As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: salaries


A new survey takes a look at the critical state of today’s recent college graduates. The survey questioned a nationally-representative sample of 444 recent college graduates between the ages of 22 and 29, about their employment situation and experiences. The questions also lightly touched upon these graduates’ financial condition. I’ve included a link to the full survey at the bottom of this article.

The necessity of choosing a major in college can put quite a bit of pressure on any student, particularly those who have either a wide variety of interests and talents as well as those who may not feel themselves pulled in any particular direction. There’s always the hope or the expectation that the bachelor’s degree will define a career path for the rest of one’s life, and that career path will follow a straight line or an exponential curve.

GraduationAn economist’s opinion is that students, who often go into debt to obtain their degrees, should simply look at the expected rate of return. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard or read that students should choose majors like engineering, physics, computer science, or applied mathematics to guarantee high salaries and easy job placement. Not everyone is interested or talented in these areas, and the pure financial approach says that those who aren’t shouldn’t bother spending money for a college education. The return on investment for an education is about more than just money, but that opinion doesn’t exactly make me popular in certain communities.

The financial reality is dire according to this survey. And as much as a college education has value beyond the expected return in the form of salary, no one can ignore the money-related part of the equation. Many decades ago, a college degree was a sign of differentiation, and gave holders the ability to market themselves well and qualify for the best jobs. At the same time, culture put such an emphasis on higher education that as it became available to more people — through grants and loans, not through lowered costs — it’s become less of a distinction. Colleges are basically unchecked in their tuition increases because they know that students will keep coming and the government will continue providing opportunities.

In good economic times, that can be ignored. With a low level of unemployment among graduates, former students can receive jobs, healthy incomes, and can pay down their student loan debt. In difficult times — when Baby Boomers aren’t retiring and there aren’t opportunities for younger workers, for example — the buy-now-pay-later model of education begins to fail. And it always fails for those with degrees in fields that take longer to recover their costs, like the arts and humanities.

Mark Cuban offered an apt analogy. College education is similar to the practice of flipping real estate. In the heyday of oversized, abnormal growth in the real estate market, any fool could make
money by buying a house relying heavily on debt, selling it to a bigger fool, and using the proceeds to repeat the process. There was a promise of success, and it worked well for a while — until the real estate market meltdown, followed by the Great Recession and credit crunch. A similar experience is happening today with the investment in a college education. Cuban argues that it used to be able to “flip” a college degree for a good starting salary and a solid opening to a life-long career, but the investment no longer performs so well.

With the run-up in real estate prices, it became very easy to access credit. Banks would give loans to as many customers as possible, with the knowledge the banks could repackage and sell those loans to reduce their apparent risk. The credit crunch required banks to tighten up their lending standards to the point where credit wasn’t available anywhere. Cuban believes this is where we are heading with student loans.

Years ago, policies were designed to ensure that everyone who wanted to become a homeowner could afford to do so. Taxpayers subsidized a great expansion in homeownership, and the real estate industry thrived. Education for all has been just as much a part of the American Dream, and taxpayers are subsidizing college educations for those who can’t afford it on their own. When it’s so easy to get an education for little money down, and everyone is taking advantage of free-flowing credit, we should have expected that making a return on that investment has become more difficult.

There is more student loan debt in aggregate in the United States than credit card debt, and Mark’s conclusion is that the economy won’t improve until this student loan bubble bursts. He promotes non-traditional universities — though not diploma mills, as he later warns — as the answer, because they can provide a better deal.

While colleges and universities are building new buildings for the English, social sciences and business schools, new high end, un-accredited, branded schools are popping up that will offer better educations for far, far less and create better job opportunities. As an employer I want the best prepared and qualified employees. I could care less if the source of their education was accredited by a bunch of old men and women who think they know what is best for the world. I want people who can do the job. I want the best and brightest. Not a piece of paper.

The competition from new forms of education is starting to appear… You would think traditional university educators would take notice. Beyond allowing some of their classes to be offered online, they haven’t. They won’t. Its the ultimate Innovators Dilemma. They don’t believe they should change and they won’t. Until its too late. Just as CEOs push for that one more penny per share in EPS, University Presidents care about nothing but getting their endowments and revenues up. If it means saddling an entire generation with obscene amounts of school debt, they could care less. This is how they get their long term contracts and raises.

