Author Topic: Overheard at Work  (Read 13253616 times)

ysette9

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8930
  • Age: 2020
  • Location: Bay Area at heart living in the PNW
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19100 on: November 16, 2017, 10:13:10 AM »
I suppose he just didn't know what he was doing then. Perhaps that was before you could look up anything and everything on the internet? I remember he had the owner's manuals out for reference. In any case, we haven't had a light bulb go out on us since, thank goodness.

Imma

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3193
  • Location: Europe
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19101 on: November 16, 2017, 10:50:49 AM »
^ you all must work in observant places. I keep quiet about money at the office, and no one seems to notice that I'm frugal. Either that or all of my coworkers are.

I think one of the biggest factors is that we don't get a paid lunch break. This causes ~95% of my coworkers to either bring leftovers and eat at their desks to 'work' during lunch, or people to quickly buy something from the cafe and bring it up to their desks. Truly eating out for lunch (going to a restaurant not the in-building cafe) is a rarity.

My office is really small, and my boss dictates how much I make so it's not hard to figure out. Everyone is basically a department of one. I also poke fun of myself sometimes for being a cheapskate and they know I drive a 15 year old car. I also have mentioned early retirement as a "joke" but I don't think they know the extent of how much I save. We're getting a 401k at the company soon (fairly new company) so I'm sure the HR lady will have a WTF look when I want to max it to 18k. I think I could have kept it stealth if I really wanted to, at least until the 401k came out.

My boss says I have to work here until I start collecting social security...

I'm in a small company too. I'm the one-woman finance & legal department, so it's already sort of assumed that I know things about money. We don't have a paid lunch break either and no place to buy food close to the office, so my coworkers drive by the grocery store every morning before work to buy ready-made meals and cans of soda. I bring my own food from home and I drink my own instant coffee (sadly, no coffee making facilities at work). I don't own a car and cycle the 3 miles to work every day. My coworkers go on long luxury foreign holidays, I don't. And for every season I have about 6 work outfits. Since I have the luxury of owning a washing machine, I don't really need more office clothes than a full load of laundry and maybe one extra set. I also don't constantly buy new stuff so my coworkers see me wearing the same (neat, representative) clothes all the time. I also only have two pairs of office shoes per season. I live in a working class neighbourhood with cheap homes - actually, the first thing my boss said in my job interview was "I invited you because I wanted to see what an educated persion from neighbourhood X looks like".

Still, I'm not exactly sure how my boss has figured out it's not actual poverty but mustachianism that has caused me to live like this. After all, I only earn €1200 per month (for 20/hours per week) from him and he has no idea what my fiance earns as a musician, most people just assume we're poor.

Dollar Slice

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9598
  • Age: 46
  • Location: New York City
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19102 on: November 16, 2017, 01:20:27 PM »
Just overheard a conversation at work, trying to figure out how much one of them has paid into a life insurance policy.

A: So we've been paying $3000 a year for 22 years... that's, let's see, 22 years times 12 months is...
B: No, no. Just 22 times $3000.
A: Oh, right, right. So, how much is that?
B: $88,000.
A: $88,000! Wow.

Math is hard.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Location: Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19103 on: November 16, 2017, 01:37:30 PM »
Just overheard a conversation at work, trying to figure out how much one of them has paid into a life insurance policy.

A: So we've been paying $3000 a year for 22 years... that's, let's see, 22 years times 12 months is...
B: No, no. Just 22 times $3000.
A: Oh, right, right. So, how much is that?
B: $88,000.
A: $88,000! Wow.

Math is hard.

If math was easy, they’d not have whole life insurance.

Dollar Slice

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9598
  • Age: 46
  • Location: New York City
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19104 on: November 16, 2017, 01:49:15 PM »
Just overheard a conversation at work, trying to figure out how much one of them has paid into a life insurance policy.

A: So we've been paying $3000 a year for 22 years... that's, let's see, 22 years times 12 months is...
B: No, no. Just 22 times $3000.
A: Oh, right, right. So, how much is that?
B: $88,000.
A: $88,000! Wow.

Math is hard.

If math was easy, they’d not have whole life insurance.

I think their job was paying the premiums as a benefit, at which point I guess you might as well. They were just pissing and moaning about the customer service and wanted to know what amount of money to be obnoxious about, e.g., "We've paid you people $88,000 $66,000 in premiums and you're going to nickel and dime me over this paperwork? This is outrageous! I want to speak to your supervisor!"

marielle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Age: 30
  • Location: South Carolina
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19105 on: November 16, 2017, 01:57:32 PM »
What's wrong with whole life insurance? I tried to google it, but figured there was a mustachian answer. Is it more expensive than term?

Uturn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Raleigh, NC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19106 on: November 16, 2017, 02:38:39 PM »
Whole life is more of an investment vehicle than just money when/if you die.  However, the interest earned is less than broad market index.  I believe the premiums are higher.  You pay more in order to earn less.  It is a product marketed to less savvy investors.

marielle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Age: 30
  • Location: South Carolina
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19107 on: November 16, 2017, 02:57:47 PM »
Whole life is more of an investment vehicle than just money when/if you die.  However, the interest earned is less than broad market index.  I believe the premiums are higher.  You pay more in order to earn less.  It is a product marketed to less savvy investors.

Wait, so you only get what you pay + ROI? I'm so confused. That's not how it sounded on Wikipedia. Why would anyone get it then?

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4553
  • Age: 51
  • Location: SoCal
    • Our Sea Story
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19108 on: November 16, 2017, 03:10:10 PM »
Whole life is more of an investment vehicle than just money when/if you die.  However, the interest earned is less than broad market index.  I believe the premiums are higher.  You pay more in order to earn less.  It is a product marketed to less savvy investors.

Wait, so you only get what you pay + ROI? I'm so confused. That's not how it sounded on Wikipedia. Why would anyone get it then?

The sales pitch is that with term life, you just lose your payments. With while life, if you don't die, you get your investment back.

Mathematically, it is better to pay for the cheaper term life and invest the difference between the premiums.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9918
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19109 on: November 16, 2017, 04:38:22 PM »
Whole life is more of an investment vehicle than just money when/if you die.  However, the interest earned is less than broad market index.  I believe the premiums are higher.  You pay more in order to earn less.  It is a product marketed to less savvy investors.

Wait, so you only get what you pay + ROI? I'm so confused. That's not how it sounded on Wikipedia. Why would anyone get it then?

The sales pitch is that with term life, you just lose your payments. With while life, if you don't die, you get your investment back.

Mathematically, it is better to pay for the cheaper term life and invest the difference between the premiums.

Whole life usually has gigantic sales commissions and lots of fees.

There are a few threads on this kind of thing:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/royal-london-360-i-dun-goofed/150/
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/whole-life-insurance-policy-challenging-mustachian-wisdom/

merula

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1609
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19110 on: November 16, 2017, 04:51:31 PM »
Don't forget selling whole life on children because "if they have health problems later in life they'll never be able to get any life insurance!"

