# Great Resignation



## TravelTime (Nov 13, 2021)

I am wondering about a few things:
- What are people who quit their jobs living on? Unemployment? Savings? Other?
- How long can people afford to live this way, esp if they actually need the income? 
- Is this just a short sighted decision or a long term trend by workers?
- If the majority have quit their jobs to “be their own boss,” how long will that last given the new business failure rate is high?
- Except for healthcare, it seems like the majority of people who are missing in the job market are low wage workers. Is this trend affecting professionals in the job market too?

———————-
…September’s quit rate rose to 3% from its high of 2.9% the previous month, when about 4.3 million people left their jobs. By the end of September, 10.4 million jobs remained open.

The food service and retail industries are shedding workers at the highest rates. A total of 863,000 workers in food service and 685,000 in retail left their jobs in September, at rates of 6.6% and 4.4%, respectively. Meanwhile, 987,000 left hospitality, another 984,000 left trade, transportation, and utilities industries, and 589,000 left health care….

….Among those who recently quit, about 44% are looking for more competitive wages and benefits, according to a September Digital.com survey of 1,250 American professionals who left their job in the last six months. About 32% quit to start their own businesses. The majority, 62%, said they quit specifically to have more control over their lives and to be their “own boss.”…









						The Great Resignation is accelerating — FORTUNE
					

A total of 4.4 million workers quit their jobs in September, the highest rate on record. The food service and retail industries are shedding workers at the highest rates.




					apple.news


----------



## RX8 (Nov 13, 2021)

A head scratcher for me is the 44% who have quit because they are “ looking for more competitive wages and benefits”. Wouldn’t it make more sense to quit AFTER you find that higher paying job?


----------



## Brett (Nov 13, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I am wondering about a few things:
> - What are people who quit their jobs living on? Unemployment? Savings? Other?
> - How long can people afford to live this way, esp if they actually need the income?
> - Is this just a short sighted decision or a long term trend by workers?
> ...




There are some clues -

"_High turnover is primarily concentrated in essential frontline industries where jobs can’t be done remotely."_

"Economists cite a number of reasons for the slow return. The pandemic is still disrupting child care, making it hard for some parents to work; other workers are worried about contracting the virus or spreading it to high-risk family members.

"Many Americans have also built up their savings during the pandemic, allowing them to be choosier about jobs."



My wife is in that 4.4 million people statistic on quitting their jobs in September.  (for none of those cited reasons)
She's a boomer that finally retired


----------



## jonmaiman (Nov 13, 2021)

RX8 said:


> A head scratcher for me is the 44% who have quit because they are “ looking for more competitive wages and benefits”. Wouldn’t it make more sense to quit AFTER you find that higher paying job?


On the surface that does make sense.    From personal experience, inertia can be very hard to overcome while still working even when your current position has gotten truly bad and continues to decline.   I probably would have made my last job move (only one I made in the last twenty years) much sooner if I had quit and just focused on looking for a new job.   It was too draining being caught up with the day to day of my former employer to have the energy to truly search for something else.    I am in technical sales where the jobs are generally fairly demanding.    For jobs that are less demanding (at least intellectually), it maybe easier to look simultaneously while still employed.   For me, as a sole income provider for my family, I couldn't take the risk of an extended period of unemployment.  Regardless, I hope everyone who is seeking a better job is successful.

--Jon


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 13, 2021)

I don't know why it's happening.  I keep wondering the same.  How does one live comfortably on unemployment?  

Restaurants and stores have wages posted on their front doors, so people will know they are paying well over minimum wage. Chili's has not been able to open the full dining room for any mealtime. We used to go there a lot, but not when it's 40-50 minutes for a table. 

Our daughter-in-law works for Wells Fargo, and banks need help.  People apply, get the job, then do not show up. That is a great job for starting out, if you are trying to find something new.  A beginning teller doesn't make a lot of money, but our DIL makes really good money after being with the company for 14 years.


----------



## controller1 (Nov 13, 2021)

RX8 said:


> A head scratcher for me is the 44% who have quit because they are “ looking for more competitive wages and benefits”. Wouldn’t it make more sense to quit AFTER you find that higher paying job?



When I was a hiring manager it was always a red flag when an unemployed person was applying for a job. And that is especially true since most employers will not provide a reason the employee is no longer employed. One can usually only determine if the former employee is eligible to be rehired. 

I always remember my dad telling me "people with a job get a job." I think the current generation of workers doesn't ascribe to that theory but it worked great in my career.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Nov 13, 2021)

RX8 said:


> A head scratcher for me is the 44% who have quit because they are “ looking for more competitive wages and benefits”. Wouldn’t it make more sense to quit AFTER you find that higher paying job?


I know, right?  In this house the rule was find another job before you quit your current job.  And, unless something has changed, you'll likely make more money.


----------



## Chrispee (Nov 13, 2021)

I left my job about a year into the pandemic. For me it was a combination of factors. My job had become far less enjoyable during the pandemic so I knew once I’d gotten them through the initial turmoil that it was time for me to go. The other factor was that I was waiting for an opportune moment to sell my house and move to a comparatively less expensive location.

Just one data point but I have to assume there were others like me in management type jobs who were hanging on to jobs they found rewarding, but the pandemic was enough of a catalyst to make a change.


----------



## Luanne (Nov 13, 2021)

My older daughter left her job, but it was to go back to school so that she could get into a different profession.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 13, 2021)

I think you may also find many are in two income households where one person perhaps has a substantial income where the other doesn't. So one of them decides to no longer work as they may be able to live on a single income. It may be easier in 2021 due to temporary child tax credits combined with child care costs that make the decision a little easier.

For those that are quitting without a viable alternative in place, I think they may see that they can fairly easily obtain work back in the same line of work if things don't work out for them. It isn't like the industries they are leaving aren't short on labor.


----------



## DaveNV (Nov 13, 2021)

I retired in March of last year, right on schedule, as previously planned and scheduled.  Coincidentally, it was one day before my hospital went on lockdown due to Covid. All staff in my department were then working from home.  If I had continued to work, I could have postponed my retirement date by a number of months.  They did a reduction in force during those lockdown months, so who's to say whether my position would have been eliminated. (My team lead person has taken over the bulk of my workload, so they didn't replace me.)  I'm glad I left when I did. The stress of trying to work from home would have been very difficult.

The same month I retired, my husband was sent home from his job at Costco on doctor's orders due to the pandemic, (he is at extremely high risk for catching the virus), and because they were locking down services in the warehouses.  They paid him for three months (at a reduced salary) to stay home.  By the time they wanted him to come back to work, he had decided he didn't feel comfortable going back into the risky environment of working in the warehouse, and he retired early.  He has less than one year to go till he's eligible to receive Social Security, and he's drawing a small monthly amount from his 401(k) to get him through.  If the pandemic hadn't happened, he'd still be working full time. We mostly live on my retirement.  It's working fine for us, but we are extremely cautious with our spending.

So I guess we sort of fall into the "two people living on one income" category. The difference is my husband is not looking for a new job.

Dave


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 13, 2021)

I also made a career change during the pandemic. I decided to close my business and work solo instead. The pandemic had me re-evaluate my priorities and I had never enjoyed management. In addition, everyone reduced their hours significantly so the revenue was down 60% and profit down 35%. I would have needed to add more workers to restore revenue and profit to its previous levels. The extra profit after federal, state and other taxes this year was not motivating to me.

In my industry, many workers were leaving to work on their own via video services. With Covid, they no longer needed an office. So this means it was now even more difficult to hire people. I had never been motivated to hire.

My business model was based on having fewer employees who worked full time. Now the employees no longer wanted that. I noticed a contagion effect among my employees. When someone reduced hours, other followed suit. Someone left in the summer and another employee asked for a bigger share of profits after she left. I figured more employees would be leaving soon as well because they could earn more on their own and now it was easy to start their own gig.

I have no idea how people survive in the San Francisco Bay Area on a part time income. I assume their spouses made enough money to cover the expenses.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 13, 2021)

Question?  Do the per child payments being made by the Government require one or both parents to work?  Also ow about food stamps or whatever they call them now...

George


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 13, 2021)

bogey21 said:


> Question?  Do the per child payments being made by the Government require one or both parents to work...
> 
> George


For 2021, the enhanced child tax credit doesn't have a minimum income level to qualify. There are of course income limits and other requirements to qualify. Generally, if you qualified for previous stimulus and have children you would qualify for the enhanced child tax credit. Half of which was available to be paid out in monthly payments starting earlier this year. This benefit ends in December 2021 unless somehow extended by Congress. Parents will be able to claim the other half and "settle up" any child tax credit due when they file their 2021 tax return in early 2022.


----------



## Luanne (Nov 13, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I have no idea how people survive in the San Francisco Bay Area on a part time income. I assume their spouses made enough money to cover the expenses.



My daughter and her husband live in the Silicon Valley.  They survive by renting a house with three other people (another married couple and one single man). They are all very good friends.  I like to say they live in a commune.


----------



## am1 (Nov 13, 2021)

Probably by living off savings and not saving anything at best and going into debt at worse.  Also standard of living cannot be very good.  But one reaps what they sow.  Everyone makes choices.  A low paying job is better then no job if a job is needed.  

My secret has been 0 debt except a Wyndham timehare purchase on a credit card (interest free) and a few 10k deposits into my bank account charged to my credit card (interest free).  Although I am looking to go into debt to purchase farmland at 2% interest payable over 30 years.  I cannot really see the downside.  Other then mountains of paperwork.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 13, 2021)

Many people quit their job and went into business for themselves. Some are doing well being full time investors similar to day trading but with a group. Others are finding better employment. Many have took early retirement. 

Certainly there were some on PUA when it was available but that is no longer funded. People leaving jobs today are not leaving to collect a meizley bit of state funded unemployment for the most part, imo. 

Bill


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 13, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> For 2021, the enhanced child tax credit doesn't have a minimum income level to qualify. There are of course income limits and other requirements to qualify. Generally, if you qualified for previous stimulus and have children you would qualify for the enhanced child tax credit. Half of which was available to be paid out in monthly payments starting earlier this year. This benefit ends in December 2021 unless somehow extended by Congress. Parents will be able to claim the other half and "settle up" any child tax credit due when they file their 2021 tax return in early 2022.



I thought the USA did not offer any child benefits for families. This sounds like an indirect way to provide child care benefits for families. If it is being paid out in monthly payments, why can‘t families use this for child care?


----------



## Janann (Nov 13, 2021)

easyrider said:


> People leaving jobs today are not leaving to collect a meizley bit of state funded unemployment



You can't collect unemployment if you quit of your own free will.  There are some very rare exceptions, such as physically dangerous work situations, where you might be able to quit on your own and collect.  However, the vast majority of the time unemployment is only paid when a person has to leave due to a workforce reduction.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 13, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I thought the USA did not offer any child benefits for families. This sounds like an indirect way to provide child care benefits for families. If it is being paid out in monthly payments, why can‘t families use this for child care?


It is only for 2021 and it is considered a child tax credit. It was previously $2,000 and went up to $3,600 depending on the age of the child. The recipient can use it for anything they want.


----------



## csodjd (Nov 13, 2021)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I don't know why it's happening. I keep wondering the same. How does one live comfortably on unemployment?


Well, if they bought 10-20 Bitcoin at $800 or so....


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 13, 2021)

csodjd said:


> Well, if they bought 10-20 Bitcoin at $800 or so....


Or maybe they are making money day trading this ever increasing Stock Market.  If they are, the day will come they will be looking for a job...

George


----------



## isisdave (Nov 13, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> I think you may also find many are in two income households where one person perhaps has a substantial income where the other doesn't. So one of them decides to no longer work as they may be able to live on a single income. It may be easier in 2021 due to temporary child tax credits combined with child care costs that make the decision a little easier.
> 
> For those that are quitting without a viable alternative in place, I think they may see that they can fairly easily obtain work back in the same line of work if things don't work out for them. It isn't like the industries they are leaving aren't short on labor.



I did see an online musing recently suggesting that this was happening -- families deciding to go back to one earner.  I suppose if you have kids, especially more than one, that would require day care, and a relatively low second-job income, and live in a relatively inexpensive place, this might make a lot of sense.  

I think a lot of families get into both-parents-working situation to try to improve lifestyle, save for college, etc. It might be that the pandemic reminded them how much more comfortable it was to have a stay-at-home parent. 

All the other suggestions make sense too. Maybe this pandemic-induced disruption will settle out in a year or two, like we hope the supply chain problem will.


----------



## Kat05 (Nov 13, 2021)

The casino near us is now advertising for housekeepers $14/hr, full time benefits and a $1000 sign on. This will pull the housekeepers from the local hospital and nursing homes as well as other hotels or force them to increase their pay and benefits.


----------



## isisdave (Nov 13, 2021)

BTW, I hope they have a plan for paying for health insurance between age 60 and Medicare at 65.  Ours was more than the mortgage.


----------



## PamMo (Nov 13, 2021)

I think millions of workers in minimum wage, essential service jobs, are completely exhausted and feel disrespected and undervalued by their employers and customers/clients. Parents with children at home have been squeezed for almost two years by erratic school schedules, and non-existent, or prohibitively high cost childcare. I can totally understand quitting a minimum wage job and trying something else. There are millions of jobs waiting for them to return to when/if they decide to come back.


----------



## Big Matt (Nov 14, 2021)

I have friends who sold their house at the top of the market and moved to a smaller home.  They netted almost half a million.  They plan on living off of that money until the younger spouse retires in a few more years.  They are in their fifties.


----------



## KimmieM (Nov 14, 2021)

bogey21 said:


> Or maybe they are making money day trading this ever increasing Stock Market.  If they are, the day will come they will be looking for a job...
> 
> George


A large percentage of day traders will go broke over time. It is comparable to gambling.  The longer you sit at the table the more likely you will lose everything wagered.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 14, 2021)

Kat05 said:


> The casino near us is now advertising for housekeepers $14/hr, full time benefits and a $1000 sign on. This will pull the housekeepers from the local hospital and nursing homes as well as other hotels or force them to increase their pay and benefits.


Where does it end...

George


----------



## dayooper (Nov 14, 2021)

I think times are changing. I look at my wife who worked a corporate job for 15 years, was laid off in ‘03 and again in ‘08. It was toxic and had to get out. Looking back, her well being and maybe even our marriage was saved by her not going back into the corporate world (at least that one). We were a 1 income family for about 4 years. As a teacher at the top of the scale, I got no step increases, no percentage increases for 6 years and lost $1500 out of a rainbow account. Even more when you consider the increase in what I pay for health benefits.  So she started her own online business making up for what we need. We learned we what we needed to do to live the life we want. It has served us very well. She controls who she wants as clients (she has let clients go) and works when she wants.

She knew she didn‘t want to go back to that environment so she never kept looking for a job after her unemployment ran out (there was nothing available in that time, anyway). We adjusted what we can spend and save. We live a modest life in a modest house. We send our kids to college (them paying room and board, us paying tuition) and we save for retirement. We live within our means. We could be making more if we both worked full time, but our quality of life wouldn’t be as good as it is now. My wife has seen an increase of new online businesses in the past year and a half. She has had to turn potential clients away as her schedule would have been more than she wanted (it already is more than she wants).

People will find a way if they have to. The toxic culture of today’s work environment has pushed so many people out of the workforce. Are there people taking advantage of the situation? Absolutely! Not everybody is, though.


----------



## Patri (Nov 14, 2021)

Dayooper, you and your wife are wise!


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 14, 2021)

No doubt Covid has been one of the most disruptive events of our lifetime. I believe it is the combination of all prior poster's points.

Another factor is the shift to permanent remote work for many companies. Many families are moving to less expensive areas and could afford to live on one salary, or the spouse had to quit their in-person job to move and will find another in their new location.

If you view a family as a whole moving  vs. a single employee in this situation, it's not financial suicide because there are still health benefits and a breadwinner in place.

There is a gig mentality now and 30% of the workforce is participating.  Unemployment is not a red flag anymore. In fact I would value an applicant more because it demonstrates creative-thinking and initiative if they started a gig or tried something new.

In some ways Ayn Rand's, Atlas Shrugged is happening but instead of business owners/corps quitting,  employees are mass quitting  corporations due to toxicity and exploitation.


----------



## KimmieM (Nov 14, 2021)

dayooper said:


> I think times are changing. I look at my wife who worked a corporate job for 15 years, was laid off in ‘03 and again in ‘08. It was toxic and had to get out. Looking back, her well being and maybe even our marriage was saved by her not going back into the corporate world (at least that one). We were a 1 income family for about 4 years. As a teacher at the top of the scale, I got no step increases, no percentage increases for 6 years and lost $1500 out of a rainbow account. Even more when you consider the increase in what I pay for health benefits.  So she started her own online business making up for what we need. We learned we what we needed to do to live the life we want. It has served us very well. She controls who she wants as clients (she has let clients go) and works when she wants.
> 
> She knew she didn‘t want to go back to that environment so she never kept looking for a job after her unemployment ran out (there was nothing available in that time, anyway). We adjusted what we can spend and save. We live a modest life in a modest house. We send our kids to college (them paying room and board, us paying tuition) and we save for retirement. We live within our means. We could be making more if we both worked full time, but our quality of life wouldn’t be as good as it is now. My wife has seen an increase of new online businesses in the past year and a half. She has had to turn potential clients away as her schedule would have been more than she wanted (it already is more than she wants).
> 
> People will find a way if they have to. The toxic culture of today’s work environment has pushed so many people out of the workforce. Are there people taking advantage of the situation? Absolutely! Not everybody is, though.


I can relate on the Toxic culture of today's work environment.  Becoming self employed was a big step but most will agree that they wished they would of done it sooner. Being self employed has its perks & benefits it also affords you the freedom to pick and choose who you deal with.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2021)

jonmaiman said:


> On the surface that does make sense.    From personal experience, inertia can be very hard to overcome while still working even when your current position has gotten truly bad and continues to decline.   I probably would have made my last job move (only one I made in the last twenty years) much sooner if I had quit and just focused on looking for a new job.   It was too draining being caught up with the day to day of my former employer to have the energy to truly search for something else.    I am in technical sales where the jobs are generally fairly demanding.    For jobs that are less demanding (at least intellectually), it maybe easier to look simultaneously while still employed.   For me, as a sole income provider for my family, I couldn't take the risk of an extended period of unemployment.  Regardless, I hope everyone who is seeking a better job is successful.
> 
> --Jon


Indeed, looking for a job can be a full time job.   Especially at low end, you can’t just leave the fry cooker to take a call.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2021)

I’d like to know, of the voluntarily unemployed, how many combined households?    Aside from hospitalization and death, there is long covid.    I suspect many extended families have thrown in together to make up for primary earner no long earning whether due to death, long recovery, or more helpful watching tots or grandma.   Other earners, too, could have been sidelined from illness or homeschool or just childcare.   It is more complex than just numbers as humans provide more than money to loved ones.

I am seeing new modular homes showing up on properties that already had a house, which is why I wonder about extended families combining to one set of living expenses.    So of the unemployed, how many had their living situation change since March 2020?


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 14, 2021)

KimmieM said:


> I can relate on the Toxic culture of today's work environment.  Becoming self employed was a big step but most will agree that they wished they would of done it sooner. Being self employed has its perks & benefits it also affords you the freedom to pick and choose who you deal with.



I agree. I left the corp world to start my own business. I made more money, and had more flexibility of my time. I could chaperone my kids field trips and be there after school. I would then work at night when they were asleep. I also could "fire" abusive clients and vendors. 

I wished I had started 5 years earlier. I wonder how many startup owners wished they had stayed in corps longer? I bet very few!


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I thought the USA did not offer any child benefits for families. This sounds like an indirect way to provide child care benefits for families. If it is being paid out in monthly payments, why can‘t families use this for child care?


my gut feel is that it doesn’t come close to high cost of childcare.   Even before pandemic, many families kept someone at home because the second income would not defray care costs.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> No doubt Covid has been one of the most disruptive events of our lifetime. I believe it is the combination of all prior poster's points.
> 
> Another factor is the shift to permanent remote work for many companies. Many families are moving to less expensive areas and could afford to live on one salary, or the spouse had to quit their in-person job to move and will find another in their new location.
> 
> ...


Agree completely.   Employees are done with being used and abused.   Record biz profits are not shared with bottom rung.   This is partly why I began buying stock in my 20s.   One way or another, I’m going to get paid.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2021)

KimmieM said:


> I can relate on the Toxic culture of today's work environment.  Becoming self employed was a big step but most will agree that they wished they would of done it sooner. Being self employed has its perks & benefits it also affords you the freedom to pick and choose who you deal with.


Yes.   The power to quit a customer is liberating.    They aren’t always right.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 14, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> It is only for 2021 and it is considered a child tax credit. It was previously $2,000 and went up to $3,600 depending on the age of the child. The recipient can use it for anything they want.



I have not kept up with the child tax credit but seems like another good reason not to work.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> I agree. I left the corp world to start my own business. I made more money, and had more flexibility of my time. I could chaperone my kids field trips and be there after school. I would then work at night when they were asleep. I also could "fire" abusive clients and vendors.
> 
> I wished I had started 5 years earlier. I wonder how many startup owners wished they had stayed in corps longer? I bet very few!


401k match kept me in longer.   Free money is seductive.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I have not kept up with the chairs tax credit but seems like another good reason not to work.


No it’s not enough money to be a motivator.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 14, 2021)

Big Matt said:


> I have friends who sold their house at the top of the market and moved to a smaller home.  They netted almost half a million.  They plan on living off of that money until the younger spouse retires in a few more years.  They are in their fifties.



We have plenty in savings and retirement but I would absolutely never do something like this. Half a million does not go a long way if they are in their 50s. They would be much better off continuing to work and taking the profits of their home when they retire.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 14, 2021)

geekette said:


> No it’s not enough money to be a motivator.



Actually for you and me, it is not a motivator But for folks who are low income, this is a lot of money. Plus if they are getting unemployment benefits, then that is a good way to take a “paid vacation” until they want to go back to working at McDonalds.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> I agree. I left the corp world to start my own business. I made more money, and had more flexibility of my time. I could chaperone my kids field trips and be there after school. I would then work at night when they were asleep. I also could "fire" abusive clients and vendors.
> 
> I wished I had started 5 years earlier. I wonder how many startup owners wished they had stayed in corps longer? I bet very few!



We talk like starting your own business is an option for the millions of low income workers who are leaving their jobs.


----------



## DaveNV (Nov 14, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> We talk like starting your own business is an option for the millions of low income workers who are leaving their jobs.



My immediate thought when I read this comment was to remember the old ads to "Make $10000 a month stuffing envelopes at home!"  

I always wondered how many people actually tried that, and if any ever actually made any money?  People starting online businesses or trying to become media influencers these days seems like it's the same sort of "get rich quick" scheme.

Dave


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 14, 2021)

geekette said:


> No it’s not enough money to be a motivator.


For someone with three children in child care, it certainly could be a motivator. How much is child care these days? I looked it up and it is on average $770 a month in Florida. Three kids and that is $2280 a month. Over $25K a year. If someone pulls their kids from child care and instead takes care of them as a stay at home parent and also gets about $10K from the Child Tax Credit, that is very much a motivator for many people with a low end income. Especially if they have a spouse or partner in the home that is able to cover other expenses. When they started offering half of the CTC as a monthly payment, it made cash flow a little easier.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2021)

KimmieM said:


> A large percentage of day traders will go broke over time. It is comparable to gambling.  The longer you sit at the table the more likely you will lose everything wagered.


I completely agree.   Partly why I began investing as buy n hold was in case I might like taking profits too much.   Back then, too, fees both ways were prohibitive to small timers.  

now I could see how “fun” it could be to have a daily goal of doubling what I start the play day with.    Better not add that stress to my life.

gambling....   rarely.    I like slot machines, only ones with wildcards and free spins.   I play the cheapies.    Usually I allow myself to play with only $20, a dollar into this machine, can I turn it into $5?    Or $20?    I’ve had some luck so for me I need the exit plan.   Once twenty bucks is 200, its time to go.    Other rule, my left back pocket is ones to play with, the right back pocket is winnings.     Sometimes my little money  has me in and out quickly, sometimes I play a long while.   Last was 20 into 120 in under a half hour.   Small money, small risk, but plenty more gas money for a fun whirl.   Keep it a rare playful lark.   if I start with a larger stake, I might fall in too much.   Horses, too, gosh I could go to the races all the time!    

story of my life:   Do not dabble in things i might like too much that could be expensive.


