|
No Wave posted:Total distraction, but what's so fun about it? I feel like all there is to do is eat, drink, and the vague artistic thing that few people actually do. There are a certain subset of people who are not into the big city thing and will never be. I've met them and I can respect that. If you are not in that category, and you can't find anything to do in NYC or can't see the excitement of living in one of the world's only two alpha++ cities(NYC, London), then there isn't much for me to say. To talk about what there is to do in NYC would fill up another thread. Heck, as a foodie, it would take me years to eat my way through NYC so if all there was to do was eat and drink, I would be entertained for years.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
No Wave posted:Total distraction, but what's so fun about it? I feel like all there is to do is eat, drink, and the vague artistic thing that few people actually do. I think the feeling of being young and moving to the big city to make it is as old as time itself. But I'll offer up one superficial reason: the people are far more attractive and everyone else wants to party and have a good time. In the midwest, it seems like a lot of people get married or get into long term relationships very quickly... often hanging around the same people they went to high school with. In NYC (it feels like) everyone is a transplant. A good example may be the excitement of your freshmen year of college, before anyone knew anyone else, compared to your reliable hangout group senior year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Vomik posted:Once again, you also have to compare standard of living. Where else do people make 150k and entertain the idea off a roommate in a rented small unit? Vladimir Putin posted:There are a certain subset of people who are not into the big city thing and will never be. I've met them and I can respect that. If you are not in that category, and you can't find anything to do in NYC or can't see the excitement of living in one of the world's only two alpha++ cities(NYC, London), then there isn't much for me to say. To talk about what there is to do in NYC would fill up another thread. Heck, as a foodie, it would take me years to eat my way through NYC so if all there was to do was eat and drink, I would be entertained for years. For me, the #1 clearest advantage of big city living is to network in person with people that can help you grow as a person, professionally, spiritually, and all of the above - you hopefully have some pretty deep interests in uh... something first hopefully. Some people get their bearings better in solitude, but I think these days people are far less likely to do alright in life with basically a monastic lifestyle. The high rent, obnoxious crowding, and in some circumstances hazards are totally worthwhile to risk-takers and highly ambitious people looking to find others like them. If you're on the fence though, I think that's already a bad sign and while cautious optimism is perfectly fine, you probably need a little more conviction to get into the mindset to make the most of living regardless of where you go whether it's a third world country or Wall Street.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Vomik posted:I think the feeling of being young and moving to the big city to make it is as old as time itself. To put the contrast into perspective: I'm currently working with a group of people who are predominately from Ohio and western West Virginia. At 24, I'm one of the only people who isn't married or engaged, despite being older than roughly half of the people I work with. On the other hand, when I was living in DC most people didn't get married until 30-35. If you're looking to establish a career or even just do your own thing without having to drag a family along, you'll find a lot more single people in and around major cities than you will out in the suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
psydude posted:If you're looking to establish a career or even just do your own thing without having to drag a family along, you'll find a lot more single people in and around major cities than you will out in the suburbs. This isn't to insult anyone. No Wave fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Jan 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
e: that joke was too bad Suffice it to say, move to NYC, it will be more fun and be a better start to a career. New York is cool. It is legitimate to want to live where you want to live.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
semicolonsrock posted:e: that joke was too bad The OP can do whatever they want. I just can't believe that it's likely to be in their long-term self interest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
psydude posted:To put the contrast into perspective: I'm currently working with a group of people who are predominately from Ohio and western West Virginia. At 24, I'm one of the only people who isn't married or engaged, despite being older than roughly half of the people I work with. On the other hand, when I was living in DC most people didn't get married until 30-35. Many of the people I grew up in (rural midwest) were married and had several kids by the time they were 25. A significant portion married, and had several kids and had divorced by that age. I didn't get married until way later than that, and I can't imagine being 22-23 and having multiple kids just from a maturity standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Many of the people I grew up in (rural midwest) were married and had several kids by the time they were 25. A significant portion married, and had several kids and had divorced