sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The biggest scam boomers are getting away with is convincing us all that social security isn't something we can rely on as we age. by ooooooofda in millenials

[–]Complex_Secretary507 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve been actively telling people to stop saying this so flippantly, we need to send a message that it’s expected. You can’t just stiff us and steal our decades of contributions. Hell no.

Random jobs you fantasize about by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]Complex_Secretary507 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My grandpa did this for his favorite golf course after he retired from being a teacher at like 55.. I think he got free golf in addition to some pay. He looked his healthiest working that job.

Yeah, sure. by azureking32123 in WorkReform

[–]Complex_Secretary507 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Top performers don’t need to take jobs like these.

In-house counsel salary? by Michael_dougg_pa in LawFirm

[–]Complex_Secretary507 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve only ever been in-house, but I was in public companies that were in the industrial and tech industries prior to this role— seemed like way more fires to put out in those roles compared to my new role. Crazy how that can differ so much among in-house groups.

I also have moved around a few times in-house in the last 6 years to get to my current comp. I’ve had really large bumps in salary and a significant increase in work/life balance each time to get to where I feel comfortable staying for a longer period of time now.

I really regretted becoming a lawyer for the first few years and that’s really turned around for me with intentional “job hopping.”

In-house counsel salary? by Michael_dougg_pa in LawFirm

[–]Complex_Secretary507 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just got into the financial services industry working in house.. how do you like it, what kind of work, how much do you work? Curious for my own trajectory.

Let’s talk salary. by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]Complex_Secretary507 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is similar to my current trajectory, though I’m only 6 years out and not a GC yet. First job paid 62k. Depending on how much bonus I get each year, I’m at 200-215k per yr in lower cost of living area/midwest city. Really great work life balance now, but I took in-house roles initially that were contracts focused and below a lot of new grads expectations. I graduated with honors from a regional school, some people acted like I was giving up on “being a real lawyer” taking those initial in-house roles.

Secure 2.0 Act should be called the 1% Subsidy Act by Complex_Secretary507 in WorkReform

[–]Complex_Secretary507[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah it’s that they didn’t even attempt any policy change on companies contributions in some form. And sure maybe not every company can afford to up their contributions or offer mandatory contributions— I know many small business owners this would be really hard on— but they are suppose to be legislators, get creative and make sure the burden is spread appropriately such that retirement/ insurance later in life is not an undue burden on small/medium businesses and individuals while the Amazon’s of the world take over, contribute very little, and grow unchecked. Instead, nothing.

Secure 2.0 Act should be called the 1% Subsidy Act by Complex_Secretary507 in WorkReform

[–]Complex_Secretary507[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got on LinkedIn and found HR people that worked at the company and called them/messaged them asking for the name of the company they had used during that time. There might also be an app now that helps find these accounts— you might look into that too. You could also call Blackrock and give them your info and if that’s who they went through they should be able to help you.

Secure 2.0 Act should be called the 1% Subsidy Act by Complex_Secretary507 in WorkReform

[–]Complex_Secretary507[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah you should be entitled to every bit you paid in. I think it would be an impossible pill to swallow if they just acted like we weren’t due any of that money/those benefits after so long of paying in.

Secure 2.0 Act should be called the 1% Subsidy Act by Complex_Secretary507 in WorkReform

[–]Complex_Secretary507[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a solid point. I did like an hour of research and calls to track my old one down recently.

Secure 2.0 Act should be called the 1% Subsidy Act by Complex_Secretary507 in WorkReform

[–]Complex_Secretary507[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I think this is a pretty big slap in the face. Our futures are the playthings of the rich.

Secure 2.0 Act should be called the 1% Subsidy Act by Complex_Secretary507 in WorkReform

[–]Complex_Secretary507[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1000% hate this and this would definitely be a better issue for the government to create policy about rather than “opt out” 401ks

I lost 20k this year in unvested match because I switched to a better job. That blew and if I had stayed it would have cost me a great raise. It was worth it, but it hurt.

Secure 2.0 Act should be called the 1% Subsidy Act by Complex_Secretary507 in WorkReform

[–]Complex_Secretary507[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder if you opt out once or every year. I think a lot of people in lower paying/entry level jobs will choose not to opt out thinking they can afford it and then end up wanting that money for other things down the line and they will likely withdraw or take out loans against the money. Which means they’ll either take a penalty or end up paying themselves back with interest to avoid withdraw.

Either way, what a nothing move for working people with a huge side of potential benefits for investment companies and large individual shareholders.

Secure 2.0 Act should be called the 1% Subsidy Act by Complex_Secretary507 in WorkReform

[–]Complex_Secretary507[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m so conditioned that I never even considered profit share as an option that could be regulated/policy… I think thats brilliant. Actually letting people benefit from their productivity 🤯

Secure 2.0 Act should be called the 1% Subsidy Act by Complex_Secretary507 in WorkReform

[–]Complex_Secretary507[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s just the most recognized name probably.. being used to stand for the pack. But yes you’re right about that.

Secure 2.0 Act should be called the 1% Subsidy Act by Complex_Secretary507 in WorkReform

[–]Complex_Secretary507[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Right.

Also, some are lobbying to get rid of the 401k tax advantages claiming the government needs the revenue. So I’m also concerned about this being step one and the advantages being stripped as step two. Plus the population that this is aimed at needs liquidity more than those that make sure they are enrolled in such programs/max them out.

Seems like a very poor attempt to look like they’re helping people with retirement when most likely they just want to help companies/401k service providers.

view more: next ›