----------



## dayooper (Nov 14, 2021)

DaveNV said:


> My immediate thought when I read this comment was to remember the old ads to "Make $10000 a month stuffing envelopes at home!"
> 
> I always wondered how many people actually tried that, and if any ever actually made any money?  *People starting online businesses* or trying to become media influencers these days seems like it's the same sort of "get rich quick" scheme.
> 
> Dave



Depends on what you do. The big thing now is coaching. My wife’s clients are career and business coaches and they charge a ton. One of her clients charges 5 figures for their expertise (and she earns it). My wife works hard (as do I) and most people who she works with do not do this to get rich quick.



TravelTime said:


> We talk like starting your own business is an option for the millions of low income workers who are leaving their jobs.



You are absolutely right. But when you pay more in child care than you bring in, you may need to rethink what you do. Back when we had to have child care, it was more than our mortgage. One of her friends did an in home child care to save money and her children were abused. There is no good solution.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> We have plenty in savings and retirement but I would absolutely never do something like this. Half a million does not go a long way if they are in their 50s. They would be much better off continuing to work and taking the profits of their home when they retire.


I think it depends on what the retirement plans are.   I’m monetizing hobbies and growing my food.   If I own the land and everything on it, with reasonable prop tax, utility costs (solar is a worthy investment, as is having own well), whatever, half a mil stake to garden for profit, various creative/artistic pursuits for profit, it can be a fulfilling life with low expenses.   Preserving and growing nest egg are key in early days, and always important.

if i instead wanted to air travel frequently, it would not be enough.   As a road trip gal that was doing international trips every other year, I could continue that.   If I wanted a boat and an RV and a new truck, best to keep working until I own those and maintenance current on all assets.

It’s not what you have, it’s what you spend.    

since I come from middle of the pack cost of living, the numbers don’t have to be as big as for surviving high cost areas.    Prop taxes 1500, home insurance about same, annually.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> For someone with three children in child care, it certainly could be a motivator. How much is child care these days? I looked it up and it is on average $770 a month in Florida. Three kids and that is $2280 a month. Over $25K a year. If someone pulls their kids from child care and instead takes care of them as a stay at home parent and also gets about $10K from the Child Tax Credit, that is very much a motivator for many people with a low end income. Especially if they have a spouse or partner in the home that is able to cover other expenses. When they started offering half of the CTC as a monthly payment, it made cash flow a little easier.


Thank you for numbers.    Great context.


----------



## DaveNV (Nov 14, 2021)

dayooper said:


> Depends on what you do. The big thing now is coaching. My wife’s clients are career and business coaches and they charge a ton. One of her clients charges 5 figures for their expertise (and she earns it). My wife works hard (as do I) and most people who she works with do not do this to get rich quick.



I wasn't referring to your wife, in particular.  I was thinking of the average minimum-wage earner who thinks they can make more working from home.  They have a computer and see how (some) others are making money with them, so think they can do it too.  I wonder how successful most of them truly are?  My guess is most never get things off the ground.

Dae


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Another factor is the shift to permanent remote work for many companies.



I have mixed feeling about permanent remote work.  I'm speaking from an Employer point of view having been the top dog at a multi billion dollar Bank.  I can see the benefit for some, maybe even many, employees whose jobs are relatively routine.  But not for decision makers.  Long meeting were not part of our culture but I can remember many issues, decisions, etc. that were worked out in one of our offices, walking around talking to people, in the break room, at lunch or even at the corner tavern after work.  I may be living in the past but this Zoom stuff doesn't impress me...

George


----------



## dayooper (Nov 14, 2021)

bogey21 said:


> I have mixed feeling about permanent remote work.  I'm speaking from an Employer point of view having been the top dog at a multi billion dollar Bank.  I can see the benefit for some, maybe even many, employees whose jobs are relatively routine.  But not for decision makers.  Long meeting were not part of our culture but I can remember many issues, decisions, etc. that were worked out in one of our offices, walking around talking to people, in the break room, at lunch or even at the corner tavern after work.  I may be living in the past but this Zoom stuff doesn't impress me...
> 
> George



It doesn’t impress me either, but it’s a thing now. There are workers that will only look for work if it’s at least somewhat remote. Some jobs are partial remote where they are in the office 1-3 days a week.

Some jobs don’t work well for remote work, but it’s becoming more and more prevalent. While it may not be ideal for some employers, it’s ideal for some employees. Those businesses that are forward think and want to attract the best young talent will adjust their thinking.

BTW - I hated teaching remote.




DaveNV said:


> I wasn't referring to your wife, in particular.  I was thinking of the average minimum-wage earner who thinks they can make more working from home.  They have a computer and see how (some) others are making money with them, so think they can do it too.  I wonder how successful most of them truly are?  My guess is most never get things off the ground.
> 
> Dae



I know and I’m sorry I wasn’t clear on that. The technical computer based jobs will do well. Website creating and updating as well as.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 14, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> We talk like starting your own business is an option for the millions of low income workers who are leaving their jobs.


While I agree that many dont have the skills, there is no requirement that a new business owner needs to have a degree.  Plus there are a lot of gig options including Uber driving, AirBnb superhosting, etc.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 14, 2021)

DaveNV said:


> I wasn't referring to your wife, in particular.  I was thinking of the average minimum-wage earner who thinks they can make more working from home.  They have a computer and see how (some) others are making money with them, so think they can do it too.  I wonder how successful most of them truly are?  My guess is most never get things off the ground.
> 
> Dae


I think to some degree, people who started to work remote at the beginning of the pandemic are now starting to be asked to return to the office even though they have been completely able to perform their work remotely for over 18 months. For many that is a non starter now. The big cheese at my company had to put out a plea to let employees know they will be flexible when it comes to going back to in office work. I suspect they are seeing either a lot of people quitting because of it or saying they plan to quit and find other remote work elsewhere. So that may be leading some to take part in the great resignation.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Nov 14, 2021)

bogey21 said:


> I have mixed feeling about permanent remote work.  I'm speaking from an Employer point of view having been the top dog at a multi billion dollar Bank.  I can see the benefit for some, maybe even many, employees whose jobs are relatively routine.  But not for decision makers.  Long meeting were not part of our culture but I can remember many issues, decisions, etc. that were worked out in one of our offices, walking around talking to people, in the break room, at lunch or even at the corner tavern after work.  I may be living in the past but this Zoom stuff doesn't impress me...
> 
> George



A matter of viewpoint. As an old bank programmer, nobody in middle/senior management ever asked me about anything. Nevermind the fact that my detail decisions would constrain the bank into a particular mold for decades. It would have made no difference where I worked.  There was no feedback, either way. . .


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> While I agree that many dont have the skills, there is no requirement that a new business owner needs to have a degree.  Plus there are a lot of gig options including Uber driving, AirBnb superhosting, etc.


yes, making money doesn’t have to be starting a formal business.   Lots of signs in yards advertising bookkeeping/tax prep, blade sharpening, alterations, chair binding, eggs, homemade soaps and lotions....   a friend of mine was charging $20/hr weeding gardens.   It’s the time of year for holiday arts and crafts sales.    Support a local creative by buying something.    In one of those where i had a booth, I got lots of ideas and inspiration from the exhibitor making things from shells.    I’d like to do shell inlay projects.


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 14, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> I think to some degree, people who started to work remote at the beginning of the pandemic are now starting to be asked to return to the office even though they have been completely able to perform their work remotely for over 18 months. For many that is a non starter now. The big cheese at my company had to put out a plea to let employees know they will be flexible when it comes to going back to in office work. I suspect they are seeing either a lot of people quitting because of it or saying they plan to quit and find other remote work elsewhere. So that may be leading some to take part in the great resignation.


Yes, I have seen that in my industry, especially with the younger staff.  Combine that with the trend of "open" work spaces in the offices (which are just a ruse to make office space less expensive for the employer, IMO), I think many value the privacy and dedicated work space that can only be achieved by working from home in many cases.

Pre-pandemic, my company was starting with the process of moving to these "open" work spaces -- basically no walls (not even half-walls), work desks where you are staring across from each other, no privacy what-so-ever, etc.  Of course, they try to spin it and say it is more "collaborative".  BS.  It saves money, and that is all.  Then about a year ago when they announced most people were going to be shifted to permanent work from home status, I certainly was relieved.  I'm at the point of retiring shortly, but if I wasn't, I would have seriously been looking to work somewhere else due to being forced to work in those awful "open" workspaces.

Kurt


----------



## am1 (Nov 14, 2021)

dayooper said:


> You are absolutely right. But when you pay more in child care than you bring in, you may need to rethink what you do. Back when we had to have child care, it was more than our mortgage. One of her friends did an in home child care to save money and her children were abused. There is no good solution.


Or the number of kids.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Yes, I have seen that in my industry, especially with the younger staff.  Combine that with the trend of "open" work spaces in the offices (which are just a ruse to make office space less expensive for the employer, IMO), I think many value the privacy and dedicated work space that can only be achieved by working from home in many cases.
> 
> Pre-pandemic, my company was starting with the process of moving to these "open" work spaces -- basically no walls (not even half-walls), work desks where you are staring across from each other, no privacy what-so-ever, etc.  Of course, they try to spin it and say it is more "collaborative".  BS.  It saves money, and that is all.  Then about a year ago when they announced most people were going to be shifted to permanent work from home status, I certainly was relieved.  I'm at the point of retiring shortly, but if I wasn't, I would have seriously been looking to work somewhere else due to being forced to work in those awful "open" workspaces.
> 
> Kurt


Right on.  I would much rather be surrounded by cube walls than other people.   It's hard to tune out constant movement and noise but I didn't want headphones feeding me any audio, either.   

it's always about the profits and how much bs the workers will take before they say no.   we're seeing them say no now.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 14, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Yes, I have seen that in my industry, especially with the younger staff.  Combine that with the trend of "open" work spaces in the offices (which are just a ruse to make office space less expensive for the employer, IMO), I think many value the privacy and dedicated work space that can only be achieved by working from home in many cases.
> 
> Pre-pandemic, my company was starting with the process of moving to these "open" work spaces -- basically no walls (not even half-walls), work desks where you are staring across from each other, no privacy what-so-ever, etc.  Of course, they try to spin it and say it is more "collaborative".  BS.  It saves money, and that is all.  Then about a year ago when they announced most people were going to be shifted to permanent work from home status, I certainly was relieved.  I'm at the point of retiring shortly, but if I wasn't, I would have seriously been looking to work somewhere else due to being forced to work in those awful "open" workspaces.
> 
> Kurt


While they never did the open workspaces in the office I worked out of, they did do them in some of the other major buildings for the company. You also never knew what workstation you would be working out of each day. It was just first come first served.


----------



## Superchief (Nov 14, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Yes, I have seen that in my industry, especially with the younger staff.  Combine that with the trend of "open" work spaces in the offices (which are just a ruse to make office space less expensive for the employer, IMO), I think many value the privacy and dedicated work space that can only be achieved by working from home in many cases.
> 
> Pre-pandemic, my company was starting with the process of moving to these "open" work spaces -- basically no walls (not even half-walls), work desks where you are staring across from each other, no privacy what-so-ever, etc.  Of course, they try to spin it and say it is more "collaborative".  BS.  It saves money, and that is all.  Then about a year ago when they announced most people were going to be shifted to permanent work from home status, I certainly was relieved.  I'm at the point of retiring shortly, but if I wasn't, I would have seriously been looking to work somewhere else due to being forced to work in those awful "open" workspaces.
> 
> Kurt


I agree that the open office environment really reduced the appeal and productivity of working in the corporate world. I also believe that politics and short term financials have reduced the attractiveness of working for large corporations for many today. Outside consultants are valued more than current employees. 

I spent almost fifty years working in marketing research for medium to large companies. When I started, I was valued for my ability to help the company determine what consumers really wanted, identify and develop truly superior products or services, and to guide decisions that were best for the long term success of the company. Now the focus is on how to fool customers into paying more for something, and to do research that will support management's desires rather than what is best for the company. Rather than problem solving and analytical thinking, companies now value project management, order taking, and bootlicking. There is no loyalty to employees, and executives only care about short term financials to maximize the bonuses. Executive compensation relative to other workers has become absurd. Bright young people are leaving the corporate world and pursuing other careers.


----------



## DaveNV (Nov 14, 2021)

^^^ Truth.

Dave


----------



## mdurette (Nov 14, 2021)

All the folks that I know that have quit (or the ones we have hired) had something else lined up.     The reason the majority did it, their employers wanted them back in the office after working at home since the pandemic hit.  They didn't want to go back in the office.   These are not entry level/minimum wage jobs.    

I think right now, the entry/minimum wage worker has so many options that they can make that change and find something they like or at least want to try.


----------



## Snazzylass (Nov 14, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> While they never did the open workspaces in the office I worked out of, they did do them in some of the other major buildings for the company. You also never knew what workstation you would be working out of each day. It was just first come first served.


grrr...this will be my reality and it definitely makes returning to the office less desirable.

Like everyone else, we were sent home (is it only 19 months ago?) and fended for ourselves and figured things out on the fly. Now in order to WFH permanently, there were pages and pages of compliance. And after reporting to the office last spring/summer, we were suddenly sent home again.

Soon we will be back to every other week in the office. The biggest pain is that we cannot leave anything overnight. The job requires all sorts of equipment & job aids which we must take home every night. Truly maddening but the desks need to be empty so they can be sprayed. And for whatever reason, they aren't giving us keys so we can use the drawers. Nothing like the welcoming environment when I joined.  *sigh*


----------



## Snazzylass (Nov 14, 2021)

bogey21 said:


> I have mixed feeling about permanent remote work.  I'm speaking from an Employer point of view having been the top dog at a multi billion dollar Bank.  I can see the benefit for some, maybe even many, employees whose jobs are relatively routine.  But not for decision makers.  Long meeting were not part of our culture but I can remember many issues, decisions, etc. that were worked out in one of our offices, walking around talking to people, in the break room, at lunch or even at the corner tavern after work.  I may be living in the past but this Zoom stuff doesn't impress me...
> 
> George


You and Jamie Dimon. LOL!
There is truth in what you are saying. Worse, no one comes into their job fully knowing how to do it. So, it is helpful to sprinkle a few seasoned verterans among the newbies.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 14, 2021)

My guess is that within a couple of years, people will be right back to what they did before the pandemic. I do not think there are new types of jobs being created, just more openings since people are staying home or taking time off.

Uber jobs and AirBnB hosting were an option before so not sure why that will be more attractive now than before. Plus people who are low income are not going to be doing AirBnB hosting. You need either a rental or at least an extra room to offer this.

I think those of us on TUG might be out of touch with low income workers and their resources and options. However, I am not claiming to be in touch with this demographic. I just can‘t imagine folks doing minimum wage jobs before will suddenly have great job options abailable.

For anyone, whether they are college educated or not, it is very hard to make money in your own business. If people were doing this and failing before, why do we think it will be much different after the pandemic ends?


----------



## slip (Nov 14, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> My guess is that within a couple of years, people will be right back to what they did before the pandemic. I do not think there are new types of jobs being created, just more openings since people are staying home or taking time off.
> 
> Uber jobs and AirBnB hosting were an option before so not sure why that will be more attractive now than before. Plus people who are low income are not going to be doing AirBnB hosting. You need either a rental or at least an extra room to offer this.
> 
> ...



Definitely agree with this post.  I think things will adjust back close to where it was before.


----------



## dayooper (Nov 14, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> My guess is that within a couple of years, people will be right back to what they did before the pandemic. I do not think there are new types of jobs being created, just more openings since people are staying home or taking time off.
> 
> Uber jobs and AirBnB hosting were an option before so not sure why that will be more attractive now than before. Plus people who are low income are not going to be doing AirBnB hosting. You need either a rental or at least an extra room to offer this.
> 
> ...



Its a new model. You will see more and more free lance workers. People get hired for the work or a set amount of hours every week/month. It gives greater flexibility to both company and worker. The company doesn’t have to pay insurance and the worker gets the freedom of flexibility. Both can let each other go if it’s not working out.

The old way of butts in seats is going the way of the dodo. This has been brewing for several years, the pandemic has just brought it forward. Your large companies will still hire full time employees, but small to medium businesses will find ways to save money and this way is most definitely a way to do that.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 14, 2021)

Our son is looking to hire a new technician for his store.  Training provided, and the pay is good.  He is also looking for a person to work in his store.  He has a fireplace store in Lone Tree, CO, south of Denver.


----------



## slip (Nov 14, 2021)

dayooper said:


> The old way of butts in seats is going the way of the dodo.



I think this is way to one end of the spectrum and is not going to happen. Sure it will for some jobs but no butts in seats, not in my lifetime.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 14, 2021)

dayooper said:


> Its a new model. You will see more and more free lance workers. People get hired for the work or a set amount of hours every week/month. It gives greater flexibility to both company and worker. The company doesn’t have to pay insurance and the worker gets the freedom of flexibility. Both can let each other go if it’s not working out.
> 
> The old way of butts in seats is going the way of the dodo. This has been brewing for several years, the pandemic has just brought it forward. Your large companies will still hire full time employees, but small to medium businesses will find ways to save money and this way is most definitely a way to do that.



In CA, independent contractors (sole proprietors, gig workers, freelancers, whatever they want to call themselves) are regulated and not allowed in many industries. Companies of any size can get big fines for hiring people who have been misclassified plus have to pay all back taxes. All sole proprietors are independent contractors in the eyes of the law.

The other risk factor is independent contractors are supposed to pay estimated quarterly taxes and self employment taxes. Many people do not plan ahead for this and get stuck with big unexpected tax bills and penalties.

I do not see or hear of many white collar workers quitting to do their own thing. Mostly they are trying to continue doing their job remotely so they can work where they want. That is a very different phenomenon than quitting to start your own company.

People seem to forget that a gig job is not all that easy to do consistently and you really are starting a small business / sole proprietorship and you must comply with all laws and tax consequences.


----------



## amycurl (Nov 15, 2021)

Here's what I'm seeing: professional-skilled resignations are from people who are leaving formal orgs to become independent consultants, free-lancers, etc., or start their own firms. "Essential workers"--leaving lower-paid, higher-risk, low-satisfaction jobs to focus on their "side hustle"--often artistic or creative, maker-related, food-related, etc. Think food kiosks/trucks, hair braiding businesses, candle-making, personal care product-making, on-location car-washing businesses, etc....businesses that allow them to control their risk, exposure to obnoxious people, create value for themselves with their labor (vs. for an employer,) and set their own schedule. Many are finding that they're making enough--if not more--to enjoy the lifestyle benefits that come with this independence. 

I think if companies want to woo workers back, they need to start looking at the CEO to entry level pay ratio.


----------



## dayooper (Nov 15, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> In CA, independent contractors (sole proprietors, gig workers, freelancers, whatever they want to call themselves) are regulated and not allowed in many industries. Companies of any size can get big fines for hiring people who have been misclassified plus have to pay all back taxes. All sole proprietors are independent contractors in the eyes of the law.
> 
> The other risk factor is independent contractors are supposed to pay estimated quarterly taxes and self employment taxes. Many people do not plan ahead for this and get stuck with big unexpected tax bills and penalties.
> 
> ...



Sure, that’s true here in Michigan as well. My wife has several clients and that takes precedence. By having multiple clients, it shows that you are not an employee of the company and are free to do business as you see fit. I’m not talking about all types of work. There are some that jobs that have to be full time and in person. That being said, work is changing and who knows what the future will bring.


----------



## dayooper (Nov 15, 2021)

slip said:


> I think this is way to one end of the spectrum and is not going to happen. Sure it will for some jobs but no butts in seats, not in my lifetime.



It already is, in some regards. By butts in seats, I mean a supervisor is there to monitor your every move. Very few like to be micromanaged like that. Those companies that are flexible with their employees will attract the best people.

Like I said above, it won’t be all jobs. It will be more than you think.


----------



## slip (Nov 15, 2021)

dayooper said:


> It already is, in some regards. By butts in seats, I mean a supervisor is there to monitor your every move. Very few like to be micromanaged like that. Those companies that are flexible with their employees will attract the best people.



Maybe it's just the terminology that is hanging me up but I don't see this either. Even the best people need supervision and it's not a bad thing. The best people would admit that and even encourage the guidance. Now micromanagement, is another thing and isn't good and does stiffle people. A supervisor doesn't and shouldn't have to monitor everyone's everymove. If that is the case, we are talking about the difference between those employees and the best.


----------



## Big Matt (Nov 15, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> We have plenty in savings and retirement but I would absolutely never do something like this. Half a million does not go a long way if they are in their 50s. They would be much better off continuing to work and taking the profits of their home when they retire.


They have a pile of money in 401k accounts.  Husband is 58 and can get into his money in a year and a half.  Wife is only 52.  I would never do it either, but they had a lot of kids and a 5000 square foot home and wanted to downsize and move to a less expensive area.  Kids are out of the house, so it makes sense for them I suppose.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 15, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> A matter of viewpoint. As an old bank programmer, nobody in middle/senior management ever asked me about anything. Nevermind the fact that my detail decisions would constrain the bank into a particular mold for decades. It would have made no difference where I worked.  There was no feedback, either way. . .


You worked for stupid people. Every week  I tried to walk the floors (all four of them) and talk to my employees (yes, even guys in IT) in my organization.  In addition the door to my office was open 90% of the time.  Every employee knew if I was not on the phone or didn't have someone in my office all they had to do was gently knock and I would invite them in and they could  talk to me about anything on their mind.  It didn't matter if it was a fellow Executive or the janitor.  Sometimes it was stupid stuff but most times it was very rewarding...

George


----------



## Superchief (Nov 15, 2021)

I think another factor is that a lot more young adults are living with their parents. I recently read an article that stated it was now 52% (article didn't define 52% of what ages). This takes the financial pressure off of them (and puts it on to us parents).


----------



## Snazzylass (Nov 15, 2021)

slip said:


> Maybe it's just the terminology that is hanging me up but I don't see this either. Even the best people need supervision and it's not a bad thing. The best people would admit that and even encourage the guidance. Now micromanagement, is another thing and isn't good and does stiffle people. A supervisor doesn't and shouldn't have to monitor everyone's everymove. If that is the case, we are talking about the difference between those employees and the best.


Agreed. On one hand, I do feel there will be permanent changes. We have learned that maybe we don't need to do in-person meetings as much as we thought. I don't see corporate travel being as big a part of the budget in the future. Let's say some things will go the way of the 3-martini lunch and the chronic sexism that females once endured.

But "butts in the seats?" well, we used to call it Face Time before Apple grabbed it. It meant that long hours in the office got you seen and known and spending time with your colleagues led to promotions. Of course, it depends a bit on your line of work. I've always been responsible for brining in new business and clients aren't in my office. I've got to go to them.

As much as some folks have found their zen with the flexibility of WFH, others prefer the energy of being surrounded by co-workers. And, I do believe some parents are WFH or opting out of work to improve the quality of their family life. Yet, there are just as many who need to escape to the office and leave the kids at home with the other parent. So, some flexibility going forward will likely be the solution.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Nov 15, 2021)

bogey21 said:


> You worked for stupid people. Every week  I tried to walk the floors (all four of them) and talk to my employees (yes, even guys in IT) in my organization.  In addition the door to my office was open 90% of the time.  Every employee knew if I was not on the phone or didn't have someone in my office all they had to do was gently knock and I would invite them in and they could  talk to me about anything on their mind.  It didn't matter if it was a fellow Executive or the janitor.  Sometimes it was stupid stuff but most times it was very rewarding...
> 
> George



It seems I've always worked for stupid people. And in companies that outside people consider successful, with great management. (It makes me think of the two people being chased by a starving bear. "We've got to run than faster than that bear." "Not necessarily. I just have to run faster that you.") 

Companies like the only survivor of the 1980's Texas banking debacle. A Fortune 500 life insurance company. One of the biggest money center banks (that one taught me the importance of "bending, but not breaking" the law). That one laid me off, to save money, after I had saved them at least 8 figures by overriding a management miscalculation with 4 lines of code. (No good deed goes unpunished.)

Now I'm retired and I don't miss them a bit. . .


