The American Ninja Warrior Has A Mustache

[Pooplips]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-american-ninja-warrior-isaac-caldiero-will-spend-his-1-million-prize-2015-09-16?link=MW_popular

This man is pretty amazing living on less than 10K a year.

[Jeddy]

Good for him - I thought they said on the clip of him winning it, that he lived with his parents (either he or the other guy who finished the course) - that certainly goes a long way towards cutting your costs. I think more recent college graduates should look into moving back home (if possible/feasible) for a year or two to save some serious coin and/or pay down those loans.

As an aside - I wish they had those courses around the country open to the public - like an adult's jungle-gym!

[I'm a red panda]

As an aside - I wish they had those courses around the country open to the public - like an adult's jungle-gym!

Not the official courses, but there are Ninja gyms all around the country.  Some areas they are easier to find than others. (We don't have one in Iowa, but my cousin trains at one in Missouri)

[Guses]

I think more recent college graduates should look into moving back home (if possible/feasible) for a year or two to save some serious coin and/or pay down those loans.

I am not sure I would agree with that. For one, I don't think it is fair to be mooching off of your parents and bank the proceeds. If you are going to do that, might as well cut the middleman and ask them for cash...

If you pay a small portion of the rent and your portion of food and utilities and such, than it is almost like having a roomate which is what you should do after graduating to save money. You don't put back the training wheels once you know how to bike.

But I guess this is my personal vision and there are other opinions.

[tjthebest]

I knew this guy was going to win the after his first round this year... totally dominated and didnt even look like he was trying.

[cautiouspessimist]

I think more recent college graduates should look into moving back home (if possible/feasible) for a year or two to save some serious coin and/or pay down those loans.

I am not sure I would agree with that. For one, I don't think it is fair to be mooching off of your parents and bank the proceeds. If you are going to do that, might as well cut the middleman and ask them for cash...

If you pay a small portion of the rent and your portion of food and utilities and such, than it is almost like having a roomate which is what you should do after graduating to save money. You don't put back the training wheels once you know how to bike.

But I guess this is my personal vision and there are other opinions.

I concur. I'm not a fan of it at all.

[milesdividendmd]

This was exciting news.

Though I find the show painfully boring, my best friend from Med school is Noah Kaufman, fellow "Wolfpack" member.

Here is an exchange I had with Noah on FB following Isaac's win.

Me: Noah, tell him to invest it all in low cost index funds, and put as much as possible in retirement accounts. If he is smart he can set himself up for life!

Noah: But they're about to raise interest rates Alexi! I think he should sit in cash until the next big recession and then go big on a diversified portfolio including about 5% long into LEAPS!!! - Goldman

Me:  Even Goldman believes in market timing and timing the fed.

The smart money keeps it simple.

Noah: Haha I know... But gambling is always more fun!

Me:Fuck fun. Go climbing.

Noah: I do!!!  Hahaha

Other dude:  Damn, he's gonna make more on endorsements than he won.  Hook him up with a good agent... : )

Me:  It's not how much you make, it's how much you save.  (Just ask 70% of NFL players five years after their last game. )

[velocistar237]

I am not sure I would agree with that. For one, I don't think it is fair to be mooching off of your parents and bank the proceeds. If you are going to do that, might as well cut the middleman and ask them for cash...

Multigenerational living benefits the parents, too, so it's much better than asking for cash. I don't see why graduation would transform normal support into mooching. The trend away from living with parents is pretty recent. It's a preference that arose with the age of consumption.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-02/millennials-didn-t-invent-living-with-the-rents

The upshot? In the late 19th century, adult children were more likely to live with their parents if they came from families that were college-educated, wealthy and possessed of significant resources, whether in the form of agricultural land or intellectual and social capital. They stuck close to home because it gave them access to far more resources than they could command on their own.