I had an awful time as an adult trying to unwind that mess. The "financial services" company claimed that the premiums paid were less than the payout, but couldn't back it up with anything because their records only went back 7 years. Based on what my parents said, premiums paid had to be 15% or more over the payout, but they couldn't produce the documentation. I gave up when I realized it was <$100 in tax, but I'm still salty about the whole thing.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Location: Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19111 on: November 16, 2017, 07:25:58 PM »
What's wrong with whole life insurance? I tried to google it, but figured there was a mustachian answer. Is it more expensive than term?

Whole life has an insurance and a savings section. Think about it like getting an insurance policy and a separate savings account. The return on the latter is comparable to a savings account. Which sounds miserable until you discover that if you die, the savings portion vanishes. Entirely.

The cost for it is astronomical as well. Typically term life insurance is around 7% to 10% the cost of whole life.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 07:33:04 PM by kayvent »

Freedomin5

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6462
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19112 on: November 16, 2017, 09:14:12 PM »
What's wrong with whole life insurance? I tried to google it, but figured there was a mustachian answer. Is it more expensive than term?

Whole life has an insurance and a savings section. Think about it like getting an insurance policy and a separate savings account. The return on the latter is comparable to a savings account. Which sounds miserable until you discover that if you die, the savings portion vanishes. Entirely.

The cost for it is astronomical as well. Typically term life insurance is around 7% to 10% the cost of whole life.

Occasionally, whole life insurance makes sense as a tool for passing on large inheritances to children and minimizing estate taxes. I also keep a small whole life policy to cover funeral-related expenses in the event of both my spouse's and my deaths -- even though I may have lots of money in my bank accounts and index funds, my children often won't be able to access it quickly if we both die at the same time, and I wouldn't want them to have to stress about finding the money to bury us. Insurance typically pays out to the beneficiaries quite quickly -- just fill out a couple forms and send over the death certificate(s)...and the customer service reps are really nice to you, especially if you're calling because of this reason.

Anyway...back on topic...

One of DH's coworkers' spouses was chatting with him about looking for a job. Apparently, he moved halfway around the world and took a job before it was formally offered to him. His wife also took a job, in a different country that is also halfway around world (think along the lines of the husband accepting a job in Canada, while the wife accepted a job in Mexico). Then the husband's job disappeared -- the company went bankrupt - before he could start working there. So now he's stuck in his wife's work country with no job. On top of that, he has health issues and can't qualify for his own health insurance. Health insurance at his wife's job does not extend to the spouse. So now he's desperately asking around to see if anyone knows anyone who is hiring. His list of requirements include:

a) Good salary (by this, I mean more than 5x the average salary in this developing country)
b) Corporate/business job (he has no related corporate experience/education, but the job that fell through was a corporate job so that's what he wants)
c) Good international expatriate health insurance that allows you to access premier healthcare networks

I just had to shake my head...I really don't understand how people can get themselves into such a pickle.


arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19113 on: November 17, 2017, 04:24:46 AM »
Just overheard a conversation at work, trying to figure out how much one of them has paid into a life insurance policy.

A: So we've been paying $3000 a year for 22 years... that's, let's see, 22 years times 12 months is...
B: No, no. Just 22 times $3000.
A: Oh, right, right. So, how much is that?
B: $88,000.
A: $88,000! Wow.

Math is hard.

Math IS hard.

...that's $66,000.

;)

(Unless you typo'd 4,000 as 3,000... twice.)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

merula

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1609
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19114 on: November 17, 2017, 05:03:13 AM »
Occasionally, whole life insurance makes sense as a tool for passing on large inheritances to children and minimizing estate taxes. I also keep a small whole life policy to cover funeral-related expenses in the event of both my spouse's and my deaths -- even though I may have lots of money in my bank accounts and index funds, my children often won't be able to access it quickly if we both die at the same time, and I wouldn't want them to have to stress about finding the money to bury us. Insurance typically pays out to the beneficiaries quite quickly -- just fill out a couple forms and send over the death certificate(s)...and the customer service reps are really nice to you, especially if you're calling because of this reason.

You could also set up a joint savings account with your children's names on the account. You'd have to either trust your kids not to raid it ahead of time or just don't tell them it exists. Maybe keep the account info wherever you would have kept the life insurance paperwork?

OTOH, maybe the relatively nominal amount of funeral expenses would be worth knowing if your children would steal from you.

Imma

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3193
  • Location: Europe
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19115 on: November 17, 2017, 07:42:07 AM »
Occasionally, whole life insurance makes sense as a tool for passing on large inheritances to children and minimizing estate taxes. I also keep a small whole life policy to cover funeral-related expenses in the event of both my spouse's and my deaths -- even though I may have lots of money in my bank accounts and index funds, my children often won't be able to access it quickly if we both die at the same time, and I wouldn't want them to have to stress about finding the money to bury us. Insurance typically pays out to the beneficiaries quite quickly -- just fill out a couple forms and send over the death certificate(s)...and the customer service reps are really nice to you, especially if you're calling because of this reason.

You could also set up a joint savings account with your children's names on the account. You'd have to either trust your kids not to raid it ahead of time or just don't tell them it exists. Maybe keep the account info wherever you would have kept the life insurance paperwork?

OTOH, maybe the relatively nominal amount of funeral expenses would be worth knowing if your children would steal from you.

We are members of a burial society for this reason. It's a low-cost alternative because it's not for profit and the society is very old and all the services are provided in-house. When we die, our relatives call the burial society and they will take care of everything. They will only send a small bill for certain special requests and only after the estate is settled. Whatever happens, even if we die in debt, we will not burden our relatives with funeral costs.

Freedomin5

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6462
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19116 on: November 17, 2017, 08:54:37 AM »
Co-worker was selling tickets to a fundraiser to educate "left behind kids" -- these are the kids who are left behind with neighbors or relatives in poor farming villages across China while their parents seek out more lucrative positions as construction workers or household help in the big city.

She said USD$1500 can help one village. The cost of the tickets? USD$500 per ticket, or USD$5000 if you buy the table (10 seats). For every table they fill, one village can be helped...

Wait a minute...math? What happened to the other $3500? Oh, that's to pay the hotel for the fancy dinner that they serve to the supporters during the fundraising gala.

So why don't I just go online and donate the $5000 directly to the organization?

Errr....

The ironic thing? This lady employs three household helpers and a driver, all of whom left behind their own children so that they could take care of her children.

Apples

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19117 on: November 17, 2017, 09:31:23 AM »
Just overheard a conversation at work, trying to figure out how much one of them has paid into a life insurance policy.

A: So we've been paying $3000 a year for 22 years... that's, let's see, 22 years times 12 months is...
B: No, no. Just 22 times $3000.
A: Oh, right, right. So, how much is that?
B: $88,000.
A: $88,000! Wow.

Math is hard.

Math IS hard.

...that's $66,000.

;)

(Unless you typo'd 4,000 as 3,000... twice.)

