Financial Planning as a Single Woman

LLucy1 on 27/01/2019 - 00:33
Last edited 27/01/2019 - 00:34

I'm a 32 year old high school teacher living in Melbourne. Over the last few years, I've become increasingly concerned about my financial future as I have very little super (<20k) and virtually no assets to my name. I do currently have about 115k in a high interest savings account for a deposit on a house, but haven't bought anything as I fear buying in Melbourne is well beyond my meagre salary (72k). Only debt I have is HECS (40k).

The options I currently have:

  1. Try to increase my salary as much as I possibly can. I currently do tutoring which gives me a little bit extra (2-3k a year), but am also thinking of adding in some retail/hospitality work (lower pay, but more hours available).
  2. Choose a new career. Unfortunately most high income careers will require that I retrain, which I'm quite happy to do. I have just been offered a place in Deakin's bachelor of engineering. As its online, I will continue to work full-time whilst studying part-time. Given that I am getting a lot of credit, I can get it done in 4-5 years.
  3. Teach overseas somewheres that pays better than what I am currently getting. I have done a bit of research and it appears the Dubai pays rather well with the possibility of free accommodation.
  4. Move to the country. I have previously lived in the country and hated it, but it may be only hope of ever buying a house.

Any suggestions of what I should do?

Financial

Comments

  • 2jzzzz on 27/01/2019 - 00:38
    +68

    Buying a house isn't always the path to financial freedom. Look at shares etc and rent in a wonderful place. Your $110k is an amazing start. I do think you need to up your super. I don't understand how you could have saved that much, but accumulated so little super.

    Have a read of barefoot invester.

    • Diji1 on 27/01/2019 - 01:13
      +5

      Agree with this ^.

      I think it's best to learn yourself and many investment activities are simple*. Certainly low risk ones such as aiming for retirement are.

      I think the best way is books and usually they're at the library for free.

      Be very careful with anybody else managing your money, usually they're there to extract as high a fee as possible and even a 1% fee is devastating to compounding wealth. The best position is where you own the investment vehicle so there is zero incentive to levy fees. Some index funds are set up like this for example.

      *It only takes 3 months typically to do a financial advisors course for example and they really let any bozo do it.

      • Ghost47 on 27/01/2019 - 20:27
        +1

        The best position is where you own the investment vehicle so there is zero incentive to levy fees. Some index funds are set up like this for example.

        They have index funds with zero fees? Even owning ETFs will have a management fee of some sort, but I do agree that fees can really have a large impact over time.

        What course were you talking about by the way? The Royal Commission has introduced changes so that new advisers need to have a degree majoring in financial planning at the minimum I believe, and current advisers have to upskill or something.

        • Ven0m on 28/01/2019 - 14:47
          +2

          Just FYI, the changes to advisers education requirements started this year but didn't have anything to do with the Royal Commission. They've been planned for a while. Much needed for the industry, but it's more the culture in organisations and incentives which has been the problem influencing behaviour.

    • mvau1 on 28/01/2019 - 10:07
      +9

      +1 for Barefoot Investor

    • digitalbargain on 28/01/2019 - 15:19
      +7

      Find your super?!

      Edit; 20k in super assumes you earnt an average of $22k per annum over the last ten years..

      I also have no idea how you managed to save that much assuming above income

      What are we missing?

      • akyeeeahdude on 28/01/2019 - 18:32
        +7

        I was thinking the same thing. Impressive savings and no super so I'd hazard a guess that she received much of the savings from a gift or inheritance. Small possibility that she was self-employed previously and didn't actively contribute.

        OP: I'd stick it out in teaching. Work your way up. Head of Department roles pay a decent amount.

      • dsar on 29/01/2019 - 12:25

        Hopefully a super with low fees

      • Binchicken22 on 29/01/2019 - 15:22

        Could well have not come from "saving" per say, might have been inheritance money, gift from parents (yes some rich parents give their kids money for a house deposit) who knows…

      • sghetti on 29/01/2019 - 15:24

        This, do a super search, either through your current super provider or via the ATO service. If you have moved jobs, your new employer often sets you up under their standard super provider unless you specify your previous provider to them. You could have multiple (I had 3 or 4 at one point) and rolled them up into my current one quite easily.

      • nix1016 on 01/02/2019 - 09:44
        +1

        She said she used to live in another country so it could be savings accumulated from when she wasn't working in Australia.

        • Feiniao on 01/02/2019 - 10:26
          +1

          Country as in regional areas…

      • Tightpocket on 07/02/2019 - 10:09

        It can also comes in from working cash in hand.

    • HeartFeltAxe on 29/01/2019 - 10:36
      +2

      Yeah I was going to read the barefoot investor myself but then I realised:

      Why would I want to read a financial book from a guy who can't even afford shoes?

      • barbarella on 01/02/2019 - 11:10

        probably 'cos $s better invested than spent on shoes that do not increase in value :)

  • bobbified on 27/01/2019 - 01:05
    +3

    What you need to do really depends on what your end goal is. Have you at least worked out what you want to be doing?

    For eg, no point moving out to the country if you can't find another job out there.

    Who says you can't buy a place with $115k? You can start small and upgrade as you go.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 28/01/2019 - 08:28
      +5

      What you need to do really depends on what your end goal is.

