I was wondering if supermarket and retail sector job is considered as a low paid job?
I make about $800 per week after tax, but the job is easy and relatively secure due to permanent contract. Sorry I have no idea about the market. I am definitely living ‘modestly’ and still finding it very hard to save or see a future if pay is in this trajectory. Where can I apply to get a higher pay with my retail experience?
80k+super should be about take home of $4676 per month with super of $1476. I maybe wrong. Thanks for the average.
The increase from $3.2k to $5k is $1.8k… or more than a 50% jump. That's a fair bit off.
Damn! beat me to it by 10 seconds! haha
i didn't mean a pay rise within a same job from same person.
i'm looking at the magnitude of difference betwen Avg. 80k package from a skilled worker VS unskilled high school grad taking 3.2k home.
the magnitude of difference could be well over 200% better off
if your monthly expenses are $2000 and you can save $1200
but now your saving $3000 a month, you are actually 250% better off than before
Maybe my POV is different
In neighbouring countries , unskilled worker take home $900 vs avg. skilled worker $3000-4000
now that's a huge difference
@phunkydude: Can't really compare Australia with neighbouring countries, since other than NZ, we're really the only developed "Western" country in the region. And that means different standards (and costs) of living, as well as differing expectations.
@phunkydude: It depends. If your pay is only 30% of Australian pay, but your cost of living is only 20% as much - you're effectively making more. But then you have to also take into account the standard of living differences, so it's a hard comparison.
In neighbouring countries , unskilled worker take home $900 vs avg. skilled worker $3000-4000
@phunkydude: Is the cost of living in those neighbouring countries the same as in Australia?
not far off
It's actually quite a bit off.
For someone to get an extra $1,800/month (to get to $5K/month) from their current $3,200/month, they would require a pay increase of around 50%.
i didn't mean a pay rise within a same job from same person.
i'm looking at the magnitude of difference betwen Avg. 80k package from a skilled worker VS unskilled high school grad taking 3.2k home.
I always thought that supermarket pay was at the minimum wage level for the industry. Not sure if it's changed or not, but there was quite a bit in the media last year or the year about some rates being lower because of an EBA negotiated between the union and the employer.
I'd consider anything at the minimum wage to be "low".
National minimum wage is 19$ but in our supermarket most people get $22 unless younger, I still consider it as low too as it is hard to get by even after stringent budgeting.
It's your responsibility to make sure that your income level is where you want it to be to meet your life goals. And the minimum wage is only supposed to be making sure people don't starve - it certainly won't be enough (and rightly so - it's a minimum wage) for you to save up for investments or any luxuries.
Edited to be nicer.
I agree. I need to seek out for better jobs.
@try2bhelpful: I'm actually a little curious by what exactly you mean by this. What does "employment" mean to you? (Didn't neg you by the way - I ran out a lot earlier on…)
@StiffHindQuarters: Minimum wage is a living wage, not 'living comfortably wage.' I worked retail for years, squeezing shifts during uni and taking on full-time hours between semesters, but it was never the end-game.
Where can I apply to get a higher pay with my retail experience?
Become team leader/manager, etc. It's not like retail or hospo experience qualifies you for much else.
@Zachary: Depends on your circumstances and desired standard of living. There was a thread by someone asking "What's a comfortable income for…." which set out pretty good considerations.
@Zachary: Depends what your expectations and expenses are. If you're renting, single, have few expenses and no dependents, minimum wage is okay. But don't think you can support 3 kids or afford a holiday every year.
…well I wanna buy a house so I have my own house to live in, have enough money left over to pay for utility expenses, drive a nice sounding muscle car to work, commute or even on the race track….instead of renting….or freeloading off someone else….would I be able to survive comfortably on minimum wage?
