Overheard at Work

[ohsnap]

...He just replaced his iPhone 7 last week too with a Pixel 2XL with the nebulous "I just don't like Apple stuff anymore" excuse. It's hip to be a he-man Apple hater where I work. I'm guessing he felt some pressure to conform...

I have the opposite pressure...not at work, but my circle of friends all have iPhones (although they don't all rush out and buy the newest ones).  I'm frequently given grief over my non-Apple phone choice, solely because it doesn't have the same group-text features. One friend didn't let up the nagging until I told her, "I'll get an iPhone if you'll pay for it."

[RyanAtTanagra]

One friend didn't let up the nagging until I told her, "I'll get an iPhone if you'll pay for it."

Oh, snap

[zolotiyeruki]

One friend didn't let up the nagging until I told her, "I'll get an iPhone if you'll pay for it."

Oh, snap

My boss complained that the camera app on my smartphone took a long time to start.  I replied with something like "I'm not getting paid enough to own a better phone."

[marielle]

One friend didn't let up the nagging until I told her, "I'll get an iPhone if you'll pay for it."

Oh, snap

My boss complained that the camera app on my smartphone took a long time to start.  I replied with something like "I'm not getting paid enough to own a better phone."

I've tried saying stuff like this, but my boss just says I do well for my age and knows I have plenty of money because I pinch pennies, live with a roommate, and don't have a car payment...

[mydogismyheart]

My boss said his goal was for all of us to be using macbook computers.  I told him that that was great but I don't mind the free Dell I was given.  If he wants me to use a macbook he can buy me one and I'll be more than happy to use it.  That pretty much ended that conversation. 

Note: I do really like macbooks, my last one lasted me 10 years before I finally stopped using it.  It still works fine but is slow and since I was given this Dell from my company and it is faster I use it instead.  I would like to eventually invest in a new macbook when I have the money.

One friend didn't let up the nagging until I told her, "I'll get an iPhone if you'll pay for it."

Oh, snap

My boss complained that the camera app on my smartphone took a long time to start.  I replied with something like "I'm not getting paid enough to own a better phone."

I've tried saying stuff like this, but my boss just says I do well for my age and knows I have plenty of money because I pinch pennies, live with a roommate, and don't have a car payment...

[mydogismyheart]

I was having a conversation recently with a co worker about new cars.  I mentioned I was looking at buying a new (to me) vehicle because mine had been in a pretty bad accident and was totaled. I had that car for 9.5 years and really liked it.  I originally paid $3500 for it and with the exception of a new transmission at one point, I had no other issues, just regular maintenance.  His reply was that he only leases cars because with the amount of mileage we put on them (we drive a lot for work but get paid mileage for it) it just makes the most sense and is cheapest.
 

[ducky19]

I was having a conversation recently with a co worker about new cars.  I mentioned I was looking at buying a new (to me) vehicle because mine had been in a pretty bad accident and was totaled. I had that car for 9.5 years and really liked it.  I originally paid $3500 for it and with the exception of a new transmission at one point, I had no other issues, just regular maintenance.  His reply was that he only leases cars because with the amount of mileage we put on them (we drive a lot for work but get paid mileage for it) it just makes the most sense and is cheapest.

That is the absolute WORST scenario for leasing a car! I have yet to see a lease that didn't bend you over for driving too many miles, and most of them are low mile leases.

[ketchup]

I was having a conversation recently with a co worker about new cars.  I mentioned I was looking at buying a new (to me) vehicle because mine had been in a pretty bad accident and was totaled. I had that car for 9.5 years and really liked it.  I originally paid $3500 for it and with the exception of a new transmission at one point, I had no other issues, just regular maintenance.  His reply was that he only leases cars because with the amount of mileage we put on them (we drive a lot for work but get paid mileage for it) it just makes the most sense and is cheapest.

That is the absolute WORST scenario for leasing a car! I have yet to see a lease that didn't bend you over for driving too many miles, and most of them are low mile leases.

Seriously.  I've run the numbers on lease deals and the ONLY way they come even close to penciling out would be by driving more miles than the lease agreement would allow.

[mies]

...He just replaced his iPhone 7 last week too with a Pixel 2XL with the nebulous "I just don't like Apple stuff anymore" excuse. It's hip to be a he-man Apple hater where I work. I'm guessing he felt some pressure to conform...

