You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Money, or life?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> This aint sports talk!
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
candyman93


Joined: 02 Dec 2009
Posts: 59121
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MookieMonster wrote:
candyman93 wrote:
Calibucsfan wrote:
vike daddy wrote:
70+K?
nice city to live in?
friends in place already?
late 20's still?
presumably $$ stashed in savings?

take it, dude.

this.

OP, you're only talking about a 25k difference

Now if you were making 100k a year and to re-locate and be happier you would have to cut down to a 53k a year salary, that would be hard. But 75k and much upside? Take it take it take it


Only a 25k difference Laughing

Our economy is going to tank, you need as much money now as possible. Gonwith the job that provides you the most security. Which is most likely where you work now.

What makes you say this? Seems to be growing right now, tbh.


Same things were said before 2008.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MookieMonster


Joined: 17 Jun 2016
Posts: 3508
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd love to have this issue though tbh.

If you think you'll be happier at the other job and you can still live the way you want, take it man.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iggles


Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 26051
Location: Brooklyn
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

candyman93 wrote:
Iggles wrote:
theJ wrote:
Iggles wrote:
It's great to have savings. But then what? I don't find the economic stability argument compelling here when this person can earn $70k+ in a new city.

I don't know why everyone is assuming he can only make 70k in the city. That's the one job that fell into his lap.

If he wants to move to the city, he should look for a different job that pays the same or more than what he's making now and not compromise on either point.


Why not compromise? It's ideal to never take a cut, but it's not a necessity of life. There's no special award you get when you turn a certain age for having an uninterrupted rising salary.

Again, OP's gonna do what OP's gonna do, but do folks here really not see the value in living in a bigger city with more people and more to do? There's got to be more to life than money. What's the point of making that much if you're not happy and you have options that pay slightly less but are more fun?

The mental accounting going on here is just wild to me. If OP said they stood to lose out on only like $5k in salary, everyone would say jump. It's purely the headline figure here from a loss aversion standpoint. It's like you cross some threshold as far as percent of salary and all of a sudden you're financially insecure, when the reality is that this person's throwing out two numbers that both indicate material security.

I dunno, maybe I just value city living more at my age, but I think folks here are seriously underestimating the amount of fun you can get up to with cash in your pocket in a sizable American city. $75k a year in Pittsburgh is a recipe for some pretty fun nights and weekends. $100k a year in the middle of nowhere? Not so much unless you're super into that sort of thing, which OP clearly isn't, or this wouldn't even be a question.


Iggles, that's your big city bias talking. Some people enjoy the simple things in life.


And some people don't. The fact that this is a question seems to indicate the latter, no?

If the economy is gonna tank, might as well have some fun, right? Cities did better during the recession than the country, too. Hunker down where opportunity abounds.
_________________
Kelly Link wrote:
Television characters almost always have better haircuts, funnier friends, simpler attitudes toward sex. They marry magicians, win lotteries, have affairs with women who carry guns in their purses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69131
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iggles wrote:
theJ wrote:
Iggles wrote:
It's great to have savings. But then what? I don't find the economic stability argument compelling here when this person can earn $70k+ in a new city.

I don't know why everyone is assuming he can only make 70k in the city. That's the one job that fell into his lap.

If he wants to move to the city, he should look for a different job that pays the same or more than what he's making now and not compromise on either point.


Why not compromise? It's ideal to never take a cut, but it's not a necessity of life. There's no special award you get when you turn a certain age for having an uninterrupted rising salary.

Again, OP's gonna do what OP's gonna do, but do folks here really not see the value in living in a bigger city with more people and more to do? There's got to be more to life than money. What's the point of making that much if you're not happy and you have options that pay slightly less but are more fun?

The mental accounting going on here is just wild to me. If OP said they stood to lose out on only like $5k in salary, everyone would say jump. It's purely the headline figure here from a loss aversion standpoint. It's like you cross some threshold as far as percent of salary and all of a sudden you're financially insecure, when the reality is that this person's throwing out two numbers that both indicate material security.

I dunno, maybe I just value city living more at my age, but I think folks here are seriously underestimating the amount of fun you can get up to with cash in your pocket in a sizable American city. $75k a year in Pittsburgh is a recipe for some pretty fun nights and weekends. $100k a year in the middle of nowhere? Not so much unless you're super into that sort of thing, which OP clearly isn't, or this wouldn't even be a question.


The problem is, Iggles, that OP is giving up more than just a higher salary. OP doesn't know about the career progression in the new job. OP is giving up a higher salary and great career progression for a lower salary, higher cost of living, and an unknown in terms of career progression.

OP says he would be more happy in the city. I take him at his word. What we're recommending is that OP not rush into anything. If OP has the options where he/she is, I'm assuming that OP will have options in the new city. We're telling OP to look around more instead of jumping at the first opportunity.

