Originally Posted by Third Eye (Post 18010390)

As a former pension actuary, the move from pension to 401k was primarily driven by desire to de-risk on the employer side. Plain and simple. Yes, portability is an advantage for employees, but let's not get it confused. The current hiring marketplace is a symptom of the disincentivizing of staying long-term, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 18010666)

Exactly, and it just keeps growing as there are grandkids and great grandkids.

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 18010649)

A few months ago I was chatting with a young (late 20s) woman and we were talking about careers. She mentioned that her boyfriend "doesn't want a job", and it frustrated her. She said that he only wanted to play video games all day and then make money doing DoorDash deliveries and stuff part-time. She could see that he wasn't going to thrive long-term doing that. (She had a career going.).

I kind of worry about young men in our society. Something is happening that's sapping the drive of a lot of them. I've noticed it in some of the younger men that I know, and it's a really bad mindset.

I sympathized with the woman, and I thought that she should probably find a guy with some long-term potential. I think people need to be more ruthless and businesslike when choosing a mate.

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief (Post 18010669)

As someone who worked closely with ERISA and plans in the past I don't necessarily disagree. However, as 401k's became more prevalent in the late 80's, it allowed certainty on the books for employer, as you mentioned, as well as an alternative for employees. This de-risking was necessary to compete in the evolving global economy, more so, than "how can we screw employees". Those that needed to compete for employees on the benefit side, still had substantial cost for matching contributions/profit sharing contributions, it was just a much more predictable cost. Many employers have went to cash balance plans in lieu of traditional Defined business plans in addition to their 401k plans. While this continues to grow and is a great benefit for employees, I've seen many employees leave and go to companies that don't offer a money purchase plan at all. As an employee with a money purchase plan, I prefer the cash balance over a traditional pension plan for a variety of reasons.

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 18010634)

On my recent big trip, about half the people on one of my ships were doing a six-month "world cruise", which cost about $200,000 for a couple. That's a chunk of change. Most or all were retired, since that's the only way to get six months off to travel.

I was listening to how people became affluent enough to afford such a trip, and two reasons were far and away the most common. People either worked for government or (in the past) a large company that offered defined-benefit pensions, or they owned and sold a business. Those were far and away the most common reasons. The pension people were not C-suite types who made big money, but my impression is that they felt secure with the pensions and didn't feel a need to manage risk to a retirement portfolio.

The other reason that I heard to some degree was people who merely had a high-wage job, mostly doctors. I met a couple of people who had legacy family money, and one couple who invested early and hard into crypto and made a bunch of money, but those were exceptions to the rule.

The loss of defined-benefit pensions is a major factor in people feeling less secure about retirement, in my opinion. I'm not sure there was ever a time where a majority of workers got them, but they're rare now. You pretty much have to work in government to get them.

Originally Posted by Mosbonian (Post 18010671)

The real question will be how it affects the population over the next few decades....

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 18010654)

I made time, while working exactly 50 years and raising two daughters with my wife.

Once you have kids, your love will help you overcome your selfishness.

While helping raise them and providing, I restored several vehicles, played darts, bowled, played a lot of pool, had several boats, camped etc. They were a part of much of it and it taught them some valuable lessons.

The satisfaction I now enjoy from their success in life far outweighs any enjoyment I ever had from things I had done.

But I get it, the newer generations are getting away from this, thus our society has some issues.

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 18010685)

It's interesting to me that annuities still exist, as they're essentially a self-funded pension. So they've obviously found a way to make the model work.

On paper, annuities make a ton of sense to me. As an individual, I have to worry about a market that goes south for a decade. As a perpetually living corporation, an annuity (or a pension plan) doesn't need to worry about that. I guess there are some variables such as life spans that could be a risk, but it seems like those could be built in.

I'm not necessarily advocating for the return of pensions, but my own observations is that people who get them feel much more secure in retirement, rightly or wrongly.

I'm also a big fan of society putting $1,000 into a long-term deferred investment fund for every kid that's born. It's not a huge cost, and it confers huge long-term benefits to the kid.

Originally Posted by Jewish Rabbi (Post 18010631)

Baristas get pensions now?

Originally Posted by Fish (Post 18010697)

The reality is that many young people today would be incapable of actually doing something similar in today's economy. Most young people today cannot afford several vehicles, boats, etc. Simply working your ass off no longer provides young people all those extra things that you enjoyed. It's just not that simple these days. I know many young people who are very hard workers with great work ethic and have held a job for years, yet they can't even afford to own a home. Let alone extra vehicles, boats, etc. as reward for their hard work.