----------



## joestein (Nov 15, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> For someone with three children in child care, it certainly could be a motivator. How much is child care these days? I looked it up and it is on average $770 a month in Florida. Three kids and that is $2280 a month. Over $25K a year. If someone pulls their kids from child care and instead takes care of them as a stay at home parent and also gets about $10K from the Child Tax Credit, that is very much a motivator for many people with a low end income. Especially if they have a spouse or partner in the home that is able to cover other expenses. When they started offering half of the CTC as a monthly payment, it made cash flow a little easier.



Back in 2003 when my twins were born it was over $2000 a month in daycare.    It made sense for us to pay someone to come to house to take of the kids, it was cheaper. By the time the kids finally became eligible for before/after care at school, we were paying over $2000/month in cash to an individual.

It was probably cheaper to put them in a daycare at the end as they got a little older, but there was a lot of issues with transportation and we kept the nanny - who became like a part of our family.    We wanted to work with her at a reduced (with a lot less hours) with her going forward, but she didn't want to.  We went out of our way to keep in contact, but she never returned our calls.  I think she regretted it as she got married and it turned out to be an abusive relationship (Maybe he was the reason for no contact).  He left her high and dry with a baby son.  Years later, I saw someone yelling at their child in the supermarket.   It turned out to be her.   We spoke for a while and resumed some contact and I include her in the invitations to the girl's b'not mitzvah reception.  She replied she was coming and then was a no-show at the reception.  I heard through my MIL who knows her aunt, that she has met someone and is doing better.  I think I heard they were getting married.   Even thought I was pissed about the no-show, I am glad that she is doing better.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 15, 2021)

Superchief said:


> I think another factor is that a lot more young adults are living with their parents. I recently read an article that stated it was now 52% (article didn't define 52% of what ages). This takes the financial pressure off of them (and puts it on to us parents).


What age is a young adult?


----------



## geekette (Nov 15, 2021)

rickandcindy23 said:


> What age is a young adult?


There's the magic question!   These days, I'd cap it at 32.   I would expect a lot of 20somethings home, even before pandemic.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 15, 2021)

@TravelTime It is not a requirement for super hosts to own the properties they manage. Although many services existed prior to Covid, Covid made them mainstream offering many more opportunities. Many locales now require a local host for AirBnb in case there are rental issues. This has opened up flexible jobs for moms to check on rental properties (open/check for damage after the rental, check on the quality of cleaning service), handymen (e.g. shovel snow, minor fixes, painting, defensible space cleanup), clean houses, offer food catering to rentals. None of these services requires a significant education.

Trades are booming and need help. 

Homeowners need handymen - Thumbtack, Taskrabbit and other gig services. 

People proficient in HS math, science or English offer local tutoring services. My DD started a tutoring business in high school. She learned how to start and run a business, find clients on Nextdoor and WOM and file taxes.

Besides look at how delivery services have gone mainstream:  Doordash, GrubHub, instacart, Ubereats, Uber driving.

Don't own real estate? Turo rents out your car.

All it requires is creativity and initiative....People that don't have it or have no initiative will return to a regular 9/5 job.


----------



## geekette (Nov 15, 2021)

I think the nature of work is changing.   I figured out a long time ago that you can't have this "work/life balance" thing.   Not with corps demanding everything from you.   I think we are shifting from live to work to work to live.   People realize there are more important things, and they are usually at home waiting for you.   If you always get home dog tired, stressed out and angry, it's not a good way to live.   Nobody is paid enough to essentially donate their lives to the company.    

The move to living simpler was already happening, it's now accelerating.   More people homesteading, bringing the family clan together.   Decreasing expenses is the key way to decrease dependence on paycheck.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> @TravelTime It is not a requirement for super hosts to own the properties they manage. Although many services existed prior to Covid, Covid made them mainstream offering many more opportunities. Many locales now require a local host for AirBnb in case there are rental issues. This has opened up flexible jobs for moms to check on rental properties (open/check for damage after the rental, check on the quality of cleaning service), handymen (e.g. shovel snow, minor fixes, painting, defensible space cleanup), clean houses, offer food catering to rentals. None of these require a significant education.
> 
> Trades are booming and need help. Homeowners need handymen - Thumbtack and other gig services.
> 
> ...



I know all this. It would be great if people have creativity and initiative. I am just saying I do not see 10 million low income workers who have quit their jobs to go from McDonalds or working for a house cleaning business to suddenly becoming a small business owner. They could bit they’d need to learn sales, marketing and business management. 

I did have a house cleaner who left her employer and started her own business many years ago. She did it by offering lower prices and stealing all the clients from her employer including me. She had to have 2-3 additional workers to help her clean the homes. For $35 an hour, I doubt she made much money after paying her employees and her business expenses.

How would a low income person with a one bedroom apartment become a AirBnb host?

You and your daughter are not representative of the workers who have resigned.

Doordash is not a profitable job. They end up making less than minimum wage. I have an ex-client who did this and told me how it works.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 15, 2021)

geekette said:


> I think the nature of work is changing.   I figured out a long time ago that you can't have this "work/life balance" thing.   Not with corps demanding everything from you.   I think we are shifting from live to work to work to live.   People realize there are more important things, and they are usually at home waiting for you.   If you always get home dog tired, stressed out and angry, it's not a good way to live.   Nobody is paid enough to essentially donate their lives to the company.
> 
> The move to living simpler was already happening, it's now accelerating.   More people homesteading, bringing the family clan together.   Decreasing expenses is the key way to decrease dependence on paycheck.



+1 Tiny houses and living with parents is a millennial movement. Perhaps you don't need to work at McDonalds if you can keep your lifestyle small and run gigs on the side.

There is also a rising movement among millennials and Z-gen called "Eco-Anxiety" Some are questioning the point of chasing jobs, education and unsustainable living if the Earth will die by 2040. I have a colleague whose daughter dropped out of a top college because of this. She said, "What's the point?" and it consumed her.  She is now pursuing classes in sustainability and is working through this, but this movement is afoot and could reshape what young people pursue.

For some this is a medical condition:









						Eco-anxiety: What it is and how to manage it
					

Eco-anxiety is a type of fear related to environmental damage and ecological disaster. This article looks at what it is and some tips for managing it.




					www.medicalnewstoday.com


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 15, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I know all this. It would be great if people have creativity and initiative. I am just saying I do not see 10 million low income workers who have quit their jobs to go from McDonalds or house cleaning to suddenly becoming a small business owner.
> 
> How would a low income person with a one bedroom apartment become a AirBnb host?
> 
> ...


People certainly find there is some money to be made doing Doordash or other gig type services, otherwise these companies wouldn't be in business. Some people can make fairly decent money doing these jobs. I think we need to understand that not everyone lives the same or wants the same lifestyle that many people here on TUG live or want. They are okay being able to make ends meet with something that gives them flexibility to work on their schedule. They aren't buying $20,000 timeshares or traveling to Hawaii or the Caribbean once or twice a year.


----------



## geekette (Nov 15, 2021)

".... All it requires is creativity and initiative... "

YES.    Personally, I liked having an employer.  I don't like to find clients, I like all the admin hoo hah handled, I liked the benefits.   

Now, however, no way.   I don't ever want to go back.  I did my time and have the gray hair to prove it.  

Delivery drivers are in demand now, don't have to be long haul CDL.  Where I live, if you have a pickup truck, you can pick up trash to take to the dump for $18/hr (people don't like hauling their garbage to the dump, so I think this was a clever start-up that's gaining momentum).    Honestly, I am one of those people that doesn't like to haul my stuff to the dump, I miss curb service.  And I can have it.   If I were bigger and stronger, this would be a nice flexible gig.  

I'm excited, tho, to get on my two main pursuits going forward: growing stuff to sell and making stuff to sell.   For a creative type, it's been painful to not have my creative avenues available to me right now.   Sure, watching stuff grow has been rewarding (strawberry plant keeps cranking fruit but that's only one more cold night away from the end).   

There is a certain amount of stress reduction and joy of making that I'm missing badly.    The morning glories that are taking my fence training are trying to keep on so I am enjoying the pops of color against red dirt and pine trees.   

I can't be the only one that had to do what I had to do for pay for decades, and now, nuts to that, I'm going to do what I enjoy and find buyers.   When I am active on the street fair circuit, I'm sure I'll meet a lot of people who stopped work at pandemic and went fully into what they like to do instead.   I am excited to meet talented people and talk to them about their skills and frustrations.  Jewelry making, for example, isn't actually that difficult.  Doing it well is another matter.   Making what people want to buy is yet another issue.  I do plan to dabble in it because it seems interesting but I am unlikely to become extraordinary at it, unless I really like it and want to do it all the time.   

There are also lots of popup corner markets where people are selling their possessions.  My "landlord" here goes every Saturday to sell off something of hers.    Often many vendors, many shoppers.

This will be the fallout - people thinking I should do X for money!  I like it, people will buy it...    then finding out, oh crap, it's not fun when you turn something you enjoy into Gotta Have It financial toil.   Plus it's very difficult to actually charge what something is worth.  In the early days, attaining skills is not so quick, there will be mistakes, there will be time-consuming lessons.  I can't charge for hours of my learning, I have to charge normal prices and eat my mistakes.   Some people will give up, others will press on, knowing that practicing your craft makes you better, makes your work more valuable.

I do think the anger at corps hoarding the profits is here to stay.   We aren't simply going to forget measly or no raises while CEOs get millions and middle management presses people for more more more.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 15, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> In CA, independent contractors (sole proprietors, gig workers, freelancers, whatever they want to call themselves) are regulated and not allowed in many industries. Companies of any size can get big fines for hiring people who have been misclassified plus have to pay all back taxes. All sole proprietors are independent contractors in the eyes of the law.
> 
> The other risk factor is independent contractors are supposed to pay estimated quarterly taxes and self employment taxes. Many people do not plan ahead for this and get stuck with big unexpected tax bills and penalties.
> 
> ...



Calif AB5 written by Lorena Gonzalez is the stupidest piece of legislation ever written and an example of government overreach and paid lobbying interests. Originally designed to make Uber and Lyft drivers employees vs. business owners - the companies successfully enacted an initiative and skirted the law! Ultimately this law killed many women and minority small businesses in it's wake because it left a chill on large employers to hire any independent contractor in California - they simply shifted to hiring out-of-state workers who did not have such restrictions.

It is clear she and the fellow politicians who wrote this do not understand small business.  I hope it is repealed soon and will vote and support politicians that favors this repeal.

With that said, many workers and businesses ignore this stupid law, or use Thumbtack, 99Designs, Upwork etc to help them manage their small business and file the right forms. There are still contracting opportunities via carve-outs where certain professions are exempt, and there are companies where you can work for large companies by working for their temp-resources firm.


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 15, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> I think to some degree, people who started to work remote at the beginning of the pandemic are now starting to be asked to return to the office even though they have been completely able to perform their work remotely for over 18 months. For many that is a non starter now. The big cheese at my company had to put out a plea to let employees know they will be flexible when it comes to going back to in office work. I suspect they are seeing either a lot of people quitting because of it or saying they plan to quit and find other remote work elsewhere. So that may be leading some to take part in the great resignation.



This statement is so true, 3 of my former colleagues, when told they would have to come back into the office found other jobs with a significant raise and they are all now working remotely and all of them are only going into the office when needed or at most 1 day a week..


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Calif AB5 written by Lorena Gonzalez is the stupidest piece of legislation on earth and an example of government overreach and paid lobbying interests. Originally designed to make Uber and Lyft drivers employees vs. business owners - the companies successfully enacted an initiative and skirted the law! Ultimately this law killed many women and minority small businesses in it's wake because it left a chill on large employers to hire any independent contractor in California - they simply shifted to hiring out-of-state workers who did not have such restrictions.
> 
> It is clear she and the fellow politicians who wrote this do not understand small business.  I hope it is repealed soon and will vote and support politicians that favors this repeal.
> 
> With that said, many workers and businesses ignore this stupid law, or use Thumbtack, 99Designs, Upwork etc to help them manage their small business and file the right forms. There are still contracting opportunities via carve-outs where certain professions are exempt, and there are companies where you can work for large companies by working for their temp-resources firm.



Before this law, my industry was already affected. When I started my business in 2011, I looked at the IRS criteria for contractors. It is clear that many employees should be employees. This law did not affect me bc I was already organized with employees. In 2011-2012, most businesses in my industry used contractors. Since then, almost all businesses in my industry nationwide have converted to employees due to IRS rules.

Many companies ignore the IRS criteria but if they are audited, they can be responsible for back taxes for federal and state as well as penalties for organizing incorrectly. I hate that many businesses are cheating by trying to avoid paying taxes.

It is okay to still hire contractors if they are not considered to be performing an essential role in the business. Upworks is fine. I can hire them to do graphic design and other services for me. I can hire attorneys and accountants. None of these are performing critical functions for my business.





__





						Understanding Employee vs. Contractor Designation | Internal Revenue Service
					

FS-2017-09, July 20, 2017 - The Internal Revenue Service reminds small businesses of the importance of understanding and correctly applying the rules for classifying a worker as an employee or an independent contractor.




					www.irs.gov


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 15, 2021)

slip said:


> Maybe it's just the terminology that is hanging me up but I don't see this either. *Even the best people need supervision* and it's not a bad thing. The best people would admit that and even encourage the guidance. Now micromanagement, is another thing and isn't good and does stiffle people. A supervisor doesn't and shouldn't have to monitor everyone's everymove. If that is the case, we are talking about the difference between those employees and the best.


Absolutely agree with your bolded statement above, but I don't think you realize that for many types of jobs, that supervision does not need to be in person.  I work in the IT industry -- started out as a software engineer, and eventually moved into team lead / program management (not people management).  I work for a large, global company, and even in our local office (about 1500 employees), my organization consisted of about 100 local and 300-400 employees spread across other sites (Texas, Ireland, Germany, India).  Teams within the organization were formed based on skill needs, not necessarily where their butts were.  For the last ~12 years, I have not had a local manager.  I had a manager in Germany, then one in Massachusetts, and currently one in Florida (I'm in Colorado).  So even though I was going into the office every day, the people I worked with on my team were not necessarily close physically.  Almost all teams were geographically dispersed.

This is very typical of large companies, not just IT companies.  So when the pandemic hit, for me and many in the same situation as me, it was not such a big deal.  Think about it -- what really changed?  All of our meetings were virtual prior, because our team was global.  We had already developed the skills to work in these globally dispersed teams, and we were very efficient.  My manager had been remotely supervising employees for years, and is an excellent manager.  Working from home involved some changes to our processes, but was not a huge disruption.  And upper-level management noticed.  In fact, our productivity *increased *after everyone started working from home -- to the point that upper management (who was measuring that) was concerned we were working _too much_, and needed to focus a little more on work/life balance as they were concerned about burn-out.  Kudos to our management team for that!

Bottom line: people can adjust and actually *thrive *when working remotely;  it is just a slightly different set of skills and tools needed, and with the collaboration tools available today, people can still be very productive.  Of course, there will always be traditional, in-person work places, but someone who has the skills to be able to work in remote teams will have many more opportunities in their career.  Remote working and dispersed teams did not just start with the pandemic -- they have been becoming more and more common place for many years.

Kurt


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 15, 2021)

Speaking of handymen-type of companies, my sister-in-law in Germantown, OH, near Dayton, is unable to get anyone to do anything for her.  She lives alone.  She calls roofers, yard maintenance people, electricians, etc., and no one ever shows up at the time they say, or they just don't call back when she leaves messages.  She needs so much done at her old house that she can no longer do herself, and now she is considering a move out of her beautiful older home to a townhouse or something newer, so she doesn't have to deal with 1/3 acre of leaves and grass and roofing that needs done.  It's amazing to me that she has been dealing with this for five years.  What is amazing is that her house probably won't sell for more than about $100,000.  Not that it is falling down or anything, but it's in a small town and that is what older houses sell for.  It's an old craftsman house, bungalow.  

Rick is such a do-it-yourselfer, and she is just so jealous that we are getting our house remodeled without relying on others.


----------



## joestein (Nov 15, 2021)

As for people quitting......

I think it is a lot more of the younger people who are quitting.   They might not have any responsibility other than themselves and can live at home.   Older workers have responsibilities and can not afford to not have steady income.

I think that most people do not want to go back to the office.  I think that older workers have been use to doing it their whole lives and will acquiesce.  However, I also think that a lot of younger people might quit before that happens.

I am very curious how it will play out at my job.    I see a little quitting, but I have heard -through the grapevine- they all had new jobs.   I have also seen some laying off of people who are not productive  or found not be working at home when we should be.    We currently go back 2 days a week.   Probably to increase after YE.

For me... I love my job (relatively  - we all have to earn a living).   I make pretty decent money and I am treated very well.  I run my group as I see fit and the hours are very 9-5ish - most accounting/reporting jobs in NYC are more like 9-7ish).   I  had a job  - around 25 yrs ago - where I was treated terribly and the thought of going in made me physically sick.  So, it makes me appreciate what I have.  

Joe


----------



## joestein (Nov 15, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Absolutely agree with your bolded statement above, but I don't think you realize that for many types of jobs, that supervision does not need to be in person.  I work in the IT industry -- started out as a software engineer, and eventually moved into team lead / program management (not people management).  I work for a large, global company, and even in our local office (about 1500 employees), my organization consisted of about 100 local and 300-400 employees spread across other sites (Texas, Ireland, Germany, India).  Teams within the organization were formed based on skill needs, not necessarily where their butts were.  For the last ~12 years, I have not had a local manager.  I had a manager in Germany, then one in Massachusetts, and currently one in Florida (I'm in Colorado).  So even though I was going into the office every day, the people I worked with on my team were not necessarily close physically.  Almost all teams were geographically dispersed.
> 
> This is very typical of large companies, not just IT companies.  So when the pandemic hit, for me and many in the same situation as me, it was not such a big deal.  Think about it -- what really changed?  All of our meetings were virtual prior, because our team was global.  We had already developed the skills to work in these globally dispersed teams, and we were very efficient.  My manager had been remotely supervising employees for years, and is an excellent manager.  Working from home involved some changes to our processes, but was not a huge disruption.  And upper-level management noticed.  In fact, our productivity *increased *after everyone started working from home -- to the point that upper management (who was measuring that) was concerned we were working _too much_, and needed to focus a little more on work/life balance as they were concerned about burn-out.  Kudos to our management team for that!
> 
> ...


I have always believe the best practice is to provide expectations and guidance for people who work under you.    I am extremely hands off in my managerial style.    I do however, layout what I expect my team to accomplish and the deadlines.  I also have an open door policy for anyone who has questions or needs help.     I don't care when my people come and go, I only care that the work is completed in timely fashion and done correctly.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 15, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> It is okay to still hire contractors if they are not considered to be performing an essential role in the business. Upworks is fine. I can hire them to do graphic design and other services for me. I can hire attorneys and accountants. None of these are performing critical functions for my business.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The IRS rules are sufficient. The problem with Calif. AB5 is it tries to fix something but fixes nothing because there are many variations of small business and only kills business and tax revenue from those businesses in the state. My company serves companies around the world. Our work is remote so we can hire anywhere outside of Calif.

"Essential" is vague. If a consulting company hires a translator to work on a project for a few hours for a client, AB5 says it must hire them because the project is in the line of the business. Stupid.


----------



## MrockStar (Nov 15, 2021)

I like the flexibility as long as people are Responsible and can handle the work with technology and are supported properly from there team/firm. Also having a dedicated quiet workspace at home can be challenge when you have two or three toddlers under 5. I hope it works out


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 15, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> People certainly find there is some money to be made doing Doordash or other gig type services, otherwise these companies wouldn't be in business. Some people can make fairly decent money doing these jobs. I think we need to understand that not everyone lives the same or wants the same lifestyle that many people here on TUG live or want. They are okay being able to make ends meet with something that gives them flexibility to work on their schedule. They aren't buying $20,000 timeshares or traveling to Hawaii or the Caribbean once or twice a year.



Agreed. Some people like driving for Uber to supplement other sources of income. My 80 year old uncle started driving for Uber a few years back to supplement his social security. He stole some clients from Uber and now has some of his own clients as well as Uber clients.


----------



## slip (Nov 15, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Absolutely agree with your bolded statement above, but I don't think you realize that for many types of jobs, that supervision does not need to be in person.
> Kurt



I find it funny you mention this. I work in Hawaii and my Director is in Houston. I have had a remote supervisor for the last 10 years. They have always traveled and visited at least once a year and he has over 15 managers. Which means more than once a month he is on the road, no travel during the early portions or the middle of the pandemic but he has been back on the road for quite some time already.

Yes, it can work but it can be difficult also. These threads were started mentioning changes due to COVID, since this type of thing has been around for decades, I didn't think it applied. There will probably be more of this but I don't think it will be a huge In flux. Just my opinion.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> The IRS rules are sufficient. The problem with Calif. AB5 is it tries to fix something but fixes nothing because there are many variations of small business and only kills business and tax revenue from those businesses in the state. My company serves companies around the world. Our work is remote so we can hire anywhere outside of Calif.
> 
> "Essential" is vague. If a consulting company hires a translator to work on a project for a few hours for a client, AB5 says it must hire them because the project is in the line of the business. Stupid.



I agree with you on AB5. It might have been started since few businesses are aware of or followiing the IRS rules. To me “essential” is clear. Fir example, if you are a doctor working for Kaiser, you must be an employee. Kaiser got in trouble for hiring doctors as contractors and had to convert them all to employees. This is just one example.

I could hire a translator as a contractor because I am not a translation company. However, I should not hire contractors to provide the main service of my business based on IRS criteria. 

I am not saying small businesses do not skirt the IRS rules and hire essential workers as contractors. I am just saying it should generally/often not be done.

Going back to doctors. Even doctors are moving to corporate positions and large group practices. The days of the small family practice is disappearing because it is not profitable. I had an old fashioned family doctor in a practice of 3 doctors. She still operated as a neighborhood doctor. However, a few years back, she starting charging a large fee just to be her client and that fee is not covered by insurance. In the letter she sent us, it said she could not survive on insurance reimbursement alone.

If doctors are having trouble running small businesses in a profitable way, even with a full caseload of hundreds of patients, it makes me wonder how many of these 10 million unemployed workers will be able to support themselves and be skilled enough to do the gig work long term.


----------



## joestein (Nov 15, 2021)

MrockStar said:


> I like the flexibility as long as people are Responsible and can handle the work with technology and are supported properly from there team/firm. Also having a dedicated quiet workspace at home can be challenge when you have two or three toddlers under 5. I hope it works out



Dedicated workspace is key.


----------



## slip (Nov 15, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> People certainly find there is some money to be made doing Doordash or other gig type services, otherwise these companies wouldn't be in business. Some people can make fairly decent money doing these jobs. I think we need to understand that not everyone lives the same or wants the same lifestyle that many people here on TUG live or want. They are okay being able to make ends meet with something that gives them flexibility to work on their schedule. They aren't buying $20,000 timeshares or traveling to Hawaii or the Caribbean once or twice a year.



Exactly,  my son is a great example of this. Out of high school he didn't know what he wanted to go to school for so he started working nights for the company I work for. By 19 he bought a house and remodeled the whole thing. He is now 32, house is paid off, owns his car and motorcycle.  Zero debt and a great nest egg in the bank. He's not married and no kids. Two years ago he decided he was tired of what he was doing so instead of quitting he went part time. He only works 3 days a week. He loves the extra time to himself. 

I would keep working full time and sock away more money and try to retire even earlier but he does what works for him. I can tell he is much happier.


----------



## dayooper (Nov 15, 2021)

slip said:


> Maybe it's just the terminology that is hanging me up but I don't see this either. Even the best people need supervision and it's not a bad thing. The best people would admit that and even encourage the guidance. Now micromanagement, is another thing and isn't good and does stiffle people. A supervisor doesn't and shouldn't have to monitor everyone's everymove. If that is the case, we are talking about the difference between those employees and the best.



Yeah, we are hung up on the terminology. I know that I'm using my wife as an example a lot, but her group was talked to about going to the bathroom more than twice a day and the women in particular were being timed and monitored. The only women's bathroom in her department was a 15 minute walk one way while there were at least 3 men's bathrooms on that route. 

I absolutely believe that supervisors are there for a reason. Good supervisors work with their people to make them better. Great supervisors allow their workers to grow and improve on their own. There are some workers that can't handle or do less than the minimum amount of work. Here's the thing, a salaried worker isn't paid by the hour, they are paid for the job they do. A manager that manages a salary workers time isn't doing the worker any good. Obviously, hourly is different, but there are ways to manage time as well.


