Overheard on Facebook

[dragoncar]

My solution to this problem is to get LED bulbs and modify them so they use less power (and produce less light).  Most people don't realize that LED bulbs, if downrated, can last basically forever.  Surprisingly, it seems many bulbs are designed for just such a modification.

The bulb I had changed was an LED bulb.  They do go. It is my main kitchen light, I only wish it were brighter, not dimmer.  My only solution for it was to replace it with a name-brand LED in hopes of good quality control.

That's why I modify them.  I modded a 40W bulb into a ~20W bulb for our kids' bathroom, which is constantly left on, and it's been in there for close to a decade.

Interested in hearing more details on this mod.  What if you just dim it?  I know that can cause annoying flickering but otherwise would it have the same positive effect on longevity?

[BDWW]

Earlier and some cheaper LED bulbs use resistors to control the voltage to the LEDs.  You use to be able to just up the resistance (often just by removing one of a set of parallel resistors).  Most of the newer ones I've taken apart now use a transformer set-up that's more difficult to modify.

As for the longevity, LEDs are more efficient,produce less heat and last way longer when run at lower power.  When you drive them to 100% of their rating, they end up producing more heat proportionally, and dying quicker.

For example:  Running an LED at 50% of its maximum rating might produce 70% of it's maximum lumen output. Then you have to double the power to get the remaining 30% light. The excess is heat which degrades the LED, makes them unsuitable for enclosed fixtures etc.

A large part of this planned obsolescence and no I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat. Long-lasting efficient LED bulbs exist, you just have to have the money/power of a nation state behind you to get them. Dubia was able to contract with Philips to actually create a long lasting efficient LED bulb.  They feature more LEDs run at lower power so that they actually last.

It's annoying knowing superior bulbs exist, they just won't sell a quality bulb to us plebs.

[zolotiyeruki]

Earlier and some cheaper LED bulbs use resistors to control the voltage to the LEDs.  You use to be able to just up the resistance (often just by removing one of a set of parallel resistors).  Most of the newer ones I've taken apart now use a transformer set-up that's more difficult to modify.

As for the longevity, LEDs are more efficient,produce less heat and last way longer when run at lower power.  When you drive them to 100% of their rating, they end up producing more heat proportionally, and dying quicker.

Exactly this.

For example, I've attached a photo of a Sylvania 60W-equivalent LED bulb.  To derate it to a lower power, simply snip off one of the two current-sense resistors (circled).  That's literally all you have to do. You don't even need a soldering iron.  Flush cutters (sometimes called "dikes") are perfect for this job.

[RetiredAt63]

I would want to modify my 100W bulb to a 150W bulb.  Because I  think seeing what I am doing with a sharp knife is a good thing.

Is this an overhead light fixture, whose light is blocked by your body when you're standing at the counter working with a sharp knife? Maybe what you need is not a brighter bulb, but some task lighting like a table lamp on the counter or under-cabinet lights. I stuck one of those strips of tiny LEDs under my kitchen cabinet and it has made a world of difference to my workspace. (The kids said, "Mama! You have Tiktok lights!" and want to make then flash, change colours, etc. Haha NO.)

I have under the counter lights.  But sometimes it would be nice to just have a brighter overhead light.  I mean I can live with the 100W bulb, but a bit more light would be nice.  This is a kitchen in a rented condo, so no windows in it and I can't make changes.  The living and dining rooms (and bedrooms of course) get the windows.

It was redecorated before I rented it, and a lot of it looks like the renovations were for show, not function.  I'm noticing it especially because my last apartment was really well designed, the space was well used.

[GuitarStv]

Part of the problem is that most of the 'XXX watt equivalent' bulbs I've seen don't put out anywhere near as many lumens as a typical XXX watt incandescent bulb.  I've had 100 watt equivalent LEDs that were about as bright as 75 watt incandescents.

[RetiredAt63]

Part of the problem is that most of the 'XXX watt equivalent' bulbs I've seen don't put out anywhere near as many lumens as a typical XXX watt incandescent bulb.  I've had 100 watt equivalent LEDs that were about as bright as 75 watt incandescents.

I've seen variability by brand.  Of course the old incandescent bulbs also varied by brand.  And batch.

I want a bunch of pot lights that are on several switches so I can have few to the full number turned on, and control the amount of light I have.  Since I am a renter for the rest of my life, that isn't going to happen.   ;-(

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Part of the problem is that most of the 'XXX watt equivalent' bulbs I've seen don't put out anywhere near as many lumens as a typical XXX watt incandescent bulb.  I've had 100 watt equivalent LEDs that were about as bright as 75 watt incandescents.

I've seen variability by brand.  Of course the old incandescent bulbs also varied by brand.  And batch.

