Earlier, my wife posted on Facebook about our monthly prescription drug costs... It got me thinking about our total medical expenditures, and what it takes to keep me alive and functional over and above the "normal" persons needs.
I came to the conclusion that I am rather expensive to keep alive...
At this point I take 7 different daily or weekly prescription medications.
I normally take 15 prescription pills total per day, plus one injection per week (which is way down from the 23 pills a day I was taking at one point).
As of right now, we pay about $350 a month for just my scrips (down from about $600 18 months ago), out of pocket, using several different pharmacies and several different prescription discount plans (it would be three times that price if we didn't).
I think the retail on them combined, used to be around $1500 for generic, but over the past two years, it's gone down to about $900-$1000... Which is still ridiculous. Thankfully, the discount plans really help a LOT.
Name brand, DISCOUNT (never mind retail) cost on my scrips would be several thousand dollars; as name brand retail on just one of those scrips is something like $900, and a couple of the others are $300 to $700.
Oh and that doesn't include the Provigil (modafinil generic), which I have been prescribed, but don't take, because it's INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE. It used to be $750 with the discount, and it's still $400 with the discount ($1018 retail) for a 30 day supply. And of course, that's generic... name brand is $1350 AFTER DISCOUNT!
Even when we had insurance, Provigil is only covered for narcolepsy and other sudden sleep disorders, not for what I need to take it for (sudden overwhelming fatigue and loss of mental acuity and alertness, with occasional daytime somnolence; due to endocrine dysfunction); so at best, I can get it at the discounted price.
Since I can't afford the medication that actually works.. pretty much I just gut it out. When I have the sudden fatigue etc... I take another adderall and another cytomel, and try to do things that don't require much brain function... or nothing if I can, or if I'm at home try to lay down or nap... until my endocrine system and other meds catch up and my brain works again (it can last for anywhere from 20 minutes, to 2 hours).
And of course, that's just the daily and weekly prescriptions; not the periodic or as needed scrips, or the other OTC meds and supplements that I REQUIRE... Require as in NOT OPTIONAL... necessary for life.
It doesn't include the incidental OTC medications that I need (if I were a low deductible insurance patient I'd get scrips for them, but as a cash patient OTC is cheaper). Mostly prilosec, nasocort, and zyrtec. Those run something like $100 a month for both Mel and I together, so $50 a month for me alone.
It doesn't include the appx. $200 a month in OTC vitamin and mineral supplements I have to take because my body doesn't absorb, retain, or use the amounts I get in my diet properly (megadoses of calcium, potassium, magnesium, chromium, zinc, vitamins A, b1, b2, b5, b6, b12, C, D, and E; and creatine).
Again, these are NOT optional, or I become severely vitamin and mineral deficient, and the medications that keep me alive don't work.
It doesn't include the as needed scrips for allergy and sinus medications (about $50 a month when I need them, several times a year).
Finally, it doesn't include the medicated shampoo, steroid foam, medicated oil/cream, and periodic antifungals and antibiotics; that I need to suppress or relieve certain unpleasant side effects of the cancer and endocrine issues*** (see below). Those run about $300 for a 3 month supply, so $100-ish a month... but I can live without them for a few months at a time.
Basically... I am extremely expensive to keep alive, to the tune of about $650 a month extra just to survive, another $150 on top of that to not be miserable... and $400 on top of that to be awake, alert, and functional full time.
...$1200... a month...
As I always say folks... Cancer sucks, I strongly recommend not getting it.
*** Because I am immuno-suppressed, have endocrine dysfunction, and because my body doesn't absorb or use vitamins and minerals properly; there are a number of other unpleasant but not life threatening... mostly cosmetic and minor irritation... medical issues I have to deal with.
I suffer from moderate to severe hyperkeratosis and seborrheic dermatitis, and mild angiokeratoma and angioectasia; on my scalp, sometimes my face, and in some other "senstive skin" areas.
At times, as a complication of these, I also develop folliculitis, sebaceous cysts,and cellulitis in those areas.
It's unpleasant, but usually I can deal with it without medication, unless the infections get severe. It does mean I have to shave my head frequently, and severely scrub my scalp, among other things. Also, I've added some more gnarly scarring to the collection that had already graced my skull.
Showing posts with label Money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Money. Show all posts
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Saturday, May 23, 2015
The even BIGGER Minimum Wage Lie
The narrative that the left is attempting to promote, is that the minimum wage, should be a lower middle class living wage.
They have further determined this "living wage" to be about $15 an hour.
Thats about $30,000 a year based on the standard 2000 hour work year (thats 5 full time work days a week, minus 10 unpaid days for national holidays. Most minimum wage workers do not receive paid holidays or paid vacation).
It's also a $15,500 a year RAISE for those workers, more than doubling their pay (currently $14,500 by the 2,000 hour standard).
...If you think someone picking up litter in parks, or working a cash register at McDonalds, on their very first day of their very first job, is worth paying $30,000 a year...
There is something wrong with you.
...Or your just don't understand how money, or wages work (which, frankly, is often the case).
Normal wages are not just arbitrarily "set" by some big daddy in the sky, or by evil greedy CEOs looking to "exploit the workers". They are based on the value a worker can provide to an organization, and the cost to the employer of replacing that worker.
Normal wages are not arbitrary, they are not fixed, and they are VOLUNTARY. If you dont want to take what an employer offers, then you can find a different job that you want more and are willing to take less money for, or you can find a job that pays more.
If you can't find a job that pays more, then your skills and experience are not worth more, or you are not selling yourself properly. Otherwise, you WOULD be able to find a job that pays more.
On the other hand, if an employer doesn't pay enough for a job, that people are willing to take what they are offering workers to do that job; that employer won't be able to fill that job. They will have to either make the job more attractive to workers, or increase the pay (or both).
It's basic market economics... Of course, the left don't believe in markets...
Here's the thing...
Really, I think this whole $15 an hour idea stems from the concept many seem to have internalized (whether or not they've put it into words, or consciously thought about it):
Having a "good" middle class life shouldn't be hard.
People shouldn't really have to do things like sell themselves well, or find a better job every year or two, or work harder, or deal with politics, or work overtime, or work more than one job; to make enough money for a "good life".
They see how competitive and harsh the world is, and the job market is, and they think it's bad and scary and stressful, and not everyone can compete. Even if they have the skills and experience some people are bad at interviewing or resume writing, and some people are too stressed by it, and some people are discriminated against, and theres just no demand for the skills and experience many people have, and its all changing all ttthe time...
...and dammit everyone deserves a "good life".
They think everyone who is not disabled, should be able to find a "good" job, that gives them a "good life", regardless of their skills and experience.
In fact, many of them even say you have a RIGHT to a good job, that pays enough to have a "good life".
They don't think you should HAVE to compete, or struggle, or be stressed, to have a "good life".
They just want people to be able to get a default job, for default pay, and have that be "enough", without worrying about negotiating, or getting raises, or competing for better jobs or more money, or losing their job and not being able to find one that pays as much.
Sure, if people want to compete for better jobs, or want to make more they can... but they feel that every job, no matter how unskilled, or how little value it provides to their employer, should pay enough to have a "good life", just for showing up and doing the work assigned, and that people shouldn't have to worry and compete, just to have a good life.
That everyone should be able to make enough money to live where they want, at least with a spouse or a roommate.
That everyone should be able to make enough money to raise kids, or to travel, or to live in new York York or LA, or to go to college...
So we can all be equal and free of "wage slavery", and pursue our real passion in the arts or something, I guess?
Same reason most of these same people think that college should be "free", and school loan debt should be forgiven... or just erased. Same reason most of these same people think health care should be "free" (or paid 100% by employers and the government, which to them, is the same thing).
They want people to be able to have a good life, and not worry about having their life screwed up, by losing their job, or getting sick, or not being able to find a new job.
They want people's lives to not be subject to the whims of the marketplace, or of economics.
How... Utopian.
This in fact, was the original promise of socialism, communism, marxism, maoism... and every other utopian ideology. That somehow, through proper application of government, we can be free of struggle and strife, and free of the need to toil, and free to pursue our dreams without worrying about those things.
Of course, this completely ignores basic economics... There is no such thing as "free", and unfortunately, no matter what laws the government passes, you just cannot ignore basic economics. Because on this planet, we live in a scarcity based economy (no matter what economic system "runs" it), and economics runs EVERYTHING.
In ignoring basic economics, It also completely ignores the fact that jobs don't exist to provide a living for workers.
Though actually, if you ask most leftists, that is actually what they believe jobs are for... or at least what they should be for.
Ask a union organizer why the factory exists, and he'll tell you it's to provide good high paying jobs for his union members first... and whether the employer makes any money or not isn't his problem. They're all greedy exploiters anyway.
But that's not how the world works.
Businesses dont exist to give people jobs. Jobs exist, for the purpose of doing the useful and productive work of an employer, in order to make money for that employer... Hopefully at a profit, or those jobs won't exist for very long.
No, the minimum wage is NOT a living wage, because it is not intended to be, nor should it.
It is meant to be the absolute minimum an unskilled and inexperienced worker will make, while they are learning skills and gaining experience, that will make them more valuable to employers.
... Which is exactly what almost all minimum wage workers do. Excluding tipped employees, over 80% of minimum wage workers earn at least 10% more than minimum wage within 2 years, and at least 30% more within 5 years.
Only 4.5% of the overall work force, and only 1.8% of the full time workforce between the age of 18 and 65, earn minimum wage. It is not, never was, and never should be a living wage.
Also, the common narrative that the minimum wage hasn't kept pace with inflation is a lie.
Not just a misinterpretation or shading the truth, it's a flat out propagandist lie.
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2015/01/03/minimum-wage-lie/
They lie, by choosing the starting point of their timeline at the highest relative value the minimum wage has ever been, 1968... Which, incidentally, was immediately followed by the highest annual peacetime inflation the U.S. has ever seen, for over 15 years.
The minimum wage has kept exact pace with inflation for the last 30 years (since 1985, to the penny), and has more than kept pace, since it's inception in 1938. It was only from 1969 to 1984, when inflation in the U.S. went as high as double digit numbers annually, that it did not.
In fact, it's not only more than kept pace with inflation since it's inception, and has a much higher relative purchasing power... It has actually almost DOUBLED relative to inflation, since its inception in1938.
The 1968 number was unusually and artificially high. How high? It was a near doubling from just a few years before, at $1.60 an hour (a 20% increase from 1966, which was itself a 40% increase from 1962, and overall it was a 100% increase over 1956... Even though the U.S. had less than 3% annual inflation in those years. The 1956 minimum wage in 1968 dollars was $1.02. In 2015 dollars, it's $6.96... a bit less than minimum wage today).
But even in 1968, the "$15 living wage" people's baseline year, the minimum wage was STILL not intended to be a living wage. $1.60 an hour in 1968, meant about $3,200 a 2000 hour work year, or about $10.88 and $22,000 a year in 2015 dollars.
That year, the median wage for ALL workers was $6,580 or $3.30 an hour, a bit over DOUBLE the minimum wage. The household income was appx. $7,800. However, the median wage for full time employed males, was actually $7,600 (because women were a small percentage of the full time work force, made far less then men, and rarely worked if their husbands worked a good full time job).
In 2015 dollars, that would be about $45,000 a year for all full time workers, $51,000 for full time employed men, and the household income would be about $53,000.
Which by the way, is not very different from what they actually are now. $44,000 for all full time workers, $48,000 for full time men, and household income is about $54,000
Remember, these are medians, not averages. Also note, all were above 1968 levels before October of 2008, but the recession has taken about $2k-4k out of personal income and $4-6k out of household income ("official estimates" are as low as $1k personal and $2k household, but no-one actually believes that. Also, they don't account for inflation... official estimate, or actual... Adjusting for inflation using official numbers... which are well known to be very low... Some estimate as much as $6 personal and $9k household accounting for wage freezes, reduced profit sharing and bonuses, and lack of job growth and promotions; as middle income males were hit worst by unemployment and wage cuts, and have recovered least).
So, by that logic, with the artificially high minimum wage of 1968 being approximately half the prevailing median full time wage; to "keep up" with 1968, the 2015 minimum wage should be...
... Wait for it...
$11 an hour.
So, to match what the highest minimum wage in all of American history, the glory day, their chosen baseline, wouldn't be $15, it would be $11.
Of course, as As I have now explained several times, the 1968 wage was a sudden and artificially high raise, double the 1956 wage, and in constant dollar terms, four times the minimum wage at its inception in 1938.
To keep up with 1938, would be? About $4.20
To keep up with 1956, the year before the minimum wage started jumping every couple years much faster than inflation? About $6.95
At $7.25, we're at about the same in constant dollars, as 1962.
..... So the inflation argument is a flat lie, and the $15 argument is not based in economic reality.
But, just to put the nail in that coffin for good... Just in case somehow the $15 minimum wage sounds like anything close to a reasonable or good idea...
Let's do some comparative analysis:
U.S. military E1 (private/airman basic/seaman recruit) makes about $18,500 a year, or about $9.30 an hour base pay (based on the same 2000 work year... This of course is far less than a duty year even in peacetime, which is about 2700 hours, working out to $6.88 an hour).
