Reading this in the paper made me start to think:
"Studies show that your college major can determine your salary — and graduates with liberal arts degrees usually start out with fairly modest salaries. But most of them believe that someday they, too, will be making big bucks.
They might be wrong.
"One mistake that a lot of liberal arts majors make (those majoring in English, history and sociology, for instance) is in thinking that although there is a difference in starting salaries, the liberal arts majors will catch up to the engineering majors as the years go by," said Daniel Nolan of Chicago, a technical writer with an English degree. "But unless you go back to school and take business-related courses, that will not happen."
He warns: "You will always be running behind." "
When I was in college in the late 80's there was a general rule that if your income (divided by 1000) was equal to your age, you were doing alright. Of course, we all expected that we would be earning more. My first post-college job paid a whopping $20,000. For several more years, until I finished grad school, I never did "make my age." For a year, when I was 28, I was making $30,000. Then I went back into the public sector and took a $4,000 hit. At least the cost of living was low.
In two more years I changed jobs and enjoyed a huge jump in pay. The next milestone was $52,000 a year, or $1,000 a week. Other people mentioned that they, too, thought of this as a significant mark. I don't think there is any clear "next milestone." Certainly, $100,000 will be a big one, but it does seem there should be something between the two. At least I don't feel like I am running behind anymore.
What are the beliefs we have about income now? The age measure is not a valid one anymore, I hope. What are the milestones we use to benchmark our planner salaries against the rest of the world?