Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Two Jobs and Retire Early?

Cliff posted more than 8 years ago | from the more-work-now-for-less-work-later dept.

205

70_hours_week wonders: "A Survey of teachers in a Nevada school district indicate that 40% have a second job. Do you have a second job? Assume you are 30 and since you like to save your money you could semi-retire by age 50. Now, what if you could nearly double your salary working a second job and that meant you could semi-retire at age 40. Would you do it?"

cancel ×

205 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

NO! (4, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507048)

Less money, but more family time is a value choice that my wife and I decided on before we got engaged.

Not the Whole Story (4, Insightful)

Alaren (682568) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507175)

The article itself has very little to do with "retiring early..."

Remember that "second job" can be awfully misleading. My father is a civil engineer, and he works with a contractor whose "real job" is being a firefighter. He spends two days a week at the fire station around the clock. Then he spends three days contracting on construction sites. He's got two jobs, and he "works" over 40 hours a week... plus he's one of those heroic firefighter types. But in real hours worked he actually puts in fewer hours than I do.

Teachers don't have it quite so cushy, but again... two jobs? I had a physics teacher who was also a construction worker, mostly during the summer and during breaks. Does that really count as two jobs?

Here on an IT/geek website, I'm sure most readers are thinking, "Geeze, 80-100 hours a week, could that possibly be worth it?" That's because most of us have jobs that run a little (or a lot) over the "standard 40." Two jobs does not necessarily mean early retirement, as the actual text of the article clearly shows. "Forty percent" having two jobs does not tell the whole story.

Re:Not the Whole Story (1)

Trepalium (109107) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507397)

The fact so many teachers have second job might have something to do with the fact they only work roughly 10 months out of the year. Picking up a job, particularily one over the summer months (or at least one that picks up during the summer months) can be a good way to keep busy.

Re:Not the Whole Story (2, Interesting)

callistra.moonshadow (956717) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507431)

Agreed. Another troubling item is that when there is potential for multiple wages within a household one spouse often stays with the kids. On one hand that is commendable, but the reality is that when hit with college education versus retirement, things start to look a bit more grim. The reality is that in order to retire at all and still help your progeny with their education it will be a challenge for most of us. Imagine what it will take for those that only have one income and many mouths to feed. It's not like the old days where dad worked for 40 years at the same job, earned a good pension and retired in a paid-in full home. So the "working two jobs" or having two incomes may be the only feasible option in order to have a retirement.

Re:Not the Whole Story (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507837)

It's too late now for me to have retired at 40, but having known a number of people of similar age who have dropped dead of heart attacks, I guess I'd probably feel a bit stupid in my dying moments thinking "now if only I hadn't taken that second job".

;-)

Re:NO! (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507368)

Admit it, you just want more time to get First Posts on /.

Wife? hah!

Re:NO! (4, Insightful)

hawk (1151) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507625)

These are *Nevada Teachers*. The salary isn't enough to live on here.

I belive that the starting salar is $24k with a masters. While a significant portion of the summer is vacation (nothing close to all of it), the hours during the year tend to exceed forty per week.

Even five years ago, this was a relatively inexpensive place to live. That is no longer true, with the median house price flirting with $300k. We've gone from well under to well over. Auto insurance is also outrageous, due to the bad drivers from around the country (which is far worse than bad local driving habits, which are at least expected by other drivers).

Utilities are fairly mild in winter (though it's harsh by California standards :), but a lot of AC is needed during the summer (though you can work wonders with a swamp cooler; I was [barely] below $100 last August. $300 and rising is more typical).

These teachers aren't taking second jobs for extra money, but to survive.

Even if it were for extra money, it wouldn't come close to doubling your income. You use up all of your exemptions and deductions on the first job, and pay a higher tax bracket on the second.

hawk

Re:NO! (0)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508346)

For years teachers have ben beating up (through the massive power of the NEA) local governments for awesome benefits.

So the starting salary may be $23K, but then: it's nearly impossible to fire a teacher with tenure, the typical work day is less than 8 hours (8 - 3:30 is in the contract), they have a HUGE number of "day's off", they have a huge number of "sick days" (our teachers have 90 days a year they can use!!!!) and the health / retirement benefits add up to another $30K-40K per year! They don't have a typical HMO, no way. They have the best care our tax dollars can buy (but which very very few in the private sector can afford.) Teachers also have guaranteed raises for COLA and time of service.

So no, I don't feel sorry for our teachers. They have bargained away base salary for all sorts of extra perks. If they want extra salary, they have to give up some benefits.

Re:NO! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15508519)

the typical work day is less than 8 hours (8 - 3:30 is in the contract)

You are fucking kidding. Teachers spend a signficant amount of time outside that 8-3.30 working: preparing lessons, marking, running extracurriculars.

8-3.30? Yeah, you go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel better about the fact that these people are slaving away on a subsistence wage for the benefit of your children, but it ain't true.

Maybe you should try asking a teacher what the job's like once in a while, instead of believing everything you're fed by rich talk-show hosts who've never done an honest day's work in their life and who have gotten fat by criticising the people who actually go out there and work to keep our society great.

Two Jobs Can Mean New Tax Burdens (2, Funny)

Real World Stuff (561780) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507050)

Retiring early is a terribly strong incentive, but then again so is a mortgage note.

A Little Detail Called Retirement Savings (3, Insightful)

MinutiaeMan (681498) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507068)

Retirement is that milestone in your life where you (probably) have enough money earned and saved that you can live off said savings for the remainder of your life. Considering that (1) life expectancy is increasing and there's the possibility of life extension treatments on the horizon, and (2) the national budget is in the toilet (at least in the USA) with grim prospects for the long-range viability of Social Security... I think it's ludicrous to think about early retirement at all. Unless you're a serious workaholic, the old adage "slow and steady wins the race" still applies!

Also, I'm not impressed by that survey... I'd bet that the vast majority of those jobs are small fast-food-joint type affairs where they spend 10 or 20 hours a week at most, as a way to get some extra spending money. We've got several people who do that where I work. Working two full-time jobs would be ridiculous.

Besides, if anyone actually had two full-time jobs, they wouldn't likely have time to read Slashdot now, would they?

Re:A Little Detail Called Retirement Savings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507090)

Without RTFM, I'd guess that most of those teachers have summer jobs.

Re:A Little Detail Called Retirement Savings (5, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507128)

Early retirement is not ludicrous. I started a plan to allow me to retire at 45 when I was 25. I am now 33 and could still make the target... worst case is I will be 50 barring something unforseen.

I work forty hours per week. My wife stays home with the kids. My house will be paid off after nine years of mortgage payments. I don't need to keep up with the Jonses. I bought a house that was about one year's gross income (less now)... a fixer upper, but it has also been fun learning to do things. We share a car. Used. Buddy is a mechanic on a car lot... got me a great deal for about half of blue book.

I don't mind working, but don't want to HAVE to work. When I hit fifty, I want to be able to work volunteer, and not have to worry about a paycheck. It means a slightly smaller lifestyle than most of my friends, but frankly when I see a BMW, I am thinking "big money wasted".