Once that soldier, marine, airman, or seaman, are trained and ready to perform the basic duties of their basic occupational field ( E2, at 6 months or so), they get a raise to about $20,800, or about $10.40 on 2000 hours, or $7.70 on 2700 hours.
When they reach fully trained and qualified in the basics of their specialty ( E3, usually around 12 to 18 months or so), they get another raise, to about $24,400, or about $12.25 an hour (or $9 an hour).
Once they are fully trained in the details of their specialty, and have a couple years of experience in their field (E4, usually 24 months or so), and are directing the efforts of 2 to 5 other junior enlisted, they get a raise up to about $25,500, or about $12.75 an hour ( or about $9.45 an hour).
After 3 to 5 years, an E5 (sergeant/staff sergeant/petty officer 2nd class) whose job is to be a well trained and expert specialist in an particular area, and/or to supervise and direct the efforts of 5 to 10 other enlisted personnel...
...and here's the kicker...
... makes a base pay of $30,800, or a bit over $15 an hour on the 2000 hour scale, or about $11.47 an hour on a peacetime 2700 hour duty year.
Oh and by the way, its likely that sergeants immediate "supervisor", in HR terms, would be a 2nd lieutenant. A position that requires a bachelor's degree, and only pays $35,000 a year (with MUCH higher expenses than enlisted men, and they don't get a raise for 18-24 months)
So... According to this theory, minimum wage...
...for a 15 year old high school kid working at the mall food court lets say..
...Should be... about the same as base pay for a serious, skilled professional, with five years experience in their field, and at least two years experience supervising as many as 10 subordinates... With the added bonus of being taken away from their families for months at a time and BEING SHOT AT.
If you can't see just how ridiculous that notion is...
But hell... let's take the comparisons further...
The average starting base pay for cops in the U.S. (and most departments require degrees and certifications now) is?
$26,600 a year, or about $13.30 an hour (before overtime and detail of course)
How about teachers?
$36,000 national average (though they vary significantly by state, from $27k to $51k) or $18 an hour based on the 2000 hour year (which is how teachers are paid, even though they work very different hours... Usually about 1600 a year, including after school and work at home time).
Thats with a degree, and a teaching cert (which in some states can take two more years and thousands more dollars over and above the degree). Before they get certified, they average $24,000
Accountants?
$34,000 with a degree, but no experience, masters or CPA, $48,000 with a CPA but minimal experience.
Auto Mechanics?
$27,000 with no certifications, but at least 2 years experience and their own tools. $31,000 with a certification, tools, and experience.
Computer systems and networks operator or technician?
$29,000 with a degree and at least two years of work experience, preferably in tech support. $22-24k with no degree, a few of the right certs, a demonstrated skill and aptitude, and SOME experience.
How about carpenters?
Apprentices start at between $10 and $15 (with tools), journeymen start at $15 to $22 depending on specialty (framing, finish, roofer, cabinet maker etc..), region, seasonal demand, and unions.
Plumbers?
Plumbers helpers and apprentices start at from $11 to $14 an hour. Journeymen $18 to $28.
Electricians
Apprentices start between $9 and $15. Journeymen, from $16 to $24.
...Hmmm... Thats... Umm...
So... yeah... Apparently a grocery stocker, on his first day at work... should make more to start than a cop, a teacher, a mechanic, a computer and network tech, a carpenter, a plumber, and an electrician?
Yeah... NO.
But wait they say... "Now that the minimum wage is $15, then everyone else will have to get paid more proportionally, and everyone will be better off".
Umm... first, thats not how that works. Ever heard of an "inflationary spiral"? Probably not, since if they had, they wouldn't be suggesting the $15 minimum anyway... So look it up.
Second... hey... wait... that means this isn't actually about the minimum wage at all, and its not abput "helping the poor" now is it?
If it were actually about helping the poor, then they'd be pushing for $11 or $12. First, they would be MUCH more likely to get $11 or $12 than $15.
$11 would be roughly half the median full time wage, at $22,000. This is roughly equivalent to the 1968 level (whereas, today's minimum wage is roughly equivalent to 1962).
Critically, $12 an hour would give a single minimum wage income earning family, with two adults and two kids a $24,000 income, enough to lift them out of poverty, while allowing a parent to care for the children. It would bring a dual income family $48k, which is close to the national median household income (which would be $13.50 an hour with two full time wage earners by the way).
... and of course, we don't even need to get into the fact that outside of wealthy urban areas, minimum wage employment would fall to somewhere around zero, if even an $11 national minimum passed...
No... It's not really about helping the poor.
As it happens... A huge number of union contracts, are index linked to the minimum wage, or to the mean or median wages (which would also be increased). When them minimum wage goes up, so so do their union contract wages.
So are large numbers of government programs, and statistics... Including many poverty and welfare statistics.
And of course, if non-union labor is forced by law to be as expensive as union labor (and by the by, unions are usually exempt from wage regulations), then there's going to be less competition, less price pressure, and more jobs for union members.
So, all if a sudden it's not a "reasonable living wage" for less than 2 million people... It's a big raise for 15 million union workers, and and big budget increase for a whole bunch of government programs (whose administrators and staff are likely union members themselves. 50% of union workers are government workers)... and... what? They think that's actually going to happen?
Really? They think that's actually going to happen?
Or maybe they're hoping that by asking for $15, they can split they're difference, and get $11?
And hey... it's still a huge increase on their contracts right?
And they think that's going to happen?
Where's the money going to come from?
Hell, the money doesn't exist even to give just the less than 2% who actually make minimum wage, a raise to $11 (about 8 billion a year, mostly born by small businesses who already have an 80% failure rate, without increasing their labor costs by 50%). Never mind giving that same raise to 15 million more... Or... any raise to any more.
What are they going to do, mandate it by law, and just print some more money?
I direct you to the "inflationary spiral" concept I noted above.
The entire concept of $15 is a patently ridiculous and disingenuous scam.
UPDATE for 2021
In July 2021, the last month for which official inflation has been posted, the minimum wage if adjusted for inflation from its original inception in 1938, would be $4.84.
No, the minimum wage was never intended to be the entire household income for a family, or any kind of "living wage". It's intended to be a minimum subsistence wage for someone living within a family unit, such that all working age people are working, or an entry level wage for those entering the workforce for the first time, or for those unable to perform higher compensated work due to disability.
It's not MEANT to be a primary income fully supporting a household. It was never meant to be. And it has far more than kept pace with inflation.
It has only not kept pace with inflation if you start your basis for comparison in 1968, when the minimum wage was boosted to a historic high rate, immediately before the US experienced 15 years of sustained high inflation.
The minimum wage was increased that year to $1.60, a 60% increase over what it had been in 1960, and even then that would only be about $12.30 today, nowhere NEAR the $15.00 they're claiming should be the minimum wage.
This is a deliberate distortion of the facts, through cherry picking.
If we want to start with a more recent basis, 1985, the first year after the historically high inflation ended, the minimum wage was $3.35, the inflation adjusted minimum wage would be $8.44.
If adjusted from the first increase after the inflation ended, in 1990 the minimum wage was increased to $3.80, which would be $7.82. That adjustment however only lasted one year and in 1991 it was adjusted again to $4.25, which would be $8.41.
Accordingly, if they wanted to be at least closer to honest, they'd be saying "the minimum wage is about a dollar and a quarter less than it should be to keep up with inflation since 1991", not "the minimum wage is less than half what it should be".
Monday, June 25, 2012
I Fucked Up Royally and Don't Know How to Get Out
It's no secret that the last 2 years have been an absolute hell for us.
The short and sweet timeline:
May 2010 my father nearly got killed in a car/motorscooter accident.
September 2010 a local judge sent our kids to Canada.
November 2010 Chris had a major health scare.
January 2011 Chris's brother Rob passed on. That was also the month we found the cancer. Oh, and the first time we were contacted by the IRS.
July 2011 Chris found out he would be laid off from his job that he'd held for 5 years.
August 2011 my grandfather passed on as well.
November 2011 Chris was officially laid off.
February 2012 Chris's mother passed on after a long battle with multiple cancers.
During this entire time we've been dealing with Chris's wildly inconsistent health issues, my health issues, IRS, money troubles, stress, dealing with legal issues surrounding the kids, business ventures that didn't pan out, etc. We've made multiple attempts at making life better but we seem to always get kicked in the nuts again. Now it turns out that Chris's promised bonus and stock options from the last job will not be given to him as agreed and my dad told me last week my grandmother has slipped into severe dementia.
On the other hand we're still alive, we're still together, and we don't give up easy (or at all really).
In fact once we get out of this situation I will be getting two new tattoos. One of Dory from Finding Nemo and the phrase "just keep swimming" and a modified version of the Ranger's Prayer.
As is often true though, I had to tell you that in order to tell you this.
I am mentally and emotionally ill. Not institutionalized-level, or not-safe-with-weapons level. More like "struggles with anxiety and depression on a daily, nay hourly basis" level.
I limped along and struggled along for a VERY long time. I have ADHD as well, and the trio of ADHD, depression, and anxiety is not in any way easy to deal with. But I managed somehow.
Turns out life occasionally gives you a shit sandwich so big that no amount of working around a problem will help. Once your life hits a certain point it's either sink or swim, mustang up or give up.
Like I said before, I don't give up.
I'd already spent years going through all of what was available to me for help. Therapy, self-help books, groups... none of it worked. And none of it was going to work until I made one discovery and one simple decision.
Yes, some of my issues are congenital and genetic and structural. Most of them aren't. Most of them are my doing.
Most therapy will tell you that the people around you influence you and your parents did a lot and and and... yes that's true. They all contributed. But I accepted what they told me. I let them influence me. Doesn't matter that I was a kid and under control and very easily influenced. I still internalized it. I have control over my mind and my emotions.
That's the discovery. I control my brain, mind, and emotions.
And damnit, if I can unconsciously fuck my mind, brain, and emotions up this badly, I can sure as hell un-fuck it all.
And there's the decision. I call it the Un-Fucking Project.
I hid how bad it was from Chris, so he made plans and decisions based on what he knew, and then surprise, here's $8000 in past due bills, or here's an electric bill and a car payment not paid for two months each.
The short and sweet timeline:
May 2010 my father nearly got killed in a car/motorscooter accident.
September 2010 a local judge sent our kids to Canada.
November 2010 Chris had a major health scare.
January 2011 Chris's brother Rob passed on. That was also the month we found the cancer. Oh, and the first time we were contacted by the IRS.
July 2011 Chris found out he would be laid off from his job that he'd held for 5 years.
August 2011 my grandfather passed on as well.
November 2011 Chris was officially laid off.
February 2012 Chris's mother passed on after a long battle with multiple cancers.
During this entire time we've been dealing with Chris's wildly inconsistent health issues, my health issues, IRS, money troubles, stress, dealing with legal issues surrounding the kids, business ventures that didn't pan out, etc. We've made multiple attempts at making life better but we seem to always get kicked in the nuts again. Now it turns out that Chris's promised bonus and stock options from the last job will not be given to him as agreed and my dad told me last week my grandmother has slipped into severe dementia.
On the other hand we're still alive, we're still together, and we don't give up easy (or at all really).
In fact once we get out of this situation I will be getting two new tattoos. One of Dory from Finding Nemo and the phrase "just keep swimming" and a modified version of the Ranger's Prayer.
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for I am the baddest bitch in this motherfucking valley."That's the philosophy that drags me out of bed every morning. That and a whole lotta faith.
As is often true though, I had to tell you that in order to tell you this.
I am mentally and emotionally ill. Not institutionalized-level, or not-safe-with-weapons level. More like "struggles with anxiety and depression on a daily, nay hourly basis" level.
I limped along and struggled along for a VERY long time. I have ADHD as well, and the trio of ADHD, depression, and anxiety is not in any way easy to deal with. But I managed somehow.
Turns out life occasionally gives you a shit sandwich so big that no amount of working around a problem will help. Once your life hits a certain point it's either sink or swim, mustang up or give up.
Like I said before, I don't give up.
I'd already spent years going through all of what was available to me for help. Therapy, self-help books, groups... none of it worked. And none of it was going to work until I made one discovery and one simple decision.
Yes, some of my issues are congenital and genetic and structural. Most of them aren't. Most of them are my doing.
Most therapy will tell you that the people around you influence you and your parents did a lot and and and... yes that's true. They all contributed. But I accepted what they told me. I let them influence me. Doesn't matter that I was a kid and under control and very easily influenced. I still internalized it. I have control over my mind and my emotions.
That's the discovery. I control my brain, mind, and emotions.
And damnit, if I can unconsciously fuck my mind, brain, and emotions up this badly, I can sure as hell un-fuck it all.
And there's the decision. I call it the Un-Fucking Project.
* * *
The Un-Fucking Project is an answer to a prayer, a cry in the wilderness as it were. I knew in order to be healthy I'd need to change almost every way in which I think, in which my mind works and my emotions work.
There's no map for this, no guidebook. Nobody can tell you how to be mentally and emotionally healthy.
