|
Gay Weed Dad posted:The majority of people that I have known to do this have not fared well, especially in the automotive sector. I have a buddy who went to a school that was bought by Lincoln tech and his "job placement" was an interview at a Jiffy Lube for slightly above minimum wage. He wound up getting into HVAC and does alright doing that now but he has a ton of student debt to repay. Yeah, I owned my own automotive shop for many years(finally sold it when my knees/shoulders went to poo poo), and every for-profit trade school I've ever had any contact with were utter scumbags. They bullshit the young kids with promises of "great, high-paying automotive jobs", then give them a year or two of part-time instruction, and send 'em out into the job world. Problem is, you can't learn enough basic skills in that amount of time to be a journeyman mechanic, you end getting jobs doing low-level stuff like spark plugs, oil changes and tires for correspondingly low wages. But you're not making any more money than a kid that took a couple years of auto shop in HS or junior college, and now you owe all this money to student loans. Auto mechanics, more than any other trade that I know of, requires a SHITLOAD of experience and while education is great and necessary, you're gonna have to put in a bunch of time working under a skilled tech before you really know the job. The trade schools mysteriously leave out the last part. In my area at least, the best way to go about being an auto tech was to go through the local JC, it was cheaper and the quality of education was better.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:21 |
|
|
JnnyThndrs posted:Yeah, I owned my own automotive shop for many years(finally sold it when my knees/shoulders went to poo poo), and every for-profit trade school I've ever had any contact with were utter scumbags. The last sentence is key. And a good juco. My son isn't into my areas, so the gently caress what. Get a good trade at an accredited state juco.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
For the love of god don't waste money on Wyotech or UTI or whatever. There are so many companies that will pay you to learn the trade because they're so hard up for people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Because if they're not doing what's good for the stock price, they get paid less. Also it's taxed less. Executive compensation is filled with so many unintended consequences. First there was the brilliant idea to shame companies by publicizing CEO pay, which instead increased average pay. Then they started using stock to encourage performance resulting in lovely short term choices. Maybe enforcing a max multiplier for publicly traded companies. Something like 100-to-1 between the lowest paid employee and the highest paid. But then companies would just outsource the bottom 50th percentile to continue paying obscenely large salaries. The few times the government has enforced a salary cap (Citibank and BoA after the Great Recession), the banks did everything they could to pay back TARP and ditch the pay ceilings. Y-Hat posted:From a few pages ago but we're talking about MBAs and whatnot now, so gently caress it. The results speak for themselves, and they very clearly say that if you go to a for-profit online college, you're going to take out tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to get a worthless degree from an institution that no employer will take seriously. Combine that with the fact that community colleges and some state universities have certificate and associate's degree programs for far cheaper that put you in a better position to get a job, and it's no surprise why "enrollment" is down at University of Phoenix, DeVry, etc. If you're thinking of changing your career path, go to one of those schools instead. I have one of those degrees, a Masters in Early Childhood Education from the University of Phoenix. I honestly have no idea how good or worthless it is as it was meant to be my backup career and when I needed it most (laid off from IT during the Great Recession) all the school districts around me were firing hundreds of teachers. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Education, specifically the "child" and "early" version is a bad route to go if you're looking for money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Chinatown posted:The United States of America
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Because if they're not doing what's good for the stock price, they get paid less. Also it's taxed less. That doesn't answer the question. Sure, capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than salary. And many companies offer stock or stock options to tie executive compensation to stock price. But how are those relevant to time frame? If a CEO raises a company's stock price by 20% over one year, or he raises it over three years, what's the difference? I'm sure that there are elements I haven't thought of but, off the top of my head, it seems to me that you could encourage long-term investment by offering a tax benefit. Right now, if you sell an asset within a year, you have to pay your standard income tax rate on the profit. But, if you wait longer than a year, you only have to pay the 15% capital gains tax. Perhaps offering a third tier to that structure, like dropping the capital gains tax even lower (maybe ever to zero) in year three or five would provide the proper incentive to encourage investors to hold their stocks longer, and to think more long-term. Again, this is off the top of my head and I'm sure there are facets to the idea that I haven't considered yet. But perhaps that could help offset the perceived risk of long-term holding. Mr. 47 has a new favorite as of 07:18 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Warren Buffett is famous for holding stocks long term and riding out short term volatility and it's made him v successful
