He came off as sincere, respectful, and hard working. He was also speaking about his own experience, not those of unnamed people he knows. You come off as a complete snob who is spending the thread pontificating about the big salaries of everyone you know. Like I said, I was willing to drop it because the hours-in-a-work-week discussion has nothing to do with this thread, but you're back on my case.

Please. I get along pretty well with people all over this site, I post a ton in the Strategy and Golf forums all the time with virtually no complaint. It's not my fault a bunch of people put their sob stories out there on display in that thread, expecting sympathy, but didn't get it. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it. I don't recall you or anyone like you 2, 3 years ago ever having a problem with all the online pros bashing people like me for "working a 9-5 in a cubicle for a boss you hate". Now they're in a bad spot because, shockingly, online multitabling in their mother's house didn't end up being a viable long term career option.

I don't know why I'm involving myself in this, but you are both right and you're both wrong.

You're right that you both think you're trying to do what's best for the kid, but you're wrong in assuming what it is.

It doesn't matter how hard they work or how much money they make or how much freedom they have. If they aren't taught how to be emotionally intelligent, they just won't be very happy people no matter what else you do.

I don't understand your logic here. Just because you or your friends couldn't find a job doesn't mean the starting salary statistic is wrong. Starting salaries are adjusted per area and work experience. If you live in a rural or non-urban area, expect to make less, if an urban area, more. But don't sit here and say it's not true because you didn't experience it. You're making the classic mistake of "well, I don't know anyone who can do it so it must not be true". Just because you don't see it or had it happen for you doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true.

You're doing it again. Look, it's not that difficult. Google 1,000,000 dollar homes. Now ask yourself, do you think they exist, or are they simply made up webpages on the internet? Guess what? They exist. Guess what? There are people who live in them, and people who can afford to live in them, and people who spend the money every month to live in them. See those highrises that have penthouses for 2 million dollars and the condo fees are 1k a month? Do you think these are figments of imagination, or do you think that maybe some people actually spend that kind of money?

And one last comment. I spent 4,000 dollars YESTERDAY. That's no where even close to what I'll spend this month. Now does that mean anything? No. But I'm not lying about it, and it does happen. I make good money, and I have a lot of money coming in on the side, cash (2-10k a month extra, on top of 4k a month salary). The money I spend and the things I do are pretty lol, even my friends make comments about it because it's borderline ridiculous. Just because it's a lot of money doesn't mean it doesn't happen. How about people who make 2k a week? 20k a week? 100k a week? What do you think they buy, used cars and clothes from thrift shops, or do you think they maybe buy the absolute best things they can or live in the most expensive areas they can because it doesn't really matter to them?

Romney has 200 million. Saudi princes have unlimited credit, but usually have an allowance of about 50,000 a month (or so I've heard). If you were in these situations, what would you do? Where would you live? It's pretty easy to understand.

Ok, I come off as a snob, but you come off as disingenuous. Firstly, I've worked 80 hour weeks. Second, I know people who work 80 hour weeks. You're the one who said no one works these hours, and that's simply untrue. I'm tired of arguing with you. I quoted you, scroll up and read what you said. I disagreed. You disliked the way I disagreed, but that' doesn't make what I said untrue.

Christ, what is wrong with you? If someone tells me a fact, it doesn't matter if I dislike the guy or not, it's either true or it's false. You want to keep saying it's false and it makes you look like a liar or an idiot.

I think it's more common than you think 2 outs. I worked in public accounting as my first career out of school, for a large mid-regional firm. This was back when we had the Big 8 public accounting firms. During tax season we would get in at 7:00 am and leave at 10:00 pm or 11:00 pm at night. We would work 8 hours on Saturday. And everyone did this, from the partners to the secretaries. Everyone was there. So that's what 98 hours? Any junior analyst on Wall Street chasing the bonus pool works 80 hours a week and probably closer to 100. Attorneys have similar sweat shops. Just the way it is.

As for money, my wife is the head of marketing for a publicly traded bank. She works 60 -70 hours a week with national travel once a quarter and international once a year. I count travel as working hours. Between salary, bonus, options, RSU's and benefits (health etc) all in she makes close to half a million a year. She has been in this profession for 25 years. She is way, way, WAY underpaid for the hours she works and the level at which she performs. Just about everyone I know from a work standpoint is something similar. The guy that lives across the street from us is one of the head engineers for Yahoo fantasy sports. I never see him, he is always at work. My dad worked his college summers on a dairy farm. Cows have to be milked every 12 hours. Mandatory or they get sick and die. 5 or 6 in the morning and 5 or 6 at night, every day, 7 days a week. With plenty of stuff to do in the interim. The % of people that work long hours like an 80 hour week are far from infinitesimal. Not sure what experience you have had but it doesn't jive with mine.