----------



## dayooper (Nov 15, 2021)

joestein said:


> I have always believe the best practice is to provide expectations and guidance for people who work under you.    I am extremely hands off in my managerial style.    I do however, layout what I expect my team to accomplish and the deadlines.  I also have an open door policy for anyone who has questions or needs help.     I don't care when my people come and go, I only care that the work is completed in timely fashion and done correctly.



Unless the worker needs the direct supervision or remediation, this is ideal, in my opinion.


----------



## dayooper (Nov 15, 2021)

joestein said:


> Dedicated workspace is key.



That's why you are seeing co-op workspaces springing up. Great way to "rent" a workspace for a minimum amount of money. 

Here is an example of one in Flint Michigan.


----------



## Superchief (Nov 15, 2021)

geekette said:


> There's the magic question!   These days, I'd cap it at 32.   I would expect a lot of 20somethings home, even before pandemic.


I think 40 may now be the new 30 as far as what Millennials feel about living with parents. Many can't afford their own housing expenses, are either getting married later or returning home after a separation. I know several people with 'children' in their 30's living at their home, including us.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 15, 2021)

geekette said:


> ".... All it requires is creativity and initiative... "
> 
> YES.    Personally, I liked having an employer.  I don't like to find clients, I like all the admin hoo hah handled, I liked the benefits.
> 
> ...


I do think many people are finding ways to monetize hobbies. Perhaps they were even monetizing hobbies before they quit their regular job. When someone is having fun doing something, they are often willing to work for a lot less doing it. Many people start up Etsy shops to sell hand crafts or art. There is no better time in history than today to reach your target market. Of course, there is also a lot more competition out there. Extra money from a side hustle or hobby may make it easier to walk away from a low paying job, especially if there is another full time earner with benefits in the household. Even if someone is earning $15 an hour at a 25 hour a week part time job, that is only about $1,500 a month. It doesn't take much to make up that income with other gigs.


----------



## joestein (Nov 15, 2021)

Superchief said:


> I think 40 may now be the new 30 as far as what Millennials feel about living with parents. Many can't afford their own housing expenses, are either getting married later or returning home after a separation. I know several people with 'children' in their 30's living at their home, including us.



That is also because many of them are taking on the responsibilities of an adult later in life.    When I was growing up I was expected to be working and out of the house within a reasonable time.  I worked full time before I graduated and I    Today, a lot of kids put off things for travel and other entertainments, rather than get down to the business of earning money.     Maybe they are correct, maybe they are hurting themselves in the long run.   who knows?

Sometimes I think that maybe I regret not being able to sit back and enjoy myself for a few years before getting into my career.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 15, 2021)

@TravelTime "Essential" is extremely  vague in my industry. I've worked with independent women and men business owners for years who vehemently do not want to be employees. Why? Because you can sock away up to $58k in Roth toward retirement as a business owner, you can write off visiting clients, you can attend almost any conference you want and write it off as training. No one has to sign off and your time is your own. Cannot do any of that as an employee.

If businesses were not following the IRS rules, then enforce those existing laws instead of making up something new that causes real damage like AB5









						California’s AB5 Leaves Women Business Owners Reeling
					

Women are the fastest growing group of business owners in the country. Many are speaking out against California's new gig-worker law, which they say is limiting their freedom to earn a living the way they want.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## MrockStar (Nov 15, 2021)

dayooper said:


> Yeah, we are hung up on the terminology. I know that I'm using my wife as an example a lot, but her group was talked to about going to the bathroom more than twice a day and the women in particular were being timed and monitored. The only women's bathroom in her department was a 15 minute walk one way while there were at least 3 men's bathrooms on that route.
> 
> I absolutely believe that supervisors are there for a reason. Good supervisors work with their people to make them better. Great supervisors allow their workers to grow and improve on their own. There are some workers that can't handle or do less than the minimum amount of work. Here's the thing, a salaried worker isn't paid by the hour, they are paid for the job they do. A manager that manages a salary workers time isn't doing the worker any good. Obviously, hourly is different, but there are ways to manage time as well.


They could change the name "pronoun" wear pants and use the closer bathroom.. Just kidding  if course but I couldn't resist. Changing times I guess.


----------



## dayooper (Nov 15, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> I do think many people are finding ways to monetize hobbies. Perhaps they were even monetizing hobbies before they quit their regular job. When someone is having fun doing something, they are often willing to work for a lot less doing it. Many people start up Etsy shops to sell hand crafts or art. There is no better time in history than today to reach your target market. Of course, there is also a lot more competition out there. Extra money from a side hustle or hobby may make it easier to walk away from a low paying job, especially if there is another full time earner with benefits in the household. Even if someone is earning $15 an hour at a 25 hour a week part time job, that is only about $1,500 a month. It doesn't take much to make up that income with other gigs.



This is where we are lucky. I have a stable job (that I usually enjoy) that gives my family pretty good health care. My wife couldn’t do what she does without my job. She would have to have something that gives her health care.


----------



## Big Matt (Nov 15, 2021)

This is a great conversation.  I think a lot of people are going to follow Geekette's path.  My prediction is that there will be a lot of adult children who inherit money from parents estates over the next 20 years who follow the path also.  People will become more accustom to the lifestyle and hopefully we will have a larger segment of the population that are self reliant and not beholden to traditional jobs.  The challenge will be how to get folks to adapt to the lifestyle who could benefit the most (underemployed, those on public assistance, etc.).  There are a whole lot more measures of wealth than the amount of money in the bank....happiness, family, friends, health......


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Nov 15, 2021)

RX8 said:


> A head scratcher for me is the 44% who have quit because they are “ looking for more competitive wages and benefits”. Wouldn’t it make more sense to quit AFTER you find that higher paying job?



The article isn't written well in that it lets people assume that those who quit "looking for more competitive wages and benefits" means that they didn't quit for another better job - which is in fact the case.  The quit rates are increasing because more and more people are finding better paying jobs and are therefore quitting their lower paying jobs as a result.  If millions upon millions of people were actually quitting without any prospect of future employment - then the unemployment rate would be increasing significantly - but as we all see - the unemployment rate continues to fall.  We're seeing a reallocation of labor to better paying industry segments primarily.  That and a mix of people developing side hustles that produce enough income to allow workers to make different choices for their day jobs - especially when those day jobs are remote work full time.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 15, 2021)

Many companies are going hybrid too. Citibank is the latest to go permanently hybrid. This is a tectonic shift for many industries. Those who offer the best perks will garner the best employees.

Assuming pay and benefits are equal, if you had the option to work 2 days a week at home (i.e. you can live in a home in the mountains or beach 4 days a week) vs. another company that requires all day everyday in the office, which would you choose?









						Citigroup Will Adopt Hybrid Arrangements Moving Forward
					

An internal memo from Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser announced that most employees will work remotely up to two days each




					allwork.space


----------



## slip (Nov 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Many companies are going hybrid too.
> 
> Assuming pay and benefits are equal.



Two important parts of your post and both are pretty vague. I suppose we can say many aren't going hybrid also. And we really don't know if the benefits are equal over all.


----------



## amycurl (Nov 15, 2021)

> her group was talked to about going to the bathroom more than twice a day and the women in particular were being timed and monitored. The only women's bathroom in her department was a 15 minute walk one way while there were at least 3 men's bathrooms on that route.



Well, the sex discrimination lawsuit there just sort of writes itself, doesn't it?


----------



## am1 (Nov 15, 2021)

Big Matt said:


> This is a great conversation.  I think a lot of people are going to follow Geekette's path.  My prediction is that there will be a lot of adult children who inherit money from parents estates over the next 20 years who follow the path also.  People will become more accustom to the lifestyle and hopefully we will have a larger segment of the population that are self reliant and not beholden to traditional jobs.  The challenge will be how to get folks to adapt to the lifestyle who could benefit the most (underemployed, those on public assistance, etc.).  There are a whole lot more measures of wealth than the amount of money in the bank....happiness, family, friends, health......


Hopefully but a lot of people cannot/will not do that.  They are worker bees and not entrepreneurs.  Nothing wrong with it but people like be 9-5 with weekends off of part time and receive handouts.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 15, 2021)

@slip Here is a start with some very large companies (full or partial remote).  Of course there are certain functions and industries with physical goods where this will not be possible e.g. pharma labs, manufacturing/distribution.  No one is suggesting that those will go remote anytime soon.

This is a trend and IMO when one competitor in an industry changes, others will be forced to follow to attract the best employees and to reduce commercial real estate costs. Otherwise laggards will be forced to pay more to make up for this perk rendering them uncompetitive when those employee and real estate costs must be passed along to the buyer. The fact that I could instantly Google several blogs and lists on this topic indicates that this information is in demand by people seeking remote work.

*Financial Services:*
Citibank
JP Morgan Chase
Deutsche Bank
Capital One
Square
Sofi
HSBC
Brex
Coinbase

*Insurance/Brokerage/Advisory*
Nationwide Insurance
State Farm
Lincoln Financial Group
Synchrony

*Biotech*
Novartis
Amgen

*Electronics/Telecom/Computing*
Siemens
Verizon
Fujitsu
Hitachi
Apple
Cisco

*Automotive / Engines*
Stellantis (Fiat Chrysler)
Pratt & Whitney

*Management Consulting*
Deloitte
PWC

*Food Industry*
Coca Cola India
Instacart

*Software, Internet and Cloud Services*
Microsoft
Salesforce.com
Alphabet (Google)
Dropbox
Reddit
LinkedIn
Indeed
Pinterest
Zillow
Twitter
Facebook
Box
Shopify
Upwork
Slack
VMWare
Basecamp
Atlassian
Hubspot
Splunk
Snowflake
Okta
GoDaddy

*Distribution/Transportation*
U.S. Xpress
British Airways

*Business Services*
RBG Enterprises

*Retail*
REI
Amazon

*Government*
U.S. Air Force
US, Navy









						Every Company Going Remote Permanently
					

Here are all the companies who have plans to work from home permanently. You'll also find fully remote jobs for each company, too.




					buildremote.co
				




100+ Fully Remote Companies in 2021








						100+ Fully Remote Companies in 2022 with Top Work From Home Jobs
					

100+ fully remote companies don’t just allow you to work from home, but do it better than anyone else. Find out who is hiring in 2022 here.




					blog.remotive.io


----------



## slip (Nov 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> @slip Since you thought my last post was vague. Here is a start with some very large companies (full or partial remote).  Of course there are certain functions and industries with physical goods where this will not be possible e.g. pharma labs, manufacturing/distribution.  No one is suggesting that those will go remote anytime soon.
> 
> This is a trend and IMO when one competitor in an industry changes, others will be forced to follow to attract the best employees and to reduce commercial real estate costs. Otherwise laggards will be forced to pay more to make up for this perk rendering them uncompetitive when those employee and real estate costs must be passed along to the buyer. The fact that I could Google several blogs and lists on this topic instantly indicates that this information is in demand by people seeking remote work.
> 
> ...



That is definitely more specific so with this you can see why I made my comment. Many of these companies were making this change before the pandemic which was another point. 

The comment on getting the best people assumes all the best people want to work like that. There have been many posts already that shows that, that may not be true. 

I don't discount that there are many work from home options and there maybe more in the future. I am just not sold that it's a long lasting trend. But hey, I could be wrong.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 15, 2021)

@slip You may be right. Time will tell. The other shoe that hasn't dropped yet...is when corps downwardly adjust salaries commensurate with the location where the employee lives/works remotely.  Some have done this, some have not. So an employee that moves from expensive Silicon Valley to a low cost remote location will not get to keep that Silicon Valley salary. It will be indexed to the region or location.  Some people who moved away may find themselves stuck and unable to move back.


----------



## slip (Nov 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> @slip You may be right. Time will tell. The other shoe that hasn't dropped yet...is when corps downwardly adjust salaries commensurate with the location where employee lives/works remotely.  Some have done this, some have not. So an employee that moves from expensive Silicon Valley to a low cost remote location will not get to keep that Silicon Valley salary. It will be indexed to the region or location.  Some people who moved away may find themselves stuck and unable to move back.



Yes, a point I was going to mention. Also, if productivity has increased that much with wfh, you know what that means, you be expected to do more. Things are constantly changing.


----------



## presley (Nov 15, 2021)

I think people get used to going to jobs that they don't like. It's a daily grind, but it's a routine. Many of these jobs have managers above them who are not sympathetic and they have rude customers in their faces. After being away from that for a year, I think people have found that the didn't want to put up with the crap anymore. There's so much funding for various things right now. I am not sure how people are making it without working. One of my daughters was on partial unemployment for a large part of the Covid supplemental and with the supplemental, she made enough extra that she was able to save and budget for several months beyond the expiration of the supplement. She's a student now and plans to take out student loans to live on rather than take a low paying job with bad hours.

My friend manages a grocery store. She said for several months now, about 80% of her time is spent on the hiring process. It used to be 10% of her time. She has the thing where people either don't show up for the first day or they leave after working a couple hours. It's too bad that the job can't be more "fun." I don't know what's pushing everyone out of those grocery jobs. I think it's probably grumpy/needy customers, but who knows. Maybe people are too out of shape from sitting for a year to stand all day. Employers really need to figure out how to make these jobs more interesting and fun. If someone can just drive Uber whenever they feel like and go surfing whenever the waves are right, why on earth would they commit to working all holidays, weekends and long hours with fussy customers and bosses who are miserable?


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 15, 2021)

presley said:


> I think people get used to going to jobs that they don't like. It's a daily grind, but it's a routine. Many of these jobs have managers above them who are not sympathetic and they have rude customers in their faces. After being away from that for a year, I think people have found that the didn't want to put up with the crap anymore. There's so much funding for various things right now. I am not sure how people are making it without working. One of my daughters was on partial unemployment for a large part of the Covid supplemental and with the supplemental, she made enough extra that she was able to save and budget for several months beyond the expiration of the supplement. She's a student now and plans to take out student loans to live on rather than take a low paying job with bad hours.
> 
> My friend manages a grocery store. She said for several months now, about 80% of her time is spent on the hiring process. It used to be 10% of her time. She has the thing where people either don't show up for the first day or they leave after working a couple hours. It's too bad that the job can't be more "fun." I don't know what's pushing everyone out of those grocery jobs. I think it's probably grumpy/needy customers, but who knows. Maybe people are too out of shape from sitting for a year to stand all day. Employers really need to figure out how to make these jobs more interesting and fun. If someone can just drive Uber whenever they feel like and go surfing whenever the waves are right, why on earth would they commit to working all holidays, weekends and long hours with fussy customers and bosses who are miserable?



I agree that Covid caused people to reflect on their lives - and many didn't like what they saw when it came to their work.

re: grocery stores. I don't know if it is Covid weariness, or  a sense of entitlement caused by harsh political rhetoric and lack of respect by leaders on TV, but people treat customer service workers very poorly. Perhaps this is like getting yelled at by your boss and going home to kick to the dog.  In this case it is the customer-facing staff who gets kicked. (I am also sickened by these idiots who assault flight attendants who are simply trying to do their job.)

These jobs have become dangerous. Who wants to lose their teeth over a minimum wage job?


----------



## MrockStar (Nov 15, 2021)

I guess I don't see some of these insensitive /rude behaviors because I don't go into stores hardly ever. I use curbside delivery or . But when the store clerk puts the groceries in the trunk I always smile and thanks them for there service. As a front line employee I really appreciate what they do to keep America moving.


----------



## slip (Nov 15, 2021)

MrockStar said:


> I guess I don't see some of these insensitive /rude behaviors because I don't go into stores hardly ever. I use curbside delivery or . But when the store clerk puts the groceries in the trunk I always smile and thanks them for there service. As a front line employee I really appreciate what they do to keep America moving.



I go shopping every week and I don't see the insensitive and rude behaviors either. Many years ago I worked In a grocery store and they were very rare. I still think they are but we know the bad stuff always gets heard the most.


----------



## MrockStar (Nov 15, 2021)

Right, Slip. Maybe maholo rules there in Hawaii.


----------



## slip (Nov 15, 2021)

MrockStar said:


> Right, Slip. Maybe maholo rules there in Hawaii.



Maybe, but never saw it in Wisconsin either.


----------



## MrockStar (Nov 15, 2021)

slip said:


> Maybe, but never saw it in Wisconsin either.


That's because you Midwesterners like here in Michigan are mostly a warm and welcoming bunch of people.


----------



## slip (Nov 15, 2021)

MrockStar said:


> That's because you Midwesterners like here in Michigan are mostly a warm and welcoming bunch of people.



There is definitely something to that statement.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 15, 2021)

My DS works in a grocery store part time in Idaho. He works there to help pay for college and is just doing his job. He sometimes must stand at the door and hand out masks. He has been called every name in the book. He was told that because he was wearing a mask "the devil is inside of him" "that vaccines will change his DNA."  He sees people frequently and openly carrying guns into the store on their belts. Some of the gun bearers have made comments too. Fortunately he is a big guy and a laid-back sweetheart so no one has messed with him yet. He has been called names in the parking lot too.


----------



## MrockStar (Nov 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> My DS works in a grocery store part time in Idaho. He works there to help pay for college and is just doing his job. He sometimes must stand at the door and hand out masks. He has been called every name in the book. He was told that because he was wearing a mask "the devil is inside of him" "that vaccines will change his DNA."  He sees people frequently and openly carrying guns into the store on their belts. Fortunately he is a big guy and a laid back sweetheart so no one has messed with him yet. He has been called names in the parking lot too.


Iam not much of a fan of masks, however I do/will wear one when required and would never disrespect someone who offered one. That is just wrong. They should rotate that job to give him a break.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 15, 2021)

Thanks @MrockStar He is rotated and there are good customers too and that's why he stays for now.


----------



## slip (Nov 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> My DS works in a grocery store part time in Idaho. He works there to help pay for college and is just doing his job. He sometimes must stand at the door and hand out masks. He has been called every name in the book. He was told that because he was wearing a mask "the devil is inside of him" "that vaccines will change his DNA."  He sees people frequently and openly carrying guns into the store on their belts. Fortunately he is a big guy and a laid back sweetheart so no one has messed with him yet. He has been called names in the parking lot too.



Not saying it doesn't happen. I don't see where open carry applies to the point though. That's common where I used to live.  Don't think that being a big guy means anything either. There are aways people that want to try to prove themselves. There's plenty of stupid out there.


----------



## joestein (Nov 15, 2021)

Big Matt said:


> This is a great conversation.  I think a lot of people are going to follow Geekette's path.  My prediction is that there will be a lot of adult children who inherit money from parents estates over the next 20 years who follow the path also.  People will become more accustom to the lifestyle and hopefully we will have a larger segment of the population that are self reliant and not beholden to traditional jobs.  The challenge will be how to get folks to adapt to the lifestyle who could benefit the most (underemployed, those on public assistance, etc.).  There are a whole lot more measures of wealth than the amount of money in the bank....happiness, family, friends, health......



Statistically,  most wealth disappears with the following generation.   If you look at families who moved up the food chain, more often than not, the next generation slides back down.    I read a book called Coming Apart by Charles Murray where he studies class in America statistically over a 50 year period.   He discusses this among other things in the book.


----------



## joestein (Nov 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> My DS works in a grocery store part time in Idaho. He works there to help pay for college and is just doing his job. He sometimes must stand at the door and hand out masks. He has been called every name in the book. He was told that because he was wearing a mask "the devil is inside of him" "that vaccines will change his DNA."  He sees people frequently and openly carrying guns into the store on their belts. Some of the gun bearers have made comments too. Fortunately he is a big guy and a laid-back sweetheart so no one has messed with him yet. He has been called names in the parking lot too.


I have never understood why people must insult other people just doing their job.   If they don't want to wear a mask, shop elsewhere.    

Many places say 'please wear a mask' which really means your choice - most customers dont wear them.

However, some say ' you MUST wear a mask', which means you must wear a mask or don't go in (which I will also do sometimes).

Joe


----------



## Tia (Nov 15, 2021)

Drs where I'm at are now mostly all employees of one of the local hospitals, it's the government compliance I believe that made it impossible . Our anesthesiologists were not yet as of this May employees.  I understand reimbursement by Medicare/caide is just 30% of the bill. A friends spouse used to manage a practice, he told the doctors they couldn't afford to have more then a certain % of Medicaid pts as reimbursement was so low, same person now works for United Health Care and does the doctors contracts for the insurance company. 

We are not going to know what is really happening because employers are not going to admit a thing imho. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too.  It took my former employer 5 months to let a newly hired bad manager go, he was a single person wrecking ball to a former well staffed unit. Top management was told after a month in what was going on or not going on.  The next fix to the ailing staffing is pushing more work onto the short staffed unit, they got another resignation. Job postings now show top $/hr rate is DOWN $5/hr , but they added a 10K sign on bonus. So new hires will be paying for their own bonus looks like to me. Just nuts





TravelTime said:


> ......................... clip
> 
> Going back to doctors. Even doctors are moving to corporate positions and large group practices. The days of the small family practice is disappearing because it is not profitable. I had an old fashioned family doctor in a practice of 3 doctors. She still operated as a neighborhood doctor. However, a few years back, she starting charging a large fee just to be her client and that fee is not covered by insurance. In the letter she sent us, it said she could not survive on insurance reimbursement alone.
> 
> If doctors are having trouble running small businesses in a profitable way, even with a full caseload of hundreds of patients, it makes me wonder how many of these 10 million unemployed workers will be able to support themselves and be skilled enough to do the gig work long term.


----------



## controller1 (Nov 15, 2021)

slip said:


> Exactly,  my son is a great example of this. Out of high school he didn't know what he wanted to go to school for so he started working nights for the company I work for. By 19 he bought a house and remodeled the whole thing. He is now 32, house is paid off, owns his car and motorcycle.  Zero debt and a great nest egg in the bank. He's not married and no kids. Two years ago he decided he was tired of what he was doing so instead of quitting he went part time. He only works 3 days a week. He loves the extra time to himself.
> 
> I would keep working full time and sock away more money and try to retire even earlier but he does what works for him. I can tell he is much happier.



Boy this reminds me of my experience.

About 12 years ago my youngest son dropped out of college. He meddled in different things for a couple of years and then ten years ago he decided he wanted to move to NYC. After being there a year I was pretty sure he was still only working four days a week so I asked him about it. His response: "I'm only working four days a week but I make enough to pay rent and all my bills and still place some in savings so why would I want to work more?"

I smiled but thinking to myself how different he was from his father. I would have worked the extra day and socked more away but that wasn't important to him.

He still lives in NYC and still only works four days a week and has an IRA and more in savings than I did at his age.


----------



## slip (Nov 15, 2021)

controller1 said:


> Boy this reminds me of my experience.
> 
> About 12 years ago my youngest son dropped out of college. He meddled in different things for a couple of years and then ten years ago he decided he wanted to move to NYC. After being there a year I was pretty sure he was still only working four days a week so I asked him about it. His response: "I'm only working four days a week but I make enough to pay rent and all my bills and still place some in savings so why would I want to work more?"
> 
> ...



Yes, I left that part out also. He has much more in his 401k and the bank than I did even years later. Definitely different thinking of a different generation. With neither being right or wrong.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 15, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> @TravelTime "Essential" is extremely  vague in my industry. I've worked with independent women and men business owners for years who vehemently do not want to be employees. Why? Because you can sock away up to $58k in Roth toward retirement as a business owner, you can write off visiting clients, you can attend almost any conference you want and write it off as training. No one has to sign off and your time is your own. Cannot do any of that as an employee.
> 
> If businesses were not following the IRS rules, then enforce those existing laws instead of making up something new that causes real damage like AB5
> 
> ...



If they really are operating legally as their own business, paying all required taxes (including estimated quarterly taxes and their own payroll taxes) and the company has made sure they are not misclassifying a contractor that should really be an employee, then there is no problem. I am not referring to these types of cases.

Another thing about contractors that is misleading…they think they are getting paid more because their hourly rate is higher than as an employee. But they often do not usually realize they get no benefits, they must pay all their own expenses and the company is not paying their taxes.

When I used to work in the corporate world, companies only used contractors for a limited period of time as one way to avoid misclassification. Almost every contractor actually wanted to convert to employee status. They realized they were actually making less in the end and they also did not like the instability of being a contractor. So my experience is totally different than yours.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 16, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> If they really are operating legally as their own business, paying all required taxes (including estimated quarterly taxes and their own payroll taxes) and the company has made sure they are not misclassifying a contractor that should really be an employee, then there is no problem. I am not referring to these types of cases.


