CEO pay, declining compensation for MD’s and lawyers

[flyer]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=flyer]A couple of our nieces husbands who recently graduated from great colleges just became firefighters, while both of the girls are MD’s. A sign of the times?[/quote]

Pilots make what now? $20k starting salary. unless you’re from rich family, the job is not that cool.

I think that the typical white male w/ high school and some college is in trouble as far as social standing. Girls study harder and will get better degrees.

Technology is now well a established sector of the economy. Except for a few, bluster and creativity will not open doors and pay the bills. Advanced degrees are required these days. The high value workers are from all over the world, Ukraine, Serbia, China, India, etc… with masters and doctorates. Look at the demographics of graduate schools.

Not saying that it’s right or wrong, only that people will have to make psychological adjustments. I’m OK with being a stay at home husband. Would not bother me one bit.

Flyer, I know you like to advocate “living the life of your dreams”…. But statistically how many really get to do that?[/quote]

First, thanks Xbox for the info on firefighters. Hopefully the kids in the family who have chosen this field will be some of the lucky ones.

Regarding aviation and pilots, FIH. There have been many reports that confirm what you mentioned about the low pay scale today. The $20K you mentioned mostly applies to a co-pilot with a small commuter airline, not one of the major carriers.

That, along with the expense of pilot training, is why there is, and will continue to be such a tremendous pilot shortage, which will result in, you guessed it, MUCH higher airfares and fees.

If you want to be a pilot today, you have to be prepared to fork out at least $150K for training, + the cost of your college degree (if you want to be hired by a major airline), and after all that, there’s still no guarantee you’ll be hired. One mistake in the “sim” and it’s “bye-bye” at the first interview. Believe me, I’ve seen it.

Even though my grandparents paid for all of their grandchildren’s educational pursuits–college + pilot training for me, med school for others, etc.,etc., if I were a kid today, and interested in aviation, I doubt if I would pursue it.

On the + side, in my general age group, 40’s-50’s+ $300K+ is not an uncommon annual income. In addition to that, you add lots of perks and benefits, thanks to the union. Plus, it’s almost impossible to be fired, (not that I’ve tried) so, yes, for me I lived the dream I had from the time I was 16–but for younger generations of pilots, that is largely no longer true.

The job also gave me the financial ability to invest in property from the time I was fairly young, have a family, etc., etc., so I have no complaints, but, I do agree that, sadly, “living your dreams” is much more difficult today.

[spdrun]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
At any rate, I’m not seeing the data to back up claims that being a firefighter is particularly dangerous. Just saying.
[/quote]

Depends how job-related deaths are tabulated. I recall reading that firefighters had 2-3x the lifetime cancer risk of people in other jobs. Exposure to smoke, dust, vapors from heated toxics can’t be good for you.

[scaredyclassic]

i think lawyers risk suicide and substance abuse problems a bit higher than normal; but thas probably the fault of the nutjobs who enter the profession

[no_such_reality]

[quote=spdrun][quote=XBoxBoy]
At any rate, I’m not seeing the data to back up claims that being a firefighter is particularly dangerous. Just saying.
[/quote]

Depends how job-related deaths are tabulated. I recall reading that firefighters had 2-3x the lifetime cancer risk of people in other jobs. Exposure to smoke, dust, vapors from heated toxics can’t be good for you.[/quote]

Except CalPERS shows that Firefighters and safety professions out live the general public with a longer life expectancy.

[UCGal]

A friend is a firefighter, after getting an ivy league MBA and working at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker, etc. He chose to leave the big bucks environment to give back. He’s got a strong sense of duty and giving.

As far as risks – it’s easy to have a non-life threatening risk that is still serious. So death rates aren’t the whole story. It’s hard physical labor and when you’re hauling people out of burning structures, you can easily injure your back or have other injuries.

Not everyone goes into firefighting for the perceived money. My friend left a much better, safer, career that paid a heck of a lot more money.

[FlyerInHi]

I have friend who’s a school teacher in NYC. She’s happy and has no worries because her family bought her a nice house. On an individual level there are many ways to find contentment. It’s always easy to pick something and live the life of your dreams when you have lots of options.