Now, would I work eighty hours to make it happen at 40 instead of 50? Nope. Life is too precious, and there is always the law of diminishing returns. I do enjoy my job, but that would cease if it became eighty.

Like anything in life it is about trade offs and moderation.

Re:A Little Detail Called Retirement Savings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507906)

Until your wife leaves you for your small penis

I don't think that's possible for many. (1)

Richard Steiner (1585) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507944)

A house that's only one year's gross income? Heck, in the Minneapolis area even our little 1450 square foot 2-bedroom townhouse was worth $149k back in 2000 when we bought it, and probably $225k now.

I don't think you could even buy a house within 50 miles of the Twin Cities for a typical programmer's wage in the area (roughly 60-70k).

It's nice that you were able to do it, though. Cool, actually. Once the housing costs are taken care of, most of the big expenses are gone. :-)

Re:I don't think that's possible for many. (1)

nanoakron (234907) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508278)

I agere. I don't think there's a *single* live-able house anywhere in Britain for just one year's gross salary. The average income here is around £20,000pa (so US$35,000 or so). The average house (depending on area) - £80,000 to £250,000. The banks own your ass for most of your adult life if you get into a mortgage.

-Nano.

Re:I don't think that's possible for many. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508361)

You know what you need to do? Pass more laws regulating the economy.

That'll help! Politicians tell you so.

Re:I don't think that's possible for many. (1)

An Onerous Coward (222037) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508713)

No, no, no! We need to deregulate the living hell out of everything! That will keep the costs of running a business low, and the businesspeople will pass all that money straight back to their workers who they love so much! Every CEO I've talked to say they are overregulated, so it must be true!

Re:A Little Detail Called Retirement Savings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507982)

My wife stays home with the kids.
These kids, would they be going to college someday? When they're big enough to look after themselves, it will be possible for your wife to start spending on the scale that only a wife can imagine.

Re:A Little Detail Called Retirement Savings (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507267)

That's just silly. Two full-time jobs would mean twice as much time to read Slashdot. :)

Re:A Little Detail Called Retirement Savings (1)

Namronorman (901664) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507540)

Dammit! Who do I contact to get my patcheck? I have a feeling I'm not the only one... Do I smell class-action lawsuit?!

Re:A Little Detail Called Retirement Savings (1)

Chowderbags (847952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507287)

But if you don't work as long, you won't put as much into social security, thus you get slightly less screwed over in the end.

Relying on social security? (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507616)

Considering that (1) life expectancy is increasing and there's the possibility of life extension treatments on the horizon, and (2) the national budget is in the toilet (at least in the USA) with grim prospects for the long-range viability of Social Security... I think it's ludicrous to think about early retirement at all.

Why would you even consider living off the government to be a form of retirement? That's not returement, that's called welfare. Retirement is when you save enough money to be able to take care of yourself with no intervention from anyone, and it's perfectly reasonable and possible to do so much earlier in life than people traditionally do. I think a lot of people fourty and under have no illusions that we will see a dime from that money pit called Social Security.

Add to that the fact that retirement for a lot of people means "do whatever work I like for as little as I like" and you don't even nessecarily have to save up enough to last forever, just to allow you enough finanacial freedom to do what you love. Of course it's even better if you are saving for more advanced retrirement while you do what you love...

Re:A Little Detail Called Retirement Savings (1)

daigu (111684) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507620)

You should try the book: Your Money or Your Life [amazon.com] . They basically make the argument that you only need to reach the point where your monthly investment income is more than your monthly expenses. It is fairly easy to do if you are willing to do something like live in the basement of your house and rent out the rest of the house. It's not for everyone but that isn't saying it can't be done.

Re:A Little Detail Called Retirement Savings (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507626)

I agree completely. But I'll take it a little further. If you are under 40 right now, don't plan on retiring till you are at least 70. After that, you'll get a good 20 or 30 years to lounge around and tend roses or write code and play with the grandkids.

A lot of the baby boomers are starting to look at retirement. We have to make the change in retirement age now, before they retire. After they retire, you'll have a working minority paying for the majority of Americans to lounge around, take Viagra, and fuck each other all day. And we'll keep paying till they finally die around age 90.

I don't know about you, but I don't plan on paying 60% income tax just so your mom can retire at 62.

Reality check (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507082)

I suspect any two jobs so cleanly compartmentalized that you can do both adequately are likely to skew toward mundane work, unlikely to pay enough (individually or together) to support retirement by age 40 with any kind of lifestyle you'd want yourself or your family to have. I would guess most people working two (or more) jobs aren't ambitious so much as limited by their options and life circumstances, and doing that work to support families, service debt, etc.

EAT big, LIFT big, and SLEEP big (-1, Offtopic)

SourceVisigoth (141614) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507085)

Your problem is lack of intensity. When you lift you have to go to failure each set and drop your weight about 20%, then go to failure again. Make sure to take in enough protein each day, you want about (body weight in lbs * 1.5) grams of protein each day. And don't forget to take a multivitamin each day to get essential nutrients. The key is to LIFT BIG, EAT BIG, and SLEEP BIG.

A lot of people want to be body builders, but they dont want to lift no heavy ass weight.

Flamebate Summary (1, Insightful)

students (763488) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507087)

The article says nothing about retiring - it is about teachers who work several jobs just to make enough to live off of. These people cannot afford to retire at all. That's why I tagged the summary flamebate.

Re:Flamebait Summary (0, Troll)

students (763488) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507120)

And now I've fixed the spelling in my tag.

mod up, not down! (2, Insightful)

fluxmov (519552) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507144)

Worst "summary" ever.

Faulty premise (3, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507096)

Even assuming you can get two jobs paying the same, consider:

1) Most good jobs require SOME non-standard time. It happens to me about three times a year where I pull an all nighter. I get comped for it, but if I had a second job, I'd be unable to meet the first's requirements.

2) Two jobs paying equivilant will not double your take home income. Taxes go up as you earn more, on federal and state, and often local level.

3) Part of being able to retirn in 20 years depends on the growth of money, and the miracle of compound interest. Two jobs might bring it down 20-40 percent, depending on growth rates, and original time frame, but will NOT cut it in half. Also remember that you will need some kind of medical coverage. Your $ required to retire will actually go up the early you retire.

4) If you work eighty plus hours per week for ten years, you will be losing the prime part of your life. I would not give up a decade of my life, and miss raising my kids for a million a year. Not worth it.

Re:Faulty premise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507248)

2) Two jobs paying equivilant will not double your take home income. Taxes go up as you earn more, on federal and state, and often local level.

Ahh... but you don't have twice the rent to pay and twice the food to buy, do you? So doubling your income will likely more than double your annual savings.

3) Part of being able to retire in 20 years depends on the growth of money, and the miracle of compound interest.

Your savings will keep growing while you are retired, minus the expenses for one year at a time, so this is insightful but incorrect.

Re:Faulty premise (2, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508634)

Run the numbers. It is entirely correct. In order to get to retire, you have to be able to live off of interest for the rest of your life. At the age the question poser proposed, you may as well say it is a perpetuity. Regardless of when the dude retires, he is going to have to have N/i dollars, where N is the desired income, and i is the expected interest rate. To simplify, we will take i to be the rate adjusted by inflation. Regardless of when the guy retires, this will be the same amount. If he needs 50k, and expects a real growth rate of 5%, he will need a cool million.