I actually looked up "What's a comfortable income for" but couldn't find any threads mentioning his exact quote save for your comment in this thread….
https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/sold-out-quarter-o…
You’re referring to actions of the SDA and that was somewhat put to and end with the 2014 Coles EBA being successfully challenged for failing to meet the better off overall test that an EBA must meet. Since that decision, a new retail and fast food union has launched and is in the process of negotiating new agreements as well as terminating others, restoring penalty rates and other minimum Award conditions to those affected.
Specifically regarding supermarkets, existing Coles employees (prior to the 2018 EBA) are paid slightly above the Award p/h and receive penalty rates, while those at Woolworths are still underpaid if they work after 6pm weekdays, Saturday and Sunday.
Thanks for the information - that's what I was referring to, but wasn't sure of the exact terms or agreements.
Depends what position you are in the supermarket. But if you're only stocking shelves or working the cashier, then I can't imagine there's a high ceiling for career advancement without moving to a managerial position.
Yes
The Managing Director of Coles is not in a low paid job. He has a supermarket job.
Off the interwebs
Coles' managing director John Durkan this year received $4.6 million take home pay
cringe
I've heard places like Aldi and Costco pay well
But you are expected to work hard at ALDI and it appears to be enforced.
how dare they!!
KPI’s
That's the problm with this country. Everone expects to be paid $200,000 a year for just sitting behind a desk and attending meetings.
No, actually, many executives expect to be paid $2M+ for sitting behind a desk and attending meetings.
Attitudes like Tightbottom bringing the economy down
Not sure about Costco, but Aldi can afford to pay well because they have a more efficient (read: less people doing more) staffing system where there aren't set job roles/duties, you work those hours and you do everything, so a lot less time spent idle because you've completed your duties.
When one considers the skills / training / intellect required to be a retail worker, they are highly paid in Australia.
Thanks to Australia's high minimum wage and the union's insistence that penalty rates be paid, retail workers are paid very well when you consider virtually anyone off the street could step into their role.
What days do you work? Could you pick up a shift on Sunday to get more money?
Oh, I forgot, the Libs have cut Sunday rates. Don't forget to thank them at the next election.
OP will still get more money. Sunday rates have just been adjusted to be in line with Saturday rates, because seeing as not that many people go to church anymore, there's no difference between the two weekend days to justify the pay difference - and I'm not really seeing a reason not to.
I'm not even sure why weekend rates should be higher - for most workers in that sector (e.g. students), working weekends is more convenient than working weekdays.
Weekend rates definitely should be higher. From my experience (when I was studying full time and working part time) I really valued my weekends as university would take up a good part of the week and adding in a few shifts during mon - friday would only leave the weekend for leisure.
If you told me my weekend rates were to be lowered to the same as weekday rates I'd definitely substitute away from working the weekends to taking some off as going out, catching up with friends and other leisures would give me more satisfaction.
Additionally working weekends is generally far more stressful than weekdays. Most adults work mon - fri and kids go to school during that time, so they have time to go shopping during the weekend. When you have management putting the minimum amount of people on the floor it can get pretty crazy. The numbers dont lie either, I remember seeing the sales figures and every saturday or sunday would be at least twice the amount of trade compared to a weekday.
Ultimately, from my experience and others I have spoken to, weekend rates should be higher unless conditions have changed since I worked there ~4 years ago.
I mean this is really the point:
If you told me my weekend rates were to be lowered to the same as weekday rates I'd definitely substitute away from working the weekends to taking some off as going out, catching up with friends and other leisures would give me more satisfaction.
You can do this. And if enough people did, employers would have to raise weekend rates even without a minimum wage, just to attract people to work those days because weekends are also lucrative for them. You've basically described how the market is supposed to work.
@HighAndDry: Well, thats my take on it if someone questioned why weekend rates should be higher. For some workers its not as convenient as it seems to work the weekend.
@hadz: See, I'd agree if you said those reasons are why Sunday rates are higher - because people like that time more, less are willing to work, and so places have to pay more to get people to work there. But why they should be higher… you're still putting in the same amount of work, and it's not an especially special time like midnight where you literally have to put in more effort to get the same results out.
