. A persons "where am I?" based on the system may not yield the desired results. You can't say "the system works for people who get raises by climbing a corporate ladder". It works for everyone. Remember, it doesn't say if the candidate is "skilled" (vs not skilled) or "significant"... It tells you where you are in terms of age/income.

[Got-Boost?]

What's in the number?

 

What amount will make you happy or will you always want more?

 

If you aren't at that number, what's your plan to get to a number you'll be happy with?

 

So many other factors that people don't consider in making X amount...

 

For instance, how many people that make good money also have HUGE college loans they are paying for?

 

I've noticed a big difference in our friends that have school loans and don't. Some make damn good money but are also sitting on $300-600k+ in school debt.

[Turbs3000]

Welcome to the epic BS that is modern student loans in schooling the whole system is a complete joke also the dollar amount that will make you the happiest is 74,600 you are welcome

[Putty]

I'm moving on up!!

[turbospec29]

Welcome to the epic BS that is modern student loans in schooling the whole system is a complete joke also the dollar amount that will make you the happiest is 74,600 you are welcome

 

Is that due to a tax bracket?

[greg1647545532]

Dude, the system is the system. A persons "where am I?" based on the system may not yield the desired results. You can't say "the system works for people who get raises by climbing a corporate ladder". It works for everyone. Remember, it doesn't say if the candidate is "skilled" (vs not skilled) or "significant"... It tells you where you are in terms of age/income.

 

No, he's saying that the age x income thing doesn't work very well for all industries. "Skilled trade" is shorthand for plumbers, mechanics, electricians, etc, not a judgement of someone's abilities. And he's right. I'll go ahead and throw my own field of IT in there as well. It's relatively easy to jump out of college and find a good job as a junior software dev or network tech making $55-$65. Woohoo! You say, I'm making nearly 3x my age, I'm doing great! But salaries flatten out in these industries. When you're 50, you've climbed your way up to a senior architect/project manager position and making, say, $110. Barely double your age. Does that mean you've failed at life? No, that's just how this career field works.

 

Your rule of thumb works great for financial and non-technical professions, like accountants, lawyers, doctors, marketers, salesmen, brokers, etc. Those jobs tend to start out at lower salaries but have much better room for growth.

[Lauren]

I'm a skilled trade I guess you could say. I have a flat rate that doesn't ever vary. Rather then worry how I can teach more I opened a studio and have staff members teaching for me. I also book more events.

 

Have a skilled trade? Open your own business and have people work for you. Only way to keep increasing your pay. Otherwise enjoy working for someone and be content with your salary.

[AudiOn19s]

No, he's saying that the age x income thing doesn't work very well for all industries. "Skilled trade" is shorthand for plumbers, mechanics, electricians, etc, not a judgement of someone's abilities. And he's right. I'll go ahead and throw my own field of IT in there as well. It's relatively easy to jump out of college and find a good job as a junior software dev or network tech making $55-$65. Woohoo! You say, I'm making nearly 3x my age, I'm doing great! But salaries flatten out in these industries. When you're 50, you've climbed your way up to a senior architect/project manager position and making, say, $110. Barely double your age. Does that mean you've failed at life? No, that's just how this career field works.

 

Your rule of thumb works great for financial and non-technical professions, like accountants, lawyers, doctors, marketers, salesmen, brokers, etc. Those jobs tend to start out at lower salaries but have much better room for growth.

 

I respectfully disagree. I used to have this picture on the IT path that I was on but if you examine it a little more closely the path you have laid out is one of someone that does pretty well for themselves and then gets comfortable or complacent and stops reaching for that next step. I started off as an app developer out of school with an MIS degree. I did my best to always have a plan for the next step, a plan to stand out from the crowd and be recognized. I was at that PM / Manager level you speak about by age 33 and I'm pursuing my next paths to success to be at the Director / Program Manager level before the age of 40. I'm also to the point where I'm looking at business opportunities outside of the IT world that will grow my income into my retirement years.

 

Put yourself out there and work outside of your comfort zone. Step up for every opportunity to do projects or work that show you can do that next level job. Network, sell yourself and take chances like moving to another company for advancement opportunities.

