Relative wealth... Being middle class

[Murphy101]

But he would be able to get a job somewhere in the US. You can't send an electrician's job to India like they did with all the telemarketers and call centers. That's my point.

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean it will pay one bit better than flipping burgers. And becoming an electrician or a plumber is not necessarily cheaper than going to a state college on grants for a couple years. Most professional desk jobs have benefits, give the equipment necessary to do the job, and some kind of shift expectations. Electricians and plumbers often get none of that and get the dubious bonus of sticking their hand in heaven knows what crap. So while someone might complain that a service call fee alone is $30-60+. They have no idea how expensive equipment, training, licensing, certifications, insurance and everything that guy has to cover. His profit margin is often very slim or negative.

[Χά�ων]

That is not necessarily true. Licensing laws are by state and not federal and include having to be knowledgeable and tested over both state and county electrical building codes. A contracting firm can not simply hire and electrician from another state. Michigan's licensing laws are exceptionally tough so when we've had mechanics, plumbers, electricians, and builders come from other states, they've been unpleasantly surprised to not be able to work and to also have to take time to jump our licensing and testing hoops.

 

Nursing would be a better option because reciprocal licensing for RN's does exist between many states. That said, even with reciprocal licensing, a six month lag waiting for the license to come through is not that uncommon. The state medical boards are not what one would call "speedy". So the individual cannot work in their profession until that license comes through which makes some types of degrees not related to state licensing a lot better for relocation flexibility than the trades.

 

Of all the electricians I know who travel to work, none go to Michigan. They usually hit states they can get in easier. As a result, the easier to transfer to work temporarily end up with saturated markets. Union Halls have lists of places that need people and are able to help people find work. But really, who wants to leave their families for long periods of time and have the added expense of additional rent and utilities taken out of their salary? 

 

Frankly, sending people into the trades sounds like a great idea on the surface. The logistics and reality are so much different.

[Murphy101]

Frankly, sending people into the trades sounds like a great idea on the surface. The logistics and reality are so much different.

It's not one bit different than the "you gotta go to college to get ahead".

 

They are the exact same thing. And they will end in the exact same problem.

 

It's my opinion the problem is an either or education system when it seems clear to me that what we need a blended system. That's the tack I'm taking when advising my kids. Who knows if it's the "right" way, but I'm not putting all my hatchlings in one basket. :)

[Murphy101]

And the whole "just move to where jobs are" is a deeply flawed concept too. Moving away from all family support, networking infrastructure, and more very often does not get made up for in income. Those things cost a lot of money to recreate or make up the loss in other ways and our society doesn't really have much social net to make up the difference.

[brehon]

In contrast, the average pay for firefighters is $43,000.00, and my daughter the medic makes less than that. Similar for police and sheriff's deputies.

 

First responders can hardly keep their heads above water while putting their lives on the line for us (my daughter has been shot at multiple times, and had a near stabbing as well - gang members think it's cool to kill a medic), and football coaches get rich. Hmmm...says a lot about America's cultural priorities.

 

<snip>

 

Faith, tell that dd of yours to head my way. My system's starting salary is around $50-$52K PLUS outstanding bennies. We're always on the hunt for outstanding medics! I can't guarantee that she won't be shot at; but, we're a great group of people and have slightly more fun than the P&Ps allow. 😎

[FaithManor]

And the whole "just move to where jobs are" is a deeply flawed concept too. Moving away from all family support, networking infrastructure, and more very often does not get made up for in income. Those things cost a lot of money to recreate or make up the loss in other ways and our society doesn't really have much social net to make up the difference.

I agree. Generally, the worker needs some savings/capitol to work with in order to do it. Temporary housing, cost of moving, first, last, and security deposit when the housing is identified, license plates and insurance in the new place before a pay check even materializes....it's very costly to move unless the company offers a moving stipend that truly covers most or all of the cost. Since it's an employer's market - ie more workers looking for a good job than there are positions available - the moving stipend is not so plentiful these days as it was in the early and mid-90's.

 

It works best if there is a relative in the new state willing to offer temporary assistance to the transplanted worker.

[FaithManor]

Faith, tell that dd of yours to head my way. My system's starting salary is around $50-$52K PLUS outstanding bennies. We're always on the hunt for outstanding medics! I can't guarantee that she won't be shot at; but, we're a great group of people and have slightly more fun than the P&Ps allow. 😎

Brehon, what state? Her hubby is really discouraged with his firm - Lockheed Martin - and is looking for work though he is still employed and not in danger of being let go. He is just really tired of how the workers are treated there. So, maybe he should look in your state.

[3in9th]

My bad. I just figured that it would be far better for those who are academically unlikely to do well in a 4-year college (or are uninclined) to go to a CC and get an Associate's Degree for a third of the cost of two years (and no credential) at a 4-year.

[Murphy101]

My bad. I just figured that it would be far better for those who are academically unlikely to do well in a 4-year college (or are uninclined) to go to a CC and get an Associate's Degree for a third of the cost of two years (and no credential) at a 4-year.

One, not everyone who can't do college can't do it bc of academics. It's not at all uncommon for straight A motivated student's to not go to college.

