Still on the Job, but Making Only Half as Much(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Still on the Job, but Making Only Half as Much
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/business/economy/14income.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
4 comments
It is possible that he is projecting his insecurities onto her. "Making less salary makes me less of a man, my primary yardstick for being a man is as husband to my wife, accordingly my wife must think less of me."
At least, I hope that's what is happening.
At least, I hope that's what is happening.
A high-stress job requiring lots of travel -- I would hope that she didn't marry him thinking he'd do that forever, for $34K.
In reading the article, the quotes from the wife herself seemed to be pretty positive about her husband's handling of the situation. I didn't get the impression from her quotes that she thought it was the end of the world that she'd have to keep working, either. I don't know where the husband gets this idea - maybe it's something he's made up in his head? Or perhaps she was just being polite and didn't talk smack about him to the reporter and yet he talked smack about her. Either way, I guess, it's a pretty stupid situation. :)
Apparently they needed to discuss money before getting married. What a horrible attitude.
I read about 15 years ago that the most common reason for divorce is that the wife is unsatisfied with their husband's income.
I remember reading an article some time back that students graduating in a recession year start with a lower salary than usual (expected), but that effect persists well into their careers (unexpected). I wonder if taking a 50% pay cut now will impair his earning potential for the rest of his career.
Could it be because salary history is used to determine starting pay (in later jobs)?
Another possibility is that lower salaries indicate lower starting positions.
Another possibility is that lower salaries indicate lower starting positions.
It's possible. Although the people who started and worked at Apple and Microsoft during the recession-era of the 70s have generally managed to do all right... :P
These articles are ridiculous.
1. Bought too much house 2. Bought motorcycle 3. Had FOUR kids 4. Bought loads of presents at christmas 5. Wife wants to stop working
Yet they live in a VERY cheap part of the country. If they had been better with their money they wouldn't be in such a terrible position. I'm not going to argue that losing 50% of your pay doesn't suck - because it does; yet whining about it while also bitching that your wife must now gasp work is lame.
1. Bought too much house 2. Bought motorcycle 3. Had FOUR kids 4. Bought loads of presents at christmas 5. Wife wants to stop working
Yet they live in a VERY cheap part of the country. If they had been better with their money they wouldn't be in such a terrible position. I'm not going to argue that losing 50% of your pay doesn't suck - because it does; yet whining about it while also bitching that your wife must now gasp work is lame.
During the part about the Harley and the gold band it is worded almost as if those purchases happened recently. I don't think they did; I think they happened before the downgrade when they thought times were good because it later says the Harley sat for months before a buyer was found - so it's sold off now. The house and kids situation is similar as well. Obviously the kids all happened prior to this situation when they felt they were moving up in the world. You can't just un-have kids when things get tough later! The house deal sounded like it was in progress when the downgrade came. Now they're effectively trapped there. You can't just sell a house immediately after buying and expect to break even - they'd likely end up taking a loss selling the house (especially if the real estate market there is still dropping). (Of course it's important to consider if the loss of selling now offsets the loss of paying a higher mortgage payment while you wait for things to recover.) If they had canceled the in-progress house deal at the last minute, they'd probably have been liable for some fees or perhaps even a lawsuit from the seller. (I've lived in my house just over 2 years and will be selling it soon due to a job and location change and we'll be lucky to even break even - and we paid a lot extra on principal each month while the times were good!)
EDIT: I missed that the house they bought was actually his parents! Deals with family screws with people's sense of priorities, for sure.. :)
EDIT: I missed that the house they bought was actually his parents! Deals with family screws with people's sense of priorities, for sure.. :)
I think you are being more than a little harsh. The "too much house" that they bought had a payment that was a relatively conservative 22% of their income at the time of the purchase. He did buy a motorcycle, and has sold it and sounds like he has learned from it. I don't get any indication that anyone is "bitching" that the wife must now work, I think what they both saying is "we worked really hard to get to a certain point in life, and getting there allowed us to consider new options. Those options are now gone and that is hard." If 31% of your income dissapears tomorrow, and someone interviews you about it a few months from now, could you be this equanimous? I know that I would struggle.