 

There's a lot of opportunity in the IT space to just time into a role that will get you $120-150k a year while you wait out retirement. There are many people that are very comfortable with that and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that either, but you CAN forge a path beyond that if you put in the effort and dedication and put yourself out there.

[Diamonds]

No, he's saying that the age x income thing doesn't work very well for all industries. "Skilled trade" is shorthand for plumbers, mechanics, electricians, etc, not a judgement of someone's abilities. And he's right. I'll go ahead and throw my own field of IT in there as well. It's relatively easy to jump out of college and find a good job as a junior software dev or network tech making $55-$65. Woohoo! You say, I'm making nearly 3x my age, I'm doing great! But salaries flatten out in these industries. When you're 50, you've climbed your way up to a senior architect/project manager position and making, say, $110. Barely double your age. Does that mean you've failed at life? No, that's just how this career field works.

 

Your rule of thumb works great for financial and non-technical professions, like accountants, lawyers, doctors, marketers, salesmen, brokers, etc. Those jobs tend to start out at lower salaries but have much better room for growth.

 

 

The theory has nothing to do with "failing at life". You guys need to take the emotion out of it. It's simply a way of knowing (financially) where you exist compared to your age. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean you have failed at anything. It may however, make you second-think the path that you chose in terms of your ability to earn money in an exponential fashion.

 

Plumbers can be great plumbers (and even be happy). It's a job with a ceiling and the earning potential stops... until you own your own business where you manage a field staff of plumbers.

 

If you still don't understand the theory we can talk offline about choosing the right career path to give you a desired financial trajectory. I'm have some very interested thoughts and advice for anyone who wants to listen.

[jeffro]

Welcome to the epic BS that is modern student loans in schooling the whole system is a complete joke also the dollar amount that will make you the happiest is 74,600 you are welcome

 

That was one long fucking sentence.

[greg1647545532]

I'm also to the point where I'm looking at business opportunities outside of the IT world that will grow my income into my retirement years.

 

Put yourself out there and work outside of your comfort zone.

 

It's different for a network ops guy to "go outside his comfort zone" and leverage his experience to work his way up to Technical Director of Sales and Marketing at a network operations company, which is a finance/marketing job, than say, a marketing guy working his way up to Director of Sales and Marketing for any company. The networks ops guy had to change careers to make more money, the marketing guy never did. Which is really my only point. My wife started her career as an accountant making peanuts, but she can make 7 figures as an accountant. Doctors start out as doctors making peanuts, but they can make 7 figures as doctors. Developers need to stop being developers if they want to make that sort of money.

 

Anyway, I'm not complaining about it, I'm just commenting on this age multiplier's usefulness as a tool to compare two people in different career fields.

[Turbs3000]

That was one long fucking sentence.

Haha true, speech to text at 5 am with a baby in my arms. It also seems to have messed up some words. Oh well haha.

[greg1647545532]

It doesn't mean you have failed at anything. It may however, make you second-think the path that you chose in terms of your ability to earn money in an exponential fashion.

 

I guess. Just taking emotion out of it then, let's look at 3 people, all aged 50 or so. 2 guys are developers, one is making $35k and the other is making $110k. The 3rd guy is a finance major who worked his way up through an insurance company and is now bringing in $400k.

 

The lowest paid developer might look at his finance buddy and think, "Holy shit, that guy's making exponentially more money than me, I picked the wrong career path!" And the higher paid developer is going to look at his other developer buddy and say, "Holy shit that guy is a terrible developer."

 

I'm not sure if that makes sense. What I'm saying is that in order to determine if you're doing all right for yourself, you should figure out what most people your age and experience make (in your zip code). Full stop. Age and gross income are too generic, it's like a BMI calculation for your career. You need to figure out experience and gross income in your career field, and that will tell you if you're good at what you do.

 

And yeah, there's another discussion about whether or not you picked the right career field to meet your financial goals, but hopefully people are putting more thought into what they do for a living than just raw earning potential.

[Diamonds]

Earning potential is a great thing. The execution/discipline is what is difficult for people to commit-to.

 

Again, a career path is something to you modify in its entirety as long as you are breathing. Most people scoff, huff, puff, deny that fact.