Anyways, thanks for the perspective.
@HighAndDry: But it isnt the same amount of work though on a weekend vs a weekday.
As I mentioned earlier sales were at least twice the $ amount on saturday or sunday compared to a weekday. So if $20000 was done on average for a weekday, it was common for at least $40000 to be done on a weekend (which is a very conservative estimate). Where did that extra 20000 come from? Were people buying more expensive items on the weekend? were people buying more items in total on the weekend?. Those two could have influenced the result but from what I experienced on the floor it was due to more transactions in total on the weekend (so you had to serve a greater amount of customers and their needs), then second was more items per transaction as the whole family was there in a lot of cases.
So, a large increase in the number of transactions and items sold, in addition to any housekeeping duties, would lead me to safely assume that you are definitely putting in more work on a weekend compared to a weekday. Also keeping in mind there wasnt a significant increase in rostered staff on weekends to make up for the increased sales.
@hadz: That's honestly irrelevant. If you wanted a percentage of the business' take, work in sales for commission. But then you give up the stability of a flat wage.
And just because sometimes you might be less busy and so idle, doesn't mean you should expect or be entitled to always be paid for that level of idleness. You get paid by time worked - if you're busy, then you're busy. If not, then you're lucky.
@HighAndDry: How can you dismiss it as irrelevant when I have provided a real world example of how you arent putting in the same amount of work on a weekend vs weekday? A commission may be one path to take, the other being a fixed rate across all days. The current system smooths out both extremes and provides a suitable option. A weekday rate and a weekend rate. Your argument was amount of work not time worked.
@HighAndDry: just gonna chip in, you're forgetting opportunity cost. By taking the weekend to work you are forfeiting the chance to spend time in other social interactions.
@hadz: It's irrelevant because if you're being paid on an hourly basis, you're expected to be working all those hours. If you're not busy, that's a bonus, but it shouldn't be expected. Say there's an event on on one of your weekday rostered shifts (say a kid's sports event) and it's super busy. Should you get paid more? No.
I'm talking about things like midnight shifts. Being "busier" on a weekend isn't it.
@echineon: If we're talking about students, the whole WEEK is filled with "social interactions". And that's something for you to consider - don't like it, don't put your hand up to work weekend shifts.
you're still putting in the same amount of work
that was part of your argument and I provided a highly relevant real world example to counter it.
If you're not busy, that's a bonus, but it shouldn't be expected. Say there's an event on on one of your weekday rostered shifts (say a kid's sports event) and it's super busy.
Those are one off events and arent reliable to make predictions off. We saw the figures week in week out, where the weekends were consistently twice as busy (which is being conservative) in terms of trade. This is reliable information and from that we can make the judgement that weekends are in fact 'more work' for each individual when there is no significant change in staff numbers on the floor.
If there was a weekday event that was consistent over a long period of time, then the workers could make a case for higher pay just like on the weekends. But a little rush of customers once in a while is insignificant and should not detract from being appropriately compensated on weekends with higher workloads.
that was part of your argument and I provided a highly relevant real world example to counter it.
It was and I pretty much (okay, maybe 70%?) still stand by it. You're being paid on an hourly basis. That is the main metric that your 'work' is measured in, and it's still the same. Just because some days you get to slack off, doesn't mean you're entitled to slack off.
Otherwise, should outdoor cafe workers be paid more in the summer months? More business, and higher opportunity cost of those beautiful summer days! Or retail workers in children related industries paid more during school holiday weeks? No - same hours, same pay.
You're being paid on an hourly basis. That is the main metric that your 'work' is measured in, and it's still the same.
Hours worked is a very weak and not very accurate way to measure 'work'. More accurate measures would be sales such as sales per hour or the value of each of the sales. The hour is only a way to allow for comparison of sales figures not an absolute measure. You'll find that performance in the vast majority of retail (which are selling and service jobs) is measured in some form of sales/transactions rather than time.
