• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Has retirement changed due to employment?

If not, there's always selling crack.

But where does one find crack in the first place? Is there a supply depot somewhere? Can I order it from a catalog? Or is it like a Tupperware party...but with crack?

I don't know how these things work.
I have no idea. Look it up on WikiHow.

I hope to hell my gamble of going back to school pays off. I would like nothing more to actually have a career where I can use my brain instead of doing something robots will be doing a generation from now. I didn't pay tens of thousands of dollars and spend four years of my life so I can serve coffee or cut grass :scream:

Here's hoping April 2011 is different :)
 
part of the problem, IMO, seems to be that people are going to college because they are supposed to, instead of wanting to. So they go, but go to have fun, or major in easier things, just graduating with whatever degree they can get, instead of having a plan going in. Not to say you should know what you want to do with your life at 18, but an attempt to train yourself in a needed or useful field is certainly helpful.

I went in for engineering, it was an in-demand field, and got a job straight out of school. I worked my ass off, but have been employed steadily, so can't complain. I even have one of those pension things people are saying is long dead :)

Another problem is that experience thing. Used to be that Masters' degrees were for people that were out in the world, and came back for that higher degree. Now with people either planning to stay for it, or failing to find a job and staying in school instead, you've got lots of overly educated people that have no idea how things really work outside of school. Add in all of the layoffs, failed dot-coms and whatnot, and there's a lot of competition for the entry-level jobs that used to go to college kids.
 
part of the problem, IMO, seems to be that people are going to college because they are supposed to, instead of wanting to. So they go, but go to have fun, or major in easier things, just graduating with whatever degree they can get, instead of having a plan going in. Not to say you should know what you want to do with your life at 18, but an attempt to train yourself in a needed or useful field is certainly helpful.

Indeed. I went to college, mostly, because all my friends were going and I didn't want to get left behind in my hometown. I had no idea what I wanted to do or what to study. So I partied. I majored. I passed. But I didn't really give a shit about any of it.

I wish I had learned a trade instead, to be honest. I would love to go into construction or carpentry or something. There isn't enough love for the trades these days.
 
I picked my major because it's something I enjoy and find interesting (geography) and while it definitely does have its applications, I'm just not sure how to leverage it into a job right now. I also have a lot of experience working at a student newspaper, which is good, but... well, see the problem from the first sentence. ;)

I don't regret going to university, it's more that I'm just kinda aimless right now.
 
Fortunately, I ended up working at a company that uses MUMPS, and most of the people who know MUMPS are in the process of retiring. There's a ton of legacy systems out there running MUMPS, too. That, combined with the version control expertise I picked up, should serve me well for at least another 10 years, if not longer. I'm picking up other skills along the way, but my MUMPS expertise is still the core of my resume.

Sometimes things work out, and sometimes they don't and you're forced to course-correct.

I had to do that, but in the opposite direction. I lost my job as a COBOL programmer in 2004, spent a couple of years looking for work and not getting any, and ended up going back to school to learn Web programming. I took courses in scripting languages (HTML, JavaScript, VBScript, and ASP), C# and Visual Basic, and got hired partway through that last course. I still haven't finished the certificate requirements - spending 90 minutes per day commuting - each way - makes continuing my schooling difficult.

I also picked up PHP along the way at my last job, and use it about 95% of the time at my current job.
 
So, if I had any advice to give to the under-30 crowd, it would be this: specialize, specialize, specialize! Find a niche in your industry and learn it, inside and out. Try to be a generalist and no one will want you, because generalists are cheap and interchangeable.

The flip side of this is my dilemma: the niche you specialize in disappears.

I wanted to be a commercial automotive shooter, and the niche was still viable when I was in school. So, I concentrated my studies and experience there.

Shortly after I graduated, the industry switched from traditional photography to computer generated imagery. Most automotive shooters have had to scramble for a new skill set, or fail. Upstarts like me never had a chance. I have a big expensive education and no job, no industry to show for it.

I'm fortunately employed, but hate my job. Instead of making the 100K per shoot I would have as a first assistant, as I would have been had I graduated and entered the field 5-10 years earlier, I'm stuck behind a freaking desk, photoshopping jpegs for peanuts.

That's also a very good point. You gotta be sure the niche you pick is a strong, healthy one. Sometimes that's not very easy to predict.

Back when I was a teenager, I had my hopes pinned on getting into web programming. CGI programming was still fairly new--it was the mid-'90's and interactivity hadn't really taken off on the web yet. Well, the dotcom explosion happened, then it collapsed. I had no idea what I was going to do, because I wanted nothing more than to do web programming.

