Author Topic: Overheard at Work  (Read 10604420 times)

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3854
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19150 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

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4362
  • Location: Texas
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19151 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 #19152 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 ďusĒ a salary reduction would reduce our excess, not our core life.

Iíve 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. Iím getting a 1.3% pay cut in January (company wide). It looks like Iíll just reduce my savings marginally.

Step37

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
  • Age: 47
  • Location: AB, Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19153 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: ??

Itís no imposition. We donít 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 heís made some money off the business, heís 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 thatís likely coming... Heís definitely more about appearances/wants to look wealthy, and I frankly donít care about those things anymore. Heís not spending money he doesnít have, so no worries there; itís just hard to be excited about it for him.



FIT_Goat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Location: Florida
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19154 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

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3854
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19155 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 ďusĒ a salary reduction would reduce our excess, not our core life.

Iíve 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. Iím getting a 1.3% pay cut in January (company wide). It looks like Iíll 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 #19156 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: 42
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19157 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: 357
  • Age: 28
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19158 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: 535
  • Location: NY
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19159 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: 42
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19160 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: 1406
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19161 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

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4432
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19162 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

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Location: Ottawa
    • My FI Journal
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19163 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
  • Location: The boring middle accumulation phase
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19164 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

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Location: Ottawa
    • My FI Journal
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19165 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 #19166 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: 34
  • Location: Gondor
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19167 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 #19168 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 #19169 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

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Location: Ottawa
    • My FI Journal
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19170 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: 272
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19171 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

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Location: Ottawa
    • My FI Journal
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19172 on: November 21, 2017, 01:30:24 PM »
Well, rent and restaurants. Probably on loans for tuition.

Indexer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1463
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19173 on: November 21, 2017, 09:30:51 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


It's a real problem in Canada. A zombie apocalypse would be terrible up there. I agree with Kelvin that we need to account for snow. Not only how it impacts speed, but we also need to account for zombies falling asleep in the snow, remaining hidden, and then biting unsuspecting people walking in the snow.

This is not an issue in the USA. The upside to more guns than people is that when the zombie apocalypse starts it won't reach critical mass. ;-) If there are more armed citizens than unarmed citizens then it should be easy to kill the zombies faster than they spread. The unarmed people will become zombies and the armed people will kill... re-kill... said zombies.  It becomes a real problem if you have a lot more zombies because then each shooter is heavily outnumbered, like in the zombie movies/TV shows, but if there are more shooters than zombies then it's more like slow moving target practice.

Do YOU want to be caught up in the next Zombie apocalypse with a cheap gun??? I THINK NOT! ;)

Actually I would PREFER a cheap gun in a zombie apocalypse. Those fancy nice guns jam up if they don't get cleaned enough, and a zombie apocalypse isn't exactly a clean environment. No, a cheap semi automatic AK-47 will do just fine. Rain, mud, sand, zombie parts, cheap homemade ammo, the occasional zombie skull bashing... it will keep on firing no matter what.


Sorry for all the zombie foam...

JAYSLOL

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19174 on: November 21, 2017, 11:47:23 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

What else are we supposed to do all winter in our igloos?

Sibley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4799
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19175 on: November 22, 2017, 09:48:48 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


It's a real problem in Canada. A zombie apocalypse would be terrible up there. I agree with Kelvin that we need to account for snow. Not only how it impacts speed, but we also need to account for zombies falling asleep in the snow, remaining hidden, and then biting unsuspecting people walking in the snow.

This is not an issue in the USA. The upside to more guns than people is that when the zombie apocalypse starts it won't reach critical mass. ;-) If there are more armed citizens than unarmed citizens then it should be easy to kill the zombies faster than they spread. The unarmed people will become zombies and the armed people will kill... re-kill... said zombies.  It becomes a real problem if you have a lot more zombies because then each shooter is heavily outnumbered, like in the zombie movies/TV shows, but if there are more shooters than zombies then it's more like slow moving target practice.

Do YOU want to be caught up in the next Zombie apocalypse with a cheap gun??? I THINK NOT! ;)

Actually I would PREFER a cheap gun in a zombie apocalypse. Those fancy nice guns jam up if they don't get cleaned enough, and a zombie apocalypse isn't exactly a clean environment. No, a cheap semi automatic AK-47 will do just fine. Rain, mud, sand, zombie parts, cheap homemade ammo, the occasional zombie skull bashing... it will keep on firing no matter what.