by that age. I didn't get married until way later than that, and I can't imagine being 22-23 and having multiple kids just from a maturity standpoint. It was like that in Indianapolis when I lived there as well. The only people in my department who hadn't hit the 'married, multiple kids and weekends riding the lawnmower' stage were a 22-year-old girl from Chicago and myself. We were also the only ones not from Indiana, which I suspect had something to do with it. My 25-year-old coworker had three children, one of which turned five while I was there. I just can't imagine it. Edit: Rural Kansas was even weirder, though in different ways. 3 out of 11 girls in my high school class were pregnant by the time I moved away. I left when I was 16. Sundae fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jan 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Edit: Rural Kansas was even weirder, though in different ways. 3 out of 11 girls in my high school class were pregnant by the time I moved away. I left when I was 16.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Edit: Rural Kansas was even weirder, though in different ways. 3 out of 11 girls in my high school class were pregnant by the time I moved away. I left when I was 16. Yep fully 1/3 of the girls in my class either had a kid or were pregnant at graduation (small town Kansas). I remember reading some story about a town in Ohio that had like a 10 percent teen pregnancy rate and everyone was flipping out and I just laughed because its WAY higher here. Apparently it's pretty normal in Kansas. My husband's friend married a woman who had her first kid at 16. That daughter is now pregnant and she's 16. Abstinence-only education at work. The cycle continues. I got married at 27, my husband's 34 and we are both from small KS towns and don't have/want kids. Practically none of the people I know that had kids early have anything beyond a high school education. Most work at my hometown Wal-Mart or they cut hair at Snip-and Clip or work at Sonic. My husband has a friend who has fathered 9 children.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
I don't think I was a very good person in my 20's let alone having the responsibilities of a parent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Honestly? The challenge. In order to have fun in NY on the sort of budget most young people have, you have to be clever. You have to be active and you have to be looking. There's always things like free movies in the summer, picnics in the park, more museums than you can shake a stick at (many of them with donation-based entry that will let you in for as little as pennies). There's lots of 'going in' - doing potluck dinners at friend's houses, parties with cheap booze; but there's also lots of urban exploring in the more abandoned parts of the city, lots of secret nooks and crannies. While there's lots of upscale dining there's also lots of cheap but delicious street food worth sampling. There's also a thriving music scene, with both large and small venues for all sorts of budgets, and lots of free shows as well. NYC as a challenge? Only for those lacking in imagination. It's not that hard of a feat to "make it" in New York, especially if you have some corporate stooge career path. Try making it in Kuala Lumpur, and then you'll get some real respect. In all seriousness, I don't understand the draw of NYC specifically. If I was a college grad, I'd rather pick up and move abroad to Hong Kong, Barcelona, or Melbourne, not NYC. A foot of snow and below zero temps in the winter? gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
No Wave posted:There was a possibility that the desire would be illegitimate? It sounds a lot like you have very different personal preferences that you're projecting onto him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
semicolonsrock posted:It sounds a lot like you have very different personal preferences that you're projecting onto him. The nicest thing to do here is to emphasize how terrible the numbers are in NYC and how good the numbers are in California. Then the OP can make their decision.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
semicolonsrock posted:It sounds a lot like you have very different personal preferences that you're projecting onto him. In E/N it might be arguable but in the business/financial subforum, the difference in the two situations is inarguable. Cutting income in half to go live somewhere much more expensive is a bad financial move. "Money isn't everything" and all that but managed wisely it equates to freedom, and later in life the OP would not be able to do things he/she would otherwise be able to do especially considering the lost ability to invest heavily in retirement accounts at a young age. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:In E/N it might be arguable but in the business/financial subforum, the difference in the two situations is inarguable. Cutting income in half to go live somewhere much more expensive is a bad financial move. "Money isn't everything" and all that but managed wisely it equates to freedom, and later in life the OP would not be able to do things he/she would otherwise be able to do especially considering the lost ability to invest heavily in retirement accounts at a young age. But the OP might also have a hard time breaking into the fashion world later on, and would likely not be able to reach the same position in his or her career than if they started out early and worked hard for the next however many years. The op might also miss out on ever living in NYC if he or she gets married, has kids, etc and finds themselves tied to a different location. Those are just as much potential missed opportunities as is retirement income. It just depends which opportunities the OP values more. HooKars fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