It’s just a matter o[f] time until we see the same meltdown in traditional college education. Like the real estate industry, prices will rise until the market revolts. Then it will be too late. Students will stop taking out the loans traditional Universities expect them to. And when they do tuition will come down. And when prices come down universities will have to cut costs beyond what they are able to. They will have so many legacy costs, from tenured professors to construction projects to research they will be saddled with legacy costs and debt in much the same way the newspaper industry was. Which will all lead to a de-levering and a de-stabilization of the university system as we know it.

Just over half of recent college graduates have jobs. Many of those who do have jobs settled for a position for which their four-year degree was not necessary. 40 percent of recent graduates haven’t even begun paying off their student loan debt. Most recent graduates, while happy with their time in college, would have chosen a major after more consideration, taken different courses, or sought out more working or internship opportunities.

Photo: NazarethCollege
Blog Maverick, John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development

{ 13 comments }

Today on the Consumerism Commentary Podcast, Jay Frosting and Luke Landes talk with Kim Palmer, author of Generation Earn and creator of Palmer’s Planners. Consumerism Commentary discussed Palmer’s Planners recently.

In the interview, Jay, Luke, and Kim discuss household financial planning for right-brained thinkers and money issues for young people and women.

Consumerism Commentary Podcast
Palmer’s Planners: S07E02 / 158

DownloadRSSiTunes

Table of contents

Palmer's Planners on Etsy[00:00] Introduction from Jay Frosting
[00:33] Interview with Luke Landes and Kim Palmer
[00:49] Overview of Palmer’s Planners for right-brained thinkers
[03:15] Break down your overall strategy into low-level tactics
[04:18] Selling on Etsy to find more visually-focused customers
[06:10] Traditional publishing vs. self-publishing
[10:17] Becoming a mother inspired new planners and ways of working
[11:39] Does HBO’s “Girls” reflect real attitudes about money?
[15:53] Understand student loan rules and keep up with changes
[17:37] Trends among women’s salaries and priorities
[21:10] End

We always welcome feedback from listeners. If you have any comments for this episode or for any other, or if you have suggestions for future episodes, please leave us comments here or email us at podcast at this domain name.

Theme music by Mindcube.

{ 0 comments }

A new survey by the Pew Research Center shows women have surpassed men in placing value on career advancement. Among 18 to 34-year-olds, 66 percent of women consider being successful in a high-paying career or job is one of the most important things or very important, compared to 59 percent of men. In 1997, 56 percent of women had the same response, almost even with men, at 58 percent.

This change doesn’t come at the expense of the importance of being a good parent or having a solid marriage. Marriage and family are strong priorities today for both men and women, with a score of over 90 percent. For men aged 18 to 34, 29 percent now list marriage as a top priority, down from 37 percent in 1997.

Career womanThe workplace has changed throughout the last century. The shift from traditional gender roles to shared responsibility in the workplace and at home is considered a beneficial change for the country. 73 percent of Americans agree that the trend of an increased role for women across professions is better for society as a whole, and 62 percent believe that shared responsibility at home leads to a more satisfying marriage. At the same time only 21 percent of Americans believe mothers of young children working outside the home is a positive approach to life, and 37 percent believe this is bad for society.

While women’s role in careers have increased, so have their wages and salaries compared to men’s. Women aged between 16 and 34 now earn more than 90 cents for every dollar earned by men in the same age range. Women, however, surpass men in education; women are more likely to have bachelor degrees, with 36 percent of women aged 25 to 29 having advanced education compared to 28 percent of men in the same age group.

This is a significant increase for women in education over the past several decades, and it’s somewhat reflected in the increase in salary parity. But women still are more likely to pause their careers for family reasons, although this is less often the case than in the past. This likely contributes to the fact that women as a group still do not match or exceed men in compensation.

Women in today’s workforce who do marry and have children are not necessarily leaving their careers to do so. Today’s woman often balances her career with her husband and children. Fully 48% of married couples in 2010 consisted of two breadwinners. The share of dual-employed couples was slightly higher in 1997 (53%). Back in 1975, however, the share of families with both a husband and wife in the labor force was only 34%.