Compounding shows that he will NOT halve the time. For example, if he puts 1,000 per month away (grow by inflation) at a rate of 5% + inflation, it will take him 34 years. Double it to 2,000 per month and it still takes 23 years. A far cry from halving the time to retirement. In fact, to get it to halve, he would have to go up to around 3,700 per month.

Your numbers may vary based on the assumptions you use, but the principle remains.

Re:Faulty premise (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507618)

Two jobs paying equivilant will not double your take home income. Taxes go up as you earn more, on federal and state, and often local level.


You mean that progressive taxation is a dis-incentive to work harder? You mean maybe all those fiscal conservatives who call for a flat tax aren't crazy after all?

Retire ? (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507125)

Heart attack ? Stroke ? Appoplexy from your higher tax bracket ?

Work yourself to death so when you are broken down you can enjoy life. Sounds like a plan. You could just try one of those late night infomercials, don't know if it would work better but at least it might be more fun.

A 2nd Job is Easy! (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507133)

A 2nd Job is Easy ... you just have to sell stuff for other people on eBay. I'm not kidding, it's the easiest thing in the world to do ... you can make good money doing ... and you can do it from the comfort of your own home using your linux box to do it.

Re:A 2nd Job is Easy! (1)

Namronorman (901664) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507555)

Reminds me of someone I know. He works a nice 100+K a year job and during his break sessions he'd play with eBay. After awhile people started to notice and would offer him things to sell in return for part of the money made. Well, after about 6 months or so, one of his clientele (a Jeweller) found out about what was going on and decided to get in on it. Things work out, and after awhile they start selling thousands of dollars worth of merchandise a week and split the profits 50/50 after covering cost of inventory; and like smart businessmen they invest their profits into the business instead of blowing it like they could.

Mod Parent Down... oops, it's the post (4, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507141)

Bad summary. The article doesn't discuss people working multiple jobs to retire early, it's discussing a school district that pays its starting teachers so low that the teachers can't make ends meet. Unsurprisingly, the district has more than one thousand openings unfilled.

Low Salary?? (0, Troll)

Banner (17158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507255)

I'm sorry, but a starting salary of 33K in Nevada for a job that is 9 months of the year is NOT low! If she's having trouble making ends meet, maybe she should take a closer look at what she's spending all of her money on and do a better job of managing it.

Re:Low Salary?? (2, Insightful)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507422)

Actually, yea, it is low. It would be what, all of 44K if it was a 12 month salary? That's still below median.

Keep trying to convince people that they should lower their standard of living to conform to your beliefs though. A few stupid souls might buy into your newsletter.

Re:Low Salary?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507500)

Sure, newbie teachers make $33k, and the median household income in Nevada for 2000-2002 was $46,289 (according to census.gov), and the article states that Clark County's median income is $44k. Well no fscking duh: Clark County is Las Vegas. The median includes the thousands of people that move there every month with incomes over $100k/yr.

Anyway, a quick search for apartments found plenty of hits under $700/mo, and even some under $600. With a $33k salary, you're typically qualified for financing up to $825/mo (rent + car). That means for $33k you'd have no problem affording a 1br apartment and a new Kia or Hyundai. After taxes and those two payments, you'd be left with more than $1,000/mo for insurance, gas, utilities, food, clothes, entertainment, clothing and incidentals. A reasonable person could easily manage to put $200-300/mo into savings, even with an extravagant clothing + entertainment budget.

Also keep in mind that we're talking about single income households. If you're going to have kids, that implies a second income, and that'll push you [far] above the median income. Besides, who said teachers *should* make more than 1/2 of all wage earners?

Re:Low Salary?? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507563)

There are some serious flaws in your reasoning.

Let's take a differant county in Nevada then. Washoe County where I happen to live pays its new teachers $29k this year. Our median household income in 2000 was $40k and family income $45k. This has actually gone up quite a bit in the last five years due in part to the housing boom and an increase in companies moving here bringing an influx of high paying white collar jobs. However, the housing boom has also driven the pricing for all types of housing up. While you may be able to search and find many apartments in the area for under $700, 99.9% of them will be section 8 housing and a teacher making $29k will not qualify to live there. The majority of apartmetns in Reno run around $850-1250. Public transportation here is very poor so it is almost a necessity to have a car. We also have high insurance rates so your estimates are off there as well. There is no income tax which is a benefit, only sales and property taxes. A recent survey done by the University of Nevada Reno found that it was necessary for individuals to earn at least $35k to live comfortably in the area. I can't find the link to it any more, I was present at the University when the results were discussed so am going from memory.

Having kids doesn't imply a second income, maybe 20 or 40 years ago, but not in this day and age.

Due to budget cuts many/most teachers have to dip into thier salaries to pay for supplies for their classrooms. I'm fairly certain this is happening all over the county and not just in Nevada.

Teachers are required to continue thier educations. This means for most of them taking graduate credits at the university though for some certifications or endorsments they may be undergraduate credits. This also has to come from their salaries.

While you didn't say this, most people keep pointing it out. Teachers only work 9-10 months of the year

Teachers do typically only work for the school district for 9 to 10 months of the year. They also typically have their salaries paid out over 12 months (it's an option in most districts). They however often work much more than 40 hours per week. Here in Washoe teachers are required to be on the campus for 8 hours per day. The children of course aren't there for the whole time. That gives a prep period in the morning and afternoon typically. A significant amount of teachers still have to take work home with them due to other factors. After school programs, tutoring, detentions, duties, other activities required and not eat into prep time. This means that lesson plan creation, and paper grading gets done at home. My wife for example works on average 75 hours per week. Many teachers work second jobs during the summer to supplement their incomes. With an increase in the number of schools on year round schedules to help fight over crowding this is no longer an option. School is in session for two to three months, there is a three week break, and then they are back to school. Very few places will hire someone that is only available for three weeks.

Besides, who said teachers *should* make more than 1/2 of all wage earners?

I don't think anyone is trying to say that teachers should make more than half of all wage earners (even though that's not what a median is). However, why is that so many people think that teachers are over paid? We are talking about the education of our children and the future of the country. Teachers should be held to a very high standard due to the job that they have. They should be given the resources to do that job. Unfortunately in this country being educated isn't nearly as highly valued as being able to dunk a basketball or hit a home run. Teachers get a bad rap, and certainly a number of them deserve it, but as a whole in the US we have decided to ask them to accomplish their tasks with little to no resources. We allow administrators to waste funds, we have allowed teachers unions to gain power and so the lazy and incapable still have their jobs. We allow those who have no backgrounds in education to design the legislation and rules that teachers must work by. The system is broken and salaries are just a small part of that.

Re:Low Salary?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15508458)

GP AC here. I've got three things to say.

The majority of apartmetns in Reno run around $850-1250

A quick search found several different 1br apartments in Reno as low as $550. "Majority" is mostly irrelevant if you're below the median income.

