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.
It doesn't have to be through profit sharing. That's just one option.
Another way to do it is 300% match, 25% limit. Although, for that to fly, it has to be an extremely small company where everyone is in on it.
The easies and most logical way to do it is to just become self employed.
NOPE... employer matching is usually vested too....... it can be a better scheduling than this but usually there is a vesting schedule.
With a graded vesting schedule, you vest in your employer’s contributions on certain anniversaries of your employment. If your employer uses a graded vesting schedule, it may be more generous than the one described below, but thanks to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, it can’t be less so:
After one year of service: 0% vested
After two years of service: 20% vested
After three years of service: 40% vested
After four years of service: 60% vested
After five years of service: 80% vested
After six or more years of service: 100% vested
soooooo back to the origonal answer. the limit on employee contributions are capped at 22k if over 55
You'd be hard pressed to find one that can cook these days. They were raised to be men and compete in the work place.
I'd say wow, caveman much? Except that women have been involved in the workplace, both formally and informally since those caveman days. The post-WW2 era was really both a blip and government-engineered social planning to push women toward the dream of cake lifestyle in order to have their former jobs go to men returning from war.
Husband and I split the cooking duties after we both get home from work. He'll do Italian or Japanese; I do a mean Indian curry, including making my own naan from scratch. And I really am totally tempermentally unsuited to life as a housewife without an external job and feel grateful to live in the time I do because if I lived in the 1950s, I'd be leaning big time onthe booze and 'mother's little helper' to make it through a day.
To go back a few pages, I also wanted to recommend A Millionaire Next Door. My parents live in an exclusive resort community where most of the people are multi-millionaires. They may have bought a nice retirement house in an expensive place but they crowd into the free cocktail hour and talk endlessly about the deal they got at Costco that morning. The parking lot is full of Toyotas. My parents are among this group...they drive 8yr old Toyotas, reuse ziplock bags and shop at Marshalls. I never knew they had any money at all until they retired at 52 and bought a 3 million dollar house.
Yep. You can live a very comfortable retirement if you just invest a few hundred bucks a month (preferably starting before you're 30). That's something much of the baby boom generation failed to do.
I think going forward that a comfortable retirement is going to be more indicative of the American middle class than the hyper consumerist working years lifestyle we've seen previously. Sort of a "nouveau riche" retirement class will spring up (perhaps it already has).
Ok, I'm just jumping in here and I apologize for not having read all 22 pages of this thread...
Could you elaborate on the importance of ownership vs. renting for NYC youth at the beginning of professional careers? For example, I have highly-educated, career-mobile, 20-something family members living in NYC and working on Wall St. They rent by choice (could easily afford to buy) as they have chosen to invest in other areas (e.g. a new business, commercial property, etc.) rather than a potentially depreciating, primary residence. They are at the beginning of likely lucrative international careers where they may not be in a NYC property for more than a few years. This seems like a very typical NYC youth demographic.
i don't know if this is very typical, but you bring up a good point. many youth won't necessarily buy when they are in their mid 20s because people are very mobile. while they may start out working in NYC, they could end up working at a company in long island, west chester county, NJ, or CT and still be doing the same type of work. so for many of us out here, it doesn't make sense to buy before our first job change (which for many of my friends, happened anywhere from 3-5 years into their careers). but, all those people still need a place to live when they are here, and someone needs to own those places to live. i just don't see any great collapse happening, and you make a good point that buying isn't always the winner.
I was discussing a generational housing bubble in the high-cost coastal markets, I contend that most property in these markets is owned by boomers and that younger generations will not be able to support current property evaluations when the oldster need to liquidate. The other poster was conflating living in NYC with owning property in NYC, and just as you are suggesting here renting in NYC is very common for young people so one can't do that. Personally, I don't know a single (younger) person in NYC that owns property, not only are they unlikely to be there in 5~10 years but its just simply cheaper to rent. Much the same situation here in LA.
I wasn't trying to imply people should be buying homes, much the opposite in fact, I think youth that buy in these markets are making a huge financial mistake.
i actually know quite a few of my former coworkers and about 25% of my friends that live and work in NYC that own property in NYC (manhattan, brooklyn, queens, bronx, and staten island), as well as additional folks that own in long island or NJ. all are under 30.
