Author Topic: Overheard at Work  (Read 7808292 times)

GnomeErcy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 98
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18650 on: September 14, 2017, 02:40:21 PM »
Watched the Apple conference thing the other day with a coworker. He set his alarm clock right after the iPhone X for $999 starting was announced so that he could be among the first to pre-order it.

I have no idea how people justify spending that much on a phone.

solon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1288
  • Age: 1817
  • Location: CO
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18651 on: September 14, 2017, 02:48:21 PM »
Watched the Apple conference thing the other day with a coworker. He set his alarm clock right after the iPhone X for $999 starting was announced so that he could be among the first to pre-order it.

I have no idea how people justify spending that much on a phone.

Love the user name!

nouveauRiche

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Location: HCOL - USA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18652 on: September 14, 2017, 02:53:02 PM »
We have a retroactive salary check coming up.  People are are cranking up their withholding allowances because they need the money now and don't want to pay "extra" in taxes!  I can understand making some calculations on what the taxes are actually going to be and adjusting accordingly but these people don't even know what a marginal tax bracket is.

:( This topic makes me depressed. I hear so much misinformed spew because people don't know this.

"I don't want to earn more money because my taxes will go up and I'll actually pocket less money!"

I actually had a co-worker say to me that she didn't want to invest in stocks (outside of retirement) because she didn't want to have to pay more taxes.  "By that logic, you should turn down all future pay raises."  (in my head - not out loud)

Another friend had a CPA tell her to buy a more expensive house because then she would have a bigger interest deduction & get a bigger tax break.  "By that logic, you should just donate $10,000 to charity to get the $3,000 reduction in your taxes."  (in my head - not out loud)
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 02:57:30 PM by nouveauRiche »

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Location: Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18653 on: September 14, 2017, 02:59:09 PM »
Watched the Apple conference thing the other day with a coworker. He set his alarm clock right after the iPhone X for $999 starting was announced so that he could be among the first to pre-order it.

I have no idea how people justify spending that much on a phone.

I will defend a subset of those people. The physical camera on the iPhone X is better than a 2000$ camera from just a decade ago. The software that is coupled with that camera makes the comparison even more asinine.

Going beyond still images, video quality on that thing is a beast. What used to take a big, bulky camera with a skilled technician now takes a person with an iPhone. Except the quality is better. There are a few major entertainment companies that use iPhones, that's right iPhones, as their main cameras for video production.

For both content creators and hobbyists, I posit that the iPhone X is not an extremely outlandish choice. Another group of people I would put forward as legitimate users of such a device is those whose phones serve as their primary or only computer. Quite seriously, my iPad does more than enough to cover 100% of my personal computer use cases. If someone is similar to me but wants something that can fit in their pocket, I won't begrudge them.

Everyone else is a spendypants. lol

Zaga

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1516
  • Age: 38
  • Location: North of Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18654 on: September 14, 2017, 04:19:41 PM »
*snip*
 The "lender" in the case of a CC user who pays in full every month isn't really the CC merchant bank, it's the merchants themselves.  Typically merchants aren't paid for CC sales until 30-45 days after sale, by which time the CC user would have then already paid their CC company off in full.  So the CC merchant bank wouldn't be out anything.
*snip*
This is simply not true.  Merchants are (or at least the one I work for is) paid by the CC processor daily for sales from the previous day.  I can't imagine the merchant I work for being able to stay afloat with income from sales not coming into the business for 30-45 days!

**I'm an accountant, I've actually seen the daily deposits corresponding to the previous day sales.

mustachepungoeshere

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18655 on: September 14, 2017, 05:03:32 PM »
Watched the Apple conference thing the other day with a coworker. He set his alarm clock right after the iPhone X for $999 starting was announced so that he could be among the first to pre-order it.

I have no idea how people justify spending that much on a phone.

I will defend a subset of those people. The physical camera on the iPhone X is better than a 2000$ camera from just a decade ago. The software that is coupled with that camera makes the comparison even more asinine.

Going beyond still images, video quality on that thing is a beast. What used to take a big, bulky camera with a skilled technician now takes a person with an iPhone. Except the quality is better. There are a few major entertainment companies that use iPhones, that's right iPhones, as their main cameras for video production.

For both content creators and hobbyists, I posit that the iPhone X is not an extremely outlandish choice. Another group of people I would put forward as legitimate users of such a device is those whose phones serve as their primary or only computer. Quite seriously, my iPad does more than enough to cover 100% of my personal computer use cases. If someone is similar to me but wants something that can fit in their pocket, I won't begrudge them.

Everyone else is a spendypants. lol

I agree that pre-ordering is over the top and I agree that they are invaluable tools for those who need them.

My husband is overseas for work at the moment. He will meet up with a crew when he needs to, but the rest of the time he's a one-man band, iPhone 7+ and a gorilla pod, iPad Pro and a keyboard case.

RyanAtTanagra

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 914
  • Location: SF Bay, CA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18656 on: September 15, 2017, 09:06:47 AM »
Another friend had a CPA tell her to buy a more expensive house because then she would have a bigger interest deduction & get a bigger tax break.  "By that logic, you should just donate $10,000 to charity to get the $3,000 reduction in your taxes."  (in my head - not out loud)

I tell those people, 'if you think giving $10k to the bank to get $3k back from the government is a good deal, I think we can work something out.  You can give me as much money as you want, no limit, and I'll give you 30% back.  And you don't even have to wait until the end of the year to get it, I'll give it back to you right away!  And we can do this as many times over the course of the year as you want, not just once!'