Having kids doesn't imply a second income, maybe 20 or 40 years ago, but not in this day and age.

Two words: Child support. If you get knocked up, you're entitled to child support even if you were never married.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that teachers should make more than half of all wage earners (even though that's not what a median is).

Perhaps you need to review your facts, because that's *precisely* the definition of median income. Median is the 50%ile mark; 1/2 are above and 1/2 are below. (* perhaps you're bickering with my choice to avoid phrasing it as 'household income', which can include income from more than one wage-earner).

Re:Low Salary?? (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507606)

My wife makes less than that, has 5 more years of higher education than is required for a teaching job, and has to work in either the Boston area or Southern California (where the cost of living is signifigantly higher than in Nevada) to have a job in her field at all. I have a very hard time feeling sorry for somebody that makes a perfectly respectable (adjusted) $44k a year in an area of the country with a fairly low cost of living. The thing about the median income is that one less than half of everybody has to make less than or equal to it by definition.

I'll keep trying to get people to conform to my beliefs... They're called arithmetic and statistics, and my news letter is a high-school math book.

Re:Low Salary?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15508063)

The thing about the median income is that one less than half of everybody has to make less than or equal to it by definition.
Actually, no. You're thinking of the mean. Perhaps you should study arithmetic, or statistics.

Re:Low Salary?? (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508747)

Yeah, yeah. I realized I put my foot in my mouth right after I hit submit.

But I still stand by my point that $44,000 isn't underpaid.

Re:Low Salary?? (1)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507692)

This post puzzles me, in the context of your signature. Besides, 50% of people make below median income by definition. "That's under median!" No shit? So's my income, and you don't see me whining about it.

Re:Low Salary?? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507470)

You obviously don't live in Nevada or know what you are talking about. Please take the comments you posted in your profile to heart and not talk about things you don't know about. Then maybe people won't constantly moderate you as being a Troll even though you are.

The housing costs in both Clark county and Washoe county are quite high compared to the median household and family incomes. Both of which are quite a bit higher than the $33k quoted in the article, washoe county teachers start out at just under $29k this year and will be recieving a raise to about $31k next year. Teachers typically have their pay spread out over 12 months as many teachers at traditional schools tend to continue thier education during summer months (if possible) or work retail or similar jobs. Teachers at year round schools have less options as they have breaks of roughly 3.5 weeks spread throughout the year. No one wants to hire you if you are only going to be working for a few weeks.

Now, let's also consider the fact they are required to continue thier education to get thier licenses renewed and to be classified as "Highly Qualified" to meet requirements of no child left behind and other legislation. This also comes out of their own pay as the state and federal government don't pay for it. A great many teachers work significantly more than 40 hours per week for their pay due to required after school programs, grading papers, creating lesson plans, attending school events (required or otherwise) etc. Then lets factor in the fact that no one wants to fund schools so many teachers also dip into their salaries to provide supplies for their classrooms they have even further reduced incomes.

Then you get the ignorant comments from people like you. It is no wonder that our education system stinks and is getting worse.

Mod Parent Down... oops, it's... Wait, no oops... (-1, Flamebait)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507592)

If my main job was only from September to May I'd get a second job too. It's not called being underpaid, it's called not being lazy.

If a school district anywhere pays a teacher enough to live comfortably for an entire year, yet gives them a quarter of the year off work, the tax payers should raise hell.

Re:Mod Parent Down... oops, it's... Wait, no oops. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507741)

Years ago, when WPI accepted my application, I figured it was because they'd let anybody in. I didn't go to WPI (got a job instead), so my conjecture remained baseless until today.

Thank you for providing evidence that WPI will, in fact, let any idiot in.

(Bonus points to the local ACM folks for having a webserver that doesn't actually accept connections. I wonder if the local IEEE people design flip-flops without a latch line. Perhaps it's just the CS program that's "special.")

Do you really think... (1)

hummassa (157160) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508347)

That teachers go home and keep idling during the vacations? If so, you *are* a moron.

Re:Do you really think... (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508740)

Yeah, from my comment it's clear that I think that.

I also didn't read the article, which says otherwise.

I stopped when I read this gem (4, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507162)

Ann Marie Perone's SUV is like her second home.
So let me get this straight, you drive an expensive gas guzzler then give me some boo-hoo story about how you have to work 2 jobs? Maybe if you would drive something PRACTICAL then you could save money and not have to work another job.....

Living in Germany and Japan opened my eyes, Americans just consume too god damn much. I have become a minimalist and love every minute of it. My only guilty pleasure is travel, but I spend less on travel each year than most people spend on gas for their SUVs.

Hold on a second (1, Insightful)

Jeff Molby (906283) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507243)

you drive an expensive gas guzzler
Don't be so quick to judge. The rest of your argument may well be valid, but there are a lot of small SUVs on the market that are neither expensive, nor inefficient. Obviously, a Hyundai Accent would be less expensive and more efficient, but that may not meet her needs for some reason.

Re:Hold on a second (2, Funny)

Mantle (104724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507280)

Come on, she needs the room in the SUV to hold the 2nd change of clothes she needs just in case something happens so she can work her 2nd job in order to pay for the SUV. Didn't you read the article man?

Re:I stopped when I read this gem (1)

coaxial (28297) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507386)

Not to minimize the copious consumption of Americans, by far the largest consumers on the planet. (Hell, even my family has more cars than people, even not counting the collector car (69 Charger, all original)), but I don't know if the Japanese can be considered that frugal. Afterall, thats a culture that replaces all their electronics at least every two years, simply because they're not stylish anymore. Now that's consumption.

Re:I stopped when I read this gem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15508654)

Afterall, thats a culture that replaces all their electronics at least every two years, simply because they're not stylish anymore. Now that's consumption.

Pftt, here in America, you replace your electronics every year. Buy cheap crap from Walmart and you'll never want for new electronics...

Re:I stopped when I read this gem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15508414)

Get off of your soapbox asshole. Perhaps she needs the SUV. Have you ever tried to haul any equipment in a subcompact or a "family" sedan? I have and it sucks.

Living in Germany and Japan opened my eyes, Americans just consume too god damn much.

Are you trying to prove Godwin right here? Germany and Japan are the two least exemplary nations on the planet.

have become a minimalist and love every minute of it. My only guilty pleasure is travel, but I spend less on travel each year than most people spend on gas for their SUVs.

Are you slashdotting from the local library or did you buy a computer?

Re:I stopped when I read this gem (2, Interesting)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508738)

Perhaps she needs the SUV. Have you ever tried to haul any equipment in a subcompact or a "family" sedan? I have and it sucks.

I don't know what you've been hauling, but I've packed a ton of equipment into "family" sized sedans and had room to spare.

Need more facts about her balance sheet. (3, Insightful)

Mantle (104724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507164)

First of all, note that the article linked is not really the topic of this post. It is merely illustrative of the submitter's question of whether it is advised/possible to work to jobs and retire early.

That said, why isn't it possible for her to just work one job with a single child? She makes between $33k and $44k per year from teaching. It may not be a life of luxury, but it should be possible without having to work two jobs.