Oh, they try. Millions of dollars in therapy sinkholes, and the therapy does work somewhat. But it doesn't address the core issue. Psychiatry as a whole has an unhealthy obsession with "normal", painting "normal" as the goal.
I don't want to be normal. I can't even define normal. Normal is a nebulous concept.
I decided normal isn't the goal, healthy and useful and under my control is the goal. This completely changes the dynamic; using "normal" as the goal means constantly comparing against someone else. "Healthy, useful, and under my control" means measuring my own progress against where I was before and analyzing based on whether or not what I'm doing is working better in my own life.
I could go on an on about the influences that brought me to this understanding, but it's a rather long list. Suffice it to say that I looked at how I was handling myself, looked at where I wanted to be, noted the HUGE gap with no concept of how to get there, and screamed for help.
Prayers get answered in the oddest ways and are never answered in the way in which you expect.
My prayers for help with my own mental state were answered with a complete stranger who introduced me to a way of thinking and analyzing and changing my own beliefs and ideas. Once I started applying what he'd taught me the world opened up and it was like putting on a pair of prescription glasses for the first time after being used to near blindness. The world looked full of detail and possibility.
I also saw every way in which I'd fucked up my life and the lives of those around me.
Un-Fucking is not for cowards it seems.
Fortunately I'd also been given the tools to not sink into despair, or guilt, or any other method of bringing the past along for the ride. Without those tools I would be sunk.
That's when I decided I needed to write this, that I needed to share this experience. I can't be the only one out there who struggles with a plethora of self-limiting thoughts and emotions and behaviors. Hell, since I determined part of the problem I had was dealing with the effects of a culture of learned helplessness I KNOW FOR A FACT I'm not the only one out there.
But that's for later. How I learned to remake my brain in the way I wanted it is a long and intense story and the tools I'm using deserve much more time and attention.
So here's the summary so far: Mel + really bad life events + mentally and emotional illness = must change how Mel deals.
* * *
Chris protected me from the fallout of my mental and emotional illness.
That's what he does. Among our friends I call it "White Knight Syndrome". He likes to protect, likes to help.
He also enabled me for a long, long time and thus delayed my hitting bottom. It wasn't enabling in the traditional "alcoholic/addict" sense, it was more like "Oh shit... She spent the rent money... Ok, well the rent has to be paid. I better go make some money or sell something and make sure it gets paid".
Part of how I expressed the illness was financial. If we had money, I'd spend it. Food, clothing, furniture, always necessities. But always gone. Much of the time I didn't even notice it happening; it was a deep-seated compulsion. Sometimes I fed it only off of savings. Sometimes payday loans and pawns were involved. Always convinced that if I didn't do "something" the money would disappear and we wouldn't be able to eat. Seriously. Not just convinced, absolutely mortally certain that if I didn't spend all the money we had on food, or clothes, or whatever, that we were all going to die.
That's what panic disorder is. You don't think. Your fight or flight instinct is all screwed up and it completely controls you, sometimes for hours at a time. You think that you are thinking, and reasoning, but really you aren't, you're just reacting, and overreacting and panicking. Sometimes you don't even really remember exactly what you did afterwards.
Chris took away my credit cards. He took away my bank account access. He limited my spending to just cash that he gave me. It didn't matter, I would find a way to make sure that whatever money we had would always be gone within a month or two. At first it was hoarding things, but then I found a way to make sure we never had any money. I found debt. I found online payday loans. I found pawnshops. I would take the money meant for paying the bills, and I would fill the deep freezer with food, then when the bills came due I would take out a payday loan or pawn something to pay for them, then when the payday loan came due or the pawn came due I would repeat the cycle getting deeper and deeper into a hole.
I was so ashamed, so scared that. I don't know what I was scared of, I only knew I felt like I would die if anyone found out. Especially if Chris found out. So I hid it from him. I lied to him.
That's what panic disorder is. You don't think. Your fight or flight instinct is all screwed up and it completely controls you, sometimes for hours at a time. You think that you are thinking, and reasoning, but really you aren't, you're just reacting, and overreacting and panicking. Sometimes you don't even really remember exactly what you did afterwards.
NOTE from Chris: Anyone who would misinterpret that statement as an indicator of serious mental illness, or that my wife is a danger to herself and others, you need to re-read what was written, and then go educate yourself about anxiety and panic disorders . It's reactions like that which make it impossible for people who have problems like this to admit it and deal with it. You are validating their greatest fear, which is that they will be destroyed by those they admit their problem to.
Second lookup what others have to say about anxiety disorder or panic disorder and you'll find they say similar things. It's not like a fugue state, or a psychotic break, or a blackout. You don't do things to hurt yourself or others. But you do get fixated on things, compulsive about things which you feel will "make you safe" etc... They feel... and feel isn't strong enough a word here... that i they don't do that thing, that they WILL die.
When they say things like "I didn't really remember exactly what I did afterwards", it's not like an alcoholic blackout, it's like when you get really angry and get into a fistfight as a kid, and you're not really sure how you got to that point. Or when you get carried away with a fun time, or a lover, or an argument, or ANY OTHER STRONG EMOTION; because that's what it is. At the time, you don't think that "hey, my emotions are running the show here, maybe I ought to stop and take time out to think rationally about this", because... your emotions are running the show. It's only afterwards that you can look back and say "Oh boy, I was an idiot there, and not thinking".
What it means, is that people who have this problem have the exact same emotions and reactions as everyone else, it's just that sometimes they have them stronger and it hits them harder.
What it absolutely does NOT mean, is that she (or anyone else who suffers panic attacks) is unsafe to carry a firearm.
Chris took away my credit cards. He took away my bank account access. He limited my spending to just cash that he gave me. It didn't matter, I would find a way to make sure that whatever money we had would always be gone within a month or two. At first it was hoarding things, but then I found a way to make sure we never had any money. I found debt. I found online payday loans. I found pawnshops. I would take the money meant for paying the bills, and I would fill the deep freezer with food, then when the bills came due I would take out a payday loan or pawn something to pay for them, then when the payday loan came due or the pawn came due I would repeat the cycle getting deeper and deeper into a hole.
I was so ashamed, so scared that. I don't know what I was scared of, I only knew I felt like I would die if anyone found out. Especially if Chris found out. So I hid it from him. I lied to him.
Fortunately or unfortunately, once the legal and medical bills started coming in I stopped doing that because there wasn't any cushion, any extra money. All extra went to legal and medical bills.
But the moment any money came in that wasn't assigned to the necessities of life, I made sure it disappeared.
You have to understand, I wasn't going out and buying diamond rings and fancy dinners, and living beyond our means. It wasn't anything like that. It was my mental and emotional illness in control, and me buying $1500 worth of frozen food. Or driving to Spokane or Coeur D'alene 10 days in a row to shop for "necessities" and "emergency supplies" and things like that.
Every few months, I would stop being able to hide it. Someone would come to shut the power off, and Chris would find out. Or Chris would run a credit check on us, and see collection notices on bills that were supposed to have been paid. Or my personal bank account would be so overdrawn that the bank would take money from our household account to cover it.
Then he would go and find a way to pay the bills again. And take the money and the cards and the checkbooks away from me again.
Eventually I didn't have to do it anymore, because there was always something unpaid. Always something growing interest and penalties and fees. Always more legal bills. Always more medical bills.
And it wasn't just money. I would do the same thing with our other problems too. I would get all the mail for a week, and just put it in a box unopened, pretending that if I didn't read it, it wasn't a problem. I would hide legal notices, bills, collection letters. I kept acting like if I ignored everything wrong it would just go away. Because I was terrified that if anyone knew what was wrong, I would die. Not figuratively die, not be upset or uncomfortable, I absolutely and completely and certain knew with all my being that I would literally die.
And then Chris got really sick, and I had to take care of everything else because it was all he could do to work. He had no energy, no focus, no time. Just enough to work to pay the bills. And I had to take care of the bills and the shopping and the house, and as soon as we had money again, I would start doing it again.
After Chris was laid off, and we got our severance (at least what was left of it after the IRS), he paid off a bunch of the debt and bills and collections. But then we had no money coming in for 8 months.
Now, he's been working again the last two months, but he's working 12 or 13 hours a day, and again he has no time and no energy for anything other than working to pay the bills. So I have to take care of everything again. And I've been screwing it up again.
You have to understand, I wasn't going out and buying diamond rings and fancy dinners, and living beyond our means. It wasn't anything like that. It was my mental and emotional illness in control, and me buying $1500 worth of frozen food. Or driving to Spokane or Coeur D'alene 10 days in a row to shop for "necessities" and "emergency supplies" and things like that.
Every few months, I would stop being able to hide it. Someone would come to shut the power off, and Chris would find out. Or Chris would run a credit check on us, and see collection notices on bills that were supposed to have been paid. Or my personal bank account would be so overdrawn that the bank would take money from our household account to cover it.
Then he would go and find a way to pay the bills again. And take the money and the cards and the checkbooks away from me again.
Eventually I didn't have to do it anymore, because there was always something unpaid. Always something growing interest and penalties and fees. Always more legal bills. Always more medical bills.
And it wasn't just money. I would do the same thing with our other problems too. I would get all the mail for a week, and just put it in a box unopened, pretending that if I didn't read it, it wasn't a problem. I would hide legal notices, bills, collection letters. I kept acting like if I ignored everything wrong it would just go away. Because I was terrified that if anyone knew what was wrong, I would die. Not figuratively die, not be upset or uncomfortable, I absolutely and completely and certain knew with all my being that I would literally die.
And then Chris got really sick, and I had to take care of everything else because it was all he could do to work. He had no energy, no focus, no time. Just enough to work to pay the bills. And I had to take care of the bills and the shopping and the house, and as soon as we had money again, I would start doing it again.
After Chris was laid off, and we got our severance (at least what was left of it after the IRS), he paid off a bunch of the debt and bills and collections. But then we had no money coming in for 8 months.
Now, he's been working again the last two months, but he's working 12 or 13 hours a day, and again he has no time and no energy for anything other than working to pay the bills. So I have to take care of everything again. And I've been screwing it up again.
Chris has been protecting me from the fallout. Like I said, he does that. He loves me and he protects me.
I hid how bad it was from Chris, so he made plans and decisions based on what he knew, and then surprise, here's $8000 in past due bills, or here's an electric bill and a car payment not paid for two months each.
Unfortunately that's left us absolutely fucked, in a deep hole, with Chris making barely enough to cover the bills, and us completely fucked over by the loss of his bonus and stocks. We're currently 2 months behind on almost everything and NO cushion with which to pay down the debt that I racked up. And make no mistake, it's the debt that's killing us.
The money is coming in, but I got us so far behind, it isn't coming in fast enough enough to dig out of the hole. If it weren't for us being so far behind we'd be OK. It's not the new bills that are the problem, we make enough to cover the bills and be OK. It's the things I didn't pay, or paid late, or had fees on or, I think you get the picture.
The bonus and stock were supposed to get us out of the hole. It was supposed to be more than enough to cover all the outstanding debt (except the car and the truck) and give us a little emergency fund. Only we found out in May that Chris's previous employer screwed it up (some paperwork was filed wrong on their part, and something we were told when Chris was laid off was changed a few months later and we weren't notified, and by the time we found out it was too late to fix it), and we would be getting nothing.
I was counting on that money, to fix my mistakes. To let us start back up from level ground instead of deep in a hole.
The money is coming in, but I got us so far behind, it isn't coming in fast enough enough to dig out of the hole. If it weren't for us being so far behind we'd be OK. It's not the new bills that are the problem, we make enough to cover the bills and be OK. It's the things I didn't pay, or paid late, or had fees on or, I think you get the picture.
The bonus and stock were supposed to get us out of the hole. It was supposed to be more than enough to cover all the outstanding debt (except the car and the truck) and give us a little emergency fund. Only we found out in May that Chris's previous employer screwed it up (some paperwork was filed wrong on their part, and something we were told when Chris was laid off was changed a few months later and we weren't notified, and by the time we found out it was too late to fix it), and we would be getting nothing.
I was counting on that money, to fix my mistakes. To let us start back up from level ground instead of deep in a hole.
NOTE from Chris: For anyone who choose to take this time to celebrate our difficulties, or say "I told you so", or any other such thing, or for those assuming that we are somehow living beyond our means, or even making bad financial decisions. Suggesting that I am being irresponsible by owning a Cadillac (which I paid less than the price of a used accord for, is utterly reliable, gets 26mpg, and after depreciation still have about $6k net positive equity in), and a "big shiny black truck" (which I paid half book for and in which I have about $10k net positive equity in), suggesting that we should drive $500 beaters (which are unreliable and maintenance hogs), and that we should declare bankruptcy and move to a shithole appartment (which by the way don't take three large dogs, and would cost MORE than we currently pay where we live - the advantage of living in the middle of nowhere- Oh and then there's the several thousand dollar upfront cost of moving)... and are clearly passing moral judgement on the fact that my wife has a mental and emotional issue with money...
Perhaps you should re-read what has been written here, and what I have written in the past about our financial situation.
As of right now, we are about $4,000 behind on bills. We also have a pawn ($800, on a $2500 item), and a payday loan of $280 to pay off.