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18657 on: September 15, 2017, 04:10:53 PM »
So I had to come here and post.  Everyone at work is talking about a new investment plan that the company is promoting.  No match, but they will auto deduct off of your check and thus no charge you income tax on it.  (We have the option to stop source deductions for any investment me make, we just have to do some paperwork) 

Any way, I look into this fund, thinking it might be another place for me to invest.  I look up the fund facts on this one... get this

8.69% MER
0.5% deferred sales charge, that never lapses, but is cumulative for every dollar invested in the fund as long as you invest in it.
1.29% is the average annual return, which I guess isn't bad, with the almost 9% MER deducted.

Wow...

Dollar Slice

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2956
  • Age: 41
  • Location: New York City
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18658 on: September 15, 2017, 09:46:03 PM »
8.69% MER

I want to run away screaming from my computer right now. Holy cow.
Referrals for...
Prolific Academic: http://www.prolific.ac/rp?ref=3PJ4H43L (Earn money by taking academic surveys - way better than mturk, I average ~$9/hr)
Robinhood: http://bit.ly/2uGXBPG (Get a free stock!)

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3178
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18659 on: September 16, 2017, 01:27:55 AM »
That's basically a tax scam.  The management company can get away with the 8.69% because it's most of what the employees would have paid in tax anyway, the employees are happy with the 1.29% because it has the benefit of being on untaxed income, and the big loser is the US Treasury.

I'd be tempted to report it to the IRS.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

LennStar

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18660 on: September 16, 2017, 06:07:28 AM »
That's basically a tax scam.  The management company can get away with the 8.69% because it's most of what the employees would have paid in tax anyway, the employees are happy with the 1.29% because it has the benefit of being on untaxed income, and the big loser is the US Treasury.

I'd be tempted to report it to the IRS.
I don't know if its a tax scam, but it definitly is a scam, so go forward reporting it.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7822
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18661 on: September 16, 2017, 03:05:00 PM »
That's basically a tax scam.  The management company can get away with the 8.69% because it's most of what the employees would have paid in tax anyway, the employees are happy with the 1.29% because it has the benefit of being on untaxed income, and the big loser is the US Treasury.

I'd be tempted to report it to the IRS.
I don't know if its a tax scam, but it definitly is a scam, so go forward reporting it.

Not sure how interested the IRS will be in a presumably Canadian company

TomTX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2895
  • Location: Texas
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18662 on: September 16, 2017, 03:05:34 PM »

Um...until we start talking about pensions...the answer is no.  When someone can retire at 50 with anywhere from 50% to 100% of their highest income (depending on the job), the answer is no.  I don't get to retire at 50.  (I mean, I totally could retire off my investments - we are talking about retiring off of taxpayer money here).

That's the elephant in the room.
- No more retiring at 50.  I don't care if you are a cop.
- If you want to retire at 50, you still have to wait until aged 60-67 to draw a full pension.
- If that's a no-go, then fine, retire at 50, with a paycheck of 25% of the average of your last 10 years.

Or something like that.  I seriously have a friend doing a go fund me to pay for her last semester of school as a pastry chef.  She retired at 50.  Now, she's not a cop or anything, so her pension is around the $40k mark. But that was 10-15 years ago.  She's worked since - teaching ESL, working at grocery stores, etc.  You are in your 60s, save up the $6k, geez.

We can talk about pensions. Where I work, if you want to retire at 50 (under the old system) - you would need to work there for 30 years. That's a pretty long damn run at a single employer.

Pension would be 69% of the highest 3 years' service. Less if you want the pension to continue for your spouse if you die first.

Pension would NOT be inflation-adjusted/COLA. Get paid $3k/month at 50? That's what you're still getting at 90.

Employee would contribute 9.5% of their salary every year to the pension. If they don't wait for the pension and take a lump sum, they get all of 2% per year accrued interest on that money.

Employee is typically paid considerably less than an equivalent private sector job

Frankly, the pension isn't the huge benefit many people make it out to be. Is it a benefit? Yes. But I would have been better off with equivalent 401k matching, and it would be a damn sight more portable. If I just walked away, most of the value would be eaten by inflation before I could draw it.

The new pension system is significantly worse for employees, unless they come to work for the State after a career elsewhere.
Credit card signup bonuses:

Chase 4 ways!
Freedom: $150 bonus on $500 spend https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/03KSQF2G5T
CSP: 50k UR ($500) on $4k spend https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/UW0KPNQ0C6
CSR: 50k UR ($500) on $4k spend https://www.referyourchasecard.com/19/AOWAI3BZ35
CIP (business): 80k UR ($800) on $5k spend https://www.referyourchasecard.com/21/734C6BFZO3

Amex Platinum: 60k MR on $5k spend (try to get targeted for a 100k offer instead) http://refer.amex.us/THOMASCt2z
Amex Hilton Ascend: 100k HH points on $2k spend + Gold status http://refer.amex.us/THOMASYKOS

StacheyStache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 194
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18663 on: September 17, 2017, 06:54:22 AM »

Um...until we start talking about pensions...the answer is no.  When someone can retire at 50 with anywhere from 50% to 100% of their highest income (depending on the job), the answer is no.  I don't get to retire at 50.  (I mean, I totally could retire off my investments - we are talking about retiring off of taxpayer money here).

That's the elephant in the room.
- No more retiring at 50.  I don't care if you are a cop.
- If you want to retire at 50, you still have to wait until aged 60-67 to draw a full pension.
- If that's a no-go, then fine, retire at 50, with a paycheck of 25% of the average of your last 10 years.