Ann Marie Perone's SUV ...

Maybe a greater awareness of the amount of resources she is consuming and a reevaluation of what is necessary in her life is required.

Mod Article -5000, Retarded (1)

repruhsent (672799) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507168)

School teachers often work two jobs - but not at the same time. Can you say summer break, asshats?

Whatever you do, enjoy it. (4, Insightful)

cachorro (576097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507181)

As one who is approaching retirement and could probably retire today, I will say that AFAICT the joys of retirement are over-rated.

If you work in a job doing what you love, you can mostly forget even thinking about retirement, and leave it as a contingency for when your powers start failing. Granted, one must work in joyless jobs sometimes before getting into a career that matches the promptings of your heart. In that case, work as many jobs as needed to get past that point. Just remember that your goal is not to not have to work, but to reach a plateau where your work suits you.

IMHO life is not about getting to a finish line earliest, but rather about the fruit your presence here produces. It has been noted elsewhere that a tree that produces no fruit is only suitable for the fire.

Re:Whatever you do, enjoy it. (3, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507332)

I enjoy my job, but I still want to try and retire early. I'd rather devote my time programming to open source and charity work, rather than doing it for pay, being forced to work on what a boss wants me to and having to do it every day.

Re:Whatever you do, enjoy it. (1)

m1ndrape (971736) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508259)

I think his point is if your job is more like playing, it becomes less like work.

Retire early? What a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507191)

The OP really did not read that article. These people work 2 jobs because they think they need the money. Too many people are opting to go higher in debt for a new car instead of a smaller payment for a used one and it's a huge problem in America. The upper middle class has pulled further away from the middle class, and the middle class feels the need to keep up. My car is PAID FOR. Sure, it gives me problems sometimes and gets less milage than a new car(but better than most SUVs), and the insurance is much lower so I have less out of pocket expenses. More people in the country need to start re-using and fixing instead of replacing when there is no need. I make decent $$ fixing stuff that I get for free and then re-selling it. That's my second job. And a lot of those people enable me to do so. Retire early? Nowhere near even the topic of that article....

Not all jobs are equal (2, Insightful)

bob65 (590395) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507198)

In particular, not all jobs are equal in time/effort/stress/pay. Job A could be the equivalent of 2 Job Bs.

Hey Mon (2, Funny)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507204)

You only working tree jobs? My great grandmother is working eight jobs. And I'm working seventeen jobs. Oh look here comes my lovely daughter who's working 5 jobs. "Hey dad, here's a brain surgeon I'm dating." "What else does he do?" "Nothing, he works a highly paid position where he helps people." "Ah he's working only one job, you lazy bastard, get away from my daughter."

Taxes (2, Insightful)

rlp (11898) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507210)

In the US the tax system is 'progressive'. Thus your marginal tax rate will go up much faster than your income increases from your second job. Also savings for early retirement would have to take into account a longer period of retirement, inflation, and the incrasing cost of (individual) health insurance as you grow older (increasing faster than inflation). Bottom line - with two jobs you could retire early - but not as early as you might think. Personally, I'd rather take a more balanced approach than become a victim of karoshi.

regulations (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507220)

IMO working two jobs simply dissipates one's ability to concentrate on one's work. The main reason so many people are working multiple jobs is because of the burdens imposed on employers when they try to work people full-time or on overtime. While I can understand sympathy for workers who are forced to work MORE hours than they'd prefer, the current regulations also hold back those who would prefer to keep at it for more than 36 hours a week.

Re:regulations (1)

WarPresident (754535) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508695)

IMO working two jobs simply dissipates one's ability to concentrate on one's work. The main reason so many people are working multiple jobs is because of the burdens imposed on employers when they try to work people full-time or on overtime. While I can understand sympathy for workers who are forced to work MORE hours than they'd prefer, the current regulations also hold back those who would prefer to keep at it for more than 36 hours a week.

What are those burdens, specifically? Actually paying the headcount for overtime pay? Wasting pure profit by giving your workers health insurance? Being forced to allow the wage slaves to get up from their assembly line every few hours so that they can urinate? Having to let them trundle off to the cafeteria or McDonalds for half an hour each day? Lets not forget all those damned OSHA laws that prevent those noble companies from literally working their serfs to death, thus slowing down the rate of profit.

Teachers get retirement in 20 years already. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507223)

Really, they do in most states. Also they get Summers OFF and every other holiday known to man. So while they're working less hours than us in their normal job (and getting more pay on top of that these days), a second job for them is no big deal. To be honest I'm thinking of going into teaching. It's easy work, and I like kids.

Re:Teachers get retirement in 20 years already. (1)

jascat (602034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507276)

I wouldn't exactly call it easy work. They also don't get paid very well and I doubt their retirement package is something that one can live on alone. If their retirement is anything like the military's, they probably get about 50% of their pay. If they are making $30/yr at time of retirement, that means $15k before taxes a year. If you have your mortage paid off, no debt and no children to take care of, you may be able to live on that. Take into account the progressed age and the medical expenses that tend to go along, you are looking pretty thin.

Re:Teachers get retirement in 20 years already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507413)

Most teachers are making around $70-80k by the time they retire these days, and that's out in a tiny rural school district. They then take home 80% of that as their pension. Suburban districts pay significantly more. For 3/4 of a year's work. Teaching is not a bad gig at all.

Re:Teachers get retirement in 20 years already. (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507642)

Utter fucking bullshit. In some rich suburbs they do. In any other system, especially rural ones, they don't. My father doesn't make that with 35 years of experience and the second highest educational rating in CHicago (the only way he could make more is if he got a doctorate). If he worked overtime programs AND summer school full summer he MIGHT make the lower end of that range. For pension he'll take home 3/4 of that, but with no benefits, including no health insurance. Get some real facts and stop pulling numbers from your ass.

Re:Teachers get retirement in 20 years already. (5, Informative)

FSWKU (551325) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507336)

Really, they do in most states. Also they get Summers OFF and every other holiday known to man. So while they're working less hours than us in their normal job (and getting more pay on top of that these days), a second job for them is no big deal. To be honest I'm thinking of going into teaching. It's easy work, and I like kids.

You poor, sad, horribly-mistaken individual. I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic. I know many, MANY teachers, and not a single one of them does it for the money or because it's an "easy" job. They do it because they love to teach, but they aren't getting rich doing it.

The teacher's day doesn't begin at 8:00am and end at 3:00pm. There are long hours every day of grading in-class assignments, checking homework, and preparing for the next day. Teachers also most certainly do NOT get the summer off. A lot of time is spent during the summer preparing new lesson plans for the comming school-year, and a lot of districts are adopting a "year-round" schedule, which means an even greater percentage of down-time is spent getting things together for the upcoming term. In addition to their own classroom tasks, there are also faculty meetings, PTA meetings, and various conferences with parents that come up.