HooKars posted:But the OP might also have a hard time breaking into the fashion world later on, and would likely not be able to reach the same position in his or her career than if they started out early and worked hard for the next however many years. The op might also miss out on ever living in NYC if he or she gets married, has kids, etc and finds themselves tied to a different location. Those are just as much potential missed opportunities as is retirement income. It just depends which opportunities the OP values more. The first part of this is what makes choosing a career so difficult. To pick a career, you almost always look at people who have succeeded at it or at least performed it for several years. There is a massive survival bias. Very, VERY few people actually know what they want. And even if they know what they're interested in, they almost never see that the actual WORK of it is usually just ordinary work. It gets old. And if you took a lovely salary for your love of it, and it gets old for you, then you are now stuck in a job you hate. I'm all for trading money for freedom, but it is far to risky to do it at the front end. Here's the alternative. OP is 24 years old. Stay in California for 10 years making roughly $100k a year more per year than you would in NYC. Live like you're only making the $40k you would have made in NYC and bank the rest. After 3 years, give yourself a $5k raise to $45k, then another $5k after 6 years. Then, at 34, when you have your $1.4 MILLION loving DOLLARS (at ~7% compounded), sell the business (for probably another $1mil or more) and move to NYC. Work your way into fashion how ever you want. Or don't. Your money will now provide you that $50k income for the rest of your life. Edit: Ok, my math sucks because I'm leaving out taxes. But I think I also played it too safe on the withdrawal rate, so hopefully it works out in the wash. If it were my money, I'd take the time to do the math. Folly fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Folly posted:The first part of this is what makes choosing a career so difficult. To pick a career, you almost always look at people who have succeeded at it or at least performed it for several years. There is a massive survival bias. Very, VERY few people actually know what they want. And even if they know what they're interested in, they almost never see that the actual WORK of it is usually just ordinary work. It gets old. And if you took a lovely salary for your love of it, and it gets old for you, then you are now stuck in a job you hate. I'm all for trading money for freedom, but it is far to risky to do it at the front end. Or she could do it in reverse - if she gets bored or ends up failing or whatever in NYC, she just goes back home to California and picks up her old job because her father is her employer. Do people think that people with successful parents should really just do whatever their parents do because it's easy and cushy and that they shouldn't pursue dreams of their own? HooKars fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:In E/N it might be arguable but in the business/financial subforum, the difference in the two situations is inarguable. Cutting income in half to go live somewhere much more expensive is a bad financial move. "Money isn't everything" and all that but managed wisely it equates to freedom, and later in life the OP would not be able to do things he/she would otherwise be able to do especially considering the lost ability to invest heavily in retirement accounts at a young age. ...and careers. It's not going to be easy to get into fashion after doing "family business" for however long -- working for family businesses is not a great resume booster, especially if you don't want to work in that area. Folly posted:The first part of this is what makes choosing a career so difficult. To pick a career, you almost always look at people who have succeeded at it or at least performed it for several years. There is a massive survival bias. Very, VERY few people actually know what they want. And even if they know what they're interested in, they almost never see that the actual WORK of it is usually just ordinary work. It gets old. And if you took a lovely salary for your love of it, and it gets old for you, then you are now stuck in a job you hate. I'm all for trading money for freedom, but it is far to risky to do it at the front end. This doesn't say much. I doubt he would be at 50k after a few years in New York. These places do get liveable salaries eventually. I think that being young is a good time to take financial risks, including taking the less high paying job. I also doubt the plan you're describing would ever be followed by any normal person, given how life works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
HooKars posted:Do people think that people with successful parents should really just do whatever their parents do because it's easy and cushy and that they shouldn't pursue dreams of their own? You know how people say don't become an actor or an English teacher or whatever unless there is literally nothing else. I think that works backwards too. Before you walk away from a lucrative family business with good work life balance you should either deeply hate the business or be so enraptured with another career that you are compelled to leave.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