I want a bunch of pot lights that are on several switches so I can have few to the full number turned on, and control the amount of light I have.  Since I am a renter for the rest of my life, that isn't going to happen.   ;-(

Are there any "smart" bulbs that can be individually controlled by remote? It seems like a product that should have been developed by now. You might be a customer for that kind of technology.

[JAYSLOL]

I’ve been noticing what I consider a disturbing trend on my Facebook feed lately.  I don’t really spend much time on Facebook, 98% of my usage is to buy and sell through marketplace, but I occasionally just scroll through stuff for a min to see what’s up.  For the last few weeks I’ve been noticing a very high percentage of the ads that appear in my feed are what appear on the surface to be feel-good local news stories posted about people winning the lottery.  Some are $100k, some are $5m, some in the $10k+ or so range.  It’s not just from one news source either, so I’m beginning to suspect the lottery corporation around here is paying insane dollars to push out stories of people winning to up sales.  It’s not clearly identified as an ad, it just looks like news, so I really think they found a sneaky way to scam a lot of desperate people into spending (even more) money that they probably can’t afford into lotto tickets because of all this stuff they are pushing online.

⅞
I don't do FB, but I'm on the internet a lot. I've had three stories in the past week about people who have won big lotteries, lost it all and ruined their lives.

Oh, and that David Bromstad show on HGTV called "My Lottery Dream Home" sure seems like nothing but an extended lottery ad.

Yep, I’m convinced there’s money being pushed around to put this in peoples faces.  The most amusing “headline” I saw was about a guy that just won $100k who has been playing the same numbers for over 30 years.  Sound cool like all that determination paid off, right?  Well not so fast, I don’t know how often he played or the exact cost of the tickets, but if he spent $1/day over the last 35 years, and instead had put that money in the S&P500, which averaged 9.75% over the last 30 years, he really only broke even.  He could have had right around $100k by now, and not the tax bill that would go with it. 

[Dicey]

I’ve been noticing what I consider a disturbing trend on my Facebook feed lately.  I don’t really spend much time on Facebook, 98% of my usage is to buy and sell through marketplace, but I occasionally just scroll through stuff for a min to see what’s up.  For the last few weeks I’ve been noticing a very high percentage of the ads that appear in my feed are what appear on the surface to be feel-good local news stories posted about people winning the lottery.  Some are $100k, some are $5m, some in the $10k+ or so range.  It’s not just from one news source either, so I’m beginning to suspect the lottery corporation around here is paying insane dollars to push out stories of people winning to up sales.  It’s not clearly identified as an ad, it just looks like news, so I really think they found a sneaky way to scam a lot of desperate people into spending (even more) money that they probably can’t afford into lotto tickets because of all this stuff they are pushing online.

I don't do FB, but I'm on the internet a lot. I've had three stories in the past week about people who have won big lotteries, lost it all and ruined their lives.

Oh, and that David Bromstad show on HGTV called "My Lottery Dream Home" sure seems like nothing but an extended lottery ad.

Yep, I’m convinced there’s money being pushed around to put this in peoples faces.  The most amusing “headline” I saw was about a guy that just won $100k who has been playing the same numbers for over 30 years.  Sound cool like all that determination paid off, right?  Well not so fast, I don’t know how often he played or the exact cost of the tickets, but if he spent $1/day over the last 35 years, and instead had put that money in the S&P500, which averaged 9.75% over the last 30 years, he really only broke even.  He could have had right around $100k by now, and not the tax bill that would go with it.

To be fair, the investor would still owe taxes. OTOH, one method is a total crapshoot and the other is virtually guaranteed.

[JAYSLOL]

I’ve been noticing what I consider a disturbing trend on my Facebook feed lately.  I don’t really spend much time on Facebook, 98% of my usage is to buy and sell through marketplace, but I occasionally just scroll through stuff for a min to see what’s up.  For the last few weeks I’ve been noticing a very high percentage of the ads that appear in my feed are what appear on the surface to be feel-good local news stories posted about people winning the lottery.  Some are $100k, some are $5m, some in the $10k+ or so range.  It’s not just from one news source either, so I’m beginning to suspect the lottery corporation around here is paying insane dollars to push out stories of people winning to up sales.  It’s not clearly identified as an ad, it just looks like news, so I really think they found a sneaky way to scam a lot of desperate people into spending (even more) money that they probably can’t afford into lotto tickets because of all this stuff they are pushing online.

I don't do FB, but I'm on the internet a lot. I've had three stories in the past week about people who have won big lotteries, lost it all and ruined their lives.

Oh, and that David Bromstad show on HGTV called "My Lottery Dream Home" sure seems like nothing but an extended lottery ad.

Yep, I’m convinced there’s money being pushed around to put this in peoples faces.  The most amusing “headline” I saw was about a guy that just won $100k who has been playing the same numbers for over 30 years.  Sound cool like all that determination paid off, right?  Well not so fast, I don’t know how often he played or the exact cost of the tickets, but if he spent $1/day over the last 35 years, and instead had put that money in the S&P500, which averaged 9.75% over the last 30 years, he really only broke even.  He could have had right around $100k by now, and not the tax bill that would go with it.