On top of all of that, you have the students. No classroom anywhere is 100% full of well-behaved, polite children. In any group you work with, you will have the ones who cop an attitude, throw a tantrum, or just flat out refuse to do what they're told. Then you have the ones with actual behavioral or developmental problems that inevitably get put in the class because their parents refuse to send them to a school better suited to their needs. Oh yeah, that's another thing. You may be able to handle the kids, but the REAL headache comes from dealing with the PARENTS. These are the ones who cannot possibly conceive of little Johnny EVERY doing anything wrong, and it must be YOUR fault that he is acting that way. And it just gets worse because schools aren't allowed to use any sort of discipline other than some form of "time-out", be it detention, a trip to the office, or whatever.

It gets even worse at the high school level. I went to a small, private school and even there, we had students who simply refused to put any effort into a given class, and who seemed to have nothing better to do than make everyone else's life as difficult as possible. The problem students get worse as they get older, because they lose their fear of authority. A student who is physically bigger and/or stronger than the teacher has no incentive to follow instruction if they don't want to. Even if they aren't there is no way to FORCE a student to do their work without getting the afformentioned parents threatening to sue your underpaid ass. And chances are, if they don't want to work, the threat of failing will mean precisely nothing to them.

That's not to say that ALL students are bad. The majority are easy enough to handle, but it's always the problem ones that give you the most grief at any grade level. And then there are also students who try hard enough, but always need a little bit of extra assistance in order to keep them from falling behind. Dealing with students who fall outside of the "norm" is very taxing for a teacher. The bottom line is teaching is NOT an easy profession, and even the most well meaning class will eat you alive if you don't know how to handle them.

mod parent up (1)

mjkjedi (717711) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507489)

Hear, hear! Yes, there are bad teachers, but good teachers work their asses off.

Re:Teachers get retirement in 20 years already. (1)

Corbets (169101) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508174)

But in the end, whether they work hard or not (I personally have known teachers that do not fit the workaholic description you give above), the market determines their pay. Demand for teachers in the area, supplier bargaining power (in their case, unions), etc. I'm sorry, but if you need money that badly (say, to finance your gas-guzzling SUV as mentioned above) then you should enter a field that society values more.

Teaching is not considered difficult by a lot of people (I'm not saying it's not hard, I'm saying that it's not perceived that way - think back to your college days and the liberal arts majors you knew). Teachers are available at the wages that are being paid. What motivation does the district have to raise pay? Until the perception of teachers can be changed (which is, IMHO, what she's trying to accomplish by complaining in this article, whether she realizes it or not), or until the supply of teachers is decreased (either through effective use of - /shudder - unions, or through decreasing the number of people enrolled in elementary ed at college), pay will continue to be low.

The parent mentioned that the teachers he/she knows are in it because they love what they do. Unfortunately, that's not reason enough to raise the pay - I love playing video games and drinking Starbucks, but I don't get paid a dime for either one.

While I can understand the difficulty they're in, I don't necessarily sympathize.

Re:Teachers get retirement in 20 years already. (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507344)

Retirement generally requires 35 years for most teacher's pension plans. I know my father in Chicago is like that, althopugh they do occasionally offer early retirement plans to do it at 30 (in order to get rid of higher paid experienced teachers for cheaper right out of college ones). And while they work different hours than normal people, they don't work fewer- their days start hours before the students get there and end after they leave.

Assuming I'm in the US... no way. (3, Interesting)

Tetravus (79831) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507234)

Personally, I see the US undergoing some serious inflation over the next 40 years. If I had to work a second job to just barely be able to 'retire' early there's simply too much risk involved to make the potential pay-off worth pursuing. If inflation does take off, savings will be decimated.

If you want to retire early, get into something that pays really really well. Then hedge your risk by moving a chunk of your wealth out of dollar denominated assets. If you're smart enough to be an engineer (or even an IT generalist) then you're smart enough to be a successful stock broker or banker (think leveraged buy outs).

My point is that the risks we all face are great enough that I wouldn't be willing to sell the prime of my life to a second employer unless I was damn sure that my retirement was going to be comfortable and satisfying (Viagra gets expensive over 20-30 years, yo).

Re:Assuming I'm in the US... no way. (1)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508451)

Retirement was invented when:

1. People died around retirement age anyway, so it didn't cost that much.

2. They worked physically demanding jobs that couldn't be done effectively by somebody old.

3. While they were in the prime of their life, they busted themselves raising large family.

1 & 3 certainly no longer hold. If generation n+1 has twice as many people as generation n, then generation n+1 will be able to take care of generation n for five years on the average. If generation n+1 is smaller than generation n, then generation n+1 is unlikely to take care of generation n for twenty years on the average (while raising their own children) - especially if generation n is perfectly able to work.

This means that something happen to retirement assets. Those that are debt will probably be inflated to be worth less (that will also help with the public debt). Those that are equity are usually based on the expectation of being able to sell them at a higher price - they'll lose value when generation n+1 can afford to buy less retirment assets than generation n.

Yeah, no... (3, Insightful)

jascat (602034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507265)

You have to realize that most people who are able to retire in their 60s have either a pension or good investments. Those that are able to retire sooner have been really smart about their money, paid off their mortage early and made a conscious effort to live on cash alone. The problem with most people is that they look at financing vehicles and credit cards as a way of life, just like the electric and phone bill. The people who do retire comfortably are the ones that save and invest what would have otherwise been spent on interest and more expensive, unneeded material things. The more time you have money earning interest, the better it is, but investing takes time. Bringing in more money alone won't get you to retirement. Time, steady income and smart spending/saving is what gets you to retirement.

You make it sound hard (2, Interesting)

ishmaelflood (643277) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507522)

It's not hard, it is just a decision you make. I work as a mechanical engineer for a large company. I am 45. I own my house and drive a 20 year old car.

I eat in (good) restaurants twice a week, and holiday overseas for a month every two years.

I don't intend on retiring since I enjoy my job, but I could retire tomorrow just on the income from my shares. It took 10 years to do this, once I decided on a financial plan, and that decade includes losing a lot of money in the tech-wreck.

Not quite, but consider this (3, Interesting)

Jeff Molby (906283) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507272)

As has already been pointed out, many of your assumptions are invalid. You can scale your idea back a little bit and find some more modest success. Typical retirement advice is to set aside 10% of your income throughout your entire career, but anyone with a clue knows that compound interest makes your early savings exponentially more valuable than the savings from the end of your career. If you were willing to bust your hump for 5 years and set aside 5 times as much as you normally would, you might be able to coast through the remainder of your career knowing that your retirement is already handled. It's unorthodox, but it might work. Do your homework.

No thanks. (1)

iamghetto (450099) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507293)

With my life, i'm at my peak right now. I make a decent amount of money, good looking guy (let me believe it), lots of friends, energy to burn, my brain still works, my body still works. As I get older, I'm guessing that everyone of those things (except for the money) will decrease the older I get. These are -my- _years_ right now. I certainly would never entertain the idea of working two jobs at this point in my life just so that I could retire early.

I'd be essentially passing up my young excellent sexy life so that I can go full steam into a mid-life crisis as soon as I retire... at 40.

I'd imagine there are a lot more 50 years olds that wish they were 20, then 20 year olds who wish they were 50.