Sorry for all the zombie foam...

You're assuming equal distribution of people and guns. There definitely isn't equal distribution of people, and I would suspect the same of guns. You could end up with urbans areas with a large number of people (and thus zombies), but a lower concentration of guns. The reverse in many rural areas.

Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6944
  • Location: BC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19176 on: November 22, 2017, 07:04:35 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.


I think you have this part mis worded..?   The point is that you eventually self fund your own life insurance as that savings part grows.. Which is why some plans have you ending contributions (or paying a very very low rate) despite advanced ages.... and you still have the life insurance plus the value of the savings that you can tap into early in various (often expensive) ways.

Linea_Norway

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7209
  • Location: Norway
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19177 on: November 23, 2017, 01:34:42 PM »
Heard in the lunch break today, the colleague who I share a room with sais he doesn`t have any debt. And he owns his appartment. Before this I had the impression he had very little and was earlier in debt because of loosing stock. Maybe I heard wrong rumours. He has his finances in order. He askes us two others at the table whether we had any debt. My other colleague does, because he increased his mortgage to build a garage for +- 30.000 USD. I luckily could avoid to answer, because the debtless colleague had to ask so many questions about increasing the mortgage.
Most colleagues know I live in a very expensive house. I would feel a little embarrassed to let people know it is completely debt free. That would be like telling them what`s in my bank account.

Kitsunegari

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 478
  • Location: Quebec, CA
  • Penny wise, pound foolish
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19178 on: November 24, 2017, 07:42:28 AM »
A few years ago there has been a big financial crash in my homecountry, and why discussing it with workmates one said it gave him satisfaction seeing people losing their life savings on it, 'cause they lived like misers to invest, and for what? they should have just enjoyed the money when they had it.

OneStep

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Location: KC Metro
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19179 on: November 24, 2017, 08:44:58 AM »
I'm a supervisor in a cubicle farm here in the Midwest. We are production based and often have to work mandatory overtime. During one-on-ones with my team members we not only talk about performance, but how life is in general. Finances are a big topic that comes up. Before I started in this department 4 years ago they were averaging around 8-10 hours a week in overtime, but we have been working on efficiency and it has helped us reduce our overtime that we need on a regular basis. I hear the following on a weekly basis. "I can't afford to pay my bills if I don't work any overtime", which is usually followed up a week later with "We aren't busy can I leave early?" I find an odd since of joy in reminding them of what they said just a week early. They don't get it and the cycle starts all over again. I should start a spreadsheet and track how often each person on my team makes these statements.

Imma

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2686
  • Location: Europe
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19180 on: November 24, 2017, 11:09:16 AM »
A few years ago there has been a big financial crash in my homecountry, and why discussing it with workmates one said it gave him satisfaction seeing people losing their life savings on it, 'cause they lived like misers to invest, and for what? they should have just enjoyed the money when they had it.


He sounds peachy.

My boss said just yesterday he couldn't wait for an economic collapse like the dotcom-bubble again, so he would be able to get cheap staff again. He's pretty cheap in general and right now we have an opening for a senior IT person that we just can't fill because in the current job market he's just not offering a high enough wage.

We are in Europe in a country that took very long to recover from the last crash. It's only really for the last 2 years Joe Public has been noticing a steady improvement. We went through a bleak period of austerity. Personally, I spent years in and out of temp jobs, unable to find a steady place to work (and he should know, it's on my CV). Both my partner and I experienced the bankruptcy of the company we worked for. For many people, life is still a lot worse than it was before 2008.

I have tried to tell him before that these things are no laughing matter. When I once told him it was hard to make ends meet when I worked in a parttime minimum wage job, he said he didn't believe me, I must have lived in a mansion back then. I have tried to tell him a few times this is insulting, but I'm not sure how to do it as I'm the junior employee and he's the boss. But I hate how he basically wishes disaster on people just because of his own ignorance.

Hirondelle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1598
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19181 on: November 24, 2017, 11:38:39 AM »
A few years ago there has been a big financial crash in my homecountry, and why discussing it with workmates one said it gave him satisfaction seeing people losing their life savings on it, 'cause they lived like misers to invest, and for what? they should have just enjoyed the money when they had it.