The article lists the guy's income as $34000 and the woman's as $40000. Even in 2000 when employment was high, Wikipedia lists (for Mechanicsville, VA) "median income for a family was $62,209." So even in "hard times" their income is far above the median in good times.
Yes but they weren't aiming for median - they were aiming for rich.
Suppose you became/married a doctor, bought the nice house and BMW - then the hospital started paying $10/hour. Hey it's twice minimum wage what are you complaining about ?
Suppose you became/married a doctor, bought the nice house and BMW - then the hospital started paying $10/hour. Hey it's twice minimum wage what are you complaining about ?
This is how it is for my dad. He's a mechanical/process engineer who hasn't had a job for a year and he has a LOT of experience (and a university education of course). But almost every job he's applied for pays less than the previous job. The previous job was in a parts plant for the automotive industry and they're now operating on as few work days as possible to save money.
It's funny how an automotive industry company can pay its employees a decent salary even while the industry declines, while other companies think you should be grateful to get just $10/hr.
It's funny how an automotive industry company can pay its employees a decent salary even while the industry declines, while other companies think you should be grateful to get just $10/hr.
> It's funny how an automotive industry company can pay its employees a decent salary even while the industry declines
That might be due to the taxpayer subsidies? Perhaps if they paid market (which is apparently ~$10/hr) they may actually become successful again and require hiring more engineers, driving wages back up?
That might be due to the taxpayer subsidies? Perhaps if they paid market (which is apparently ~$10/hr) they may actually become successful again and require hiring more engineers, driving wages back up?
Hey it's twice minimum wage what are you complaining about ?
That's not a fair comparison. Median household income there is far above the minimum wage. The median household income there ($70k+ in a country town) is good living.
In this case, the median household income seems to be based on a median male income of about $40k and a median female income of about $30k. That's around the $25-$30 per hour mark or 3.5 times the minimum wage.
Besides, no-one's entitled to earn $X or more for the rest of your life just because they did in the past or because they're "aiming at rich."
That's not a fair comparison. Median household income there is far above the minimum wage. The median household income there ($70k+ in a country town) is good living.
In this case, the median household income seems to be based on a median male income of about $40k and a median female income of about $30k. That's around the $25-$30 per hour mark or 3.5 times the minimum wage.
Besides, no-one's entitled to earn $X or more for the rest of your life just because they did in the past or because they're "aiming at rich."
Um, are we supposed to be impressed that their income is above the median income of 2 months shy of 10 years ago? What, did we have no inflation for the last decade?
Not to mention that things like buying a modest house and having two kids seem like pretty reasonable goals for a dual income professionally employed family, particularly one that had managed to save almost 1/3 their annual (pretax!) salary and probably 2/3 their takehome salary. So we can infer they weren't all that wasteful with money. So... if they're struggling, I think the point of the article is we can infer that many are struggling as well.
Not to mention that things like buying a modest house and having two kids seem like pretty reasonable goals for a dual income professionally employed family, particularly one that had managed to save almost 1/3 their annual (pretax!) salary and probably 2/3 their takehome salary. So we can infer they weren't all that wasteful with money. So... if they're struggling, I think the point of the article is we can infer that many are struggling as well.
4 kids:
"He spends that time caring for the two youngest children, Shayne and Jackson, 16 months, while his wife takes the two oldest, Zachary, 7, and Kelley, 10, with her to the elementary school where she teaches and they are enrolled as students."
"He spends that time caring for the two youngest children, Shayne and Jackson, 16 months, while his wife takes the two oldest, Zachary, 7, and Kelley, 10, with her to the elementary school where she teaches and they are enrolled as students."
Right. I'm planning on learning to read any day now =P
[deleted]
God, what's up with those people!