semicolonsrock posted:...and careers. It's not going to be easy to get into fashion after doing "family business" for however long -- working for family businesses is not a great resume booster, especially if you don't want to work in that area. Young people are in a good position to take risks, because they have more time to repair the damage. This situation, however, doesn't seem like a financial "risk" to me. To make this an equivalent choice, OP would have to draw a salary of about $250k (or $150k if you assume OP is only making $100k with dad) per year in 10 years time. Furthermore, it would have to be just as LIKELY that OP would draw that salary in NYC as with dad. It isn't on it's face, because Dad pays more money up front. But setting that aside, it sounds like there is a serious statistical risk related to earning a high salary in fashion in NYC when compared to working California. The payout for working in fashion should be correspondingly greater, so if it is at least twice as unlikely to earn from fashion what you could earn from Dad, then the payout from fashion should be roughly twice as much. I don't know if there's something special about fashion, but I've never heard of a career where the likelihood of achieving income that far above the mean is outpaced the the size of that income. This is not a financial risk. It is a financial loss. There may be quality of life value in chasing your dreams in the big apple. But it is a poor financial decision. HooKars posted:Or she could do it in reverse - if she gets bored or ends up failing or whatever in NYC, she just goes back home to California and picks up her old job because her father is her employer. Unfortunately, doing it in reverse order is also not an even trade due to compound interest. But that's not what really bothers me with that plan. This isn't OP's money; it's Dad's money. OP is not entitled to it in any way. There is an offer on the table and it is incredibly rude to assume that the same offer will be there in 10 years. Hell, it's pretty rude to negotiate for it because you'd be using Dad's affection as a bargaining chip. Dad might want to sell the business and move to the Bahamas. Furthermore, Dad would suffer a loss to quality of life. Dad now has to keep working for the next 10 years to keep the business up and running so that all of those connections from an ongoing concern are still there and ready for OP to take over. Maybe he'd do that anyhow, but there's a big difference between working because you feel like it and working because your family needs you. Essentially, OP would be taking peace of mind from Dad directly like a lot of kids take cash. OP gets more peace of mind because there's a backup plan, but Dad gets less because he HAS to work now. If you're going to go to NYC to pursue a career in fashion, then you have to do it with the idea that this opportunity from Dad is over and not coming back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
HooKars posted:Do people think that people with successful parents should really just do whatever their parents do because it's easy and cushy and that they shouldn't pursue dreams of their own? We're a nation where the majority live in debt and will never retire precisely because young people who would otherwise be in advantageous positions are urged to "follow their dreams," "you can be anything," and "money isn't important." Why can't the OP "pursue their dream" in their spare time? Become a fashion blogger with the four hours a night a lot of people use watching TV or surfing the net. Or do that for two hours a night and on weekends. Two hours a night study the NY real estate market so they can take their business to NYC in a few years(the OP still hasn't outlined any reasons they couldn't move the business aside from unfamiliarity with local laws, ordinances, schools, prices etc). If the blog is successful then get invited to some fashion shows in NYC and make some trips; a 300 dollar round trip flight and a 200 dollar hotel room twice a year won't break the bank. If in three years they feel like everything they read about the NYC real estate market is old hat, then just move the business there and start doing real fashion stuff part time. The OP has a big guaranteed opportunity in CA and yes: walking away from it is a bad financial move. Is it a bad life move? Well that's debateable, but it is obviously a bad financial move. And that was my point. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:The OP has a big guaranteed opportunity in CA and yes: walking away from it is a bad financial move. Is it a bad life move? Well that's debateable, but it is obviously a bad financial move. And that was my point. The OP isn't asking if they'll lose money by picking the NYC path over the CA path - they know that and acknowledge that. If that's all they were interested in then the thread wouldn't be called "money vs lifestyle," it'd just be "Am I losing money in this move?" I personally think its perfectly rational to pick lifestyle over money and to choose a career that you find fulfilling. Most people spend a good portion of their lives at work and working so if you're doing something you dislike, you might want to change that if you have the opportunity and aren't stuck in a particular situation. The OP doesn't appear to have any debt, had money saved, has no dependents, isnt tied to any location etc, there's nothing tying her to a job she dislikes. Personally, I think her CA job sounds awesome and I'd take it in a heartbeat but I prioritize things like time off, having money to spend, travel, flexibility rather than having a job that im passionate about - all of which seem like something her job would offer. On the other hand, I used to have a high paying, long hour job and I chose lifestyle over money and quit because aside from the money, it offered