He sounds peachy.

My boss said just yesterday he couldn't wait for an economic collapse like the dotcom-bubble again, so he would be able to get cheap staff again. He's pretty cheap in general and right now we have an opening for a senior IT person that we just can't fill because in the current job market he's just not offering a high enough wage.

We are in Europe in a country that took very long to recover from the last crash. It's only really for the last 2 years Joe Public has been noticing a steady improvement. We went through a bleak period of austerity. Personally, I spent years in and out of temp jobs, unable to find a steady place to work (and he should know, it's on my CV). Both my partner and I experienced the bankruptcy of the company we worked for. For many people, life is still a lot worse than it was before 2008.

I have tried to tell him before that these things are no laughing matter. When I once told him it was hard to make ends meet when I worked in a parttime minimum wage job, he said he didn't believe me, I must have lived in a mansion back then. I have tried to tell him a few times this is insulting, but I'm not sure how to do it as I'm the junior employee and he's the boss. But I hate how he basically wishes disaster on people just because of his own ignorance.
That's so rude! I mean, I can kinda get the first thing where he says 'A crash would make it easier to find an employee', just like you can say 'I'm waiting for a stock market crash to buy them on sale'. But it sounds like he doesn't realize that a crash like that hurts/affects many many employees and other people involved?

merula

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19182 on: November 25, 2017, 02:27:20 PM »
My boss said just yesterday he couldn't wait for an economic collapse like the dotcom-bubble again, so he would be able to get cheap staff again. He's pretty cheap in general and right now we have an opening for a senior IT person that we just can't fill because in the current job market he's just not offering a high enough wage.

We are in Europe in a country that took very long to recover from the last crash. It's only really for the last 2 years Joe Public has been noticing a steady improvement. We went through a bleak period of austerity. Personally, I spent years in and out of temp jobs, unable to find a steady place to work (and he should know, it's on my CV). Both my partner and I experienced the bankruptcy of the company we worked for. For many people, life is still a lot worse than it was before 2008.

I have tried to tell him before that these things are no laughing matter. When I once told him it was hard to make ends meet when I worked in a parttime minimum wage job, he said he didn't believe me, I must have lived in a mansion back then. I have tried to tell him a few times this is insulting, but I'm not sure how to do it as I'm the junior employee and he's the boss. But I hate how he basically wishes disaster on people just because of his own ignorance.

This is making a lot of assumptions about the ages of everyone involved, but it's one of my favorite memes, so I wanted to share:

paddedhat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2229
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19183 on: November 26, 2017, 06:04:08 AM »
I'm a supervisor in a cubicle farm here in the Midwest. We are production based and often have to work mandatory overtime. During one-on-ones with my team members we not only talk about performance, but how life is in general. Finances are a big topic that comes up. Before I started in this department 4 years ago they were averaging around 8-10 hours a week in overtime, but we have been working on efficiency and it has helped us reduce our overtime that we need on a regular basis. I hear the following on a weekly basis. "I can't afford to pay my bills if I don't work any overtime", which is usually followed up a week later with "We aren't busy can I leave early?" I find an odd since of joy in reminding them of what they said just a week early. They don't get it and the cycle starts all over again. I should start a spreadsheet and track how often each person on my team makes these statements.

In the past, I have had groups of employees, numbering from single digits to fifty or sixty, who I was responsible for physically handing a paycheck to. Due to union rules in the construction trades, it was required that the employee be handed a physical check by the end of the work day, mid-week. Occasionally,  there would be an issue, things like a courier stuck in a traffic accident, and the checks did not arrive on the job site by the end of the day. At that point, the majority of the workforce would walk past me, in my usual spot, on the steps of my office trailer, expecting their check. I would casually say, "your check is stuck behind a truck wreck on the freeway, I have to wait until it gets here, but you do whatever you want". The vast majority would give me some version of, "no worries, I'll see you tomorrow". There was always a few who would throw a fit, and demand that I resolve the issue, STAT!"  Without fail, these were the same clowns who would not show up on a regular basis, or claim that the desperately needed that check, then take a few days off the next week.

