Senate Household Income in the U.S. (and elsewhere)

Yeah but then you find that the firm is just a money laundering front for a large organised crime family from Chicago and you are left with the dilemma of leaving and being killed by the thugs on the fourth floor or staying on and going to prison. Then you have outwit the FBI to get out of the mess you found yourself in, and all because you were greedy and went for the big bucks. Practicing law in the US is just so fraught with danger!

 

Here's the summary of our last census from a population standpoint, and here is some economic data.

The median weekly income is $662 (US$528.33), up from $577 in 2011.
The median family weekly income is $1734 (US$1,384.03), up from $1481 in 2011.
The median household income is $1438 (US$1,147.69), up from $1234 in 2011.
So if we take the median family weekly income in US, annualised it's $71,969.56. That compares against your US$75,062, but if we use OECD PPP weighting US$1 buys AUD$1.466, instead of about $1.25254 at current ForEx rates. So, it would be at about US$78,791 once you factor in purchasing power parity.
As stated before, we are at the stage where every $1 earned is offset by $2 owed. This is due to the staggering property prices in Sydney, and to a lesser degree Melbourne. Various analysts have rated Sydney "severely unaffordable", and for property it is second only to Hong Kong on affordability indicies. It multiplies the median global price by 12.2; HK at 18.1.
The flow on effect is more pronounced than just silly mortgage debt. Firstly, it means when the cash rate, kept at 1.5% to try and stimulate wage growth, goes up it's going to push people into mortgage stress or mortgage delinquency. Secondly, it pushes the GINI coeffecient score up, distorting the true income inequality picture. Yes, we have a median house price of over a million dollars, but GINI just contemplates asset value - not net asset value, or NAV. So if I have a $1.8m, 3br house but I only have $200k in equity and $2m in debt (factoring in interest component of the loan), they look at it as $1.8m in assets.
The positive is that rents are not out of sync with property prices. The rule of thumb used to be 1/1000th of purchase price, weekly. So if I pay $500/wk in rent, market value is $500,000. Now, it's about well short of that - we pay $1,100 a week on our place but it would sell for $1.6m.
We also have a concept we call negative gearing. The concept is simple; tax law states that the cost of aquisition of an asset can be tax deductible. We have an investment property. It costs us $2,500 a month in mortgage payments and we only net $2,000 in rent (see above re: rent:cost ratios being out of sync). That $500 per month, annualised, means I can claim a $6,000 loss on the cost of acquisition of that asset.
The Labor party want that gone, but the net effect is (besides those geared Labor politicians having to sell off, lols) is rents will go up but not much will happen to property prices.
There are positives though. Our single largest denomination is "no religion". Most of us are well educated, with education still affordable and accesible.

 

Higher education still is to varying degrees subsidized in the US. In-state tuition at a high end public school like the University of Michigan is a fraction of out-of-state tuition. It's difficult to establish residency in Michigan for the purposes of paying in-state tuition, so it lowers the level of out of staters trying to cheat.

High end private institutions like Harvard and Yale give out huge amounts of need-based financial aid to those who qualify for admissions.

It's the low and middle income, modestly talented people who tend to suffer most with school debt.

 

My student debt is about $60k. Most of the people I work with don't have college degrees, but since our company rewards tenure over productivity, they either earn as much or more than I do.

 

sorry - double

 

I did it! First triple post in years!

 

Evil globalisation forces at work.

 

Color me stupid, but I'm still baffled when I listen to you kids talk about paying thousands of dollars for craphole apartments and houses. I've been helping mother around the house while finishing up my last round of schooling, and her house payment is at $600 a month; I think her, myself, and step-father's combined income is around $40k.

Spoiler: Casa Sniper Wolf

Most of the people I know from, say, NYC who come to visit go through the general culture shock of how much more open space there is in flyover country, and the fact no one here honks there horn in the overly twitchy manner the people in New Jersey did. In contrast, however, a person has to drive an hour one-way to actually find a decent paying job, cost of living adjusted, and public transportation is non-existent.

 

I hope this is a non issue, but I'm anticipating that it's going to be one, so I'd like anyone's opinion on the matter before moving forward with what may be an imminent battle. I didn't want to create a thread called referral bonus, but since this potential money would contribute towards my income, I figured I'd post here.

Background: Before I was a full time employee at my current company, a job I got on my own, I was temporarily a contracted employee at Aramark. I was able to secure this position though a recruiter by the name of Jackie. At Aramark, I befriended another contractor named Sonaj. Unfortunately, back in January, Aramark let go of all their contractors. Again, I was able to secure a job on my own at a new company without the help of Jackie. About one month later, on Feb 13th, Jackie emailed me asking if I was on the market as she may have found a job for me. I told her thanks, but I was off the market and I referred Sonaj to her as he was still looking for employment after Aramark.

On March 19th, I got a text from Sonaj and he told me that Jackie helped get him a position at Cigna. He said I should contact Jackie in three months to see if I can get a referral bonus. I didn't even think about that so I thought it would be worth a shot so I put it on my calendar as a reminder to myself.

Present:
Fast forward to present day aka three months later. Sonaj and I have texted off and on. I texted him yesterday to see how things were and to congratulate him on three months with Cigna. I said I was going to send Jackie an emial. He said, "she mentioned that she found me online before you referred me".

At first I was thought of just letting it go and not sending her an email message as I didn't have proof of my referral. Looking through my email, I found the email I sent on Feb 13th so I guess if she's sticking with her story then I guess it's on her to prove that she found Sonaj between the date we got let go from Aramark and Feb 12th, right?

She is a great resource and obviously a bridge I don't want to burn just in case I need her in the future. If she sticks to her story, what would you do? Do I let it go or do I fight it?

 

FIGHT! Forward the Feb 13th email, and ask for your bonus. Tell her you will sue if she doesn't pay you ASAP. It's one bridge, there are many more.

 

I sent her an email with our correspondence from Feb 13th and said

Good morning Jackie,

I hope you're doing well. I was just checking my calendar and old text messages, and Sonaj informed me on March 19th that you helped him get a contract position with Cigna. Since he's been there 3 months, I was wondering if there was a referral bonus that I would be entitled to. Thanks!

- Anthony
​

So we'll see what she says. I don't want to fight, but like I said, I'm expecting her to stick to her story and I almost want her to prove that she found him before I contacted her.

 

I was only kidding, I would have left it.

 

I probably won't push it further, but I'm really hoping for a positive response, at least a little something to say thanks and feel appreciated.

 

T, if all you need is to feel appreciated, look no further than this very JCC.

I'm sure someone here appreciates you.

 

San Francisco now has the highest salaries in the world: Report

 

The disgusting thing is, that figure is still not enough for a lot of people to own a house in SF.

 

Even condemned homes in San Francisco are not affordable.

Why this uninhabitable San Francisco shack could sell for $2.5 million. Hint – check out the view