nothing else that was important to me. Who cares if I'm not saving as much in retirement as I could be? At least now I'm happy and living my life today in the present. If the OP truly believes that NYC and a job in fashion will be more fulfilling and make her happier then money be damned - that's only one facet of life, and starting salaries are always low. As she gains experience and skills, she'll command a higher salary and it seems like she's involved in the more practical side of the fashion industry, it sounds like her skillser could be transferable if she decides the city or industry isnt for her. i do hope she strongly thinks about it though, weighs all factors and realizes what she's giving up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Weighing your options goes both ways. Financial independence is a huge, HUGE benefit to enjoying your career. You can now be choosy and only do the fashion work you enjoy instead of the bullshit. Can you imagine how easy it is to get a job when you don't have to be paid? I don't get it. Someone will have to explain to me how chasing your dreams at 34 somehow doesn't count as chasing your dreams. Because literally every aspect of this decision is made better by waiting. I see a lot of people boiling it down like this: * live in NYC * pursue fashion * make a lot of money Pick Two. But really, if you get the money first then you can probably do all three. This isn't a money vs lifestyle question. This is a lifestyle now vs money and lifestyle later question. Edit: Woops, left the last word off the of the last Folly fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
NYC doesn't mean fashion necessarily either, I've gotten the impression that LA does have some semblance of a fashion scene, not quite NYC in terms of specifically high fashion though.Folly posted:The payout for working in fashion should be correspondingly greater, so if it is at least twice as unlikely to earn from fashion what you could earn from Dad, then the payout from fashion should be roughly twice as much. I don't know if there's something special about fashion, but I've never heard of a career where the likelihood of achieving income that far above the mean is outpaced the the size of that income. This is not a financial risk. It is a financial loss. There's some white collar positions that are similar. I'd look at fields that men are leaving in droves while women pour in. Evidently, this is what has happened to museums. Basically, my wife left healthcare and paid $60k in student loans to have drastically lower earning potential. Back in the 70s, they'd earn somewhere equivalent to $110k / yr today. Now, the labor stats are really skewed and they're less desirable than law professionals and it's not unheard of to see positions for masters degrees with <$12 / hr in the middle of nowhere... and hundreds of applicants from around the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
I really don't think making ~100,000 for ten years is going to equate to financial independence for the rest of their life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Nah, you'd have to bank about $100k per year, not earn it. So you'd have to earn about $140 to 150k, depending on taxes. You'd need about $1 million in the bank to draw a $40k income off it for the rest of your life, assuming 7% interest. But $100k in the bank every year for 10 years adds up to about $1.4 million after you compound it at 7%. So you have some breathing room. If you earn $100k and spend $36k each year ($40k - 10% standard savings rate), then it will take you about 12 years and some change. And you don't have to be completely financially independent to enjoy the benefits of a huge pile of cash. Nor do you HAVE to work for free once you have enough money that you don't have to work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
HooKars posted:I really don't think making ~100,000 for ten years is going to equate to financial independence for the rest of their life. Financial independence for the rest of your life? Nah, but it'll get you a very good distance toward that goal if you make it a priority, much much further along than your average American. Even if you don't live like a pauper and "only" save 30k a year, doing that for 10 years in your 20s-30s and investing it wisely is going to set you up pretty nicely and give you a lot of flexibility and breathing room for the rest of your life. You will have to continue working, but you'll likely never be in a position where you have to keep a lovely job just to keep the bills paid. You'll be able to take that lower-paying but more rewarding job more comfortably. You might have the option of taking extended time off between jobs, or working a non-fulltime job, or doing contracting/consulting type gigs without constant fear of job security. There's a lot of benefits to having a large pile of money even if it is not large enough to live off of for the rest of your life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
If anyone wants to play with some numbers on income through savings like the past 3 posts, I made this little calculator to do it: http://www.impossiblyimpulsive.com/the-spartans-financial-toolbox/early-retirement-calculator/ Edit: clarification. Knyteguy fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Knyteguy posted:If anyone wants to play with some numbers on income through savings like the past 3 posts, I made this little calculator to do it: http://www.impossiblyimpulsive.com/the-spartans-financial-toolbox/early-retirement-calculator/ Can I ask why it's based on net income?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
