Author Topic: Overheard at Work  (Read 7570622 times)

RidetheRain

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Age: 26
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19300 on: November 17, 2017, 10:03:04 AM »

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19301 on: November 17, 2017, 01:24:55 PM »

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rawr237

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 79
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19302 on: November 17, 2017, 01:39:22 PM »

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19303 on: November 17, 2017, 03:13:54 PM »

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

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


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

Rural

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4486
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19304 on: November 17, 2017, 04:02:22 PM »

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

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


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


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


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

Mrs. Fire Lane

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19305 on: November 19, 2017, 07:04:28 AM »
Yes, itís really about more than the ticket price to a gala. Thereís one I have gone to and the ticket price is just a portion of the donation. Thereís 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. Weíve 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. Iíve seen him in action. Heís a lot like Matt Smithís interpretation of The Doctor on Doctor Who.

FIT_Goat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Location: Florida
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19306 on: November 19, 2017, 08:06:10 AM »
I was talking to a coworker about a change in jobs, recently.  I applied for a job that pays less than my current one, but the stress and pressure is significantly better.  The coworker said they could never go down in pay, they couldn't afford it.  My response to this was that the difference was less than $3,600 a year before taxes, and that was before accounting for certain fixed costs that would be reduced (like union dues and gas).  It's less than $300 a month difference.  This teacher is married and her spouse has a much higher income.  Honestly, it would be WAY under-estimating to say they bring in $90k before taxes.  How tight is their budget that they can't afford a less than 4% reduction in income?  She really acted like it would be a devastating blow.

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

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2536
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19307 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: 2895
  • Location: Texas
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19308 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.
Credit card signup bonuses:

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

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

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
  • Location: Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19309 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: 337
  • Age: 44
  • Location: AB, Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19310 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.


"Not wanting something is as good as possessing it." ~Donald Horban

FIT_Goat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Location: Florida
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19311 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: 2536
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19312 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 #19313 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: 17
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19314 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: 360
  • Age: 26
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19315 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.
See my journal

Debts_of_Despair

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 489
  • Location: NY
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19316 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: 17
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19317 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19318 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

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1830
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19319 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: 319
  • Location: Ottawa
    • My FI Journal
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19320 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
Having fun isn't hard when you have a library card.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/biochemicaldj-redox/

BuffaloStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
  • Location: Colorado
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19321 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
"As a cure for worrying, work is better than whisky." -Thomas Edison

My Log | Take surveys as a side-hustle! Use my referral link

BiochemicalDJ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Location: Ottawa
    • My FI Journal
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19322 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.
Having fun isn't hard when you have a library card.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/biochemicaldj-redox/

barbaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19323 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: 180
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Gondor
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19324 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

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
  • Location: Ottawa, ON
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19325 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: 178
  • Location: Belgium
    • financial freedom sloth
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19326 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/
http://financialfreedomsloth.com/

achieving financial freedom one lazy step at a time

BiochemicalDJ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Location: Ottawa
    • My FI Journal
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19327 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!
Having fun isn't hard when you have a library card.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/biochemicaldj-redox/

Imustacheyouaquestion

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19328 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: 319
  • Location: Ottawa
    • My FI Journal
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19329 on: November 21, 2017, 01:30:24 PM »
Well, rent and restaurants. Probably on loans for tuition.
Having fun isn't hard when you have a library card.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/biochemicaldj-redox/

Indexer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1150
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19330 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19331 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: 2822
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19332 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: 5329
  • Location: BC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19333 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.

Linda_Norway

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2632
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19334 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: 413
  • Location: Quebec, CA
  • Penny wise, pound foolish
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19335 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.
Nothing happens in contrast with Nature, only in contradiction of what we know of it.

OneStep

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Location: KC Metro
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19336 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.

craiglepaige

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19337 on: November 24, 2017, 09:27:39 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.
-The conqueror will always become a slave to his conquest.

- Eres Un Esclavo Financiero
https://youtu.be/GO1Fsp4cUTQ

Imma

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 873
  • Location: Europe
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19338 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 654
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19339 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 974
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19340 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: 2238
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19341 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19342 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: 652
  • Location: Colorado
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19343 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.
"As a cure for worrying, work is better than whisky." -Thomas Edison

My Log | Take surveys as a side-hustle! Use my referral link

Feivel2000

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Germany
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19344 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

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3945
  • Age: 10
  • Board Member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19345 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 930
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19346 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.
Travelling to 71į Northern Latitude in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/

Feivel2000

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Germany
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19347 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19348 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: 644
  • Location: Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #19349 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.