No big deal if you use a payroll system like Intuit, gusto, or surepayroll or hire a bookkeeper.

In our industry most people are experienced, sophisicated independent business owners scoping as projects instead of by hour and may have multiple independents on the project. Akin to Hollywood coming together with specific subject matter expertise to "make a movie" then disband until next project. If they are charging by hour they are billing 3x - 15x than what they would earn as an employee (but most do not bill by hour to avoid reclassification.) As an analog, movie stars make a lot more independently than they made working for the studios. This industry is similar. This is a risk premium for having to find gigs and supply their own benefits. Think of this as a large loose co-op, where the group shares best practices, industry trend survey's and many people have worked together off and on for years but each owns their own business and negotiates their pay per project. They made their "declaration of independence" as employees in the corp world years ago.

I do see many who struggle with this work because they cannot sell their project services but work on the projects. They end up earning less and rely on those who can sell to secure their next gig.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 16, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> My DS works in a grocery store part time in Idaho. He works there to help pay for college and is just doing his job. He sometimes must stand at the door and hand out masks. *He has been called every name in the book*. He was told that because he was wearing a mask "the devil is inside of him" "that vaccines will change his DNA."  He sees people frequently and openly carrying guns into the store on their belts. Some of the gun bearers have made comments too. Fortunately he is a big guy and a laid-back sweetheart so no one has messed with him yet. He has been called names in the parking lot too.


Big deal.  Nothing new here.  After High School a buddy of mine joined the Army.  This was in the 50s.  He was sent to Little Rock when they integrated the schools.  He had to stand there and not react while being spit on in the face...

George


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 16, 2021)

@bogey21 Perhaps I am overlooking something but I am failing to see the common thread between working in the Army providing security on a contentious issue in which you get prosecuted for AWOL if you quit, compared to working in a neighborhood grocery store for $7.50/hour min wage where you can ghost your job at any time with minimal repercussions.


----------



## elaine (Nov 16, 2021)

slip said:


> I don't see the insensitive and rude behaviors either.... I still think they are but we know the bad stuff always gets heard the most.


that's what I thought, but I think it has become this:


CalGalTraveler said:


> but people treat customer service workers very poorly.


On a recent trip with lots of fast food stops, I said "thank you for working so that the dining room could be open" as many places were closed due to lack of staff. The worker replied back, "thanks, we got reamed out this morning when we didn't get food quickly--it was just me and my manager who showed up to work." At another place, the manager kept profusely apologizing for delayed food (5-10 minutes), as if she expected me to start loudly complaining. I told her we appreciated the dining room being open and would happily wait a bit. And, flight attendants getting injured by passengers on flights?

For why people are quitting--DD works in customer service at a car dealer and online college PT finishing her degree. It used to be a job she loved. The attitude is also coming from managers (maybe due to pressure from above to "make their numbers")? She's ready to take that job and shove it also--but is staying to have a longer work history for her resume. If not, she'd be out the door.


----------



## Tia (Nov 16, 2021)

Disrespect for a stranger doing their job for no decent reason is the common thread to my thinking. 



CalGalTraveler said:


> @bogey21 Perhaps I am overlooking something but I am failing to see the common thread between working in the Army providing security on a contentious issue in which you get prosecuted for AWOL if you quit, compared to working in a neighborhood grocery store for $7.50/hour min wage where you can ghost your job at any time with minimal repercussions.


----------



## am1 (Nov 16, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> @bogey21 Perhaps I am overlooking something but I am failing to see the common thread between working in the Army providing security on a contentious issue in which you get prosecuted for AWOL if you quit, compared to working in a neighborhood grocery store for $7.50/hour min wage where you can ghost your job at any time with minimal repercussions.



Neither should be allowed.  Any spitting in the face of someone should be charged or beatdown. Simple as that.  Supermarket workers should be afford the same protect but yes can easily vote with their feet.


----------



## elaine (Nov 16, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> where you can ghost your job at any time with minimal repercussions.


now, typically, prior employers now only give dates of employment--and no other comments (likely for fear of reprisals). Even the worst employee at my husbands work only got dates of employment unless they had done something dangerous on the job.


----------



## Tia (Nov 16, 2021)

Recently I saw a video clip where a lady tossed a open cup of soup in a workers face. In the news awhile back there was only 1 person who showed up to work at a 5 Guys burger place in Minn https://www.kaaltv.com/rochester-mi...uys-worker-praised-for-his-hard-work/6230362/



elaine said:


> that's what I thought, but I think it has become this:
> 
> On a recent trip with lots of fast food stops, I said "thank you for working so that the dining room could be open" as many places were closed due to lack of staff. The worker replied back, "thanks, we got reamed out this morning when we didn't get food quickly--it was just me and my manager who showed up to work." At another place, the manager kept profusely apologizing for delayed food (5-10 minutes), as if she expected me to start loudly complaining. I told her we appreciated the dining room being open and would happily wait a bit. And, when did we ever hear about flight attendants getting injured by passengers on flights?


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 16, 2021)

Tia said:


> Disrespect for a stranger doing their job for no decent reason is the common thread to my thinking.



Okay that makes sense. I agree with that line of thinking.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 16, 2021)

elaine said:


> now, typically, prior employers now only give dates of employment--and no other comments (likely for fear of reprisals). Even the worst employee at my husbands work only got dates of employment unless they had done something dangerous on the job.


Yup. Worked for several years in management and we were not allowed to write letter of referrals or act as a reference for any current or former employee. The only repercussion to ghosting your job is you are no longer working there, something that was apparently the goal when they ghosted.


----------



## geekette (Nov 16, 2021)

dayooper said:


> Yeah, we are hung up on the terminology. I know that I'm using my wife as an example a lot, but her group was talked to about going to the bathroom more than twice a day and the women in particular were being timed and monitored. The only women's bathroom in her department was a 15 minute walk one way while there were at least 3 men's bathrooms on that route.
> 
> I absolutely believe that supervisors are there for a reason. Good supervisors work with their people to make them better. Great supervisors allow their workers to grow and improve on their own. There are some workers that can't handle or do less than the minimum amount of work. Here's the thing, a salaried worker isn't paid by the hour, they are paid for the job they do. A manager that manages a salary workers time isn't doing the worker any good. Obviously, hourly is different, but there are ways to manage time as well.


Monitoring and timing bathroom use is severely problematic.   I'm not willing to have my boss hold me accountable to bodily functions.   Talk to me about it in the hallway and I'll make a loud scene about tampons and doing number 2 and things they don't want to hear.   Sorry, loo time is Private.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 16, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> @bogey21 Perhaps I am overlooking something but I am failing to see the common thread between working in the Army providing security on a contentious issue in which you get prosecuted for AWOL if you quit, compared to working in a neighborhood grocery store for $7.50/hour min wage where you can ghost your job at any time with minimal repercussions.


The point is that employee abuse by some in  the public is not a new phenomenon...

George


----------



## geekette (Nov 16, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> I do think many people are finding ways to monetize hobbies. Perhaps they were even monetizing hobbies before they quit their regular job. When someone is having fun doing something, they are often willing to work for a lot less doing it. Many people start up Etsy shops to sell hand crafts or art. There is no better time in history than today to reach your target market. Of course, there is also a lot more competition out there. Extra money from a side hustle or hobby may make it easier to walk away from a low paying job, especially if there is another full time earner with benefits in the household. Even if someone is earning $15 an hour at a 25 hour a week part time job, that is only about $1,500 a month. It doesn't take much to make up that income with other gigs.


While I like Etsy, and it definitely plays a big role for many home crafters, their fees and exclusivity clause make them a no-go for me.  I do one of a kind items, but it might be great for someone doing volume of same product.   Soaps, for example.  You don't have just one bar of apricot mint, you have hundreds.  Plus the lavender citrus, the oatmeal scrub bar, etc.   I do recommend it for volume workers as it can save a lot of admin time.   

I personally do not want anything to do with tire kickers nor shipping/returns.  I will get my stuff to an audience where they can see it, feel it, try it on, try it out, ask me anything.  Walk with it or not.   I learned from timeshare rentals that the QA portion can be very time consuming yet not net a rental from that prospect.   I want my time spent on the making with periodic pack it up and lay it out fun fests.   I know the shows will not be productive time for making (although any maker demonstrating the making gains more sticky visitors), but the break in the work, plus talking with people, will be a nice change of pace for me, profitable or not.

I do think many used pandemic time to pick up hobbies and had plenty of time to like or not, decide to monetize or not.   Depending on how much $ one needs that hobby to provide, it can stay fun or could ruin what had been fun.


----------



## geekette (Nov 16, 2021)

joestein said:


> Sometimes I think that maybe I regret not being able to sit back and enjoy myself for a few years before getting into my career.


I don't.  Had I not started working W2 by 15, I would not have completed by SS record as early as I did.   After that, every new year of good salary replaces teen junk salary.

It is because I started young and did not let up (I was full time in high school and college) that I am able to say No More.   

We had to Do Something.  Work, Club, Sport, Something.  There was not ever to be come home from school and hang out.    One thing I know I missed out on was going to a friend's house to listen to new albums.  Apparently people did that, but I wasn't part of it.  I was at work.


----------



## geekette (Nov 16, 2021)

"....There are a whole lot more measures of wealth than the amount of money in the bank....happiness, family, friends, health...... "

needed its own post.  I so very much agree.  I am rich in ways that have nothing to do with money.


----------



## joestein (Nov 16, 2021)

geekette said:


> I don't.  Had I not started working W2 by 15, I would not have completed by SS record as early as I did.   After that, every new year of good salary replaces teen junk salary.
> 
> It is because I started young and did not let up (I was full time in high school and college) that I am able to say No More.
> 
> We had to Do Something.  Work, Club, Sport, Something.  There was not ever to be come home from school and hang out.    One thing I know I missed out on was going to a friend's house to listen to new albums.  Apparently people did that, but I wasn't part of it.  I was at work.



I am pretty sure that SS takes your 30 or 35 highest years of salary.   I dont think it is the last 30/ 35 years.


----------



## geist1223 (Nov 16, 2021)

elaine said:


> now, typically, prior employers now only give dates of employment--and no other comments (likely for fear of reprisals). Even the worst employee at my husbands work only got dates of employment unless they had done something dangerous on the job.



I use to give glowing recommendations when I wanted an employee to be hired by another Company or Division.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 16, 2021)

geist1223 said:


> I use to give glowing recommendations when I wanted an employee to be hired by another Company or Division.


I probably ended up with a few of them...


----------



## slip (Nov 16, 2021)

joestein said:


> I am pretty sure that SS takes your 30 or 35 highest years of salary.   I dont think it is the last 30/ 35 years.



I think that is what she is saying and her early years were only very small earnings so they drop off and are replaced by higher earnings in later years.

But it also goes back to what you said about taking time off in the beginning. If you do the math on those early years at 15 and replace them with a zero. It doesn't make much difference with your Social Security. Working early may say something about your work ethic but really doesn't make much difference on your Social Security pay out.


----------



## am1 (Nov 16, 2021)

slip said:


> I think that is what she is saying and her early years were only very small earnings so they drop off and are replaced by higher earnings in later years.
> 
> But it also goes back to what you said about taking time off in the beginning. If you do the math on those early years at 15 and replace them with a zero. It doesn't make much difference with your Social Security. Working early may say something about your work ethic but really doesn't make much difference on your Social Security pay out.


Which is what makes it a fraud.  Think about all that compounding not being accounted for?  That’s why I decided early on to opt out of it.


----------



## slip (Nov 16, 2021)

am1 said:


> Which is what makes it a fraud.  Think about all that compounding not being accounted for?  That’s why I decided early on to opt out of it.



Each person does not have their own account where the money is saved and compounded. That's not the way It works. Obviously you don't agree with the way Social Security is run and that's fine. Like you said your not a participant.


----------



## geist1223 (Nov 16, 2021)

I also think The Federal Government borrows from the SS fund.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 16, 2021)

geist1223 said:


> I also think The Federal Government borrows from the SS fund.


Yes, Social Security has lent much of the money in its trust fund to the Treasury over the years. Now comes time of reckoning, they are probably going to have to start cashing in those US Treasury securities to pay out current benefits. It seems for a while, all of the money coming in from payroll taxes are being paid out in benefits. There have also been shortfalls that have been able to be covered by the interest earned on those US Treasuries. They lend new money coming in to the fund to the US Treasury and cash in older bonds that are maturing. The biggest problem is that Social Security invested its trust fund dollars into US Securities that pay about 2.5% instead of looking at investing at least some of its money into other higher yield investments.


----------



## joestein (Nov 16, 2021)

slip said:


> I think that is what she is saying and her early years were only very small earnings so they drop off and are replaced by higher earnings in later years.
> 
> But it also goes back to what you said about taking time off in the beginning. If you do the math on those early years at 15 and replace them with a zero. It doesn't make much difference with your Social Security. Working early may say something about your work ethic but really doesn't make much difference on your Social Security pay out.



Agree with first line - but as long she worked at least 35 years as an adult, she would not have to worry about her teen earnings.


----------



## slip (Nov 16, 2021)

joestein said:


> Agree with first line - but as long she worked at least 35 years as an adult, she would not have to worry about her teen earnings.



I think that was her point, she didn't have those adult years but she worked early to get the 35 years. That's why I brought up there really isn't much difference with low income years.  She can chime in to clarify.


----------



## am1 (Nov 16, 2021)

slip said:


> Each person does not have their own account where the money is saved and compounded. That's not the way It works. Obviously you don't agree with the way Social Security is run and that's fine. Like you said your not a participant.



Right but earlier payments should be weighted heavier. Also none of your best so many years.  Get credit for everything paid in.  Phase out spousal benefit as well or phase in spouses can split what they pay in each year.


----------



## slip (Nov 16, 2021)

am1 said:


> Right but earlier payments should be weighted heavier. Also none of your best so many years.  Get credit for everything paid in.  Phase out spousal benefit as well or phase in spouses can split what they pay in each year.



Sounds like you don't agree with the way Social Security is run. I thought I mentioned that.


----------



## am1 (Nov 16, 2021)

slip said:


> Sounds like you don't agree with the way Social Security is run. I thought I mentioned that.


ok you can keep mentioning it and will still take the opportunity to expose all the holes it has but since its run by the government it is legal.


----------



## slip (Nov 16, 2021)

am1 said:


> ok you can keep mentioning it and will still take the opportunity to expose all the holes it has but since its run by the government it is legal.



Sure, and your posts here on TUG will change all that.


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 16, 2021)

am1 said:


> ok you can keep mentioning it and will still take the opportunity to expose all the holes it has but since its run by the government it is legal.


Your comments against SS assume it was supposed to be a individual savings program.  It is not, and never was.  It was and is meant to be a program to provide a base level of security for people after reaching retirement age.  Generally, the more you pay in, the more you will get out, but that is not a linear mapping and it was not _designed _to be linear.  As with many tax programs in the US, it is a progressive tax such that higher-income earners pay a larger share than lower-income earners.  Again, how it was _designed_. 

You seem to think that you are so clever in exposing the "holes", yet you don't seem to realize or acknowledge those "holes" were planned from the beginning.  Is the system perfect? Of course not.  But it does a decent job for what the program was _designed _to do in the first place.  If you have a problem with that, you can work with your elected representatives to change the program.  Oh wait -- you don't participate in SS and don't even live in the US.  Are you even a citizen?  Not sure why you are so concerned about a system that doesn't even pertain to you.

Kurt


----------



## geekette (Nov 16, 2021)

joestein said:


> I am pretty sure that SS takes your 30 or 35 highest years of salary.   I dont think it is the last 30/ 35 years.


Correct.  My point is that I had 35 in "early".  Once your 35 slots are filled, they are non-zero numbers falling off the average as higher earnings appear.   Or lower, like now I'm doing semiretirement vs corp slog.  Until those 35 years are in, 0s are used in the average wages calcs.   It doesn't matter which year has high or low earnings, it is the highest 35 used to calc your benefit.   

My advice is to not take SS retirement check with 0s on your record.   Even part time min wage is better than a 0.   Of course, one could collect and continue to work, which also helps up the benefit, even though to some it seems punitive to work while collecting the benefit.   Taking time off to raise children can affect the record but same Any Earnings Count applies.   Get something in each year before it closes.  

Everyone of every age should look at their SS record at least annually, imo.   Granted, I began investing young as I didn't think SS would be there for me, plus graduating at recession put me behind 8 ball fast.    I suggest everyone start saving and investing as young as possible, treating SS as a nice subsidy, if it exists.   Folks that go the gig route can get hammered on FICA/SS contribution, paying both employer and employee side.


----------



## am1 (Nov 16, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Your comments against SS assume it was supposed to be a individual savings program.  It is not, and never was.  It was and is meant to be a program to provide a base level of security for people after reaching retirement age.  Generally, the more you pay in, the more you will get out, but that is not a linear mapping and it was not _designed _to be linear.  As with many tax programs in the US, it is a progressive tax such that higher-income earners pay a larger share than lower-income earners.  Again, how it was _designed_.
> 
> You seem to think that you are so clever in exposing the "holes", yet you don't seem to realize or acknowledge those "holes" were planned from the beginning.  Is the system perfect? Of course not.  But it does a decent job for what the program was _designed _to do in the first place.  If you have a problem with that, you can work with your elected representatives to change the program.  Oh wait -- you don't participate in SS and don't even live in the US.  Are you even a citizen?  Not sure why you are so concerned about a system that doesn't even pertain to you.
> 
> Kurt



All fair points but its a worldwide issue.   Someone (most likely born in said country) young pays in to the system and someone old (more likely spent earlier years living in another country then the young person) to pay in the same amount of years at same amount yet both receive the same payouts in the end?  Is that fair, not even is it fair but is that how people should be encouraged?  Does not even matter where people are born but people who are young and paying in are subsidizing people that are start later and paying in.  Then the whole thing about young people paying in are less likely to collect because of death.  Are payments made adjusted for inflation or just a percentage of the max payment allowed that year?

Just because something was created a certain way does not make it right.  Apply a value that includes time value of money at some rate as well as higher chance of death. Then cut off double dipping spouses and I would think it would be a better system.

But your right all I can do after paying into to two systems when young is start to pay in again when I am 55-60 or so and play it to my advantage or offset my current disadvantage.  If its still solvent by then.


----------



## geekette (Nov 16, 2021)

joestein said:


> Agree with first line - but as long she worked at least 35 years as an adult, she would not have to worry about her teen earnings.


Not worried at all!

HAPPY that having my 35 in at age 50 gives me options, and numbers I can plan around because the benefit has a defined floor.   Getting into "offset territory" is a glorious thing.   

In any given year of the 35 included in  benefit calculation, would you rather have averaged in earnings of 0, 10k or 100k?   First, stomp out the 0s by age 50 (work 35 years, ages 15-50).  Then, stomp out the 10k years...   (min wage was 3.35 when I started W2 in 1980ish)...    As a person makes higher earnings, it increases their average earnings,  and benefit.  Doesn't necessarily move the needle a lot, year by year, but it does impact it.  

It's just math.   Work however many years you want.   I don't want to work until I'm 70.  So I'm not.


----------



## geekette (Nov 16, 2021)

slip said:


> I think that was her point, she didn't have those adult years but she worked early to get the 35 years. That's why I brought up there really isn't much difference with low income years.  She can chime in to clarify.


There actually is a bit of difference with low income years.   They are indexed to inflation, allegedly, but it still makes a difference as to min wage work back then vs professional wages later.  I don't think the crap jobs, indexed, catch up to my last 20 years of work.   But at least they are not 0s being indexed, is my point.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 16, 2021)

am1 said:


> All fair points but its a worldwide issue.   Someone (most likely born in said country) young pays in to the system and someone old (more likely spent earlier years living in another country then the young person) to pay in the same amount of years at same amount yet both receive the same payouts in the end?  Is that fair, not even is it fair but is that how people should be encouraged?  Does not even matter where people are born but people who are young and paying in are subsidizing people that are start later and paying in.  Then the whole thing about young people paying in are less likely to collect because of death.  Are payments made adjusted for inflation or just a percentage of the max payment allowed that year?
> 
> Just because something was created a certain way does not make it right.  Apply a value that includes time value of money at some rate as well as higher chance of death. Then cut off double dipping spouses and I would think it would be a better system.
> 
> But your right all I can do after paying into to two systems when young is start to pay in again when I am 55-60 or so and play it to my advantage or offset my current disadvantage.  If its still solvent by then.



I am not following what you are saying. How would someone starting later in the system benefit? You need 35 years of work and it only reflects the years you made money in the system. I would surmise that there are not significant workers who would enter the country and join as you indicate and qualify.  Heck almost half of American's don't have a passport and a larger percentage have never left their state. 

What do you mean by double-dipping spouses?


----------



## am1 (Nov 16, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> I am not following what you are saying. How would someone starting later in the system benefit? You need 35 years of work and it only reflects the years you made money in the system. I would surmise that there are not significant workers who would enter the country and join as you indicate and qualify.  Heck almost half of American's don't have a passport and a larger percentage have never left their state.
> 
> What do you mean by double-dipping spouses?


If one pays in 5 years in their early 20’s and one pays in 5 years in their 60s (equal payments based on inflation) who receives more money?  Think an American pays in 5 years and opts out and an immigrant comes at 60 and works 5 years.  Just an easy example.  Could also be American starts work at 60 but that is less likely then an immigrant  starting to work at 60 and for the first time pay into the system. 

you do realize someone paying in to the system in their 20s is more likely not to collect ( death) then someone paying in to the system in their 60s? Nothing reflects that risk. 

Also why only 35 best years.  Seems low wage workers start earlier and end later then higher wage workers.  Why penalize someone working minimum wage from 17-70?

Any spousal benefit should come directly from  the working spouses and not created out of thin air.  Seems discriminatory to people for whatever reason who do not have a spouse.  For simplicity because of divorce rates credit spouses as they go and not at collection time.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Nov 16, 2021)

am1 said:


> If one pays in 5 years in their early 20’s and one pays in 5 years in their 60s (equal payments based on inflation) who receives more money?  Think an American pays in 5 years and opts out and an immigrant comes at 60 and works 5 years.  Just an easy example.  Could also be American starts work at 60 but that is less likely then an immigrant  starting to work at 60 and for the first time pay into the system.
> 
> you do realize someone paying in to the system in their 20s is more likely not to collect ( death) then someone paying in to the system in their 60s? Nothing reflects that risk.
> 
> ...



am1, this takes a deep dive into the US system, its reasons and its concepts. There are books written on it. It's just about impossible to describe it on a thread.

It was designed with one earner families in mind, and as a supplement to personal savings. It was also designed in a era with a max Federal tax rate of 91%.

The US was not designed to have a welfare state. Please bear than in mind.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 16, 2021)

@am1 I doubt there are many immigrants coming to this country at age 60 with a purpose of going to work to collect Soc Sec. For the relatively few that do come, they are likely immigrating as aging parents to be cared for by the breadwinners in the family (who are paying into the system). They would also need to qualify for work visas and green cards which take many years.  Apparently there is misinformation on this according to the Annenberg School:





__





						Social Security for Immigrants and Refugees - FactCheck.org
					

Q: Do immigrants and refugees get more in benefits than a retired U.S. citizen gets in Social Security? A: This is nonsense. The claims propagated by a viral e-mail are not even close to the truth. FULL QUESTION Is this true? This is an insult and a kick in the butt to all of us… Get mad and...




					www.factcheck.org
				




re: Spousal double-dipping - my understanding is that two earner couples get screwed by the system because only the earnings of one counts for Social Security. It is very unusual for women to not have worked during their lifetime these days.


----------



## am1 (Nov 16, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> @am1 I doubt there are many immigrants coming to this country at age 60 with a purpose of going to work to collect Soc Sec. For the relatively few that do come, they are likely immigrating as aging parents to be cared for by the breadwinners in the family (who are paying into the system). They would also need to qualify for work visas and green cards which take many years.  Apparently there is misinformation on this according to the Annenberg School:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nothing in that article relates to anything I have wrote about. 

Yes two spouses working get screwed compared to one spouse working is exactly my point.  Single people get screwed as well.


----------



## MrockStar (Nov 16, 2021)

We will all be lucky to collect SS benefits for the next 10 years as the birth rate keeps dropping and the deficits keep growing. I will be 62 this Jan and was going to wait 4 more years to start collecting it. Now thinking about reconsidering this.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 16, 2021)

MrockStar said:


> We will all be lucky to collect SS benefits for the next 10 years as the birth rate keeps dropping and the deficits keep growing. I will be 62 this Jan and was going to wait 4 more years to start collecting it. Now thinking about reconsidering this.