Overtime was another entertaining situation. Often, on a large project, deadline panic would set in, and large amounts of overtime would be granted to stay on schedule. As the crisis tapered off, overtime would cease, and the same chucklenuts would be in my office, bitching about how they "need" overtime. Wait, let's review. These are some of the highest paid tradesmen on the continent. There is no expectation of any overtime, ever. It is never mandatory, and never a reliable source of additional income, and YOU can't live without it? Damn, it sucks to be you. My all time favorite was an industrial job where there were huge deadline issues and you could work unlimited overtime, if you wanted it. There was also an agreement that volunteering to drive a big passenger van, from the remote parking lot, to the plant, would pay an additional half hour. I had a guy in my office bitching that he was robbed of his half hour of van driver bonus. He had physically worked 24 hours and wanted the other half hour. I was laughing as I asked him how I could possibly input 24.5 hours into his DAILY timesheet? He was convinced that I was trying to rip him off, yet in one day, he had earned nearly 80% of a normal week of pay.

I can't even express how glad I am that that crap is now in the rear view mirror.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2293
  • Location: Germany
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19184 on: November 26, 2017, 10:49:25 AM »
He can be lucky he doesn't life in an socialist country, because here working 24 hours would be illegal - worker protection laws. (And btw any company that lets workers do this should pay a fine for promoting unhealthy and risky workplace behaviour.)

BuffaloStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
  • Location: The boring middle accumulation phase
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19185 on: November 27, 2017, 09:33:31 PM »
^I'm not so sure- if I could work "unlimited" overtime and get paid extra for it, I likely would've sucked it up for ~2-3 years, worked 50%+ overtime and significantly reduced my time to FI. Or at least work some OT when I could to boost the savings rate :-D.

Feivel2000

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Germany
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19186 on: November 27, 2017, 11:31:47 PM »
He can be lucky he doesn't life in an socialist country, because here working 24 hours would be illegal - worker protection laws. (And btw any company that lets workers do this should pay a fine for promoting unhealthy and risky workplace behaviour.)
Why is everyone using the term "socialist" for countries who don't promote pure capitalism (not to overcome it, but just because they realized that the market won't fix everything)?

Socialist would mean that the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Having laws against working 24 hours is not socialism. Universal health care is not socialism.

It's a derogative term. It's a pet peeve of mine.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5263
  • Age: 13
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19187 on: November 28, 2017, 12:11:44 AM »
He can be lucky he doesn't life in an socialist country, because here working 24 hours would be illegal - worker protection laws. (And btw any company that lets workers do this should pay a fine for promoting unhealthy and risky workplace behaviour.)
Why is everyone using the term "socialist" for countries who don't promote pure capitalism (not to overcome it, but just because they realized that the market won't fix everything)?

Socialist would mean that the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Having laws against working 24 hours is not socialism. Universal health care is not socialism.

It's a derogative term. It's a pet peeve of mine.
US political discourse uses a special breed of English. Liberals doesn't refer to people wanting less regulation, socialism is a boogeyman, and Europe is where lazy people live.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1431
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19188 on: November 28, 2017, 01:07:46 AM »
He can be lucky he doesn't life in an socialist country, because here working 24 hours would be illegal - worker protection laws. (And btw any company that lets workers do this should pay a fine for promoting unhealthy and risky workplace behaviour.)
Why is everyone using the term "socialist" for countries who don't promote pure capitalism (not to overcome it, but just because they realized that the market won't fix everything)?

Socialist would mean that the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Having laws against working 24 hours is not socialism. Universal health care is not socialism.

It's a derogative term. It's a pet peeve of mine.
US political discourse uses a special breed of English. Liberals doesn't refer to people wanting less regulation, socialism is a boogeyman, and Europe is where lazy people live.

This is a detour from the main topic, but claiming that socialism is a derogative term is just... weird.

Socialism is an ideal, that values equality above most other things. Communism is one end of that spectrum, social democracies are on the other end. And at some point on the sliding scale, we are starting to approach the social liberals.