 

Two, if they are unlikely to do well or uninclined, it's likely going to be that way at any college and DOUBLY so at a cc. The lack of average reasonable completion rates at most community colleges is higher compared to the average completion rates at 4 yr colleges. And to top it off, CC often takes just as long to get that "2" year degree. It is not at all unusual for those who do complete to take 3-4 years to do so. In large part bc of the additional remedial classes they have to take and or bc one of the reasons they are going that route is bc they must work while attending.

 

Again.

 

I think the problem is an either or system.

[mommymilkies]

I don't get this.  I know very few people who don't complain of "reduced quality... desirability of diet" but they are not suffering from food insecurity.  Shoot, I have a freezer, fridge, and pantry full of food yet I am eating food of reduced quality, variety, and desirability. 

 

My family would prefer grass-fed beef and lamb to the cheap cuts of chicken and pork we eat.  (Well, except the vegetarian daughter.)   I would love to buy beautiful organic vegetables and fruits from the nicer grocery stores instead of frozen foods or stuff from the cheap produce market.  (ETA: We used to eat nicer food.  Food is getting more expensive all the time.  Oh, for some nice lamb chops!  But, they are unaffordable now.)

 

That's not food insecurity!  If people have enough decent food to eat... and can get more... they are secure.  They  may not be eating food of the type and quality they would prefer, but they are not suffering food insecurity.

 

(BTW I get that the situation I'm describing is probably not what is meant by the label, but if so, it's worded incorrectly.)

Something tells me the respondents aren't complaining about not getting grass fed lamb but to actual reduced quality food like store brand American "cheese" or meat products?  I mean, we're not talking trying to save a few bucks by not getting lamb chops again this week, but not being able to buy quality food. 

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/teaching-the-food-system/curriculum/_pdf/Hunger_and_Food_Security-Background.pdf

http://www.wfp.org/food-security

http://www.nufs.sjsu.edu/clariebh/Hunger%20and%20Obesity.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23174682

[mommymilkies]

One, not everyone who can't do college can't do it bc of academics. It's not at all uncommon for straight A motivated student's to not go to college.

 

Two, if they are unlikely to do well or uninclined, it's likely going to be that way at any college and DOUBLY so at a cc. The lack of average reasonable completion rates at most community colleges is higher compared to the average completion rates at 4 yr colleges. And to top it off, CC often takes just as long to get that "2" year degree. It is not at all unusual for those who do complete to take 3-4 years to do so. In large part bc of the additional remedial classes they have to take and or bc one of the reasons they are going that route is bc they must work while attending.

 

Again.

 

I think the problem is an either or system.

Yes!  Dh is a CC professor and many more students are going BACK to CC each year for jobs like nursing, teaching, etc. because their original 4 year degree is not supporting them and jobs are scarce. 

[regentrude]

And the whole "just move to where jobs are" is a deeply flawed concept too. Moving away from all family support, networking infrastructure, and more very often does not get made up for in income. Those things cost a lot of money to recreate or make up the loss in other ways and our society doesn't really have much social net to make up the difference.

 

But plenty of fields require exactly this, and the higher the qualification and specialization, the more likely it is that relocation will be required for any job. Yes, it's hard - but many people do not have the luxury of a job close to family. As an immigrant, I have limited sympathy for people complaining about moving within their own country.

I do not see this as a flawed concept, because the alternative would be that everybody is limited by his location of origin to the available jobs in that area... goodbye social mobility and diversity. 

 

 

 

[3in9th]

Something tells me the respondents aren't complaining about not getting grass fed lamb but to actual reduced quality food like store brand American "cheese" or meat products?  I mean, we're not talking trying to save a few bucks by not getting lamb chops again this week, but not being able to buy quality food. 

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/teaching-the-food-system/curriculum/_pdf/Hunger_and_Food_Security-Background.pdf

http://www.wfp.org/food-security

http://www.nufs.sjsu.edu/clariebh/Hunger%20and%20Obesity.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23174682

 

Or not being able to afford fresh fruits and vegetables (and I'm not talking about organic, either.)

[regentrude]

At our local high school, the varsity football coach's salary outpaces the math department salaries by a large margin, nearly double. It's a class D school so it isn't like any of these kids are getting sport scholarships to play Big Ten ball either. Starting wage when they needed a new high school science teacher - $27,000.00

 

http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-employee-a-co-489635228

 

The football coach at our state uni system makes 3.1 million.

A tenure track physics professor starts with around 60k.

[Χά�ων]

But plenty of fields require exactly this, and the higher the qualification and specialization, the more likely it is that relocation will be required for any job. Yes, it's hard - but many people do not have the luxury of a job close to family. As an immigrant, I have limited sympathy for people complaining about moving within their own country.

I do not see this as a flawed concept, because the alternative would be that everybody is limited by his location of origin to the available jobs in that area... goodbye social mobility and diversity.

Did you move for a temporary job or did you move for steady employment? There is a huge difference between relocating for a permanent job and frequent relocations because the jobs dry up.

 

Did you move to a location and after 6 months find you were again out of work and needing a job but found the job market for your field to be over saturated with qualified individuals and have to move again to find another job?

