Best Jobs for Climbers

Greg E wrote: Your expected rate of return is a bit low at 5%. Historically, the market has returned 8-9% per year on average. Find a decent advisor and he/she should be able to match that for you.

I suppose this advisor will guarantee this. I would be cautious of someone that says 8-9% without talking about serious risk.

5% is standard with 7% being higher risk

Ugh. Cut it out with all this adult jargon and go back to quipping at each other like 14 year olds! You're ruining the entertainment value of this thread.

Greg E wrote: Of course not Bill. That's obvious. 8-9% is the historical average of the markets. If you are getting 5% and 7% if you are willing to take on more risk, you need to find a new advisor.

OK hook me up with yours. PM me his contact info about if you're getting better than 5% on your IRA. I'm sincerely interested to hear what funds he's using,

Bill Kirby wrote: OK hook me up with yours. PM me his contact info about if you're getting better than 5% on your IRA. I'm sincerely interested to hear what funds he's using,

Just invest in a low fee index fund...Take S&P 500, for example. If you were unlucky and invested right around the internet bubble of 2000, you'd have still gotten ~4.8% return to-date. If you'd invested 10 years ago (1.5 yrs before the housing bubbled, ~80% of the pre-bubble stock price), you'd have gotten ~7% return to-date. But say if you've consistently invested since ~Y2K (just because it's about the worst time), you'd have had a better than 5% annualized return so far (because only a small fraction of your investment were at the "wrong" time).

Regardless, expecting a higher rate of return for retirement purpose is dangerous if your skills can become obsolete quickly.

Ok ok I should've wrote 7% in my snarky post. I looked at my statement and it looks like 7.25% in the last seven years. 8-9% is like a point or two so I guess that's possible.

I got in after the meltdown. My advisor, just a friend since high school at the time, called me and told me now is the time to invest. The DJA was at 7k or something. I thought he was crazy! I had made a few hundred thousand in construction. I trusted him and gave it to him. Needless to say that was the best decision I've ever made. Shortly after I started an IRA after researching how the hell I made all that money.

Now I do the Jim Cramer thing. I pay attention to five companies and go long and short depending on what's happening. I also scalp and day trade with my fancy CU and charts. The day trading thing reminds me of drag racing.. There's really good days and really bad days!

Edit: I guess I always think RORs on IRA or 401ks are so small. I never really looked at it.. My bad :)

Greg E wrote: It's a simple strategy. He invests in index funds and talks me off the ledge when the market is bad. Most people screw up by selling when the market is low and buying when it is on the rise. Index funds mirror different indices such as the Dow, S&P, Nasdaq, Russell, etc. so your return is similar to the performance of the index. If you invest and stay invested, you have a pretty good chance of an 8-9% average return. If you invest and constantly buy and sell, you may get lucky and you may not.

Why do you pay someone to invest in index funds? The whole advantage of index funds is that you dont have to pay someone to manage them.

Greg E wrote: Investing in index funds is not just picking some funds and putting money in them.

I'm not a savvy investor, but I thought that was the whole point of index funds (or something slightly more sophisticated like gradually reducing volatility (lower stock/bond ratio) toward a target retirement age). You are accepting that you won't beat the market, but also not underperform against the market.

Greg E wrote: I pay for the risk evaluation, diversification of funds, and management over time.

Which has time again been shown to not worth the fees of these types of active management. It's hard enough to try beating the market in a niche sector. On index funds? good luck with that (unless you have very very reliable/secretive insider info).

reboot wrote: I'm not a savvy investor, but I thought that was the whole point of index funds (or something slightly more sophisticated like gradually reducing volatility (lower stock/bond ratio) toward a target retirement age). You are accepting that you won't beat the market, but also not underperform against the market. Which has time again been shown to not worth the fees of these types of active management. It's hard enough to try beating the market in a niche sector. On index funds? good luck with that (unless you have very very reliable/secretive insider info).

A financial advisor is valuable if you don't have time to do your homework.

Greg E wrote: Exactly. In my opinion, worth the money.

:) it's fun to play Wall Street... using money that doesn't make or break your retirement. I know guys that bought oil, gold, growth stocks etc. with their 401k... Timed wrong almost everytime. Scary stuff

My nest egg goes to the pros.

Greg E wrote:Your expected rate of return is a bit low at 5%. Historically, the market has returned 8-9% per year on average. Find a decent advisor and he/she should be able to match that for you.

I'm not a financial advisor, but analyzing investment risk is what I do for a living.

A couple of points:

- It doesn't really matter whether your 401k earns 5% or 10% if you're not maximizing your contributions in in the first place. That was the main point of the Vanguard calculator. Most people don't contribute nearly enough (or aren't able to). The median 401k balance for people aged 55-64 is only $75k. No-one's going to be able to retire on that.