Even when the SS trust fund runs dry, I think it can still pay out about 75% of the forecasted benefits. So there will be something to collect. That is of course if Uncle Sam is actually good for it. All the money in the trust is invested in the US Treasury.


----------



## geekette (Nov 16, 2021)

... re: Spousal double-dipping - my understanding is that two earner couples get screwed by the system because only the earnings of one counts for Social Security. ...

I don't think so.  Each individual can claim on their own record, it is simply an option to collect half of spouse benefit instead.    

Double dip usually refers to gov pension plus SS.   There are weird rules around that.


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 16, 2021)

geekette said:


> ... re: Spousal double-dipping - my understanding is that two earner couples get screwed by the system because only the earnings of one counts for Social Security. ...
> 
> I don't think so.  Each individual can claim on their own record, it is simply an option to collect half of spouse benefit instead.
> 
> Double dip usually refers to gov pension plus SS.   There are weird rules around that.


I _think _what they are referring to is that two spouses working collects two full SS payments, but if only one spouse worked, the couple gets more than one full SS payment -- the spouse that never worked still gets a significant SS payment. 

Again, SS is not a government-run savings program; it is a social program designed to provide a base level retirement pension, and it is not "fair", just like any other progressive tax program.  The person who only started paying into the system at age 50 will get more of a benefit as a percentage of what they paid in than the person who started at age 20, but that is because the program was designed to provide more help to those that needed it more.  Again, not "fair", but so is any other "social" program.

Kurt


----------



## am1 (Nov 16, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> I _think _what they are referring to is that two spouses working collects two full SS payments, but if only one spouse worked, the couple gets more than one full SS payment -- the spouse that never worked still gets a significant SS payment.
> 
> Again, SS is not a government-run savings program; it is a social program designed to provide a base level retirement pension, and it is not "fair", just like any other progressive tax program.  The person who only started paying into the system at age 50 will get more of a benefit as a percentage of what they paid in than the person who started at age 20, but that is because the program was designed to provide more help to those that needed it more.  Again, not "fair", but so is any other "social" program.
> 
> Kurt



Not right either.  Its a government run ponzi scheme with winners and losers.  Borderline theft.


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 16, 2021)

am1 said:


> Not right either.  Its a government run ponzi scheme with winners and losers.  Borderline theft.


No, a social program designed to help those that need it the most.  By your definition, all government programs are theft.  Now I see where you are coming from, but since you can't vote in the US, your opinion doesn't really matter, does it?

Kurt


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 16, 2021)

am1 said:


> Yes *two spouses working get screwed* compared to one spouse working is exactly my point.  *Single people get screwed as well*.


I agree that Social Security is not a bonanza but it is not all that bad.  I retired 21 years ago and my monthly benefit has been around $1,550 (after deductions for Medicare) ever since.  That is 252 months for a total collected, if I don't live another day, of almost $400,000.  My ex-wife is 20 years younger than me and who just started drawing a small amount from Social Security on her own lower earnings and shorter work career but after I die, I believe she, not having remarried, can draw on my Social Security for probably 20 more years as she is now only 66½.  I don't know exactly what her benefit will be but for sake of argument assume it will be half of mine.  If so, assuming she has a normal life expectancy that will be another $200,000 for a total of almost $600,000 dollars we will have received from  Social Security.  Is this great?  Maybe not, but *I sure don't see it as chump change and definitely not borderline theft*...

George


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 17, 2021)

geekette said:


> ... re: Spousal double-dipping - my understanding is that two earner couples get screwed by the system because only the earnings of one counts for Social Security. ...
> 
> I don't think so.  Each individual can claim on their own record, it is simply an option to collect half of spouse benefit instead.
> 
> Double dip usually refers to gov pension plus SS.   There are weird rules around that.



So if I understand your post correctly, as a married couple, my DH can draw from his and I can draw from mine at the same time?  That would almost double what we would expect to receive. I kept reading about couples where one would start at 62 and then stop and join when the other would start at 70. We could both draw simultaneously?  I also see a family maximum.


----------



## joestein (Nov 17, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> Even when the SS trust fund runs dry, I think it can still pay out about 75% of the forecasted benefits. So there will be something to collect. That is of course if Uncle Sam is actually good for it. All the money in the trust is invested in the US Treasury.



They are over spending something around $3TT this year.  Do you really think they are not going to chip in a few hundred billion a year to make SS whole once the trust fund runs dry?


----------



## joestein (Nov 17, 2021)

geekette said:


> ... re: Spousal double-dipping - my understanding is that two earner couples get screwed by the system because only the earnings of one counts for Social Security. ...
> 
> I don't think so.  Each individual can claim on their own record, it is simply an option to collect half of spouse benefit instead.
> 
> Double dip usually refers to gov pension plus SS.   There are weird rules around that.


How does a two earner get screwed by SS?    My wife and I will each SS based upon our earnings.  Not sure where we get gypped.   Because my wife will not get 1/2 of my SS - because our own SS is more than 50% of each other?

If anything it is very progressive.  I think it pays out 90% of all average wages under $1000 a month.  Then it goes to 35% for the next $5000.  But after that it goes to only 15%.   So, it is extremely progressive towards low wage workers, but it was planned that way.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 17, 2021)

This is what I am referring to but it is complicated so not sure I fully understand. It sounds like there is a married couple maximum cap that doesn't let you fully draw from a second earners record.





__





						Social Security and Two-Income Couples | Squared Away Blog
					






					squaredawayblog.bc.edu


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> No big deal if you use a payroll system like Intuit, gusto, or surepayroll or hire a bookkeeper.
> 
> In our industry most people are experienced, sophisicated independent business owners scoping as projects instead of by hour and may have multiple independents on the project. Akin to Hollywood coming together with specific subject matter expertise to "make a movie" then disband until next project. If they are charging by hour they are billing 3x - 15x than what they would earn as an employee (but most do not bill by hour to avoid reclassification.) As an analog, movie stars make a lot more independently than they made working for the studios. This industry is similar. This is a risk premium for having to find gigs and supply their own benefits. Think of this as a large loose co-op, where the group shares best practices, industry trend survey's and many people have worked together off and on for years but each owns their own business and negotiates their pay per project. They made their "declaration of independence" as employees in the corp world years ago.
> 
> I do see many who struggle with this work because they cannot sell their project services but work on the projects. They end up earning less and rely on those who can sell to secure their next gig.



In general, the businesses you are talking about in your industry are not the types of people this thread is referring to. This conversation started with the idea that 10 million unemployed low income people who used to work in fast food, retail, house cleaning, etc. would suddenly all become small business owners. Using oneself or being in an industry with other successful business owners who have been doing this for years and can charge 3x - 15x the fee Is not reprsentative of who we are talking about. You keep coming back to small business owners and people who are highly experienced, sophisticated and/or have resources to back them up. This is not the population this conversation is about.


----------



## geekette (Nov 17, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> I _think _what they are referring to is that two spouses working collects two full SS payments, but if only one spouse worked, the couple gets more than one full SS payment -- the spouse that never worked still gets a significant SS payment.
> 
> Again, SS is not a government-run savings program; it is a social program designed to provide a base level retirement pension, and it is not "fair", just like any other progressive tax program.  The person who only started paying into the system at age 50 will get more of a benefit as a percentage of what they paid in than the person who started at age 20, but that is because the program was designed to provide more help to those that needed it more.  Again, not "fair", but so is any other "social" program.
> 
> Kurt


Also not fair that burden of propagation of species is carried by females only, with long medical condition and recovery afterwards.   spouse claim of half of wage earner benefit that is not huge  keeps full time unpaid mothers from old age poverty.    Until pregnancy and delivery and recovery get some token phantom wage assigned, that half spouse benefit needs to be in place.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 17, 2021)

joestein said:


> They are over spending something around $3TT this year.  Do you really think they are not going to chip in a few hundred billion a year to make SS whole once the trust fund runs dry?


Take it to the Bank.  They absolutely will...

Geore


----------



## geekette (Nov 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> So if I understand your post correctly, as a married couple, my DH can draw from his and I can draw from mine at the same time?  That would almost double what we would expect to receive. I kept reading about couples where one would start at 62 and then stop and join when the other would start at 70. We could both draw simultaneously?  I also see a family maximum.


This article muddies the water as it talks about “replacement”, not something I bother caring about.    There are individual maximums but not sure on couple Max lower than 2x individual.    There could be a household Max if there are children in the home on the program.   Could be disabled or a benefit that goes to a child that loses a parent (not clear on those rules but a childhood friend received payments after death of his father).


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 17, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> In general, the businesses you are talking about in your industry are not the types of people this thread is referring to. This conversation started with the idea that 10 million unemployed low income people who used to work in fast food, retail, house cleaning, etc. would suddenly all become small business owners. Using oneself or being in an industry with other successful business owners who have been doing this for years and can charge 3x - 15x the fee Is not reprsentative of who we are talking about. You keep coming back to small business owners and people who are highly experienced, sophisticated and/or have resources to back them up. This is not the population this conversation is about.



I was referring to California AB5 and how it is negatively affecting small business owners. Many of these owners are hanging up their spurs, moving out of state, or now hiring out of state to avoid the hassle and risk. Low-end workers in California who support these independents and work in flexible jobs at home in administrative roles, some of which own their own virtual administrative support businesses e.g. PowerPoint and spreadsheets, will not be hired by these business owners as those jobs will go to out of state and out of country workers. There is a ripple effect.

Some have moved to selling their services via portals such as Upwork and FancyHands for on-demand administrative and graphics support to add a layer of separation.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 17, 2021)

joestein said:


> They are over spending something around $3TT this year.  Do you really think they are not going to chip in a few hundred billion a year to make SS whole once the trust fund runs dry?


I have no doubt they won't have the desire, but at some point the tank will run dry.


----------



## Luanne (Nov 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> So if I understand your post correctly, as a married couple, my DH can draw from his and I can draw from mine at the same time?  That would almost double what we would expect to receive. I kept reading about couples where one would start at 62 and then stop and join when the other would start at 70. We could both draw simultaneously?  I also see a family maximum.


I am only going from my own experience.  Both dh and I draw Social Security.  If he passes before I do I "think" I am entitled to take his Social Security (which is higher than mine), but then I would not get mine as well.  I will go back and read the link you posted about a family maximum as this is something I'd never heard of.


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 17, 2021)

geekette said:


> Also not fair that burden of propagation of species is carried by females only, with long medical condition and recovery afterwards.   spouse claim of half of wage earner benefit that is not huge  keeps full time unpaid mothers from old age poverty.    Until pregnancy and delivery and recovery get some token phantom wage assigned, that half spouse benefit needs to be in place.


Just to be clear, I was saying that was the way the system was designed, and I agree with it.  It was @am1 who was saying that non-working spouses getting SS benefits was unfair and "borderline theft".   

Kurt


----------



## Janann (Nov 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> This is what I am referring to but it is complicated so not sure I fully understand. It sounds like there is a married couple maximum cap that doesn't let you fully draw from a second earners record.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is no such thing as a cap for married couples.  The replacement rates are referring to percentages of income, not dollars.  Also, the article is from 2013, so it should be approached with caution.


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> This is what I am referring to but it is complicated so not sure I fully understand. It sounds like there is a married couple maximum cap that doesn't let you fully draw from a second earners record.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't see anything regarding a couple maximum limit in that article -- where did you see it?  The only thing close was this quote:



> In the third couple, Mrs. Jacobs not only worked but she earned what her husband did. Her Social Security benefit is based on her own employment history, and it’s the same as her husband’s. But the incremental increase in her own benefit – above the spousal benefit that non-working or low-paid wives receive – isn’t enough to make up for Mrs. Jacobs’ major contribution to the household’s higher earnings. So the Jacobs’ replacement rate is even lower than it is for the other two couples.



That is just talking about the incremental increase of a two-income couple's total SS payments vs. a single-income couple's payment.  An example is that, say, each spouse earns $100K/year, and say in retirement each of their SS payment is $2k/month ($4K total).  Compare that to a couple where only the husband worked and also earned $100K/year.  They would receive his SS payment of $2K/month plus $1K/month for her spousal benefit.  So the couple who earned $200K/year would receive $4K/month in benefits, whereas the couple who earned $100K/year would earn $3K/month, so the replacement income percentage is much higher for the one-worker couple vs. the two-worker couple.

Kurt


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Nov 17, 2021)

As a bachelor, I never have dug deeply into the maximum SS cap. That said, my 2020 benefit statement has a line item on the estimated benefits section, under the Family/Survivor amount estimates that says.

"Total Family benefits cannot be more than $4,725 a month."

Whether or not that amount is based upon my earning history, or that is a hard cap, I do not know.


----------



## joestein (Nov 17, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> As a bachelor, I never have dug deeply into the maximum SS cap. That said, my 2020 benefit statement has a line item on the estimated benefits section, under the Family/Survivor amount estimates that says.
> 
> "Total Family benefits cannot be more than $4,725 a month."
> 
> Whether or not that amount is based upon my earning history, or that is a hard cap, I do not know.



I think that is survivor benefits, if you die when your kids are young,


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 17, 2021)

joestein said:


> I think that is survivor benefits, if you die when your kids are young,


Bingo!

Kurt


----------



## amycurl (Nov 17, 2021)

It seems like over 40 years ago, someone described why someone would leave their low-end "essential" job and downsize their lifestyle, if needed:

Anthony works in the grocery store
Savin' his pennies for someday
Mama Leone left a note on the door
She said, Sonny, move out to the country
Workin' too hard can give you
A heart attack (ack) _(or, you know, COVID)_
You oughta know by now (oughta know)
Who needs a house out in Hackensack
Is that what you get with your money
It seems such a waste of time
If that's what it's all about
Mama if that's movin' up
Then I'm movin' out

I'm just saying, this phenomena isn't particularly new. Just having *so many* get that internal note from Mama Leone in the form of a worldwide pandemic at the same time is new.


----------



## PcflEZFlng (Nov 17, 2021)

And then they added:

_You can pay Uncle Sam with your overtime
Is that all you get for your money_

Especially back then with the more progressive tax rates.


----------



## am1 (Nov 17, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Just to be clear, I was saying that was the way the system was designed, and I agree with it.  It was @am1 who was saying that non-working spouses getting SS benefits was unfair and "borderline theft".
> 
> Kurt


Let the non working or under working spouses   ss come directly out of the working spouses.  Allowing someone to pick an choose their best option costs others.
If an 80 year old marries a 55 year old and I’m 10 years passed away they are entitled to ss? Never worked before.  Possibly from another country.


----------



## MrockStar (Nov 17, 2021)

If you don't like the SS rules in place since progressives enacted them way back then. Vote them out next time and reform them.


----------



## am1 (Nov 17, 2021)

MrockStar said:


> If you don't like the SS rules in place since progressives enacted them way back then. Vote them out next time and reform them.


Which party would do that?  You think that is a priority for either?


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 17, 2021)

MrockStar said:


> If you don't like the SS rules in place since progressives enacted them way back then. Vote them out next time and reform them.



He can't because he doesn't live in the US. Not sure why he cares.


----------



## MrockStar (Nov 17, 2021)

am1 said:


> Which party would do that?  You think that is a priority for either?


Are you a registered US voter? If yes then I will comment about which part cares.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 17, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> That is just talking about the incremental increase of a two-income couple's total SS payments vs. a single-income couple's payment.  An example is that, say, each spouse earns $100K/year, and say in retirement each of their SS payment is $2k/month ($4K total).  Compare that to a couple where only the husband worked and also earned $100K/year.  They would receive his SS payment of $2K/month plus $1K/month for her spousal benefit.  So the couple who earned $200K/year would receive $4K/month in benefits, whereas the couple who earned $100K/year would earn $3K/month, so the replacement income percentage is much higher for the one-worker couple vs. the two-worker couple.
> 
> Kurt



Thanks this is really helpful.  So if I understand this correctly. We get what is on my spouse's Soc Sec record PLUS what is on my Soc Sec record when we opt in to receive? So theoretically if each of us qualified at 70 for $4000 each, then we would expect to see $8000 a month until one of us dies.  If so this is like finding gold coins in the couch because we thought we would only receive half that.   

Could one take Soc Sec sooner and one take later? e.g. if he retires at 70 and I still work because I am 68 and not ready to draw Soc Sec, then he would draw until he dies and then mine would kick in at 70, augmenting what we get, until one of us dies.

Can anyone recommend a good book or blog to understand how this all works. It is so complicated. We are nearing retirement age and need to understand this system.


----------



## am1 (Nov 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> He can't because he doesn't live in the US. Not sure why he cares.


I already voted the only way it counts.  Instead of complaining and doing nothing I did what I wanted to do and thought was the best path for me.  So far it’s great with a few bumps.


----------



## Luanne (Nov 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Thanks this is really helpful.  So if I understand this correctly. We get what is on my spouse's Soc Sec record PLUS what is on my Soc Sec record when we opt in to receive? So theoretically if each of us qualified at 70 for $4000 each, then we would expect to see $8000 a month until one of us dies.  If so this is like finding gold coins in the couch because we thought we would only receive half that.
> 
> Could one take Soc Sec sooner and one take later? e.g. if he retires at 70 and I still work because I am 68 and not ready to draw Soc Sec, then he would draw until he dies and then mine would kick in at 70, augmenting what we get, until one of us dies.
> 
> Can anyone recommend a good book or blog to understand how this all works. It is so complicated. We are nearing retirement age and need to understand this system.


$4000/month each?  That sounds really high.  I worked for 40 years, and the last 30 or so at a pretty good salary.  I get $1787 a month.  I think dh gets a little upwards of $2300.  How are you figuring $4000 each?

You do NOT get your SS and your dh's SS.  You get yours, or you can choose to take half of his (I don't mean it diminishes what he gets) if that amount is greater than what you would get on your own.  When a spouse passes the remaining spouse can then take the deceases spouses' amount (if it's larger than what they are getting).  So in my case if dh passes first I would be eligible to get his amount, but not in addition to what I'm getting, instead of what I'm getting.  If I pass first dh would continue to draw his amount.

And yes you can choose to take your distributions later.  I chose to take mine at 62 when I retired.  Dh didn't retire until he was 67 and he started taking his then.


----------



## bizaro86 (Nov 17, 2021)

dioxide45 said:


> I have no doubt they won't have the desire, but at some point the tank will run dry.



They'll just print more money. No way the US government defaults on SS obligations.


----------



## Luanne (Nov 17, 2021)

@CalGalTraveler There is lots of information available online about Social Security.  You can find a lot of it on the Social Security website.  I'm not sure if you have to sign up and have an account there to get to the information.

Here is one article I found.  Maybe it will be helpful.









						How Does Social Security Work? | The Motley Fool
					

Here are the basics you need to know about how Social Security works, and how your FICA taxes fund the program.




					www.fool.com


----------



## MrockStar (Nov 17, 2021)

am1 said:


> I already voted the only way it counts.  Instead of complaining and doing nothing I did what I wanted to do and thought was the best path for me.  So far it’s great with a few bumps.


So if its so great why are you here complaining ?


----------



## dsmrp (Nov 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Thanks this is really helpful.  So if I understand this correctly. We get what is on my spouse's Soc Sec record PLUS what is on my Soc Sec record when we opt in to receive? So theoretically if each of us qualified at 70 for $4000 each, then we would expect to see $8000 a month until one of us dies.  If so this is like finding gold coins in the couch because we thought we would only receive half that.
> 
> Could one take Soc Sec sooner and one take later? e.g. if he retires at 70 and I still work because I am 68 and not ready to draw Soc Sec, then he would draw until he dies and then mine would kick in at 70, augmenting what we get, until one of us dies.
> 
> Can anyone recommend a good book or blog to understand how this all works. It is so complicated. We are nearing retirement age and need to understand this system.



I sat in on a SS webinar sponsored by a large mutual funds group that administers my supplemental retirement account, but unfortunately don't remember all the details.  What I can remember is that a spouse can opt to receive 1/2 of the other's SS calculated benefit _at full retirement age (FRA) _or their own benefit, whichever is higher. The person receiving the spousal benefit must be at their FRA for the `1/2 benefit.  If they are younger than FRA, their benefits are reduced to almost as low as 1/3rd.
I think if spousal benefits are claimed, then you cannot later claim your own SS benefit.

Conventional advice is if the couple would have similar SS benefits, then to claim their own SS benefit, waiting till at least their FRA or longer.  If one is a higher wage earner than the other, then for the higher wage earner to wait until closer to 70, if possible.
SS benefits are calculated on your highest earning 35 years.

There are calculators to determine the crossover age when you'd gain more by claiming spousal benefit rather than personal benefit.  A friend of mine recently said a financial adviser calculated they would gain more if her husband claimed his benefit at 67 and she claimed spousal benefit, than if they both waited until 70.


----------



## am1 (Nov 17, 2021)

MrockStar said:


> So if its so great why are you here complaining ?


Because I can offer my opinion even after making my choice.


----------



## MrockStar (Nov 17, 2021)

am1 said:


> Because I can offer my opinion even after making my choice.


Ok, thanks for sharing.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 17, 2021)

Thanks @Luanne We've always paid in the maximum and haven't started collecting yet since we are not old enough.  The figure I gave is theoretical but close to the maximum one can draw at 70 assuming inflation on the cap over the next 10 years. The current max in 2021 is $3895. So if a couple put in the max for 35 years and started drawing at age 70 in 2021 then they would receive $7790/month (2* $3891).  If a spouse reaches FRA and would not receive more than $1945 (half of $3895) on their own record then s/he would be better off taking the spousal benefit. (Did I get that right?)


----------



## Luanne (Nov 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Thanks @Luanne We've always paid in the maximum and haven't started collecting yet since we are not old enough.  The figure I gave is theoretical but close to the maximum one can draw at 70 assuming inflation on the cap over the next 10 years. The current max in 2021 is $3895. So if a couple put in the max for 35 years and started drawing at age 70 in 2021 then they would receive $7790/month (unless I don't understand what is being said here.)


We always paid the maximum as well.  I was always so happy when I hit the date that SS would no longer be coming out of my pay check.  I know that had we both waited until 70 to draw SS we would have received more, but we decided we wanted the money while we could enjoy it.  Good thing as we've had the pandemic, health issues and such that prevented us from doing much the last year and more.


----------



## Superchief (Nov 17, 2021)

I retired at full retirement age of 66. The maximum payment this year is $2921. It would increase about 5% each year had I waited longer, but then I wouldn't have gotten the earlier years so the payback period didn't make sense for me to wait unless I would have continued to work.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 17, 2021)

am1 said:


> If an 80 year old marries a 55 year old and I’m 10 years passed away they are entitled to ss? Never worked before.  Possibly from another country.



I was 42 when I married a girl 22.  We got divorced when I was 65.  My understanding is that when I die she (now my ex who for the record I get along with extremely well) will be eligible for 50% of my Social Security.  Not that she really needs it as I set things up so she will also get a 50% Survivor annuity from my pension which will be a heck of a lot more than 50% of my Social Security...

George


----------



## geekette (Nov 17, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Just to be clear, I was saying that was the way the system was designed, and I agree with it.  It was @am1 who was saying that non-working spouses getting SS benefits was unfair and "borderline theft".
> 
> Kurt


we're cool, I knew you were on the As Designed track, which I agree with.   SS is designed to help prevent old age poverty.   It's not a new program.


----------



## geekette (Nov 17, 2021)

Luanne said:


> I am only going from my own experience.  Both dh and I draw Social Security.  If he passes before I do I "think" I am entitled to take his Social Security (which is higher than mine), but then I would not get mine as well.  I will go back and read the link you posted about a family maximum as this is something I'd never heard of.


Surviving spouse gets choice as to which benefit to keep, and only one.


----------



## geekette (Nov 17, 2021)

bogey21 said:


> I was 42 when I married a girl 22.  We got divorced when I was 65.  My understanding is that when I die she (now my ex who for the record I get along with extremely well) will be eligible for 50% of my Social Security.  Not that she really needs it as I set things up so she will also get a 50% Survivor annuity from my pension which will be a heck of a lot more than 50% of my Social Security...
> 
> George


If she does not remarry, yes, she should be eligible, but you do not have to die for that.   There might be rules about her being at her own FRA vs early claim at 62, not sure on divorced spouse rules.