 

What if that was your life, moving every few months to follow the work? What about the job of your spouse? Could they find work moving so frequently? What about the kids? Is it really best changing schools every few months? What about ongoing medical care?

 

At least in the military there is a built in community of people who are in the same position. Doesn't the military help with relocation?

 

No so much for most other fields. For families I know this is their reality. Often the parent in that trade goes and rents and lives as cheaply as possibly and sends the money back to the family. They do not see their family for extended periods of time. Or they find a job outside their field.

[brehon]

Brehon, what state? Her hubby is really discouraged with his firm - Lockheed Martin - and is looking for work though he is still employed and not in danger of being let go. He is just really tired of how the workers are treated there. So, maybe he should look in your state.

Texas & I'll PM you with more specific info.

[regentrude]

Did you move for a temporary job or did you move for steady employment? There is a huge difference between relocating for a permanent job and frequent relocations because the jobs dry up.

 

Did you move to a location and after 6 months find you were again out of work and needing a job but found the job market for your field to be over saturated with qualified individuals and have to move again to find another job?

 

What if that was your life, moving every few months to follow the work? What about the job of your spouse? Could they find work moving so frequently? What about the kids? Is it really best changing schools every few months? What about ongoing medical care?

 

At least in the military there is a built in community of people who are in the same position. Doesn't the military help with relocation?

 

No so much for most other fields. For families I know this is their reality. Often the parent in that trade goes and rents and lives as cheaply as possibly and sends the money back to the family. They do not see their family for extended periods of time. Or they find a job outside their field.

 

The first time I moved overseas for a temporary job for 1 year. I was lucky and got to stay 2 years. I moved with a backpack and a suitcase. Then back home, for more temporary jobs. Then 9 months in yet another country as SAHM where DH had a temp job. Then eventually another overseas move for a position for DH with the hope of it becoming permanent (which it did). Most of our friends moved around several times for temporary jobs, of 1-2 year duration, often to different countries, until some were lucky landing a permanent job in their late 30s or early 40s. It's par for the course in academia.

Most waited having kids until the job situation stabilized somewhat - or had a stay at home wife.

 

My DH and I spent 8 years in long distance marriage, with distances between 50 and 5,000 miles. Some of those years with kids.

For a few years, DH was crashing on a mattress on the floor of at his professor's house in another town where he was working during the week.

 

The number one problem for highly qualified couples is to find jobs for each spouse in the same location. Extremely difficult, and the more specialized a person is, the less likely it is to solve the so called two-body-problem. ( It is a big obstacle for faculty recruitment to a town with little spousal employment opportunities)

I know many people who can not make this happen. They either have long distance marriages for decades, or insane commutes, or a spouse changes job or stays home.

 

It's not easy.

 

[Rosie_0801]

http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-employee-a-co-489635228

 

The football coach at our state uni system makes 3.1 million.

A tenure track physics professor starts with around 60k.

 

That is so messed up.

[Amira]

I have mixed feelings about saying people need to move for work.  Unquestionably, I think a lot of people in the US are unwilling to move for better work, a lower cost of living, and/or more opportunities because of various things keeping them where they are.  They get to choose, and there are certainly many good reasons for not moving, but I think we put too much emphasis on stability.

 

We've moved very often for work and will continue to do so until dh retires, but we've always had a job lined up, and not the sort of job where the work would dry up.  We've usually not had any relocation assistance of any type in the past although we do know.  It is expensive and emotionally difficult to move, but it also can be very rewarding and I think it's worth being open to the possibility of relocating for work. I don't regret any of the moves we've made.

[elegantlion]

To the bolded. This is simply just not true in all areas. Where I live I would never encourage my child to become an electrician. There are simply not enough jobs. I can not even start to count the number of people who are electricians by trade who are unable to find work as an electrician. Now, if my son were to get a degree in electronics that is something different. There are jobs if one has the degree and often it is for the same work. There are just too many electricians out there and if one wants to work in the field, the degree is what will open up the door for them. I cannot imagine encouraging my child to go into a field where they will be competing against people with 10-15+ years experience in the field without something that will give then an edge. A degree is needed. Even an AA will give them a huge advantage. 

 

The over saturation of the market with some of the trades needs to be discussed. Going into the trades is NOT a ticket to stable employment. For some trades, yes. For others? Not so much. 

 

This is an issue in our area as well. 20 years ago there were many self-employed carpenters, trade workers. Now those people are scrambling for the same work and none of it has any real stability. Self-employed taxes for a sole proprietor with no employees can be high even when you are living paycheck to paycheck in a low COL area. Never mind the working until your body literally can't do it anymore. Plus the rates a small owner can change have not increased. Exdh was working for the same rates he did 15 years prior. That's all the market would bear. The only way we survived was living further out of the city and qualifying for food aid.

 

I think the trades are great, ex has a real gift. But at 54 he literally cannot do the work, too many injuries, not enough for disability, but enough to not allow him to keep pace with 20 year old who will work for a portion of the price ex could charge. 

 

I'm firmly of the opinion that if someone wants to go into the trades, they should have a back up plan, like a degree or certification that will allow them to transition into less physical work if necessary. Watching a man who has worked hard all his life no longer be able to and not be able to get enough time off the work he can barely do to attend night classes is very difficult. Not everyone has enough retirement to stop working at 55. 