      But not whether you are a Single Woman or Single Man. Cue an influx of white knights to woo the first post wonder.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 28/01/2019 - 08:46
        +7

        Heck, I'll bite to help everyone who is reading, and possibly because it's 0830 and my testosterone is peaking.

        $115k is far too much for a young earner to leave in a savings account. It would be much better invested in a low fee index fund ETF. I recommend that you choose an ETF with a low Management Expense Ratio. A list of most ETFs trading on the ASX is available here, click ETPs. For the broker I recommend SelfWealth. Their flat $9.50 brokerage is market leading.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 28/01/2019 - 08:51
          +22

          But for any actual single women unburdened by moral values, the best financial advice is to marry a wealthier man and seize most of his assets.

          • Scrooge McDuck on 28/01/2019 - 08:58
            +14

            @Scrooge McDuck: For single men: Earn, invest, leave Australia and retire. The cost of living here is a rip-off!

          • bobbified on 28/01/2019 - 12:41
            -1

            @Scrooge McDuck:

            …any actual single women unburdened by moral values, the best financial advice is to marry a wealthier man..

            Well, I've got to admit, that's the first thing that came to mind. I hear that from female friends and colleagues all the time whenever they're not sure what to do with themselves.

          • dust on 28/01/2019 - 20:21
            +4

            @Scrooge McDuck:

            best financial advice is to marry a wealthier man and seize most of his assets.

            Your opening line on Tinder?

            • Scrooge McDuck on 28/01/2019 - 22:09

              @dust: Not quite. If I used such things it'd be:

              Toyboy seeking Sugar Mama.

              Although matching someone with more would be a tall order. I couldn't settle for Gina Rinehart but I'd do Jeff Bezos's wife for a cool $30 billion!

          • ely on 30/01/2019 - 19:53
            +1

            @Scrooge McDuck: To be honest, that's a sound (if unscrupulous) option for single men unburdened by moral values as well!

        • DaneD on 28/01/2019 - 13:04

          Thanks mate, found this helpful.

          • bobbified on 29/01/2019 - 10:31

            @DaneD: what.. Scrooge's advice on just marrying a rich guy? I thought it was common knowledge haha :p

            • DaneD on 30/01/2019 - 13:17

              @bobbified: I was referring to EFT section - since then multiple replies. Now it looks appears as if I like the advice on marrying a rich guy.

              That being said, I do agree with the 30b comment.

              • bobbified on 30/01/2019 - 13:31

                @DaneD:

                I was referring to EFT section

                I was really just stirring - I knew what you were referring to (so don't worry, others will be able to see too!) haha

  • doheedo on 27/01/2019 - 01:12
    +12

    Ask yourself why you HAVE to own a house. Life could be a lot cheaper with the money invested elsewhere.

  • MarsTitan on 27/01/2019 - 01:18
    +1

    Dubai seem like a great option, which you can do now (single, free and assuming no kids). Plus there is a big community of expat UK and Australian there. It is tax free (not sure how it works when you try to come back to Australia though).

    Nothing against engineering, it is one of the best professions to be in if you are really motivated. But if your only incentive is money then Engg. in the long run will not pay you much more than your current profession. A good senior engg gets paid from 120-150K (4 years bachelor +5 years). While you income in your current profession will rise to 100K~120K in 5 to 6 years, plus you will be senior teacher by then maybe earning a bit more.

    • Donaldhump on 27/01/2019 - 10:10
      +2

      UAE may be tax free but you pay tax in australia in return as your still a tax resident.

      The ato commissioner would have you pay up in no time

      • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2019 - 15:10
        +1

        Not sure why you've been neg a lot. haha
        Overseas Income are taxable, but is determined under the set test ITAA36 s.6(1) with Primary test to determine whether if you are still a taxpayer resident. Individual circumstances would determine majority of the time if those income are taxable in cases like FCT v Applegate (1979) or even FCT v Jenkins (1982), e.g visiting Australia, leasing home or even kids.

        • Donaldhump on 27/01/2019 - 17:24
          +1

          Me neither, it amazes me how many people think working overseas tax free, means no tax in Australia

          If the atoi determines you to be tax resident, i.e. you legitimately intend to return to Australia they will charge you tax. You can challenge it but you need a good case. If your born here / citizen here etc be Pretty hard. I guess people think you can go work in uae tax free then comeback and blaze Medicare etc.

          • che_97 on 27/01/2019 - 21:36
            +16

            @Donaldhump: This isn’t how it works. If you LIVE in Australia and make foreign income, you pay tax on it here.

            If you LIVE in UAE for the whole year then you pay the taxes there. Perhaps people get stung because they come back half way through a fiscal year and then have to pay tax on a portion of that year.

            • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2019 - 21:44

              @che_97: my answer above basically answer this same with unclesnake, you still have to pay taxes to the ATO. As even if you overseas you are domiciled in Australia. Therefore taxable. If determined to be resident of Australia whilst working overseas, the salary earned from that country would be taxable, resulting in becoming subject to a foreign tax offset.

              You may pay taxes in UAE, but there's a treatment to it so you don't get double taxed but there is a still a differences that need to be paid.