I have the opposite pressure...not at work, but my circle of friends all have iPhones (although they don't all rush out and buy the newest ones).  I'm frequently given grief over my non-Apple phone choice, solely because it doesn't have the same group-text features. One friend didn't let up the nagging until I told her, "I'll get an iPhone if you'll pay for it."

I've noticed among tech people, it's cool to hate Apple. I hear people at work say Apple sucks when they have to test something on a Mac because they can't find something or it doesn't behave exactly like Windows. It's more lack of familiarity than inferiority of Apple's products.

I'm fairly agnostic when it comes to technology. I use Windows all day at work, Linux at home, and use an iPhone. For the most part, the iPhone just works and you usually aren't a second class citizen when it comes to applications.

Either way, he had a perfectly usable 1 year old phone and traded up for a new one that might be marginally better.

[JLee]

...He just replaced his iPhone 7 last week too with a Pixel 2XL with the nebulous "I just don't like Apple stuff anymore" excuse. It's hip to be a he-man Apple hater where I work. I'm guessing he felt some pressure to conform...

I have the opposite pressure...not at work, but my circle of friends all have iPhones (although they don't all rush out and buy the newest ones).  I'm frequently given grief over my non-Apple phone choice, solely because it doesn't have the same group-text features. One friend didn't let up the nagging until I told her, "I'll get an iPhone if you'll pay for it."

I've noticed among tech people, it's cool to hate Apple. I hear people at work say Apple sucks when they have to test something on a Mac because they can't find something or it doesn't behave exactly like Windows. It's more lack of familiarity than inferiority of Apple's products.

I'm fairly agnostic when it comes to technology. I use Windows all day at work, Linux at home, and use an iPhone. For the most part, the iPhone just works and you usually aren't a second class citizen when it comes to applications.

Either way, he had a perfectly usable 1 year old phone and traded up for a new one that might be marginally better.

That depends what you want out of your phone - I was talking with a friend over the weekend (he recently switched to Android) and he said cross-app integration is far better on Android (i.e. Shazam integration with Spotify, etc).

[Feivel2000]

I was joking about how very Monday of a Monday yesterday was with a co-worker this morning. Just one of those days where nothing terrible happens but a bunch of little things just don't go your way.

Me: and to top it off, when I got in my car after work, I realized I had a headlight out.
CW: Off to the mechanic for you, huh?
Me: No. It was just the bulb. I replaced it on my way home.
CW: By yourself?!
Me: Yes. It's super easy in my car. Your car too actually I bet! (We have the same car, though her car is a couple years newer.)
CW: Oh, I wouldn't even try to change it myself. I'd just take it to the mechanic.

I just can't imagine going to a mechanic for something as simple as a light bulb replacement. I get it if your car has a hard to reach headlight something of that nature, but I'd at least try it myself.

Try to change the bulb on a Citroën C3/C4. I think you need an additional hinge in your arm.

But my mechanic changed them for free if you buy the bulb from him...

[Linea_Norway]

I thought about posting it in the investor thread, but I think I have asked a similar question before. So now just posting as a comment in this thread.

I have one colleague who is always at work looking into stock websites. I asked him whether he changed his funds regularly.
He told me that he has his stocks only in his pension fund. When he has index funds and the index has risen more than 10%, he switches to a bond-profile with 0 risk. When the index has a big dip, he switches back to the high risk profile with index funds. That way, according to himself, you never lose money. He said he made 25% profit the last two years. This person has a history of getting into high debt because of losing money on the stock market. I think this is his new way of wanting to be into the market, but into a saver way.

It does sound like safe strategy to me, but for me this would be challenging I think. I Norway we pay about 30% tax on profits we make when we sell funds. Currently my funds are on a account where I can postpone my tax paying to the moment I take out the money, which is hopefully after FIRE when I have very little income. In this account, you cannot have bond funds, but we can switch between stock fonds as much as we like. But buying bonds would mean having to pay the taxes on top of my current high salary.

I think that if you sell index funds when the fund has more than 10% profit, you will lose out on the big profits. Like one of my index funds has currently 15% profit. But I do sometimes get a little nervous on having so much stash index funds, as I cannot believe the market will go up forever.