Im sure those in particular niches of retail have negotiated agreements with their employer.
However, lets consider the case of an outdoor cafe worker. So there is an increase in business around the seasons. In this case firms hire seasonal staff to make up for stronger trading periods as there is reliable knowledge about these periods. This way the current workers wouldnt be too burdened by the increase in traffic as there are other staff to spread the workload.
The current system of weekend rates is fine as it can be applied consistently across the retail industry. If you want to look at it on a super micro level in niche markets youd want to talk to someone who is or was in that position with the numbers to back it up.
So you'd be happy if your boss wanted you to work weekends instead of weekdays - for no extra pay?
Who's not getting paid for the weekends they work?
@HighAndDry: With the exception of those at Coles and Dominos Pizza, most of those employed under an SDA negotiated agreement are not paid additional penalties for weekend work, or are paid less than the relevant Award would otherwise mandate.
@crayner: I think that's fair. Maybe not the "less than the relevant Award" but I'm assuming (or rather, hoping for their sake) that the SDA negotiated other benefits to make up for it.
@HighAndDry: The SDA claimed to have included other benefits that made up for it, but through Coles own analysis that 60% of their employees were financially worse off because of it, than they would be under the Award, it failed the BOOT and was thrown out by the FWC.
No it isn't fair to be underpaid.
@crayner: This is from 2016. Pretty sure one here is talking about that particular SDA.
And what's "fair"? You agreed to it - wanting more after the fact is what's unfair.
@crayner: That's dangerously close to equating law with morality.
Plus - if we're using that logic - wanting more than the law (reduced sunday penalty rates) is greedy then?
Oh, I forgot, the Libs have cut Sunday rates. Don't forget to thank them at the next election.
Changes in the award wage rate do NOT affect supermarket workers who are paid under EBA agreements.
In my experience working at a major supermarket, the Sunday penalty rates from the union-negotiated EBA agreement has always been lower than the award wage. After the recent changes by the government (as recommended by the Fair Work Commission), Sunday penalty rates under my EBA are only now in line with the Sunday penalty rates under the new award wage rate.
The EBA can't pay you less than the $ amount of the award under any circumstances. From memory it is called the no disadvantage test.
The % penalty can be lower than the award, but not the final $/hr.
The no disadvantage test looks at it holistically. You can be paid a lower hourly rate, or lower penalty rates, so long as on balance, the EBA as a whole is better (by way of other benefits, etc).
@HighAndDry: This is completely incorrect, see above.
The BOOT or "better off overall test" has always required that employees be better off overall on an enterprise agreement than if they were subject to the relevant award.
@crayner: Yes, better off overall, but that "better off" doesn't only look at rates of pay. If employees get other benefits (paid time off, more super, super matching, etc), those can make up for a lower rate of pay.
EBA agreements.
Enterprise bargaining agreement agreements.
"For those industries, those ARE your normal working hours." where does it have a blanket statement like that?
From experience, I empathise with alot of retail workers on the floor as they are the ones who cop it from every angle.
There are 24 hours a day , 7 days a week. There are people working 9-5 in retail as there are part timers and there are casuals who work when needed. Every base can be covered. People have different preferences and industries like retail can offer hours which suit them.
Working in retail should not mean having to forgo leisure time or seeing your family as much as any other job in any other industry. Just seems snobbish from you. So tell us what you do for work? and your family members?
From someone who now works a 9-5 office job I say you shouldnt look down on retail workers like your slave.
I don't think anyone is 'looking down' on retail workers, just that you just made the point - they're not slaves. They're deciding to work at a time that's apparently better for them.
From experience, I empathise with alot of retail workers on the floor as they are the ones who cop it from every angle.
I too was a retail worker, in my teens I sacrificed Thursday nights, weekends, lots of school holidays to take available shifts. I happily did it to help the household pay bills. My friends were getting pocket money to go to the movies, the City, Timezone etc, not once did I bitch I was missing out.