              • che_97 on 28/01/2019 - 12:06
                +3

                @[Deactivated]: I stand by what I say. If you lived in another country for the whole fiscal year then you are not an Australian tax resident for that year and therefore don’t pay tax in Australia that year.

                • tik tok on 01/02/2019 - 11:09
                  +2

                  @che_97: I can see why you stopped replying to people who refuse to be educated. You are 100% correct.
                  Wow. The amount of stupid replies around this post is insane. I seriously hope the OP doesn't read it.

            • Donaldhump on 28/01/2019 - 01:11
              +5

              @che_97: I beleive this is incorrect, see answers above. If you are resident for tax purposes, which is the case due to your attachment to australia you pay tax in australia the difference of what you would have paid here and what you paid overseas.

              Ie you get s foreign tax credit for what you did pay and pony up the difference. You could find no shortage of ato rulings on this.

              https://quickbooks.intuit.com/au/resources/self-employment-t…

              Seems if your domicile as said above is australia you are tax resident, this is what the ato will dispute with anyone saying they are not tax resident, I have read if you own a home here it’s hard to dispute, but either way if you do declare being a non resident and you have a house it will trigger cgt.

              Might be wrong, but think I’m corrrect.

              • bringbring on 28/01/2019 - 05:56

                @Donaldhump: Can go either way, but yeah if you intend on returning they can catch you out and make you pay tax on foreign earnings. In reality, if you leave for several years just visiting occasionally I don't think they're too concerned with you.

                • Donaldhump on 28/01/2019 - 09:28

                  @bringbring: Unless you truly can show you are abandoning australia, and never going to come back and claim the old age pension and Medicare, the ato commissioner will have you in a court in 5 minutes to dispute it.

                  If you born here or a citizen and have no other citizenenship where you can stay elsewhere indefinitely then you are not likely to win a claim to say you are not domiciled in Australia

                  The answer above with four upvotes is incorrect tax advice. I’d be working in a tax free country in five minutes if it were true

                  • bringbring on 28/01/2019 - 09:43

                    @Donaldhump: There are of course dual nationals, and regardless of that there are many opportunities to obtain PR while working overseas on a visa. It's unlikely such expats would require (or be eligible for) the pension upon their return.

                    From what I'm aware of, if you continue to lodge tax returns when overseas the ATO will believe your 'non resident' status but MIGHT flag it upon your return, in which case you need to justify that you had no intention of returning?

                    If you have any experience with this or stories to share I would be interested in hearing. I'm not disagreeing with you outright but think there would be some leeway involved.

                    • [Deactivated] on 28/01/2019 - 15:42
                      +1

                      @bringbring: Read FCT v Applegate (1979) or even FCT v Jenkins (1982)
                      Those will help you. It determines that permanent doesn’t mean that. Also things like returning to Australia.
                      Applegate litterialy came back to Australia for treatment and was required to pay taxes owing evening those he was overseas with permanent.

                      ITAA97 s.6-5(2), 6-10(4) determines ordinary and statutory income from worldwide sources are taxable to Australia Resident Taxpayer

                      Ruling TR98/17 determines thing like Physical presence in Australia, If a visitor the frequency, regularity and duration of visits and things like The persons family, business and social ties

                      Also Tax Ruling IT2650, the domicile test
                      uses factors like
                      Intended and actual length of stay overseas
                      in the case the intention to reside for less than 2 years is not “substantial”
                      Association with Australia, Particularly bank accounts and education of children

                      Therefore, All earnings are taxable under 6-5 unless you can prove that you have no domicile in Australia.

                  • [Deactivated] on 28/01/2019 - 15:35

                    @Donaldhump: Funny thing is that people believe what they want to believe, even though it not true. Even evidence and laws or even court cases cite wouldnt help. Can’t wait for them to turn up to a advisor for financial advice or ATO when they get fined

                    • Donaldhump on 28/01/2019 - 16:43
                      +2

                      @[Deactivated]: Yep, I can’t be assed, I’m the sucker who paid the taxes, but I know what’s mine is mine.

      • ely on 30/01/2019 - 19:57

        That's a bit broad; if you have few ties here (e.g. not owning a home would be a big one) then saying that you've permanently severed your ties here and leaving long enough would be sufficient to render you non tax resident.

        • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2019 - 21:28

          well ATO puts it as "no intention of returning to Australia". so As long as you have little or non assets in Australia or Business, barely any family e.g No kids or wife in Australia, relinquish your citizenship (maybe) and make no visit to Australia and be substantial time overseas, ATO will declare you as an Non Tax Resident
          But however if you come back one day and use Medicare or etc then ATO will roll back in time and make you repay all those taxes and declare you signed a false statement of "no intention of returning to Australia" like in the Applegate case or another scenario is reestablishment of resident in Aus to avoid back log of taxes

          • Donaldhump on 01/02/2019 - 08:48

            @[Deactivated]: Spot on, but world is full of bums who want to pay no tax yet bleed the services they fund.

            No diff to people with no car insurance then whinge when in a prang, or no travel insurance etc.

          • chriise on 01/02/2019 - 15:02

            @[Deactivated]:

            ATO puts it as "no intention of returning to Australia"

            That's not true.

