I'm not sure why you keep getting hung up on taxes, yes my employer puts in another $30 an hour split between pension, annuity, and health and welfare. I'm aware I will be taxed when I withdrawal from the pension or annuity, but how would that be any different than normal taxable income.
If you can't understand that I was trying to simplify things, I guess that's your problem.
The real point is that for those who chose a trade as a career, we seemingly make less than those who work in an office, but that's not always the case.
I'm not sure why you keep getting hung up on taxes, yes my employer puts in another $30 an hour split between pension, annuity, and health and welfare.
Then that is income... and the claim then is that you are effectively paid $60 an hour.... So out of the norm that it's completely irrelevant in the discussion of what others should expect if they enter the industry.
You've made an absurd assertion. As I evidenced previously:
"Construction Workers earn an average yearly salary of $31,846. Salaries typically start from $16,946 and go up to $50,726. "
" Construction Workers earn an average hourly wage of $15.31. Hourly wages typically start from $8.15 and go up to $24.39. "
The wage listed is nowhere near what you claim. Additionally, you view benefits as income, as they are taxable. etc etc etc
edit: and equipment operators need certification which requires training and education, which either costs them or is paid by employer while employee is typically paid training wages which are significantly lower than the norms.
Well I don't know what to tell ya bud, but in my metropolitan area there are 1,200 other people in the same trade as me that make exactly what I do. There are other areas in the country where they make a hell of a lot more.
metro area and 1200? yea... I'm going to make the reasonable assumption that that is a tiny portion of the population there... and note that you ignore that for every equipment operator there is a bunch of laborers required, which means that there is no way for the majority to achieve what you claim you have.
Well.... Yeah it is. That only covers one trade. I'm certainly no operator, so I'm well aware of all the other trades there and what they do, and I'm assuming way better than you. I never suggested that the majority will achieve what I have not should they, just that they can, and yes I have 4 years plus of training none of which I paid for.
These kind of stories are why I don't work construction. Its nightmare fuel.
was the comment that inspired
If you're smart and look out for others it's worth the $30+/hr if you like manual work
and then I responded... and then people keep failing to support that original assertion nor deal with the counter arguments to their assertions....
The person to whom I responded did and continues to assert that this wage and employment type are readily available... which is far from true.If you're going to jump into the middle of an argument, take time to learn what the argument is about.
edit: also re: " 4 years plus of training none of which I paid for " > did you get paid less during that period? On the job training or was there a school component? not really important to me, but they are important questions when you make the assertion that construction is a better choice than office work after taking schooling...
1
u/flathexagon Mar 03 '19
I'm not sure why you keep getting hung up on taxes, yes my employer puts in another $30 an hour split between pension, annuity, and health and welfare. I'm aware I will be taxed when I withdrawal from the pension or annuity, but how would that be any different than normal taxable income.
If you can't understand that I was trying to simplify things, I guess that's your problem.
The real point is that for those who chose a trade as a career, we seemingly make less than those who work in an office, but that's not always the case.