ARS,, you just explained the whole joke.  That was the point of the post. 

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3684
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19118 on: November 17, 2017, 09:41:24 AM »

Wait a minute...math? What happened to the other $3500? Oh, that's to pay the hotel for the fancy dinner that they serve to the supporters during the fundraising gala.

So why don't I just go online and donate the $5000 directly to the organization?


That's a concern I have about galas. In the US (at least from what I've seen) tickets to such charity events cost a set fee, let's say $100, of which attendees are allowed to claim a tax deduction of a portion of it, let's say $20. So what that's saying is that of the $100, $80 of which went towards paying for the fundraiser and only $20 is actually going towards the cause.

I've read a few articles that talk about how throwing a good fundraising actually costs more but sometimes there are title sponsors that pitch in for the event so that more of the individual attendees' money can go towards their cause.

I'm personally not a fan of going to a lavish event in which only a portion of my money goes towards helping people. I feel like it is a way to dress up and feel like you're accomplishing something without actually doing anything. So kinda like watching a TED Talk. But I've spoken to a few people that work at non-profits and such events do help draw attention and get commitments from people.

marielle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Age: 30
  • Location: South Carolina
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19119 on: November 17, 2017, 09:47:23 AM »

Wait a minute...math? What happened to the other $3500? Oh, that's to pay the hotel for the fancy dinner that they serve to the supporters during the fundraising gala.

So why don't I just go online and donate the $5000 directly to the organization?


That's a concern I have about galas. In the US (at least from what I've seen) tickets to such charity events cost a set fee, let's say $100, of which attendees are allowed to claim a tax deduction of a portion of it, let's say $20. So what that's saying is that of the $100, $80 of which went towards paying for the fundraiser and only $20 is actually going towards the cause.

I've read a few articles that talk about how throwing a good fundraising actually costs more but sometimes there are title sponsors that pitch in for the event so that more of the individual attendees' money can go towards their cause.

I'm personally not a fan of going to a lavish event in which only a portion of my money goes towards helping people. I feel like it is a way to dress up and feel like you're accomplishing something without actually doing anything. So kinda like watching a TED Talk. But I've spoken to a few people that work at non-profits and such events do help draw attention and get commitments from people.

The fundraising events I've gone to for animal sanctuaries usually have everything run by donations and volunteers, so the ticket price will 100% go to the sanctuary. For example, the dinner will be done by a local restaurant because they're passionate about the cause. Musicians will come in and play for free. The silent auction will be all donated items from local businesses or artists. But these aren't quite as lavish as what you are describing...

RidetheRain

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Age: 31
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19120 on: November 17, 2017, 10:03:04 AM »

Wait a minute...math? What happened to the other $3500? Oh, that's to pay the hotel for the fancy dinner that they serve to the supporters during the fundraising gala.

So why don't I just go online and donate the $5000 directly to the organization?


That's a concern I have about galas. In the US (at least from what I've seen) tickets to such charity events cost a set fee, let's say $100, of which attendees are allowed to claim a tax deduction of a portion of it, let's say $20. So what that's saying is that of the $100, $80 of which went towards paying for the fundraiser and only $20 is actually going towards the cause.

I've read a few articles that talk about how throwing a good fundraising actually costs more but sometimes there are title sponsors that pitch in for the event so that more of the individual attendees' money can go towards their cause.

I'm personally not a fan of going to a lavish event in which only a portion of my money goes towards helping people. I feel like it is a way to dress up and feel like you're accomplishing something without actually doing anything. So kinda like watching a TED Talk. But I've spoken to a few people that work at non-profits and such events do help draw attention and get commitments from people.

This sort of this is to get people who wouldn't ordinarily donate. For example, I volunteered with an animal shelter in college and during finals week we would have a "puppy cuddle" event to bring in a bunch of dogs and the students get to hang out with them for $5+ donation. It cost money for the permits and safety and everything, but it was worth the expense because lots of people came and donated who would never have done it on their own. What college kid randomly donates to an animal shelter?

Galas are the same thing - just for people that like fancy living instead of puppies.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19121 on: November 17, 2017, 01:24:55 PM »

Wait a minute...math? What happened to the other $3500? Oh, that's to pay the hotel for the fancy dinner that they serve to the supporters during the fundraising gala.

So why don't I just go online and donate the $5000 directly to the organization?


That's a concern I have about galas. In the US (at least from what I've seen) tickets to such charity events cost a set fee, let's say $100, of which attendees are allowed to claim a tax deduction of a portion of it, let's say $20. So what that's saying is that of the $100, $80 of which went towards paying for the fundraiser and only $20 is actually going towards the cause.

I've read a few articles that talk about how throwing a good fundraising actually costs more but sometimes there are title sponsors that pitch in for the event so that more of the individual attendees' money can go towards their cause.

I'm personally not a fan of going to a lavish event in which only a portion of my money goes towards helping people. I feel like it is a way to dress up and feel like you're accomplishing something without actually doing anything. So kinda like watching a TED Talk. But I've spoken to a few people that work at non-profits and such events do help draw attention and get commitments from people.

This sort of this is to get people who wouldn't ordinarily donate. For example, I volunteered with an animal shelter in college and during finals week we would have a "puppy cuddle" event to bring in a bunch of dogs and the students get to hang out with them for $5+ donation. It cost money for the permits and safety and everything, but it was worth the expense because lots of people came and donated who would never have done it on their own. What college kid randomly donates to an animal shelter?

Galas are the same thing - just for people that like fancy living instead of puppies.

You mean like the CharityWorks decadence? They came to a pretty sticky end: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-fabulous-charityworks-galas-raised-millions-for-good-causes-over-the-years-then-something-changed/2016/09/06/9133091c-5420-11e6-bbf5-957ad17b4385_story.html?utm_term=.da2d7a4f3235

The non-tax-deductible portion of a gala ticket has nothing to do with the cost of putting a gala on. It has to do with the market value of the food, travel, or meal received.

The margin on gala events can be well worth the time. But you have to pick a kind of event that actually appeals to the attendees, and you have to be intelligent about the costs as a small percentage of the estimated revenue. The image people have of fancy galas, with CharityWorks as an extreme example, are only cost effective if they're run in a sustainable way.

Not one human being has ever attended a charity gala with the intention of getting their money's worth in entertainment. Dollar for dollar, if you add up the cost of a CharityWorks bash and divide it by the number of attendees, you can throw a better dinner party with your friends at home and hire people to cater your event and serenade you with live music and fire dancing. People come to charity balls to be seen as power brokers within their domains by people whose opinion they think matters (i.e. to get their butts kissed while staying ahead of their rivals), and to have access to power brokers relevant to their domain (i.e. the strivers). There is no other purpose. Selling access to power works in places like Washington, D.C. where people get off on it, or you can also sell access to social prestige but that's very difficult to do unless someone with credibility is hosting it.