But we are back to the eternal question "is investing in the the stock market smart or not" and in the long run it is supposed to be smart. That is why I have my stash there. If we ever get 8% rent on money in the bank, I will put it in the bank. But I think those days might be over.

[Imma]

One friend didn't let up the nagging until I told her, "I'll get an iPhone if you'll pay for it."

Oh, snap

My boss complained that the camera app on my smartphone took a long time to start.  I replied with something like "I'm not getting paid enough to own a better phone."

I've tried saying stuff like this, but my boss just says I do well for my age and knows I have plenty of money because I pinch pennies, live with a roommate, and don't have a car payment...

Yup, my boss has noticed too that I'm frugal. I don't talk about money at work, but he still noticed quite soon. I think there are a number of factors that gave it away, but I'm still surprised that my boss noticed that quickly. I'm a part time office worker (I can't work fulltime due to health reasons) and my s/o is a musician with a side job, so we're not 'obviously wealthy'. He must have done the math and calculated that there must be money left over at the end of the month. 

[BuffaloStache]

^ 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.

[RidetheRain]

^ 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.

I agree. My coworkers don't ever notice that kind of thing. Pretty much everyone brings a lunch. The only way to tell is when talking about weekend plans. One of my coworkers likes to go to "rooftop parties" which I'm guessing are pretty expensive. But I like to hike which is more or less free. Really it's less of a frugal thing and more of a personal preference. After all, my life isn't any worse without spending money so how could they notice?

[marielle]

^ 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...

[trollwithamustache]

^ 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 bet you will still be in stealth mode after maxing out the 401k. HR -lackey probably has never seen it and while can process the paperwork cannot internally process what you just did. its much easier to just not think about such confusing things and head out early to happy hour.

[Imustacheyouaquestion]

HR called my wife to check if her maxed 457 election was an error because "wow, that's a ton of money!." Yup, that's a whole lot of tax-advantaged space we're filling :)

[ysette9]

Back on the subject of changing the bulbs in a car’s headlights, my husband did that in his then 1997 Honda Civic. It took him half a day and he had to go buy some tools he didn’t have to pry half the bumper assembly off.

[NoVa]

I complained to HR last week that the 401k website where I specified my contribution per pay period didn't accept anything but whole dollars, no decimal places. This was going to make me miss a certain tiny fraction of my contribution.

[JLee]

I complained to HR last week that the 401k website where I specified my contribution per pay period didn't accept anything but whole dollars, no decimal places. This was going to make me miss a certain tiny fraction of my contribution.

HR/payroll should cap your deductions at the IRS limit, so you should be able to bias your last contribution slightly heavy and they'll just cut it short.

[JordanOfGilead]

Back on the subject of changing the bulbs in a car’s headlights, my husband did that in his then 1997 Honda Civic. It took him half a day and he had to go buy some tools he didn’t have to pry half the bumper assembly off.

That doesn't seem right ...
I've had a '91 crx, a 94 civic LX, a 96 civic DX, and a 98 civic LX and had to change the headlight bulbs on all of them at least once. There's a part in the back that just twist/locks into place. A quarter turn of that piece and you can pull the bulb right out of the back of the headlight assembly. a 5 minute job, tops. The only one I had problems with was the 94 and that was because a previous owner had (poorly) installed xenon headlights.

[BDWW]

Back on the subject of changing the bulbs in a car’s headlights, my husband did that in his then 1997 Honda Civic. It took him half a day and he had to go buy some tools he didn’t have to pry half the bumper assembly off.

That doesn't seem right ...
I've had a '91 crx, a 94 civic LX, a 96 civic DX, and a 98 civic LX and had to change the headlight bulbs on all of them at least once. There's a part in the back that just twist/locks into place. A quarter turn of that piece and you can pull the bulb right out of the back of the headlight assembly. a 5 minute job, tops. The only one I had problems with was the 94 and that was because a previous owner had (poorly) installed xenon headlights.

I managed an auto parts store for 3 years, and we changed bulbs all the time. The only model I can think of that I gave up on was a first generation new beetle. If memory serves, everything else was relatively easy.

[ysette9]

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]

^ 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Freedomin5]

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]

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.)

[merula]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.