To be fair, the investor would still owe taxes. OTOH, one method is a total crapshoot and the other is virtually guaranteed.

Well, that’s true if they were investing outside of a tax advantaged account, but I guess my point is if I won $100k, I’d invest it, but I’d have to pay tax on it first.  If I invested money and got up to $100k, I’d leave it invested and wouldn’t have to pay tax on it.  So in one scenario I’ve got $100k of my own money invested and in another I’ve only got $70k or whatever of found money invested. 

[Dicey]

I’ve been noticing what I consider a disturbing trend on my Facebook feed lately.  I don’t really spend much time on Facebook, 98% of my usage is to buy and sell through marketplace, but I occasionally just scroll through stuff for a min to see what’s up.  For the last few weeks I’ve been noticing a very high percentage of the ads that appear in my feed are what appear on the surface to be feel-good local news stories posted about people winning the lottery.  Some are $100k, some are $5m, some in the $10k+ or so range.  It’s not just from one news source either, so I’m beginning to suspect the lottery corporation around here is paying insane dollars to push out stories of people winning to up sales.  It’s not clearly identified as an ad, it just looks like news, so I really think they found a sneaky way to scam a lot of desperate people into spending (even more) money that they probably can’t afford into lotto tickets because of all this stuff they are pushing online.

I don't do FB, but I'm on the internet a lot. I've had three stories in the past week about people who have won big lotteries, lost it all and ruined their lives.

Oh, and that David Bromstad show on HGTV called "My Lottery Dream Home" sure seems like nothing but an extended lottery ad.

Yep, I’m convinced there’s money being pushed around to put this in peoples faces.  The most amusing “headline” I saw was about a guy that just won $100k who has been playing the same numbers for over 30 years.  Sound cool like all that determination paid off, right?  Well not so fast, I don’t know how often he played or the exact cost of the tickets, but if he spent $1/day over the last 35 years, and instead had put that money in the S&P500, which averaged 9.75% over the last 30 years, he really only broke even.  He could have had right around $100k by now, and not the tax bill that would go with it.

To be fair, the investor would still owe taxes. OTOH, one method is a total crapshoot and the other is virtually guaranteed.

Well, that’s true if they were investing outside of a tax advantaged account, but I guess my point is if I won $100k, I’d invest it, but I’d have to pay tax on it first.  If I invested money and got up to $100k, I’d leave it invested and wouldn’t have to pay tax on it.  So in one scenario I’ve got $100k of my own money invested and in another I’ve only got $70k or whatever of found money invested.

And there's another sad tale of woe today:
https://www.the-sun.com/news/7895457/won-lottery-jackpot-only-million-regret-old-life-back/amp/

[Dicey]

And another one:
https://www.the-sun.com/news/7923170/powerball-winner-life-after-lottery-saving-money/amp/

I notice they're coming from the same source. I wonder if there's a reason for that. Something crazy like The Sun was trying to get the lotteries to advertise in with them but couldn't land the accounts. Or they used to have them and lost them? That's pure speculation on my part, but it's kind of funny to see this. Surely there's a reason.

[ddoren]

Listened to a recent “money with Katie” podcast (Are Most Millionaires Actually “Self-Made”?) where she referenced the fact that the trope of most people going broke after winning money in the lottery is not true and there are no valid data supporting it. Surely this is the first time the media have misled us about financial topics…(looking for the sarcasm font on my computer….)

[SwordGuy]

Listened to a recent “money with Katie” podcast (Are Most Millionaires Actually “Self-Made”?) where she referenced the fact that the trope of most people going broke after winning money in the lottery is not true and there are no valid data supporting it. Surely this is the first time the media have misled us about financial topics…(looking for the sarcasm font on my computer….)

I assume you meant "most people winning huge sums of money" because "most people winning money in the lottery won a trivial amount of money.

It would not surprise me if we don't have data one way or the other.   We certainly have a goodly amount of true incidents where people who won gobs of money in the lottery crash and burn rather spectacularly.

My parent's cross-the-street neighbors one $10 million in a slot machine in MS.  Nice couple, I had met them.  Within a few years the couple were divorced, husband went drinking in sorrow and passed out in the driveway and died of hypothermia.  Wife and son lost everything, including the son's house he had already paid for.  Only the daughter kept her head.   3 out of 4 crash and burns in one family.   

Scary stuff.

[NorCal]

Listened to a recent “money with Katie” podcast (Are Most Millionaires Actually “Self-Made”?) where she referenced the fact that the trope of most people going broke after winning money in the lottery is not true and there are no valid data supporting it. Surely this is the first time the media have misled us about financial topics…(looking for the sarcasm font on my computer….)

