Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
John Williams wrote: ... Please explain why nobody but borrowers should have responsibility for a market failure, which seems to be what you are implying. No, you seem to be assuming that borrowers were losers, and the only losers, in the housing bubble. But regardless, it is a simple concept. Honor, honesty, integrity, whatever you want to call it. If a person agrees to something voluntarily, then they should keep their word. John-- Hi. I'm with Keith on this. A mortgage is not an absolute promise to pay back the loan. Rather, the deal is that if the borrower does not keep up payments, the lender can take back the property. I was reading something a few months ago that said richer borrowers were more prepared to default on a mortgage when the property was under water, and that poorer borrowers tried harder to keep up the payments. (Not that I think that richer people are less moral. I bet it's because richer people have more exposure to the business world, as well as access to better legal and financial advice.) ---David ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
down with the government
>My bad. You were right, just a random misplaced thought. Back to lurking. >> Sorry, Charlie, it seems the new angry crowd out there either think that >> roads and sewage systems just appear or that we pay too much for them. We >> can all go back to dirt roads and septic systems, you know:-) > Was this supposed to have the slightest relevance to the conversation? > Or are you just inserting totally random comments? not random at all, chris don't be bullied into lurking. what you said is very relevant to how angry tea baggers want to close down government services, except for the defense industry. jon m. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
John; My bad. You were right, just a random misplaced thought. Back to lurking. learner On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:43 AM, John Williams wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Chris Frandsen wrote: >> Sorry, Charlie, it seems the new angry crowd out there either think that >> roads and sewage systems just appear or that we pay too much for them. We >> can all go back to dirt roads and septic systems, you know:-) >> > > Was this supposed to have the slightest relevance to the conversation? > Or are you just inserting totally random comments? > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: > You can leave the troll. It's taken only a few posts for me to realise that > John has zero interest in engaging with any point, just repeating his own > point over and over, and then using _ad hominem_ like he's doing in response > to Brad. Thought I'd see if the previous 3 years demonstration that > deregulation completely failed had mellowed him or changed his mind, but it > apparently hasn't. I did not ad hominem anyone. The only person I have seen to consistently engage is personal attacks is you. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On 21/10/2010, at 5:44 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Brad DeLong wrote: > Could we get this troll--Mr. Williams--out of here please? > > Foreclosures are currently running at 3 times their normal rates not because > there has been an outbreak of cheating and dishonesty on the part of > America's borrowers, but because the unemployment rate is not its normal 5% > but is instead 10%, and housing prices are not at the prices that borrowers > and lenders both expected them to be five years ago but are rather 30% lower. > > We could, but we have a high tolerance for argument other than personal > attacks... though with the list being so quiet lately, I'm tempted to revise > my standards. Hard to know if the quiet was due to trolling or some > externality. You can leave the troll. It's taken only a few posts for me to realise that John has zero interest in engaging with any point, just repeating his own point over and over, and then using _ad hominem_ like he's doing in response to Brad. Thought I'd see if the previous 3 years demonstration that deregulation completely failed had mellowed him or changed his mind, but it apparently hasn't. But there's of course a solution to trolls - to not read or respond when it becomes clear they're trolling. Easy, and civilised. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
Nick Arnett wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:52 AM, John Williams gmail.com>wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Nick Arnett > > wrote: > > > > > Hard to know if the quiet was due to trolling or some externality. > > It looks to me like this email list is usually quiet because the vast > > majority of the members have self-selected so that they have many of > > the same opinions. You do not get many interesting discussions that go > > "X is good." "I agree". "Me too". "Count me in". "+1". > I disagree! We should disagree to agree. I think Nick should disagree with this. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > I think that is only part of it. I think that the general trend away from > email lists to twitter is a strong factor. For example, the Culture list is > a lot quieter than it was 6 years ago, even though the mix of folks hasn't > changed that much. 8-9 years ago, there were 100 emails/day here, and most > of it wasn't due to clashes between viewpoints as different as yours and the > median of this list's viewpoints. Is the email list falloff in average traffic strongly correlated with the rise of twitter? To me, twitter does not seem like a close substitute. A closer substitute might be web discussion forums, which have been growing steadily for years. The closest substitute to a book email discussion list that I can think of would be the discussion boards on goodreads.com. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Starting Engineer's Salaries