A model like that works in places where people get off on power and image and where such things can be monetized... nowhere else. It's a way to monetize social capital that isn't your own. Most charities and organizations never get that big or high-profile to advertise enough to become household names. Things like the viral ALS Ice Bucket Challenge or the We Are The World initiative (for the pre-Millenials among us) come along perhaps once a decade. They're almost impossible to replicate although Malcolm Gladwell and Nassim Nicholas Taleb made a bunch of money off of our collective desire to believe we could.

Now, back on Planet Earth, there are two ways to do fund raisers: you can monetize the labor of the Board, the volunteer pool, and other people connected to the charity (case in point: an animal sanctuary fundraiser described a few posts up). Or, you can monetize your social capital. The tipping point (to rip off Gladwell a bit) comes when you can monetize not just the social capital of the individuals directly involved with the charity but the reputation of the charity itself. Then you can have a situation where the returns exceed the expenses substantially even if you pay retail price for everything. That kind of situation is seldom sustainable. It will be a flash in the pan. Continued giving at that level exhausts the donor pool.

If I want to run an effective fund-raiser of the "gala" variety, I first consider whether I've got an organization with institutional social capital. If so, I look at the community *with whom* the social capital exists, and think about what people in that community believe constitutes "fun" and who the target community thinks is "important". If I can't line these things up on a shoestring budget, or at least on a fraction of the plausibly estimated revenue, I don't do a gala and focus instead on different kinds of fund raising. There are reliable ways to calculate how much money can be sustainably extracted from a group of people before it loses the desire to support the charity-- or indeed any charity at all.

Fund raisers work if and only if the person making the donation receives value proportionate to their donation. Puppy snuggles happen during exam season for a reason: a good pup-snuggle reduces stress.

rawr237

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 79
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19122 on: November 17, 2017, 01:39:22 PM »

Wait a minute...math? What happened to the other $3500? Oh, that's to pay the hotel for the fancy dinner that they serve to the supporters during the fundraising gala.

So why don't I just go online and donate the $5000 directly to the organization?


That's a concern I have about galas. In the US (at least from what I've seen) tickets to such charity events cost a set fee, let's say $100, of which attendees are allowed to claim a tax deduction of a portion of it, let's say $20. So what that's saying is that of the $100, $80 of which went towards paying for the fundraiser and only $20 is actually going towards the cause.

I've read a few articles that talk about how throwing a good fundraising actually costs more but sometimes there are title sponsors that pitch in for the event so that more of the individual attendees' money can go towards their cause.

I'm personally not a fan of going to a lavish event in which only a portion of my money goes towards helping people. I feel like it is a way to dress up and feel like you're accomplishing something without actually doing anything. So kinda like watching a TED Talk. But I've spoken to a few people that work at non-profits and such events do help draw attention and get commitments from people.

This sort of this is to get people who wouldn't ordinarily donate. For example, I volunteered with an animal shelter in college and during finals week we would have a "puppy cuddle" event to bring in a bunch of dogs and the students get to hang out with them for $5+ donation. It cost money for the permits and safety and everything, but it was worth the expense because lots of people came and donated who would never have done it on their own. What college kid randomly donates to an animal shelter?

Galas are the same thing - just for people that like fancy living instead of puppies.

I kept my dad company at a couple gala type events recently - one fancy one, and then one less fancy. The fancy one was a plated dinner (food was meh) with bourbon tastings. I think the real moneymaker was the auction - they had a silent auction, and then a live auction (seriously big ticket items). People donated the items and experiences, and the charity collected thousands and thousands of dollars. I went into the event with a rather judgmental bias (thinking that it would be a bunch of people paying mostly to have a good time with very little to go to charity) but I think even if they only broke even on the tickets vs meal and venue, the auction made it worth it -- I can't imagine them getting the same level of bids with an online event. The auctioneer was very persuasive, and in a couple cases was even able to double the offer (as in, the donated item was a week in a villa and he got approval to sell it twice - so the two high bidders each won a week in the villa) which is a tactic that needed to be in person.

My overall impression was that though it was certainly not the most efficient way to donate money, it was an effective fundraiser. It would be hard to convince someone out of the blue to donate thousands of dollars, but a distillery or collector might donate a bottle of bourbon - then an attendee pays thousands of dollars for that bottle, and everyone feels like they get something out of it. (There were bottles of bourbon that sold for thousands - I watched in a sort of shock...my parents are pretty luxurious with their wine/food so I've had my share of $100 wine, but this was just a whole different scale of wealth/spending). My dad bought tickets since his golf club (yeah, I know, but he can afford it and golfs a ton now that he's retired). He won a couple silent auction items.

The less fancy one also had a silent auction but did not seem nearly as successful. It was very small and had technical difficulties with lighting, plus the main presenters really rambled on. The food was an Asian food buffet (Asian affinity group) and fairly good - I think at least some of the food was donated.


On topic, one of my coworkers I've mentioned is a sneaker collector. His collection is worth thousands of dollars and has it's own insurance. In the past couple weeks, he seriously considered taking trips to Chicago and NY (from Ohio) to buy shoes - I think the only reason he didn't go to Chicago is because he didn't win the shoe lottery. He offsets the cost of the hobby by only buying retail price (couple hundred dollars) and occasionally reselling for much higher - which is a good business instinct though I don't think he reports that income on his taxes. The next shoes on his list? Yellow yeezys. I looked them up and I think they're pretty ugly.

Other coworker is yearning after a $1700 TV. He recently bought a gun for $1300. He gets paid probably ~$60k.

CW #3 told me recently "If I'm going to buy something, I want it to be the best". Looking at top-of-the-line strollers. His wife does the budget and she basically tells him when to stop spending money. He owns movies that he hasn't watched and games he hasn't played. He typically goes nuts on Black Friday buying video games, and just doesn't get around to playing them all.

To be fair I have to add myself - planning a fancypants wedding, and letting myself be tempted into buying a couple computer games on sale. *sigh*

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19123 on: November 17, 2017, 03:13:54 PM »

My overall impression was that though it was certainly not the most efficient way to donate money, it was an effective fundraiser. It would be hard to convince someone out of the blue to donate thousands of dollars, but a distillery or collector might donate a bottle of bourbon - then an attendee pays thousands of dollars for that bottle, and everyone feels like they get something out of it. (There were bottles of bourbon that sold for thousands - I watched in a sort of shock...my parents are pretty luxurious with their wine/food so I've had my share of $100 wine, but this was just a whole different scale of wealth/spending). My dad bought tickets since his golf club (yeah, I know, but he can afford it and golfs a ton now that he's retired). He won a couple silent auction items.

The less fancy one also had a silent auction but did not seem nearly as successful. It was very small and had technical difficulties with lighting, plus the main presenters really rambled on. The food was an Asian food buffet (Asian affinity group) and fairly good - I think at least some of the food was donated.