Or something like that.  I seriously have a friend doing a go fund me to pay for her last semester of school as a pastry chef.  She retired at 50.  Now, she's not a cop or anything, so her pension is around the $40k mark. But that was 10-15 years ago.  She's worked since - teaching ESL, working at grocery stores, etc.  You are in your 60s, save up the $6k, geez.

We can talk about pensions. Where I work, if you want to retire at 50 (under the old system) - you would need to work there for 30 years. That's a pretty long damn run at a single employer.

Pension would be 69% of the highest 3 years' service. Less if you want the pension to continue for your spouse if you die first.

Pension would NOT be inflation-adjusted/COLA. Get paid $3k/month at 50? That's what you're still getting at 90.

Employee would contribute 9.5% of their salary every year to the pension. If they don't wait for the pension and take a lump sum, they get all of 2% per year accrued interest on that money.

Employee is typically paid considerably less than an equivalent private sector job

Frankly, the pension isn't the huge benefit many people make it out to be. Is it a benefit? Yes. But I would have been better off with equivalent 401k matching, and it would be a damn sight more portable. If I just walked away, most of the value would be eaten by inflation before I could draw it.

The new pension system is significantly worse for employees, unless they come to work for the State after a career elsewhere.

My state has something called "Rule of 90:"  Age plus years of experience must equal 90 or higher before you can retire.  I started a few months after I graduated law school at 25; the earliest I can retire and receive a pension is 58:  33 years of experience plus age 58= 91.  And that's 33 years of making way less than I would in the private sector (50k for a lawyer with three years of experience!!!). 

Definitely not a screaming deal.  You're better off working in the private sector and saving in a traditional 401k in almost every circumstance (and then our state pays 300k of taxpayer money for a study to ask "gwarsh, why we can't hang on to any state workers?!?"  SERIOUSLY.)




Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5333
  • Location: BC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18664 on: September 17, 2017, 11:26:34 AM »

Um...until we start talking about pensions...the answer is no.  When someone can retire at 50 with anywhere from 50% to 100% of their highest income (depending on the job), the answer is no.  I don't get to retire at 50.  (I mean, I totally could retire off my investments - we are talking about retiring off of taxpayer money here).

That's the elephant in the room.
- No more retiring at 50.  I don't care if you are a cop.
- If you want to retire at 50, you still have to wait until aged 60-67 to draw a full pension.
- If that's a no-go, then fine, retire at 50, with a paycheck of 25% of the average of your last 10 years.

Or something like that.  I seriously have a friend doing a go fund me to pay for her last semester of school as a pastry chef.  She retired at 50.  Now, she's not a cop or anything, so her pension is around the $40k mark. But that was 10-15 years ago.  She's worked since - teaching ESL, working at grocery stores, etc.  You are in your 60s, save up the $6k, geez.

We can talk about pensions. Where I work, if you want to retire at 50 (under the old system) - you would need to work there for 30 years. That's a pretty long damn run at a single employer.

Pension would be 69% of the highest 3 years' service. Less if you want the pension to continue for your spouse if you die first.

Pension would NOT be inflation-adjusted/COLA. Get paid $3k/month at 50? That's what you're still getting at 90.

Employee would contribute 9.5% of their salary every year to the pension. If they don't wait for the pension and take a lump sum, they get all of 2% per year accrued interest on that money.

Employee is typically paid considerably less than an equivalent private sector job

Frankly, the pension isn't the huge benefit many people make it out to be. Is it a benefit? Yes. But I would have been better off with equivalent 401k matching, and it would be a damn sight more portable. If I just walked away, most of the value would be eaten by inflation before I could draw it.

The new pension system is significantly worse for employees, unless they come to work for the State after a career elsewhere.

My state has something called "Rule of 90:"  Age plus years of experience must equal 90 or higher before you can retire.  I started a few months after I graduated law school at 25; the earliest I can retire and receive a pension is 58:  33 years of experience plus age 58= 91.  And that's 33 years of making way less than I would in the private sector (50k for a lawyer with three years of experience!!!). 

Definitely not a screaming deal.  You're better off working in the private sector and saving in a traditional 401k in almost every circumstance (and then our state pays 300k of taxpayer money for a study to ask "gwarsh, why we can't hang on to any state workers?!?"  SERIOUSLY.)

Stacey -- I am curious,  How much are you required to contribute to it, and what is the formula for the amount that you get?  I want to compare it to the government pension (medical / healthcare standard) here..  I was offered a job with a generous pension, but I found that that it did not work for me, because the mandatory personal contribution was too large for what I needed for retirement (I would have ended up taking home 30% more in retirement, due to funding retirement funds early in life, prior to this job).  I needed the present day cashflow to fund a mortgage and teenagers at home more than money later..

I am assuming that rule of 90 is to retire with a full pension...e.g at age 58, you don't take a reduced pension if the 90 rule is obtained.  Please correct if wrong.


StacheyStache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 194
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18665 on: September 18, 2017, 05:47:52 AM »

Um...until we start talking about pensions...the answer is no.  When someone can retire at 50 with anywhere from 50% to 100% of their highest income (depending on the job), the answer is no.  I don't get to retire at 50.  (I mean, I totally could retire off my investments - we are talking about retiring off of taxpayer money here).

That's the elephant in the room.
- No more retiring at 50.  I don't care if you are a cop.
- If you want to retire at 50, you still have to wait until aged 60-67 to draw a full pension.
- If that's a no-go, then fine, retire at 50, with a paycheck of 25% of the average of your last 10 years.