 

excuse the rambling sentences, I'm tired and should be studying for a test. 

[marbel]

Something tells me the respondents aren't complaining about not getting grass fed lamb but to actual reduced quality food like store brand American "cheese" or meat products?  I mean, we're not talking trying to save a few bucks by not getting lamb chops again this week, but not being able to buy quality food. 

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/teaching-the-food-system/curriculum/_pdf/Hunger_and_Food_Security-Background.pdf

http://www.wfp.org/food-security

http://www.nufs.sjsu.edu/clariebh/Hunger%20and%20Obesity.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23174682

 

I agree with you.  But, the words don't say that. 

 

Lamb perhaps was a bad example, though in my lifetime it went from a very cheap meat to completely unaffordable.  Location has something to do with it too.  Organic veg and fruit, maybe also not great examples.  But going from fresh to frozen or canned and buying at the cheap produce market where a fair percentage might not be the freshest or greatest quality instead of a regular grocery store where if not organic, at least not rotting.  Buying store brands instead of name brands - which is not necessarily a problem for me as they are often better to my taste than name brands.   Not eating beef (conventionally produced) much anymore and going for the cheaper pork, or no meat altogether and eating beans and rice - these are things my fellow middle-class folks are doing on a regular basis.  But they have plenty of food.  No one is hungry or wondering where the next meal is coming from. 

 

I just think the label description is misleading.

 

 

[regentrude]

And there are other things impacting someone's ability to move. I, for example, would be highly unlikely to move out of my city or even my area of the city because I really do not want to leave my specialist, who works out of one of the better teaching hospitals and sees me for free, and keeps me as healthy as is possible. I trust him and would be more likely to move to follow him.... Is it unreasonable to stay in an area in order to maximise your health ? I think it's sensible.

Another example - now my daughter is at university, could we move ? Nope, because she can't afford to live away from home. So we need to be where he university is.

 

Sure, these are all good reasons to stay put. But that does not change the fact that being able to choose a location where to live as a family is a luxury. Many families do not have this luxury, and one adult moves alone to the new location where the job is.

 

[Χά�ων]

The first time I moved overseas for a temporary job for 1 year. I was lucky and got to stay 2 years. I moved with a backpack and a suitcase. Then back home, for more temporary jobs. Then 9 months in yet another country as SAHM where DH had a temp job. Then eventually another overseas move for a position for DH with the hope of it becoming permanent (which it did). Most of our friends moved around several times for temporary jobs, of 1-2 year duration, often to different countries, until some were lucky landing a permanent job in their late 30s or early 40s. It's par for the course in academia.

Most waited having kids until the job situation stabilized somewhat - or had a stay at home wife.

 

My DH and I spent 8 years in long distance marriage, with distances between 50 and 5,000 miles. Some of those years with kids.

For a few years, DH was crashing on a mattress on the floor of at his professor's house in another town where he was working during the week.

 

The number one problem for highly qualified couples is to find jobs for each spouse in the same location. Extremely difficult, and the more specialized a person is, the less likely it is to solve the so called two-body-problem. ( It is a big obstacle for faculty recruitment to a town with little spousal employment opportunities)

I know many people who can not make this happen. They either have long distance marriages for decades, or insane commutes, or a spouse changes job or stays home.

 

It's not easy.

 

I do not think we are talking about the same thing. Electricians are a dime a dozen. If memory serves you are in a field that requires significantly more education and there are many fewer people at that level. That is a huge difference and I can see how moving to advance your career would be needed. I have a feeling that is not unexpected and while a pain, not uncommon in your field. I am not talking about moving to advance or further career opportunities in a very specialized field. That is does not sound easy and has an entirely different set of circumstances. I am also going to guess that there are fewer people who manage to attain that level of education needed to pursue that career path. Most of the electricians I know received their training while serving in the military. I am thinking the military does not cover as much education as you and your husband have received.

 

Imagine, if you will, at the end of this semester you are one of two dozen people competing for the position you have held for however long. Suddenly you have to reapply if you want the same position. Since there are so many people who want that job, the salary will be slashed 10%. You have a choice of trying for it or leaving your family and living on nothing and sending your paycheck home or trying to get the same job you just worked at and get paid less. You are fully aware that the rest of the people who did not get that job will be looking at other areas to try and find work. So you have to take the risk and trying to stay at your current job for less pay or jumping ship to try and beat the other people who will be unsuccessful at landing your old job and will trying to get a job elsewhere.

 

If you move you will be competing with the same numbers, or more. You have a choice to leave your family or move them. If you move you are fully aware that you will encounter the same issues and you run the risk of ending up in a higher COL area and making less plus recovering from the cost of the move. If you leave grandparents who need elderly care you have to figure out how to manage that from afar. If the grandparents where providing child care while you and spouse worked you have to figure how to make that up. Does everyone have these issues? No. Do many rely on family and friends to help with child care and to help offset the expense? Yes. 

[Χά�ων]

Sure, these are all good reasons to stay put. But that does not change the fact that being able to choose a location where to live as a family is a luxury. Many families do not have this luxury, and one adult moves alone to the new location where the job is.