HooKars posted:Can I ask why it's based on net income? I will say that the calculator is extremely optimistic, though. The more conservative thinking now is a 2.5% withdrawal. No Wave fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
HooKars posted:Can I ask why it's based on net income? Pretty much what No Wave said. I was thinking it might be helpful to have an option to enter just straight yearly savings too though (like the $30k example in the post above). No Wave posted:Why should it not be? The gross to net calculation varies by individual, so it makes more sense to leave it up to them. I didn't realize that thanks for the information. I'll have to put another field for withdrawal rate, or do the calculation a few times at different withdrawal rates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Why should it not be? The gross to net calculation varies by individual, so it makes more sense to leave it up to them. Because your net income is typically your gross income minus taxes and deductions so it would exclude your 401k contributions? I save 20% of my gross income each pay check pre-tax but only an additional 5% of my net income.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
You'd count 401k as savings. Your total rate is about 25%, so you should be able to retire about 20 years from when you started saving if you maintain your current rate of spending. What's the reasoning behind the change in withdrawal rate? If I remember correctly, the 4% withdrawal rate is based on having the absolute worst luck in the economic performance of the past 100 years. Likewise, the 7% interest rate represents the lowest rate of average stock market return over any 25 year period. Do we have a new worst case?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Folly posted:You'd count 401k as savings. Your total rate is about 25%, so you should be able to retire about 20 years from when you started saving if you maintain your current rate of spending. It's not 25% of my net income though. My take home pay is $3448 each month. 25% of that each month is $862. My gross pay is $6,958 per month. I save 20% of that -- $1391 each month. Then, of my take home, I save 5% - 10%, so an additional $150 - $300, and then $5,500 for my IRA (so I guess 10% of my take home). It seems easier just to say I save about 25 - 28% of my gross income. HooKars fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Net is a different term for different purposes. I think, in this case, it only excludes taxes. I'm pretty sure the difference you're seeing is the huge benefit to tax deferred savings. But really, we're pretty far into a derail at this point. We should probably move it to the proper thread. For the purposes of this thread, the point was that if the OP takes the job with Dad and only lives of the part of the income that she(?) estimates she would make in NYC, then within a very reasonable amount of time she can save up enough money to make living in NYC a much happier and more rewarding experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Folly posted:Net is a different term for different purposes. I think, in this case, it only excludes taxes. I'm pretty sure the difference you're seeing is the huge benefit to tax deferred savings. But really, we're pretty far into a derail at this point. We should probably move it to the proper thread. I won't derail anymore but it seems easier to use gross than to have to add back in all your pretax deductions and recalculate. Who's to say it will be more rewarding? Most people want to live in NYC while they are young and single. Right around the time people are proposing the OP moves to the city is usually when people are getting married, having kids and beginning to move away from the city in search of better schools and backyards and things. I think the OP should go try for a year or two. The OP will probably know quickly if they hate the city/working in an office/being poor/the industry/whether they are willing to put in the work to make it and how the job seems to be progressing/look for other opportunities after two years to move up salary wise. Their dad wil likely not retire within the next two years and will hopefully still be supportive if their child fails or hates it and wants to come back home and join the business. At least then the OP will have no regrets and will probably be more satisfied with the real estate job if the fantasy fashion job is proven through experience to not be as great as it seemed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
I haven't read this post in a while and I came back and saw another page or so of replies. There was some information that was slightly wrong but I am a guy and have worked in the industry (fashion) before as well as living in the city before. I have been working here in California still and I realized that I can't live here anymore and I have to get back to NYC. I estimate that I should net about $120k this year and I really love being able to work from home and not have to march into an office at 9 am. I am trying to move my business (formerly my dad's business to NYC). Without trying to interrupt the income flow completely, I am going to be living bi-coastal, 2 months in California and then the third month in NYC. After 9-12 months I should be able to move back to NYC completely full time. We will see how this goes.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
Enigma89 posted:I haven't read this post in a while and I came back and saw another page or so of replies. There was some information that was slightly wrong but I am a guy and have worked in the industry (fashion) before as well as living in the city before.  v
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 03:21
|
|