As of right now, including the various payments on the outstanding balances, payments on back bills etc... I'm taking home almost exactly what we're putting out. That would be because I took a 45% pay cut, because with my health I couldn't deal with a 100% travel job anymore (otherwise we'd be making more than we were making before I got laid off).
Oh and that would also be, because our truck loan was sold on to a servicer with a universal default clause in the contract (which we didn't have a chance to deal with by the way. It was either accept the terms or cash out the loan, and by the time we even got the notice we were sold, it was too late to cash the loan out), and when my wifes problems got us into a default on a small medical bill, the loan servicer jacked out interest rate up into "penalty rate", DOUBLING the interest (and basically doubling the payment). I would have refinanced immediately, but right at that time, I got laid off, and with no permanent full time income, I couldn't. Now that I'm working again, once we're caught up and I get six months at the new job (four months from now), I will be refinancing the truck with my credit union, dropping several hundred a month from our monthly bills (they've already said they can do that for us).
Once we can catch up, and stop incurring more fees, interest, etc... on the hole we're in, we're going to be a few hundred net positive a month. If I can get the truck refinanced and the car and/or trailer paid off in the next few months (we owe about the same balance on each, at about the same interest rate, but the car payment is more than double the trailer payment) we'll be something more like $1000 a month net positive.
Once I can spend some time on the gunsmithing work (which by the by, I now have a several month at least backlog on, and am merely waiting for paperwork to be finished up, processed, and cleared) we're going to be just fine.
And of course, that is all before Mel finds another job. Even at $10 an hour, that's still another $1200 or so a month net positive after taxes etc...
The problem is getting out of the current hole, and making it to the points above.
I have paid all my personal unsecured debt except to one person, who gave us a long term interest free loan, to help with the child custody case. Anyone who has asked for their money back on the cookbook, we have given it back. The bonus and stock sale was going to wipe ALL that debt, and not getting them, as we were contractually promised, is why we are where we are. I could sue to recover that money, but that would cost more than the expected return by far, take years, and probably ruin my professional reputation and career.
We have about $5k in credit card debt at a reasonable interest rate (6.6%). We have the car, the truck, and the trailer, to pay off; at a total of about $28k outstanding. Right now, all three have a combined resale value of about $50k (and I have a motorcycle worth about $5k on top of it, that I paid cash for).
The only other major outstanding liability we have is doing a print run of cookbooks, which will cost approximately $2,000. The cookbook has been completed in terms of content for years now (though we are still working on new photos. The old photos weren't great quality, and most of them were lost when our old NAS box died, and the backup turned out to be corrupt). The bonus and stock were going to cover that too. That's why in December I said we would have it out by the end of April.
Our problem isn't bad decisions, or immoral choices, or living beyond our means. Our problem is we had to take a huge pay cut, got screwed over by the IRS, and my wife has an illness that screws up how she deals with money.
I got us in this position. When times were flush I made sure we never held on to anything. Now we're selling pretty much everything we have to make ends meet.
I don't know what to do. I fucked it all up, and I'm fixing my shit so I never do it again, but I don't know how to fix the financial spot we're in. I have lots of ideas for the long term, but in the short term we might lose everything. There's $2000 between us and possibly losing the car and truck and therefore our transportation. Chris says he might have to sell the motorcycle. Since it's the only thing keeping him sane while we sort through everything, I REALLY don't want to sell it. The only guns we have left are the personal protection armory which is at this point really, really small. If I sell my personal carry guns Chris will kill me (not literally of course, but close enough).
I don't know what to do. I'm at a complete loss.
Does anyone out there have any ideas?
Mel
EDIT from Mel:
There's been some misunderstanding about the true problem here.
The problem isn't money or spending or spending addiction. It's what fuels the behavior that's the problem.
Fear and anxiety are the crux of the problem. I grew up with no money with parents who had/have issues of their own. In order to rationalize their issues they taught us that money is evil and that wanting more than is necessary to eat and keep a roof over our heads was inherently evil and sinful. In many ways my father still feels that way. When you think money is evil you do everything you can to avoid having any. When you believe that being wealthy is inherently wrong and evil (and believe everything that's done to become wealthy is inherently wrong and evil) you do everything in your power to avoid keeping money. Doesn't matter if consciously you know better, it's the internalized fear that counts.
Add to that being starved by my ex-husband, and then the fear turns into "I must spend every penny on necessities or I will die." That last bit is very important. Or I will die. The moment your life is in danger, real or otherwise, you do whatever is necessary to protect it. If that means taking all cash and turning it into food and sundries, that's what you do.
My compulsive fear is literally, that people who have money are evil, and they will come to kill us if we have money, therefore I MUST make us poor, because if I make us poor we won't be evil anymore and they won't come to kill us.
So it doesn't matter how much we spend, or don't spend, or what we spend it on; the compulsion is I HAVE TO GET RID OF ALL THE MONEY NOW OR WE WILL DIE.
So it's not the spending that's the problem. The fear is the problem.
Those aren't the only fears I forced myself to root out and destroy. One of the other major fears involves social fear and fear of vulnerability.
If I show myself as vulnerable and as who I am, I will be cast out and I will die.
That's the fear. It's deep, it's very primal, but it's also very learned. It's not something I was born with.
Part of posting about what I'm struggling with is taking that fear and facing it head-on and proving it to be wrong. I will not die. If I'm cast out, it's only by people I don't give a damn about.
Everything I'm doing is about facing fear and proving that every single bit of mental and emotionally programming I've internalized and done to myself is utterly false.
So in short, it's not about money. That's just one of the ways in which the true issues are expressed. I don't need to hit bottom on money. I don't need to destroy my life. I don't need to get rid of my car, or my truck, or anything else because the problem isn't money.
The bottom I had to hit, and I did hit, came down to a choice. Either I control myself and my mind and my emotions, or I don't. Either I keep buying into every piece of bullshit that I was raised with, educated in, and internalized myself, or I don't. It's not one part of my life I'm grappling with, it's EVERYTHING CONCERNING WHO I AM.
So I face the fears, one by one, and prove that everything I thought I knew was wrong. I'm beating the crap out of the learned helplessness I'd been conditioned to believe as the utter truth.
EDIT from Chris:
I want to be clear about three things here.
First, I overreacted to a comment earlier, and responded to it angrily, rather than in an explanatory mode. I apologize, as that is not useful; however I have a real problem with the presumption that some people seem to make about money issues, and about emotional illnesses. I edited my responses inline with the post above, to perhaps explain the situation better.
Second, I have nothing to do with this post, except in that I love and support my wife, and am doing everything I can to help her get better; while at the same time doing everything I can to keep our family going.
Last week, after several days of very bad emotional wrangling, I told her that she wasn't going to be able to move on past her shame spiral if she constantly had it hanging over her head; and that the only way she'd be able to do so was to admit it publicly. She decided that I was right. This was that public admission. I wasn't exactly expecting that last part frankly, but it's what she wanted to say and how she wanted to say it.
Second, we are NOT asking for money from our readers, even obliquely. Every time we mention our problems here, people send us money. We are NOT asking for money. This isn't begging for money, it's my wife making a public confession of her problem, so she can try to get control of it.
Even if I were going to ask for money, we still haven't finished the new print version of the cookbook, and I wouldn't dare until we did. I still have promises outstanding that I need to keep before I can ever even think of asking for help.
This is not a matter of losing our children, or our house, or even the cars. If it were about the kids, then yes, pride or circumstances be damned, I'd be begging. But it's not. This is a problem we got ourselves into, no matter the circumstances, and will get ourselves out of.
Yes, it is a matter of selling a bunch of "stuff", but we have stuff to sell. We are going to get raped on selling it, but that's our problem to deal with.
EDIT from Mel:
There's been some misunderstanding about the true problem here.
The problem isn't money or spending or spending addiction. It's what fuels the behavior that's the problem.
Fear and anxiety are the crux of the problem. I grew up with no money with parents who had/have issues of their own. In order to rationalize their issues they taught us that money is evil and that wanting more than is necessary to eat and keep a roof over our heads was inherently evil and sinful. In many ways my father still feels that way. When you think money is evil you do everything you can to avoid having any. When you believe that being wealthy is inherently wrong and evil (and believe everything that's done to become wealthy is inherently wrong and evil) you do everything in your power to avoid keeping money. Doesn't matter if consciously you know better, it's the internalized fear that counts.
Add to that being starved by my ex-husband, and then the fear turns into "I must spend every penny on necessities or I will die." That last bit is very important. Or I will die. The moment your life is in danger, real or otherwise, you do whatever is necessary to protect it. If that means taking all cash and turning it into food and sundries, that's what you do.
My compulsive fear is literally, that people who have money are evil, and they will come to kill us if we have money, therefore I MUST make us poor, because if I make us poor we won't be evil anymore and they won't come to kill us.
So it doesn't matter how much we spend, or don't spend, or what we spend it on; the compulsion is I HAVE TO GET RID OF ALL THE MONEY NOW OR WE WILL DIE.
So it's not the spending that's the problem. The fear is the problem.
Those aren't the only fears I forced myself to root out and destroy. One of the other major fears involves social fear and fear of vulnerability.
If I show myself as vulnerable and as who I am, I will be cast out and I will die.
That's the fear. It's deep, it's very primal, but it's also very learned. It's not something I was born with.
Part of posting about what I'm struggling with is taking that fear and facing it head-on and proving it to be wrong. I will not die. If I'm cast out, it's only by people I don't give a damn about.
Everything I'm doing is about facing fear and proving that every single bit of mental and emotionally programming I've internalized and done to myself is utterly false.
So in short, it's not about money. That's just one of the ways in which the true issues are expressed. I don't need to hit bottom on money. I don't need to destroy my life. I don't need to get rid of my car, or my truck, or anything else because the problem isn't money.
The bottom I had to hit, and I did hit, came down to a choice. Either I control myself and my mind and my emotions, or I don't. Either I keep buying into every piece of bullshit that I was raised with, educated in, and internalized myself, or I don't. It's not one part of my life I'm grappling with, it's EVERYTHING CONCERNING WHO I AM.
So I face the fears, one by one, and prove that everything I thought I knew was wrong. I'm beating the crap out of the learned helplessness I'd been conditioned to believe as the utter truth.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The only one you can "Beat" in a salary negotiation, is yourself
A poster on the guncounter forums pointed me to this article on salary negotiation:
Salary Negotiation: Make More Money, Be More Valued
I thought it was interesting and useful enough to share; and more than a little relevant to my current circumstances.
However, I also wanted to point out a few things the article didn't go into, or to my mind, didn't go into enough.
Unfortunately, I have recently conducted two unsuccessful salary negotiations. Unsuccessful in both cases, because both companies set a certain expectation of skill and career level coming into the interview process, but decided to try to pay at a lower career/skill level rate once it came time to negotiate.
We're not talking a small difference either; we're talking a 30% plus difference, such that their max rate for the position was below my "I can pay my bills with this" level.
I found out later talking with some contacts, that they had gone through similar issues with those two companies (both are contracting agencies). Apparently these positions have gone unfilled for a long time, because the companies have painted themselves into a corner where they can only bill so much, but the skillset and experience they need to complete the jobs are priced by the market at higher than they can bill, never mind what they are willing to pay.
That's one of the first points I wanted to bring up that wasn't addressed in the linked piece.
It's an unfortunate fact of life, that often, companies are VERY unrealistic as to what they need to pay, to get the skills and experience they need (or at least that they are asking for). Not only that, but they are often very pissy about it, acting as if you should be grateful for the opportunity to be stupidly underpaid.
DO NOT accept a job with such a company, unless you are desperate to pay your bills, and plan on finding another gig as soon as possible. Trust me, no good will come of it.
My personal recommendation, is never take a job whose takehome won't cover your bills plus 20%, AND never take a job for more than 10% below market.
You might think you can get in, wow them, and get paid what you're worth through raises in the first year or two. While that was once true, it hasn't really been true for years. These days, in most companies the only way to get more than 3%-5% a year, is to change jobs.
There is a very strong impulse to be polite in our culture; particularly when you are trying to make a good impression on a new prospective employer. A lot of people don't want to ruffle feathers or "create a bad impression" etc... in being a tough negotiator on their salary.
This feeling is entirely wrong.
You certainly don't want to be "difficult" or unreasonable, but you are negotiating for your primary source of income. If you don't ask for what you are worth, the person you are negotiating with will not respect you, and if you get the job, they will not value you as highly as you should be valued.
The linked piece mentions this, but I wanted to bring it up again for more emphasis.
There IS one major thing, which they kinda touched on but didn't specifically emphasize enough to my mind:
In a salary negotiation, the only person you can "beat" is yourself. It's not about you winning, and the company losing. If you approach it that way, you WILL be the one losing.
A salary negotiation is about coming to a mutually beneficial arrangement. A two way handshake where you are both happy with the result, and HOPEFULLY both feel you got a good deal.
Understanding the current market value of your skillset, and the position you are applying for (or for renegotiation at raise time, your current position), your direct net economic value to the company, and your requirements for compensation, are critical to achieving the win win position.