 

Actually for me one of her reasons, a specialist who can handle a medical case, is vital to where ever I would move. I am lucky, my son's medical team is a day trip by car. There are only 3 other places in the US that can handle his type if medical needs. From where I live the next closest is 7 and 12 hours each way. If I relocate I will have to add in the expense of travel for his medical. One of his treatments will require 6 weeks inpatient and that would be a heck of a pain to try and manage from afar. Even with staying someplace like a ronald mcdonald house to help off set some expenses.

 

 

 

My response is colored by being a parent of a child with a rare medical condition. If my child was healthy I would not have the requirements for it. Or maybe if the US had a good health care system where I would not be worried about adding travel expenses on top of an already expensive medical condition it would not be as big of a deal. Since I do not have experience with either I cannot say for sure. 

 

Added bit of information. For me staying near family and being able to help and build that relationship for my son is vital. It is actually a higher priority for him than it is for me. When he is asked what the most important thing to him is, he responds family every time and has since he was little. Even as an adult I can see him trying to find a way to stay near family.

[regentrude]

I do not think we are talking about the same thing. Electricians are a dime a dozen. If memory serves you are in a field that requires significantly more education and there are many fewer people at that level. That is a huge difference and I can see how moving to advance your career would be needed. I have a feeling that is not unexpected and while a pain, not uncommon in your field. I am not talking about moving to advance or further career opportunities in a very specialized field. That is does not sound easy and has an entirely different set of circumstances. I am also going to guess that there are fewer people who manage to attain that level of education needed to pursue that career path. Most of the electricians I know received their training while serving in the military. I am thinking the military does not cover as much education as you and your husband have received.

 

Imagine, if you will, at the end of this semester you are one of two dozen people competing for the position you have held for however long. Suddenly you have to reapply if you want the same position. Since there are so many people who want that job, the salary will be slashed 10%. You have a choice of trying for it or leaving your family and living on nothing and sending your paycheck home or trying to get the same job you just worked at and get paid less. You are fully aware that the rest of the people who did not get that job will be looking at other areas to try and find work. So you have to take the risk and trying to stay at your current job for less pay or jumping ship to try and beat the other people who will be unsuccessful at landing your old job and will trying to get a job elsewhere.

 

If you move you will be competing with the same numbers, or more. You have a choice to leave your family or move them. If you move you are fully aware that you will encounter the same issues and you run the risk of ending up in a higher COL area and making less plus recovering from the cost of the move. If you leave grandparents who need elderly care you have to figure out how to manage that from afar. If the grandparents where providing child care while you and spouse worked you have to figure how to make that up. Does everyone have these issues? No. Do many rely on family and friends to help with child care and to help offset the expense? Yes. 

 

Yes, there are fewer people at that educational level - but there are also fewer jobs. There are 60-100 applicants for each job opening.

And for many years in a young scientist's life, the situation is exactly as described: you have a temp position that runs for a year. You have to apply for funding and compete with lots of others for the same grant money. If you are not lucky and receive funding, you don't have a job the next year and you have to move somewhere where somebody was lucky enough to get grant money enough to hire you. And sometimes you don't get to pick the country.

I did not say it was easy or desirable. It sucks, but I do not understand why the educational level would make a difference. It's not as if being educated means you don't have the same childcare or eldercare issues as, say, an electrician.

 

 

[Azalea]

http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-employee-a-co-489635228

 

The football coach at our state uni system makes 3.1 million.

A tenure track physics professor starts with around 60k.

 

I read this to my husband. His immediate response was, "And this is who we will be giving our life savings too."

[LucyStoner]

But plenty of fields require exactly this, and the higher the qualification and specialization, the more likely it is that relocation will be required for any job. Yes, it's hard - but many people do not have the luxury of a job close to family. As an immigrant, I have limited sympathy for people complaining about moving within their own country.

I do not see this as a flawed concept, because the alternative would be that everybody is limited by his location of origin to the available jobs in that area... goodbye social mobility and diversity.

I agree that some people can and need to move while still recognizing that some people are place bound. Besides the privileges of living near family, some shoulder big responsibilities to family, such as those caring for aged or disabled relatives.

 

Also, moving for a coveted spot in a field that you have dedicated your whole life to is different than moving to find a job that pays a wee more than your hometown. The small bit of gained income may very well not be worth the loss of community ties.

[goldberry]

I agree, I don't understand why Americans are so gaga over professional sports that they will pay prices that support such large salaries.

 

That said, I don't see blaming anyone besides those who pay to watch it.

 

It's kind of a Roman-circus-thing though, don't you think?   Distraction for the masses...

[mommymilkies]

If we really are in societies where it is luxurious for a family to stay together in a place where their health can function and where they can rely on/care for older members of the family and survive financially - shame on us. The system is obviously broken in that case...and it's up to us all to fix it.