Re:No thanks. (1)

bazorg (911295) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508172)

You are wise beyond your years :)

People should in fact "retire" after leaving college, get married, have >2 children, raise them properly and then at 40-ish years old go to work. Assuming most people wouldn't commit suicide at their 40th birthday, this might help wth the aging population and broke social security issues :-/

Only if I didn't love anyone. (1)

goofyheadedpunk (807517) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507325)

Would I sacrifice ten whole years of my life in order to 'save' ten others a decade from now? In this situation, no. What kind of a family life would you have working two jobs? What's the point of retiring early if there's no one to retire with?

Right now I'm only at University, and as a result have a reasonably flexible schedule, but I still have a very difficult time balancing my time between my partner, a part-time job, my desire to learn on my own, my need for quiet time and studies. I don't see my partner enough as it is, nor do I get to tinker as much as I would like. I can't imagine how much my quality of life would drop were I to work two jobs.

Shit, I can't imagine how much I'd shorten my own life. My grandpa did pretty much this in the 50's (World War II fucked him pretty badly in the head, so he ignored his emotional trauma by burying himself in work) and was dead at 45 from heart attack. He had a rotten relationship with the majority of his children, Grandma went a little bonkers and my own father had a difficult time connecting with me until I was old enough to actively join in his hobbies, having never learned how fathers play with small children.

Sometimes a thing looks pretty great until you think about it a little. Ten years extra of semi-retirement sounds pretty sweet until you realize that you're going to have to work twenty years in only a decade. Frankly, that just sounds dumb.

On the topic of the post rather than the article, (5, Insightful)

munpfazy (694689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507359)

I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about this (although admittedly most of it was spent in the company of other drunken academics.)

It seems to me that for a well educated, technically skilled, first world people, there are basically three optimal strategies one can choose in finding work:

1 - Find a job that you love, so that working itself makes you happy, where happiness may include the feeling that you've accomplished something worthwhile, even if the day to day work isn't pleasant. (eg. the physicist or aid worker options)

2 - Find a job that requires minimum effort and time and allows you to spend most of your time doing things that make you happy. (the writer who's also a security guard option)

3 - Find a job that sucks but allows you to make a lot of money, then retire early and spend the rest of your life doing things that make you happy. (the investment banker turned surfer option.)

I'd argue that one is best served by pursuing any of these three strategies with intensity. Compromises are sure to sink you: taking a job that you only mostly hate in order to make enough money to retire a few years earlier buys you nothing; finding a job that requires just enough effort to leave you feeling tired at the end of the day but doesn't either give you enough money to retire early or a feeling of satisfaction puts you in the same miserable boat as most other American white collar workers.

To that end, if you choose to run with option #3, you're better off stacking on as many jobs as you can handle without physical breakdown. The off hours you sacrifice will be low quality anyway.

The downside, of course, is that option #3 involves banking your healthiest, most active years on the promise of free time in the future. If your idea of a good time involves seeing a lot of theater and learning how to paint, and if you aren't obviously a candidate for early health problems, and if you believe the economy will continue to value the medium in which you've banked your savings, then it may well be a safe bet. On the other hand, if your idea of a good time involved climbing mountains, going to protests, and fucking, you might be better off choosing an alternative strategy.

My own policy has been to go after #1. So far, I've no complaints. But, it sure helps that what I happen to enjoy also pays enough to live on.

It is what I do... (1)

ticketmaster41 (979716) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507372)

I have a day job of IT manager. However, this day job allows me to work other jobs, which earn me half of my day time jobs salary. All this money I save (+401k). It is just a matter of finding the right job...my family does not suffer, I use my 'extra job' as a way to fullfill my extraneous interests, and have found out I can be profitable at the same time!

No way... (1)

Jeian (409916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507487)

I have a job primarily to support myself, and secondarily to have something interesting and meaningful to fill my time. Even if I no longer needed to support myself, I'd stay in the workforce.

Re:No way... (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507887)

I'm right with you. I don't know what I would do with myself if I didn't work at least 30 hours a week. I know that sounds kinda sad, but I do enjoy my job. I manage to travel a bit (foreign and domestic), but you can only do that so much. I could go to school for fun, I suppose. I don't really have any hobbies that require too much of a time investment.

I guess that leads to a potential "Ask Slashdot." What would you do if you didn't have to work? Do most people really have so many hobbies and interests that would keep them active if they didn't have to work? I know I'd get bored.

-matthew

People are Funny. (1)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507513)

I'm already planning on 'retiring' early. Got it all worked out, financially.

you should always have more than one income... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15507550)

..always. All one has to do is pay attention to just the *headlines* in the financials, not the articles, just the headlines, to see that relying on one job/income is pretty risky. Face reality, the globalist "god is money" boss class does not care one whit about you, and never will, no matter what they say, and if they think they can make one extra dollar tomorrow by firing you and offshoring your job or telling your coworkers to just do more work-they will. At the legislative government level, look around! Do you *really* see anything other than transnational corporate politician toadies with their hands out for bags of cash? Like 2% aren't, the rest are, so figure from here on out that is the kind of laws and social reality you will be seeing. If you are in the US today (and to an extenet europe as well) read the handwriting on the wall, you are being sold out for short term profits, and eventually this will cause "problems". You are seeing the inklings now.

    Anything weird happens then, and it most likely will,and you only have one job, poof, you got the exact same bills with NO income, whereas with two jobs, you at least got the "other" income to tide you over, along with savings, etc..And I don't mean your spouse working as the second job, I mean every individual. It doesn't need to be two full timers, but anything completely different for a secondary job, do NOT get it in the same industry as your primary job. I could go into this why I say this but you should be smart enough to figure that one out.

Take it from an older dude who's gotten bitten a few times now by those gross pig's "globalization" congame (I kid thee not, three times now!), always have at least two *widely different types of jobs*, and preferably at least one other source of income besides that, even if it's just an active eBay sales page or something, anything at all. And I don't care how much you make from your primary income, always have a second job, even just a small part timer, and get the home and car paid off! Those are typically the two biggest bills, there is NO reason to pay on those things every single month of your life forever and ever outside of laziness or greed. Calculate what a truthful "living within your means" level is, not "the very utmost possible you can afford right today", I mean a real hard nosed pay attention to money matters level, then subtract 20% from that figure, and live at *that* new level, that 20% is your cushion, and you WILL need it some time. Do NOT put yourself into perpetual debt for these globalist goons, even though that is exactly what they want you to do, by such things as pushing the real estate bubble and the earlier dot bomb stock shilling. Recognize when you are being offered magic beans for the cow. Easy credit is even easier complete disaster.

    And given such weird things now as "terrorist" attacks (and government emergency orders and various fascist edict nonsense) and enrons and exxon scams and bird flu and who knows what could happen, it is prudent to always keep several months food supplies on hand and little caches of this or that day to day mundane supplies. I am not kidding. Ever been through a hurricane or ice storm and be down for a long time and run out of TP? Weird stuff like that. Do you have a generator? If you are reading this I assume you are a geek who REALLY needs electricity supply-so-deal with having a guaranteed supply. It will do you no harm whatsoever, none, and it is easy enough to do at any budget level.

