Itís Your Money > Investment Vehicles

8 frugal habits that will help you make millions, well pesos that is :)

<< < (2/2)

Art, just a re(tired) Fil-Am:
I did all those frugal things for 30 yrs during my entire young and adult working career, but I didn't have any money in the bank when I retired at a young age. My situation was rare where I was able to retire at the age of 49 and reside in the Philippines with sort of an adequate source of income to live on, but just recently life has gotten better at my old age when I started receiving my other pensions at age 60 and 62.
Just look at a bunch of posts on this and other forums expats asking if one can live on $800 to $1,500 a month here in the Philippines? It's only doable depending on where one lives and what their habits and or lifestyle are.
Just curious though, what is the average age of most people who have retired and what is their average monthly source of income?
Some of those answers are here at the below links if you are in with the average people who work until 55 and or 65 and above.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/26/how-much-should-the-average-american-save-for-reti.aspx

https://smartasset.com/retirement/average-retirement-savings-are-you-normal

Hestecrefter:

--- Quote from: Splooge Magoo on March 15, 2016, 04:22:06 AM ---This is really subjective - I worked for 15 years for a company the rewarded hard work. A side job would have cut into the real job. I worked with a guy at the same place and he delivered newpapers in the morning before work. You would find him sleeping at his desk. He was warned not to let a $15,000 job endanger a $75,000 job but he never listened and got the boot.

At a different place, I really should have had a second job because the first job had the executives keeping all of increases to themselves. I quit with out a fallback and it took me years to recover.

--- End quote ---
This time Splooge, you are right.  There is an element of subjectivity I did not address.

My comments apply, probably, more to government workers, particularly those at higher levels.  I have had that experience.  Governments do not have to have an eye to the bottom line.  In the private sector, an employer is unlikely to get rid of a hard-working, productive employee, for no good reason.  That employer recognizes the value of that employee and, as well, will be mindful of the cost of seeking and training a replacement, etc., with no assurance that the replacement will be much good. 

On the other hand, in government, one is far more vulnerable to whims, particularly if one is seen as a high producer/achiever.  Governments thrive on mediocrity.  The guy who comes in, works hard, and looks like a star, makes others feel threatened.  Someone in a higher position might see that the new guy's willingness and ability will reveal to the world that the person who feels threatened is not so hot after all.  If that person has a little bit of clout, they can find a way to have you gone.  Even if severance must be paid.  Who cares?  The taxpayer pays.  Private sector employers are much less likely to dump a solid producer, who is generally well-liked, and pay severance to boot. 


--- Quote from: Splooge Magoo on March 15, 2016, 04:22:06 AM --- I worked for 15 years for a company the rewarded hard work. A side job would have cut into the real job.
--- End quote ---

Yes, I think in the private sector that can happen.  If you put all your energy into the "real job", you can reasonably expect to be rewarded.  On the other hand, government is not set up that way.  For example, let's say we have a private sector factory producing widgets.  They require some hand-crafting and skill.  The employer has 20 guys in the shop producing them.  The employer figures the average employee can turn out about 3 widgets per day, of merchantable quality.  New guy comes in and consistently turns out 5 widgets per day and each one is of the highest quality and workmanship.  In government, there would be a pay scale for widget makers that recognizes only years on the job. Like teaching.  One moves up in pay each year for 10 years, or whatever.  The teacher maybe gets another pay hike for earning a master's degree.  Nothing to do with relative ability.  In government, the superstar widget maker will get the same as everyone else.  In the private sector, the employer will most likely give the star increased wages and/or benefits or risk losing him to the competition.  Governments have no competition.

I recognize that my widget example is a bit flawed in that the kind of job involving production of a product is not usually something encountered in government and, in the private sector, a lot of production jobs are union, and often there is little scope for rewarding the top guns.  The kind of government jobs I have in mind are above the union levels and require the exercise of skill and judgment.  Some can broadly be described as "case management" jobs.  I have worked in such positions and, having come from the private sector, I have been astonished by the low level of productivity of those who have been there for the long term.  I could close more files in a month than they would ever do, with me just barely ticking over.  But we all received exactly the same salary and benefits, year in, year out.  In that situation, a second job hardly detracts from the main gig.  I needed it to keep me from falling asleep on the main job out of boredom. 

In the kind of government job of which I speak, if the work piled up, what happened?  In the private sector, the employer might exhort the existing employees to do more, with the promise of increased remuneration for increased production.  In government, while exhortation might be attempted, it generally fell on deaf ears because you are dealing with a group who are all assigned "Manager Level 9" or whatever and all get the same pay.  There is no room to offer more and no such thing as overtime pay in those jobs in the instances I have seen.  From what I have seen, when you exhort a group like that to do more, you are met with a near-universal complaint that "we are overworked now, it's too much, blah, blah, blah."  So, the typical response of government to an uptick in workload (or a failure to address existing workload in timely fashion) is to recruit and train another 6 people at $120,000 a year, with a full month of vacation to start.  No need to consider the cost.  The taxpayer will pay.

Splooge Magoo:
Hestercrefter - I agree with your comment although I only had a few months experience working at the IRS as a tax examiner. It was a pretty nasty group and it was more of a sweat shop than an office. You had to review 54 returns an hour. I figured out after a few weeks hard work was rewarded. So I would do the 54 then shut my eyes for a few minutes to rest.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version