:iagree:   Dh is one of those people who is in a job where there are *very* few jobs he is qualified for open every year that isn't an extremely low paying no-benefits adjunct job.  When he first started we had sooooo many job choices.  Now, we've gotten a couple low ball offers that would require big moves, no relocation expense coverage, and lower pay than his already pathetic salary. But we need to move for education, healthcare, and quality of life reasons.  Not to mention job issues which I won't numerate on here.  I think being mobile is very helpful in today's economy for many jobs, but it's really not feasible in a country with crappy healthcare accessibility, crappy wages for many people, lack of decent public transportation, a crashed housing market in many areas, and other issues that make pulling up roots difficult. I would love LOVE to move. I am a nomad. Unfortunately we are between a rock and a hard place with debt, falling apart house, and job issues.

[SKL]

I was just reading about that--up to 75% of college/university courses are now taught by adjunct faculty. They are often times as qualified as professors but are paid abysmally and have no job security--year by year contract. I think more parents and students should be asking the colleges that their kids apply to what percentage of their courses are taught by tenured faculty. Not that tenured faculty are necessarily better teachers; just to see how the school treats the people who are charged with imparting knowledge to these students paying $50k per year. And how do salaries compare to the coaching salaries? (Sorry--that's probably a little off topic.)

 

I think it's very helpful to have classes taught by people who actually use the relevant skills in the "real world."

 

And as a person who has taught as a part-time professor, I can say they don't do it for the money.  There are other reasons.  I did it because it was enjoyable to share my experience with younger people, and because it was a resume enhancer.

 

I think a university that recognizes the value of real-world experience deserves kudos, not suspicion.

[Murphy101]

But plenty of fields require exactly this, and the higher the qualification and specialization, the more likely it is that relocation will be required for any job. Yes, it's hard - but many people do not have the luxury of a job close to family. As an immigrant, I have limited sympathy for people complaining about moving within their own country.

I do not see this as a flawed concept, because the alternative would be that everybody is limited by his location of origin to the available jobs in that area... goodbye social mobility and diversity.

Yes plenty of fields do require it and yes it is not unusual to find the top 20% earners are also people who have traveled far and wide from place of origin.

 

The problem is that plenty more fields do not compensate for what that requires.

 

No one is saying, don't ever go to college or trades or don't ever look into moving for better employment. Of course not. What I am saying is that very often moving doesn't net a better situation AND leaves them without the support to make it better. There's a whole lot of people who followed this advice and ended up even worse off because of it.

[kubiac]

 

[horsellian]

I agree, I don't understand why Americans are so gaga over professional sports that they will pay prices that support such large salaries.

 

That said, I don't see blaming anyone besides those who pay to watch it.

 

It's not just Americans - in Europe football (soccer) players are paid obscene amounts too, and hardly anyone seems to bat an eyelid.

[JeanM]

I think it's very helpful to have classes taught by people who actually use the relevant skills in the "real world."

 

And as a person who has taught as a part-time professor, I can say they don't do it for the money.  There are other reasons.  I did it because it was enjoyable to share my experience with younger people, and because it was a resume enhancer.

 

I think a university that recognizes the value of real-world experience deserves kudos, not suspicion.

 

I'm sure that's true for some adjuncts, but there are definitely people who are trying to earn a living. I know multiple people who are teaching as adjuncts who *need* that income. A few value the flexibility - they are homeschooling or part-time homeschooling. A few have had trouble finding full-time positions and are "adjucting" while looking for something else. It is really sub-optimal in many, many ways. These are not necessarily people with "real-world" experience outside of grad school either.

[regentrude]

I think it's very helpful to have classes taught by people who actually use the relevant skills in the "real world."

And as a person who has taught as a part-time professor, I can say they don't do it for the money.  There are other reasons.  I did it because it was enjoyable to share my experience with younger people, and because it was a resume enhancer.

I think a university that recognizes the value of real-world experience deserves kudos, not suspicion.

I am not sure what you mean by "real world". Do regular professors live in a fake world?

 

I also do not understand  what you mean by "they don't do it for the money". Trust me, there are plenty adjunct for whom this is the sole source of income, sometimes the entire family income. Now, if you mean by it that they are underpaid and nobody would leave a higher paying job just to earn an adjunct income, then I would agree.

 

A university that relies on adjuncts for the majority of teaching is cutting corners by undervaluing and underpaying its teachers and not providing benefits. It also is not good for the students to have adjuncts as instructors who leave right after class to hurry to their next institution because they cobble together a salary from adjuncting at three different colleges. A school benefits from continuity, having faculty that identifies with the school and is there for the long term and can work on long term solutions - not a bunch of unrelated people who teach on a semester contract basis.

 

I do not see any reason this school would deserve kudos. Adjunct teaching has its place, but replacing regular faculty by part time adjuncts to save on benefits is not something I consider particularly commendable.

[Laura Corin]

But plenty of fields require exactly this, and the higher the qualification and specialization, the more likely it is that relocation will be required for any job. Yes, it's hard - but many people do not have the luxury of a job close to family. As an immigrant, I have limited sympathy for people complaining about moving within their own country.

I do not see this as a flawed concept, because the alternative would be that everybody is limited by his location of origin to the available jobs in that area... goodbye social mobility and diversity. 

 

I can sympathise with this.  We have moved across the world for jobs (China, Taiwan, the US, London, Hong Kong again, China again, Scotland).  However, we did have savings or company support for these moves.  It would have been very different if we had had no resources at all.