If you don't understand what the market is paying for your skillset, or for the skillset the company is asking for (very experienced people will often find that most jobs they apply for will only use a small portion of their skillset), you need to start researching.
There are literally hundreds of web sites where you can find these things out, even for very obscure and specific skills and positions. And there's always your network of colleagues and contacts with similar skillsets and experience (and you absolutely should use their knowledge and experience to help you).
Basically, If you can't find salary data, and benefits comparison, for your skillset and career level, you aren't looking very hard.
Also remember, there are a lot of considerations other than cash compensation. The cost of living, and general quality of life in your home area (or relocation area) is a HUGE consideration. So is the amount of free time you'll have with the job, the benefits package, the non salary compensation (bonuses, profit sharing, benefits offset compensation, non-cash premiums etc...).
All of these together add up to the total package value; and it's the total package value you are negotiation. The salary is just one part of that total value.
The next part of the question is your actual cost to the company.
Your cost to the company as an employee is, as the linked article said, typically somewhere between 1.5 and 2 times your gross salary. Assume 2x for the purposes of negotiation.
Your cost to the company, must be offset by sufficient value to make you worth hiring.
Your value to the company, in revenue, cost avoidance, or cost savings; must be at least 3x your gross salary, and preferably 4x or more, for the company to realize enough value from its expenditure on you to reach a breakeven proposition (at least for large enterprises. Small businesses generally have lower overhead per employee, and also have a lower level of realized value where it's "worth it").
So, for a large enterprise, 3x is about the minimum realized value to cost multiplier for a reasonably well managed company, and smart management tries to get over 7x if they can.
That multiplier turns into a revenue per employee number; which is one way analysts judge the profitability and earnings potential of a publicly traded company.
A well managed, efficiently run company will have a MINIMUM gross revenue per employee of about $200,000. Very well managed companies are often into the $1 million or more.
Pepsico, which has very large manufacturing and transport operations (which are very inefficient business sectors overall), has an average salary of about $70,000 per year, on an average revenue per employee of just under $200,000 per year (slightly under 3x).
They are a "worst case" example, of an operation that is highly profitable, but simply cannot be much more cost efficient. They don't have any wiggle room in their employee cost, because of their huge legacy overhheads and structural inefficiencies (which are not really fixable); but they have spent decades pounding those costs down to the point that they are as efficient as they possibly can be.
Google has an average salary of about $140,000 per year on an average revenue of about $1.9 million per employee (about 13.5x). Google is a "best case" example, of a company with extremely high gross productivity, and an inherently cost efficient structure, and business segment. It's nearly impossible to be more efficient than Google; and they have a LOT of wiggle room on their employee costs.
What all that breaks down to is YES, seriously, in order to be worth hiring someone at $50,000, that person has to generate at least $150,000 or they are a at best a breakeven proposition to the company; and at least $200,000 to really be worth bothering to hire.
If you want to make $150,000 you need to be worth $600,000.
There are only two common exceptions to this rule of thumb (lots of uncommon exceptions in odd market corners though):
Now remember, these are the maximums they will want to pay you and still make good money off your services. They're going to want to cut that down a bit and make more money off you; and that's not exploitation, that's business.
Most companies will try to start their negotiating position at about 1/2 what they think they can make money on. So, if they can charge $150 an hour for you, and they start making money at a gross cost of $125 a hour, they're going to want to start their negotiation at around $65 an hour W2.
You know that they can still make good money on you at $85 an hour W2.
You know that the absolute maximum they could possibly pay is $95 an hour, and that's unlikely.
Those are your negotiating boundaries.
If you don't know what rate they're getting from the client, a decent rule of thumb is to take the salary of a full time permanent position in thousands, cut it in half, and that's the maximum dollars per hour they are going to want to pay you on W2.
It isn't necessary the maximum they WILL pay, but it's the maximum they will want to pay. The absolute maximum they WILL pay, is a little more complicated, and is based on how much they can charge the client, and how little they are willing to take over your rate.
On that contract they're probably charging the client about 1.5x to 1.75 times the permanent salary (though it may be as little as 1.35 to as much as 2x), divided by 2000 hours.
So, on what would be a $150,000 a year full time position; they're probably charging around $125 to $130 an hour, but may be charging as much as $150, or as little as $105 (if it's that little, it's as a loss leader or special rate for a big client, and the normal percentages go out the window. You'll probably get a max of about $65 W2 for that, about $5 more than you would max out at otherwise).
If they're charging $130, you might be able to get them up to $85 an hour 1099 but they're much more likely to top out around $80. If they're charging $150 though, you may get from $90 up to an absolute max of around $105 (again, that top number is if they're both desperate, and extremely efficient. $95 is much more realistic). On W2, you've got a range topping out at $95 or so if they're desperate, and getting $150 an hour; going down as low as somewhere in the $65-75 range if they're only getting $125 or $130.
Thus, the most they're going to want to pay you W2 is $75, but you MAY be able to negotiate up to $95; and the most they're going to want to pay 1099 is probably $90, but you may be able to negotiate up to as much as $105.
Now, one more thing...
How do you figure out your economic value to the company?
Honestly, this one is about understanding your business, not just your job, and it's something I can't help you with.
That said, it's something you ABSOLUTELY MUST be able to evaluate, and to communicate to others. You don't necessarily need to be able to put a hard number to it (though it's very useful if you can), but you need to be able to at least understand and estimate it to within a reasonable approximation; unless you can clearly communicate that the number is well over 4x your cost to the company.
If you can't communicate your value, you will never be paid what you are worth... or anywhere near it; and you will never reach a senior level in your field.
Salary Negotiation: Make More Money, Be More Valued
I thought it was interesting and useful enough to share; and more than a little relevant to my current circumstances.
However, I also wanted to point out a few things the article didn't go into, or to my mind, didn't go into enough.
Unfortunately, I have recently conducted two unsuccessful salary negotiations. Unsuccessful in both cases, because both companies set a certain expectation of skill and career level coming into the interview process, but decided to try to pay at a lower career/skill level rate once it came time to negotiate.
We're not talking a small difference either; we're talking a 30% plus difference, such that their max rate for the position was below my "I can pay my bills with this" level.
I found out later talking with some contacts, that they had gone through similar issues with those two companies (both are contracting agencies). Apparently these positions have gone unfilled for a long time, because the companies have painted themselves into a corner where they can only bill so much, but the skillset and experience they need to complete the jobs are priced by the market at higher than they can bill, never mind what they are willing to pay.
That's one of the first points I wanted to bring up that wasn't addressed in the linked piece.
It's an unfortunate fact of life, that often, companies are VERY unrealistic as to what they need to pay, to get the skills and experience they need (or at least that they are asking for). Not only that, but they are often very pissy about it, acting as if you should be grateful for the opportunity to be stupidly underpaid.
DO NOT accept a job with such a company, unless you are desperate to pay your bills, and plan on finding another gig as soon as possible. Trust me, no good will come of it.
My personal recommendation, is never take a job whose takehome won't cover your bills plus 20%, AND never take a job for more than 10% below market.
You might think you can get in, wow them, and get paid what you're worth through raises in the first year or two. While that was once true, it hasn't really been true for years. These days, in most companies the only way to get more than 3%-5% a year, is to change jobs.
There is a very strong impulse to be polite in our culture; particularly when you are trying to make a good impression on a new prospective employer. A lot of people don't want to ruffle feathers or "create a bad impression" etc... in being a tough negotiator on their salary.
This feeling is entirely wrong.
You certainly don't want to be "difficult" or unreasonable, but you are negotiating for your primary source of income. If you don't ask for what you are worth, the person you are negotiating with will not respect you, and if you get the job, they will not value you as highly as you should be valued.
The linked piece mentions this, but I wanted to bring it up again for more emphasis.
There IS one major thing, which they kinda touched on but didn't specifically emphasize enough to my mind:
In a salary negotiation, the only person you can "beat" is yourself. It's not about you winning, and the company losing. If you approach it that way, you WILL be the one losing.
A salary negotiation is about coming to a mutually beneficial arrangement. A two way handshake where you are both happy with the result, and HOPEFULLY both feel you got a good deal.
Understanding the current market value of your skillset, and the position you are applying for (or for renegotiation at raise time, your current position), your direct net economic value to the company, and your requirements for compensation, are critical to achieving the win win position.
If you don't understand what the market is paying for your skillset, or for the skillset the company is asking for (very experienced people will often find that most jobs they apply for will only use a small portion of their skillset), you need to start researching.
There are literally hundreds of web sites where you can find these things out, even for very obscure and specific skills and positions. And there's always your network of colleagues and contacts with similar skillsets and experience (and you absolutely should use their knowledge and experience to help you).
Basically, If you can't find salary data, and benefits comparison, for your skillset and career level, you aren't looking very hard.
Also remember, there are a lot of considerations other than cash compensation. The cost of living, and general quality of life in your home area (or relocation area) is a HUGE consideration. So is the amount of free time you'll have with the job, the benefits package, the non salary compensation (bonuses, profit sharing, benefits offset compensation, non-cash premiums etc...).
All of these together add up to the total package value; and it's the total package value you are negotiation. The salary is just one part of that total value.
The next part of the question is your actual cost to the company.
Your cost to the company as an employee is, as the linked article said, typically somewhere between 1.5 and 2 times your gross salary. Assume 2x for the purposes of negotiation.
Your cost to the company, must be offset by sufficient value to make you worth hiring.
Your value to the company, in revenue, cost avoidance, or cost savings; must be at least 3x your gross salary, and preferably 4x or more, for the company to realize enough value from its expenditure on you to reach a breakeven proposition (at least for large enterprises. Small businesses generally have lower overhead per employee, and also have a lower level of realized value where it's "worth it").
So, for a large enterprise, 3x is about the minimum realized value to cost multiplier for a reasonably well managed company, and smart management tries to get over 7x if they can.
That multiplier turns into a revenue per employee number; which is one way analysts judge the profitability and earnings potential of a publicly traded company.
A well managed, efficiently run company will have a MINIMUM gross revenue per employee of about $200,000. Very well managed companies are often into the $1 million or more.
Pepsico, which has very large manufacturing and transport operations (which are very inefficient business sectors overall), has an average salary of about $70,000 per year, on an average revenue per employee of just under $200,000 per year (slightly under 3x).
They are a "worst case" example, of an operation that is highly profitable, but simply cannot be much more cost efficient. They don't have any wiggle room in their employee cost, because of their huge legacy overhheads and structural inefficiencies (which are not really fixable); but they have spent decades pounding those costs down to the point that they are as efficient as they possibly can be.
Google has an average salary of about $140,000 per year on an average revenue of about $1.9 million per employee (about 13.5x). Google is a "best case" example, of a company with extremely high gross productivity, and an inherently cost efficient structure, and business segment. It's nearly impossible to be more efficient than Google; and they have a LOT of wiggle room on their employee costs.
What all that breaks down to is YES, seriously, in order to be worth hiring someone at $50,000, that person has to generate at least $150,000 or they are a at best a breakeven proposition to the company; and at least $200,000 to really be worth bothering to hire.
If you want to make $150,000 you need to be worth $600,000.
There are only two common exceptions to this rule of thumb (lots of uncommon exceptions in odd market corners though):
- If you are an independent contractor on 1099 or corp-to-corp, where the company you are contracting with has no benefit or tax burden associated with you, and no (or minimal) office and facilities cost to employ you. In that case you only need to provide 2x your gross salary to be a net positive value (or even 1.5x in a very small, very efficient operation, and you are relatively highly compensated).
- If you work for a company that provides your services as a service to other companies (a contracting agency, professional services organization or consultancy); in which case they can make money (barely) at about 25% over your gross costs to them.
So if the company can charge $150 an hour for you, they can start making acceptable money on a gross cost of $120 an hour. Remember, there's still about a 20% overhead even on a 1099, and about a 35% overhead on a W2, presuming they are reasonably well managed and efficient; and that has to be factored into the gross cost.
That's for very well managed, very efficient companies. A lot of places aren't so well managed, and they may have another $5 or even $10 an hour in costs; and they'll need to pay less accordingly. You will NEVER see a contracting company take less than $25 an hour on their gross cost for your labor, and they'll try to take a minimum of $35 to $40.
Given this, if they're getting $150 an hour from the client, they're going to want a maximum labor cost of $110 an hour, but may go as high as $115, or in dire need $125. That includes your wage plus the overhead of about 20% on 1099 and about 35% on W2, so the highest they're ever going to go is something like $105 on 1099 and $95 on W2, and much more realistic is $90 1099 and $80 on W2.
Now remember, these are the maximums they will want to pay you and still make good money off your services. They're going to want to cut that down a bit and make more money off you; and that's not exploitation, that's business.
Most companies will try to start their negotiating position at about 1/2 what they think they can make money on. So, if they can charge $150 an hour for you, and they start making money at a gross cost of $125 a hour, they're going to want to start their negotiation at around $65 an hour W2.
You know that they can still make good money on you at $85 an hour W2.
You know that the absolute maximum they could possibly pay is $95 an hour, and that's unlikely.
Those are your negotiating boundaries.