            Try the ATO calculator:
            https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Host/?anchor=DO…

            Simple example, you have no property, move overseas for 4 years for work, and do not return to Australia during that period (once or twice for a short holiday to visit family wouldn't be a problem) then you are not a resident for tax purposes.

            It's got nothing to do with your life long intentions.

            Edit: if you're not a tax resident, then you are a foreign resident: "As a foreign resident, you only need to lodge annual Australian income tax returns if you receive income from sources in Australia."

              • chriise on 02/02/2019 - 00:06
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: Dude… FCT vs Applegate (1979)…

                1) The FCT lost at NSW Supreme Court and appealed to federal
                2) They were only debating the period during the FY that Applegate left Australia, not the following years before returning to Australia
                3) This was in the 70s… and
                4) It was dismissed!! The commissioner lost and verdict was that Applegate was a non-resident even for the part-FY in which he left Australia

                This was an appeal by the Commissioner from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Sheppard J.)

                "In the present matter I am of opinion that notwithstanding the fact that he intended ultimately to return to Australia, he was capable of establishing a permanent place of abode in the sense abovementioned outside of Australia. I have further formed the view that he did in fact establish such a permanent place of abode during the year of income. In the circumstances therefore he is a “non-resident'' within the definition and exempt from Australian tax on his income derived from sources outside of Australia."

                ORDER: The appeal is dismissed with costs.

                https://iknow.cch.com.au/document/atagUio551652sl16859949/fe…

                And the ATO Legal database updated the definition of 'permanent' to reflect this case

                Both the Supreme Court of New South Wales and, on appeal, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that the taxpayer had a permanent place of abode outside Australia. He was therefore a non-resident in the year of income concerned.

                https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?Docid=ITR/IT2650/NA…

                I can't believe you made me read that whole thing though…

                • MarsTitan on 02/02/2019 - 02:01
                  +1

                  @chriise: Very detailed analysis. Thank you.

                  • chriise on 03/02/2019 - 00:51
                    +1

                    @MarsTitan: Damn the guy deleted their comment and closed their account. Ouch.

    • poboy on 27/01/2019 - 17:57
      +47

      I would never recommend an Arab country for a single white female. Females are possessions there. You will get no respect and will suffer consequences far beyond any male if you are seen to slight a local.

      • Morien on 27/01/2019 - 22:21
        +28

        Have to agree with this.

        Story time.

        Brother was working out of Dubai. Goes on site for a weekend. Wife goes ice skating. Boy skating gets distracted and goes into the back of her. Father accuses wife of beating his son. Even with video evidence to the contrary, wife spends night in holding cell until brother returns the next day (and finds out).

        Even beyond that, brother (who, mind you is physically imposing, so couldn’t be called remotely feminine) vows never to work in Arab countries again. His experience was that position in society somehow determines if you know everything or not, and nobody is upfront that they aren’t the expert. He was treated pretty garbage, don’t think it would be much different for a woman, who is seen as a second class (not even) citizen.

        Don’t trade your safety, or well being for financial security.

        • Broden on 27/01/2019 - 22:45
          +10

          Agreed. Heard so many horror stories from people working in Arab nations. Rarely hear anything good aside from 'I earned lots of money'.

        • Morien on 27/01/2019 - 23:27
          +10

          It may not be universal, but it is definitely not “not true at all”. See my comment, and I gave a specific example.

        • Samsungnote10 on 28/01/2019 - 03:42
          +2

          1 example doesnt disprove trends

          Edit: did you know i know an asian girl who is 193cm

          • Morien on 28/01/2019 - 16:29
            +6

            @Samsungnote10: Didn't say it does. But 1 example does disprove "not true at all".

        • 811b11e8 on 28/01/2019 - 08:35
          +4

          I also have a friend who is a white female teaching over UAE who loves it.

          Spends long weekends in Europe and loves expat community etc.

          However the school she works for provides her a male driver to essentially escort her everywhere she goes outside of school.

        • Ahbal on 29/01/2019 - 09:48
          +1

          Probably because your friend ignores transgressions as "cultural enrichment".

      • pipe on 28/01/2019 - 20:46

        How do you know OP is white?

  • Lucy1 on 27/01/2019 - 01:24

    I want to be comfortable and financially independent as I am on my own and Melbourne is very expensive to live (median house= $1 mill).

    As for a career, I thought to do engineering as it is high earning and I am very strong in maths and science. But ultimately I am happy to do anything that is tech or math related.

    Unfortunately the ceiling for teaching is 90k, unless you go into admin (deputy/principal etc). Good teachers and bad teachers get paid the same, regardless of effort or performance. I like my job, but wish I would be fairly compensated for all the extra I do. I'm sure I could be earning more doing something else.

    • Hardlyworkin on 27/01/2019 - 08:19
      +5

      Ceiling for public schools you mean? Private is higher. Maybe it's time to embrace religion :) A relative of mine earns over 100k as a regular teacher at a Catholic school.

      Otherwise what about Brisbane, Perth or Adelaide? All cheaper than Melbourne. The gold coast even?

      Btw have you ever been to Dubai? Prepared to lose your freedom?

      How many years of study, HECS and working entry level before you get ahead in the new field?