>> Hard to know if the quiet was due to trolling or some externality. >It looks to me like this email list is usually quiet because the vast >majority of the members have self-selected so that they have many of >the same opinions. You do not get many interesting discussions that go >"X is good." "I agree". "Me too". "Count me in". "+1". I think that is only part of it. I think that the general trend away from email lists to twitter is a strong factor. For example, the Culture list is a lot quieter than it was 6 years ago, even though the mix of folks hasn't changed that much. 8-9 years ago, there were 100 emails/day here, and most of it wasn't due to clashes between viewpoints as different as yours and the median of this list's viewpoints. But having said that, it is true that the occasional flair up of posts here and on Culture have usually coincided with someone bringing in a non-norm opinion, and numerous people on the list arguing with that one personor that argument spurring side discussions. I also know that this list has made its more conservative, vocal members feel less than welcome after years of feeling welcome. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > Hard to know if the quiet was due to trolling or some externality. It looks to me like this email list is usually quiet because the vast majority of the members have self-selected so that they have many of the same opinions. You do not get many interesting discussions that go "X is good." "I agree". "Me too". "Count me in". "+1". ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 21, Issue 22
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:01 AM, John Williams wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: >> It was not an easy decision to seek a loan modification. But the >> ethics of it are not as black-and-white as you say. > > It absolutely is that simple. A honest, responsible person does not make > an agreement and then refuse to honor it. An honest person admits that > they made the agreement of their own free will, a responsible person > accepts the consequences of their actions, and an honorable person does > everything in their power to keep their word. Wait a minute. Everyone who loans money knows they might not get it back. The reason home loans were relatively less than most other loans was because the property was collateral, limiting the loss. If a person failed to pay for such reasons as dying, becoming ill, or out of work, the lender could foreclose and get at least some of the money back. Now consider a friend of mine. She has a loan of $155k on a place *now* worth $45k on the market. If she walks away, or whatever, the lender will have serious expenses on top of a huge loss. From a practical matter, it might make sense for the lender to try to work with her. Contracts can always be renegotiated by mutual consent. Keith (who has no dog in this fight, having lost his home years ago to a certain vicious cult.) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Brad DeLong wrote: > Could we get this troll--Mr. Williams--out of here please? > > Foreclosures are currently running at 3 times their normal rates not > because there has been an outbreak of cheating and dishonesty on the part of > America's borrowers, but because the unemployment rate is not its normal 5% > but is instead 10%, and housing prices are not at the prices that borrowers > and lenders both expected them to be five years ago but are rather 30% > lower. > We could, but we have a high tolerance for argument other than personal attacks... though with the list being so quiet lately, I'm tempted to revise my standards. Hard to know if the quiet was due to trolling or some externality. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM, John Williams wrote: > > Only if you consider honesty and keeping your word to be ridiculous. An > honorable person would not agree to borrow money from anyone, even a > loan shark, if they thought that there was any possibility that they > would not be able to honor their agreement and pay back the money that they > borrowed. I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Brad DeLong wrote: > Could we get this troll--Mr. Williams--out of here please? What gave you the idea that this email list is like your blog, where you can censor anyone who does not agree with you, Brad? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
Could we get this troll--Mr. Williams--out of here please? Foreclosures are currently running at 3 times their normal rates not because there has been an outbreak of cheating and dishonesty on the part of America's borrowers, but because the unemployment rate is not its normal 5% but is instead 10%, and housing prices are not at the prices that borrowers and lenders both expected them to be five years ago but are rather 30% lower. We collectively have a choice. 1. We could refinance a huge chunk of mortgages in America to levels that people--many of them unemployed, most of them with significantly lower earnings prospects now than lenders counted on and expected when they made their loans--will pay. 2. We could put 1/4 of the houses in America through the default-and-foreclosure process, in which homeowners default on their mortgages, banks foreclose, and then everybody moves one house to the right and buys the house next to the one they used to own at a lower price. The second costs us all about $40K extra in waste, legal fees, paperwork, moral hazard, etc. If we do the first, then we all collectively have an extra $1T of real wealth to use on things that actually make us better off rather than on paperwork, etc. Yours, Brad DeLong On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM, John Williams wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Nick Arnett > wrote: > > It was not an easy decision to seek a loan modification. But the > > ethics of it are not as black-and-white as you say. > > It absolutely is that simple. A honest, responsible person does not make > an agreement and then refuse to honor it. An honest person admits that > they made the agreement of their own free will, a responsible person > accepts the consequences of their actions, and an honorable person does > everything in their power to keep their word. > > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > It was not an easy decision to seek a loan modification. But the > ethics of it are not as black-and-white as you say. It absolutely is that simple. A honest, responsible person does not make an agreement