That baby boomer population shift along with foreclosures, shadow inventory, overbuilding, financing restrictions, unemployment, shifts in thinking, etc. are widespread issue that will affect real estate valuations for some time. This is why I fully agree with your last sentence.
so would buying in Chicago be a huge financial mistake? You really believe that property is that overvalued, that it's worth renting in these metropolitan areas? renting in and around NYC is very expensive, as it has increased even more during the downturn as housing prices leveled off or fell, depending on which area in NYC metro area you are looking at.
Not correct about what? My claim is that property ownership in the NYC metro is dominated by boomers, not that boomers are the only owners. The fact that there are some communities, usually recently gentrified ones, that have a high percentage of youth doesn't refute my claim. I'm speaking about the area as a whole.
Sorry about what? You aren't even addressing my claim, I never suggested that young folks aren't attracted to NYC, instead I claimed that the younger generations don't, as a whole, have the means to purchase property at current evaluations. Something has to give and that something will be prices. The only real question is whether the inflated prices will have long-term damage to the area, that is, will NYC become Detroit II? Not out of the question....
sure, nothing is out of the question...but that doesn't mean that making some statements isn't pretty crazy. Detroit is in the state it is in because of the huge reliance on Automobile manufacturing in that area. The New York Metro area has a lot of presence with financial firms, but there are numerous other types of business in and around the NY Metro area. NJ has a lot of pharmaceutical industry, as well as the headquarters of major companies such as Verizon. West Chester county NY is the headquarters of PepsiCo. The desire to have presense in NYC by financial companies is unlikely to disappear in such a way that the automobile manufacturers have fallen due to demand for their products.
younger generations don't have the means to buy at current valuations...that may be true, but i don't think that means that current valuations are that overblown either. the population of folks that typically work and live in the NY metro area is seeing a constant supply of young people. sure, they may not buy a home when they are 25, like our parents did, they may rent until their late 20s and then buy....but with many college-educated folks moving out here and starting their careers in the $50k+ salary range, with bonuses and raises...i see no reason why the current already adjusted home values are not sustainable. the biggest factor in a place like NJ is that property taxes keep rising, and that will hurt the ability for one to spend on home price. Hopefully, what the state and towns are currently doing helps to address this problem. Owning in manhattan is something that's been difficult regardless of age for about a decade now. at $1,000 per square foot in most of Manhattan, that's something reserved for only the top earners in the area, or for people willing to give up any space for the luxury of living on that island. amazingly, i know people who are willing to do that and live in tiny boxes. as the boomers continue to retire and move away, if they all do, maybe property will come down a bit depending on how much goes on the market and how quickly, but if everything starts dropping in price, and i, as a current owner, sell my house and buy another house...i haven't slit my wrists...i've upgraded into another house at a discount, while selling my house possibly for less than i paid. it's a wash most likely, or i even come out ahead depending on how big of an upgrade my next home is. rents seem to keep rising as well, which means renting is no more attractive than owning in most parts here. so still, i just don't see the catasophre you're pointing to.
Perhaps. But it seems from my anecdotal observations on this site that there is a LOT of people- especially from the Northeast- moving out of that area. I lived in Boston for a few years and while its not NYC, it was pretty awful. Cold weather, high rents, and high real estate costs. I have friends who live in NYC and absolutely love it. But they're spending every penny to live there too. I think for many people there is an allure- no doubt. Otherwise it wouldn't be so costly. But that high cost is what is also driving people out. California is pretty much as bad.
The bottom line is that if you look at where economic growth tends to happen in the US, it tends to be where there are plentiful jobs, reasonably priced housing, and useful infrastructures. At this point that growth is happening in the Southeast and not the coasts mainly because the coasts are now too costly.
what is so costly though? your rent or mortgage payment is costly in the NYC metro area, but in many places, you don't have to own a car because of the public transportation availability. also, many things are less expensive here than, for instance, where i grew up in Pennsylvania because the port of elizabeth is right here, so many goods that come to us don't have to travel far before getting on the shelves. i've found that some things are more expensive, some things less. in the end, i'm paying a higher cost of living, but i'm also getting a higher salary. it might not be enough to make up for the difference, but on top of this, i have more job options than if i lived in many other places.
sure, they are starting to become more competitive, but until they have the diversity of companies to offer many of the mobile jobs that exist with many college degrees, NYC is still a pretty solid draw.
but yeah, i probably won't live directly in the NY Metro area for my entire life. i'll likely have someone to sell my place to though as the younger population replaces the older population.
i do think property in some parts still has a little further to adjust, but i highly doubt much more than 5%, maybe 10% in some of the very expensive areas.
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.