On the flip side, I see a lot of people working and struggling to get by. Maybe some of the stress is self-induced and a psychological adjustment is in order. For instance some people feel miserable because they can’t afford a house in the school district they want in San Diego. They could just move away to a more affordable area. But then they’d be miserable about that.

Expensive areas like San Diego require a well paid job or some help if you are to live the life of your dreams.

[CA renter]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=flyer]No question firefighting is dangerous work. [/quote]

I wonder how true that is. A quick search brings me this article that claims statistically it isn’t very dangerous.

Firefighter one of nation’s safest jobs

maybe their just biased, what do I know.

But then here’s another link from bls.gov

http://bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_rates_2009hb.pdf

It’s only one year, so maybe not enough data to be truly representative. But with a fatality rate of 4.4 it’s one of the safer jobs.

At any rate, I’m not seeing the data to back up claims that being a firefighter is particularly dangerous. Just saying.

XboxBoy[/quote]

In collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the University of California at Davis – Department of Public Health Sciences, NIOSH researchers found that a combined population of almost 30,000 firefighters from three large cities had higher rates of several types of cancers, and of all cancers combined, than the U.S. population as a whole.

These findings are generally consistent with the results of several previous, smaller studies. Because this new study had a larger study population followed for a longer period of time, the results strengthen the scientific evidence for a relation between firefighting and cancer.

https://www.usfa.fema.gov/fireservice/firefighter_health_safety/health_fitness/cancer.shtm

But it’s not just a matter of “danger,” as many jobs are dangerous, but don’t pay as well. It’s also the crazy hours (standard hours/week, averaged out is 56; FLSA exempt, so basically no overtime pay until after this). For the firefighters who are making $40K+ in overtime, they are probably working at least 1,000+ hours/year in addition to the standard 56 hours/week. They also work very erratic schedules, with no set days off (ever), so it’s difficult to have a “normal” life that can be scheduled around work days and times. On an hourly basis, firefighters don’t make any more than other positions with similar skills, training, and responsibility, even if you include other benefits.

Then, there’s the medical training, because most of the calls they go on these days are medical aids. Most firefighters are paramedics. They are the ones who have to stabilize patients when their body parts are splayed out across the street and they’re screaming in pain (if they’re lucky). They regularly deal with horrible accidents and death — including the deaths of too many children. They have to work on patients as the family members look on, crying, screaming, and panicking. They intubate patients, administer life-saving medicines, and perform some radical medical procedures in uncontrolled environments.

…

[Almost all firefighters these days are paramedics as medical aids have grown in number relative to fires. -CAR]

Both EMTs and paramedics have the knowledge and skills to transport patients and provide them with emergency care. The biggest difference between them is the amount of education they receive and what they are allowed to do for patients (scope of practice).

EMTs usually complete a course that is about 120-150 hours in length. Paramedic courses can be between 1,200 to 1,800 hours. EMT and paramedic courses consist of lectures, hands-on skills training, and clinical and/or field internships. EMTs are educated in many skills including CPR, giving patients oxygen, administering glucose for diabetics, and helping others with treatments for asthma attacks or allergic reactions. With very few exceptions, such as in the case of auto-injectors for allergic reactions, EMTs are not allowed to provide treatments that requiring breaking the skin: that means no needles. Paramedics are advanced providers of emergency medical care and are highly educated in topics such as anatomy and physiology, cardiology, medications, and medical procedures. They build on their EMT education and learn more skills such as administering medications, starting intravenous lines, providing advanced airway management for patients, and learning to resuscitate and support patients with significant problems such as heart attacks and traumas.

https://www.cpc.mednet.ucla.edu/node/27

——–

Then, they also have to deal with hazmat calls, rescues, etc. Finally, they fight fires…and have to work for days (or weeks, or months) in the smoke and heat when fighting brush fires, and have to know how to fight structure fires, too (there’s a surprising amount of science and physics involved, as well).