If you don't know what rate they're getting from the client, a decent rule of thumb is to take the salary of a full time permanent position in thousands, cut it in half, and that's the maximum dollars per hour they are going to want to pay you on W2.
It isn't necessary the maximum they WILL pay, but it's the maximum they will want to pay. The absolute maximum they WILL pay, is a little more complicated, and is based on how much they can charge the client, and how little they are willing to take over your rate.
On that contract they're probably charging the client about 1.5x to 1.75 times the permanent salary (though it may be as little as 1.35 to as much as 2x), divided by 2000 hours.
So, on what would be a $150,000 a year full time position; they're probably charging around $125 to $130 an hour, but may be charging as much as $150, or as little as $105 (if it's that little, it's as a loss leader or special rate for a big client, and the normal percentages go out the window. You'll probably get a max of about $65 W2 for that, about $5 more than you would max out at otherwise).
If they're charging $130, you might be able to get them up to $85 an hour 1099 but they're much more likely to top out around $80. If they're charging $150 though, you may get from $90 up to an absolute max of around $105 (again, that top number is if they're both desperate, and extremely efficient. $95 is much more realistic). On W2, you've got a range topping out at $95 or so if they're desperate, and getting $150 an hour; going down as low as somewhere in the $65-75 range if they're only getting $125 or $130.
Thus, the most they're going to want to pay you W2 is $75, but you MAY be able to negotiate up to $95; and the most they're going to want to pay 1099 is probably $90, but you may be able to negotiate up to as much as $105.
Now, one more thing...
How do you figure out your economic value to the company?
Honestly, this one is about understanding your business, not just your job, and it's something I can't help you with.
That said, it's something you ABSOLUTELY MUST be able to evaluate, and to communicate to others. You don't necessarily need to be able to put a hard number to it (though it's very useful if you can), but you need to be able to at least understand and estimate it to within a reasonable approximation; unless you can clearly communicate that the number is well over 4x your cost to the company.
If you can't communicate your value, you will never be paid what you are worth... or anywhere near it; and you will never reach a senior level in your field.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
The title of the graph alone explains a hell of a lot...
In case you don't understand my comment in the title, let me explain.
First, let's get the surface argument out of the way.
It's rather obvious to anyone with the slightest knowledge of economics (sadly, that excludes much of the general population)... or even basic math; that for a given level of productivity, someone with twice as many days off, is producing far less value for their employers.
That IS the point of employing someone after all... Obtaining economic value from them. While leftists seem to believe that business should exist solely to provide employment to people who want it; thankfully businesses still exist to make money (at least in the U.S. ... for now anyway).
While some may argue that more time off makes employees more productive, that is only true to a certain point (though that point is different for everyone). Once you pass that point, that employees gross productivity is reduced.
Frankly, I'm pretty sure that point is something lower than 35 days, for almost everyone, in almost every job.
Now, this is just me... but I don't see how I could take that much time off.
At my last job I got 25 days a year paid time off, plus 11 company holidays (and if a holiday fell on a non-work day, we got a compensatory time off day either the next week, or as a floating holiday). Every year, I hit my maximum carryover of five days. So, I actually had a total of 41 paid weekdays off per year, and of course, 104 weekend days a year; for a total of 145 days off. 365 days a year, 145 days off... That's one out of every 2 and a half days.
I just couldn't take that many days. In November and December, I had to take extra WEEKS off, just to get down to the five day carryover point. That is not enhancing productivity.
But the bigger point is one of basic principle, illustrated by the graphs title...
No-one is ENTITLED to ANYTHING in the course of voluntary employment, including wages; and at the most fundamental live, including you job itself. Your job isn't "yours", and you have no right or title to it.
Paid time off (other than government mandated paid time off) isn't an entitlement, it is a benefit provided by employers, as an incentive to attract and retain employees; and to improve productivity (a happy and well rested employee is far more productive).
Health insurance, is also not an entitlement. It is a benefit provided to attract and retain employees, and to improve productivity.
In fact, just about everything employees receive from their employers (excepting wages and soul crushing stress) are benefits; most of which are of benefit to your employer as well (as it is very expensive to find and train new employees, and unhappy or sick employees are not productive).
You are not ENTITLED to wages either. Both wages and benefits, are consideration provided in exchange for your labor and business benefit in the course of your employment.
Oh and by the way, you DO have an employment contract, even if it's not written down, even if you're an at will temporary employee etc... The requirements of your employment are the consideration you provide, and the wages and benefits are the consideration they provide, in fair exchange. That's the definition of a contract.
Once you have provided your consideration according to the conditions and requirements of your employment, you are not ENTITLED to your wages and benefits; they are YOURS, and your employer is contractually required to give them to you.
The difference?
Wages and benefits are part of a contractual exchange of consideration. You provide your labor and business value to your employer, your employer provides you with wages and benefits.
An entitlement, is something which you have been granted by "authority", as yours to claim by right and without consideration required in exchange.
Remember your Heinlein: TANSTAAFL... There aint no such thing as a free lunch.
By granting you something (if you take it anyway), "authority" is exerting control over you in many ways. There are ALWAYS conditions, and just like anything else authority grants you, what they grant, they can take away whenever they want; for any reason, or no reason at all.
Personally, I'll take property rights and consideration, over being "given" an "entitlement" any time.
Friday, November 25, 2011
The BIG Change...
On July 28th, at 8am, I received my midyear performance review from GigantoMegaBankCorp.
GigantoMegaBankCorp reviews employees on a 1-5 integer scale, on 5 major categories, each weighted differently. Each category make up as little as 5%, and as much as 35% of your overall score. Each category consists of between 3 and 15 weighted subcategories, scored, averaged and rounded down to the absolute value' to reach the score in the major category. The overall score is also then giving a weighted average, and rounded down to absolute value. 1 and 2 indicate unacceptable performance and minimum acceptable performance respectively, 3 indicating "good" performance, 4 indicating "exceptional performance" and 5 indicating "outstanding performance".
Performance reviews are used or a lot of things; but from a tangible standpoint, your performance review is used as a multiplier for your annual bonus, your profit sharing award, and your stock option grant (these are all substantial portions of your annual compensation in the financial industry, frequently more than half; but in my case, all of those things combined make up about 1/3). In order to get any "incentive based" or "performance based" compensation, you must average at least 3.0 overall, AND receive no score on any major category lower than 3 (though you can be rated 2 or 1 on any given subcategory. If you make an average of between 4.0 and 4.9, you get 125% of your "target" bonus, and baseline stock options and profit sharing. If you make an average of 5 (for which, obviously, you have to receive nothing but 5s), you get 150% of your target and baseline.
The first four years I was with GigantoMegaBankCorp, I was never rated less than a 4 on any category, always received 5 ratings in several categories (in fact, one year I got all 5s and got 150% bonus); and I received multiple sizable bonuses, and several promotions. I started off as an Architect 4 on contract, with no title other than "Systems Architect" and no direct management responsibility. I ended up as an Architect 6 {the highest architect rank that is actually still an architect and manger, and not purely a manager} and "Chief Architect" of the biggest division of the bank, leading a team of 8 senior architects, and managing project teams of dozens, even hundreds).
For 2010 I received mostly 3s and 4s in the major categories, but I received one 2; and therefore I didn't get any bonus or stock options. As most people reading this probably know, 2010 was a bad year for me, and yeah, it had a negative impact on my performance. In 2011 though, I've generally been turning it around pretty well, now that I'm receiving the proper treatment for my health problems (among other things).
The midyear review is generally just a "guidance" number, intended to give you an idea of where you are for the year, and any changes you may need to make for your end of year review; however, if you received a lower year end review score, the midyear also replaces it as your "current review" score, for internal job applications, promotions, transfers etc...
From 800am to 830am, I went over my review with my manager. I got a 4 overall on my midyear review, with very positive comments, plus some additional suggestions about how I could make sure I get a 4 or better for the full year, which my manager was confident I would reach.
At 830am, there was a mandatory meeting for nine members of my department plus their managers, including me. The director of my department, the chief architect of GigantoMegaBankCorp over all, announced that subsequent to our recent major re-organization (following our purchase of another major bank 18 months ago), an analysis of our "senior technical and executive staff" had been conducted, and we would be taking a manadatory 15% across the board staff cut (9 people), with specific cutting targets in the three highest grades; and that the positions of the staff members in that meeting were being eliminated, and we were being "displaced" as of October 3rd.
He then opened the bridge to the rest of the department, and made the announcement to everyone.
Under the terms of my "displacement", I worked my position from the announcement until August 3rd, when I went to "transitional leave"; where I was still paid, but did not have any active duties or position; the purpose of which is to allow you to try to find another job within the company.
From October 3rd on, I could either remain on "continuation leave", and be treated as an employee for most purposes, including benefits, employment verification, internal positions etc... for six months, or I could take a lump sum payment for the amount of base salary I would have received for that same period.
Also, because I was an active employee for ten months of the year, if I was bonus eligible, and a bonus is distributed for 2011 (it would be distributed between the last two weeks of February and the first two weeks of March), I will receive 83% of the bonus I would have received; and my stock options and grants that would have matured, will mature.
In theory, those two things combined should be worth about $30,000 pre-tax come March, on top of the severance; but it's very uncertain.
I decided to take the severance package. My wife works for GigantoMegaBankCorp as well, with the same benefits eligibility, so we just switched benefits around so that she's the primary member, and I'm the spouse; so our benefits are covered.
As of October 3rd, I have been officially laid off from the job I held for more than five years; as chief architect of the retail division of a major financial institution.
Unfortunately, since that time, I have been contractually prohibited from speaking about it publicly, or in any detail.
It was a great job in some ways, a horrible job in others... just like any job...
...but the thing is, it was a job I was doing for someone else.
It was a job that, fundamentally, I was never happy with; because it wasn't getting me (or my family), where we want to be.
On the other hand, it was also a job that gave me a reasonably large severance package...
...Big enough, that my family and I could have lived on it for at least a year; maybe as much as two years if we cut back to the absolute minimum, and you include the PTO payout, and the cashout of my 401k... Or at least it was big enough for that, before the IRS got ahold of it.
Just an aside, the IRS took about $37,000 in regular taxes from me this year so far (that's January to October 7th. Actually, it's a bit less than usual; the last few years they've taken around $50k to $60k per year, but I didn't get a bonus this year, which they withold at a higher rate), then they took about $27k out of my severance package. I decided to cash out my 401k rather than roll it over {I don't like the market for the next two years, and I honestly think the prepayment penalty is less than I'm going to lose, between inflation and market losses. I think I have better uses for that money} and AFTER the prepayment penalty, they took another $7k . That's a total of about $71,000 in tax withholding.
From that $71,000 in withholding, I estimate my actual tax liability for the year from all the compensation I earned from GigantoMegaBankCorp, to be about $40,000; so in theory I've got a pretty damned big tax return coming.
The funniest thing...
Since I entered the ranks of the "unemployed", I've been busier than I ever was when I was "employed" (which, yes, is part of why I wasn't particularly happy with the job).
First, on July 28th at 830, I was laid off... On July 28th at 1130, I got my first phone call with a job offer. I didn't take it, for several reasons; the first of which being that if I accepted another job before October 3rd, I wouldn't get the severance package.
At the same time, I also got a couple of temporary contract gigs, that were providing me with significant outside income; and of course I had offers pending from October 3rd on.
Anyway, even after the IRS took damn near half (ok... not quite that much, but a hell of a lot), my "displacement settlement" was enough to live on for at least a year, presuming we made some cuts etc...
We've decided to go a different way.
I'm not very happy with the way things are right now... in a lot of different ways.
I love my wife and family, I love where we live...
...but....
Lot's of other things though... I'm not really happy with.
Yes, I could make a lot of money continuing what I have been doing the last 10 years; moving back into consulting again or taking a similar position at any number of other companies in the finance, medical, or technology industries.
Frankly, there aren't a lot of people who can do what I do, and there are a lot of companies that need it.
But...
I am tired of either working for another big company, or being dependent on them as a contractor or subcontractor; and in my primary field, that's where the money is.
My wife and I have thought a lot about this, done a lot of research, weighed a lot of options, and done a lot of soul searching...
A LOT of thinking, researching, and soul searching.
About three months worth in fact...
We've decided to do something different.
Instead of going for another big money contract gig, or laying back for two years, or just banking the money...
We've decided to do something different.
The first thing we've done is, Mel has transitioned to full time employment with GigantoMegaBankCorp, and will be earning a reasonable amount of money (plus our medical benefits).
The second thing we've done, is get out of the hole we've been put in by the last five years.
All my personal debt excepting our car loans, all my medical bills, all the remaining legal bills, all my credit cards... everything... and a bunch of Mels debt (not all unfortunately, she owes a hell of a lot because of the custody case, and we wouldn't have anything left to live off of) is now paid off.
It was a deep hole, and because we've been in it for several years, our credit getting worse every day; it was a high interest hole. We were rolling loans over periodically at high interest rates (including pawn and payday loans at times); so, that we were paying about half interest and half principal on the majority of those payments to the tune of several thousand dollars a month.