It was only in the 20th century that this pattern started to fall apart. Over time, the correlation between multigenerational living arrangements and wealth started to reverse itself. By 1990, the process was complete: Multigenerational families had become more common among the poor than among the wealthy. Much of this was undoubtedly driven by developments peculiar to the 20th century, such as postwar suburbia and changing notions of what constitutes an ideal family.

[Guses]

I am not sure I would agree with that. For one, I don't think it is fair to be mooching off of your parents and bank the proceeds. If you are going to do that, might as well cut the middleman and ask them for cash...

Multigenerational living benefits the parents, too, so it's much better than asking for cash. I don't see why graduation would transform normal support into mooching. The trend away from living with parents is pretty recent. It's a preference that arose with the age of consumption.

I am not sure how this is beneficial for the parents that their adult child is eating their food, and using up all the toilet paper. Do you mean emotionally beneficial?

It can be mutually beneficial in cases where the "child" is actually taking care of elderly or sick parents or grand parents but I don't think this is the norm.

In most cases, the financial relationship is severely lopsided.

[matchewed]

I am not sure I would agree with that. For one, I don't think it is fair to be mooching off of your parents and bank the proceeds. If you are going to do that, might as well cut the middleman and ask them for cash...

Multigenerational living benefits the parents, too, so it's much better than asking for cash. I don't see why graduation would transform normal support into mooching. The trend away from living with parents is pretty recent. It's a preference that arose with the age of consumption.

I am not sure how this is beneficial for the parents that their adult child is eating their food, and using up all the toilet paper. Do you mean emotionally beneficial?

It can be mutually beneficial in cases where the "child" is actually taking care of elderly or sick parents or grand parents but I don't think this is the norm.

In most cases, the financial relationship is severely lopsided.

Only if you walk into it with that assumption. It is just as easy for me to say that those people moving back in with their parents are getting jobs, contributing to household finances in some manner, helping out around the house in other ways...etc.

[Guses]

I am not sure I would agree with that. For one, I don't think it is fair to be mooching off of your parents and bank the proceeds. If you are going to do that, might as well cut the middleman and ask them for cash...

Multigenerational living benefits the parents, too, so it's much better than asking for cash. I don't see why graduation would transform normal support into mooching. The trend away from living with parents is pretty recent. It's a preference that arose with the age of consumption.

I am not sure how this is beneficial for the parents that their adult child is eating their food, and using up all the toilet paper. Do you mean emotionally beneficial?

It can be mutually beneficial in cases where the "child" is actually taking care of elderly or sick parents or grand parents but I don't think this is the norm.

In most cases, the financial relationship is severely lopsided.

Only if you walk into it with that assumption. It is just as easy for me to say that those people moving back in with their parents are getting jobs, contributing to household finances in some manner, helping out around the house in other ways...etc.

Would you let me live in your basement for free and eat your food if I promise to cut the lawn, take out the garbage and feed the cats? That does not sound like a good deal to you?

I am not saying there is no benefit for the parents, I am saying that the benefit is lopsided in the adult child's favor. Hence the mooching. 

[matchewed]

I am not sure I would agree with that. For one, I don't think it is fair to be mooching off of your parents and bank the proceeds. If you are going to do that, might as well cut the middleman and ask them for cash...

Multigenerational living benefits the parents, too, so it's much better than asking for cash. I don't see why graduation would transform normal support into mooching. The trend away from living with parents is pretty recent. It's a preference that arose with the age of consumption.

I am not sure how this is beneficial for the parents that their adult child is eating their food, and using up all the toilet paper. Do you mean emotionally beneficial?

It can be mutually beneficial in cases where the "child" is actually taking care of elderly or sick parents or grand parents but I don't think this is the norm.

In most cases, the financial relationship is severely lopsided.

Only if you walk into it with that assumption. It is just as easy for me to say that those people moving back in with their parents are getting jobs, contributing to household finances in some manner, helping out around the house in other ways...etc.

Would you let me live in your basement for free and eat your food if I promise to cut the lawn, take out the garbage and feed the cats? That does not sound like a good deal to you?