 

To make my first move, I sold my car, which I had bought on the proceeds of working whilst at university....

[Amira]

Count us as a family who's tried to live off an adjunct position. It wasn't the hardest time financially we've had but for the amount of work he was expected to do, it was pretty crazy. He was teaching four different classes (more than one section) and he had to develop two of them entirely on his own while he was there that year. Sure, it's nice to have someone who actually had practiced construction law and also had a degree in construction management teaching construction law, but if they wanted someone like dh actually teaching there, they had to make the salary better and the workload more reasonable. A part-time position where he could have continued practicing law would have been far more attractive.

[SKL]

I am not sure what you mean by "real world". Do regular professors live in a fake world?

 

I also do not understand  what you mean by "they don't do it for the money". Trust me, there are plenty adjunct for whom this is the sole source of income, sometimes the entire family income. Now, if you mean by it that they are underpaid and nobody would leave a higher paying job just to earn an adjunct income, then I would agree.

 

A university that relies on adjuncts for the majority of teaching is cutting corners by undervaluing and underpaying its teachers and not providing benefits. It also is not good for the students to have adjuncts as instructors who leave right after class to hurry to their next institution because they cobble together a salary from adjuncting at three different colleges. A school benefits from continuity, having faculty that identifies with the school and is there for the long term and can work on long term solutions - not a bunch of unrelated people who teach on a semester contract basis.

 

I do not see any reason this school would deserve kudos. Adjunct teaching has its place, but replacing regular faculty by part time adjuncts to save on benefits is not something I consider particularly commendable.

 

OK, I was assuming we were talking about people who have a full-time professional job, and their part-time teaching position is directly related to the job they do every day.  In my case, I was recruited by the university because I had years of relevant hands-on experience.  Maybe that university is different from others in that respect.

 

The amount I was paid would not have paid one month's worth of living expenses for a single person (unless that person was living in someone else's basement for free).  This was for a 3-credit graduate course.

 

And when I talk about "real world" experience, I'm talking about applying the knowledge in real-life situations rather than only case studies and conceptual discussions.  Real life isn't as neat and has the spice of risk and personality mixed in, making it more interesting as well as more relevant to many students.  Nothing lighted up my students' faces more than when I provided an anecdote from one of my challenging client situations.  It is also helpful to know that, e.g., technology A is interesting but rarely used in practice, while technology B is preferred because xyz.

[Murphy101]

I don't like sports and have never been interested in playing or watching them for the most part.

 

But I have no issue with the pay a few get. There is serious risk of being crippled for life or brain damaged in many of these high paying sports. They usually have to "retire" by 30. All for the sake of good entertainment. I'd have to be paid a huge amounts to risk that for people's amusement too.

 

Now public school coaches? AstroTurf stadiums? No. Absolutely not. I don't even think there should be a school team. Old fashioned pick up games in gym class with a teacher paid a regular teacher pay for it.

[Greta]

That is so messed up.

It sure is! The football coach at the university that I attended is one of the ten highest paid college coaches in the US: $5 million per year! Meanwhile, the teaching faculty salaries range from $50,000 for instructors to $153,000 for tenured professors.

[Greta]

I don't like sports and have never been interested in playing or watching them for the most part.

 

But I have no issue with the pay a few get. There is serious risk of being crippled for life or brain damaged in many of these high paying sports. They usually have to "retire" by 30. All for the sake of good entertainment. I'd have to be paid a huge amounts to risk that for people's amusement too.

 

Now public school coaches? AstroTurf stadiums? No. Absolutely not. I don't even think there should be a school team. Old fashioned pick up games in gym class with a teacher paid a regular teacher pay for it.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think that with professional teams as long as the fans pay those prices for the tickets and as long as advertisers pay those prices for the tv coverage, then it's none of my concern. (Editing to add: I just remembered that lots of times public funds do subsidize the building of the stadiums and such.) But that five million dollar per year coach that I mentioned works for a public university, making him the highest paid public employee in that state. And it's not his own neck at risk at the games, it's the students who are risking their safety. Meanwhile there are public employees that really are risking their necks (police, firefighters, etc.) and getting paid a whole heckuvalot less.

[Ali in OR]

I think it's very helpful to have classes taught by people who actually use the relevant skills in the "real world."

 

And as a person who has taught as a part-time professor, I can say they don't do it for the money.  There are other reasons.  I did it because it was enjoyable to share my experience with younger people, and because it was a resume enhancer.

 

I think a university that recognizes the value of real-world experience deserves kudos, not suspicion.

 

Our local adjunct professors are talking about forming a union to try to get better pay and working conditions. They wouldn't be doing this if these positions were just fun extracurricular activities for them--this is how they [try] to make a living. 68% of the courses at this school are taught by adjuncts. What that says to me is that colleges and universities are using temporary assignments instead of hiring people for tenure track positions. Just like companies that hire a bunch of people for 20 hrs/week jobs instead of fewer people for full time positions where they have to pay benefits. A bunch of 1%ers making decisions that make life difficult for the worker bees.