I'm not defending young people, because many are definitely lazy and unappreciative. But the idea that the entire younger generation simply needs to roll up their sleaves and get a job and everything will be provided like it was in the golden years, it just doesn't apply the same as it did 50 years ago. It's not all the younger generation's fault. Wages have been stagnant for decades while costs have skyrocketed. The playing field has absolutely changed.

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief (Post 18010709)

Wages have been pushed down by NAFTA and illegal immigration. This is not meant to be a political statement as it is documented and quantifiable. I was a free market guy as an Economics major, but it has decimated the middle class. That being said, I see many of today's youths using door dash regularly, having the newest and best Iphone/Galaxy etc. Wealth doesn't come easy, but I've seen a lot of young folks with average jobs who are in great shape in their 30's.

Originally Posted by Mosbonian (Post 18010728)

This is what makes me shake my head......DoorDash, Uber Eats, or just dropping by the local deli on their way home to pick up the same meal they could make at home for 1/3 the cost and even have leftovers for lunch the next day.

I went to the local T-Mobile store last week....there were 10 customers in there....8 were easily under the age of 30 and the other 2 were me and a guy much the same age as me. The word constantly repeated was Iphone....

I still have my 1st generation Flip phone from 4 years ago and it does me fine...

(Rant over)

Originally Posted by Mosbonian (Post 18010565)

My joy came from spending time with my kids when I got home from work...even when I worked OT.

I made my kids a priority.....because it also provided the greatest joy in my life.

It's that simple......I don't get why people see kids as a burden.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 18010789)

I don't agree with the idea that an iphone is a luxury. If you want to be competitive in today's job market you need a smartphone. Not for everything...but to not be tapped in like that would be extremely limiting.

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief (Post 18010709)

Wages have been pushed down by NAFTA and illegal immigration. This is not meant to be a political statement as it is documented and quantifiable. I was a free market guy as an Economics major, but it has decimated the middle class. That being said, I see many of today's youths using door dash regularly, having the newest and best Iphone/Galaxy etc. Wealth doesn't come easy, but I've seen a lot of young folks with average jobs who are in great shape in their 30's.

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 18010649)

A few months ago I was chatting with a young (late 20s) woman and we were talking about careers. She mentioned that her boyfriend "doesn't want a job", and it frustrated her. She said that he only wanted to play video games all day and then make money doing DoorDash deliveries and stuff part-time. She could see that he wasn't going to thrive long-term doing that. (She had a career going.).

I kind of worry about young men in our society. Something is happening that's sapping the drive of a lot of them. I've noticed it in some of the younger men that I know, and it's a really bad mindset.

I sympathized with the woman, and I thought that she should probably find a guy with some long-term potential. I think people need to be more ruthless and businesslike when choosing a mate.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 18010789)

I don't agree with the idea that an iphone is a luxury. If you want to be competitive in today's job market you need a smartphone. Not for everything...but to not be tapped in like that would be extremely limiting.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 18010789)

I don't agree with the idea that an iphone is a luxury. If you want to be competitive in today's job market you need a smartphone. Not for everything...but to not be tapped in like that would be extremely limiting.

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz (Post 18010862)

As someone loosely in IT, you literally need a smartphone to work at any decent office job. They all require MFA for cybersecurity insurance and most IT firms exclusively use an MFA app on your smartphone.

They are absolutely required.

Originally Posted by loochy (Post 18010866)

If a job needs me to use a smartphone then they need to provide the smartphone (which mine has - I have an iPhone). They don't expect me to use my own laptop too do they?

Originally Posted by Bearcat (Post 18010848)

I think you can buy a pretty basic smartphone for a few hundred bucks though.. or refurbished, or just don't run out to buy the latest one every year.

I don't think spending the extra money on a new iPhone is the main issue... like he said, it's spending the extra coin on a new iPhone and then using DoorDash and also going out to eat a lot instead of cooking at home, and having several streaming subs, and then complaining that a 4 bedroom house or luxury apartment costs too much for a 25yo.

/shouts at cloud

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 18010789)

I don't agree with the idea that an iphone is a luxury. If you want to be competitive in today's job market you need a smartphone. Not for everything...but to not be tapped in like that would be extremely limiting.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 18010867)

I don't think I've ever met anyone under 60 years old who doesn't have a smart phone, at least in the past 5 years.

All phones are fkn smart phones now.

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz (Post 18010862)

As someone loosely in IT, you literally need a smartphone to work at any decent office job. They all require MFA for cybersecurity insurance and most IT firms exclusively use an MFA app on your smartphone.

They are absolutely required.

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 18010845)

Well, to be honest without having served in the Navy, I wouldn't have been able to buy our starter home with $200 down making $3.26 an hour at Beechcraft.