When you set up a silent auction, it should be for guests who understand that the entire point is to spend big: the auction item is an excuse for making a donation. They're not paying for the tennis ball, the quilted pillows, the rifle, or the fancy bourbon with the goal of getting it at a bargain price. If by chance the guests aren't clear on the concept, a silent auction is a bad fundraising strategy. I once attended one that lost money for this exact reason. Most of the donated items went for less than their retail value. It didn't help that there were far too many donated auction items for far too few attendees. Some items received no bids whatsoever. There were other things organizationally wrong with the charity that contributed to the shortage of attendees and their reluctance to donate; I've bloviated about it in a different thread.

Rural

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5051
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19124 on: November 17, 2017, 04:02:22 PM »

My overall impression was that though it was certainly not the most efficient way to donate money, it was an effective fundraiser. It would be hard to convince someone out of the blue to donate thousands of dollars, but a distillery or collector might donate a bottle of bourbon - then an attendee pays thousands of dollars for that bottle, and everyone feels like they get something out of it. (There were bottles of bourbon that sold for thousands - I watched in a sort of shock...my parents are pretty luxurious with their wine/food so I've had my share of $100 wine, but this was just a whole different scale of wealth/spending). My dad bought tickets since his golf club (yeah, I know, but he can afford it and golfs a ton now that he's retired). He won a couple silent auction items.

The less fancy one also had a silent auction but did not seem nearly as successful. It was very small and had technical difficulties with lighting, plus the main presenters really rambled on. The food was an Asian food buffet (Asian affinity group) and fairly good - I think at least some of the food was donated.


When you set up a silent auction, it should be for guests who understand that the entire point is to spend big: the auction item is an excuse for making a donation. They're not paying for the tennis ball, the quilted pillows, the rifle, or the fancy bourbon with the goal of getting it at a bargain price. If by chance the guests aren't clear on the concept, a silent auction is a bad fundraising strategy. I once attended one that lost money for this exact reason. Most of the donated items went for less than their retail value. It didn't help that there were far too many donated auction items for far too few attendees. Some items received no bids whatsoever. There were other things organizationally wrong with the charity that contributed to the shortage of attendees and their reluctance to donate; I've bloviated about it in a different thread.


But you bloviated in such a very entertaining fashion! :)


Silent auctions don't do well in high poverty areas, either. Cake auctions do a little better (for low money but a high sale rate) because there's no significant investment in the items being auctioned.

Mrs. Fire Lane

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19125 on: November 19, 2017, 07:04:28 AM »
Yes, it’s really about more than the ticket price to a gala. There’s one I have gone to and the ticket price is just a portion of the donation. There’s a cash bar, a faux casino set up - guests pay for chips to gamble with and whoever has the most chips at the end of the night wins a donated prize, a silent auction and a live auction. We’ve happily bid on and won some of the smaller ticket items (costume jewelery, tickets to a local theater production, a ceramic vase) on the same night we saw people pay thousands of dollars for the latest Apple gadget or front row tickets to a big name rock concert. People have to understand that you are raising money for charity but it also helps to have a range of items people can bid on - from the $20 bracelet to the $20,000 golf resort vacation.

Regarding the talent of auctioneers - check out this article. I’ve seen him in action. He’s a lot like Matt Smith’s interpretation of The Doctor on Doctor Who.

FIT_Goat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Location: Florida
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19126 on: November 19, 2017, 08:06:10 AM »
I was talking to a coworker about a change in jobs, recently.  I applied for a job that pays less than my current one, but the stress and pressure is significantly better.  The coworker said they could never go down in pay, they couldn't afford it.  My response to this was that the difference was less than $3,600 a year before taxes, and that was before accounting for certain fixed costs that would be reduced (like union dues and gas).  It's less than $300 a month difference.  This teacher is married and her spouse has a much higher income.  Honestly, it would be WAY under-estimating to say they bring in $90k before taxes.  How tight is their budget that they can't afford a less than 4% reduction in income?  She really acted like it would be a devastating blow.

In all honesty, when my wife and I ran the numbers and made some minor tweaks, we didn't even need to reduce the amount going to investments.  That just shows how much money we waste, while still saving as much as we do.  This new job also has the opportunity for overtime, often enough that I can probably make the same amount as I do currently, or even more.  I'm not planning on any overtime, for budgeting purposes, but it's really there.

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5591
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19127 on: November 19, 2017, 02:24:54 PM »
I was talking to a coworker about a change in jobs, recently.  I applied for a job that pays less than my current one, but the stress and pressure is significantly better.  The coworker said they could never go down in pay, they couldn't afford it.  My response to this was that the difference was less than $3,600 a year before taxes, and that was before accounting for certain fixed costs that would be reduced (like union dues and gas).  It's less than $300 a month difference.  This teacher is married and her spouse has a much higher income.  Honestly, it would be WAY under-estimating to say they bring in $90k before taxes.  How tight is their budget that they can't afford a less than 4% reduction in income?  She really acted like it would be a devastating blow.
I can actually offer an explanation:  My salary has not gone up in 2 1/2 years.  In that time, I've seen my property taxes go up by $1,000 and my state income taxes go up $1,000.  Our grocery spending has gone up 20% in the last year due to Walmart ending their price matching policy.  Our water rates are doubling, and our kids are getting older and more expensive.  So a few years ago we were quite comfortable at my salary and could have handled a 4% pay cut, but now we could not afford such a cut without taking some very unpleasant steps.

TomTX

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5345
  • Location: Texas
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19128 on: November 19, 2017, 02:34:26 PM »
Whole life is more of an investment vehicle than just money when/if you die.  However, the interest earned is less than broad market index.  I believe the premiums are higher.  You pay more in order to earn less.  It is a product marketed to less savvy investors.

Wait, so you only get what you pay + ROI? I'm so confused. That's not how it sounded on Wikipedia. Why would anyone get it then?

Because insurance salesmen get a bigger commission when they sell whole life instead of term. Therefore, they tend to push it a lot harder and spin all sorts of tales.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Location: Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19129 on: November 19, 2017, 02:36:53 PM »
I was talking to a coworker about a change in jobs, recently.  I applied for a job that pays less than my current one, but the stress and pressure is significantly better.  The coworker said they could never go down in pay, they couldn't afford it.  My response to this was that the difference was less than $3,600 a year before taxes, and that was before accounting for certain fixed costs that would be reduced (like union dues and gas).  It's less than $300 a month difference.  This teacher is married and her spouse has a much higher income.  Honestly, it would be WAY under-estimating to say they bring in $90k before taxes.  How tight is their budget that they can't afford a less than 4% reduction in income?  She really acted like it would be a devastating blow.
I can actually offer an explanation:  My salary has not gone up in 2 1/2 years.  In that time, I've seen my property taxes go up by $1,000 and my state income taxes go up $1,000.  Our grocery spending has gone up 20% in the last year due to Walmart ending their price matching policy.  Our water rates are doubling, and our kids are getting older and more expensive.  So a few years ago we were quite comfortable at my salary and could have handled a 4% pay cut, but now we could not afford such a cut without taking some very unpleasant steps.