      • Lucy1 on 27/01/2019 - 14:33
        +6

        Sorry I should have said, I'm already teaching at a private school. I don't get paid more unfortunately, but the job is permanent. I think there is a prevailing myth that private schools are always better than public schools but I have found that is definitely not the case. TBH If I had a child I wouldn't send them here even if they offered me free tuition

        • ms_caz on 27/01/2019 - 15:13
          +1

          Department of Education Salary Scale shows that the top of the pay range (with automatic progression) is approx $101K so you are a little bit out. Most people who would be at the top of the pay range would also be doing some kind of position of responsibility which could be a few thousand on top of that too.

          I know it's not hundreds more but there is still a bit of scope to move through the pay levels - if you are on $72K then I am guessing you are a fairly recent grad?

          • Lucy1 on 27/01/2019 - 15:17

            @ms_caz: Yeah 4 years. Unfortunately because of automatic progression there isn't much you can do but wait until you get to the top. And to be honest the top doesn't seem that great (compared to other degree fields). Still its not terrible by any means.

            • ms_caz on 27/01/2019 - 15:41
              +1

              @Lucy1: True, the "top" is not earth shattering and yes it is a case of work up through the years until you hit it (and then can't move on unless as you say you go into leading teacher roles). However, you can go into leading teacher roles without having to progress through each of the levels. Victorian education department is currently recruiting for numeracy specialists all over Melbourne and Victoria. If you have a strong Maths and science background, and an interest in improving education in this area, and developing high level teaching and learning curriculum and training for staff, then look into this. Applications for these positions seem to be closing in the first week of Feb which doesn't give you much time, granted, BUT this could be a role where you are recognised for all the things you do.

              The Department is also prioritising STEM in schools and this too could be an area to explore - not for money but for a new and refreshing outlook.

              Frankly, and I say this because I have been there, you sound like you might be in a bit of a rut. This could be an opportunity.

              It's not going to get you the $150K that an engineer might command - but then again, engineering roles aren't all that easy to come by either, based on reading these boards.

              • Lucy1 on 27/01/2019 - 15:49

                @ms_caz: I'm currently in the private system, but I will definitely have a look into it if I return to the state system. Thanks for letting me know.

                Yes I just feel really uninspired. I like the work, but there is no incentive to be a great teacher. There's no recognition and your pay remains limited irrespective of how great a job you might do. If I weren't so ambitious and career-driven it would be fine :)

                • ms_caz on 27/01/2019 - 15:53

                  @Lucy1: The time is NOW! Recruitment for these positions is happening right now! This is your incentive to be a great teacher :) (You'd jump $35K in a year….)

                • Eeples on 27/01/2019 - 18:28

                  @Lucy1: There is nothing stopping you applying the leadership positions at your school or other schools both public and private. You did say you are ambitious.

                  Leadership positions start at $102k.

                  • Lucy1 on 27/01/2019 - 19:09

                    @Eeples: I try but its very competitive in the city. Lots of teachers with more experience than me. If i go to the country i would have a better chance

                    • wicklow on 29/01/2019 - 08:22

                      @Lucy1: other ideas-
                      Look at teacher salaries interstate particularly where there are remote loadings and incentives. Do a couple of years in a very remote school.

                      Consider Senior Teacher roles, faculty heads, year level
                      leads etc. These push up salaries quickly. Look in corporate areas of departments for these levels too. This will vary by state.

                      Look at corporate areas in the smaller states where there’s a demand for skills and rapid promotion is possible.

                      Upskill in business intelligence, data science, analytics etc. Education departments are often looking for teachers with an interest and takent in data - it’s big in the Education field.

                • p1 ama on 28/01/2019 - 01:50
                  +13

                  @Lucy1:

                  Yes I just feel really uninspired. I like the work, but there is no incentive to be a great teacher.

                  The incentive to be a great teacher are your students. I don't know if you've worked in any other fields aside from teaching, but I've found that incentives are really strong in teaching (I'm a teacher).

                  When I get students who end up doing really well, who end up achieving part of their dreams, or even students who might come to me afterwards and let me know that they didn't get something before, but they do now, I genuinely feel really happy and I honestly feel like I've achieved something from the bottom of my heart.

                  I've worked an office job. There, I could spend so much time and effort getting things to work, staying back at work every day for weeks and nobody would even really care. I could put in the hard yards to upskill and hit more KPIs so I'd get a raise, but the raise ends up going to some sycophant who cares more about sucking up to the boss than doing any productive work. It gets to the point where I don't even know who really benefits from my work anymore. Sure, if you enjoy the back-patting that goes round and round in circles, then maybe it works, but I don't think the incentives are really all that great.

                  There's no recognition and your pay remains limited irrespective of how great a job you might do. If I weren't so ambitious and career-driven it would be fine :)

                  That's not true at all, teachers know who the good teachers are. Students know who the good teachers are. Also, I don't agree with your analysis that the pay is limited. As pointed out by others, teachers earn up to $105,000 (and move up quite quickly too). That salary is double the median full-time Australian salary, and almost puts you into the top quartile of earners.

                  I like my job, but wish I would be fairly compensated for all the extra I do. I'm sure I could be earning more doing something else.