I wouldn’t be surprised to see data indicating either positive or negative outcomes.

It’s not like someone who takes lottery or inheritance earnings to pay off their mortgage and retire quietly make the news or turn up in our database of online anecdotes.

[MilwaukeeStubble]

Part of the problem is that most of the 'XXX watt equivalent' bulbs I've seen don't put out anywhere near as many lumens as a typical XXX watt incandescent bulb.  I've had 100 watt equivalent LEDs that were about as bright as 75 watt incandescents.

I've seen variability by brand.  Of course the old incandescent bulbs also varied by brand.  And batch.

I want a bunch of pot lights that are on several switches so I can have few to the full number turned on, and control the amount of light I have.  Since I am a renter for the rest of my life, that isn't going to happen.   ;-(

Are there any "smart" bulbs that can be individually controlled by remote? It seems like a product that should have been developed by now. You might be a customer for that kind of technology.

IKEA has a pretty good set of smart bulbs/products including bulbs and remotes that can spine set to control one or several bulbs directly.

[ysette9]

I thought it was just me with the LED bulbs burning out. They seem to die with pretty much the same frequency as the old school energy hog bulbs. It got me wondering if it was more the stress of turning them on and off that wears more than hours of burn. I’m keeping one floor lamp on indefinitely as a sort of experiment.

I, too, read somewhere recently that the stereotype of lottery winners going quickly broke isn’t supported by data. Maybe it makes for a more interesting story than “couple wins lottery and leads a quiet and content life”.

This paper seems quite old, but supports the idea that it is a stereotype more than reality: https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/kaplan.pdf

More recent Time article https://time.com/5427275/lottery-winning-happiness-debunked/?amp=true

[Dollar Slice]

I just got in a whole argument on social media for my extremely sizzling hot take that people, generally, should not buy the new $3500 Apple goggles thing if they have to save up for it, because that means you don't have the money and can't afford it. I was told that saving up for things is a responsible way to buy them. Even if it's a tech toy that costs as much as multiple months' rent/mortgage. They got so mad and said all kinds of rude things to me and said I don't know anything about being financially responsible (LOL). When I told them I've been saving and investing a substantial amount of every paycheck since I was 21, they told me they didn't believe me. When I explained about putting away money out of every paycheck IN ADVANCE so you don't have to save up AFTER you decide to buy something, they stopped replying.

What I really wanted to tell them was that you probably can't afford toys like that without a six-figure net worth...

[Apples]

That's generally the amount of money I save up for a trip, and I still take trips.  I'd say you were being a bit of a jerk on that one.  My DH and I live on a budget, so if we wanted that we'd figure out how we wanted to reprioritize our spending and saving in order to also save up for that thing.  (The hilarious part for me is that I have no idea what the thing is you're talking about - Apple goggles - I assume some kind of VR lol.)

[Dollar Slice]

That's generally the amount of money I save up for a trip, and I still take trips.  I'd say you were being a bit of a jerk on that one.

Note that I said if they "have to" save up for it because they "don't have the money", i.e. they can't buy it right now with assets on hand, their liquid assets are less than $3500, and they're choosing to save up and then spend 100% of their assets back down to zero on a tech toy. That person cannot afford it and I stand by that.

If you're doing that with your vacations I'd say you can't afford your vacations. But if you have a 3-month emergency fund and are saving 20% to a 401k or IRA and then another 5% towards your vacation fund, that's not quite the same scenario, is it?

And yeah, I was probably being a little bit of a jerk, but it was honestly alarming to me that someone that apparently had no money in the bank was trying to buy something worth $3500 with little practical use. Maybe they'll think twice about it. I don't care if they don't like me if they start rethinking their crazy spending habits.

[dragoncar]

That's generally the amount of money I save up for a trip, and I still take trips.  I'd say you were being a bit of a jerk on that one.

Note that I said if they "have to" save up for it because they "don't have the money", i.e. they can't buy it right now with assets on hand, their liquid assets are less than $3500, and they're choosing to save up and then spend 100% of their assets back down to zero on a tech toy. That person cannot afford it and I stand by that.

If you're doing that with your vacations I'd say you can't afford your vacations. But if you have a 3-month emergency fund and are saving 20% to a 401k or IRA and then another 5% towards your vacation fund, that's not quite the same scenario, is it?

And yeah, I was probably being a little bit of a jerk, but it was honestly alarming to me that someone that apparently had no money in the bank was trying to buy something worth $3500 with little practical use. Maybe they'll think twice about it. I don't care if they don't like me if they start rethinking their crazy spending habits.

You’re not exactly wrong, but I still vote kinda a jerk.  In this forum people signed up for facepunches, but that doesn’t mean you should hand them out to the general populace.  I understand you were trying to help them but some people just don’t want it and they were being relatively responsible in their mind vs just throwing something on credit. 