How do these workers 'cop it from every angle'?
There are 24 hours a day , 7 days a week.
Shock horror….coincidentally the very same hours those industry they chose to work in operates.
Working in retail should not mean having to forgo leisure time or seeing your family as much as any other job in any other industry.
When did I insist they forgo seeing family and friends? I fact I encouraged the rejection of such shifts if the money didn't compensate them enough.
From someone who now works a 9-5 office job I say you shouldnt look down on retail workers like your slave.
I don't look down on them at all, and they are far from slaves. If you think they are slaves, you need to look up real slavery.
Since you were a retail worker would you have accepted and worked the same amount if you were paid one rate which means a lower weekend rate?
My perspective was 'If you told me my weekend rates were to be lowered to the same as weekday rates I'd definitely substitute away from working the weekends to taking some off as going out, catching up with friends and other leisures would give me more satisfaction.'
You obviously have different preferences and made different choices.
When did I insist they forgo seeing family and friends? I fact I encouraged the rejection of such shifts if the money didn't compensate them enough.
You said this "As for missing time with friends / family, again, you have chosen this industry and accepted the territory that comes with it." How else could this be interpreted?
Yes I would have taken the shifts, at school holidays I asked for shifts which were during normal business hours and were the least on a per hour basis.
I knew the rate I would get, I still happily took the shifts even though many of my friends were enjoying their holidays.
You said this "As for missing time with friends / family, again, you have chosen this industry and accepted the territory that comes with it." How else could this be interpreted?
2 things. Key word here is chosen, they chose this industry knowing the implications on their social life, its also a choice they can undo, its not locked in.
Furthermore….I also said.
if you think you are worth more than the agreed rate, then reject those shifts or quit altogether.
Again freedon of choice, no one is forcing them to miss seeing their family, they can reject shifts or quit.
You said this "As for missing time with friends / family, again, you have chosen this industry and accepted the territory that comes with it." How else could this be interpreted?
That it was a choice, quite evidently? I don't want to generalize but this is a common theme I've come across where people see others living it up and want the same thing, and worse, think they're entitled to it. Some people have rich parents or trust fund money - they're lucky. The rest of us have to choose between money and free time.
This doesn't really get better as you get older either by the way. Just instead of "money vs time with friends", it becomes a choice between "money vs time with family".
And don't act as if you don't have time during the week as a student to spend with friends. I was a student once too.
Yes I would have taken the shifts
How can you be so sure? Which award was this showing least on per hour? were you working past midnight? Im pretty sure that during regular opening hour stores every 6am - 9pm shift was paid the same?
I knew the rate I would get, I still happily took the shifts even though many of my friends were enjoying their holidays.
So you understand I have a similar perspective as your friends?
Key word here is chosen, they chose this industry knowing the implications on their social life, its also a choice they can undo, its not locked in.
The implications arent consistent though, the working hours of the industry are so flexible that it isnt 'one size fits all'. So just because you chose the industry doesnt mean your social life has to be impacted….
Its about finding a work-study-play balance and when work doesnt pay as much on weekend more people will play
How can you be so sure? Which award was this showing least on per hour? were you working past midnight? Im pretty sure that during regular opening hour stores every 6am - 9pm shift was paid the same?
I don't have any evidence other than I accepted all shifts given to me, including those during normal working hours on weekdays when the rate was the lowest.
So you understand I have a similar perspective as your friends?
Yes….and I support people exercising that choice, as I do now with those who feel they want family time above working.
The implications arent consistent though, the working hours of the industry are so flexible that it isnt 'one size fits all'.
Yes, and thats why the industry typically attracts people who are equally flexible and willing to sacrifice time away from family and friends.
So just because you chose the industry doesnt mean your social life has to be impacted…
It does and it doesn't.
Again….you can pick and choose your shifts so you don't miss important events, but I suspect if you keep knocking back shifts consistently the company may be reluctant to give you more shifts.