As far as I know, both LennStar and I are living in social democracies. I'm quite happy with that, being a socialist at heart. I believe it is best for everyone that the state controls our common natural resources; water (for drinking and electricity production), oil, fish, forests, etc. It doesn't mean that private interests can't make money from these resources, it just means that they can't control them for ever. You are welcome to build a hydropower plant, and run it for a 100 years, but after that the rights to that water goes back to the state, and someone else can have a go. You are welcome to fish, but we tried that unlimited fishing thing earlier, and that knocked out a lot of fish populations, and most major whale species. So now you can get a fishing quota for a limited time. Some more liberal politicians here want to remove the time limit on the quotas, and make it possible for private actors to trade fishing quotas in all areas. I don't think it is fair for the rest of us that a few persons would own the fishing rights forever. Some of our forests are state owned, some are privately owned. But the right to roam act allows everyone the right to enjoy the nature, also on private property.

Universal healthcare and labor laws are not socialism, those are just common (economic) sense.

Feivel2000

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Germany
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19189 on: November 28, 2017, 01:25:18 AM »


He can be lucky he doesn't life in an socialist country, because here working 24 hours would be illegal - worker protection laws. (And btw any company that lets workers do this should pay a fine for promoting unhealthy and risky workplace behaviour.)
Why is everyone using the term "socialist" for countries who don't promote pure capitalism (not to overcome it, but just because they realized that the market won't fix everything)?

Socialist would mean that the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Having laws against working 24 hours is not socialism. Universal health care is not socialism.

It's a derogative term. It's a pet peeve of mine.
US political discourse uses a special breed of English. Liberals doesn't refer to people wanting less regulation, socialism is a boogeyman, and Europe is where lazy people live.

This is a detour from the main topic, but claiming that socialism is a derogative term is just... weird.

Socialism is an ideal, that values equality above most other things. Communism is one end of that spectrum, social democracies are on the other end. And at some point on the sliding scale, we are starting to approach the social liberals.

As far as I know, both LennStar and I are living in social democracies. I'm quite happy with that, being a socialist at heart. I believe it is best for everyone that the state controls our common natural resources; water (for drinking and electricity production), oil, fish, forests, etc. It doesn't mean that private interests can't make money from these resources, it just means that they can't control them for ever. You are welcome to build a hydropower plant, and run it for a 100 years, but after that the rights to that water goes back to the state, and someone else can have a go. You are welcome to fish, but we tried that unlimited fishing thing earlier, and that knocked out a lot of fish populations, and most major whale species. So now you can get a fishing quota for a limited time. Some more liberal politicians here want to remove the time limit on the quotas, and make it possible for private actors to trade fishing quotas in all areas. I don't think it is fair for the rest of us that a few persons would own the fishing rights forever. Some of our forests are state owned, some are privately owned. But the right to roam act allows everyone the right to enjoy the nature, also on private property.

Universal healthcare and labor laws are not socialism, those are just common (economic) sense.

I completely agree with you (except for being a socialist at heart). I live in an social democracy as well.
But I am pretty sure that when most people say "that's socialist/socialism", they don't want to say "that's an idea, that values equality above most other things", probably more "that's socialism and we know how that went... Go home to Russia you crazy communist, we have won, deal with it!"

So calling things or social democracies "socialism" is not helpful and wrong, because these things might be on a spectrum, but universal health care or fair labor laws don't lead to socialism and social democracy is not a proto-socialist democracy.

Enough foam, I am sorry.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2293
  • Location: Germany
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19190 on: November 28, 2017, 01:30:02 AM »
He can be lucky he doesn't life in an socialist country, because here working 24 hours would be illegal - worker protection laws. (And btw any company that lets workers do this should pay a fine for promoting unhealthy and risky workplace behaviour.)
Why is everyone using the term "socialist" for countries who don't promote pure capitalism (not to overcome it, but just because they realized that the market won't fix everything)?

Socialist would mean that the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Having laws against working 24 hours is not socialism. Universal health care is not socialism.

It's a derogative term. It's a pet peeve of mine.