FWIW I’m also kinda a jerk so not judging too harsh

[charis]

That's generally the amount of money I save up for a trip, and I still take trips.  I'd say you were being a bit of a jerk on that one.

Note that I said if they "have to" save up for it because they "don't have the money", i.e. they can't buy it right now with assets on hand, their liquid assets are less than $3500, and they're choosing to save up and then spend 100% of their assets back down to zero on a tech toy. That person cannot afford it and I stand by that.

If you're doing that with your vacations I'd say you can't afford your vacations. But if you have a 3-month emergency fund and are saving 20% to a 401k or IRA and then another 5% towards your vacation fund, that's not quite the same scenario, is it?

And yeah, I was probably being a little bit of a jerk, but it was honestly alarming to me that someone that apparently had no money in the bank was trying to buy something worth $3500 with little practical use. Maybe they'll think twice about it. I don't care if they don't like me if they start rethinking their crazy spending habits.

 

If you are assuming this, I vote "jerk".  If you know this to be true about the poster's bank account, maybe less jerk.  I think it's stupid, but I put all of our "savings" in a high yield savings account that is mostly an emergency fund and consider it untouchable if I want to splurge on something dumb and would require myself to save up.

[ixtap]

That's generally the amount of money I save up for a trip, and I still take trips.  I'd say you were being a bit of a jerk on that one.

Note that I said if they "have to" save up for it because they "don't have the money", i.e. they can't buy it right now with assets on hand, their liquid assets are less than $3500, and they're choosing to save up and then spend 100% of their assets back down to zero on a tech toy. That person cannot afford it and I stand by that.

If you're doing that with your vacations I'd say you can't afford your vacations. But if you have a 3-month emergency fund and are saving 20% to a 401k or IRA and then another 5% towards your vacation fund, that's not quite the same scenario, is it?

And yeah, I was probably being a little bit of a jerk, but it was honestly alarming to me that someone that apparently had no money in the bank was trying to buy something worth $3500 with little practical use. Maybe they'll think twice about it. I don't care if they don't like me if they start rethinking their crazy spending habits.

 

If you are assuming this, I vote "jerk".  If you know this to be true about the poster's bank account, maybe less jerk.  I think it's stupid, but I put all of our "savings" in a high yield savings account that is mostly an emergency fund and consider it untouchable if I want to splurge on something dumb and would require myself to save up.

Agreed. We tend to phrase it in terms of how long it will take us to cash flow something, but it amounts to a a waiting.period to save up for the new thing.

Even if they are cutting out a usual discretionary expense.to.ssve up for it, that is far better than putting it on credit and paying interest.

[Dollar Slice]

When did this thread become a knock-off version of AITA? LOL. :-)

[dragoncar]

When did this thread become a knock-off version of AITA? LOL. :-)

Now lets roast him!

[ATtiny85]

Agreed. We tend to phrase it in terms of how long it will take us to cash flow something, but it amounts to a a waiting.period to save up for the new thing.

Hmm, interesting thought to make a metric related to time to cash flow. “Apple VR? Sheesh, that’s a two-monther”. “Yeah, I’m thinking about a two year car, but our four month vacation might come first”

This assumes only the discretionary dollars.

Oh, and 'Slice, you are not the A.

[Scandium]

Posted today on a buy/sell group…

Burberry classic coat for 5-year-old child. Original price over 5000 rmb (~USD$700). Now selling for 988 rmb (~USD$137).

In the pictures, the tag says the coat was made in Vietnam. Pretty sure it didn’t cost anywhere near $700 to make, or even anywhere $137 to make.

They were also selling four other coats for toddlers, all of which had been worn only a couple times by their kid, per the ad. Total original cost of the coats was ~USD$2000. For coats. For a toddler.

I spend a lot of time on Facebook Marketplace and see a lot of people that post exaggerated original prices to try to get more than something is worth, so I definitely take retail price claims with a grain of salt, but I’m pretty shocked to confirm that coat could indeed have cost that kind of money new.  Talk about diminishing returns on an item that will literally only have a few months of use before it’s outgrown.  For my kid, basic clothes like tee shirts and pants I usually buy new because they are cheap and finding used stuff in the right size that isn’t worn out in my area is more work and ends up being more costly than just ordering new, but higher cost seasonal items like jackets and snowsuits etc I try to buy good quality used ones because the cost savings is substantial

I know it's old, but I was reading up on some gems here. Yes indeed, Burberry makes stupidly overpriced jackets for kids as well (not just for adults). $700 seems right.
https://us.burberry.com/check-hooded-jacket-p80694201
$550 jacket for your 6 month old? I like that it goes up to $650 for 3 yo+, as if there's any rational reasoning for the price :D ("it's more fabric"..? lol)

holyS%%#. Adult raincoats are $2,300!? And it doesn't even give the mmH2O rating? wtf. I felt bad splurging $250 on a "fancy" rainjacket at REI..