and then refuse to honor it. An honest person admits that they made the agreement of their own free will, a responsible person accepts the consequences of their actions, and an honorable person does everything in their power to keep their word. > The question would be black-and-white if the lenders had behaved ethically > and honestly, but I think it is obvious to everyone at this point that they > did not. In what way did the lender fail to honestly keep the agreement you made with them? Did they attempt to charge a higher interest rate than was agreed to? No. Did they say that you borrowed more than you actually did? No. Did they charge an illegal interest rate? No. Did they send someone to break your legs because you missed a payment? No. Your lender obviously does not fit the legal definition of a loan shark. And it sounds like they are only trying to get the money back that they lent you, and that you voluntarily agreed to pay back to them. > The idea that a person has a moral obligation to pay back a loan shark > on the loan shark's terms is ridiculous. Only if you consider honesty and keeping your word to be ridiculous. An honorable person would not agree to borrow money from anyone, even a loan shark, if they thought that there was any possibility that they would not be able to honor their agreement and pay back the money that they borrowed. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > Is that true for people who borrow from loan sharks? Does the lender's > behavior matter not? An honorable person would not borrow from anyone, loan shark or otherwise, and then attempt to renege on the pay back agreement. It is really not a difficult concept. An honest person keeps their word. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:34 AM, John Williams wrote: > > > But regardless, it is a simple concept. Honor, honesty, integrity, > whatever you want to call it. If a person agrees to something > voluntarily, then they should keep their word. > I'm pretty sure you voluntarily agreed to borrow money and pay it back. Is that true for people who borrow from loan sharks? Does the lender's behavior matter not? Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > In hindsight, the housing bubble is obvious. Heck, at the time, I knew > there was a housing bubble, and if you look at Brin-l archives, you will > see > that I wrote it. > It was clear that values were high. That was always clear to me. But HOW high? And for how long would they stay high? Aside from a handful of people who, by intelligence or luck - and we can't know which - profited from the mortgage crisis, the experts who made a business of making loans, failed, badly. When somebody who underwrites real estate loans for a living can't value property, how can an ordinary person be expected to do so? The industry still doesn't really know the values. My mistake was to trust the market and the industry. If the industry had done nothing wrong, then the market would not have over-valued real estate. > > So, I'm finally at my point, if someone buys a house that is clearly > overvalued, as houses in the SF area still are, why should someone else pay > their loss? Is it any different than putting one's retirement money into a > NASDAC index fund in 1999? Yes, it is quite different. For one thing, housing is not a investment for most people. More to the point, retirement isn't borrowed money. When the stock market has had the equivalent of appraisers (analysts) inflating their valuations to whatever price the buyer and seller agreed on, they have been successfully sued in class actions. Yet that sort of thing was rampant in the mortgage market. Loans for buying stock are highly regulated so that when a bubble breaks, it has to be an enormous drop (compared with the drop in housing values) to leave the borrower under water. There's nothing like 100 percent financing in the stock market, at least not legally. If a stock broker followed the predatory lending practices of mortgage companies, they'd be drowning in litigation because of the way that industry is regulated. And there are huge differences in disclosure regulations... but the mortgage industry couldn't even possibly meet any disclosure requirements because the selling of default swaps and such make it impossible even for them to know the value of the properties on which they made loans. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > I didn't say it was someone else's fault. I'm a taxpayer, too. I am also > responsible for the bad policies. So, if it is not someone else's fault, why do you think someone else should pay for money that you borrowed? It sounds like you are trying to blame others in some form of collective guilt, and therefore get out of paying back all of the money that you borrowed. > Please explain why nobody but borrowers should have responsibility for a > market failure, which seems to be what you are implying. No, you seem to be assuming that borrowers were losers, and the only losers, in the housing bubble. But regardless, it is a simple concept. Honor, honesty, integrity, whatever you want to call it. If a person agrees to something voluntarily, then they should keep their word. I'm pretty sure you voluntarily agreed to borrow money and pay it back. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:49 AM, John Williams wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Nick Arnett > wrote: > > The average taxpayer elected officials who deregulated the financial > > industry so much that it became impossible for the average taxpayer to be > > able to know the actual value of a house. We got the government we > deserved > > and the price of it. > > So it is someone else's fault that you borrowed money and now do not > want to pay it all back yourself? I didn't say it was someone else's fault. I'm a taxpayer, too. I am also responsible for the bad policies. Please explain why nobody but borrowers should have responsibility for a market failure, which seems to be what you are implying. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Dan Minette wrote: When I talked about this last year with the Google people, they said that they still believed that you got more dollars >for your money hiring engineers in Mountain View than in Durham or Austin. They could be wrong, but I wouldn't lay long odds on it... I'm curious. Do they pay starting engineers $250k/year, and still think that Berkley and Stanford are so much better than every other engineering school in the nation that it's worth it? If they don't pay that kind of money, how can a engineer have a house and family? They probably don't pay them that kind of money: I know, because I have hired experienced engineers for much less than that. I make much less than that with 20-some years experience. Then again, maybe I'm just a really bad negotiator. I paid half what my house is worth, but with refinancing and upgrades over the years, my mortgage is above 3/4 of the current Zillow estimated value of the property, so I can tell you that you can afford to live here on far, far less than $250K/year. You just have to understand that you'll accumulate debt doing so :-(. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Starting Engineer's Salaries
>The average taxpayer elected officials who deregulated the financial industry so much that it became impossible >for the average taxpayer to be able to know the actual value of a house. We got the government we deserved >and the price of it. None of which really has anything to do directly with the lender's behavior today. In hindsight, the housing bubble is obvious. Heck, at the time, I knew there was a housing bubble, and if you look at Brin-l archives, you will see that I wrote it. I understand why deregulation allowed for tremendous leveraging, so that financial institutions no longer held proper reserves. When the panic hit, TARP was used to keep them from going under. One interesting thing about the bailout of the banks is that it is now, mostly, paid back, and that the government earned over 4% per year on the TARP money http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-Street-Bailout-Returns-bloomberg-28797969 06.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode= http://tinyurl.com/232xzu2 But, that's a tangent. What I don't understand is why the bubble can be blamed on this. It seems that the tremendous amount of cash looking for a home, and the stupid Risk Assessment Model (developed by solid state physicists) that said that average US housing values can't go down more than 1-2% (because they haven't in about 90 years) led to the bubble. I have owned houses in two local downturns, Houston in '85-'86 and Conn. in '89-'92. In both, there were many folks, including me, under water. In the second downturn, I sold my house for 75% of my purchase price. With the first, I bought an inexpensive house (~45 dollars/square foot) and lost little in the salewhich was more than made up by my sign on bonus at my new company (I wouldn't have moved without it). With the second house, I saw the market as overpriced, but rents for any house big enough for my family were so high that 3 years of the difference between the cost of renting and the cost of buying would have been about as large as what I lost. I also thought that, if I was force to move because of a buyout, the buying company would cover most of my losses, since I knew I was a key employee for any sale. That happened, and the new company covered all but $3000 of my loss. But, without that, I would have lost enough so that bankruptcy was probably the best option. So, I'm finally at my point, if someone buys a house that is clearly overvalued, as houses in the SF area still are, why should someone else pay their loss? Is it any different than putting one's retirement money into a NASDAC index fund in 1999? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > The average taxpayer elected officials who deregulated the financial > industry so much that it became impossible for the average taxpayer to be > able to know the actual value of a house. We got the government we deserved > and the price of it. So it is someone else's fault that you borrowed money and now do not want to pay it all back yourself? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:49 AM, John Williams wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Nick Arnett > wrote: > > > I could tell the horror story of our efforts at loan modification, but > I'll > > just say that it is one of the stories submitted to the Justice > Department > > by the House California Caucus. > > If by loan modification, you mean getting someone else to pay back > some of the money that you borrowed, you might want to consider that > it is likely that it will ultimately be average taxpayers footing the > bill, and whether it is fair that taxpayers who did not agree to your > mortgage should have to pay some of it off. The average taxpayer elected officials who deregulated the financial industry so much that it became impossible for the average taxpayer to be able to know the actual value of a house. We got the government we deserved and the price of it. None of which really has anything to do directly with the lender's behavior today. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > I could tell the horror story of our efforts at loan modification, but I'll > just say that it is one of the stories submitted to the Justice Department > by the House California Caucus. If by loan modification, you mean getting someone else to pay back some of the money that you borrowed, you might want to consider that it is likely that it will ultimately be average taxpayers footing the bill, and whether it is fair that taxpayers who did not agree to your mortgage should have to pay some of it off. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Chris Frandsen wrote: > Sorry, Charlie, it seems the new angry crowd out there either think that > roads and sewage systems just appear or that we pay too much for them. We > can all go back to dirt roads and septic systems, you know:-) > Was this supposed to have the slightest relevance to the conversation? Or are you just inserting totally random comments? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: > And *WHOOSH* did you miss Pat's point. > > Point being, people who come to work ill 'cause they can't afford to take a > day off 'cause they don't get sick leave and have to pay for the quack, so > they turn up to work with the sniffles. No, you completely missed the point. Which is that paying for that sort of health care for working people is not a problem. It is other, premium health care for retired people that is making the system unsustainable. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: > Whereas in much of Europe, it's just tax you pay knowing there's a health > system and social security that is functional if, god forbid, you actually > need it. Like you pay for roads, schools etc. I am not very familiar with how that works in Europe, but in the US, that is not how it works. Most of the money for SS and MC is paid by working people to support current retirees. Unfortunately, the demographics and costs are such that those paying now will not receive anything close to what they paid in, many years down the road when they are finally able to retire. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:36 PM, John Williams wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > they give the average starting salary for an EE in the US as 59,646, but > in > > the SF area it is about 74,700. So, that is about a 25% premium. At > > simplyhired.com they state that the average EE salary in the SF area is > > $87k/year. That's not bad money, but you can't buy a million dollar > house > > with it. > > > > Housing prices are about 6x higher in the Bay area than in the Austin > area. > > Salaries for engineers are 25% higher. > > It sounds like the SF Bay area is more likely to appeal to single > engineers willing to live in a small apartment and spend all their > time at work. As compared to Austin, which sounds like it may appeal > more to a young married couple just starting a family. I wonder if the > SF tech firms are counting on that. I'm not sure how common those jobs really are around here. I suspect that the vast majority of engineering jobs around here (Silicon Valley), especially these days, are for experienced engineers, with salaries from $90K to $150 or so. In other words, I don't think average starting salary is a good proxy for average salary. Glassdoor.com tells me that salaries for EEs in Santa Clara range from $81K to $130K, so the median would be around $110K. But we have more software engineers around here, I think. Glassdoor actually reports the median - $99K. But most of what is shown is over $90K and many over $100K. The media for software engineers in Austin is $75K. They don't seem to have much data on EEs. So, this data suggests that for software engineers, the premium is about 33 percent. For somebody with a family, it is not easy to get by around here on less than $100K, which is surely one reason there are many, many families where both spouses work. And the reason is simple - housing costs, as Dan pointed out. That has eased for people buying now, but some of us are stuck with fat mortgages for houses that are under water, which is very, very frustrating. I could tell the horror story of our efforts at loan modification, but I'll just say that it is one of the stories submitted to the Justice Department by the House California Caucus. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
Sorry, Charlie, it seems the new angry crowd out there either think that roads and sewage systems just appear or that we pay too much for them. We can all go back to dirt roads and septic systems, you know:-) chris Frandsen On Oct 20, 2010, at 7:09, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 20/10/2010, at 8:45 AM, Dave Land wrote: > >> On Oct 19, 2010, at 7:18 AM, anar...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> There's also people like me who figure I'll not see much, if anything out >>> of them but don't grouse too much about paying for those already in their >>> golden years. >> >> For many years, this is how I have understood Social Security: It's money >> I'm giving to the self-proclaimed "Greatest Generation". > > Whereas in much of Europe, it's just tax you pay knowing there's a health > system and social security that is functional if, god forbid, you actually > need it. Like you pay for roads, schools etc. > > Charlie. > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On 20/10/2010, at 8:48 AM, John Williams wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Pat Mathews wrote: > Okay. Have it your way. We/they didn't save enough and consume health care > with reckless abandon. May you never be in the workplace where the clerk, > knowing that one must never, ever, consume health care one cannot afford, > comes to work with the flu. > > That is a poor example of reducing health care costs. Flu shots cost almost > nothing compared to expensive diagnostics (MRI, CT scans, etc.) or major > surgeries. Also, paying for health care for the working is not a big problem, > but paying for decades of premium health care for the retired is a big > problem. And *WHOOSH* did you miss Pat's point. Point being, people who come to work ill 'cause they can't afford to take a day off 'cause they don't get sick leave and have to pay for the quack, so they turn up to work with the sniffles. So they give everyone else what they have. Those people can't afford a day off either. And production goes down. It's called "presenteeism", and it costs companies. Maybe in the States they'll twig to this and providing a quota of sick leave and some reasonable health care insurance (in lieu of an actual health care system...) is beneficial in the long run. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On 20/10/2010, at 8:45 AM, Dave Land wrote: > On Oct 19, 2010, at 7:18 AM, anar...@gmail.com wrote: > >> There's also people like me who figure I'll not see much, if anything out of >> them but don't grouse too much about paying for those already in their >> golden years. > > For many years, this is how I have understood Social Security: It's money I'm > giving to the self-proclaimed "Greatest Generation". Whereas in much of Europe, it's just tax you pay knowing there's a health system and social security that is functional if, god forbid, you actually need it. Like you pay for roads, schools etc. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