I often use that term mockingly, especially BECAUSE a lot of "free market enthusiasts" call everything socialism they don't like (like a christian calling it devilllish). That includes universal health care, laws that prevents companies to screw you becaue they can afford it, or right now Net Neutrality.
Somehow the Free Market Fans think that NN is a bad thing. Probably nearly as bad as the English law that forbid children unter 10 to work longer then 10 hours a day in wool factories (because so many died there), which was heavily protested as a hideous interference of the free market.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Location: Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19191 on: November 28, 2017, 04:02:59 AM »
He can be lucky he doesn't life in an socialist country, because here working 24 hours would be illegal - worker protection laws. (And btw any company that lets workers do this should pay a fine for promoting unhealthy and risky workplace behaviour.)
Why is everyone using the term "socialist" for countries who don't promote pure capitalism (not to overcome it, but just because they realized that the market won't fix everything)?

Socialist would mean that the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Having laws against working 24 hours is not socialism. Universal health care is not socialism.

It's a derogative term. It's a pet peeve of mine.

I often use that term mockingly, especially BECAUSE a lot of "free market enthusiasts" call everything socialism they don't like (like a christian calling it devilllish). That includes universal health care, laws that prevents companies to screw you becaue they can afford it, or right now Net Neutrality.
Somehow the Free Market Fans think that NN is a bad thing. Probably nearly as bad as the English law that forbid children unter 10 to work longer then 10 hours a day in wool factories (because so many died there), which was heavily protested as a hideous interference of the free market.

Net Neutrality is a bad thing. Imagine if Google decided to build a 50000 person office in your town. Imagine they refused to pay for the new roads that had to be built all around it to cover the enhanced load. Imagine they refused to cover the expense the hydro company had to incur to provide power to the place. Imagine they wouldnít listen to the water company instructions (ex. have 50 onsite sewage tanks, only pump sewage into the mainline during late evening and early hours).

Thatís basically what Netflix, Google, and Amazon have done. They want the ISPs to act like a utility, they donít want to treat them like utilities (where they have to pay for any undo burden), and they want to never be treated like a utility (see the whole episode with Google denying domain name registry).

When there are gigantic, multinational corporations that control large segments of the media on one side of an issue and regional companies on another side, donít you find it suspicious that just by chance people are aligning with the former? We (sometimes) notice when big pharma is trying to sway the public in their favour. Perhaps weíll notice big tech soon.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2293
  • Location: Germany
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19192 on: November 28, 2017, 06:09:09 AM »
Net Neutrality is a bad thing. Imagine if Google decided to build a 50000 person office in your town. Imagine they refused to pay for the new roads that had to be built all around it to cover the enhanced load. Imagine they refused to cover the expense the hydro company had to incur to provide power to the place. Imagine they wouldnít listen to the water company instructions (ex. have 50 onsite sewage tanks, only pump sewage into the mainline during late evening and early hours).

Thatís basically what Netflix, Google, and Amazon have done. They want the ISPs to act like a utility, they donít want to treat them like utilities (where they have to pay for any undo burden), and they want to never be treated like a utility (see the whole episode with Google denying domain name registry).

ISPs ARE a utility - yours. You pay them after all, to provide YOU with whatever traffic YOU want.
What is on the other side does not has to interest them. In best case the ISP don't even know or can find out.
If "google" builds a big office (aka webpresence) they still have to pay to be connected to the backbone. That does not change without Net Neutrality. Or in gogles case they just build their own backbone I guess.

And the problem here are not the big companies, because a Google can easily pay a few hundred million way robbery fees. Its the small websites that can't do that. For example those that say that ISP X has shitty service. They for sure will have of that ISP slows them down to 64K.

You know, I had this NN thing here back in 2009 and following years. It upsets me that this is still on the table again and again, its like data rentention. Ruled unconstitutional? Then change it just that little bit that it could work.
We are in iteration 4 of that now.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2017, 06:11:00 AM by LennStar »

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4079
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19193 on: November 28, 2017, 07:40:13 AM »
I suspect the rise of Fox News and Conservative talk radio is why the word "socialist" has become such an epithet today in the US.

I am fully aware of just how much farther to the right the US is than you other high-income countries. From my username, you probably think I'm one of the farthest right people in it ;-)

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Location: Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19194 on: November 28, 2017, 09:03:23 AM »
Net Neutrality is a bad thing. Imagine if Google decided to build a 50000 person office in your town. Imagine they refused to pay for the new roads that had to be built all around it to cover the enhanced load. Imagine they refused to cover the expense the hydro company had to incur to provide power to the place. Imagine they wouldnít listen to the water company instructions (ex. have 50 onsite sewage tanks, only pump sewage into the mainline during late evening and early hours).

