Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not for those of top academic merit, in our experience. Trustees' scholarships for the highest achievers, etc. etc.
Quote:
Yes, I didn't get the huge alumni network, but I also didn't get the huge classes. I also didn't want to live in Georgia, so the huge alumni network isn't always beneficial if your plans aren't to remain in the region where you attend school. At the time, I was much more concerned with the placement in law school which was much better for the school I attended than for my flagship state school.
Depends on whether you wanted a job or not. You deliberately chose... "not."
I know of no parents who have kids living with them in the ages of 25-35 years of age. who aren't working. I'm wondering why there would be such a big difference in what our experience is.
Just as an add on. I have a group of online friends who have known each other for some 22 years. We are from all over the country, different lifestyles, different socio-economic backgrounds...and NONE of their chidlren that are in the millenial category have ever been unemployed very long (if at all). Most would love to have had their kids hang around a little bit longer -- lol.
My youngest is just finishing his fourth year and will graduate. Many of his peers finished in three years (everything from computer science majors to business majors) and got jobs before they left school. I just don't see any of this 'lazy' millenial trend at all.
Could it be that the older millenials were victims of the downturn in the economy and that started that whole mind set?
I know of no parents who have kids living with them in the ages of 25-35 years of age. who aren't working. I'm wondering why there would be such a big difference in what our experience is.
Same here. Unless the kid is a strung out drug addict they are working. The job may suck and pay crap, but they are working.
I know of no parents who have kids living with them in the ages of 25-35 years of age. who aren't working. I'm wondering why there would be such a big difference in what our experience is.
Area near cities with good paying jobs. This is often a parenting problem. Background is kids would never stick to anything long enough to make it work, not college, not training, not service jobs. The parents let them live at home and give them enough support so they can survive, in one case of an upper middle class family, they just bought a house (and car) for the "kid" to live in, and inherit I suppose. He works on and off when he wants. Sweet deal if you can get it. I know one woman, housing her daughter's family of four in her basement. Grandma feels bad for the kids so she does what it takes to support that whole family.
What is your point? Bc you're not coming anywhere close to explaining how companies in same sector targeting the same demographic of shoppers pays widely different wages..
The point is that you're insinuating that because companies like Costco can afford to pay higher wages then all companies can do the same.
And that's simply just not the case.
Some people seem to forget that millions of people are employed by small business that only have a few employees and operate on a much different business model than a huge corporation like Costco.
The point is that you're insinuating that because companies like Costco can afford to pay higher wages then all companies can do the same.
And that's simply just not the case.
Some people seem to forget that millions of people are employed by small business that only have a few employees and operate on a much different business model than a huge corporation like Costco.
But wasn't the original comparison to Walmart? I believe that was the whole point.
Area near cities with good paying jobs. This is often a parenting problem. Background is kids would never stick to anything long enough to make it work, not college, not training, not service jobs. The parents let them live at home and give them enough support so they can survive, in one case of an upper middle class family, they just bought a house (and car) for the "kid" to live in, and inherit I suppose. He works on and off when he wants. Sweet deal if you can get it. I know one woman, housing her daughter's family of four in her basement. Grandma feels bad for the kids so she does what it takes to support that whole family.
This is well known and makes the case for more immigrants, who are TWICE as likely to start businesses.
Not too much can be done about it...wealth tends to ruin people. Yet, back to the same policies.....GOP bible says as little inheritance taxes as possible. In fact, as little taxes as possible (legislatively) even if we aren't paying the bills.
So the households that would be paying the bills...don't...and, obviously, their families are first in line to give the free money to.
The Founders said intergenerational wealth was one of the biggest scourges of a civil society- for a reason. We should listen. It's been proven time and time again.
...and if you lived in the big a large coastal city, a home like yours would be worth about a one million dollars, and you on your $125k income would be desperately trying to make the mortgage and property tax payments.
And me knowing this, I would not have purchased that kind of house in those areas...
Their lifestyle expectations are way too high to be supported in a one-income family.
^^
This, to a large degree--because this was a question about why so many can't live on one income. And maybe they could, if people didn't feel entitled to live everyone else's lifestyle.
I just watched a documentary on hardship cases, and noticed how so many had the SUVs, the tech toys, and perfectly-manicured nails--yet couldn't put food on the table, and were surprised by a $1400 past-due utility bill and shutoff notice.
Families can live on one income but, depending on the job, it might be a life which is very different from what they see around them. And they may have to delay having kids--until they can afford them.
The point is that you're insinuating that because companies like Costco can afford to pay higher wages then all companies can do the same.
And that's simply just not the case.
Some people seem to forget that millions of people are employed by small business that only have a few employees and operate on a much different business model than a huge corporation like Costco.
I have personal experience - started a mom and pop shop in Retail and ran it for 20 years.
Paid my employees at least 50% more than the going wages - plus benefits that others didn't pay.
I made MUCH more than my competitors and provided products and services to customers for less than them also. Like Costco.
Higher wages at WalMart might mean:
1. The Waltons, all together, are worth only 70 billion instead of 140.
2. That Door Buster special TV might cost $129 instead of $126.
That wouldn't make a bit of difference in the scheme of things. The Waltons can't buy a single thing more with 140 Billion that 70 Billion wouldn't purchase...and you would still likely buy that Door Buster, especially if you felt better about the place knowing they paid their due.
My manager, in a small retail store, made $70K plus bennies in 1992. More run of the mill employees made a little less than 1/2 that. No college required.
Putting that into dollars today, that would be $126K for the manager and 60K for the Retail Floor Employees.
This didn't cost me money. It made me money. The business lasted 40 years (we sold it) until the current owners ran it into the ground by adopting an outlook like you are pushing. It took them almost 20 years to run all the value out of it.
Some basic calcs....a decent appliance store (in our sector) could make 40% plus if they knew how to purchase right. With 3 full timers and family...and a few part timers, that comes to maybe 350K for all the salaries put together (w/employer taxes and other costs). Add in 50K for rents, 50K for misc and 30K for marketing. That's about 480K.
Do 1.5M m in business at 42% (yes, that was our margin) and that is almost 630K in gross profits, meaning 150K plus all the goodies (business expenses, car, gas, etc.) for me. That was quite decent money in 1990.
Also, to be honest, the 70K I paid the manager didn't work out because he was incapable of doing the job assigned to him (which was to allow me to step away). After a year he admitted it and still wanted to work, so he went down to 42K (which would be 70K today). So that would increase my take to 180K.
These figures are not exact but close enough. We'd take that 180 or 200 and give bonuses, add to our IRA, some profit sharing, etc.
I don't think I ever took an actual salary higher than 90 (which would be 150 today). But when you fund an IRA for 20 years and have many of your expenses paid it can add up.
A Costco employee making $25 an hour is at 50K, which is lower than my retail floor employees. It's totally doable. Costco makes a ton of money because they, like we, went direct to most sources and made win-win deals.
Last edited by craigiri; 02-13-2019 at 10:24 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