[dragoncar]

Yeah but the REI coat didn’t have a plaid rating

[jinga nation]

When did this thread become a knock-off version of AITA? LOL. :-)

Now lets roast him!

Reddit might die due to their API pricing change, so might as well host the subreddits here.
Get r/Malicious Compliance, TalesFromTechSupport, PersonalFinance peeps coming over?

Forums are back in fashion, eh? Text based emojis FTW ;-)

[FrugalShrew]

I just got in a whole argument on social media for my extremely sizzling hot take that people, generally, should not buy the new $3500 Apple goggles thing if they have to save up for it, because that means you don't have the money and can't afford it. I was told that saving up for things is a responsible way to buy them. Even if it's a tech toy that costs as much as multiple months' rent/mortgage. They got so mad and said all kinds of rude things to me and said I don't know anything about being financially responsible (LOL). When I told them I've been saving and investing a substantial amount of every paycheck since I was 21, they told me they didn't believe me. When I explained about putting away money out of every paycheck IN ADVANCE so you don't have to save up AFTER you decide to buy something, they stopped replying.

What I really wanted to tell them was that you probably can't afford toys like that without a six-figure net worth...

Since you were only commenting on people generally, I am going to vote for "not jerk."

I had never heard of AITA before, and I really have no idea why the thread became a referendum on whether you were being one, or not. But since it did, I decided to put in a vote. Now, if you had commented on a particular person's plan to save up for the goggles, I would likely have voted differently.

I actually think that's pretty cool that you put that opinion out there, because most people would think that saving up to pay for a luxury is responsible, when the only contrast is with paying for a luxury with credit. I bet you got quite a few people thinking about how the spectrum of financial security extends into a realm they haven't considered before!

[Scandium]

That's generally the amount of money I save up for a trip, and I still take trips.  I'd say you were being a bit of a jerk on that one.

Note that I said if they "have to" save up for it because they "don't have the money", i.e. they can't buy it right now with assets on hand, their liquid assets are less than $3500, and they're choosing to save up and then spend 100% of their assets back down to zero on a tech toy. That person cannot afford it and I stand by that.

If you're doing that with your vacations I'd say you can't afford your vacations. But if you have a 3-month emergency fund and are saving 20% to a 401k or IRA and then another 5% towards your vacation fund, that's not quite the same scenario, is it?

And yeah, I was probably being a little bit of a jerk, but it was honestly alarming to me that someone that apparently had no money in the bank was trying to buy something worth $3500 with little practical use. Maybe they'll think twice about it. I don't care if they don't like me if they start rethinking their crazy spending habits.

Yeah, though you might sort of be correct, but not always. So it's hard to say if you're "TA". I have six-fig assets, and obviously not buying apple-glasses, but if I were I would have to "save up for it". Because my cashflow is set up so anything extra after standard expenses goes to investing. So no, I don't regularly have cash in checking account for $3500 toys. And I wouldn't want to sell VTSAX to fund it. I'd rather divert future investing cash towards it (just typing that makes me cringe, lol. But point still stands, if that's what one wanted to do).

Personally I probably have a too-large EF compared to most here, $10-20k, so something minor like $3.5k I'd just take out of savings and refill, because I'm confident I have the self- control to actually do that. But pretty sure most personal finance advisors recommend not to do that. So most people should "save up" for 3.5k purchase, either to not touch EF, and/or because everything else gets invested.

[charis]

Yeah, though you might sort of be correct, but not always. So it's hard to say if you're "TA". I have six-fig assets, and obviously not buying apple-glasses, but if I were I would have to "save up for it". Because my cashflow is set up so anything extra after standard expenses goes to investing. So no, I don't regularly have cash in checking account for $3500 toys. And I wouldn't want to sell VTSAX to fund it. I'd rather divert future investing cash towards it (just typing that makes me cringe, lol. But point still stands, if that's what one wanted to do).

Personally I probably have a too-large EF compared to most here, $10-20k, so something minor like $3.5k I'd just take out of savings and refill, because I'm confident I have the self- control to actually do that. But pretty sure most personal finance advisors recommend not to do that. So most people should "save up" for 3.5k purchase, either to not touch EF, and/or because everything else gets invested.

We do the same.  After discovering MMM about a decade ago, I tracked spending for a while and then settled on a "number" that we need every month to pay standard expenses. That number is directly deposited into our checking account and all of the rest is auto-deducted into three other accounts (401k, HSA, high-yield savings account/EF).  That number hasn't really changed even though our expenses have increased over the years, so there's almost no wiggle room, although we can cash flow an unexpected car repair, etc.   So I agree with the bolded.