----------



## Krteczech (Nov 17, 2021)

am1 said:


> If one pays in 5 years in their early 20’s and one pays in 5 years in their 60s (equal payments based on inflation) who receives more money?  Think an American pays in 5 years and opts out and an immigrant comes at 60 and works 5 years.  Just an easy example.  Could also be American starts work at 60 but that is less likely then an immigrant  starting to work at 60 and for the first time pay into the system.
> 
> you do realize someone paying in to the system in their 20s is more likely not to collect ( death) then someone paying in to the system in their 60s? Nothing reflects that risk.
> 
> Also why only 35 best years.  Seems low wage workers start earlier and end later then higher wage workers.  Why penalize someone working minimum wage from 17-70




Social Security Retirement benefits are not a system unique to US. 
US has agreements with many countries around the world and migrants between such systems are covered in all countries where they earned income and paid into government run SS system. Not every person works 35 years in single country, but SS offices exchange their info and arrive to combined length of employment. There is number of US expats collecting small portion from US and large portion from their country or residence and vice versa. 
To say that an immigrant to US after age 33,40,50 is unfairly getting SS retirement benefits is wrong. Most likely such person has 35+ years of paying in between two or more countries.


----------



## geekette (Nov 17, 2021)

CalGalTraveler said:


> Thanks this is really helpful.  So if I understand this correctly. We get what is on my spouse's Soc Sec record PLUS what is on my Soc Sec record when we opt in to receive? So theoretically if each of us qualified at 70 for $4000 each, then we would expect to see $8000 a month until one of us dies.  If so this is like finding gold coins in the couch because we thought we would only receive half that.
> 
> Could one take Soc Sec sooner and one take later? e.g. if he retires at 70 and I still work because I am 68 and not ready to draw Soc Sec, then he would draw until he dies and then mine would kick in at 70, augmenting what we get, until one of us dies.
> 
> Can anyone recommend a good book or blog to understand how this all works. It is so complicated. We are nearing retirement age and need to understand this system.


I think the main thing to understand is that there are a lot of options that can drive you crazy.   If you want the highest possible benefit, don't claim until age 70.   While you are part of a couple, you each have your own record.   If neither of you claims until age 70, that's the most you can get.   Each of you can claim whenever you want, starting at age 62.

If you go look at your annual statement, it shows estimated benefit based on claiming at age 62, your FRA (likely 67) or 70.   The estimates should be pretty close, and the disclaimer of note is, the estimates are based on what you are making now continuing to be the case.


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 17, 2021)

Luanne said:


> $4000/month each?  That sounds really high.  I worked for 40 years, and the last 30 or so at a pretty good salary.  I get $1787 a month.  I think dh gets a little upwards of $2300.  How are you figuring $4000 each?


Not quite $4000, but the maximum SS monthly benefit for 2021 is $3,895/month, at full retirement age, but if someone delayed taking their benefit until age 70, it would definitely be over $4000.  That would only be if you hit the maximum SS earnings every one of your 35 years that SS looks at, and this year that max earnings is $142,800, and that has risen at higher than the rate of inflation over the years.  For example, in 1998, it was only $68,400.  If you have been in management or in tech in a high cost of living area, such as bay area, NYC, etc. for a long time, it wouldn't be hard to get close to or over the max SS earnings each year.

Social Security Wage Base - Wikipedia

Kurt


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 17, 2021)

slip said:


> Sounds like you don't agree with the way Social Security is run. I thought I mentioned that.



I do not agree with how SS is run either. If you take benefits before age 67 and you have to live off stock or retirement income to supplement SS, SS benefits are reduced by so much that it makes no sense to take benefits before age 67.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 17, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Not quite $4000, but the maximum SS monthly benefit for 2021 is $3,895/month, at full retirement age, but if someone delayed taking their benefit until age 70, it would definitely be over $4000.  That would only be if you hit the maximum SS earnings every one of your 35 years that SS looks at, and this year that max earnings is $142,800, and that has risen at higher than the rate of inflation over the years.  For example, in 1998, it was only $68,400.  If you have been in management or in tech in a high cost of living area, such as bay area, NYC, etc. for a long time, it wouldn't be hard to get close to or over the max SS earnings each year.
> 
> Social Security Wage Base - Wikipedia
> 
> Kurt



When SS calculates your 35 highest years, what happens if you earn over $142,800? Let’s say you earned $200,000 in many years and $75,000 in other years. Do they average the $200,000 and $75,000 years over 35 years? Ir do they only average up to $142,800 of the $200,000 years with the $75,000 of the other years?


----------



## slip (Nov 17, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I do not agree with how SS is run either. If you take benefits before age 67 and you have to live off stock or retirement income to supplement SS, SS benefits are reduced by so much that it makes no sense to take benefits before age 67.



 Isen't this thread a out the Great Resignation? 
.
You certainly can not agree with the way it is run. It's a complex problem with no simple solutions.

My wife will be taking It next year at 63 and I will take it in 3 years at 62.


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 17, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> When SS calculates your 35 highest years, what happens if you earn over $142,800? Let’s say you earned $200,000 in many years and $75,000 in other years. Do they average the $200,000 and $75,000 years over 35 years? Ir do they only average up to $142,800 of the $200,000 years with the $75,000 of the other years?


In those years you earn over the SS max earnings, the entry for that year is just the SS max, not your actual earnings.  Nothing is averaged over multiple years, so that "extra" you earn in one year does not get added to other, lower income years.

Kurt


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 18, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> I didn't see anything regarding a couple maximum limit in that article -- where did you see it?  The only thing close was this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One great way to reduce the social security budget deficit would be to get rid of the spousal benefit of 50% for spouses who have not worked and paid anything into the system. After a spouse dies, maybe the surviving spouse who has not worked could only get 50% of the working spouse’s benefit.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 18, 2021)

slip said:


> Isen't this thread a out the Great Resignation?
> .
> You certainly can not agree with the way it is run. It's a complex problem with no simple solutions.
> 
> My wife will be taking It next year at 63 and I will take it in 3 years at 62.



Are you going to live on SS alone or also on other sources of income? It may not be worth it to start taking SS early if the amount you get is reduced by so much that you end up with virtually nothing esp after taking taxes into account. At age 67, earnings no longer impact how much you get. 

Based on what I have learned on this thread as well as what I googled as a result of this thread, it does not seem to make much sense for me and my spouse to take benefits before age 67 even if we retire early. Our income in retirement will be too high to qualify us for much in the way of SS if we take the benefits early.


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> One great way to reduce the social security budget deficit would be to get rid of the spousal benefit of 50% for spouses who have not worked and paid anything into the system. After a spouse dies, maybe the surviving spouse who has not worked could only get 50% of the working spouse’s benefit.


There's lots of ways to reduce the SS budget deficit -- raise payroll taxes, raise FRA, cap benefits based on total income, etc.  But when looking for the reason for the spouse benefit, you have to go back to the main reason SS was created in the first place:  to provide a base level benefit for people in their retirement.  It is a social program, not a savings program.  A married couple needs more to live on than an individual person in their retirement.  SS was put in place to help keep people out of severe poverty in their old age.  If you want to change the mission of SS, then elect representatives who are willing to do so, but good luck with that...

Kurt


----------



## easyrider (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> One great way to reduce the social security budget deficit would be to get rid of the spousal benefit of 50% for spouses who have not worked and paid anything into the system. After a spouse dies, maybe the surviving spouse who has not worked could only get 50% of the working spouse’s benefit.



Social Security isn't a retirement program. It is a system to provide financial stability to the elderly non-working. If anything, SS should be capped and means tested. The cap should be about $2000 a month and those with assets over 2 million should not be collecting. Many people collecting SS don't need it. You can tell they don't need it just by looking how many retired people visit the casinos every check deposit.

Bill


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 18, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> In those years you earn over the SS max earnings, the entry for that year is just the SS max, not your actual earnings.  Nothing is averaged over multiple years, so that "extra" you earn in one year does not get added to other, lower income years.
> 
> Kurt



Okay, I did not realize this. What a bummer since my income has fluctuated a lot in the past 35 years. But based on current retirement age of 67, I may still work for 11 more years (1/3 of 35). We will certainly not take SS benefits before age 67 even if we retire early bc our retirement income will be too high and the SS benefits will be greatly reduced.

Another question. I think it is the highest earning years of 35 years, not the past 35 years. Is that correct?


----------



## slip (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> Are you going to live on SS alone or also on other sources of income? It may not be worth it to start taking SS early if the amount you get is reduced by so much that you end up with virtually nothing esp after taking taxes into account. At age 67, earnings no longer impact how much you get.
> 
> Based on what I have learned on this thread as well as what I googled as a result of this thread, it does not seem to make much sense for me and my spouse to take benefits before age 67 even if we retire early. Our income in retirement will be too high to qualify us for much in the way of SS if we take the benefits early.



I think the more you look Into Social Security, you'll find that when to start drawing on the benefit is not a one size fits all. Just because you find it doesn't work in your situation that is not true for everyone. 

There are plenty of articles that go over many reasons why it can be beneficial to start it early, again not for everyone. People's goals are all different so everyone gets to evaluate their situation and goals and then decide.


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> Okay, I did not realize this. What a bummer since my income has fluctuated a lot in the past 35 years. But based on current retirement age of 67, I may still work for 11 more years (1/3 of 35). We will certainly not take SS benefits before age 67 even if we retire early bc our retirement income will be too high and the SS benefits will be greatly reduced.


First off, your SS benefits are never reduced due to earning too much before FRA, they are just deferred -- you get all your deferred benefits when you hit FRA.  Second, I believe (but not positive) that only earned income counts when determining if some of your SS benefits would be deferred if you decided to take them before FRA.  So if your income is just from investments, that wouldn't affect your SS payments.  Can anyone confirm that is true?

Also, why would you want to start taking SS benefits before FRA if you are still working?  Your benefits would be reduced for life, and you should be able to support yourself if you are working, right?



> Another question. I think it is the highest earning years of 35 years, not the past 35 years. Is that correct?


Yes, it is highest 35 years of earnings, adjusted for present value.  So earning $40,000 in 1985 may be worth more than $100,000 in 2020.

Kurt


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 18, 2021)

This is somewhat related to the Great Resignation but it’s about the Great Migration.


Contrary to popular belief, there has been no great migration in the U.S. during the pandemic. New figures from the U.S. Census Bureau show the opposite is actually true: the proportion of people who moved over the past year fell to its lowest level in the 73 years that it has been tracked.
I bet there are many myths about what happened due to Covid. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out 2 years after the death factor from Covid ends. It seems like with the vaccine, maybe next year Covid will become endemic and more like the flu without the huge fear factor of dying or getting long Covid. So maybe by 2024 things will start becoming more like pre-Covid.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 18, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Can anyone confirm that is true?



Yes, that is true. Only income from working is counted.

Bill


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 18, 2021)

slip said:


> I think the more you look Into Social Security, you'll find that when to start drawing on the benefit is not a one size fits all. Just because you find it doesn't work in your situation that is not true for everyone.
> 
> There are plenty of articles that go over many reasons why it can be beneficial to start it early, again not for everyone. People's goals are all different so everyone gets to evaluate their situation and goals and then decide.



There has been a myth perpetuated (not by anyone on this thread but by the media) that it makes sense to take SS at age 62 for almost everyone. However, most of these articles do not state the following:

_If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit. For 2021, that limit is $18,960.

In the year you reach full retirement age, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above a different limit. In 2021, this limit on your earnings is $50,520. We only count your earnings up to the month before you reach your full retirement age, not your earnings for the entire year._


----------



## geekette (Nov 18, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Yes, that is true. Only income from working is counted.
> 
> Bill


Concur.  Earned Income is the key.


----------



## slip (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> There has been a myth perpetuated (not by anyone on this thread but by the media) that it makes sense to take SS at age 62 for almost everyone. However, most of these articles do not state the following:
> 
> _If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit. For 2021, that limit is $18,960.
> 
> In the year you reach full retirement age, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above a different limit. In 2021, this limit on your earnings is $50,520. We only count your earnings up to the month before you reach your full retirement age, not your earnings for the entire year._



I've actually seen that in many articles that I have read. 

I have not read any articles that say it makes sense to draw early for almost everyone. In fact most articles i have read say the exact opposite. Again, not anywhere close to a one size fits all.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 18, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> First off, your SS benefits are never reduced due to earning too much before FRA, they are just deferred -- you get all your deferred benefits when you hit FRA.  Second, I believe (but not positive) that only earned income counts when determining if some of your SS benefits would be deferred if you decided to take them before FRA.  So if your income is just from investments, that wouldn't affect your SS payments.  Can anyone confirm that is true?
> 
> Also, why would you want to start taking SS benefits before FRA if you are still working?  Your benefits would be reduced for life, and you should be able to support yourself if you are working, right?
> 
> ...



See what I wrote above about how benefits are reduced by earning extra income before age 67. This is from the SS website.

I am confused by what you mean by deferred. How would they pay you all the SS benefits you did not receive before age 67 due to earned income being too high? Do they pay you a lump sum of potentially 10s of thousands of dollars? That makes no sense. Then why reduce the amount at all based on income if they will just give it back to you later?

By earned income do you mean just income from working?

I thought all income counts, like taking income for stock sales, income from stock dividends, etc. If it is just income from working, then taking benefits at age 62 might make more sense for me.

However, I am not completely sure if I will stop working at 62. Then, yes, I would probably not take SS anyway.

This SS stuff is so hard to understand and get full details on. Someone else asked if there is a good book that summarizes this. Other than the SS website, which is confusing, does anyone have an online source that is written in plan English that explains all aspect of the SS program?


----------



## am1 (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> One great way to reduce the social security budget deficit would be to get rid of the spousal benefit of 50% for spouses who have not worked and paid anything into the system. After a spouse dies, maybe the surviving spouse who has not worked could only get 50% of the working spouse’s benefit.


Plus 1 to this.  It’s 2021, not 1981.  Discrimination against those not married.  Why not allow every social security payer to add a +1 to their account.


----------



## geekette (Nov 18, 2021)

slip said:


> I've actually seen that in many articles that I have read.
> 
> I have not read any articles that say it makes sense to draw early for almost everyone. In fact most articles i have read say the exact opposite. Again, not anywhere close to a one size fits all.



I think the issue is that any article writer will have their own thoughts on SS and best case.  But, yeah, there is no slam dunk "this works for most everyone" answer, so any article claiming this, is one I'd quit reading.

I knew the "earnings limit while claiming benefit" existed but I thought they were higher.  For me, it doesn't matter.   If I'm working, I'm improving my future benefit.  The withholding a buck here and there to give it to me later is fine with me.   After all, a paycheck plus SS of any size ought to be enough.   I don't consider the "withholding" to be punitive as it comes back later.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> There has been a myth perpetuated (not by anyone on this thread but by the media) that it makes sense to take SS at age 62 for almost everyone. However, most of these articles do not state the following:
> 
> _If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit. For 2021, that limit is $18,960.
> 
> In the year you reach full retirement age, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above a different limit. In 2021, this limit on your earnings is $50,520. We only count your earnings up to the month before you reach your full retirement age, not your earnings for the entire year._



It does make sense for many people to take ss at 62 if they have stopped working. Lifespan is another concern. The average lifespan in the USA is about 79. If a person starts collecting ss at 62 they will collect usually in better physical shape than at 67 or 70 and the break even point is about 80. After age 80 those who collected at 62 are money behind by taking ss early.

Bill


----------



## slip (Nov 18, 2021)

geekette said:


> But, yeah, there is no slam dunk "this works for most everyone" answer, so any article claiming this, is one I'd quit reading.



Yes, the above from your post is what I was saying.

I will be retiring in February and I decided a long time ago that when I retire, I am done working so no more work for me. I'm retiring a couple years earlier than planned but luckily the rest of my plan is still in place.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> This SS stuff is so hard to understand and get full details on. Someone else asked if there is a good book that summarizes this. Other than the SS website, which is confusing, does anyone have an online source that is written in plan English that explains all aspect of the SS program?



What helped me the most was talking to people in my same situation that had already been through it. Talking to a SS rep didn't really help. What I learned is that a person that did plan to retire will retire better than a person that didn't. My wife took her SS at 62 and I'm waiting until 67. She will get an additional $700 a month when I retire and my full benefit amount when I die.  

Bill


----------



## slip (Nov 18, 2021)

easyrider said:


> It does make sense for many people to take ss at 62 if they have stopped working. Lifespan is another concern. The average lifespan in the USA is about 79. If a person starts collecting ss at 62 they will collect usually in better physical shape than at 67 or 70 and the break even point is about 80. After age 80 those who collected at 62 are money behind by taking ss early.
> 
> Bill



Yes, again, everyone's situation is different but this puts you in the ballpark.


----------



## am1 (Nov 18, 2021)

easyrider said:


> What helped me the most was talking to people in my same situation that had already been through it. Talking to a SS rep didn't really help. What I learned is that a person that did plan to retire will retire better than a person that didn't. My wife took her SS at 62 and I'm waiting until 67. She will get an additional $700 a month when I retire and my full benefit amount when I die.
> 
> Bill


So double dipping as I pointed out earlier costing all payers.  Not a knock as if that’s allowed then more power to you for working the system.


----------



## geekette (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> See what I wrote above about how benefits are reduced by earning extra income before age 67. This is from the SS website.
> 
> I am confused by what you mean by deferred. How would they pay you all the SS benefits you did not receive before age 67 due to earned income being too high? Do they pay you a lump sum of potentially 10s of thousands of dollars? That makes no sense. Then why reduce the amount at all based on income if they will just give it back to you later?
> 
> ...


This deferred thing, it works to your future benefit.  There is no lump sum, there is instead increasing benefit.   Those dollars withheld count for your monthly benefit later.  Remember, it is an Old Age program, meant for when you are no longer working for pay.   All of their calcs are complex.  The Hows and Whys are buried in history and I wouldn't tax my brain on ciphering it out.   On this one, though, I believe it is to incentivize work.   If you are collecting and working, you are continuing to pay into the program (good thing!).  Sure, a buck or two is extracted from the benefit, but those bucks bulk up to feed you later (good thing!).

Yes, earned income only.  W2 wages, self employment income.  Toil for pay.   No other inflows matter for SS, and it has no looksee at your assets.  

I'd be careful about consulting any but official SS documentation.  It is tricky, who ya gonna trust??   Further, things change.   SS has the goods on every single change, it is as guaranteed perfectly up to date as you can get.   Read whatever, but check it with SS.  You can also make an appt with your local office to ask questions specific to your situation.   There are limits to what they can tell you, and I'm sure they have to be careful to not "advise", so you would want to go prepared with Scenarios.    Remember, everything is an estimate until you actually claim.  

I solved the whole thing for myself quite easily:  take SS when I need it.   I'm not looking to maximize "my take".   You can play a lot of numbers games and still not feel you found the best recipe for your situation.    The important point is, the longer you wait to claim, the higher your benefit, whether or not you continue to work past age 62 or your FRA.    

My gut feel is that pandemic caused many to retire early, whether or not they began claiming SS.   I don't think this is going to be a major run on the bank, however, because a lot of the deaths were of people already on SS.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 18, 2021)

How did this turn into a thread about Social Security?


----------



## easyrider (Nov 18, 2021)

am1 said:


> So double dipping as I pointed out earlier costing all payers.  Not a knock as if that’s allowed then more power to you for working the system.



Yes, we are really sticking it to the man by playing by the rules. You really have no clue as to how absurd your post is do you ?  

Bill


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 18, 2021)

geekette said:


> This deferred thing, it works to your future benefit.  There is no lump sum, there is instead increasing benefit.   Those dollars withheld count for your monthly benefit later.
> ...


Thanks for explaining that, @geekette.  I knew benefits were deferred in that case, but wasn't sure how they were recovered.

Kurt


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 18, 2021)

easyrider said:


> What helped me the most was talking to people in my same situation that had already been through it. Talking to a SS rep didn't really help. What I learned is that a person that did plan to retire will retire better than a person that didn't. My wife took her SS at 62 and I'm waiting until 67. She will get an additional $700 a month when I retire and my full benefit amount when I die.
> 
> Bill



Why will she get an additional $700 a month when you retire?

From this thread, it sounded like each spouse claims their own SS benefit based on their own earnings. Is that not correct?


----------



## am1 (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> Why will she get an additional $700 a month when you retire?
> 
> From this thread, it sounded like each spouse claims their own SS benefit based on their own earnings. Is that not correct?


Spouses are allowed to double dip and get the best possible benefit for them.  Tag along to their spouses benefit amount with 0 deduction to said spouses or ex spouses benefits.  In 2021 , highly discriminatory.  But seems like a free pass.


----------



## slip (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> Why will she get an additional $700 a month when you retire?
> 
> From this thread, it sounded like each spouse claims their own SS benefit based on their own earnings. Is that not correct?



You may really want to start a different thread about Social Security. You may get more guidance from others that aren't following this thread since they don't think it's about Social Security.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 18, 2021)

geekette said:


> This deferred thing, it works to your future benefit.  There is no lump sum, there is instead increasing benefit.   Those dollars withheld count for your monthly benefit later.  Remember, it is an Old Age program, meant for when you are no longer working for pay.   All of their calcs are complex.  The Hows and Whys are buried in history and I wouldn't tax my brain on ciphering it out.   On this one, though, I believe it is to incentivize work.   If you are collecting and working, you are continuing to pay into the program (good thing!).  Sure, a buck or two is extracted from the benefit, but those bucks bulk up to feed you later (good thing!).
> 
> Yes, earned income only.  W2 wages, self employment income.  Toil for pay.   No other inflows matter for SS, and it has no looksee at your assets.
> 
> ...



Thank you Geekette. Your summary is super helpful. This makes it somewhat better to take SS at 62 while still working since it increases your benefit later.

Since the max benefit is $3800 as someone else mentioned, do you know if they would increase your benefit with the deferment to over $3800 or it the total benefit maxed out at $3800 regardless of how much is deferred?


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 18, 2021)

slip said:


> You may really want to start a different thread about Social Security. You may get more guidance from others that aren't following this thread since they don't think it's about Social Security.



I did not start this discussion about SS. Whoever started this discussion should be the one starting the new thread. I am just asking as many questions as everyone else. It appears to have started with post #156.


----------



## am1 (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I did not start this discussion about SS. Whoever started this discussion should be the one starting the new thread. I am just asking as many questions as everyone else.


Or a mod split the threads.


----------



## slip (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I did not start this discussion about SS. Whoever started this discussion should be the one starting the new thread. I am just asking as many questions as everyone else.



Sorry, from your response to one of my posts, I was wrong and thought you were being judgemental about my desicion to draw SS at 62 but after seeing other posts, I see you are trying to figure things out for yourself. That's why I mentioned starting a new thread. You of course, can do as you wish. My apologies.


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> Thank you Geekette. Your summary is super helpful. *This makes it somewhat better to take SS at 62 while still working since it increases your benefit later.*


Don't think so.  For every year early that you start your SS payments, your benefit is reduced by ~7%.  So taking it at 62 vs. 67, it is greatly reduced.  I think that benefit increase just offsets the reduced (deferred) benefit you get while still working.  Unless I am missing something.

Kurt


----------



## easyrider (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> Why will she get an additional $700 a month when you retire?
> 
> From this thread, it sounded like each spouse claims their own SS benefit based on their own earnings. Is that not correct?



She will receive the equivalent of 50% of my benefit when I start taking my benefits at 67. She took a reduced amount at 62 based off her earnings. She keeps her benefit and receives the almost  $700 to be equivalent to half on my benefit.  

Bill


----------



## geekette (Nov 18, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Don't think so.  For every year early that you start your SS payments, your benefit is reduced by ~7%.  So taking it at 62 vs. 67, it is greatly reduced.  I think that benefit increase just offsets the reduced (deferred) benefit you get while still working.  Unless I am missing something.
> 
> Kurt


I agree with Kurt.

Claiming early Decreases your benefit.  I don't think the deferral is going to make up that kind of distance.   

If you don't need the money and are still working at 62, it doesn't make sense to claim.   The better strategy is to delay for as long as possible starting SS so that the baseline is higher.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 18, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Don't think so.  For every year early that you start your SS payments, your benefit is reduced by ~7%.  So taking it at 62 vs. 67, it is greatly reduced.  I think that benefit increase just offsets the reduced (deferred) benefit you get while still working.  Unless I am missing something.
> 
> Kurt



I meant you get the deferred amount added back in. I know taking it at 62 greatly reduces the benefit without the deferment.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 18, 2021)

re: Spousal benefit. Although spouses may take off 3 - 18 gap years to care for kids, I don't know of anyone who hasn't worked at some point in their career and paid into the system. This is 2021 not 1961.