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
naem posted:Warren Buffett is famous for holding stocks long term and riding out short term volatility and it's made him v successful He's also famous for being over a billion dollars behind on his taxes, and for definitely committing insider trading by buying into companies right before they're sold. He cultivates this image of a kindly old grandfather type when he's the shrewdest shark in the pool. It's kind of a "greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" thing. I'm just saying that not everything he does is advisable. Or even legal, really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
naem posted:Warren Buffett is famous for holding stocks long term and riding out short term volatility and it's made him v successful
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Also it seems that long-term investing requires you to have a substantial buffer - in Buffet's case, a few cool billion - so you can ride the shocks without losing your poo poo. It seems galling to me to suggest that investors need another type of bail-out system, but maybe so?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
i'm going to shamefully admit that I went to a tech school, I have an incredibly easy job with insane benefits that i make an extremely livable wage on but i could have just as easily bought a fifty dollar book and studied from to pass the certification test instead of getting in school loan debt and spending a year learning nothing that the book couldn't have taught me i tell myself that i have the job i wanted but it took 4 years of working entry level poo poo, and i had a huge willingness to learn while 80% of my "class" did not find a job related to what they learned and are stuck working retail poo poo etc on top of student loans. one of my good friends is in 50k~ of debt from itt tech and barring a substantial wind fall or eating nothing but beans and rice for many years he'll literally never pay it off. he has a great job now that he loves, but he had to work up from entry level poo poo and it's nothing he couldn't have taught himself what I'm getting at is I'm a huge retard and never do anything I do ever
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
actually rereading that it kind of owns because it took me 5 years to get a "real" job and i make more money than anyone i know with a bachelor's/masters and have less than a fraction of student loan debt lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Fasdar posted:Also it seems that long-term investing requires you to have a substantial buffer - in Buffet's case, a few cool billion - so you can ride the shocks without losing your poo poo. It seems galling to me to suggest that investors need another type of bail-out system, but maybe so? I haven't seen anyone is talking about bailouts, at least not yet. But, in my experience as an investor, sticking it out through the hard times can be like keeping your hand in the Bene Gesserit pain box. You known intellectually that the best course of action is to keep your hand in the box. But it takes a tremendous force of will to do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
That's a good idea for an app, how much do you think the banks would give me?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
the greatest con ever pulled was convincing people that ~~the market~~~ will solve all their retirement problems, thereby pitting shareholders directly against workers
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Mr. 47 posted:That doesn't answer the question. Sure, capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than salary. And many companies offer stock or stock options to tie executive compensation to stock price. But how are those relevant to time frame? If a CEO raises a company's stock price by 20% over one year, or he raises it over three years, what's the difference? Short term capital gains (profits from assets/securities held less than a year) are taxed the same as regular income, just fwiw but as to this quote:If a CEO raises a company's stock price by 20% over one year, or he raises it over three years, what's the difference? 20% over a year is a 20% return, 20% over 3 years is 6.67% return. Mr. 47 posted:I haven't seen anyone is talking about bailouts, at least not yet. But, in my experience as an investor, sticking it out through the hard times can be like keeping your hand in the Bene Gesserit pain box. You known intellectually that the best course of action is to keep your hand in the box. But it takes a tremendous force of will to do that. exactly how I felt during that second China slide haha
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Booblord Zagats posted:I know some people who work for GEICO proper (not an insurance agency branded with GEICO but the actual company) and they say it's a wonderful environment where they get bonuses based on client satisfaction instead of denied claims, really good health insurance and a very relaxed upper management GEICO is a horrible place to work for any non-management employee with an entire management/company culture based on how much work you can get out of the fewest ppl possible. But it's sure not circling any drains.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Short term capital gains (profits from assets/securities held less than a year) are taxed the same as regular income, just fwiw I'm aware. Mr. 47 posted:Right now, if you sell an asset within a year, you have to pay your standard income tax rate on the profit. But, if you wait longer than a year, you only have to pay the 15% capital gains tax. Further: Moridin920 posted:20% over a year is a 20% return, 20% over 3 years is 6.67% return. It's 6.27% a year, according to my math. But I wanted him to explain that, because I strongly suspect that he has no idea what he's talking about. Mr. 47 has a new favorite as of 18:46 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