                  I don't understand why people keep saying that teachers are not well paid. They are actually very well paid. The median teacher salary is higher than the median accountant salary, and only slightly below the median for civil engineers:

                  https://www.payscale.com/research/AU/Job=High_School_Teacher…
                  https://www.payscale.com/research/AU/Job=Accountant/Salary
                  https://www.payscale.com/research/AU/Job=Civil_Engineer/Sala…

                  Ultimately, whatever people may say about how teachers are paid, the data just does not support that at all. Are you really sure you'll be better off as an engineer after all?

                  Good teachers and bad teachers get paid the same, regardless of effort or performance.

                  This is better than the bad employees getting a raise because they suck up to the boss, whilst the best employees keep getting shafted. This is not uncommon in a lot of industries.

                  • Jebus on 28/01/2019 - 10:54
                    +2

                    @p1 ama:

                    I don't understand why people keep saying that teachers are not well paid. They are actually very well paid.

                    Love your post, however the reason people suggest teachers aren't well paid is because of the hours they put in that are uncompensated. As an accountant once the clock hits 5pm (most Fridays people knock off at 3 now haha) you can go home and spend time with your family. Try doing that as a leading teacher in a primary school…

                    I work an office job while my wife is a primary school teacher but when we compare our days it feels like I was on holiday in comparison, and I'm a hard worker in a lead position. Yes as you mentioned there are days or even weeks that I may need to work late, but it's a slow rollercoaster of ups and down, where as teachers are just go go go all year.

                    I've gained a lot of respect for all the passionate teachers out there.

                    • p1 ama on 28/01/2019 - 13:55
                      +5

                      @Jebus:

                      As an accountant once the clock hits 5pm (most Fridays people knock off at 3 now haha) you can go home and spend time with your family. Try doing that as a leading teacher in a primary school…

                      Maybe for some accountants, but certainly not true for a large majority. I used to be an economist in the public service, so not the toughest of workplaces and being in the office at 7pm wasn't terribly uncommon.

                      I think the issue is that most people are dreamers instead of realists and have a pretty terrible idea of what the averages actually are. When people think about jobs in finance or banking, they think about hedge fund analysts who are in well into the top 5% of earners in that field, when people think about engineering, they think about mining engineers who are paid a crap tonne because they have to fly-in fly-out and spend time away from their families. When people think about doctors, they think about highly paid surgeons rather than their local GP…etc.

                      The issue is that when we imagine ourselves in these professions, we envision the very top of the tree, but the reality is that (probability wise) we are likely to be around the middle. Teaching on the other hand, as pointed out by some people, tends to be pretty uniform with a low upper ceiling, so it's not quite as fancy.

                      • BusMan247 on 29/01/2019 - 01:56
                        +2

                        @p1 ama: Fully agree, and the reality is that the teacher probably makes more than the genetic banking or finance roles.

                        I'm in banking, my sister is at a top 4 accounting firm, both make less than my teaching wife.

                        Getting some $150k role in banking you gotta be doing ok.. hard jobs to get.

                        But no question there are bad workers in every field… In finance there are heaps of people who are not accurate, punctual, fast as each other.. every profession will have this variance.

                        And if you're a teacher without motivation due to the false idea there is no reason to be good… You won't do any better anywhere else.

                        • p1 ama on 29/01/2019 - 21:34
                          +2

                          @BusMan247:

                          Fully agree, and the reality is that the teacher probably makes more than the genetic banking or finance roles.

                          Yes, I have personal experience with this myself. I was a government economist prior to becoming a teacher. When I moved, my salaries were basically the same. That said, I do think that I would be paid more as an economist if I stayed on, but that's not the full story.

                          I now basically get 1/3 of the year off due to school holidays (arguably the best time to be off, to be honest). I also work < 10 min drive from home, whereas before, I worked in the city with a 40 min train commute each way. Overall, I would say that I'm probably better off. That's aside from all the satisfaction and doing what I love…etc.

        • Quantumcat on 27/01/2019 - 17:36

          TBH If I had a child I wouldn't send them here even if they offered me free tuition

          Why is that? My sister has had her child on the list for a private school since she was pregnant and I think it is such a waste of money - surely if they went to a public school and got tutoring, music lessons, etc etc to the same total as the school fees the child would be way in front. I'd love to find out real experience from someone that knows what they're talking about, for why it is a waste.

          • Lucy1 on 27/01/2019 - 17:43
            +1

            @Quantumcat: Each school is different. The one I work at now has very poor quality of inexperienced teachers with poor management. We are a private school but our results are not great (which doesn't surprise me at all). I used to think private = better but now I know that is not always so.

    • barbarella on 27/01/2019 - 12:02
      +5

      Make sure you will be doing a job that you LOVE! No use earning great $s if you are unhappy at work…

      • k15866 on 28/01/2019 - 09:31
        +14

        I've heard this line so many times whilst growing up / being in school etc. Having now entered working life, I feel like this is a very privileged mindset which sets people up for discontentment or a constant unsatiable search for 'the one'. I've definitely heard of people hitting their late 20s / 30s and realising they dont love their job, they drop everything they've previously studied/worked on and travel / reskill / become twitch streamer and plays fortnite till ungodly hours. Whether this is a good/bad thing depends on which side of the fence you sit and perhaps I'm a bit more traditional, but I feel like a more productive/resilient mindset is

        Find a job (something you can be good at), work hard at it to become proficient, so that someone will pay you good coin for it.
        Spend good coin on things you enjoy. Let work be work and enjoy everything outside of work / retire early.