Or something like that.  I seriously have a friend doing a go fund me to pay for her last semester of school as a pastry chef.  She retired at 50.  Now, she's not a cop or anything, so her pension is around the $40k mark. But that was 10-15 years ago.  She's worked since - teaching ESL, working at grocery stores, etc.  You are in your 60s, save up the $6k, geez.

We can talk about pensions. Where I work, if you want to retire at 50 (under the old system) - you would need to work there for 30 years. That's a pretty long damn run at a single employer.

Pension would be 69% of the highest 3 years' service. Less if you want the pension to continue for your spouse if you die first.

Pension would NOT be inflation-adjusted/COLA. Get paid $3k/month at 50? That's what you're still getting at 90.

Employee would contribute 9.5% of their salary every year to the pension. If they don't wait for the pension and take a lump sum, they get all of 2% per year accrued interest on that money.

Employee is typically paid considerably less than an equivalent private sector job

Frankly, the pension isn't the huge benefit many people make it out to be. Is it a benefit? Yes. But I would have been better off with equivalent 401k matching, and it would be a damn sight more portable. If I just walked away, most of the value would be eaten by inflation before I could draw it.

The new pension system is significantly worse for employees, unless they come to work for the State after a career elsewhere.

My state has something called "Rule of 90:"  Age plus years of experience must equal 90 or higher before you can retire.  I started a few months after I graduated law school at 25; the earliest I can retire and receive a pension is 58:  33 years of experience plus age 58= 91.  And that's 33 years of making way less than I would in the private sector (50k for a lawyer with three years of experience!!!). 

Definitely not a screaming deal.  You're better off working in the private sector and saving in a traditional 401k in almost every circumstance (and then our state pays 300k of taxpayer money for a study to ask "gwarsh, why we can't hang on to any state workers?!?"  SERIOUSLY.)

Stacey -- I am curious,  How much are you required to contribute to it, and what is the formula for the amount that you get?  I want to compare it to the government pension (medical / healthcare standard) here..  I was offered a job with a generous pension, but I found that that it did not work for me, because the mandatory personal contribution was too large for what I needed for retirement (I would have ended up taking home 30% more in retirement, due to funding retirement funds early in life, prior to this job).  I needed the present day cashflow to fund a mortgage and teenagers at home more than money later..

I am assuming that rule of 90 is to retire with a full pension...e.g at age 58, you don't take a reduced pension if the 90 rule is obtained.  Please correct if wrong.

That's correct.  There is no early retirement before 55 and that's with a substantially reduced payout and still requiremes many years of earned service credit (not sure of the exact amount but I know it's more than 20).  We contribute 9 percent.  It used to be less but has risen every year for awhile now.  We don't have control over the contribution amount.

The formula comes out to a little more than half your salary at retirement at full payout.  Since most state workers make less than 50k...again, better off in the private sector in almost every circumstance.

Edit:  The pension used to be a lot better and still is for anyone who got in about five years ago who were grandfathered in.  The old system was too good to be sustainable, I agree, but the benefits were slashed so much for the new workers that now the state is having the opposite problem:  they can't hold onto anyone because they still want to pay the same low wages with a much crappier pension.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 05:55:40 AM by StacheyStache »

TOgirl

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18666 on: September 18, 2017, 07:47:58 AM »
Get into work this morning, brew my coffee and fill up my water bottle...

Spendy pants colleague "ooohhh ok, if you aren't buying coffee, how about we both don't spend anything this week?"

Me "ummmm ok, I never really buy coffee, so that's easy - should we have a no spend week challenge?"

SPC "OK! sounds like fun! Let's ask spendy pants colleague #2 to join us"

SPC2 "yeah I'm in, my husband said I need to cut down the spending, I spent too much in the last couple of months, but it's partly his fault, he TOLD me to buy the Prada sunglasses"

Me "ok, so it's a challenge - no spending for the rest of the week. I"m going to do it here and at home"

SPC "ok, but I didn't bring breakfast or lunch for today, so I just need to buy some food, then I can start the not spending"

SPC2 "I'm going out at lunch to get my nails re-done, my shellac is growing out. But that's not something tangible, so it counts right? I'm not BUYING something"

Me "........."

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6353
  • Location: United States
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18667 on: September 18, 2017, 08:30:18 AM »
SPC2 "I'm going out at lunch to get my nails re-done, my shellac is growing out. But that's not something tangible, so it counts right? I'm not BUYING something"


Well, I mean, that's just necessary. Her nails have grown out, they NEED to be filled.

(Also, how is that not tangible? You are buying acrylic.)

RidetheRain

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Age: 26
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18668 on: September 18, 2017, 10:03:32 AM »
SPC2 "I'm going out at lunch to get my nails re-done, my shellac is growing out. But that's not something tangible, so it counts right? I'm not BUYING something"


Well, I mean, that's just necessary. Her nails have grown out, they NEED to be filled.

(Also, how is that not tangible? You are buying acrylic.)

I'll be honest, I never really understood acrylic nails. What's wrong with your own nails?
See my journal

marielle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 863
  • Age: 25
  • Location: South Carolina
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18669 on: September 18, 2017, 10:23:21 AM »
SPC2 "I'm going out at lunch to get my nails re-done, my shellac is growing out. But that's not something tangible, so it counts right? I'm not BUYING something"


Well, I mean, that's just necessary. Her nails have grown out, they NEED to be filled.

(Also, how is that not tangible? You are buying acrylic.)