Speaking personally, I don't entirely agree with you on cities, but my personal feelings are irrelevant here.

MookieMonster wrote:
candyman93 wrote:
Calibucsfan wrote:
vike daddy wrote:
70+K?
nice city to live in?
friends in place already?
late 20's still?
presumably $$ stashed in savings?

take it, dude.

this.

OP, you're only talking about a 25k difference

Now if you were making 100k a year and to re-locate and be happier you would have to cut down to a 53k a year salary, that would be hard. But 75k and much upside? Take it take it take it


Only a 25k difference Laughing

Our economy is going to tank, you need as much money now as possible. Gonwith the job that provides you the most security. Which is most likely where you work now.

What makes you say this? Seems to be growing right now, tbh.


That's the problem. It appears to be growing, but it's really not. Our growth in terms of production has been pretty minimal over the past few years. The economy appears to be growing due to asset price inflation as a result of the Fed's monetary policy. The problem with that is that asset price inflation creates a bubble. When it bursts, it's really bad (early 2000s dotcom bubble, 2008 recession due to the housing bubble, and Japan's market crash in the early 90s due to stock and real estate bubbles followed by years of deflation).

Actually, I'd love to make a thread to discuss this, but I'm not sure if discussing monetary policy and economic theory crosses the line into politics.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deeluxx3


Hot Shot Crew
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 14430
Location: Chicago/NYC
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who's to say his career progression (potential) will not end up improving by moving to a major city? There are significantly more opportunities in major cities to reach professional heights that you'd never reach in smaller towns/cities.

I work in advertising. I could be making similar $$ in a city like KC (a big, but not major city that also makes blips on the industry's radar), but my career opportunities in that field pale in comparison to NYC or LA.
_________________

RIP Crakburn & BoYz2tHeBoWl
RIP Steve "Air" McNair...the greatest Titan of all-time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cddolphin


Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 12777
Location: Florida
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
That's the problem. It appears to be growing, but it's really not. Our growth in terms of production has been pretty minimal over the past few years. The economy appears to be growing due to asset price inflation as a result of the Fed's monetary policy. The problem with that is that asset price inflation creates a bubble. When it bursts, it's really bad (early 2000s dotcom bubble, 2008 recession due to the housing bubble, and Japan's market crash in the early 90s due to stock and real estate bubbles followed by years of deflation).

Actually, I'd love to make a thread to discuss this, but I'm not sure if discussing monetary policy and economic theory crosses the line into politics.


This this this.

Most of the measures the talking heads point to as indicative of economic growth are little more than illusions, or at best lagging indicators.

The current state of monetary policy is, bar none, the most concerning thing going on world-wide when you consider the potential long-term (10-30 years) ramifications; more so than any war, "social conflict", or political situations as the eventual (and predictable) collapse of the house of cards we all participate in will effect virtually everyone on the planet.
_________________
Bednarik60 wrote:
Also you should get the ban hammer for being against Kate Upton and Jennifer Lawerence gifs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Non-Issue


Joined: 13 Jan 2016
Posts: 1577
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Me personally, ina vacuum and as you described, I would stick it out where I was. You have things lined up nicely. Continue to progress. Continue to earn and invest and save. Wait for an opportunity that more closely combines the best of both worlds. Otherwise just work hard and retire at 45 and do what you want.

But I am older and far from the social butterfly I once was. "Places to go and people to see" is pretty low on my priority list. So take it for what it's worth.
_________________

Kiltman on the sig!

2016 Adopt-a-Ram Jared Goff:
Comp:99 Att:185 Yards:969 TD:5 INT:7 Rating:65.7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 33730
Location: Hashtag BirdCity
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

deeluxx3 wrote:
Who's to say his career progression (potential) will not end up improving by moving to a major city? There are significantly more opportunities in major cities to reach professional heights that you'd never reach in smaller towns/cities.

I work in advertising. I could be making similar $$ in a city like KC (a big, but not major city that also makes blips on the industry's radar), but my career opportunities in that field pale in comparison to NYC or LA.


nobody is saying that they can't improve.

we're going off of what he's saying -- that one option has a clear path, the other doesn't and is more of a risk.
_________________


[quote="SFPatsFan"]

Flaccomania is a genius who is an expert on literally everything he talks about so you should trust him. [/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
theJ


Moderator
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 23192
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iggles wrote:
theJ wrote:
Iggles wrote:
It's great to have savings. But then what? I don't find the economic stability argument compelling here when this person can earn $70k+ in a new city.

I don't know why everyone is assuming he can only make 70k in the city. That's the one job that fell into his lap.

If he wants to move to the city, he should look for a different job that pays the same or more than what he's making now and not compromise on either point.