All those hobbies of mine were supported by hustling on the side, such as building engines for people, flipping old cars etc. We didn't have FB marketplace back then but we had "Mini Market" in the paper and that was a staple.

It was constant motion, at one time I had 16 440s in my garage bought out of salvage yards that I parted out. Selling the heads, cranks and blocks.

We never ate out, seldom fast food, had one TV most of the time, one land line and were constantly in debt paying high interest rates.

Now the youth do door dash, new I phones etc are the higher priority. I had a nephew that felt a Mc Donalds employee should be able to support a family and eat fast food on that salary every meal as a staple.

Originally Posted by Bearcat (Post 18010848)

I think you can buy a pretty basic smartphone for a few hundred bucks though.. or refurbished, or just don't run out to buy the latest one every year.

I don't think spending the extra money on a new iPhone is the main issue... like he said, it's spending the extra coin on a new iPhone and then using DoorDash and also going out to eat a lot instead of cooking at home, and having several streaming subs, and then complaining that a 4 bedroom house or luxury apartment costs too much for a 25yo.

/shouts at cloud

Originally Posted by Fish (Post 18010931)

You were clearly a very hard worker with a lot of determination. Good for you. But still, the fact that you were able to purchase a home for $200 down kinda supports my point. The average down payment for a home in Missouri is now over $20,000. When you were that age, your purchasing power was 10 times greater than it is for a young person today. That dramatic of a price increase, and stagnant wages for decades.

Originally Posted by loochy (Post 18010923)

Yes, but I'm not going to use my personal phone for work. Don't send me texts on it, don't call me on it, don't make me access work email on it. That stays separate from my personal phone.


My wife made this mistake and she gets texts all night about patients and blah blah blah.


and my statement was targeted at this:

Originally Posted by Fish (Post 18010931)

You were clearly a very hard worker with a lot of determination. Good for you. But still, the fact that you were able to purchase a home for $200 down kinda supports my point. The average down payment for a home in Missouri is now over $20,000. When you were that age, your purchasing power was 10 times greater than it is for a young person today. That dramatic of a price increase, and stagnant wages for decades.

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 18010947)

No question about that part, it is pathetic what has happened to the starter home availability. I have two grandsons dealing with that very issue right now, it is sad.

Big investment companies have bought up much of the cheap housing for various financial opportunity reasons, rentals, flipping etc. It is maddening. Then of course these companies raise the rent to crazy numbers.

But, like I say, even 53 years ago, without the GI bill, I wouldn't have been able to do it either. $200 is all I could get my hands on.

Originally Posted by mr. tegu (Post 18010971)

Starter homes are ridiculously overpriced due to a lot of those reasons. So when comparing to 40-50 years ago it’s just such a pointless exercise. Then, starter homes were being built and supply plentiful, while still being in good locations. But now those same homes are by and large occupied so you have to wait for availability and when it does come on the market you have compete because the location is good. The other option is to move 60 miles away for a comparable home size that’s is not being bid on by 10 people and Blackrock. The only starter size homes and prices I see being built are horribly ugly connected properties like duplexes/townhome communities that look like they purchased from a Sears kit.

Originally Posted by sedated (Post 18010981)

The people raising the prices of starter homes, and building crappy homes, are not the same people buying new iPhones and using DoorDash. That is...another generation, that bought THEIR homes for $200 down.

Originally Posted by mr. tegu (Post 18010971)

Starter homes are ridiculously overpriced due to a lot of those reasons. So when comparing to 40-50 years ago it’s just such a pointless exercise. Then, starter homes were being built and supply plentiful, while still being in good locations. But now those same homes are by and large occupied so you have to wait for availability and when it does come on the market you have compete because the location is good. The other option is to move 60 miles away for a comparable home size that’s is not being bid on by 10 people and Blackrock. The only starter size homes and prices I see being built are horribly ugly connected properties like duplexes/townhome communities that look like they purchased from a Sears kit.

Originally Posted by KCUnited (Post 18010987)

Banks were practically giving free money away for like a 10 year stretch but home ownership sounded soooo boring then

Originally Posted by mr. tegu (Post 18010985)

I don’t think it’s the fault of generations at all. Prices for starter homes from 50 years ago would always go up, especially those that remain in good areas. Less supply in an area means higher cost. So think a lot is just natural. But it’s exacerbated by conglomerates buying up properties and even average people renting out properties, whether it’s ones they inherited or their own that they purchase for renting out. Now, why smaller single family homes aren’t built in more desirable areas I assume just comes down to profits, but I’m sure there are other factors. I think most DoorDash and new iPhone people are probably not in the market at all.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 18011054)

Only semi related but I find it interesting that the movie Fight Club came out in 1999 and its main premise was being a normal guy with a comfortable place to live and some nice things to surround yourself with was very normal so much that it was seen as unfulfilling and he dives into the madness that is the rest of the movie.