        • downbythecreek on 28/01/2019 - 11:27
          +1

          How long have you been in your current job? And in what industry?

          • k15866 on 28/01/2019 - 17:09
            +2

            @downbythecreek: 5 years, healthcare - job satisfaction is high as your helping people. Do I see myself doing it till I retire… No, but I will probably remain within the healthcare sector because that is something I care about.

            • downbythecreek on 28/01/2019 - 19:02

              @k15866: Ok, makes sense, I assume it is a clinical job of some sort? They generally have very high job satisfaction rates. I generally thought this way before I hit my career wall as well which happened after about 10 years. I was in Law enforcement and it wasn't the actual work I despised, it was the incredibly unsociable hours and lack of control over future work location that worried me. I left and have gone back to university to study in a professional field (also healthcare) as I just fell into law enforcement after doing a BA. I don't think this is a lack of resilience, more so a shift in what is important to me as I have gotten older. I do broadly agree that people need to be more resilient in the workplace, I see lots of people quit or change jobs as soon as they have to do something they don't like.

              • k15866 on 28/01/2019 - 19:50

                @downbythecreek: yep - clinical.
                Was there nothing within Law Enforcement that you could transition to? A shame for the department to lose someone with years of industry experience. I suspect your not the first person to have wanted more stable hours/location as they've gotten older (possibly started a family) etc.

                • downbythecreek on 28/01/2019 - 20:42

                  @k15866: Yeah, look it wasn't without trying, I completed a relevant Masters and then spent 2 years trying for an offshift position within a reasonable commuting distance of our home, I even was willing to accept a demotion. I got a couple of offers but my current work area refused to release me, so I ended up having little choice. Fortunately I did so well in the Masters that I was able to consider all the things I've always wanted to do but never had the marks for previously.

        • p1 ama on 28/01/2019 - 14:00
          +1

          Disagree with you completely and utterly.

          Having now entered working life, I feel like this is a very privileged mindset which sets people up for discontentment or a constant unsatiable search for 'the one'.

          I think it's a privileged mindset to think that other people should just put up with what they're doing and not search for new and better opportunities that might bring them more happiness.

          I've definitely heard of people hitting their late 20s / 30s and realising they dont love their job, they drop everything they've previously studied/worked on and travel / reskill / become twitch streamer and plays fortnite till ungodly hours.

          Come on, don't make it sound like this is some kind of norm. You might know of one guy who wants to be a twitch streamer, it's not like everyone's deciding to leave their jobs and stream.

          Find a job (something you can be good at), work hard at it to become proficient, so that someone will pay you good coin for it.

          You're more likely to be good at and work hard at something you like.

          Spend good coin on things you enjoy. Let work be work and enjoy everything outside of work / retire early.

          No matter how much coin you have, you're not gonna be able to buy back the time you were slaving away for that coin doing sh!t you hate.

          • k15866 on 28/01/2019 - 17:38

            @p1 ama: Forgive me, cause I dont know how to do quotes.

            a) It is not exactly privilege that makes me think what I think. Nor did I say people should put up with what they're doing, more so I don't think it's good to build up an expectation that we should find something we love. I suspect for most industries, if you are good at what you do, new opportunities will come up.

            One of the simplest reason I said privileged in the first comment was because for some, loving their job is not an option, they need to put bread on the table etc etc. But another example could be young adult sets themselves up with the idea of studying for a job in a niche industry because it fits their hobbies/interests and then finish studying and struggle to find work. They then avoid getting mainstream jobs because they know they will hate it.

            b) I agree it is definitely not a norm for people to switch to Twitch streaming - it was an exaggeration / nth degree example

            c) I agree with your point, but feel like this point also demonstrates one of the downfalls of the 'love my job' mindset. If a person loses interest in their job, then the quality of work suffers. To make an assumption, if society has this sort of standard / mindset, then if a person was never interested his/her job, their mindset will be that they can justify doing a shit job.

            d) But if you don't have an expectation that you should love your job, the fact that you don't love your job, isn't as great a burden. One is not slaving away anymore than the other. Both work 8 hour shifts. EDIT: feelings towards work are not dichotimous eg. its complicated

            • p1 ama on 28/01/2019 - 18:51

              @k15866:

              It is not exactly privilege that makes me think what I think.

              I think that in some sense it is. You say that you have high job satisfaction and that you are in a sector that you deeply care about. In other words, you enjoy what you do. It's easy for someone who has found a job they somewhat enjoy to turn around to other people and say that they should also be happy with what they have.

              One of the simplest reason I said privileged in the first comment was because for some, loving their job is not an option, they need to put bread on the table etc etc

              Yes, there will be people (due to circumstance, personal decisions or otherwise) who will not be able to live their dream. There are people who will be able to drive their ideal car, live where they want to live. There will be people who cannot do that.

              The question we are discussing here is whether, given a choice, an individual should choose the pathway that will lead to a job they enjoy. It has nothing to do with people who never had that choice in the first place.