Why not compromise? It's ideal to never take a cut, but it's not a necessity of life. There's no special award you get when you turn a certain age for having an uninterrupted rising salary.

Again, OP's gonna do what OP's gonna do, but do folks here really not see the value in living in a bigger city with more people and more to do? There's got to be more to life than money. What's the point of making that much if you're not happy and you have options that pay slightly less but are more fun?

The mental accounting going on here is just wild to me. If OP said they stood to lose out on only like $5k in salary, everyone would say jump. It's purely the headline figure here from a loss aversion standpoint. It's like you cross some threshold as far as percent of salary and all of a sudden you're financially insecure, when the reality is that this person's throwing out two numbers that both indicate material security.

I dunno, maybe I just value city living more at my age, but I think folks here are seriously underestimating the amount of fun you can get up to with cash in your pocket in a sizable American city. $75k a year in Pittsburgh is a recipe for some pretty fun nights and weekends. $100k a year in the middle of nowhere? Not so much unless you're super into that sort of thing, which OP clearly isn't, or this wouldn't even be a question.

Eh?

All i'm really saying is explore the option. There are always more than 2 options in life. Obviously the money comes into play here too, otherwise he wouldn't be asking. All i'm suggesting is that he looks for a comparable paying job in the city he wants to live in. Best of both worlds.

What's another 3 months of job searching if it makes him 30k more AND gets him the location he wants?
_________________
If you're not in over your head, how do you know how tall you are?

~T.S. Eliot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iggles


Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 26051
Location: Brooklyn
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cddolphin wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
That's the problem. It appears to be growing, but it's really not. Our growth in terms of production has been pretty minimal over the past few years. The economy appears to be growing due to asset price inflation as a result of the Fed's monetary policy. The problem with that is that asset price inflation creates a bubble. When it bursts, it's really bad (early 2000s dotcom bubble, 2008 recession due to the housing bubble, and Japan's market crash in the early 90s due to stock and real estate bubbles followed by years of deflation).

Actually, I'd love to make a thread to discuss this, but I'm not sure if discussing monetary policy and economic theory crosses the line into politics.


This this this.

Most of the measures the talking heads point to as indicative of economic growth are little more than illusions, or at best lagging indicators.

The current state of monetary policy is, bar none, the most concerning thing going on world-wide when you consider the potential long-term (10-30 years) ramifications; more so than any war, "social conflict", or political situations as the eventual (and predictable) collapse of the house of cards we all participate in will effect virtually everyone on the planet.


The current state of normalizing monetary policy? The kind of monetary policy that factors in three hikes this year?

I'm sorry, I just don't see what's so perilous right now in terms of monetary policy, especially with a continually dovish Fed chair as well as folks like Brianard and Kashkari.
_________________
Kelly Link wrote:
Television characters almost always have better haircuts, funnier friends, simpler attitudes toward sex. They marry magicians, win lotteries, have affairs with women who carry guns in their purses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iggles


Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 26051
Location: Brooklyn
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

theJ wrote:
Iggles wrote:
theJ wrote:
Iggles wrote:
It's great to have savings. But then what? I don't find the economic stability argument compelling here when this person can earn $70k+ in a new city.

I don't know why everyone is assuming he can only make 70k in the city. That's the one job that fell into his lap.

If he wants to move to the city, he should look for a different job that pays the same or more than what he's making now and not compromise on either point.


Why not compromise? It's ideal to never take a cut, but it's not a necessity of life. There's no special award you get when you turn a certain age for having an uninterrupted rising salary.

Again, OP's gonna do what OP's gonna do, but do folks here really not see the value in living in a bigger city with more people and more to do? There's got to be more to life than money. What's the point of making that much if you're not happy and you have options that pay slightly less but are more fun?

The mental accounting going on here is just wild to me. If OP said they stood to lose out on only like $5k in salary, everyone would say jump. It's purely the headline figure here from a loss aversion standpoint. It's like you cross some threshold as far as percent of salary and all of a sudden you're financially insecure, when the reality is that this person's throwing out two numbers that both indicate material security.

I dunno, maybe I just value city living more at my age, but I think folks here are seriously underestimating the amount of fun you can get up to with cash in your pocket in a sizable American city. $75k a year in Pittsburgh is a recipe for some pretty fun nights and weekends. $100k a year in the middle of nowhere? Not so much unless you're super into that sort of thing, which OP clearly isn't, or this wouldn't even be a question.

Eh?

All i'm really saying is explore the option. There are always more than 2 options in life. Obviously the money comes into play here too, otherwise he wouldn't be asking. All i'm suggesting is that he looks for a comparable paying job in the city he wants to live in. Best of both worlds.

What's another 3 months of job searching if it makes him 30k more AND gets him the location he wants?