If you have chosen to work in retail and hospitality, you have exposed yourself to at least the possibility of your social life impacted.
Again freedon of choice, no one is forcing them to miss seeing their family, they can reject shifts or quit.
This is like saying, no one is stopping you from murdering people if it's your choice. Just as long as you accept going to jail, otherwise don't do it. But if you wanted to, you still can.
Sure, someone would step in immediately at the new rate, but there is no guarantee they would offer the same quality as the existing employees. Lets say they are trained and retained, when does the cycle stop? a race to the bottom of who would want to work for bottom dollar? Thats why the government has intervened and provided a minimum wage because markets are imperfect and labour markets can fail.
Your argument can pretty much apply to any job, including yours. Theres always somewhere out there whos willing to do it for less. But not all skills can be acquired overnight.
Well then that's how the market would work - if there is a shortage of people with the skills, businesses would have to pay the rate workers demand.
Sure, someone would step in immediately at the new rate
Thats really all I need to know.
but there is no guarantee they would offer the same quality as the existing employees.
The answer is more than likely Yes, remember they are not hiring architects, surgeons nor actuaries. Places like Macdonalds, Coles etc have systems and regimented training programs in place to make it easy to take up the simple processed.
The process flow for a check-out worker has been so simplified due to the systems in place and has essentially taken away the user's requirement to think.
Lets say they are trained and retained, when does the cycle stop?
It stops when the last person leaves and there is no-one willing to accept the vacant role at that rate. This means the equilibirum price struck in the previous employment contract was the 'right' one.
The answer is more than likely Yes, remember they are not hiring architects, surgeons nor actuaries. Places like Macdonalds, Coles etc have systems and regimented training programs in place to make it easy to take up the simple processed.
The process flow for a check-out worker has been so simplified due to the systems in place and has essentially taken away the user's requirement to think.
This isnt really a strong argument, Ive seen numerous employees who were overqualified for the job struggle to pick up the menial, manual and systematic nature of retail jobs in a timely manner that you would think. And if someone were too good for the job they would be likely to move to bigger and better things anyway. And without doubt the quality would be lower within the probation period. The repetition aspect alone for current workers would make them much more efficient for the near future.
It stops when the last person leaves and there is no-one willing to accept the vacant role at that rate. This means the equilibirum price struck in the previous employment contract was the 'right' one.
So we are going to have a bidding war? for the lowest price? The hiring process isnt cheap, nor is the training and mistakes made during probabtion could be costly to the firm. This cycle of trained, retained, fired then hired to find a point where the labour market clears could be an extremely lengthy and costly process. With the welfare system in australia we could see a situation where no one wants to work because wages are so low.
So what do you do for work? and are you immune to this problem of being replaced by cheaper labour?
So what do you do for work? and are you immune to this problem of being replaced by cheaper labour?
I'm going to be honest. I worked retail and fast food when I was in high school and uni. Never once did I consider that kind of job something I'd rely on long-term for income. So what do you do for work? You go to uni, get a degree, and find a better job - that's what you do.
You might as well try to argue that paper routes don't pay enough to support a family. No - they don't. You're not supposed to work them for 30-40 years and support a family on a paper route. Likewise low-level retail and fast food.
@HighAndDry: Trust me I never saw retail as a long term career, just to build some cash and experience during my studies.
Even though I am not in retail anymore, I respect those who work in retail and believe they also have needs which should and have been accommodated for. I know down the line my kids may work retail under similar circumstances to us so I'm not ready to accept the idea of lowering their weekend wage as I wouldnt have liked that if it was me.
If i was the CEO of the company though….. money talks
This isnt really a strong argument, Ive seen numerous employees who were overqualified for the job struggle to pick up the menial, manual and systematic nature of retail jobs in a timely manner that you would think.
Yes….some people can't do menial jobs.
But by and large, on balance of probabilities, Coles could pluck someone off the street and they could work a checkout or stock shelves within a days training.