They are not low-skilled personnel, and most people could not do their jobs, much less do them well.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=spdrun][quote=XBoxBoy]
At any rate, I’m not seeing the data to back up claims that being a firefighter is particularly dangerous. Just saying.
[/quote]

Depends how job-related deaths are tabulated. I recall reading that firefighters had 2-3x the lifetime cancer risk of people in other jobs. Exposure to smoke, dust, vapors from heated toxics can’t be good for you.[/quote]

Except CalPERS shows that Firefighters and safety professions out live the general public with a longer life expectancy.[/quote]

The problem with CalPERS’ numbers is that they include administrative staff (judges, clerks, all administrative personnel who work for fire/police departments, prisons, etc.) in their population of “safety” workers.

Even so, the numbers do NOT show that safety employees have longer lifespans, just that they are about equivalent — and that is only when they *include* the administrative positions.

The life expectancy of safety workers is also affected by the better health of these workers because they are screened for health problems when they are hired, and are not allowed (in many departments) to smoke on or off-duty, use illegal drugs, etc. Many/most of them have to pass a very thorough medical exam every year, too. If you consider only “non-safety” employees who had to be screened in the same way, you’d likely see a larger difference in life expectancy between safety and non-safety employees, and an even larger difference if you eliminated the admin staff from the “safety” group.

[joec]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

On the flip side, I see a lot of people working and struggling to get by. Maybe some of the stress is self-induced and a psychological adjustment is in order. For instance some people feel miserable because they can’t afford a house in the school district they want in San Diego. They could just move away to a more affordable area. But then they’d be miserable about that.

Expensive areas like San Diego require a well paid job or some help if you are to live the life of your dreams.[/quote]

Yeah, CA is not really for people making little and if you want to live in the Bay Area and “succeed (save for retirement/home…)”, you better be making > $200k. Probably more.

If I was single, young, no kids, I’d personally move out of CA.

I think the problem now with say, 30-40 years ago is that a basic existence 30-40 years with a modest house, decent schools, safe areas, 1-2 cars, good affordable healthcare, higher education, fuel, etc etc etc was attainable by the general person/job. As another message mentioned, you had communities where doctors lived in the same school district as the plumbers, factory workers, etc…Schools were also better back then.

Nowadays, with our over-supply of labor and “global” economies, there simply aren’t enough good paying jobs for enough people to make a decent living to have, what was 40 years ago, a “modest” living compared to now. Even if you got rid of all luxuries (and I mean all like cell phones, cable, internet, netflix, dining out, etc), it’d be tough for most people since healthcare is (was with ACA now) insane, education much more, gas 4x higher, food…more…

For a lot of people barely getting by, it’s really not about sacrificing or self induced stress I feel (having seen/lived it personally as well as reading everything I can about it), but there is just tougher times for many folks with more limited opportunities.

As any tech worker will tell you now and many people here can attest to as well, when you start hitting 35+ with a family, you are simply not as desirable to hire. Most companies also don’t want to bother retraining I’ve seen personally even if you “were” the hotshot years ago.

Yes, there are always top people who can always get hired, but “most” work isn’t really revolutionary I feel so you almost have to get a little lucky in the work/field you end up doing.

I know a few workers w/ families from QCOM who are constantly complaining about the hours and saying they can’t help but do it since some of the non-parents will take advantage if they were to not do it or complain to much.

At least they have a job I guess. 😉

[spdrun]

Are you kidding me? There were full-blown riots in many major cities (and even smaller towns) 40 years ago and schools were extremely unequal. Not just in California, but my former neighbor who was a teacher in Newark, NJ had some pretty heinous tales to tell about the 70s there.

Inflation was bad, I read that the average gallon of gas in the 80s cost $3.50 in today’s dollars. You still have mixed neighborhoods in SD, just not in the areas which people on this site seem to gravitate to.

I think some people are looking at the 70s and 80s through rose-colored glasses!

[CA renter]

[quote=joec]

I think the problem now with say, 30-40 years ago is that a basic existence 30-40 years with a modest house, decent schools, safe areas, 1-2 cars, good affordable healthcare, higher education, fuel, etc etc etc was attainable by the general person/job. As another message mentioned, you had communities where doctors lived in the same school district as the plumbers, factory workers, etc…Schools were also better back then.