If these trends continue, I expect sometime in the future for women’s salaries to exceed men’s salaries. Women will continue to be higher educated and will be qualified for higher-paying careers. Women will continue to increase the value they place on their career. Men will continue to pursue a stronger role in family.

Photo: @yakobusan Jakob Montrasio
Pew Research Center

{ 10 comments }

In order to offer better prices to customers, Sprint has allegedly under-collected and underpaid New York State sales taxes by $100 million. If the Attorney General’s allegations are true, Sprint could end up owing the state government as much as $300 million or more due to underpayment penalties. Sprint is denying the charges, claiming they’ve paid all taxes as legally required to do so.

The Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, recognizes that if the suit is successful and Sprint must pay the penalty, it would be difficult for customers to escape the downstream effects. Just like any business, if Sprint is faced with an unplanned expense, they’ll need to come up with the difference elsewhere. That’s where customers who pay for services can help. Schneiderman says he wants the company, not the customers, to cover the cost of paying the back taxes.

That money is going to have to come from somewhere, however, and it’s not going to come from a reduction in executive salaries. While the Attorney General might have good intentions and companies should not be able to get away with deliberately and knowingly cheating on tax reporting, collection, and payment, I don’t see any way where the “company” can be penalized without hurting customers, shareholders, and employees.

Shareholders are already hurting; as of writing this article, the stock price is already down more than 4 percent. $300 million is a significant expense, even for a company that earned a revenue of $33.7 billion last year. The company actually didn’t profit on paper in 2011, and that certainly makes a $300 million fine sting more.

If a company over-collected and overpaid taxes, customers would be calling for refunds. A class action lawsuit would demand restitution. In this hypothetical situation as well as the actual lawsuit Sprint faces for underpayment, the set of customers is the unintentional third party of fraud. In both cases, the customer ends up suffering in the long run. Class action lawsuits barely benefit customers. The lawyers seem to do well, though.

In Sprint’s statement, the company claims they’re protecting their customers:

… [W]ith this lawsuit, the attorney-general’s office is claiming New York consumers, who already pay some of the highest wireless taxes in the country, should pay even more. We intend to stand up for New York consumers’ rights and fight this suit.

I find it hard to believe that any for-profit company has any interest in “standing up for consumers’ rights.” If Sprint doesn’t like the tax laws, they should do what all companies do: lobby for tax law changes that benefit them more. Of course, that wouldn’t work, because then Verizon Wireless and AT&T could also benefit from lower taxes. If the allegations are true, the company’s actions have nothing to do with Sprint’s defense of lower taxes for consumers. It’s about using any tactic possible, even illegal, to fight in a competitive market.

Give me a break. Does anyone really believe corporate marketing-speak?

Are you a Sprint customer? If so, did you choose Sprint due to their lower monthly service fees? Would you remain a customer if the fees increased — a likely result of this lawsuit, whether successful or not?

Financial Times

{ 4 comments }

The Cost of Raising a Child With Autism

by Flexo

A few years ago, I shared a statistic showing that it costs almost $200,000 to raise a child, from birth to age eighteen. If that weren’t enough of a financial burden, consider that one out of 88 children are now diagnosed with autism, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (source, pdf). Regardless ... Continue reading this article…

11 comments Read the full article →

The Dangers of Motivating Kids Through an Allowance

by Flexo
4614048392_9cfb472301_b[1]

Parents who offer their young children an allowance or pocket money are helping to introduce the concept of money at an age when they are susceptible to ideas they will hold for the remainder of their lives. It’s a good idea to allow kids to gain exposure to to concept and application of income and ... Continue reading this article…

47 comments Read the full article →

Should You Pursue a Non-Profit Career?

by Flexo

I was never destined for the life of a high-income individual. While I was in elementary school, I decided, like many young individuals inspired by good teachers, to become a teacher myself. As I developed an aptitude for mathematics, science, computer programming, languages, and music throughout my time in public school, I eventually leaned towards ... Continue reading this article…

22 comments Read the full article →

Local Currencies to Replace the Dollar in Communities

by Flexo
Dollar currency

It may be illegal for states to print money for commerce, but local communities have no such restriction from the federal government. And in some communities, local currencies have been successful, at least in gaining the support of some retailers and consumers. There’s no law of nature that says that an economy functions best when ... Continue reading this article…

11 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 1412345···Last »