Thatís basically what Netflix, Google, and Amazon have done. They want the ISPs to act like a utility, they donít want to treat them like utilities (where they have to pay for any undo burden), and they want to never be treated like a utility (see the whole episode with Google denying domain name registry).

ISPs ARE a utility - yours. You pay them after all, to provide YOU with whatever traffic YOU want.

What is on the other side does not has to interest them. In best case the ISP don't even know or can find out.
If "google" builds a big office (aka webpresence) they still have to pay to be connected to the backbone. That does not change without Net Neutrality. Or in gogles case they just build their own backbone I guess.

Part of this started because Netflix takes a plurality of internet traffic in the evening. Comcast wanted Netflix to pay to support the load. Netflix didn't want to.

Quote
And the problem here are not the big companies, because a Google can easily pay a few hundred million way robbery fees. Its the small websites that can't do that.

It is the opposite. Netflix, Google, Amazon, and the other big players don't want to pay for their out sized burden. They want their cost to be distributed onto everyone else.

It's like a rich guy that goes to the bar with two friends. His two friends each buy a cheap bud light, he buys two glasses of champagne. When the bill comes around, he says he'll pay half the bill since he had two glasses to their two.

In what other topic of life do you take the big, mega-Corp, multinational company's side thinking they are looking out for the little companies? They're looking out for themselves to the detriment of others.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2017, 09:08:20 AM by kayvent »

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3854
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19195 on: November 28, 2017, 09:11:50 AM »
For those wishing to discuss Net Neutrality, there's a thread in the Off-topic subforum on the subject.

NoraLenderbee

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1254
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19196 on: November 28, 2017, 03:50:35 PM »
I suspect the rise of Fox News and Conservative talk radio is why the word "socialist" has become such an epithet today in the US.


"Socialism" has been a bogeyman here for a good 100 years. Remember how the US had to save the world from godless Soviet Communism?

Million2000

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 136
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19197 on: November 29, 2017, 09:25:39 AM »
It's like a rich guy that goes to the bar with two friends. His two friends each buy a cheap bud light, he buys two glasses of champagne. When the bill comes around, he says he'll pay half the bill since he had two glasses to their two.

In what other topic of life do you take the big, mega-Corp, multinational company's side thinking they are looking out for the little companies? They're looking out for themselves to the detriment of others.

Taking away net neutrality allows for the following scenario:

It's like a rich guy that goes to the bar with two friends. The rich guy orders an expensive of champagne which arrives almost immediately and tastes great. His two friends don't have enough money to get the same type of champagne, they order a bud light which takes forever to arrive and frankly sucks. But hey, at least they don't have to pay for part of that champagne right?


sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1535
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19198 on: November 29, 2017, 10:01:31 AM »
It's like a rich guy that goes to the bar with two friends. His two friends each buy a cheap bud light, he buys two glasses of champagne. When the bill comes around, he says he'll pay half the bill since he had two glasses to their two.

In what other topic of life do you take the big, mega-Corp, multinational company's side thinking they are looking out for the little companies? They're looking out for themselves to the detriment of others.

Taking away net neutrality allows for the following scenario:

It's like a rich guy that goes to the bar with two friends. The rich guy orders an expensive of champagne which arrives almost immediately and tastes great. His two friends don't have enough money to get the same type of champagne, they order a bud light which takes forever to arrive and frankly sucks. But hey, at least they don't have to pay for part of that champagne right?

But that's not analogous to the situation of the internet. It's more like:

A three friends go to a bar. The bartender is offering a subscription service of two beers per hour for a set price. They all sign up. Two friends only happen to drink one beer per hour, while the third actually drinks both. The bartender complains that that's unfair that he should actually have to live up to the terms of his agreement and wants to limit the two-per-hour drinker to only having bud light available.

ISPs can already charge champaign drinkers more than beer drinkers. It's called different rate plans. What they can't do, and shouldn't be allowed to do, is decide for you what you are allowed to do with your bandwidth that you've paid for.

shelivesthedream

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6168
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19199 on: November 29, 2017, 10:41:14 AM »
For those wishing to discuss Net Neutrality, there's a thread in the Off-topic subforum on the subject.
[/size]