Just because this is the MMM forums I presume you are saving a quantity (10+%) of your income. Is that assumption correct? Would the unpleasant steps be primarily spending cuts or saving cuts? I ask this question because for many of “us” a salary reduction would reduce our excess, not our core life.

I’ve had five thousand dollars in unexpected expenses in the last three months. For me, I reduced my savings solely. I still stored away three or four thousand, somehow. I’m getting a 1.3% pay cut in January (company wide). It looks like I’ll just reduce my savings marginally.

Step37

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
  • Age: 50
  • Location: AB, Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19130 on: November 19, 2017, 02:51:16 PM »
My business partner (BP) came over for dinner last night, so not technically at work, but...

We were sitting in the living room chatting when my tenants arrived home, parking out front.

BP: you still have basement renters?!
Me: yes...
BP: but why? I thought now that you knocked off the mortgage, why bother, blah, blah...
Me: ??

It’s no imposition. We don’t need the extra space and have had great luck with tenants for 16 years (the current tenants are the best ever)... why on EARTH would we give up $1000 each month of easy (the easiest!) money for no reason at all? SMH

Now that he’s made some money off the business, he’s bought a clown house, a 90k luxury car AND a brand new commuter SUV over the past year. Also started talking about a summer cottage and boat, so that’s likely coming... He’s definitely more about appearances/wants to look wealthy, and I frankly don’t care about those things anymore. He’s not spending money he doesn’t have, so no worries there; it’s just hard to be excited about it for him.



FIT_Goat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Location: Florida
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19131 on: November 19, 2017, 03:11:37 PM »
I had over $9,000 of unexpected expenses come up over the last couple months (hurricane damage and repairs).  We got reimbursed for all but $3,800 of them.  We could have pulled that out of our savings/emergency fund.  But, one of my credit cards had a 0% for 16 months, no fee, balance transfer offer.  We decided to take that and moved the $3,800 to that card.  Then we cut a couple expenses that we didn't really need, reduced our spending a bit, and found the $300 a month to pay it off in a year without ever touching the money in the emergency fund.  An unnecessary exercise, but it was something that we were willing to do.  It gave us an excuse to cut our budget a bit.

When I brought the job offer up, and that it would be $3,600 less a year, my wife immediately pointed out that we had already cleared $300 in our budget.  She told me, "just use the savings and pay off that credit card and we don't need to do anything else."  She's right.  Our emergency fund gets money every month in our budget.  It will be back to where it needs to be in no time.

What is really sad is that we could probably cut another $300 from our spending (maybe even more) before we even have to think about savings.  My wife is not 100% on board with FIRE.  She wants some luxury now.  So, we compromise a lot.  We have a lot of extra that we could live without.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 03:14:28 PM by FIT_Goat »

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5591
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19132 on: November 19, 2017, 04:03:47 PM »
I was talking to a coworker about a change in jobs, recently.  I applied for a job that pays less than my current one, but the stress and pressure is significantly better.  The coworker said they could never go down in pay, they couldn't afford it.  My response to this was that the difference was less than $3,600 a year before taxes, and that was before accounting for certain fixed costs that would be reduced (like union dues and gas).  It's less than $300 a month difference.  This teacher is married and her spouse has a much higher income.  Honestly, it would be WAY under-estimating to say they bring in $90k before taxes.  How tight is their budget that they can't afford a less than 4% reduction in income?  She really acted like it would be a devastating blow.
I can actually offer an explanation:  My salary has not gone up in 2 1/2 years.  In that time, I've seen my property taxes go up by $1,000 and my state income taxes go up $1,000.  Our grocery spending has gone up 20% in the last year due to Walmart ending their price matching policy.  Our water rates are doubling, and our kids are getting older and more expensive.  So a few years ago we were quite comfortable at my salary and could have handled a 4% pay cut, but now we could not afford such a cut without taking some very unpleasant steps.

Just because this is the MMM forums I presume you are saving a quantity (10+%) of your income. Is that assumption correct? Would the unpleasant steps be primarily spending cuts or saving cuts? I ask this question because for many of “us” a salary reduction would reduce our excess, not our core life.

I’ve had five thousand dollars in unexpected expenses in the last three months. For me, I reduced my savings solely. I still stored away three or four thousand, somehow. I’m getting a 1.3% pay cut in January (company wide). It looks like I’ll just reduce my savings marginally.
You are correct--a portion of our income goes toward retirement savings.  We'd probably have to cut both spending and savings.  The problem is that it's not simply a 4% reduction in lifestyle.  I can't reduce our mortgage bill by 4%, for example.  By the time you account for the non-discretionary spending, that 4% becomes a much larger percentage of disposable income.

FIT_Goat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Location: Florida
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19133 on: November 19, 2017, 05:16:59 PM »
Would you feel any better if I told you this teacher shows up with fast food breakfast three times week?  Or that she subscribes to a meal delivery service (one of those boxes they send where you cook the meal) so she has less food shopping to do?  And, her initial reaction was over the idea of any cut in pay.  When I pointed out that it was only $300 a month, she acted like I had two heads.  I feel like she would have the same reaction over $50 or $100 cut a month.

Here, on MMM, we all are probably a little bit closer to the edge of what can be done with our budgets.  We're committed to paring down the excess and saving for retirement or early retirement.  We're defensive of things which threaten that goal.  We don't have nearly as many areas of flexibility.  It's probably much harder for those on this forum to find $300 to cut (without touching savings) than the general population.

I've had my own experience with frozen pay and increasing expenses.  I believe I wrote about that on here before.  The month after I bought my house, my pay and COL increases were frozen for 6+ years.  And, the COL increases never came back.  That sucks, and it would have been very hard for me to cut $300 a month back then.  Of course, that would have been a huge portion of my income, way more than 4%.

a286

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19134 on: November 20, 2017, 06:55:39 AM »
I have a few stories to add, but I'm just going with this one for now due to time constraints.

We just had a big schedule change announced last week. My company is in manufacturing, so we have to run to meet demand. OT is usually 4 hours because you either come in early or stay over to help cover another shift. We work a lot of weekends... ie, this year we worked about every other until August, when we went to 2 on 1 off. Last year we worked every weekend in Nov/Dec except 4 days off for Thanksgiving, and 2 for Christmas. A lot of people will volunteer for the OT and work 12 hours a day, so 84 hours a week. Since I started here 2 years ago, I knew there was this plan to shift the schedule so you could only work up to 12 days in a row, and only 72 hours a week. This was supposed to happen by Jan 2019. Well, they moved it up a year. So the company has 6 weeks to comply (they found out about this in 2014, and they haven't even tried to move towards compliance, but that's a different issue).