Fast forward 25 years and this crop of youngers wake up dreaming of that set of circumstances that was seen as boring and lifeless.

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 18011051)

Yes, that is the situation I was trying to describe. It is horrible situation and a sad one. Furthermore, builders quit building the low cost homes in favor of the higher profit higher end homes.

I might clarify though, even 40-50 years ago, the starter homes were mostly just older lower end homes that I ran into. Didn't see any new ones in our price range back then.

Something truly needs to be done.

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz (Post 18010862)

As someone loosely in IT, you literally need a smartphone to work at any decent office job. They all require MFA for cybersecurity insurance and most IT firms exclusively use an MFA app on your smartphone.

They are absolutely required.

Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 18010942)

Eh, I get the sentiment. That seems pretty unusual, though. If someone has to be on their phone constantly, then sure, work should pay for it. I don't want to have a separate device just for basic emails, Slacks, and 2FA, though.

Depending on how you set it up, you can possibly just disable work apps after hours if that's the part you don't want.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 18011082)

Most IT and IT security companies will assign you a phone and computer. They don't want people's personal devices having access to sensitive information.

Originally Posted by stevieray (Post 18011077)

Starter homes are seven percent of new homes being built.

Had a buddy supervise the building of a new subdivision in Belton. Nice homes.

They aren't for sale, just rentals.

Rent is too high.

Greed rules the day.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 18011057)

The generation that benefitted from those starter homes shut the door behind them. Practically made being against any new housing being built anywhere a lifestyle. City Council meetings across the country month after month year after year the only thing people are truly passionate about is making it impossible for others to have a realistic shot at housing.

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz (Post 18011087)

I suppose you could get a company phone or a FOB.

I guess I was pushing against the iPhone/Door Dash rhetoric just a bit. Door Dash, GrubHub, UberEats, and any equivalent is a scam and I think you're a fool to use it frequently, but a smart phone has great features and is relatively inexpensive. I dont think you'd be crippling yourself financially by getting one.

Originally Posted by kccrow (Post 18011146)

Working hard for many hours over years in the hope of a raise one day is old-school mentality and has no real basis in reality anymore. It's about getting paid for a skill set. If you won't, people will move on to someone who will. And someone will pay.

There is no dedication to an employer unless you pay well and offer some significant benefits on top of that, which endears that particular employee. Most resumes will have someone switching jobs every 2-3 years. If you expect to hire someone in today's age with longevity and dedication, you're behind the times by a significant margin.

Employers really have only themselves to blame. Decades of empty promises, stagnant wages, and expecting people to put work over life created it.

Originally Posted by notorious (Post 18011148)

I am an owner of a small business, and I can guarantee that the motivated and productive get raises and often.

Big business are terrible when it comes to this.

Originally Posted by notorious (Post 18011148)

I am an owner of a small business, and I can guarantee that the motivated and productive get raises and often.

Big business are terrible when it comes to this.

Originally Posted by kccrow (Post 18011158)

It's about the only way to retain employees. If you don't reasonably reward the work they will move on quicker than shit.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 18011127)

It isn't the phone so much as it's the contract that comes with it. To get the absolute latest phones, you have to go with a bigger provider. The discount mobile providers generally give out older phones, which is how they keep costs down.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 18010789)

I don't agree with the idea that an iphone is a luxury. If you want to be competitive in today's job market you need a smartphone. Not for everything...but to not be tapped in like that would be extremely limiting.

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief (Post 18011195)

Yes and an Iphone 12, heck even earlier 8, is more than enough for a fraction of the price on a $30 a month unlimited plan. Kids pay $190 a month so they get a "free upgrade" annually. FREE... LMAO

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 18011172)

Interesting. I can see that if you are going to get your phone as part of a package/contract.

A while back I tried to switch to one of those $25 per month per line spinoffs of our current provider, Verizon, and they told me my old Pixel 3 phone couldn't handle it. It grinds my butt to pay the Verizon bill each month but out here that is seems to be the best choice.

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 18011199)

It's about priorities evidently! Having the very latest Iphone must be more important than most other things for them.

Originally Posted by Pepe Silvia (Post 18010741)

It would be nice to get paid to perform like Russell Wilson.