Our savings and EF are the same account - the first 20k is EF, everything after that is savings (goes to investments mostly, or home improvements, large unexpected expense, travel, etc).  I personally thinking 20k is low for an EF by MMM standards, I usually see higher balances on the forum.  But we have access to a crazy high line of credit card credit, HELOC, roth IRAs, HSA, and additional home equity if truly needed.  So I don't see the point in a larger EF.

[Scandium]

I personally thinking 20k is low for an EF by MMM standards, I usually see higher balances on the forum.  But we have access to a crazy high line of credit card credit, HELOC, roth IRAs, HSA, and additional home equity if truly needed.  So I don't see the point in a larger EF.

I've seen both here. The people who prefer 6-12 months of expenses; so could be as high as $40k (50k?!). And the ones who say investments/heloc etc= EF, and cash is losing money; so $0-$1000 in savings account.

Sounds like we have the same in-between balance. I like to have 10-15k. Cover any sudden expenses, and calculating the "lost earnings" it's not that much. We're planning to do some renovations soon so I've been letting it build a little higher than usual. Above $20k I start to glare at that money; "why aren't you working harder??!" 

[Weisass]

Note that I said if they "have to" save up for it because they "don't have the money", i.e. they can't buy it right now with assets on hand, their liquid assets are less than $3500, and they're choosing to save up and then spend 100% of their assets back down to zero on a tech toy. That person cannot afford it and I stand by that.

If you're doing that with your vacations I'd say you can't afford your vacations. But if you have a 3-month emergency fund and are saving 20% to a 401k or IRA and then another 5% towards your vacation fund, that's not quite the same scenario, is it?

And yeah, I was probably being a little bit of a jerk, but it was honestly alarming to me that someone that apparently had no money in the bank was trying to buy something worth $3500 with little practical use. Maybe they'll think twice about it. I don't care if they don't like me if they start rethinking their crazy spending habits.

I'm with Dollar Slice on this one. People may not want face punches (aka unwelcome advice), but they might need them. Watching people spend their money on frivolous things when they don't have an EF or retirement savings is as difficult for me as watching people do risky extreme sports without safety gear or jaywalking across a freeway. I feel torn between acknowledging people's right to freedom of choice and a responsibility to warn them of how close they are to calamity.

I wish that I could replicate the grace with which an old Captain of mine told me to read "The Wealthy Barber" when I was pissing away every paycheque in my early 20s.

 I just keep asking myself this question: if you are going to put your ideas on the internet, or social media, or whatever, doesn’t that make it fair game to question the principles behind the share? From that perspective, I don’t see a problem with @Dollar Slice sharing their opinion. It’s not like they went out looking for faces to punch. Someone popped up with a public pronouncement, and they responded.

[ysette9]

Everyone on these forums forget that we didn’t sign up for external face punches, MMM advocating self-inflicted face punches. The important difference is that you self inflicted is part of a journey of discovery and learning.

Sure, speak up when you see others doing something stupid, but goodness it is important to choose your words carefully. Most people will be utterly dismissive of any harsh words because 1) they are entrenched in their world view and 2) they rightly assume that anyone coming at them with venom is just mean, and therefor discount what they are saying. Honey over vinegar, and all of that.

[Dollar Slice]

There were no "harsh words" or "venom," I assure you. Just a very mild post in the context of mostly people talking about how it was too expensive and for rich people only. Thanks for the ongoing negative assumptions, though! We're on, what, day six of Being Unable To Let This Go?

[dragoncar]

There were no "harsh words" or "venom," I assure you. Just a very mild post in the context of mostly people talking about how it was too expensive and for rich people only. Thanks for the ongoing negative assumptions, though! We're on, what, day six of Being Unable To Let This Go?

Sorry I piled on.  It was meant as a joke but maybe a poor one

[charis]

There were no "harsh words" or "venom," I assure you. Just a very mild post in the context of mostly people talking about how it was too expensive and for rich people only. Thanks for the ongoing negative assumptions, though! We're on, what, day six of Being Unable To Let This Go?

Threads tend to have a mind of their own.  It's a bit silly to accuse posters of being unable to let it go when the conversation has naturally spun out like it commonly does in most other threads of high traffic.

[cleverscreenname]

I don't think it was a terrible comment, sure it could have been nicer but nice is often ignored. I also don't think "going on for 6 days" is a problem. I mean, there were less posts than days, I'm sure people were thinking about other things those 6 days and not just whether they found the comment offensive...
As Joker says, why so serious? :)

[Dollar Slice]

As Joker says, why so serious? :)

Because I've been in excruciating pain since the beginning of June. Do you want to keep needling me now, Mr. Smiley Face who keeps bumping old threads because he's so desperate to troll the off topic forum? Or could you annoy some other stranger, pretty please?

[ATtiny85]

I might have to change my original answer about who is the A...