So we are going to have a bidding war? for the lowest price?
I think of it more as striking the market price.
The hiring process isnt cheap, nor is the training and mistakes made during probabtion could be costly to the firm. This cycle of trained, retained, fired then hired to find a point where the labour market clears could be an extremely lengthy and costly process.
In the case of retail, they have put in place systems and controls that make bringing someone onboard efficient. It's likely someone coming in at the ground level will go through a group induction so cost wise its really efficient. As for mistakes, yes they are costly but again if we are talking about ground level retail staff, their exposure to needing to think outside of established processes is limited. It's hard for a check out person to make a huge mistake unless they can't tell the difference between a $100 note and a $1,000 note.
So what do you do for work? and are you immune to this problem of being replaced by cheaper labour?
I work in IT. No I am not immune to market forces. I have enjoyed the highs of the mining boom, I have endured the lows of the bust. I have been cut when the company decided to offshore internal functions. So I am no stranger to what I proposing retail workers go through.
@hadz: Good. I hope my kids learn the lesson that everything has trade-offs - such as working weekends for money, or spending time with friends. And that life is competitive - if they don't want to work weekends for that level of pay, very likely someone else will.
By that logic, nurses, police, ambulance, fireman all work in industries that operate at 24hrs. So they shouldn’t get allowances or extra pay because they “chose an industry that operates outside on 9-5”.
Very uneducated and impulsive statement with no real regard for anyone outside your current line of work.
Hahahah oh com'on. You're comparing police, ambos, firies… with retail workers? Get a grip mate.
Why can't he?
Everything you said about retail industry applies to those industries too. You have not refuted his point.
Emergency services workers don't operate on a 9-5 window, and are expected to be paid more money outside of 9-5. So why doesn't the same standard apply to retail?
Well, I agree with you. People want compensation for their own choices. Australians especially love to outsource accountability. "I needed three years out of study to take drugs in Bali. Why won't anyone offer me an above average wage to get my five kids fed and clothed?"
It is a balance.
I earn about $250k before tax but is it worth it? I sacrifice many things to earn it - including years of study, choice of city, friends, family, weekends and more.
On reflection, I'm not sure it is worth it for me.
You will need to ask yourself:
* how much more money do I need?
* what am I willing to sacrifice for it?
I think once you have answered these questions you can formulate a plan.
Before hitting a comfortable income level it’s hard to imagine this though. I remember when I crossed around the 70-80k line, I feel like all the money I earn after that were kinda extra and I don’t immediately need it and it does not really contribute to my immediate happiness. Of course you can save these and buy bigger things like properties and nice cars, but before hitting the comfortable level, it’s hard to imagine this.
^This is the truth.
If you're single and all you want is to make money, that 250k a year job you dedicate your life to might be worth it.
If you have a family and other goals, not so much.
A mate of mine, a civil engineer worked for one of the larger companies in his industry and was run off his feet. 16 hour work days were frequent, he had no life.
He took a huuuuuuge paycut, moved to a smaller company and couldn't be happier. Still makes enough money to live comfortably enough and isn't burnt out.
It's all about balance.
Yeah it's all about balance and what you're happy with.
I'd gladly work 16 hour days, even more so for private security in a warzone for $250k for 3 month stints. At least you'd be able to afford to buy a home in just a few years rather thank suffer financially, paying back a loan for 40 years just to own a shitty small home.
I mean, even if it was just for 5 years, that's nothing in the scale of things to come for the rest of your life.
What jobs are running at $250k in 3 month stints?
Well, then there's the risk of getting maimed while in that warzone, hence the danger money.
@wittyusername:
I remember reading somewhere you can only get sent there in 3 month blocks. I may be wrong. But if it's 3, you'd have to go 4 times to make up the years salary.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erbe/2007/10/04/blackwa…
$300,000 USD in 2007 money, which is $350,000+ in 2018
dcep on 09/07/2018 - 12:24 Comment score below threshold.