No, that's not a good situation to be in. It was also a situation we didn't have a choice about. Our savings went entirely into the legal and medical bills; and we needed that money, right then, for things that couldn't be put off, and that was that.
No, we're not stupid... we were left without options. I would pay off as much as I could, when I could, in the background; but it was repeatedly two steps forward three steps back.
The last two years also put either Mel or me, or both of us together; into about $30,000 worth of collections, some for Mels stuff, but a lot for medical bills my insurance didn't cover, and which because of the those other things, we couldn't always pay or couldn't pay in a timely manner (for example, in January and February of 2011, I had $16,000 in un-covered medical expenses, $3000 for my brothers funeral, $5000 in legal bills, $3000 in medical bills for the kids relating to the custody issue. That $27,000 screwed us up until like September); screwing up our credit rather badly.
Note: One major point of irritation there. My insurance company has this irritating habit of paying a bill, then six months later, they do a "payment review" and they charge back a part of what they originally paid from the original service provider. Then, the original service provider bills me; and, not knowing this, or missing it in the FLOOD of paper I get every day (there's a lot of medical bills associated with being a cancer patient. Often hundreds of pages a week) I get sent to collections after 90 days... very irritating.
That's in addition to about $20,000 worth of other unsecured or high interest debt (personal loans, payday loans, pawn, credit cards etc...) ; for a total of about $50,0000
It's all paid off now.
The entire remainder of our debt is either secured, low interest, or personal on a no interest basis.
As of today, we're completely out of the hole, but for the cars, and Mels remaining personal debt.
By the way: relating to that, part of Mels personal debt is all the people who ordered cookbooks that were never delivered. There's actually a very good reason why that happened, having to do with legal issues as well as financial issues; it sucks, it's wrong, but there wasn't anything I could do about it; and there's an even crappier reason why we are legally prevented from talking about . The next thing I post is going to be about that, but I don't want to interrupt this post for that info.
Also as of today, including Mels pay, and my unemployment benefits ($336 a week for six months by the way), we now have about 6 months of living expenses banked. If we get the tax return and the bonus etc... it's more like 12 to 18 months.
On Monday, presuming what I've been waiting for happens, I'm going to write about what we did with the rest of the money and what I'm planning on doing for the next few years.
Note: I was wanting to post this on Tuesday by the way, but events overtook me again, and I wasn't able to say the things I wanted to be able to say until today, and I didn't want to say anything else until I was able to say this. The reason I'm not posting the rest today, is for the same reason. I should be able to do so on Monday.
GigantoMegaBankCorp reviews employees on a 1-5 integer scale, on 5 major categories, each weighted differently. Each category make up as little as 5%, and as much as 35% of your overall score. Each category consists of between 3 and 15 weighted subcategories, scored, averaged and rounded down to the absolute value' to reach the score in the major category. The overall score is also then giving a weighted average, and rounded down to absolute value. 1 and 2 indicate unacceptable performance and minimum acceptable performance respectively, 3 indicating "good" performance, 4 indicating "exceptional performance" and 5 indicating "outstanding performance".
Performance reviews are used or a lot of things; but from a tangible standpoint, your performance review is used as a multiplier for your annual bonus, your profit sharing award, and your stock option grant (these are all substantial portions of your annual compensation in the financial industry, frequently more than half; but in my case, all of those things combined make up about 1/3). In order to get any "incentive based" or "performance based" compensation, you must average at least 3.0 overall, AND receive no score on any major category lower than 3 (though you can be rated 2 or 1 on any given subcategory. If you make an average of between 4.0 and 4.9, you get 125% of your "target" bonus, and baseline stock options and profit sharing. If you make an average of 5 (for which, obviously, you have to receive nothing but 5s), you get 150% of your target and baseline.
The first four years I was with GigantoMegaBankCorp, I was never rated less than a 4 on any category, always received 5 ratings in several categories (in fact, one year I got all 5s and got 150% bonus); and I received multiple sizable bonuses, and several promotions. I started off as an Architect 4 on contract, with no title other than "Systems Architect" and no direct management responsibility. I ended up as an Architect 6 {the highest architect rank that is actually still an architect and manger, and not purely a manager} and "Chief Architect" of the biggest division of the bank, leading a team of 8 senior architects, and managing project teams of dozens, even hundreds).
For 2010 I received mostly 3s and 4s in the major categories, but I received one 2; and therefore I didn't get any bonus or stock options. As most people reading this probably know, 2010 was a bad year for me, and yeah, it had a negative impact on my performance. In 2011 though, I've generally been turning it around pretty well, now that I'm receiving the proper treatment for my health problems (among other things).
The midyear review is generally just a "guidance" number, intended to give you an idea of where you are for the year, and any changes you may need to make for your end of year review; however, if you received a lower year end review score, the midyear also replaces it as your "current review" score, for internal job applications, promotions, transfers etc...
From 800am to 830am, I went over my review with my manager. I got a 4 overall on my midyear review, with very positive comments, plus some additional suggestions about how I could make sure I get a 4 or better for the full year, which my manager was confident I would reach.
At 830am, there was a mandatory meeting for nine members of my department plus their managers, including me. The director of my department, the chief architect of GigantoMegaBankCorp over all, announced that subsequent to our recent major re-organization (following our purchase of another major bank 18 months ago), an analysis of our "senior technical and executive staff" had been conducted, and we would be taking a manadatory 15% across the board staff cut (9 people), with specific cutting targets in the three highest grades; and that the positions of the staff members in that meeting were being eliminated, and we were being "displaced" as of October 3rd.
He then opened the bridge to the rest of the department, and made the announcement to everyone.
Under the terms of my "displacement", I worked my position from the announcement until August 3rd, when I went to "transitional leave"; where I was still paid, but did not have any active duties or position; the purpose of which is to allow you to try to find another job within the company.
From October 3rd on, I could either remain on "continuation leave", and be treated as an employee for most purposes, including benefits, employment verification, internal positions etc... for six months, or I could take a lump sum payment for the amount of base salary I would have received for that same period.
Also, because I was an active employee for ten months of the year, if I was bonus eligible, and a bonus is distributed for 2011 (it would be distributed between the last two weeks of February and the first two weeks of March), I will receive 83% of the bonus I would have received; and my stock options and grants that would have matured, will mature.
In theory, those two things combined should be worth about $30,000 pre-tax come March, on top of the severance; but it's very uncertain.
I decided to take the severance package. My wife works for GigantoMegaBankCorp as well, with the same benefits eligibility, so we just switched benefits around so that she's the primary member, and I'm the spouse; so our benefits are covered.
As of October 3rd, I have been officially laid off from the job I held for more than five years; as chief architect of the retail division of a major financial institution.
Unfortunately, since that time, I have been contractually prohibited from speaking about it publicly, or in any detail.
It was a great job in some ways, a horrible job in others... just like any job...
...but the thing is, it was a job I was doing for someone else.
It was a job that, fundamentally, I was never happy with; because it wasn't getting me (or my family), where we want to be.
On the other hand, it was also a job that gave me a reasonably large severance package...
...Big enough, that my family and I could have lived on it for at least a year; maybe as much as two years if we cut back to the absolute minimum, and you include the PTO payout, and the cashout of my 401k... Or at least it was big enough for that, before the IRS got ahold of it.
Just an aside, the IRS took about $37,000 in regular taxes from me this year so far (that's January to October 7th. Actually, it's a bit less than usual; the last few years they've taken around $50k to $60k per year, but I didn't get a bonus this year, which they withold at a higher rate), then they took about $27k out of my severance package. I decided to cash out my 401k rather than roll it over {I don't like the market for the next two years, and I honestly think the prepayment penalty is less than I'm going to lose, between inflation and market losses. I think I have better uses for that money} and AFTER the prepayment penalty, they took another $7k . That's a total of about $71,000 in tax withholding.
From that $71,000 in withholding, I estimate my actual tax liability for the year from all the compensation I earned from GigantoMegaBankCorp, to be about $40,000; so in theory I've got a pretty damned big tax return coming.
The funniest thing...
Since I entered the ranks of the "unemployed", I've been busier than I ever was when I was "employed" (which, yes, is part of why I wasn't particularly happy with the job).
First, on July 28th at 830, I was laid off... On July 28th at 1130, I got my first phone call with a job offer. I didn't take it, for several reasons; the first of which being that if I accepted another job before October 3rd, I wouldn't get the severance package.
At the same time, I also got a couple of temporary contract gigs, that were providing me with significant outside income; and of course I had offers pending from October 3rd on.
Anyway, even after the IRS took damn near half (ok... not quite that much, but a hell of a lot), my "displacement settlement" was enough to live on for at least a year, presuming we made some cuts etc...
We've decided to go a different way.
I'm not very happy with the way things are right now... in a lot of different ways.
I love my wife and family, I love where we live...
...but....
Lot's of other things though... I'm not really happy with.
Yes, I could make a lot of money continuing what I have been doing the last 10 years; moving back into consulting again or taking a similar position at any number of other companies in the finance, medical, or technology industries.
Frankly, there aren't a lot of people who can do what I do, and there are a lot of companies that need it.
But...
I am tired of either working for another big company, or being dependent on them as a contractor or subcontractor; and in my primary field, that's where the money is.
My wife and I have thought a lot about this, done a lot of research, weighed a lot of options, and done a lot of soul searching...
A LOT of thinking, researching, and soul searching.
About three months worth in fact...
We've decided to do something different.
Instead of going for another big money contract gig, or laying back for two years, or just banking the money...
We've decided to do something different.
The first thing we've done is, Mel has transitioned to full time employment with GigantoMegaBankCorp, and will be earning a reasonable amount of money (plus our medical benefits).
The second thing we've done, is get out of the hole we've been put in by the last five years.
All my personal debt excepting our car loans, all my medical bills, all the remaining legal bills, all my credit cards... everything... and a bunch of Mels debt (not all unfortunately, she owes a hell of a lot because of the custody case, and we wouldn't have anything left to live off of) is now paid off.
It was a deep hole, and because we've been in it for several years, our credit getting worse every day; it was a high interest hole. We were rolling loans over periodically at high interest rates (including pawn and payday loans at times); so, that we were paying about half interest and half principal on the majority of those payments to the tune of several thousand dollars a month.
No, that's not a good situation to be in. It was also a situation we didn't have a choice about. Our savings went entirely into the legal and medical bills; and we needed that money, right then, for things that couldn't be put off, and that was that.
No, we're not stupid... we were left without options. I would pay off as much as I could, when I could, in the background; but it was repeatedly two steps forward three steps back.
The last two years also put either Mel or me, or both of us together; into about $30,000 worth of collections, some for Mels stuff, but a lot for medical bills my insurance didn't cover, and which because of the those other things, we couldn't always pay or couldn't pay in a timely manner (for example, in January and February of 2011, I had $16,000 in un-covered medical expenses, $3000 for my brothers funeral, $5000 in legal bills, $3000 in medical bills for the kids relating to the custody issue. That $27,000 screwed us up until like September); screwing up our credit rather badly.
Note: One major point of irritation there. My insurance company has this irritating habit of paying a bill, then six months later, they do a "payment review" and they charge back a part of what they originally paid from the original service provider. Then, the original service provider bills me; and, not knowing this, or missing it in the FLOOD of paper I get every day (there's a lot of medical bills associated with being a cancer patient. Often hundreds of pages a week) I get sent to collections after 90 days... very irritating.
That's in addition to about $20,000 worth of other unsecured or high interest debt (personal loans, payday loans, pawn, credit cards etc...) ; for a total of about $50,0000
It's all paid off now.
The entire remainder of our debt is either secured, low interest, or personal on a no interest basis.
As of today, we're completely out of the hole, but for the cars, and Mels remaining personal debt.
By the way: relating to that, part of Mels personal debt is all the people who ordered cookbooks that were never delivered. There's actually a very good reason why that happened, having to do with legal issues as well as financial issues; it sucks, it's wrong, but there wasn't anything I could do about it; and there's an even crappier reason why we are legally prevented from talking about . The next thing I post is going to be about that, but I don't want to interrupt this post for that info.
Also as of today, including Mels pay, and my unemployment benefits ($336 a week for six months by the way), we now have about 6 months of living expenses banked. If we get the tax return and the bonus etc... it's more like 12 to 18 months.
On Monday, presuming what I've been waiting for happens, I'm going to write about what we did with the rest of the money and what I'm planning on doing for the next few years.
Note: I was wanting to post this on Tuesday by the way, but events overtook me again, and I wasn't able to say the things I wanted to be able to say until today, and I didn't want to say anything else until I was able to say this. The reason I'm not posting the rest today, is for the same reason. I should be able to do so on Monday.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
5 years later - the economics of handloading
I've been handloading and reloading since 1996 or so, but I took a break around late 2000 when I moved to Ireland, and didn't start back up again until 2005, and didn't get really back into it until 2006.
When I did, I wrote a number of posts about getting back into reloading, the costs of it, the gear required etc... And I've been writing fairly regularly on the subject ever since.