People are freaking out. There are a lot of people who are seeking out those 84 hours a week, and they're going to lose 12 hours of OT pay. I understand that that's a significant chunk of money. But dear lord, what do these people spend their money on? They make $27-$32 an hour, get 1.5x pay after 40hrs and 2x pay on Sundays. If you're working 12 hours a day, and every other weekend, at $30 an hour, that's about $142k a year. Some of these guys are single, some are married, some have children. Some spouses work, some don't. So there's a lot of factors, sure. But if I pop that scenario into the ADP calculator, no allowances, one at single and one married, with the most expensive health insurance plan for each category, take home is around $90k. That assumes no 401k/HSA contributions. Unless I'm missing something here. Husband and I have a base budget of $2400 a month - currently free rent, but some categories are higher because we cover other things since we have free rent. So when we move out, that'll go up some, but some things will help balance it out. All of my OT went to paying off our student loans (and paying for our wedding/honeymoon), and it was nowhere near that amount. And that budget has some non-mustachian things in it. I just can't imagine where we would spend all that money, unless we were traveling overseas all the time (or investing, obviously! and maxing out the 401k).

But hey, there's a lot of nice cars in the parking lot, especially on the weekends. Because you can only drive your regular fancy car during the week, your super fancy car can only come weekends when the lot isn't full or someone might ding it.

RidetheRain

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Age: 31
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19135 on: November 20, 2017, 09:40:06 AM »
I have a few stories to add, but I'm just going with this one for now due to time constraints.

We just had a big schedule change announced last week. My company is in manufacturing, so we have to run to meet demand. OT is usually 4 hours because you either come in early or stay over to help cover another shift. We work a lot of weekends... ie, this year we worked about every other until August, when we went to 2 on 1 off. Last year we worked every weekend in Nov/Dec except 4 days off for Thanksgiving, and 2 for Christmas. A lot of people will volunteer for the OT and work 12 hours a day, so 84 hours a week. Since I started here 2 years ago, I knew there was this plan to shift the schedule so you could only work up to 12 days in a row, and only 72 hours a week. This was supposed to happen by Jan 2019. Well, they moved it up a year. So the company has 6 weeks to comply (they found out about this in 2014, and they haven't even tried to move towards compliance, but that's a different issue).

People are freaking out. There are a lot of people who are seeking out those 84 hours a week, and they're going to lose 12 hours of OT pay. I understand that that's a significant chunk of money. But dear lord, what do these people spend their money on? They make $27-$32 an hour, get 1.5x pay after 40hrs and 2x pay on Sundays. If you're working 12 hours a day, and every other weekend, at $30 an hour, that's about $142k a year. Some of these guys are single, some are married, some have children. Some spouses work, some don't. So there's a lot of factors, sure. But if I pop that scenario into the ADP calculator, no allowances, one at single and one married, with the most expensive health insurance plan for each category, take home is around $90k. That assumes no 401k/HSA contributions. Unless I'm missing something here. Husband and I have a base budget of $2400 a month - currently free rent, but some categories are higher because we cover other things since we have free rent. So when we move out, that'll go up some, but some things will help balance it out. All of my OT went to paying off our student loans (and paying for our wedding/honeymoon), and it was nowhere near that amount. And that budget has some non-mustachian things in it. I just can't imagine where we would spend all that money, unless we were traveling overseas all the time (or investing, obviously! and maxing out the 401k).

But hey, there's a lot of nice cars in the parking lot, especially on the weekends. Because you can only drive your regular fancy car during the week, your super fancy car can only come weekends when the lot isn't full or someone might ding it.

I dunno. I'd be pretty pissed off about getting less money regardless of what I spent it on. For example, if I was like you and planning to spend the money on a wedding and honeymoon I would be pretty upset when that source of income disappears and I have to dip into my monthly savings.

Debts_of_Despair

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • Location: NY
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19136 on: November 20, 2017, 09:50:31 AM »
It's pretty easy, don't create a lifestyle that is based on OT earnings.

a286

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19137 on: November 20, 2017, 11:27:15 AM »
I have a few stories to add, but I'm just going with this one for now due to time constraints.

We just had a big schedule change announced last week. My company is in manufacturing, so we have to run to meet demand. OT is usually 4 hours because you either come in early or stay over to help cover another shift. We work a lot of weekends... ie, this year we worked about every other until August, when we went to 2 on 1 off. Last year we worked every weekend in Nov/Dec except 4 days off for Thanksgiving, and 2 for Christmas. A lot of people will volunteer for the OT and work 12 hours a day, so 84 hours a week. Since I started here 2 years ago, I knew there was this plan to shift the schedule so you could only work up to 12 days in a row, and only 72 hours a week. This was supposed to happen by Jan 2019. Well, they moved it up a year. So the company has 6 weeks to comply (they found out about this in 2014, and they haven't even tried to move towards compliance, but that's a different issue).

People are freaking out. There are a lot of people who are seeking out those 84 hours a week, and they're going to lose 12 hours of OT pay. I understand that that's a significant chunk of money. But dear lord, what do these people spend their money on? They make $27-$32 an hour, get 1.5x pay after 40hrs and 2x pay on Sundays. If you're working 12 hours a day, and every other weekend, at $30 an hour, that's about $142k a year. Some of these guys are single, some are married, some have children. Some spouses work, some don't. So there's a lot of factors, sure. But if I pop that scenario into the ADP calculator, no allowances, one at single and one married, with the most expensive health insurance plan for each category, take home is around $90k. That assumes no 401k/HSA contributions. Unless I'm missing something here. Husband and I have a base budget of $2400 a month - currently free rent, but some categories are higher because we cover other things since we have free rent. So when we move out, that'll go up some, but some things will help balance it out. All of my OT went to paying off our student loans (and paying for our wedding/honeymoon), and it was nowhere near that amount. And that budget has some non-mustachian things in it. I just can't imagine where we would spend all that money, unless we were traveling overseas all the time (or investing, obviously! and maxing out the 401k).

But hey, there's a lot of nice cars in the parking lot, especially on the weekends. Because you can only drive your regular fancy car during the week, your super fancy car can only come weekends when the lot isn't full or someone might ding it.

I dunno. I'd be pretty pissed off about getting less money regardless of what I spent it on. For example, if I was like you and planning to spend the money on a wedding and honeymoon I would be pretty upset when that source of income disappears and I have to dip into my monthly savings.

I understand that. I'd be upset with that too (but I haven't been there, because my department was the only one following the 72 hour rule) and it'd be different if people were looking at it like they were losing a chunk of their disposable income. I maybe should have clarified more, these are people who are like, I need that extra 12 hours OT a week to pay my mortgage for my giant house! Because the 32 hours I'll still get isn't enough!

Really, asking what they spend on is rhetorical. Fancy cars and houses and luxuries. They're taking a hit to their disposable income, but they don't look at all their luxuries as disposable, it's necessary! These people have all worked here a long time, and knew this was coming for the last 3-4 years. And if you look at my next reply to DoD, you'll see they know about getting hours cut unexpectedly. Some have student loans to pay, but most don't because you only need a HS diploma and they started at 18-20.