[cleverscreenname]

Hmmm, I do know how to tell time and read dates, so let me inform you that this thread definitely isn't old.
Why are you in excruciating pain? What is needling? I've never owned a needle in my life...
Mr. Smiley Face would be the Joker. I'm not smiling.
I'm clearly not desperate since I'm posting 0.3 per day (some people still work), but it looks like you post 3.1 times a day, wow!

Thanks for teaching me a new phrase AITA, I had to look it up.
Hint: if you keep talking to me, I will keep responding, so you're not getting your desired outcome right now... A public forum probably isn't the best place for you while you're seeking solitude, haha! Now I'm smiling!

MOD NOTE: Please don't be rude.

[Sibley]

This foam was not interesting to start with and now it's getting nasty. Move on.

I'm not on FB much because of all the ads. They are annoying. However, the general mix of what I see on the local area's FB page is:
-complaining about fast food service/food/prices
-complaining about property taxes
-complaining about kids being kids (and occasionally, kids who really need parental supervision)
-lost dogs/cats. The cats are usually strays. The dogs are often repeat offenders, so owners clearly need to do something different.

It's not very interesting.

[farmecologist]

This foam was not interesting to start with and now it's getting nasty. Move on.

I'm not on FB much because of all the ads. They are annoying. However, the general mix of what I see on the local area's FB page is:
-complaining about fast food service/food/prices
-complaining about property taxes
-complaining about kids being kids (and occasionally, kids who really need parental supervision)
-lost dogs/cats. The cats are usually strays. The dogs are often repeat offenders, so owners clearly need to do something different.

It's not very interesting.

Haha...no doubt.  I swear...it seems like 90 percent of internet traffic on major social media sites are people complaining about absolutely everything.   

This is why I'm not on the major social media sites much at all.   Reddit is a major exception for me...and I really think the difference is because many of the communities I visit are moderated.   I also like smaller sites like here and other smaller forums targeted by interest ( PriusChat, etc... ).

[Sandi_k]

This foam was not interesting to start with and now it's getting nasty. Move on.

I'm not on FB much because of all the ads. They are annoying. H

I use a plugin called FB Purity, and it cleans up a lot of the ads. Very much better.

[dragoncar]

I'm clearly not desperate since I'm posting 0.3 per day

You gotta pump those numbers up, those are rookie numbers in this racket.

[zolotiyeruki]

-lost dogs/cats. The cats are usually strays. The dogs are often repeat offenders, so owners clearly need to do something different.

In our neighborhood group, there's one dog that escapes several times per year and goes exploring the neighborhood. Rather than get annoyed, we've adopted such incidents as a running gag, and its considered an honor if Rockne visits your house along his way.

[Sibley]

This foam was not interesting to start with and now it's getting nasty. Move on.

I'm not on FB much because of all the ads. They are annoying. H

I use a plugin called FB Purity, and it cleans up a lot of the ads. Very much better.

That only gets rid of the ads, and at this point the ads are the most interesting content. I just am not on much.

I was on reddit a ton, and then reddit sold its soul to the devil so I deleted the app off my phone. Instant decrease in time.

[midweststache]

-lost dogs/cats. The cats are usually strays. The dogs are often repeat offenders, so owners clearly need to do something different.

In our neighborhood group, there's one dog that escapes several times per year and goes exploring the neighborhood. Rather than get annoyed, we've adopted such incidents as a running gag, and its considered an honor if Rockne visits your house along his way.

Our old neighborhood, to which we are still adjacent, has a similar running gag with a neighborhood outdoor cat that catches rats, as well as two yard flamingos that are the unofficial neighborhood mascots. I do, at this point, prefer the community-building elements of FB (Buy Nothing groups, neighborhood groups, parent groups, etc.) to the "look at my kids on vacation and our instagram worthy pictures!" element of following people.

TBF, I just don't care that much about 90% of the people I'm "friends" with on FB.

[Fomerly known as something]

-lost dogs/cats. The cats are usually strays. The dogs are often repeat offenders, so owners clearly need to do something different.

In our neighborhood group, there's one dog that escapes several times per year and goes exploring the neighborhood. Rather than get annoyed, we've adopted such incidents as a running gag, and its considered an honor if Rockne visits your house along his way.

Our old neighborhood, to which we are still adjacent, has a similar running gag with a neighborhood outdoor cat that catches rats, as well as two yard flamingos that are the unofficial neighborhood mascots. I do, at this point, prefer the community-building elements of FB (Buy Nothing groups, neighborhood groups, parent groups, etc.) to the "look at my kids on vacation and our instagram worthy pictures!" element of following people.

TBF, I just don't care that much about 90% of the people I'm "friends" with on FB.

Oh my old neighborhood FB group.  Someone who just moved in about the pretty Black and white cat.  The rest of us, that’s Fenway.  He’s not lost, the whole neighborhood is his kingdom.