Those that do take gap years run our school programs, enable field trips, fundraise for sports teams, plan senior sober graduation celebrations, and operate car pools. As a working parent I valued their efforts. Just because they don't get paid, do we want to disincent their contributions to Americas children? Many already receive a lower SS amount than they would have made if they had remained working.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 18, 2021)

easyrider said:


> You can tell they don't need it just by looking how many retired people visit the casinos every check deposit.


Back in the 50s I once took the bus from Sacramento to Reno and back.  On the way back an older guy sitting next to me on the bus asked if I could spare a dime so he could call his wife to pick him up.  He told me that every month when he received his monthly Social Security check his wife gave him half which he used to gamble in Reno.  He said he rarely came home with anything...

George


----------



## joestein (Nov 18, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Social Security isn't a retirement program. It is a system to provide financial stability to the elderly non-working. If anything, SS should be capped and means tested. The cap should be about $2000 a month and those with assets over 2 million should not be collecting. Many people collecting SS don't need it. You can tell they don't need it just by looking how many retired people visit the casinos every check deposit.
> 
> Bill



It is a SUPPLEMENTAL retirement program.   The payout is already extremely progressive.    You get 90% of the first $1000 in monthly earnings and 35% thereafter of the next $5000.   So, if your average monthly earnings were $6K you would get $2,650/month.    After than it is only a 15% payout.  So, if your average earnings were $10K a month, an increase of $4K you would only get an additional $600.

Yet, you and your employer still pay the full FICA tax on those earnings.  Which were taxable when earned.  You SS is taxable at up to 85% if you have income over a certain amount - a fairly low amount.   How much more progressive can it be.    Means testing is BS, it is already progressive enought.    SS proceeds will be almost 40% - 50% of my retirement income.

Joe


----------



## joestein (Nov 18, 2021)

am1 said:


> Plus 1 to this.  It’s 2021, not 1981.  Discrimination against those not married.  Why not allow every social security payer to add a +1 to their account.



Funny  Story.....

My grandfather passed away before I was born.   When I was 4 my grandmother married a wonderful guy named Harry.   When my wife and I were visting them back in the 90s, they told me that they are not actually legally married.    They got married at the temple, but never filed for actual marriage certificate.   The reason is that she did not want to give up the SS earned by my grandfather for 1/2 of Harry's SS.

Also... at the same time Harry told me his real name is Aaron.  When he came to America as a kid, the person who processed him at Ellis Island asked him his name and he said 'Aaron'  but the guy put down 'Harry'.     I am guessing he had a thick accent and that is the name the guy (probably an irishman) heard.

It was an afternoon of revelations.

Joe


----------



## joestein (Nov 18, 2021)

Quick question.....

My MIL is divorced from my FIL.   However, she was married long enough that she gets the 50% spousal benefit.     If he passes away, is she entitled to get his full SS?  Like a married spouse?


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> See what I wrote above about how benefits are reduced by earning extra income before age 67. This is from the SS website.
> 
> I am confused by what you mean by deferred. How would they pay you all the SS benefits you did not receive before age 67 due to earned income being too high? Do they pay you a lump sum of potentially 10s of thousands of dollars? That makes no sense. Then why reduce the amount at all based on income if they will just give it back to you later?
> 
> ...



Social Security is a game you will play, whether or not you want to. (Like Bridge - I'm trying to play a 7 No Tax bid. . .   )

The SS laws were based on income from work, the tax laws were based on. . .well - whatever the politicians were elected on, year to year.

There is no simple way to cover all of Social Security. Too many rules, too complex. Part of Social Security's founding was to get people to stop working. Why? To free up jobs for younger people. (It was the Depression, with 25% unemployment, remember.) That was why the benefit payout reduction before FRA, based on earned (job) income. Long ago, it was worse. The reduction was for the rest of your life, not just the period  before FRA. SS was supposed to be a supplement to savings, but that was based on a stable dollar, not a continually inflating dollar, (which kills the value of saved money.)

Rule of thumb is don't take SS while you're working. The longer you wait (up to age 70) the more you will get out of it. This is balanced by how long you think you will live. The shorter you live the less value you get from waiting.

Important note. Just because you stopped working, does not mean you have to take SS. You can use your own savings to "bridge" the period between when you stop working and when you take SS. The only thing you lose (other than the money you spend to "bridge") is the value of substituting the current work year(s) for earlier years, when you didn't earn as much, which may not matter. The SS website has a calculator you can download and play "what if" games with, for a single person. Very handy.  https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/anypia/anypia.html
You can key in your SS history and then play games with your retirement date, or add projected future earning into it - all sorts of choices. (It gets updated every year, with the latest COLAs added in). It gives you all the internal calculations used, so you can see how it is calculated.


----------



## Superchief (Nov 18, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> Not quite $4000, but the maximum SS monthly benefit for 2021 is $3,895/month, at full retirement age, but if someone delayed taking their benefit until age 70, it would definitely be over $4000.  That would only be if you hit the maximum SS earnings every one of your 35 years that SS looks at, and this year that max earnings is $142,800, and that has risen at higher than the rate of inflation over the years.  For example, in 1998, it was only $68,400.  If you have been in management or in tech in a high cost of living area, such as bay area, NYC, etc. for a long time, it wouldn't be hard to get close to or over the max SS earnings each year.
> 
> Social Security Wage Base - Wikipedia
> 
> Kurt


Are you sure about the $3,895 amount? I contributed the maximum social security taxes for over 35 years and am receiving the highest amount based on my retirement age of 66 (the FRA in 2019). I receive $2921 this year. Even had I retired at 67 the max amount would only be $3,067 in 2021. The amount received increases 5% for each additional year worked, so the max would be $3550 at 70.


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 18, 2021)

Superchief said:


> Are you sure about the $3,895 amount? I contributed the maximum social security taxes for over 35 years and am receiving the highest amount based on my retirement age of 66 (the FRA in 2019). I receive $2921 this year. Even had I retired at 67 the max amount would only be $3,067 in 2021. The amount received increases 5% for each additional year worked, so the max would be $3550 at 70.



I just looked it up:

The maximum possible Social Security benefit in 2021 depends on the age you begin to collect payments and is: *$2,324 at age 62*. $3,148 at age 66 and 2 months. $3,895 at age 70.


----------



## geekette (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I just looked it up:
> 
> The maximum possible Social Security benefit in 2021 depends on the age you begin to collect payments and is: *$2,324 at age 62*. $3,148 at age 66 and 2 months. $3,895 at age 70.


To respond to a previous question of yours, max is max.  I don't think deferred withdrawals are allowed to top that.


----------



## Superchief (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I just looked it up:
> 
> The maximum possible Social Security benefit in 2021 depends on the age you begin to collect payments and is: *$2,324 at age 62*. $3,148 at age 66 and 2 months. $3,895 at age 70.


That is interesting. It was $2758 at 66 when I retired in 2019, and my payment is now $2921 with the small increases in 2020 and 2021. It appears that the maximum benefits for each age have increased faster than the COLA increases. I assumed they would receive similar adjustments, but are actually about $200 higher. I made my decision to start collecting at that time because I thought I would only receive an additional 5% for each year I waited. I guess SS uses a different adjustment for calculating the maximum benefit than it does for their annual COLA increase.


----------



## geekette (Nov 18, 2021)

joestein said:


> Quick question.....
> 
> My MIL is divorced from my FIL.   However, she was married long enough that she gets the 50% spousal benefit.     If he passes away, is she entitled to get his full SS?  Like a married spouse?


Good question.  If she remains unmarried, I would say yes.


----------



## geekette (Nov 18, 2021)

Superchief said:


> That is interesting. It was $2758 at 66 when I retired in 2019, and my payment is now $2921 with the small increases in 2020 and 2021. It appears that the maximum benefits for each age have increased faster than the COLA increases. I assumed they would receive similar adjustments, but are actually about $200 higher. I made my decision to start collecting at that time because I thought I would only receive an additional 5% for each year I waited. I guess SS uses a different adjustment for calculating the maximum benefit than it does for their annual COLA increase.


I think the increases between FRA and age 70 are larger than the increases between age 62 and FRA.

I am certain that COLA is a completely separate calc done in a different wing and they just send the number over to the bracket keepers to update.


----------



## geekette (Nov 18, 2021)

I think the reason this turned to SS was it has much to do with working, or not.   The self-employed are getting urgent nudging from me to dutifully report your earnings so you don't cheat your future SS benefit to self.

I am curious as to how many of the great resigners just decided to retire and claim SS.    While this is a decision that can be undone, it would be painful to pay back what was collected.


----------



## joestein (Nov 18, 2021)

geekette said:


> Good question.  If she remains unmarried, I would say yes.



There is a greater chance of Jesus walking the earth tomorrow than her getting married or even going on a date.  She has been divorced since her late 30s and has never gone out on a date.  

When faced with true difficulty in life, some people rise to the occasion and some crawl into a corner and pity themselves.   She is of the crawl/corner/pity variety.


----------



## geekette (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> Thank you Geekette. Your summary is super helpful. *This makes it somewhat better to take SS at 62 while still working since it increases your benefit later.*
> 
> Since the max benefit is $3800 as someone else mentioned, do you know if they would increase your benefit with the deferment to over $3800 or it the total benefit maxed out at $3800 regardless of how much is deferred?


Wanting to be very clear, claiming early is never going to be as good as claiming later.

I think what you want to do is, approaching age 62, start thinking about how long do I want to work?   Answer that question without regard to SS.   As you continue to work past age 62, you get to have this sweet angel on your shoulder when things are rough, saying Just Retire, SS is there for you....   the longer you ignore that, the better your monthly benefit will be.

Of course, if you are working at 62-70 and NEED the SS money, don't hesitate, claim it.  Don't make life harder than it has to be.   I am not really saying this to you, personally, since it seems you aren't going to Need the SS.   Just my overall general advice to the masses.  It could be someone is close to paying off their house, a goal they desperately want to meet before quitting, and maybe claiming SS helps them do that.   In that case, I'd say Claim It.  Don't really "need" it but it suits a lifestyle goal.

Also, nobody needs to pick a side on "maximize what I get from SS by claiming late" vs "I'm going to die early anyhow, I want the money now."   These are the extremes and most of us are in between.   If I were of claiming age and suffering long COVID, I'd claim right now.   But that's me putting my happiness and health ahead of dollars.


----------



## geekette (Nov 18, 2021)

joestein said:


> There is a greater chance of Jesus walking the earth tomorrow than her getting married or even going on a date.  She has been divorced since her late 30s and has never gone out on a date.
> 
> When faced with true difficulty in life, some people rise to the occasion and some crawl into a corner and pity themselves.   She is of the crawl/corner/pity variety.


Aw, that's sad!    I hope that in time she can jettison the baggage and start living again.   Don't need to date to do that!


----------



## SmithOp (Nov 18, 2021)

geekette said:


> Wanting to be very clear, claiming early is never going to be as good as claiming later.
> 
> I think what you want to do is, approaching age 62, start thinking about how long do I want to work? Answer that question without regard to SS. As you continue to work past age 62, you get to have this sweet angel on your shoulder when things are rough, saying Just Retire, SS is there for you.... the longer you ignore that, the better your monthly benefit will be.
> .



Never? People need to consider the break even point, its usually about 78-79ish. If your health is not good and life expenctancy is not over 77 its better to claim early, retire early, and enjoy the years you have left.

Another wrinkle - my wife took her SS at 62. Adult disabled son gets SSDI, 1/2 of her SS, which was more than the SSI he was receiving, so added amount there. I just started mine in Jan at 67, now son gets more because its based on my SS now.

Its complicated, a lot of life factors, you cant just run max numbers and go for that.

I read Social Security - The Inside Story by Andy Landis.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## joestein (Nov 18, 2021)

geekette said:


> Aw, that's sad!    I hope that in time she can jettison the baggage and start living again.   Don't need to date to do that!



I would not hold my breath.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 18, 2021)

Superchief said:


> Are you sure about the $3,895 amount? I contributed the maximum social security taxes for over 35 years and am receiving the highest amount based on my retirement age of 66 (the FRA in 2019). I receive $2921 this year.


Is that $2,921 after deductions for Medicare Parts B and D and IRMMA if applicable.  The reason I ask is that despite COLA increases my net Social Security 20+ years post retirement is almost the same as it was 20+ years ago.  The reason is that COLA increases have been eaten up by increases in the size of Medicare deductions from my Social Security...

George


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 18, 2021)

bogey21 said:


> Back in the 50s I once took the bus from Sacramento to Reno and back.  On the way back an older guy sitting next to me on the bus asked if I could spare a dime so he could call his wife to pick him up.  He told me that every month when he received his monthly Social Security check his wife gave him half which he used to gamble in Reno.  He said he rarely came home with anything...
> 
> George


He obviously had a gambling addiction.   Very sad.

Kurt


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 18, 2021)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> The SS website has a calculator you can download and play "what if" games with, for a single person. Very handy.  https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/anypia/anypia.html
> You can key in your SS history and then play games with your retirement date, or add projected future earning into it - all sorts of choices. (It gets updated every year, with the latest COLAs added in). It gives you all the internal calculations used, so you can see how it is calculated.


If you log into your SS account online, there is also a simple calculator that already has all of your past earnings pre-loaded.  I found that useful to see what the effect of early retirement (but still taking benefits at FRA) would have on my projected benefits.  

I am looking at retiring next year @ 56 y.o.  I do have 35 years of earnings, but only 33 of them will be from professional, post-college years, and if I kept on working, those part-time job years as well as some of my early salary years would be "overwritten" with my current salary.  With the simple calculator, I can see that my benefits would be reduced by less than $200/mo. by retiring early.  Good to know for planning purposes, and I can handle that.

Kurt


----------



## slip (Nov 18, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> If you log into your SS account online, there is also a simple calculator that already has all of your past earnings pre-loaded.  I found that useful to see what the effect of early retirement (but still taking benefits at FRA) would have on my projected benefits.
> 
> I am looking at retiring next year @ 56 y.o.  I do have 35 years of earnings, but only 33 of them will be from professional, post-college years, and if I kept on working, those part-time job years as well as some of my early salary years would be "overwritten" with my current salary.  With the simple calculator, I can see that my benefits would be reduced by less than $200/mo. by retiring early.  Good to know for planning purposes, and I can handle that.
> 
> Kurt



That's the tool I used also. I was using it for years. It shows that those early years with only a couple thousand for Income doesn't mean much more than a zero In the long run.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 18, 2021)

Our "supposed financial expert" friend with Primerica advised us to take SS at 62.  We waited until 66.  He said it all balances out, but we decided to wait.  Now we are 66 so collecting is kind of nice.  But honestly it has to be a personal decision.  

We went to Chili's for lunch yesterday in Boulder, and this older lady was the only one on the bar side of the dining room.  She was handling at least 12 tables the entire hour we were there, some tables had 8 people, + the bar with four men sitting apart, so not together.  I felt so badly for her, but at least there was a food runner to bring food and give drink refills.  That helped her quite a bit.  The kiosk to pay the bill helps her too, but the older ladies in the corner were having a heck of a time using that thing.  She had to stop and help them.  I could have been one of those older ladies because they were trying to split that bill 8 ways.


----------



## joestein (Nov 18, 2021)

geekette said:


> Aw, that's sad!    I hope that in time she can jettison the baggage and start living again.   Don't need to date to do that!





PigsDad said:


> He obviously had a gambling addiction.   Very sad.
> 
> Kurt



My MIL complains about money all the time (even though we pay most of her expenses) - but if there is an upcoming bus to Atlantic City - she has money for that.    She would fly to Vegas if someone else was going, but wouldn't fly down to Charlotte with us to see her Daughter and her Family .

So, people do what they want.    I am sure that he loves gambling.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 18, 2021)

TravelTime said:


> I meant you get the deferred amount added back in. I know taking it at 62 greatly reduces the benefit without the deferment.



Only if you live past the break even point which is about 79-80 years old for most people collecting at 67. 

Bill


----------



## easyrider (Nov 18, 2021)

joestein said:


> Quick question.....
> 
> My MIL is divorced from my FIL.   However, she was married long enough that she gets the 50% spousal benefit.     If he passes away, is she entitled to get his full SS?  Like a married spouse?



Yes. I know a person that was divorced twice. None of the ex-wives ever re-married. Both of the wives and the current wife will get his full amount when he passes away. 

Bill


----------



## Tia (Nov 18, 2021)

Some of those at a casino shouldn't be there, I know a widow that failed to make her home payment because she was at the casino. AARP years ago had an article that casinos are like crack for seniors, sent it to my mother but don't think she looked at it. A friends sister used to work for a lawyer told her there were farms being lost to the casinos  maybe 10  years back. As people get older one of the signs of trouble is failure to manage their money. 

I also know a person who sends her SS money to her grown professional children as she doesn't need the $.  I'm sure she's not alone in not needing the $. 



easyrider said:


> Social Security isn't a retirement program. It is a system to provide financial stability to the elderly non-working. If anything, SS should be capped and means tested. The cap should be about $2000 a month and those with assets over 2 million should not be collecting. Many people collecting SS don't need it. You can tell they don't need it just by looking how many retired people visit the casinos every check deposit.
> 
> Bill


----------



## Superchief (Nov 18, 2021)

bogey21 said:


> Is that $2,921 after deductions for Medicare Parts B and D and IRMMA if applicable.  The reason I ask is that despite COLA increases my net Social Security 20+ years post retirement is almost the same as it was 20+ years ago.  The reason is that COLA increases have been eaten up by increases in the size of Medicare deductions from my Social Security...
> 
> George


It is the total amount without any deductions. My wife still works and provides great health insurance. I hope she works until she is 80


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 18, 2021)

slip said:


> That's the tool I used also. I was using it for years. It shows that those early years with only a couple thousand for Income doesn't mean much more than a zero In the long run.


I don't know; I kind of had the opposite reaction.  According to the tool, I could work an additional 11 years at max SS earnings and the result would be less than $200/month difference to my SS benefit at FRA.  I was kind of shocked at how small the extra benefit would be for all those extra years of work during my highest earnings time.

Using today's dollars and SS tax rate, I would be paying $8,854 a year for a total of $97,390 over the next 11 years, _*plus *_my employer would be paying the same amount, for a grand total of $194,780 -- all for less than an additional $200/month when I am 67!

Kurt


----------



## slip (Nov 18, 2021)

PigsDad said:


> I don't know; I kind of had the opposite reaction.  According to the tool, I could work an additional 11 years at max SS earnings and the result would be less than $200/month difference to my SS benefit at FRA.  I was kind of shocked at how small the extra benefit would be for all those extra years of work during my highest earnings time.
> 
> Using today's dollars and SS tax rate, I would be paying $8,854 a year for a total of $97,390 over the next 11 years, _*plus *_my employer would be paying the same amount, for a grand total of $194,780 -- all for less than an additional $200/month when I am 67!
> 
> Kurt



For me there just wasn't much difference with those early part time years. Those have dropped off for me now since e all my years are with my current employer.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Nov 18, 2021)

SmithOp said:


> Never? People need to consider the break even point, its usually about 78-79ish. If your health is not good and life expenctancy is not over 77 its better to claim early, retire early, and enjoy the years you have left.
> 
> Another wrinkle - my wife took her SS at 62. Adult disabled son gets SSDI, 1/2 of her SS, which was more than the SSI he was receiving, so added amount there. I just started mine in Jan at 67, now son gets more because its based on my SS now.
> 
> ...


+1

Social Security is much more than a pension.  It includes a disability benefit for the worker if disabled before age 65, dependent benefits if the worker dies young, spousal benefits, etc., etc., etc.  Comparing the actuarial benefit of an annuity to the multiple benefits of social security is comparing apples to oranges and has no mathematical validity.


----------



## geekette (Nov 18, 2021)

SmithOp said:


> Never? People need to consider the break even point, its usually about 78-79ish. If your health is not good and life expenctancy is not over 77 its better to claim early, retire early, and enjoy the years you have left.
> 
> Another wrinkle - my wife took her SS at 62. Adult disabled son gets SSDI, 1/2 of her SS, which was more than the SSI he was receiving, so added amount there. I just started mine in Jan at 67, now son gets more because its based on my SS now.
> 
> ...


Apology, bad wording on my part!  Claiming early is not going to be as large a check as claiming later.

As to how "good" it is, indeed, mileage varies!!


----------



## TravelTime (Nov 18, 2021)

geekette said:


> To respond to a previous question of yours, max is max.  I don't think deferred withdrawals are allowed to top that.



Thank you for letting me know.


----------



## "Roger" (Nov 19, 2021)

My apologies if this has already been covered. I have read some of this thread, but not followed it that closely. In any case, the Guardian article below admits to multiple factors, but emphasizes that a large part of the great resignation is due to women who needed to be home to take care of their kids.









						Part of the ‘great resignation’ is actually just mothers forced to leave their jobs | Moira Donegan
					

During the pandemic, women have exited the labor force at twice the rate of men; their participation in the paid labor force is now the lowest it has been in more than 30 years




					www.theguardian.com
				




_During the pandemic, women have exited the labor force at twice the rate that men have; their participation in the paid labor force is now the lowest it has been in more than 30 years. About one-third of all mothers in the workforce have scaled back or left their jobs since March 2020. That labor shortage? It’s being felt most acutely in sectors like hospitality, retail and healthcare – industries where women make up a majority of workers._​​_Why are women leaving the workforce at such a disproportionate rate? It’s not because they have been on personal journeys of soul-searching and self-discovery. It’s because they have nowhere to put their kids. Schools were closed for much of two straight school years; many still face interruptions, quarantines and closures. And for the parents of even younger kids, daycare centers, already unaffordably expensive and in dramatically short supply before the pandemic, closed in record numbers over the past year._​


----------



## amycurl (Nov 20, 2021)

Here's what's *really* going on!


----------



## Tia (Nov 27, 2021)

Why Health-Care Workers Are Quitting in Droves
					

About one in five health-care workers has left their job since the pandemic started. This is their story—and the story of those left behind.




					www.theatlantic.com
				




*WHY HEALTH-CARE WORKERS ARE QUITTING IN DROVES*


''Several health-care workers told me that, amid the most grueling working conditions of their careers, their hospitals cut salaries, reduced benefits, and canceled raises; forced staff to work more shifts with longer hours; offered trite wellness tips, such as keeping gratitude journals, while denying paid time off or reduced hours; failed to provide adequate personal protective equipment; and downplayed the severity of their experiences.''


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 30, 2021)

Note: Complete article may be behind a paywall. (Sorry!)

*Workers Quit Jobs in Droves to Become Their Own Bosses*
*Seeking flexibility or escape from corporate bureaucracy, employees discover their inner entrepreneur*








						Workers Quit Jobs in Droves to Become Their Own Bosses
					

Seeking flexibility or escape from corporate bureaucracy, employees are discovering their inner entrepreneur to start businesses ranging from advertising to handling e-commerce logistics out of their homes.




					www.wsj.com
				




The pandemic has unleashed a historic burst in entrepreneurship and self-employment. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are striking out on their own as consultants, retailers and small-business owners.

The move helps explain the ongoing shake-up in the world of work, with more people looking for flexibility, anxious about covid exposure, upset about vaccine mandates or simply disenchanted with pre-pandemic office life. It is also aggravating labor shortages in some industries and adding pressure on companies to revamp their employment policies.

The number of unincorporated self-employed workers has risen by 500,000 since the start of the pandemic, Labor Department data show, to 9.44 million. That is the highest total since the financial-crisis year 2008, except for this summer. The total amounts to an increase of 6% in the self-employed, while the overall U.S. employment total remains nearly 3% lower than before the pandemic.




Entrepreneurs applied for federal tax-identification numbers to register 4.54 million new businesses from January through October this year, up 56% from the same period of 2019, Census Bureau data show. That was the largest number on records that date back to 2004. Two-thirds were for businesses that aren’t expected to hire employees.
This year, the share of U.S. workers who work for a company with at least 1,000 employees has fallen for the first time since 2004, Labor Department data show. Meanwhile, the percentage of U.S. workers who are self-employed has risen to the highest in 11 years. In October, they represented 5.9% of U.S. workers, versus 5.4% in February 2020.


----------