It's pretty easy, don't create a lifestyle that is based on OT earnings.
Amen. The year I joined the company, 2015, was the first year they didn't go down to no weekends and some 4 day weeks during the Spring. I started in the fall, and going into Christmas is the busiest time of year. The HR lady kept telling us in orientation, Don't go buy a fancy vehicle! Save your OT pay for those times! I was just sitting there thinking, if I work 32 hours at this job, I'll still make $150 more a week than working 40 hours at my old job... Spring 2015 didn't actually have enough business to support 5 days a week and weekends, it's just that they were covering because another location was shut down for awhile (accident). Spring 2016 was just enough for 5 days with maybe one weekend a month. Christmas was really busy last year. They expected business to go up this year and worked all these weekends to try and get ahead, so we wouldn't have to work every weekend at the Holidays. Turns out business did not go up like they expected, most of our weekends now are due to our own issues and equipment failures and trying to make up for that (we're still behind because of that stuff even with business being down), so I don't know what will happen come 2018.

When husband and I got serious about attacking our student loans, we added up what our base take home pay was for a month. He gets commission and I get OT. We based our budget off base pay - minimum loan payments, insurance, food, what we're covering in exchange for free rent, savings etc, and had $600 left of our base pay, so we said, we will each put $300 extra into loans each month. Any extra money from commissions, OT, random windfalls, third paycheck months... all got split in half and we each made an extra loan payment for that amount - we would actually pull up our accounts online and do it at the same time. This was before we were married and we didn't have joint accounts, but looked at our money together.

JAYSLOL

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19138 on: November 20, 2017, 01:20:04 PM »

Other coworker is yearning after a $1700 TV. He recently bought a gun for $1300. He gets paid probably ~$60k.


Give the guy a break, what's he supposed to shoot up his old TV with?  A $500 gun?  LOL

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6693
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19139 on: November 20, 2017, 01:31:07 PM »
Do YOU want to be caught up in the next Zombie apocalypse with a cheap gun??? I THINK NOT! ;)

BiochemicalDJ

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Bristles
  • *
  • Posts: 368
  • Location: Ottawa
    • My FI Journal
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19140 on: November 20, 2017, 01:52:51 PM »
Clubs don't need reloading, but they also don't get stuck in corpses. This thing might be the best, because it has so many uses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halligan_bar

Survival timing depends on a variety of factors though. Check out this mathematical paper exploring options!

https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/maini/PKM%20publications/384.pdf

BuffaloStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
  • Location: The boring middle accumulation phase
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19141 on: November 20, 2017, 02:01:08 PM »
Survival timing depends on a variety of factors though. Check out this mathematical paper exploring options!

https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/maini/PKM%20publications/384.pdf

Someone up in Canada had way too much fun making this. :-D

BiochemicalDJ

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Bristles
  • *
  • Posts: 368
  • Location: Ottawa
    • My FI Journal
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19142 on: November 20, 2017, 02:02:00 PM »
His legal name is professor Robert Smith?

The question mark is part of it. It's on all the documentation.

barbaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19143 on: November 21, 2017, 12:37:34 AM »
His legal name is professor Robert Smith?

The question mark is part of it. It's on all the documentation.
Maybe he’s a “sovereign citizen”?

katstache92

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Gondor
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19144 on: November 21, 2017, 06:35:03 AM »
Co-worker is renegotiating her debt on her company phone at her desk in a reasonably quiet work environment.  This is at least the second time it's happened since I've been here, possibly the third.

CW: I can't pay that much, if I do... I can't eat.

It's stressful sitting near her.

kelvin

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 124
  • Location: Ottawa, ON
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19145 on: November 21, 2017, 09:14:54 AM »
Survival timing depends on a variety of factors though. Check out this mathematical paper exploring options!

https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/maini/PKM%20publications/384.pdf

Someone up in Canada had way too much fun making this. :-D

I didn't see any accounting for snow, which would affect the mobility of both the zombies and the humans.

I'm going to continue to believe that dead frozen corpses would be unable to re-animate, thus allowing the winter months to give us some sort of reprieve from the virus.

financialfreedomsloth

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
  • Location: Belgium
    • financial freedom sloth
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19146 on: November 21, 2017, 09:31:53 AM »
Clubs don't need reloading, but they also don't get stuck in corpses. This thing might be the best, because it has so many uses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halligan_bar

Survival timing depends on a variety of factors though. Check out this mathematical paper exploring options!

https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/maini/PKM%20publications/384.pdf
If you like a Halligan you are going to love adrians undead diary!
http://www.thechrisphilbrook.com/projects/adrians-undead-diary/

BiochemicalDJ

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Bristles
  • *
  • Posts: 368
  • Location: Ottawa
    • My FI Journal
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19147 on: November 21, 2017, 10:06:35 AM »
I didn't see any accounting for snow, which would affect the mobility of both the zombies and the humans.

I'm going to continue to believe that dead frozen corpses would be unable to re-animate, thus allowing the winter months to give us some sort of reprieve from the virus.

I was reading the paper- I think his timelines are *very* short. Like, within 140 minutes short in some infection scenarios- That's literally how fast he expects it all to go to hell. It's not an optimistic paper (which he points out), but he mentioned he aimed for it to be truthful. Also, his diffusion equations already take into a count a slow, wandering shuffle of I believe 60-90ft/minute or so (was skimming), so snow might not affect as much. Can a tireless person crawl more than a foot and a half per second over snow?

The theoretical effects of cold were explored well in the sourcebooks the pencil and paper RPG "All Flesh Must Be Eaten" explores a rather academic breakdown of the various zombie tropes- virus, radiation, cosmic rays (?) etc., along with a variety of powers that zombies can get. I mean, they pointed it out in Walking Dead- At some point, muscles decay so much; how the hell is the thing still moving? That's where you get into 'Magic' zombie territory, dungeons and dragons and the like- They move 'Just 'cause'. So the frozen argument works well with the 'Viral zombie' and the 'viral, still living, rage human speed zombie', but not well for 'magic' or 'alien goo' or 'robot sci-fi' zombies...

But back to work shenanigans- Watching one of our co-op students go to lunch and spend $8-$12 every day after confessing to me that his total life spending is around $15K per year right now. He then stated that other than restaurants, he essentially spends money on nothing. Arguably, he's chosen his vice.

Which is sort of mustachian, except saving/paying down debt isn't part of the plan.

If you like a Halligan you are going to love adrians undead diary!
http://www.thechrisphilbrook.com/projects/adrians-undead-diary/

I'll check that out, thanks!

Imustacheyouaquestion

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19148 on: November 21, 2017, 01:14:11 PM »
Watching one of our co-op students go to lunch and spend $8-$12 every day after confessing to me that his total life spending is around $15K per year right now. He then stated that other than restaurants, he essentially spends money on nothing. Arguably, he's chosen his vice.


$1250/month on restaurants! Yikes...

BiochemicalDJ

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Bristles
  • *
  • Posts: 368
  • Location: Ottawa
    • My FI Journal
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19149 on: November 21, 2017, 01:30:24 PM »
Well, rent and restaurants. Probably on loans for tuition.