I'll be honest, I never really understood acrylic nails. What's wrong with your own nails?

I can see the appeal, but not something I'd do regularly considering the cost. I did get fake nails twice for prom in highschool. Considering a lot of pictures were taken and I bite my nails, it wasn't the worst idea ever. I would probably do it again for a special occasion but that might never happen again. Bleeding cuticles and super rough bitten nails probably isn't something I'd want on a framed picture forever. Fake nails are also much much stronger which is nice for scratching yourself and such.

I guess I only have an answer to this question because I'm an idiot and my nails suck. One of these days I'll stop...

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6353
  • Location: United States
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18670 on: September 18, 2017, 10:39:36 AM »
SPC2 "I'm going out at lunch to get my nails re-done, my shellac is growing out. But that's not something tangible, so it counts right? I'm not BUYING something"


Well, I mean, that's just necessary. Her nails have grown out, they NEED to be filled.

(Also, how is that not tangible? You are buying acrylic.)

I'll be honest, I never really understood acrylic nails. What's wrong with your own nails?

Polish doesn't chip off acrylics as easily. They are much much harder to break. Being the same length it gives a more uniform look.

I had acrylics a bit in college, but now just have my natural nails. I'm not spending money on that. I had way more disposable income during college since my expenses were paid by scholarship and parents, so the money I worked for was half save half spend.

Really acrylic nails are kind of like any makeup. What's the point of false eyelashes? What's wrong with your own eyelashes? What's the point of foundation? What's wrong with your own skin color?

Needless to say, I don't wear makeup. I do however LOVE nail art and paint my nails multiple times a week. So I'm  totally cool with people who do wear makeup. But it is all "extra".

Imma

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 956
  • Location: Europe
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18671 on: September 18, 2017, 12:35:32 PM »
Fake nails seem to be much more common in the US than they are over here. And just like any type of make-up, once it starts to become the norm, many women feel like they have to join that trend or look frumpy / unfashionable / unkempt. I'm glad fake nails aren't a big thing over here yet, although they're on the rise. I've only worn nailpolish once in my life as a teenager and I hated it (and never have had fake nails). Luckily I have pretty strong, healthy looking nails naturally so I don't look like a slob - they look like an understated elegant French manicure.

Going grey and not wearing make-up are two other things that used to be really normal and are now frowned upon. Very few ladies of my grandmother's generation ever wore anything but a little bit of lipstick when they went to town and they all went grey. I only know one woman who's going grey naturally without ever dyeing her hair. People call her a slob constantly though, not sure if they do it to her face but certainly behind her back. She's in a field where looks shouldn't matter (as a medical doctor and a PhD) and she's very meticulous in her job but her grey hair puts people off.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1894
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18672 on: September 18, 2017, 01:01:22 PM »
Fake nails seem to be much more common in the US than they are over here. And just like any type of make-up, once it starts to become the norm, many women feel like they have to join that trend or look frumpy / unfashionable / unkempt. I'm glad fake nails aren't a big thing over here yet, although they're on the rise. I've only worn nailpolish once in my life as a teenager and I hated it (and never have had fake nails). Luckily I have pretty strong, healthy looking nails naturally so I don't look like a slob - they look like an understated elegant French manicure.

Going grey and not wearing make-up are two other things that used to be really normal and are now frowned upon. Very few ladies of my grandmother's generation ever wore anything but a little bit of lipstick when they went to town and they all went grey. I only know one woman who's going grey naturally without ever dyeing her hair. People call her a slob constantly though, not sure if they do it to her face but certainly behind her back. She's in a field where looks shouldn't matter (as a medical doctor and a PhD) and she's very meticulous in her job but her grey hair puts people off.

Funny: in engineering, grey hair gets you promoted because it suggests credibility. We also tend to avoid makeup especially in the lab or the field. Wearing makeup tends to get you mistaken for a clerical worker.

Several months ago I suspected that fake nails received far more media attention than real ones did, and did not reflect the preferences of real people despite my daughter's protestations that "everybody" wore fake nails. I never seemed to see any on her classmates except for special events such as Prom. So I did a little bit of fieldwork. I went about my business with a little notebook, and my usual errands took me to a mall, various shops and department stores, several drive-through counters, a hospital, and the office where I worked. As I went, I discreetly counted professional or professional-looking manicures that looked as though someone had exchanged money to make them happen. I classified women's manicures as "none", "polish", "fake" as in long and obviously artificial, or "decorative", meaning an elaborate set of nails with multiple colors, jewels, textures, or more than one pattern that is intended to draw attention to the ring finger. It's very possible that I mis-categorized some French manicures as "none", or a few high-quality fakes as "polish". Most polish jobs were probably done Mustachian-style by the owner of the nails.

In my workplace there were no children, so at the other shops, stores, and mall locations I ignored children and adolescents and focused only on adult women.

At my place of work, one female manager and two engineers had nail polish but none had an obviously fake or decorative look. Three secretaries and one of the janitors had decorative fake nails. None of the security guards had polish and neither did any of the student interns.

At the hospital, none of the doctors or nurses had any manicure or polish whatsoever. Counter staff nearly all wore nail polish however I only noticed two with nails that appeared to be fake, and only one of those sets was decorative.

At the drive-through, nearly every female counter worker had a set of elaborate fake decorative nails, generally complete with added jewels and doodads. The second most common way to wear nails was polished. Very few drive-through employees wore bare nails.