go3 posted:the greatest con ever pulled was convincing people that ~~the market~~~ will solve all their retirement problems, thereby pitting shareholders directly against workers What? No. You're still picturing shareholders and workers as two different people. They're the same people. If anything, the greatest con ever pulled on the American people was convincing them that if they surrendered a portion of their income to the government (i.e. Social Security), their whole lives, they would be taken care of. Meanwhile, a bunch of Congressmen and Senators were pillaging the fund with their greedy piggy hooves to pay for their own pork barrel bullshit. If you want to know how government works, just imagine one giant pig sodomizing another pig while shoveling all the slop into its snout that it can grab with its piggy piggy hooves. Mr. 47 has a new favorite as of 18:54 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
I'm kinda surprised Sony hasn't come up with some social network crap. It seems like something dumb they would do
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Verizon just bought yahoo
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
ChrisHansen posted:Verizon just bought yahoo Remember when Microsoft balked at buying Yahoo for like 44 Billion a few years ago. Get owned suckas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
darkhand posted:I'm kinda surprised Sony hasn't come up with some social network crap. It seems like something dumb they would do I would wager they did, sometime in 2005. At the time it seemed like everyone was making clones of whatever the biggest site was at the time, starting with myspace then facebook and later youtube, and then finally Second Life. Wikipedia has a list of dead video-streaming competitors. I think Wal-mart had a social networking site at one point. Playstation Home will save the PS3. Anyway they're still running Crackle, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
vyst posted:Remember when Microsoft balked at buying Yahoo for like 44 Billion a few years ago. Get owned suckas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Yahoo had the opportunity to buy Google for a couple million dollars or something in 1999. No, I didn't mean to say "billion." They would have just hosed it up somehow
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
vyst posted:Remember when Microsoft balked at buying Yahoo for like 44 Billion a few years ago. Get owned suckas. you mean yahoo balked at a 44 billion $ bid from microsoft in 2008. but yeah, haha owneddddd
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:They would have just hosed it up somehow They overpaid through the nose for Tumblr, so you're probably right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
yahoo had an opportunity to buy facebook in 2006 (for 1 billion) but couldnt even raise that much cash due to their shoddy stock price and only brought 750mil to the table. fuckerberg walked and the rest was history
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
natetimm posted:They overpaid through the nose for Tumblr, so you're probably right. I'm a man posing as a talking shark
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Sharkposting
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Mr. 47 posted:What? No. You're still picturing shareholders and workers as two different people. They're the same people. You do know 1/3rd of Americans have no retirement, no 401ks, no mutual funds. Tens of millions of people don't even know that much about the stock market and are working poor subsidized by the government because their jobs don't pay a livable wage, specifically in service of shareholders. So there is a difference. If you are a worker and you've managed to work your way up to investing, good job you got lucky. The people servicing your growth and returns are really just factored into your books as resources though and not "Fellow Investors who are all in it together"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:you mean yahoo balked at a 44 billion $ bid from microsoft in 2008. Whoops yea I had that backwards! Get hosed Yahoo! Also I'd gently caress Marissa Mayer np
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
darkhand posted:Sharkposting 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
darkhand posted:I'm kinda surprised Sony hasn't come up with some social network crap. It seems like something dumb they would do I just looked up what they charge for a 64 gig card for the Vita. $110 US dollars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Mr. 47 posted:What? No. You're still picturing shareholders and workers as two different people. They're the same people. dear lawd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
go3 posted:the greatest con ever pulled was convincing people that ~~the market~~~ will solve all their retirement problems, thereby pitting shareholders directly against workers I don't get how companies managed to convince the general public that Defined Contribution is the better option for retirement and managed to kill off Defined Benefit. I work in this loving industry and I seriously don't understand it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
vyst posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcSujceZDmg
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
This is extremely my poo poo, a truly perfect creature
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:21 |
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:I don't get how companies managed to convince the general public that Defined Contribution is the better option for retirement and managed to kill off Defined Benefit. I work in this loving industry and I seriously don't understand it. The economy was so incredibly strong and there was so much opportunity-even for average middle class people- that they got away with this for years
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:31
|
|