- It's very difficult to estimate future stock returns. Historical estimates are highly sensitive to the period you look at. For example, major indices were basically flat from 2000 to 2012. And as they say in the mutual fund ads, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. If you're curious about what some prominent analysts have to say, have a look at bogleheads.org/wiki/Histori…. They're not expecting 8-9%.

- Very few people have all their assets in stocks. It's common to have a significant allocation to bonds, especially as you approach retirement. And right now 10-year US Gov't bonds are yielding only 1.84%. (Be thankful you don't live in Japan! 10-year JGBs are yielding only -0.12%. That's with a little minus sign in front).

- Don't forget about inflation. For retirement planning purposes you should be thinking in inflation-adjusted terms. Currently the long-run inflation rate implied by US Gov't TIPS yields is about 1.5-2%.

Greg E wrote:your bogleheads link is only talking about 10 years. These are very short term outlooks. The key is long term.

If you're my age then 10 years is starting to look pretty long-term.

Sure, one can debate about expected investment returns all day. We'll never know who's correct until we're dead. The broader point I was trying to make is that anyone thinking about a job should also be thinking about how much they'll need to save for retirement. Even if you turn out to be correct about earning 8-9%, which I don't think is a prudent basis for planning, you still need to put aside a significant amount in your 401k or IRA if that's your retirement plan. Most people seriously under-estimate how much they should be contributing to these plans.

Martin le Roux wrote: If you're my age then 10 years is starting to look pretty long-term. Sure, one can debate about expected investment returns all day. We'll never know who's correct until we're dead. The broader point I was trying to make is that anyone thinking about a job should also be thinking about how much they'll need to save for retirement. Even if you turn out to be correct about earning 8-9%, which I don't think is a prudent basis for planning, you still need to put aside a significant amount in your 401k or IRA if that's your retirement plan. Most people seriously under-estimate how much they should be contributing to these plans.

+1

Now that's on topic! Get a job that allows you to save for retirement. Since the death of the pension people need to realize what it takes to retire at 65-70.

Bill Kirby wrote: +1 Now that's on topic! Get a job that allows you to save for retirement. Since the death of the pension people need to realize what it takes to retire at 65-70.

I started getting serious about retirement in Fall of last year, after stumbling onto early retirement and financial independence blogs...

At the bare minimum, everyone should have an ira and contribute. In my case, since I invested much of the money from my 20's into local watering holes, I opted to take advantage of a 401k. My employer also has a pension, but I won't be vested for another 3.5 years.

It's really easy to save for the future and invest, if you're willing to put in about 60 - 100 hours of research, YMMV.

Plus, having a hobby that isn't very expensive (once the gear is bought that is...) really helps to live frugally and save duckets here and there.

Hunter McPherson wrote: Complete and utter BS. You are the only company I have ever heard of that calls it at 2pm. I've worked with highway construction companies, asphalt pavers, pipeline surveyors welders and operators, specialty contractors, and most other skilled trades under the sun. All of them I have personally met do not give one single f--- about anything other than working and making money. Perhaps your crew is different. Perhaps you acknowledge their personal lives and are a great owner to work for. But the majority are absolutely not. I'm sure you're a good dude Bill but you simply do not speak the truth

My dad was head foreman of a large multi million dollar colorado construction company (4 years)
head foreman of a large virginia company (4 years)
head operator at a NJ water company (8 years)
along with about another 30 years in NJ/NY

My brother has been an Ironworker in NY/NJ for 10 years

I have been doing bridge inspection, NDT, Rope Access, etc for 4.

Just about every one of my friends (6 in NJ, 2 in Colorado, 1 in Tahoe, etc) who left an office job and work in the field get way more time off from going into the Blue collar world. They also almost all get better benefits.

EXCEPT the engineers (Turner, Partners, Jacobs, etc) they all get the white collar hours with a salary.

so based on the fact that alot of people on here disagree you may want to compare data.

PosiDave wrote: My dad was head foreman of a large multi million dollar colorado construction company (4 years) head foreman of a large virginia company (4 years) head operator at a NJ water company (8 years) along with about another 30 years in NJ/NY My brother has been an Ironworker in NY/NJ for 10 years I have been doing bridge inspection, NDT, Rope Access, etc for 4. Just about every one of my friends (6 in NJ, 2 in Colorado, 1 in Tahoe, etc) who left an office job and work in the field get way more time off from going into the Blue collar world. They also almost all get better benefits. EXCEPT the engineers (Turner, Partners, Jacobs, etc) they all get the white collar hours with a salary. so based on the fact that alot of people on here disagree you may want to compare data.

I fail to see any "facts" on here. Let me change that.
bls.gov/ooh/construction-an…
"Like many construction workers, most laborers and helpers work full time. Although they must sometimes stop work because of bad weather, they often work overtime to meet deadlines. Laborers and helpers on highway and bridge projects may need to work overnight to avoid causing major traffic disruptions. In some parts of the country, construction laborers and helpers may work only during certain seasons. For example, in northern climates, cold weather frequently disrupts construction activity in the winter.