At the mall, clerks tended to wear nail polish but not fake nails. Most customers had no nail polish at all. Only about one in ten women who were not obviously employed at the mall wore nail polish or decoration of any sort, and only about half of those (I'd say about five percent) wore decorative nails. Most food service workers who handled food did not wear polish or nail decoration of any kind at work. This could have reflected company policy of some kind.

Overall, I'd say only five to ten percent of the women who can afford it were wearing fake nails. The ones who do, tend to be concentrated either in entertainment-related industries where a high maintenance appearance is considered necessary, or in very low-end service jobs where it's important to hide dirt that may be under the fingernails.
I squeak softly, but carry a big schtick.

Rowellen

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Location: Australia
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18673 on: September 18, 2017, 03:52:16 PM »
TGS, when I worked at McDonald's, we weren't allowed to wear nail polish. I believe it was a health and safety requirement. My mum was a nurse so she was also not allowed to wear nail polish. For the same reason I assume.

My spendypants coworker has fancy fake nails. I think they look a bit ridiculous and impractical. She also always has her hair and makeup done. I've mentioned her before. She likes to purchase  $200 skirts on afterpay. She's the only one in the office that does this so it's not keeping up a certain expected appearance. It's purely her own vanity.

mustachepungoeshere

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18674 on: September 18, 2017, 04:47:15 PM »
Going grey and not wearing make-up are two other things that used to be really normal and are now frowned upon.

I've been pondering this lately because of the stark differences in two of my female colleagues.

Colleague A:
- over 60
- tall, handsome woman
- short grey hair, well maintained, styled but nothing fussy
- looks strong and fit
- wardrobe is the embodiment of 'fashion comes and goes but style is forever'

Colleague B:
- over 60
- carrying about 25kg too many (by her own admission) and has been paying to see a dietitian each week
- spent an inheritance on a face-lift
- long hair that requires expensive dye jobs, but it's then left to its own - limp and slightly greasy - devices
- is still squeezing into clothes that fit 25kg ago

No, I shouldn't be judging my colleagues on their appearance.

Yes, they can present themselves as they like.

It's just interesting to me that the one who is more focused on maintaining herself (Colleague A cycles, hikes, eats well) presents better than the one focused on maintaining her appearance (Colleague B, who sees her dietitian then comes to work with lollies to celebrate).

mustachepungoeshere

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18675 on: September 18, 2017, 04:49:22 PM »
One of my colleagues lives in a $5.3 million house in a beach suburb.

Her neighbours just bought the $2.9 million house next door with the sole purpose of demolishing it to improve their ocean view.

RyanAtTanagra

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 914
  • Location: SF Bay, CA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18676 on: September 18, 2017, 04:56:14 PM »
One of my colleagues lives in a $5.3 million house in a beach suburb.

Her neighbours just bought the $2.9 million house next door with the sole purpose of demolishing it to improve their ocean view.

Like, they already own the house behind it and it was blocking their view?  Or they're going to rebuild it more to their liking?

mustachepungoeshere

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18677 on: September 18, 2017, 05:03:23 PM »
One of my colleagues lives in a $5.3 million house in a beach suburb.

Her neighbours just bought the $2.9 million house next door with the sole purpose of demolishing it to improve their ocean view.

Like, they already own the house behind it and it was blocking their view?  Or they're going to rebuild it more to their liking?

They own the house behind it and it was partially blocking their view.

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2594
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18678 on: September 18, 2017, 07:27:14 PM »
One of my colleagues lives in a $5.3 million house in a beach suburb.

Her neighbours just bought the $2.9 million house next door with the sole purpose of demolishing it to improve their ocean view.

Like, they already own the house behind it and it was blocking their view?  Or they're going to rebuild it more to their liking?

They own the house behind it and it was partially blocking their view.
I wonder if each morning, they walk out on their balcony, look out at the ocean, and think "I'm so glad I'm spending >$300 today see a bit more of the ocean.  And I'm glad that tomorrow, I'll spend that same $300 to enjoy a slightly-larger view of the ocean again.  And another $300 the day afterward."  (4% interest on $2.9million is about $320/day)

Gone_Hiking

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 168
  • Location: Arizona
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18679 on: September 18, 2017, 10:06:56 PM »
Anyway, I find it more strange that people always want tax cuts, but never service cuts.

However, there's a ballot measure this fall to add 1% to our already 8.25% sales tax for infrastructure to fix our roads, etc.
 

1.  Seems to me that some of the people who want tax cuts also want to cut services - just not services for them.  To those types, they deserve the benefits they get - and everybody else is a deadbeat.  This sentiment is perhaps heard more when it comes to Social Security in United States.
2. When it comes to fixing roads, sales tax is not perfect.  A better formula might involve vehicle weight and miles driven.   Sales tax, however, seems to be more equitable  than property tax levied on homeowners.  Property tax raise is a new idea from the county where I live and where roads are in bad shape.  Because sales tax requires unanimous vote from the county board of supervisors and property tax raise needs majority only, homeowners are now paying for the road updates because the county board can't muster unanimity on anything, including laws of physics.  Vehicle weight and miles driven proposals don't have a chance to pass through state legislature within the next ten years.

Of course, it's easy for me to pick on the county board of supervisors: property tax statement came in the mail today.  The point of view depends on where one has planted the rear end, no?

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3295
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18680 on: September 19, 2017, 02:24:30 AM »
^^Surely vehicle weight and miles driven are correlated with petrol ("gas") used. So tax petrol and use it to maintain roads.