Nowadays, with our over-supply of labor and “global” economies, there simply aren’t enough good paying jobs for enough people to make a decent living to have, what was 40 years ago, a “modest” living compared to now. Even if you got rid of all luxuries (and I mean all like cell phones, cable, internet, netflix, dining out, etc), it’d be tough for most people since healthcare is (was with ACA now) insane, education much more, gas 4x higher, food…more…

For a lot of people barely getting by, it’s really not about sacrificing or self induced stress I feel (having seen/lived it personally as well as reading everything I can about it), but there is just tougher times for many folks with more limited opportunities.

[/quote]

Totally agree with everything you’ve said here. And let’s not forget about housing costs, too. Back when I was living in LA and starting college, my 3/2 apartment was $710/month (3 of us living together), and I was making $9.00/hr. Today, that apartment will run about $1,800-$2,100/month (at least), but the pay for that same job is still around $9.00/hr.

Add to that all the rather dramatic cost increases you’ve mentioned: gas/energy, food, healthcare, college expenses, etc., and it’s a wonder anyone can make it today. It was tight getting by back then; I have no idea how young people are supposed to do it these days, especially if they are trying to do it without debt or help from their parents.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]Are you kidding me? There were full-blown riots in many major cities (and even smaller towns) 40 years ago and schools were extremely unequal. Not just in California, but my former neighbor who was a teacher in Newark, NJ had some pretty heinous tales to tell about the 70s there.

Inflation was bad, I read that the average gallon of gas in the 80s cost $3.50 in today’s dollars. You still have mixed neighborhoods in SD, just not in the areas which people on this site seem to gravitate to.

I think some people are looking at the 70s and 80s through rose-colored glasses![/quote]

Jersey and NY are different back in the 1970s and 1980s people were moving out of the area. It was a good time to buy a place in manhattan. You could get something for nothing in the Bronx.

But out west, houses were cheap. It was safe and kids could run around unattended. Even rich families lived fairly modestly along with everyone else. Even rich kids had part time jobs at mcdonalds. It wasn’t a bad thing but now it’s more of a status thing.

Now, It’s a lot more segregated now with gated communities in places like irvine, Laguna Niguel, Carmel Valley, etc.

I see rich kids getting more help from their parents for education, cars, holidays, houses, I think the bar has been raised overall, especially for young family starting out in California.

Sure, poverty for Blacks was a lot worse back then, there was more racial segregation and meanness. But for middle class whites, it was a more secure time. Depends whose perspectives you consider. For Asians, today is probably best.

[spdrun]

Is it actually less safe now? Statistics don’t seem to indicate that this is the case. I think the media is just selling bad news to sheep who will listen.

L.A. was just recovering from race riots in the 70s, BTW. Random crime existed — wasn’t Manson active in the late 60s?

[joec]

[quote=spdrun]Is it actually less safe now? Statistics don’t seem to indicate that this is the case. I think the media is just selling bad news to sheep who will listen.

L.A. was just recovering from race riots in the 70s, BTW. Random crime existed — wasn’t Manson active in the late 60s?[/quote]

How old were you again spdrun? I suppose I’m rose-colored California glass-eyed since I’ve only lived here and not the east coast. I also lived more in the 80s vs. the 70s (40s+) so I can’t say I knew what the 70s were like. That said, I do remember inflation with all those inflation busting ads and stuff like that…

I make the point above since from personal experience, my family, which was mid/upper lived in the exact same city as my extended family (uncles/aunts) who worked as simple waiters, postal workers, bank employees (low start, higher later though), etc…we also all went to the same public schools and I’d say the kids now are all doing pretty darn well (similarly in their 40s)…

As this is a housing forum, I really don’t think people living off government or on the streets are really the people we are talking about.

I was, again, talking about people who are strictly/firmly in the middle class which I’m saying now, is near impossible to have what they had 40 years ago. Maybe all my aunts/uncles had help, but again, I went to school (public) with plenty of people who were normal blue collar folks also with homes, etc…

[spdrun]

And there are still parts of SD like that. In the building with my rental condo of the neighbors whom I’ve met, there seems to be a couple where the husband is a shipyard welder, a medical student doing his internship, a psychologist, a retired couple, and an office employee/secretary with a young child. Still seems pretty mixed to me.

[Author]

Posts