How does "not compromise on either point" mean "explore the option"? Of course it would be preferable to make as much money in the new city, but if making the same amount of money was a necessity here, this wouldn't even be a question.

The cost of another 3 months of job searching is opportunity cost. Simple as that.
_________________
Kelly Link wrote:
Television characters almost always have better haircuts, funnier friends, simpler attitudes toward sex. They marry magicians, win lotteries, have affairs with women who carry guns in their purses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69131
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iggles wrote:
cddolphin wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
That's the problem. It appears to be growing, but it's really not. Our growth in terms of production has been pretty minimal over the past few years. The economy appears to be growing due to asset price inflation as a result of the Fed's monetary policy. The problem with that is that asset price inflation creates a bubble. When it bursts, it's really bad (early 2000s dotcom bubble, 2008 recession due to the housing bubble, and Japan's market crash in the early 90s due to stock and real estate bubbles followed by years of deflation).

Actually, I'd love to make a thread to discuss this, but I'm not sure if discussing monetary policy and economic theory crosses the line into politics.


This this this.

Most of the measures the talking heads point to as indicative of economic growth are little more than illusions, or at best lagging indicators.

The current state of monetary policy is, bar none, the most concerning thing going on world-wide when you consider the potential long-term (10-30 years) ramifications; more so than any war, "social conflict", or political situations as the eventual (and predictable) collapse of the house of cards we all participate in will effect virtually everyone on the planet.


The current state of normalizing monetary policy? The kind of monetary policy that factors in three hikes this year?

I'm sorry, I just don't see what's so perilous right now in terms of monetary policy, especially with a continually dovish Fed chair as well as folks like Brianard and Kashkari.


The hikes just aren't significant. It's not enough. Unfortunately, we're going to have to take our lumps eventually. When we take our lumps will determine how bad the lumps are.

When I get a chance, I plan to analyze the data to try and offer something more concrete than just the "something bad is going to happen in the future" prediction.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iggles


Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 26051
Location: Brooklyn
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
Iggles wrote:
cddolphin wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
That's the problem. It appears to be growing, but it's really not. Our growth in terms of production has been pretty minimal over the past few years. The economy appears to be growing due to asset price inflation as a result of the Fed's monetary policy. The problem with that is that asset price inflation creates a bubble. When it bursts, it's really bad (early 2000s dotcom bubble, 2008 recession due to the housing bubble, and Japan's market crash in the early 90s due to stock and real estate bubbles followed by years of deflation).

Actually, I'd love to make a thread to discuss this, but I'm not sure if discussing monetary policy and economic theory crosses the line into politics.


This this this.

Most of the measures the talking heads point to as indicative of economic growth are little more than illusions, or at best lagging indicators.

The current state of monetary policy is, bar none, the most concerning thing going on world-wide when you consider the potential long-term (10-30 years) ramifications; more so than any war, "social conflict", or political situations as the eventual (and predictable) collapse of the house of cards we all participate in will effect virtually everyone on the planet.


The current state of normalizing monetary policy? The kind of monetary policy that factors in three hikes this year?

I'm sorry, I just don't see what's so perilous right now in terms of monetary policy, especially with a continually dovish Fed chair as well as folks like Brianard and Kashkari.


The hikes just aren't significant. It's not enough. Unfortunately, we're going to have to take our lumps eventually. When we take our lumps will determine how bad the lumps are.

When I get a chance, I plan to analyze the data to try and offer something more concrete than just the "something bad is going to happen in the future" prediction.


You get that you're not saying anything here, right? What does "take our lumps" mean?
_________________
Kelly Link wrote:
Television characters almost always have better haircuts, funnier friends, simpler attitudes toward sex. They marry magicians, win lotteries, have affairs with women who carry guns in their purses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69131
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iggles wrote:

You get that you're not saying anything here, right? What does "take our lumps" mean?


I am saying something very obvious. We need to raise rates and take the hit that will follow.(i.e., the recession)
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
l3lind golfer


Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 53842
Location: California
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tk3 wrote:
For what it's worth, my most likely scenario is to turn down this opportunity, and keep looking for a scenario of more comparable money and title. Making a decision because I am in a rush to move is likely not the best long term choice.
Thanks for all the info. Living in a city of only 10,000 people must be really difficult. I couldn't imagine doing that. I'm from California so when you said you lived in a small city I was picturing something like 350,000 people or so Laughing

I have lived in a city for a short amount of time that had about 300k-400k people and I thought it sucked. The city was so dull and really nothing to do, but I guess looking back at it, it wasn't so bad.

I like the conclusion you arrived at. I think it's a good idea to keep looking for a chance to make a more comparable salary to what you have now and a similar job title. Who knows... maybe in the near future you can find all of those things in a bigger city so you can have the best of both worlds Very Happy
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> This aint sports talk! All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 4 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group