On fake nails: I've known a few people who had manicures frequently in the past, but now I live in a poor mostly-black area I see a lot of fake nails. Some of them are amazing (colours, patterns, rhinestones) and some of them are ridiculous (cannot get card out of purse because of massive claw nails). But I read a thing one time about why poor people value ostentatious clothes, hair and makeup and middle class people are obsessed with their houses. Property value might be a bragging thing for the middle classes but you can't *see* it, whereas anyone you meet can see your awesome nails or the latest pair of trainers.
Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/young-uk-little-money-lots-of-dreams/

Do I seem curt or like I've missed the point? Please forgive me - I've probably been typing attached to a baby.

farfromfire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 235
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18681 on: September 19, 2017, 02:55:38 AM »
^^Surely vehicle weight and miles driven are correlated with petrol ("gas") used. So tax petrol and use it to maintain roads.

... for now. But with the advent of electric cars, this will no longer be the case:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/26/treasury-tax-electric-cars-vat-fuel-duty
I know that in some countries, governments are considering taxing car use for road improvement by requiring recording devices in every car, that report the distance driven each month.

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3295
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18682 on: September 19, 2017, 03:09:47 AM »
^^Surely vehicle weight and miles driven are correlated with petrol ("gas") used. So tax petrol and use it to maintain roads.

... for now. But with the advent of electric cars, this will no longer be the case:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/26/treasury-tax-electric-cars-vat-fuel-duty
I know that in some countries, governments are considering taxing car use for road improvement by requiring recording devices in every car, that report the distance driven each month.

Fair enough, but it's still the case NOW and American petrol is known for being ridiculously cheap so they could easily jack up the tax on that for the time being.
Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/young-uk-little-money-lots-of-dreams/

Do I seem curt or like I've missed the point? Please forgive me - I've probably been typing attached to a baby.

nobody123

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18683 on: September 19, 2017, 06:45:56 AM »
^^Surely vehicle weight and miles driven are correlated with petrol ("gas") used. So tax petrol and use it to maintain roads.

... for now. But with the advent of electric cars, this will no longer be the case:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/26/treasury-tax-electric-cars-vat-fuel-duty
I know that in some countries, governments are considering taxing car use for road improvement by requiring recording devices in every car, that report the distance driven each month.

Fair enough, but it's still the case NOW and American petrol is known for being ridiculously cheap so they could easily jack up the tax on that for the time being.

It is EXTREMELY unpopular to raise the gas tax, since it affects essentially everyone, rich and poor alike.  Even those without vehicles are affected as service providers like trash collection just pass it along as part of their "fuel cost surcharge".

Raenia

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 496
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18684 on: September 19, 2017, 07:09:23 AM »
There was some talk of adding a mileage tax, assessed at the required annual emissions inspection, in my area.  I don't think it passed, but it would have been a good complement to the gas tax - we already have one of the highest gas taxes in the country, and you wouldn't know it from the roads :/

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1276
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18685 on: September 19, 2017, 08:24:57 AM »
I read about someone online who was running his diesel off of waste oil (greasecar). He tried the DMV, state police, secretary of state, etc., trying to figure out how he could pay his road tax. Nobody could help him. He has been keeping track of everything, but as he's gone through about 2 gallons of diesel in the past 4 years he's not paid nearly any of his road tax because no one knows how.

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2594
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18686 on: September 19, 2017, 08:33:36 AM »
There was some talk of adding a mileage tax, assessed at the required annual emissions inspection, in my area.  I don't think it passed, but it would have been a good complement to the gas tax - we already have one of the highest gas taxes in the country, and you wouldn't know it from the roads :/
This is a great example of why, as nobody123 pointed out, increasing the gas tax is unpopular.  People may not understand the word "fungible," but they *do* understand when they're being taxed more to take care of the roads, and the roads aren't being maintained.

Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5333
  • Location: BC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18687 on: September 19, 2017, 10:09:36 AM »
One of my colleagues lives in a $5.3 million house in a beach suburb.

Her neighbours just bought the $2.9 million house next door with the sole purpose of demolishing it to improve their ocean view.

Like, they already own the house behind it and it was blocking their view?  Or they're going to rebuild it more to their liking?

They own the house behind it and it was partially blocking their view.


Hey, this could be a shrewd investment concept.     Buy adjacent property, remove home, maybe a tree that also blocks your own view.  Maybe put a small (cheap) affordable home for renters where you can't see it, to cover taxes, maybe not.   

Live in own home for 2 more years, then renovate existing home, sell it for $10 million in perfect condition with fabulous view.   Then build a massive house on the second property, again blocking the first home's view, or just sell the land as is to someone else for $3 million (as it has a new small home on it), or for $5 million (to the people that just bought the first home).

Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5333
  • Location: BC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18688 on: September 19, 2017, 10:28:42 AM »

That's correct.  There is no early retirement before 55 and that's with a substantially reduced payout and still requiremes many years of earned service credit (not sure of the exact amount but I know it's more than 20).  We contribute 9 percent. It used to be less but has risen every year for awhile now.  We don't have control over the contribution amount.

The formula comes out to a little more than half your salary at retirement at full payout.  Since most state workers make less than 50k...again, better off in the private sector in almost every circumstance.

Edit:  The pension used to be a lot better and still is for anyone who got in about five years ago who were grandfathered in.  The old system was too good to be sustainable, I agree, but the benefits were slashed so much for the new workers that now the state is having the opposite problem:  they can't hold onto anyone because they still want to pay the same low wages with a much crappier pension.