Originally Posted by Pablo (Post 18011209)

I guess that $1000 phone is really cramping some folks style. Meanwhile you had enough money to have multiple vehicles and a boat while making $5/hour. Totally reasonable and justifiable expenses for sure. Boy I wonder if the world you came up in was just completely different or something

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 18011213)

I'm looking forward to the trifold Samsung phone that will be called the G-Fold. Coming out later this year. It'll probably be about $3799.

Originally Posted by Bearcat (Post 18011201)

This thread got me curious about the KC housing market and comparing it to my housing purchases and what I was making at the time.

My theory was leaning a LITTLE towards "damn kids, stop spending money on all your shiny gadgets and wanting a 4 bedroom house, and get a real job! :cuss: " despite knowing all the stats and so forth.

I bought my first house when I was in a pretty entry level IT job at $50k/year and it was a 15 year loan and the mortgage payment was only like $750/month (and that wasn't THAT long ago).

So, I bumped that up to $60k/year and went searching for a house that would fit a mortgage payment of no more than 28% of monthly gross income (and no down payment).... and one of the first (and few) houses that wasn't in the worst neighborhoods in the city was completely gutted and another one was 500 sqft. LMAO

Bumping it up to $70k/year (a ~$1600 mortgage payment on a $190k loan (yikes, interest rates ****ing suck!)) yielded more results and I'd say would be the minimum annual income for a starter home... and that's maxing out your mortgage/income ratio.

That does suck.... granted, I've also heard from people making 6 figures or a combined income that's in the ~$80-100k range saying they can't ever afford anything, which leads to my initial theory.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 18011210)

Russell Wilson has a better QB rating for the season than Patrick Mahomes...not just last season but the season before that one too.

Originally Posted by kccrow (Post 18011215)

With no down payment, you're going to get slapped with a PMI, and if it's a 0 DP it's probably going to be like 2% or more.

If you buy a home for $200k with a 6.5% interest rate, no DP s0 2.25% PMI, 15-year term, assume 3k in property tax, and 1500 in homeowners insurance, you're looking at total monthly payments of about $2,870. If you want that to be 30% or less of your income, you have to make at least $115k a year.

The only way to get where you're at is on a 30-year term and you better have money down to avoid PMI.

Originally Posted by Bearcat (Post 18011236)

Yeah, I just used a basic mortgage calculator that included the stupid ****ing PMI, which came out to like $1634/month... no down payment for simplicity, but also have no idea what's out there for first time homebuyers.

Definitely worse than I would have guessed, even though I knew it was bad.

I went back and looked in the neighborhood where I bought my first house at $90k and a comparable one down the street just sold for $190k. :eek:

Originally Posted by rydogg58 (Post 18011226)

So did Baker Mayfield, and Goff, and Burrow, Hurts, Darnold, Herbert, Allen, Carr, Tua, Daniels, Love, Purdy, Stafford, and Malik Willis.

Nobody, other than people that don't like Mahomes, thinks QB rating means anything when it comes to identifying who the elite quarterbacks are in this league.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 18011210)

Russell Wilson has a better QB rating for the season than Patrick Mahomes...not just last season but the season before that one too.

Originally Posted by Bearcat (Post 18011236)

Yeah, I just used a basic mortgage calculator that included the stupid ****ing PMI, which came out to like $1634/month... no down payment for simplicity, but also have no idea what's out there for first time homebuyers.

Definitely worse than I would have guessed, even though I knew it was bad.

I went back and looked in the neighborhood where I bought my first house at $90k and a comparable one down the street just sold for $190k. :eek:

Originally Posted by Pablo (Post 18011209)

I guess that $1000 phone is really cramping some folks style. Meanwhile you had enough money to have multiple vehicles and a boat while making $5/hour. Totally reasonable and justifiable expenses for sure. Boy I wonder if the world you came up in was just completely different or something

Originally Posted by Pablo (Post 18011214)

That seems fair. 3800 would have bought you 3 cars in 1975. And you’d make sure you had one for each day of the week just so you don’t get too bored driving the same thing

I have a 3 year old iPhone that I will most like keep for another 3 years because I don’t really give a shit about phones until they start sending nerf updates that make this one run like shit

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 18011282)

Funny thing is that almost exactly matches my first house mortgage 30 years ago, both in price and payment. ($17x,xxx mortgage with a payment of about $1,650). Living in central Denver was not a cheap undertaking.

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 18011429)

Different priorities. A phone is just a communication device. We didn't walk around bumping into shit while staring at a phone. We were actually involved with our surroundings instead being consumed by the abstract.

When I was 6 I could tell you the make and model of every car on the road as I wasn't looking down at a phone or gameboy etc.

Now it is the norm to see a person driving a 3000 lb vehicle down the road a speed staring at their phone. I wish their was a requirement for the phone makers to have them disabled while driving.