I think his point was that median is the better stat to use than average if you're looking to find a complete picture of how well a population's doing. A few individuals making tons will easily skew an average upwards. I know it's an extreme example, but this is illustrated perfectly if you took the average and median salary of actors. The ones in Hollywood, which make up a minority of all actors, are making millions and you'll get the wrong impression from the average and not realize that many actors need to hold down a second job in between the rare and modestly paying roles they get.

Here's an article about the median starting salaries of college grads in 2009 and 2010. Half of college grads in those years had starting salaries of under $27k. This is why I disagreed with your statement that said something along the lines of "Making under $60k is impossible to be happy with and bad." Making $60k out of college would put you way ahead of your peers. Actually it puts you ahead of more than half of working Americans, period.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/bu...y/19grads.html

Not much, I'm actually pretty normal and easygoing, I guess my biggest issue is not being an enormous snob like you, and not walking around with my nose in the air. Your "facts" to prove me wrong when I stated that the percentage of people in the US working 80+ hours a week is infinitesimal, consisted of naming a few people you know who do so, in a nation with a population of 300 million. Brilliant. On top of that, you repeatedly tell me that I said that "no one does", which is completely and utterly wrong. I told one poster, not you, that there was no chance that HE knew any such individual. If I said this to everyone, I'd be right the majority of the time.

Bingo. Well stated. Obviously some do very well out of college but a heavy number of others settle for 28k or 34k or whatever, or go months and months with no job at all.

So you think Chemical engineers start off at 28k?

Seriously?

I was referring to the median for all college grads. I'm aware that chemical engineering is right near the top among majors for starting salary, but they comprise a very small portion of recent graduates.

money is money. If you make 100k playing poker or 100k doing something else, who really cares.

[QUOTE=


You're doing it again. Look, it's not that difficult. Google 1,000,000 dollar homes. Now ask yourself, do you think they exist, or are they simply made up webpages on the internet? Guess what? They exist. Guess what? There are people who live in them, and people who can afford to live in them, and people who spend the money every month to live in them. See those highrises that have penthouses for 2 million dollars and the condo fees are 1k a month? Do you think these are figments of imagination, or do you think that maybe some people actually spend that kind of money?

[/QUOTE]

You just proved my point, what percentage of the population do you think lives in million dollar homes?

You clearly are not a rational person or you have reading comprehension problems. The scenario I was replaying to was for a single younger male POKER PROFESSIONAL living by himself - if you think most single young males with ANY PROFESSION out of college are living in million dollar homes just because you've seen some on TV your crazy.

Just because SOME people make 100,000+ plus doesn't mean the average person has this capability even if they did go to a 4 year college. (which does prove its possible, duh, its weird that you would even imply anyone on this forum would think million dollar homes don't exist.

My suspension based on your posts is that you grew up in a "well-of" household and was sent to college. There are a lot of bright people who simply can't afford college or who get in massive debt and never live in a million dollar house even though their intelligence would have allowed them had they been born rich or had some other lucky break in their life.

I just vote that the mods change the thread title to fix the typo in there - it's been driving me crazy all week, every time I see it!

Everything about your post is wrong, but the above is so wrong it makes me ill.

My parents were non-english speaking immigrants. My dad died when I was 19 and I promptly worked 40 hours a week on top of taking 6 classes a semester and 4 during the summers to give my mom 500 dollars a month to pay bills. I graduated with a 2.67 GPA. I went to a tier 3 school. I also graduated with 59k in student loans. My first job out of college was for a salary of (drumroll, please) 28.8k, that's 738 dollars every 2 weeks.

Congrats for being the wrongest person on the internet today, 3/14/2012.

And we were discussing top paying college degrees, not the average. The most studied major in the US (I think) is criminal justice or communications. Most people are morons. This is not what we're discussing. Please stay on the subject.

I play poker for a living and I'd be super-worried if my son did the same

Probably a bit more more than the avg parent

love the typical concerned dad avatar, well done

Yah, isnt it great to make childreen to live up for our dreems?

I haven't exactly been taking part in the main discussion of this topic. I just commented that I strongly disagree with your assertion that making less than $60k is pathetic and impossible to be happy with. The fact is over half of American families don't make your happiness threshold and I find it quite a stretch to conclude a majority of them are depressed. Money and happiness are linked but it's far from the only factor.

I think it's great that you were able to overcome those early obstacles and eventually be successful, but aren't you making the same mistake of citing personal anecdotes to prove broad facts that you were accusing someone else of doing before?

I never said this. It's very dependent on the area. 60k in a major city is a lot different than 60k in middle america. I also never said you *couldn't* be happy, I said happiness doesn't go up much after a certain amount (approx 75k). This is all adjusted per area. It's not very hard to understand - the more stressed you are about money, the more miserable your life is. That threshold is different for everyone, but the the basics (car, housing, food, clothes) cost a certain amount, if you make less than or equal to that amount, there tends to be more stress.

The whole point of the 60k comment was in terms of poker players. Making an hourly of 30 dollars an hour doing something you gave a college degree for is foolish in my opinion. If it was double that amount, then sure, maybe it'd be worth it. But for such a low amount of money and to give up a degree just doesn't make sense. I know some poker players obviously make much more, but the 60k number was thrown out there and I had my argument against it.