That is horrible.  At 9%, the employees under 40 are essentially fully funding their own retirement plans -- this is a zero benefit, other than the "convenience" of having your employer force you to automatically contribute...   and those over 40 would not get much payout because retiring after anything less than 25 years of service would be under the full "90".. but at least their total $s received versus $'s put in would be higher than the young person.

The pension plan I walked away from was a required contribution of 9% from me, and matched with something like 6-8% by the company, vested after 2 years, so a lot of money... AND they were paying market rates for salaries, even though they told themselves that they weren't.  Heck, in some cities with heavy government (the capital), people there make MORE than the industry will bear.  Anyway this "pension" would end up with my having far too much money in retirement and not enough in the current year. 

I think the reason that your employer only pays 2% interest on their contributions is because the company is not putting any of their own money to be vested so there is nothing to "vest".

Sounds like a job for people having trouble getting hired, so you can work for 2-4 years for experience, then get out with your "pension" lump sum....  like a FT paid internship...   Not what the management has in mind, I am sure.

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3611
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18689 on: September 19, 2017, 11:30:25 AM »

That's correct.  There is no early retirement before 55 and that's with a substantially reduced payout and still requiremes many years of earned service credit (not sure of the exact amount but I know it's more than 20).  We contribute 9 percent. It used to be less but has risen every year for awhile now.  We don't have control over the contribution amount.

The formula comes out to a little more than half your salary at retirement at full payout.  Since most state workers make less than 50k...again, better off in the private sector in almost every circumstance.

Edit:  The pension used to be a lot better and still is for anyone who got in about five years ago who were grandfathered in.  The old system was too good to be sustainable, I agree, but the benefits were slashed so much for the new workers that now the state is having the opposite problem:  they can't hold onto anyone because they still want to pay the same low wages with a much crappier pension.

That is horrible.  At 9%, the employees under 40 are essentially fully funding their own retirement plans -- this is a zero benefit, other than the "convenience" of having your employer force you to automatically contribute...   and those over 40 would not get much payout because retiring after anything less than 25 years of service would be under the full "90".. but at least their total $s received versus $'s put in would be higher than the young person.

The pension plan I walked away from was a required contribution of 9% from me, and matched with something like 6-8% by the company, vested after 2 years, so a lot of money... AND they were paying market rates for salaries, even though they told themselves that they weren't.  Heck, in some cities with heavy government (the capital), people there make MORE than the industry will bear.  Anyway this "pension" would end up with my having far too much money in retirement and not enough in the current year. 

I think the reason that your employer only pays 2% interest on their contributions is because the company is not putting any of their own money to be vested so there is nothing to "vest".

Sounds like a job for people having trouble getting hired, so you can work for 2-4 years for experience, then get out with your "pension" lump sum....  like a FT paid internship...   Not what the management has in mind, I am sure.

For fun I created a spreadsheet. Assumed that you're paid $100k annually with no raises and you contribute 9% of that annually and get a 10% return. By the year 34 the amount will have exceeded $2.5M (this is before inflation), meaning that you will get more than $100k annually if you withdraw 4%.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7822
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18690 on: September 19, 2017, 11:33:03 AM »


For fun I created a spreadsheet.

Yeah baby tell me more

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3611
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18691 on: September 19, 2017, 11:45:34 AM »

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27212
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18692 on: September 19, 2017, 11:46:06 PM »
MgoSam is the accountant version of bloodninja.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7073
  • Location: Washington DC
  • Cake or Death?
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18693 on: September 20, 2017, 05:15:49 AM »
MgoSam is the accountant version of bloodninja.

.... Wow. I've seen references to "I put on my robe and wizard hat" before and now I finally understand it!

marielle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 863
  • Age: 25
  • Location: South Carolina
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18694 on: September 20, 2017, 06:27:17 AM »
MgoSam is the accountant version of bloodninja.

.... Wow. I've seen references to "I put on my robe and wizard hat" before and now I finally understand it!

Read the entire top 200 on there. I died laughing. But unfortunately there a lot of stolen jokes from there now. The top 100/200 pages are two different pages by the way (makes no sense).
« Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 06:31:26 AM by marielle »

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18695 on: September 20, 2017, 07:09:49 AM »
Ah, bash.org. The hours I've spent.

MrMoogle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18696 on: September 20, 2017, 09:36:05 AM »
Bringing back some orange foam, from maybe not even this thread.  There was discussion about leaving your car running while pumping gas...  Over the weekend I got some gas, and a police officer did the same, but kept his car running while he got his.  So I'm guessing it's at least legal to do.

RyanAtTanagra

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 914
  • Location: SF Bay, CA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18697 on: September 20, 2017, 10:20:27 AM »
MgoSam is the accountant version of bloodninja.

Jesus, there's an old and obscure geek reference I haven't heard in a while.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8336
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18698 on: September 20, 2017, 10:30:51 AM »
Bringing back some orange foam, from maybe not even this thread.  There was discussion about leaving your car running while pumping gas...  Over the weekend I got some gas, and a police officer did the same, but kept his car running while he got his.  So I'm guessing it's at least legal to do.

All the gas stations here have signs that tell you to turn off the engine.  Also to ground yourself - which I figure I do when I get out of the car and touch the gas pump.

Plus if you search on-line for this there are emission control systems and gas vapour control systems that get messed up if you always fill up the car while running.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6353
  • Location: United States
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18699 on: September 20, 2017, 10:51:25 AM »
Not anti-mustachian but at work:

Our work has 3 breakrooms with fridges in each.  So many people are bringing their lunches they had to put a second fridge in each breakroom.