Well, there isn't much money in web programming anymore. Not to say there are no jobs in that field, just that there's a glut of people with that skill set, and not enough jobs to go around.

Fortunately, I ended up working at a company that uses MUMPS, and most of the people who know MUMPS are in the process of retiring. There's a ton of legacy systems out there running MUMPS, too. That, combined with the version control expertise I picked up, should serve me well for at least another 10 years, if not longer. I'm picking up other skills along the way, but my MUMPS expertise is still the core of my resume.

Sometimes things work out, and sometimes they don't and you're forced to course-correct.

Eat, or program in MUMPS; that's a really tough choice...
 
The flip side of this is my dilemma: the niche you specialize in disappears.

I wanted to be a commercial automotive shooter, and the niche was still viable when I was in school. So, I concentrated my studies and experience there.

Shortly after I graduated, the industry switched from traditional photography to computer generated imagery. Most automotive shooters have had to scramble for a new skill set, or fail. Upstarts like me never had a chance. I have a big expensive education and no job, no industry to show for it.

I'm fortunately employed, but hate my job. Instead of making the 100K per shoot I would have as a first assistant, as I would have been had I graduated and entered the field 5-10 years earlier, I'm stuck behind a freaking desk, photoshopping jpegs for peanuts.

That's also a very good point. You gotta be sure the niche you pick is a strong, healthy one. Sometimes that's not very easy to predict.

Back when I was a teenager, I had my hopes pinned on getting into web programming. CGI programming was still fairly new--it was the mid-'90's and interactivity hadn't really taken off on the web yet. Well, the dotcom explosion happened, then it collapsed. I had no idea what I was going to do, because I wanted nothing more than to do web programming.

Well, there isn't much money in web programming anymore. Not to say there are no jobs in that field, just that there's a glut of people with that skill set, and not enough jobs to go around.

Fortunately, I ended up working at a company that uses MUMPS, and most of the people who know MUMPS are in the process of retiring. There's a ton of legacy systems out there running MUMPS, too. That, combined with the version control expertise I picked up, should serve me well for at least another 10 years, if not longer. I'm picking up other skills along the way, but my MUMPS expertise is still the core of my resume.

Sometimes things work out, and sometimes they don't and you're forced to course-correct.

Eat, or program in MUMPS; that's a really tough choice...

While I can understand why some people hate MUMPS with a passion, I kind of like weird languages that give you a loaded shotgun and then don't tell you how to avoid shooting yourself with it. :p I'm also a perl programmer.
 
Retirement is still going to happen, whether you want it to or not, so it's not changing. What's changing is how you fund your retirement.

I know this is your field anyway, but still, this is one of the best posts on the subject I've read here.

I came to the conclusion that I needed to plan properly for my own retirement a long time ago. I aimed to retire at 50, though secretly hoped that I could manage at 40 or in my wilder moments, 35, and so structured my savings with the aim of securing a minimal - but comfortable - retirement income ASAP.

In the end, instead I've chosen to get out of my current career soon, and move into a portfolio career. But since I've saved and planned so aggressively, I should be able to work the equivalent of about 20-25% of full time and still be comfortable for about 10+ years, assuming no sideline grows, and the market is static. And in that time, if only one of my little sidelines takes off, I'll be able to to prolong that indefinitely. If the markets do particularly well, not even that. So rather than retiring in my 30s and doing nothing, I'll be "retiring" in my 30s and working part-time on a number of different fun projects. Fingers crossed it works out! :lol:

Point is - plan properly, and start early. No-one else will do it for you.
 
Holdfast, your plan is great provided you planned to never have a family!

This is true. I guess that made it easier. I don't have any plans to do so, and frankly, never have. If I change my mind, I'll just need a rich wife. ;)
 
Retirement is still going to happen, whether you want it to or not, so it's not changing. What's changing is how you fund your retirement.

I know this is your field anyway, but still, this is one of the best posts on the subject I've read here.

Thank you.

I came to the conclusion that I needed to plan properly for my own retirement a long time ago. I aimed to retire at 50,
Reasonable goal, would require some effort.

though secretly hoped that I could manage at 40 or in my wilder moments, 35,
A ridiculous goal that was worthy of working for. What's the worst that could happen if you were focused on it?

But since I've saved and planned so aggressively, I should be able to work the equivalent of about 20-25% of full time and still be comfortable for about 10+ years, assuming no sideline grows, and the market is static.

Financial independence: where work becomes optional and retirement affordable.

Point is - plan properly, and start early. No-one else will do it for you.
QFT

Holdfast, your plan is great provided you planned to never have a family!