[Diamonds]

I think this also needs to be said... "You can quit anytime" (it's not slavery). Therefore, the age-earning ratio will always prevail.

 

"Well, the age-earning ratio doesn't apply to me because I work in a skilled-trade or vocation"... YES IT DOES! You COULD be doing something else. The age-earning ratio IS the only constant in this equation. Stop being a plumber and start being something else... It's your choice. No one owns you.

[greg1647545532]

I'm... are you have a different discussion? You seem to be saying that there's always upward mobility if people are willing to work hard enough and keep a flexible career path. I'm not arguing against that. I'm not sure who you're talking at.

 

What I'm saying, a 40-year-old widget-maker who makes $60k when all of his peers are making $30k is doing pretty damn well for himself. For his career and his age, he's, by definition, doing much better than average, and yet your age formula suggests that he's not.

 

Likewise, a 25-year-old senior manager at the same widget company pulling in $100k a year when all of his other senior manager buddies are making $500k a year is probably an extreme fuckup douchebag, even though your age formula suggests that he's killing it.

 

This is a failing of your formula. It needs to consider ones actual peers. As it is, the peer group is "everyone your age." That's far too broad.

[Diamonds]

It's a very broad definition. I thought that was obvious when I posted it.

 

 

It's like saying "making a lot of money is better than making hardly any money". That's a true statement amongst the general populous. But then, someone wants to define it, add emotion, and chop it up so that the general statement is now completely questioned and beaten with specific scenarios. That's what you are doing... You are trying to get specific on something that requires no scenarios. BECAUSE it's all irrelevant if those examples you noted would act in a more limitless manner and change their situation.

 

To everyone - The game is "life". Nice and broad. Now go do the best you can while having an open mind without fearing the process of starting over after you acquire knowledge.

[2highpsi]

I'm... are you have a different discussion? You seem to be saying that there's always upward mobility if people are willing to work hard enough and keep a flexible career path. I'm not arguing against that. I'm not sure who you're talking at.

 

What I'm saying, a 40-year-old widget-maker who makes $60k when all of his peers are making $30k is doing pretty damn well for himself. For his career and his age, he's, by definition, doing much better than average, and yet your age formula suggests that he's not.

 

Likewise, a 25-year-old senior manager at the same widget company pulling in $100k a year when all of his other senior manager buddies are making $500k a year is probably an extreme fuckup douchebag, even though your age formula suggests that he's killing it.

 

This is a failing of your formula. It needs to consider ones actual peers. As it is, the peer group is "everyone your age." That's far too broad.

 

 

Bobs point is that you are measuring metrics which can be changed.

 

One CHOOSES to be a widget maker, or a senior manager, or whataver the job may be. It's not static (like age group) so it makes an awful metric of comparison.

 

If a guy makes 5k a year is he doing "ok"? Hell no he isn't. But by your definition I could say, "But the guy is a bum who plays guitar on the street... and compared to other bums on the street playing guitar he is KILLING IT!"

[greg1647545532]

If a guy makes 5k a year is he doing "ok"? Hell no he isn't. But by your definition I could say, "But the guy is a bum who plays guitar on the street... and compared to other bums on the street playing guitar he is KILLING IT!"

 

$5k a year isn't bad for doing no work, though.

 

Back to my example, the widget maker might have a better work-life balance. Maybe it's a government regulated industry and he can only work 6 hours a day. Maybe he has a special needs child and needs to be home as much as possible. Maybe he just likes fishing on the weekends without stressing about what's going on with corporate. Maybe he just really likes making widgets.

 

I think it goes without saying that there's more to life than salary. However, if other widget makers have that exact same work life balance and whatever other intangible benefits yet are making twice as much, then our plucky hero really needs to reassess his life choices.

 

 

I get what he's saying; if anyone ever gets capped out in their career, they shouldn't whine about it because there's always something you can do to earn more money, even if it's CHOOSING to pick a different career. But I'm not sure what that has to do with the income/age formula.

[Lauren]

Why can't the widget maker produce extra income on the side? Perhaps it's something in his field, perhaps it's through investing, maybe real estate? There is always a possibility to earn more.