 

I had courses taught by tenured professors, courses taught by visiting professors, too many courses taught by grad students who didn't speak much English. Teaching ability varied--good and bad teachers in all categories, so this isn't really about who can teach or what experiences they bring to the classroom. What it is about is whether a university values teaching and its academic personnel enough to provide them with stable employment at a respectable wage. Believe me, teachers and professors do want pay and benefits that allow them to lead a stable life and show that their work is important and respected.

[mommymilkies]

I am not sure what you mean by "real world". Do regular professors live in a fake world?

 

I also do not understand  what you mean by "they don't do it for the money". Trust me, there are plenty adjunct for whom this is the sole source of income, sometimes the entire family income. Now, if you mean by it that they are underpaid and nobody would leave a higher paying job just to earn an adjunct income, then I would agree.

 

A university that relies on adjuncts for the majority of teaching is cutting corners by undervaluing and underpaying its teachers and not providing benefits. It also is not good for the students to have adjuncts as instructors who leave right after class to hurry to their next institution because they cobble together a salary from adjuncting at three different colleges. A school benefits from continuity, having faculty that identifies with the school and is there for the long term and can work on long term solutions - not a bunch of unrelated people who teach on a semester contract basis.

 

I do not see any reason this school would deserve kudos. Adjunct teaching has its place, but replacing regular faculty by part time adjuncts to save on benefits is not something I consider particularly commendable.

I'm out of likes, so  :iagree:

 

I don't know, I feel like they've been snowed into a Ponzi scheme. They're told that tot "get a good job" they have to get a college education and that's just not true. Plumbers and electricians can't be outsourced and yet so few people are going into trades. We need more skilled laborers in this country.

 

Dh sees that probably a full 30% of his students shouldn't be in college. Between grade inflation and an easier SAT scores, Millenials look good on paper, but they are far less prepared for college than Gen X ever was. Not only that, they aren't graduating. They are taking on five-figure debt (or more) and not getting the degree that was supposedly going to get them the better jobs.

 

It's a mess.

:iagree:

[3in9th]

Our local adjunct professors are talking about forming a union to try to get better pay and working conditions. They wouldn't be doing this if these positions were just fun extracurricular activities for them--this is how they [try] to make a living. 68% of the courses at this school are taught by adjuncts. What that says to me is that colleges and universities are using temporary assignments instead of hiring people for tenure track positions. Just like companies that hire a bunch of people for 20 hrs/week jobs instead of fewer people for full time positions where they have to pay benefits. A bunch of 1%ers making decisions that make life difficult for the worker bees.

 

I had courses taught by tenured professors, courses taught by visiting professors, too many courses taught by grad students who didn't speak much English. Teaching ability varied--good and bad teachers in all categories, so this isn't really about who can teach or what experiences they bring to the classroom. What it is about is whether a university values teaching and its academic personnel enough to provide them with stable employment at a respectable wage. Believe me, teachers and professors do want pay and benefits that allow them to lead a stable life and show that their work is important and respected.

 

It's not all about the teaching, though, so I want to make that point. When universities rely so heavily on adjuncts, the tenure-track and tenured professors become strained because they have to take on the extra burden of committees and research students. When there are more tenure-track and tenured professors, those extra responsibilities get spread out over more people and everyone's happier, especially the students.

 

FWIW, my dh's university (and it's whole system) has a union and that includes adjuncts. They have cap on the number of adjuncts that are teaching classes- 25%- they have a known salary and they have benefits.

 

For those in or whose dh is in adjunct hell, PM me if you're interested in better opportunities.

[Greta]

I read this to my husband. His immediate response was, "And this is who we will be giving our life savings too."

My husband and I have talked about *not* sending our daughter to a college with a football program for precisely this reason!

[Greta]

For those in or whose dh is in adjunct hell, PM me if you're interested in better opportunities.

Neither of us are adjuncts (or instructors of any kind), but I really would like to know which universities and colleges are treating their faculty better, because that's the kind of place I would like to send my daughter! Not only will she have a better education, but it's also a way of voting with my dollars for the kind of treatment that I think faculty has earned and deserves.

[Pawz4me]

My husband and I have talked about *not* sending our daughter to a college with a football program for precisely this reason!

 

Then you might want to consider ruling out schools with basketball teams, too.

 

Current salary of Coach Krzyzewski at Duke is $9,682,032.

[Greta]

What the current 1% looks like...

I finally got around to watching that. I'm shocked, and I already knew that the situation was bad. Thank you for sharing this.

[Greta]

Then you might want to consider ruling out schools with basketball teams, too.

 

Current salary of Coach Krzyzewski at Duke is $9,682,032.

Yes, that too! I grew up in a state where football is god, but yes basketball fills that role sometimes as well. I'd really love to send her to a small, private fine arts school (with no competitive sports teams). But financially that's just out of reach for us.

[Greta]

But again, if our rich people are way richer than the rich people in some other countries, so what?

 

Could you (or anyone) please clarify this for me. I did not interpret the information that way at all.

 

You're saying, if I understand you, that rich Americans are richer than, say, rich Swedes.

 

But I thought the information presented (Gini's coefficient) is saying that the disparity between rich and non-rich Americans is greater than the disparity between rich and non-rich Swedes. And that's something else entirely.

 

Right?