              But another example could be young adult sets themselves up with the idea of studying for a job in a niche industry because it fits their hobbies/interests and then finish studying and struggle to find work. They then avoid getting mainstream jobs because they know they will hate it.

              I think you still have this mindset that people who love their job are doing something completely "non-mainstream" (by your own statement), e.g. twitch streaming. That's not the case at all, I have many friends in very mainstream fields who love their jobs. They are engineers, teachers, financial analysts, bankers, marketing consultants, academics…etc.

              Ultimately, I think you have to address the root cause of the problem. What you're saying here is two things. One is that people pursue what they love. Secondly, when that fails, they avoid getting a "mainstream" job. The problem is the second point, not the first.

              I agree with your point, but feel like this point also demonstrates one of the downfalls of the 'love my job' mindset. If a person loses interest in their job, then the quality of work suffers.

              It is to deny basic human (even animal) psychology that people put more effort into something they love. Whether this "should" happen or not is different from the empirical reality (i.e. whether it "does" happen or not).

              But if you don't have an expectation that you should love your job, the fact that you don't love your job, isn't as great a burden. One is not slaving away anymore than the other. Both work 8 hour shifts.

              Easy to say, difficult to live. You're really telling me that if I put you in a job that you really did not like (did not find satisfaction, in an industry you do not care about or hate) that you will not view it as a burden? That's insane.

              • k15866 on 28/01/2019 - 19:23

                @p1 ama: I think we are arguing slightly different ideas. I have nothing against loving your job - as mentioned, I am in an area that I enjoy and loving your job will definitely make you more productive/accountable than the average person. I haven't denied this.

                What I do feel, is we shouldn't be so focused on promoting 'find a job you love' - as things were when I was in school, for reasons mentioned above. It works great if you find that job, but if things change or you don't find it, it sucks.

                On your last point, I don't think I'm insane, and if I had a job that I was indifferent about, that paid me generously, I'd do it. Something within myself says whatever I do, I should do well - which is just a personal attribute which I don't expect everyone to share. At the end of the day, I would have more money to spend on things I enjoy in my free time / I can retire earlier and have more time to enjoy my life outside of work.

                • p1 ama on 28/01/2019 - 20:53

                  @k15866:

                  What I do feel, is we shouldn't be so focused on promoting 'find a job you love' - as things were when I was in school, for reasons mentioned above. It works great if you find that job, but if things change or you don't find it, it sucks.

                  You don't quite get my point. This sort of thing is easy for you to say because you love your job. I don't think there is anything wrong with finding a job you love.

                  I've worked jobs which I didn't love, I didn't die or decide to completely bomb out. I did what was required of me and eventually I found an opportunity to move into a job I loved. I took that opportunity. Don't think there's anything wrong with that.

                  The idea that there are people who bomb out in life and "decide to become a twitch streamer" is not because we promote the idea that you should love your job.

                  On your last point, I don't think I'm insane, and if I had a job that I was indifferent about, that paid me generously, I'd do it. Something within myself says whatever I do, I should do well - which is just a personal attribute which I don't expect everyone to share. At the end of the day, I would have more money to spend on things I enjoy in my free time / I can retire earlier and have more time to enjoy my life outside of work.

                  Never said a job you're indifferent about, I said a job you really did not like. There's a big difference between the two.

              • alienurbanite on 01/02/2019 - 11:54

                @p1 ama: I don’t think people should be going into jobs they hate, but the reality is work is work.

                Sure there may be one ideal field you love… and it would be a dream to work in that industry.

                But there are also realistic fields that you’re ok with and might enjoy… but ultimately work is work.

                When I was a teenager, my dream was to be a professional athlete or a coach. My parents were very against that and essentially forced me to study in the sciences.

                17 years later, I’m a specialist physician making reasonable money. Would I have loved my job more if I played PGA golf? Sure!!

                But what more likely would’ve happened is that I would be an out of work golfer looking for clients to coach for a couple hours a day now… living paycheck to paycheck. As a 40 something now I’m really glad my parents put a bit of pressure on me.

    • Donaldhump on 27/01/2019 - 17:26
      +5

      Considered data science post grad? If you have a good stats background could be perfect for you and contractors earn good money

    • Coatesy on 28/01/2019 - 00:14

      Heres a link to the salary scale for teachers of one of the expensive private schools in Perth.

      https://www.ccgs.wa.edu.au/careers/employment-conditions/sal…

      I imagine the other expensive private schools across the country would pay similar. Some of the expensive schools in Perth (PSA/IGGSA), also have very generous performance based bonuses.

    • ribze1 on 28/01/2019 - 14:35
      +2

      Median house price in Melbourne is ~$780k, Sydney is pushing $1.1m

      • dufflover on 30/01/2019 - 15:06

        And even then plenty of decent townhouses to live in for much less than $700k, even under $500k - 2BR.

    • akyeeeahdude on 28/01/2019 - 18:34
      -1

      $90K ceiling isn't true. I suggest you look around. Head of Departments get much more than that. Even high school teachers with at least five years service often get more than that. Look towards private schools.

    • lgacb08 on 29/01/2019 - 11:26

      You need to look outside your horizon, i know a young dude just graduated from teaching and scored a permanent teaching position in private school for more than your current salary, jusy dont stick around major cities. Who know how much hed get by the time he got the same experience.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join