About 1 in 4 construction laborers were self-employed in 2014. Self-employed construction laborers may be able to set their own schedule. In contrast, very few helpers were self-employed."

It doesn't take a college degree to realize that continuous physical labor throughout your workday wouldn't exactly leave you with a ton of energy left to send at the end of the day, unless you're just top roping 5.7s after work...

Hunter McPherson wrote: I fail to see any "facts" on here. Let me change that. bls.gov/ooh/construction-an… "Like many construction workers, most laborers and helpers work full time. Although they must sometimes stop work because of bad weather, they often work overtime to meet deadlines. Laborers and helpers on highway and bridge projects may need to work overnight to avoid causing major traffic disruptions. In some parts of the country, construction laborers and helpers may work only during certain seasons. For example, in northern climates, cold weather frequently disrupts construction activity in the winter. About 1 in 4 construction laborers were self-employed in 2014. Self-employed construction laborers may be able to set their own schedule. In contrast, very few helpers were self-employed." It doesn't take a college degree to realize that continuous physical labor throughout your workday wouldn't exactly leave you with a ton of energy left to send at the end of the day, unless you're just top roping 5.7s after work...

A.

Those numbers didn't include (according to the listed jobs)

Residential Carpenters
Tower Techs
Handy men
Rope Access (unless you file under Construction, alot file under Energy sector)
Riggers (non theatrical)
Scaffold builders
Dockbuilders
Longshoremen
Ironworkers
The list goes on

B.

It also doesn't take a college degree (I have two of those expensive papers) to have common sense and realize that numbers are based off of what people claim they do to the government. ( I claim as a Engineer)

C.

Full-time doesn't mean you must work 40/hr a week by alot of companies standards. I worked on contract and was listed as full-time so I was given full-time benefits (I just had to work once within 90 days)

D.

You seem to be a engineer so we will assume that you automatically think you know more than everyone about the industry, based on number off a website & when there a multiple guys here obviously telling you otherwise

E.

You are using a government site that list jobs. I don't know how familiar you are with numbers, but the government also sucks at their job & doesn't even have NDE, Rope Access, or a ton of other jobs listed when you file a tax return or claim unemployment (atleast in the following states Texas, Louisiana, NJ, PA, NY)

F.

I work with 4 guys (in a office of 20) that all climb harder than you. Unless you send V12 or Sport 5.13d or Ground up 5.13b Trad. they all throw in 6 months+ of 60-100 hours a week and have relationships, homes, etc. Maybe it's just all the second hand weedsmoke ya'll got there in Colorado.

For the record I am not one of them I am just some shit talker on MP that struggles to onsight 5.9 trad

PosiDave wrote: A. Those numbers didn't include (according to the listed jobs) Residential Carpenters Tower Techs Handy men Rope Access (unless you file under Construction, alot file under Energy sector) Riggers (non theatrical) Scaffold builders Dockbuilders Longshoremen Ironworkers The list goes on B. It also doesn't take a college degree (I have two of those expensive papers) to have common sense and realize that numbers are based off of what people claim they do to the government. ( I claim as a Engineer) C. Full-time doesn't mean you must work 40/hr a week by alot of companies standards. I worked on contract and was listed as full-time so I was given full-time benefits (I just had to work once within 90 days) D. You seem to be a engineer so we will assume that you automatically think you know more than everyone about the industry, based on number off a website & when there a multiple guys here obviously telling you otherwise E. You are using a government site that list jobs. I don't know how familiar you are with numbers, but the government also sucks at their job & doesn't even have NDE, Rope Access, or a ton of other jobs listed when you file a tax return or claim unemployment (atleast in the following states Texas, Louisiana, NJ, PA, NY) F. I work with 4 guys (in a office of 20) that all climb harder than you. Unless you send V12 or Sport 5.13d or Ground up 5.13b Trad. they all throw in 6 months+ of 60-100 hours a week and have relationships, homes, etc. Maybe it's just all the second hand weedsmoke ya'll got there in Colorado. For the record I am not one of them I am just some shit talker on MP that struggles to onsight 5.9 trad

Killing spree!!!

Hunter McPherson wrote: Killing spree!!!

I mean obviously all of those people on here just make up lies about what they do to prove you wrong.

PosiDave wrote: I mean obviously all of those people on here just make up lies about what they do to prove you wrong.

I yield! Please, no more!!

I install and repair industrial roller doors and gates. I contract to a handful of companies. If I want to go climbing, or hunting or fishing I don’t book jobs in for those days. My jobs quite physical, heavy lifting, working at heights. My job increases my strength so I generally don’t work out. Which leaves more time to do what I enjoy!