I've written a bunch of posts on the subject under my ammo and reloading categories:
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/search/label/ammo
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/search/label/reloading
Also some posts specific to the costs, general economics, gear, and processes of reloading (theres more, these are just off the top of my head):
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/04/idle-hands.html
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/04/getting-into-reloading-on-cheap.html
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/04/cost-benefit-analysis-of-progressive.html
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/06/progressive-experiment.html
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/06/totaling-up-costs-for-red-vs-blue.html
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2011/05/1000-yard-conspiracy-part-6-loading-for.html
And the cost of commercial ammo:
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-is-ammo-so-expensive.html
Over the past 5 years, my posts on reloading have proven to be among my most popular; and there isn't a week that goes by that I don't get reloading questions. My posts also get linked up a lot at other sites and forums.
It's those two factors that are prompting this post actually. My older posts on costs and gear are out of date at this point; and instead of just referring some of the basic questions to the older posts, I find myself having to research new numbers etc...
Plus I just don't like having out of date stuff as my last word on the subject.
I got a bunch of questions from a guy new to reloading a few weeks back, and then today somebody linked a couple of my posts up on another forum; so I decided I was going to revisit the basic questions on reloading. First the base economics, then the basic gear, and then the advanced gear.
At any rate, this was the question someone asked (from the grammar and vocabulary of his other posts I presume the poster was scandanavian of some kind):
And I agree in large part with the ideas presented.
Most of us are in this as a hobby, as well as to save money. I find handloading and reloading an enjoyable pursuit in and of itself. I enjoy the experimentation and control over my ammo that handloading gives me.
But the money isn't anything to sneeze at, at least for most chamberings.
You can save money loading almost every chambering, except steel cased bulk import ammunition, like most 7.62x39, and some russian 5.56/.223 for example.
The margins are pretty small on bulk 9mm, bulk grade 5.56/.223 and 7.62x54r as well. In the case of 9mm, it's just really cheap to get surplus foreign ammo and white box commercial, because it's the most common pistol ammo in the world (being the NATO standard). With .223 and 7.62x54r it's because surplus and bulk commercial ammo are quite cheap (comparatively speaking), and that the brass is quite expensive compared to the cheapest commercial ammo. Your best bet is to buy reloadable brass cased commercial, then shoot it and reuse the brass.
Yay, the brass is now "free".
The economics of reloading bulk grade 9mm aren't particularly great for example, saving only a few cents a round; however when you shoot 5000 rounds of it a year it does add up.
And that's only the FIRST time you shoot the brass.
Even with practice grade ammunition (as opposed to defensive, hunting, or match grade), it is possible to have pretty big per round/per box savings; even on the second most common centerfire chambering in the U.S, .45acp.
Why? because .45 has a lot of metal in it, and therefore a lot of overhead.
In a good year I might shoot 25,000 rounds of .45acp, in a bad year 10,000... and that's based on the time I have, the number of events I can go to, and the amount of spare cash I have that year. The more I shoot, the better I shoot (up to a point anyway... and of course, the less the worse).
Note: The last couple years have been very bad years; between the economy and my health issues, I've probably only shot around 2,500-5,000 rounds per year total of all chamberings; but I'm hoping to bounce back in the next couple years.
These days, a 50rd box of US made commercial practice ammo in .45 JHP costs around $30 (which is down from a $50 peak two years ago, when copper and lead shortages combined with Obamas election to drive ammo prices through the roof; but brass and bullets are down a similar amount so scaling applies).
Including the cost of fresh unfired brass, I can load that exact same ammo (including the same case and bullets from the same manufacturer) for about $19. Plus, the next 9 times I shoot it (actually for .45acp it's more like 20 times), the brass is free, so the it only costs me $11 each box.
If I want to use cheaper bullets I can do it for more like $14 a box (less expensive foreign commercial FMJ round nose runs about $20 a box). If I want to cast my own bullets using salvaged wheel weights, is more like $11 a box (no commercial vendor uses low cost cast bullets for .45acp).
The cost of the brass in all cases (no pun intended) is fixed, at about $8 per box or about $0.16 per case; and again, the next 9 times the brass is free, so it's more like $6 a box, and $3 a box.
For those not wanting to do the math by the way, that's a cost of around $0.60 per round of commercial JHP, about $0.38 a round for handloaded jhp, about $0.28 for handloaded plated round nose, and $0.22 for handloaded hand cast.
The non brass portion of cartridge cost runs from about $0.06 per for the hand cast with salvaged lead, up to about $0.22 per for the handloaded commercial JHP.
That could save me between $2500 and $9,500 a year assuming I shot the brass just once. If I reloaded each brass case 9 times, it's more like a savings of $6,500 to $13,500... and it can turn what would be a bad shooting year, into a good one.
The economics on reloading and handloading precision ammunition, or defensive or hunting ammunition are even better.
Every round of match grade 300 winchester magnum I handload rather than buy, saves me more than $1; and that's just the first time I use the brass. The next five times I use the brass (some chamberings are good for dozens of reloadings, some less than ten) I save more like $1.70. Given I can go through 500 rounds in a single shooting event weekend, that's a huge savings.
Over the course of five events per year (buying once batch of brass per year and reloading it that whole year... which is approximately what I do actually), and assuming I practice as much as I shoot in events... that's about an $8,000 a year savings.
Again, it turns a bad shooting year into a good one.
Also, I can make a higher quality piece of ammunition, specifically tailored to my individual rifle; fine tuned to the ten thousandth of an inch and 1/10th grain of powder (about 0.006 grams or 0.0002 ounces). Factory ammunition has production tolerances approximately five to ten times that; and even match grade ammunition tolerances are two to five times that.
With the best quality commercial match grade ammunition (which costs as much as $8 a shot depending on the chambering; but more like $3 for my .300wm), my 1000 yard competition rifles shoot to about .75moa at 600 yards (about a 4" group). With my hand loaded ammunition, it's about .5 moa (about a 3" group).
... Well... presuming the weather co-operates, and from a stable rest.
And by the way, I am not anywhere near "competitive" in events
The real serious competitors shoot two to five times as much as I do, and their group sizes are half mine... but with commercial ammo, their groups would be almost as bad as mine... and they'd all be broke (that's assuming you could even get commercial ammo for their guns. Many are in custom chamberings that can only be handloaded).
So really, it's a bit of everything.
It's fun, I shoot more, I'm more involved in the process, I have more control, I get better results, and I save money (that I use to shoot even more).
When I did, I wrote a number of posts about getting back into reloading, the costs of it, the gear required etc... And I've been writing fairly regularly on the subject ever since.
I've written a bunch of posts on the subject under my ammo and reloading categories:
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/search/label/ammo
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/search/label/reloading
Also some posts specific to the costs, general economics, gear, and processes of reloading (theres more, these are just off the top of my head):
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/04/idle-hands.html
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/04/getting-into-reloading-on-cheap.html
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/04/cost-benefit-analysis-of-progressive.html
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/06/progressive-experiment.html
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/06/totaling-up-costs-for-red-vs-blue.html
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2011/05/1000-yard-conspiracy-part-6-loading-for.html
And the cost of commercial ammo:
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-is-ammo-so-expensive.html
Over the past 5 years, my posts on reloading have proven to be among my most popular; and there isn't a week that goes by that I don't get reloading questions. My posts also get linked up a lot at other sites and forums.
It's those two factors that are prompting this post actually. My older posts on costs and gear are out of date at this point; and instead of just referring some of the basic questions to the older posts, I find myself having to research new numbers etc...
Plus I just don't like having out of date stuff as my last word on the subject.
I got a bunch of questions from a guy new to reloading a few weeks back, and then today somebody linked a couple of my posts up on another forum; so I decided I was going to revisit the basic questions on reloading. First the base economics, then the basic gear, and then the advanced gear.
At any rate, this was the question someone asked (from the grammar and vocabulary of his other posts I presume the poster was scandanavian of some kind):
"I am having trouble now locating expert articles on the issue, but I heard that some Americans allegedly save money by refilling ammo after shooting at the gun range. That makes me wonder, if ammo is made in vast quantities using optimally productive technology, how come an assembled cartridge ends up costing so much more than its constituent parts (except for the shell that gets reused) that it makes sense to do manual refill?"There were a number of answers in the thread about target ammo, and about it being as much a hobby as a money saving venture...
And I agree in large part with the ideas presented.
Most of us are in this as a hobby, as well as to save money. I find handloading and reloading an enjoyable pursuit in and of itself. I enjoy the experimentation and control over my ammo that handloading gives me.
But the money isn't anything to sneeze at, at least for most chamberings.
You can save money loading almost every chambering, except steel cased bulk import ammunition, like most 7.62x39, and some russian 5.56/.223 for example.
The margins are pretty small on bulk 9mm, bulk grade 5.56/.223 and 7.62x54r as well. In the case of 9mm, it's just really cheap to get surplus foreign ammo and white box commercial, because it's the most common pistol ammo in the world (being the NATO standard). With .223 and 7.62x54r it's because surplus and bulk commercial ammo are quite cheap (comparatively speaking), and that the brass is quite expensive compared to the cheapest commercial ammo. Your best bet is to buy reloadable brass cased commercial, then shoot it and reuse the brass.
Yay, the brass is now "free".
The economics of reloading bulk grade 9mm aren't particularly great for example, saving only a few cents a round; however when you shoot 5000 rounds of it a year it does add up.
And that's only the FIRST time you shoot the brass.
Even with practice grade ammunition (as opposed to defensive, hunting, or match grade), it is possible to have pretty big per round/per box savings; even on the second most common centerfire chambering in the U.S, .45acp.
Why? because .45 has a lot of metal in it, and therefore a lot of overhead.
In a good year I might shoot 25,000 rounds of .45acp, in a bad year 10,000... and that's based on the time I have, the number of events I can go to, and the amount of spare cash I have that year. The more I shoot, the better I shoot (up to a point anyway... and of course, the less the worse).
Note: The last couple years have been very bad years; between the economy and my health issues, I've probably only shot around 2,500-5,000 rounds per year total of all chamberings; but I'm hoping to bounce back in the next couple years.
These days, a 50rd box of US made commercial practice ammo in .45 JHP costs around $30 (which is down from a $50 peak two years ago, when copper and lead shortages combined with Obamas election to drive ammo prices through the roof; but brass and bullets are down a similar amount so scaling applies).
Including the cost of fresh unfired brass, I can load that exact same ammo (including the same case and bullets from the same manufacturer) for about $19. Plus, the next 9 times I shoot it (actually for .45acp it's more like 20 times), the brass is free, so the it only costs me $11 each box.
If I want to use cheaper bullets I can do it for more like $14 a box (less expensive foreign commercial FMJ round nose runs about $20 a box). If I want to cast my own bullets using salvaged wheel weights, is more like $11 a box (no commercial vendor uses low cost cast bullets for .45acp).
The cost of the brass in all cases (no pun intended) is fixed, at about $8 per box or about $0.16 per case; and again, the next 9 times the brass is free, so it's more like $6 a box, and $3 a box.
For those not wanting to do the math by the way, that's a cost of around $0.60 per round of commercial JHP, about $0.38 a round for handloaded jhp, about $0.28 for handloaded plated round nose, and $0.22 for handloaded hand cast.
The non brass portion of cartridge cost runs from about $0.06 per for the hand cast with salvaged lead, up to about $0.22 per for the handloaded commercial JHP.
That could save me between $2500 and $9,500 a year assuming I shot the brass just once. If I reloaded each brass case 9 times, it's more like a savings of $6,500 to $13,500... and it can turn what would be a bad shooting year, into a good one.
The economics on reloading and handloading precision ammunition, or defensive or hunting ammunition are even better.
Every round of match grade 300 winchester magnum I handload rather than buy, saves me more than $1; and that's just the first time I use the brass. The next five times I use the brass (some chamberings are good for dozens of reloadings, some less than ten) I save more like $1.70. Given I can go through 500 rounds in a single shooting event weekend, that's a huge savings.
Over the course of five events per year (buying once batch of brass per year and reloading it that whole year... which is approximately what I do actually), and assuming I practice as much as I shoot in events... that's about an $8,000 a year savings.
Again, it turns a bad shooting year into a good one.
Also, I can make a higher quality piece of ammunition, specifically tailored to my individual rifle; fine tuned to the ten thousandth of an inch and 1/10th grain of powder (about 0.006 grams or 0.0002 ounces). Factory ammunition has production tolerances approximately five to ten times that; and even match grade ammunition tolerances are two to five times that.
With the best quality commercial match grade ammunition (which costs as much as $8 a shot depending on the chambering; but more like $3 for my .300wm), my 1000 yard competition rifles shoot to about .75moa at 600 yards (about a 4" group). With my hand loaded ammunition, it's about .5 moa (about a 3" group).
... Well... presuming the weather co-operates, and from a stable rest.
And by the way, I am not anywhere near "competitive" in events
The real serious competitors shoot two to five times as much as I do, and their group sizes are half mine... but with commercial ammo, their groups would be almost as bad as mine... and they'd all be broke (that's assuming you could even get commercial ammo for their guns. Many are in custom chamberings that can only be handloaded).
So really, it's a bit of everything.
It's fun, I shoot more, I'm more involved in the process, I have more control, I get better results, and I save money (that I use to shoot even more).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)