I was correcting a very bad assumption. I never had it easy and I never claimed I did. I also don't believe I had it all that tough, as many people on this planet have it much worse. Everyone has obstacles to overcome in life, I don't complain or bitch about it, I just get on with it.

ducy poker is good for you

Not at all, I'm sure they start off a ton higher.

I don't understand the question.

The majority of people in the United States aren't chemical engineers.

The discussion is about the average starting salaries for recent college grads as a whole, not for chemical engineers.

Another snobbish, condescending, nose-in-the-air response. This after you berate the guy for assuming you grew up in a well-off household. With your absurd posts in this thread, what other conclusion could people come to? Every other sentence is a rant and rave about the huge salaries of people you know and how you think everyone who doesn't make a ton is a worthless human being.

FWIW, on top of all this, you're wrong again. You're the one who turned this into a discussion about top-paying college degrees by flying off into a tangent about engineering. No one else was cherry-picking certain careers; everyone else commenting on the 60k figure was discussing the salaries offered as a whole to recent college grads.

One thing not mentioned is debt...

Some of those people in the million dollar homes you keep bragging about are actually heavily in debt. Just because someone lives in a million dollar homes doesn't mean they can afford it.

Similarly, many people not only don't make your 60K threshold (the majority don't) .. and some that do make 60K+ are still heavily in debt from their schooling or other things.

And the previous poster was right, I would assume someone who came from such a humble background as you suggest would be a tad more sympathetic for people who are in similar one you were.

But I guess the people born poor and who stay poor are just lazy then according to your logic, right? Because its so easy to just get that 60K job .. not sure why they settle for burger king jobs .. what lazy people right .. get off our butt and become a Chemical Engineer or something, gosh.

You're being obtuse on purpose. It's readily apparent what I'm trying to say, I'm not hiding or cherry picking anything. You're stretching what I'm saying into a completely different meaning.

I never said people who don't make a lot of money are worthless human beings. I don't even think that way about people at all. I'm saying that if someone looks at a pro poker player who makes 30 dollars an hour and says "I'll skip college and go do that!" then something is really wrong. 30 dollars an hour is nothing in the big scheme of things.

My point of the degrees was that top paying college degrees start at around that number. Top paying degrees are usually in higher demand. Why would anyone give up something that is "most likely" for something that is "not so likely"?

This entire discussion has turned into silliness and dishonesty on your part. I've stated facts backed up by articles and data. You've twisted my words into something I've never said or intended to say. You don't want to face facts or look at things objectively because of your dislike for me, which is readily apparent. This doesn't make your incorrect argument any more true.

how about trading?

This is not an argument. Some people can afford it, some can't, but that doesn't mean plenty of people can. What's the point here? I can argue that some people could afford to live in much more expensive homes but choose not to. Can I say now that many more people can afford million dollars homes than the statistics say?

I am sympathetic to people's problems. I realize that certain areas only have certain types of jobs and lower salaries. This is not a problem of the people who live there, but the economic activity of the region.

This doesn't change the fact that there are many regions where higher salaries are paid. I could go live in the middle of Oklahoma if I chose tomorrow, but I know that I wouldn't be able to expect the same salary as I make now, so I choose to stay in this area. That choice makes a difference.

Most people have choices. Most people can better themselves, work harder, or do things that will enhance their earning potential. Most people choose not to out of sheer laziness, not ability. Most jobs simply aren't that difficult to learn that aren't heavily specialized, but those jobs aren't available to people without the proper educational background. Do you have to be somewhat smart to do them? Sure. Do you have to be something special in order to do them? Absolutely not. But those doors are shut to people who don't finish college. This is why I'm arguing so heavily against it. I made 100k last year, and I could teach my job to a smart high school graduate. It's pathetically easy and it pays really well. Getting there wasn't difficult in the least bit. Many people I speak to have decent paying jobs and say the exact same thing - their jobs aren't difficult to learn. If you give up college to go play poker you will never have a chance to learn those jobs and make those salaries.

And I would argue that in a decent paying area, with a college degree, 60k is pretty easy to achieve within 5 years of graduating, within 2-3 with a "good" degree, easily. Hell, you can make 60k without even going to college.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/14/smal....htm?iid=HP_LN

"Nine months in trade school. Job guaranteed.

Five of our students were hired in just one day," said lead instructor Bryant Redd. The new hires are from a class of 41 students who are still four months away from completing a nine-month advanced certification program in computerized numerical control (CNC) machining.

To get into the program, students need a high school diploma or the equivalent and can go part-time or full-time.

The starting salary for the new hires averages about $40,000 a year, with the potential to jump to $55,000 to $65,000 in less than two years, he said."

So yeah, part of me really does think that most people who complain and bitch and whine about not being able to make a decent salary are simply doing it wrong. But of course, most people do most things wrong, so I guess it all just fits into the equation.