    Just take that concept and run with it, work out some threat scenarios and mitigation plans in ADVANCE of it happening, based on your locale and typical weird crap that might happen in your area, then add in a-typical weird crap, like bird flu outbreak, currency collapse, big expandedwar in middle east knocking oil by the barrel to over a hundred bucks, stuff like that. Two jobs plus an additional little income plus your tangible "cushion" of cash/food/household supplies, etc is a good idea..If you can see the reasons for backing up your data, don't neglect to backup the other important stuff in your life as well.

    There's piece of paper insurance, then *real* insurance, it's nice to have both.

Why not.... (1)

menace3society (768451) | more than 8 years ago | (#15507640)

Work less when you're young so you have time to have fun while you you still can? Then when you're older you can be responsible and save money. Some other posters have pointed out that due to the progressive income tax system in the US, the greater the amount of money you make at one time, the less it ends up being worth to you. This, however, also turns out to be true about the years of your life: the five years from 22 to 27 are worth way more than 52 to 57, since people have fewer obligations they can move around, change jobs, do volunteer work, and generally do all of the exciting things that only young people have the energy to do.

Besides, if you actually enjoy your job, working after age 60 isn't really so bad, especially if you have 15-20 years of doing pretty much nothing afterwards. The only reason I'd want to retire early is if I'd actually have enough money set aside to live it up for a few decades and travel, make new friends, learn languages, write angry letters to the editor, etc.

Re:Why not.... (1)

An Onerous Coward (222037) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508683)

Don't sweat the tax rate. If you're making $29,000 a year (the max you can make at the 25% tax bracket as a single person), you pay about $3300 in taxes. Figure that, living frugally, you can sock away about $15,000/year.

Now go with the "two job" plan. You've doubled your income to $58,000. While this means you're now paying $10,500 in taxes, look at what happens to your marginal savings rate. Assuming your expenses haven't gone up, you can take every cent of the after-tax money and put it into savings (about $22,000). You're saving more from the second job than you are from the first job, even though the money saved from the first job is the one that required that you eat all those Ramen Noodles.

If your expenses are higher, the differences become more stark: If you're only saving $5,000/year from your first job, the second job lets you save over four times as much as the first job does.

I'm not saying that the second job is the way to go. But all these posts about how America's tax structure punishes working harder just seem silly. Hopping from one bracket to another doesn't make that big a difference (though it seems absurd and regressive to place the biggest jump (15% to 25%) at the $30,000 range, placing most of the disincentives of the tax structure on the middle class).

Change your class instead (3, Insightful)

Wiseleo (15092) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508274)

You should become a teacher only when you can afford to do so. It's a volunteer position that has a modest salary along with substantial time requirements and a not so modest budget for out of pocket expenses.

Attempting to survive on those miserable salaries leads to a miserable educational experience for the students. That's why we wind up with energetic young teachers become disillusioned and on the picket lines in a fairly short order. The best teachers whom I had the pleasure to learn from could afford to teach for free. Poor teachers really made my time in school miserable. The correlation was simply too direct not to notice it.

Make your money in a successful career, then become a teacher. That will allow you to inspire students to break free of the boundaries of paycheck to paycheck lifestyle. Your job is to teach them to be successful. That does not mean preparing them to follow corporate orders.

Instead of that second job, figure out how to set aside 10-20K by living very frugally initially and start investing in things that generate real returns, such as REITs for example. Let your friends laugh at you that you have an older car (and no payments) and a tiny apartment for a couple of years. Once you have 10-20K, you can start to make real money by increasing your wealth through investments. Yes this approach does work. It took us a couple of years before we started seeing real returns on that initial sacrifice. And yes it does take a lot of time that is consistent with having a second job.

I love to teach, but I am not yet at the point where I would be comfortable to essentially retire to volunteer as a teacher for a lousy 30K.

Or no job and never have to retire? (1)

busman (136696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508309)

Just quit my job yesterday, walked out the door, great feeling!
Don't think I'll be getting another :-)
Life's too short.
Now if i could quit reading /. .......

Retire to what?? (1)

JumpingBull (551722) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508312)

Hate to rain on someones parade, but that way lies madness.

The questions that need be asked before this are:

  • What, in the world around me makes me angry?
    What injustice is immediately at hand that I can correct?
  • What situations make me sad?
    Can I remove or reduce those situations in someone else's life too?
  • What do I find joy in?
    Can I spread it around?
  • Do I know the difference between what is needful, and what is just wanted?
    Are the real needs of people around us being sacrifised to mere wants?
  • Who are we trying to impress?
    Are we so thoughtless as to make other peoples idiocy your own?

I played that game for many years. Fortunately the skills are transferable and bought on someone elses coin. However I do not share so meagre a viewpoint as most. I don't have to do something dramatic to make a difference. Sometimes I found just being is "The Right Thing To Do".

My current personal choice is to live and work in a way that is fullfilling. If I have to learn business processes and form companies and organizations that suck less to do it, so be it. Frankly, I haven't had quite so much fun as now.

Oh - it does feel like two jobs; but I like both.

Opting for mid-life temporary retirement (1)

dominique_cimafranca (978645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508445)

With the present medical state of the art, life spans have increased to a high average of 80 years of age; on the other hand, our bodies start breaking down at about 60, if not earlier, owing to lifestyle diseases. So what does the old model give you? About fifteen years to twenty years of medical bills and aches.

Really, why should a person retire at the age of 65? It might have been a valid assumption two generations ago when people worked with more their hands and less with their brains; these days it's the other way around. A mentally sharp 65-year old can do just as much work as a younger person, and that senior citizen would have the benefit of experience and insight. Indeed, we might even argue that senior citizens need to work in order to keep their minds sharp.

So why not turn it around? Retire at some point in mid-life, say two to five years, and subtract that balance from the twenty years of retirement that would have come at the tail end of life.

It Doesn't Work That Way (3, Interesting)

John_Booty (149925) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508511)

Now, what if you could nearly double your salary working a second job and that meant you could semi-retire at age 40.

Double your salary? This isn't possible for any sort of professional career that I know of. Most careers that provide any sort of decent income take more than 40 hours a week.

The only "get another job, double your income" kind of positions I can think of would be menial jobs. If you're making $6/hour putting in 20-30 hours/week at Burger King then yeah, I'm sure you could do another 20-30 hours a week at another burger joint. But that's not the kind of money you can retire on. I mean, you can barely live on that.

The teacher in the article isn't retiring early either, by the sound of it. And she's sure not doubling her money. Sounds like she's supplementing her teaching income by working other jobs just to make ends meet and provide for her kid.

Even if this was possible, that's no way to live. Wasting the prime years of your life working sunup to sundown is not a ticket to happiness.

Ask your financial advisor (2, Interesting)

m-wielgo (858054) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508539)

Having two jobs + saving != being able to retire early. You need a steady income during your retirement (bonds, stocks, mutual funds) to cover any expected and unexpected expenditures you encounter. There are scenarios where you can early at 55, and run out of money when you're 75, but work 3 years more till you're 58 and have enough money to you die.

Again, you're better off asking your financial advisor and consulting with you're family than asking the ./ crowd.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>