This is true. I guess that made it easier. I don't have any plans to do so, and frankly, never have. If I change my mind, I'll just need a rich wife. ;)

Never marry for money, you can always borrow it cheaper. ;)
 
I would like to first say that financial terms make my head hurt. Even simple stuff like deciding if my 401k contributions would be "Roth" or "pre-tax" caused me a massive headache, and that was before I figured out what those actually meant.

That said, I was looking at my 401k yesterday and it occurred to me that I'm not sure if I'm doing all I can with it. I'm contributing 6% on a Roth basis; 6% is the maximum employer-match amount. There's about 20k in the account right now.

But it's all in a "stable value fund", which gets me a "rate of return" of only 1.6% or so at best. Should someone like me bother looking at other investment options, or is that just going to get me in trouble since I probably won't keep on top of it enough? What about letting Fidelity's "experts" manage it for me? They might be able to do something more useful with it, but they also take an annual fee for their services, and I have no way of knowing whether the one will exceed the other.
 
I would like to first say that financial terms make my head hurt. Even simple stuff like deciding if my 401k contributions would be "Roth" or "pre-tax" caused me a massive headache, and that was before I figured out what those actually meant.

That said, I was looking at my 401k yesterday and it occurred to me that I'm not sure if I'm doing all I can with it. I'm contributing 6% on a Roth basis; 6% is the maximum employer-match amount. There's about 20k in the account right now.

But it's all in a "stable value fund", which gets me a "rate of return" of only 1.6% or so at best. Should someone like me bother looking at other investment options, or is that just going to get me in trouble since I probably won't keep on top of it enough? What about letting Fidelity's "experts" manage it for me? They might be able to do something more useful with it, but they also take an annual fee for their services, and I have no way of knowing whether the one will exceed the other.

Back when I was with Fidelity, I used one of their "Freedom" funds. What you do is put your money into a fund that's near your target retirement date. Early on, they invest it aggressively, but it gets put into more conservative investments for stability as you approach your retirement date.

Of course, I had most of my money in FDIVX, which is extremely volatile, but it was fun to watch it grow (and then plummet :eek:).
 
I would like to first say that financial terms make my head hurt. Even simple stuff like deciding if my 401k contributions would be "Roth" or "pre-tax" caused me a massive headache, and that was before I figured out what those actually meant.

simple answer: pre tax = tax relief now, tax burden when withdrawing; Roth = no tax relief now, no taxes at withdrawl

That said, I was looking at my 401k yesterday and it occurred to me that I'm not sure if I'm doing all I can with it. I'm contributing 6% on a Roth basis; 6% is the maximum employer-match amount.

Good start getting all the free money you can.

But it's all in a "stable value fund", which gets me a "rate of return" of only 1.6% or so at best.

Inflation in the US has historically been between 3-4%. If you're only "earning" 1.6% you're actually losing money long term.

Should someone like me bother looking at other investment options,

Yes.

or is that just going to get me in trouble since I probably won't keep on top of it enough?

Doesn't have to be changed or reallocated daily, since it's an asset destined for use in 30+ years.

What is important is that the allocation match your tolerance for risk. And by tolerance for risk, I mean tolerance for losses. Some research has shown that retail investors have a lower risk tolerance than they claim.

You've got time on your side, a mix of equities and bonds would be appropriate, with a heavier weighting in equities.

What about letting Fidelity's "experts" manage it for me? They might be able to do something more useful with it, but they also take an annual fee for their services, and I have no way of knowing whether the one will exceed the other.

How much is your time worth? Do you have the knowledge/ skills to do it or the desire to learn?

You can do your own research through Morningstar, get deep into the weeds with beta, alpha, historical returns, star ratings and the like and probably put together a decent portfolio, especially given the limited options in most 401(k) plans.

You can pay an "expert" anywhere from 50 to 100 basis points to "manage" the portfolio for you and take that headache away.

If your plan offers it, "funds of funds" or "allocation funds" might be a good choice. They're funds that offer a certain mix based on risk and timeframe.
 
So my question is, is retirement changing due to these job hoppers?

If you job hop strategically, it can be quite good for your career. If you save and invest in retirement accounts consistently and max them out, you'll have a great retirement regardless of your job hopping.

So, in the end, it comes down to how you are hopping jobs and how well you're doing at saving for retirement. If you're not saving for retirement, you're pretty much sunk regardless of how good you're doing otherwise.

Mr Awe
 
Most of us who have tried to get good jobs are often turned down because of our lack of experience. The thing that sucks about that is that in this current climate it's damn near impossible to actually get the experience you need.

As someone who's a bit older and in a career, all I can say is when you are in college, be sure to get as much intern experience as possible. That's the best possible route to a good job in the field that you want. You get the experience, networking, and references. You'll stand out from the other applicants.

Mr Awe
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top