I am not saying there is no benefit for the parents, I am saying that the benefit is lopsided in the adult child's favor. Hence the mooching.

Again you're making assumptions about what the "norm" is. You're assuming that the "norm" is basement living for lawn cutting and some other miscellaneous chores. I'm challenging your assumption. You have a concept in your head that younger people living with their parents are not doing anything or doing minimal things for them. I question the validity of this assumption.

[Guses]

Well, tell me what I have to do to live in your house for free and eat your food.

[matchewed]

Well, tell me what I have to do to live in your house for free and eat your food.

Irrelevant to what I'm saying. This is not about what I'd do. It's about your assumption. Painting things with assumptions can sometimes mean you're wrong. I'm just pointing out nicely that your assumption is based off of nothing insofar as I can see.

[Guses]

My assertion is that it is not financially advantageous for the parent to have their adult child living at home.

I haven't made blanket assumptions, by definition, living at home is living with your parents and paying no rent. I am having trouble imagining how it would somehow be financially advantageous for someone to live with me for free if they did not give me money.

[matchewed]

My assertion is that it is not financially advantageous for the parent to have their adult child living at home.

I haven't made blanket assumptions, by definition, living at home is living with your parents and paying no rent. I am having trouble imagining how it would somehow be financially advantageous for someone to live with me for free if they did not give me money.

I live at home with my GF does that mean I don't pay rent. Where is this universal definition coming from?

[jfisher3]

For the Ninja Warrior... I certainly am glad to see someone who could really use a good chunk of money get it, and use it intelligently.

As for living with parents.... the key is finding a mutually beneficial set up.

For example: My dad lives with us. Wife and I own the house, dad gets room and board, plus $200 a month in return for live-in day care. He chooses to help out around the house like dishes and grass mowing, and watches the crumb-snatchers the rare time that we actually go out.

Ours is certainly not typical, but the idea behind it is the same.

[Jeddy]

My assertion is that it is not financially advantageous for the parent to have their adult child living at home.

I haven't made blanket assumptions, by definition, living at home is living with your parents and paying no rent. I am having trouble imagining how it would somehow be financially advantageous for someone to live with me for free if they did not give me money.

Where does this definition come from?

Those that I know who moved back in with their parents post-graduation for a period of time (a few months perhaps, maybe up to a year) were working, taking care of things around the house, as well as contributing to finances (buying groceries, paying for some utilities/paying a portion of all utilities, hell - some even paying some form of 'rent', etc.).

My wife and I moved back in with my parents for a brief period of time upon moving back to an area and not only did we save money by doing so, but so did my parents - their grocery expense was halved, their utility expense was halved, the normal 'every day stuff' was partially/fully handled (we'd do dishes, we'd cook 3x a week, etc.) - it was financially beneficial to both of us.

On top of that, one of the primary reasons for my belief that, if possible, a recent graduate should consider moving back in with their parents is that it will more than likely ground them a little - while they work and take care of things around the house and save money, they are living with people who also work, have a 'boring' lifestyle (work, stuff around the house, sleep, etc.) which will benefit them much more than living with three or more kids who are still stuck in college-mode (blowing wads of cash at the bars, eating out every meal, etc.)

You might believe that 'moving into mom's basement' and playing video games all day is the norm, but I'd wager that you're wrong.

[velocistar237]

The benefits are at the least social, emotional, work-load, and financial. A broader economic way of thinking reveals many positive elements in a multigenerational arrangement. The social part alone might be worth it; building high-quality relationships has a similar impact on longevity as a smoker quitting smoking. There are certainly circumstances that would qualify as mooching, but if parents and children both desire the arrangement, there's no way they would call it that. The family hopefully has an established, loving relationship, unlike the hypothetical of inviting a stranger into your house.

[Guses]

I think some posters are taking my comments personally. I use the term "mooching" liberally and not as an insult. I also lived with my GF's parents for a couple of years during my bachelor. I have no problems admitting that this was mooching because I did not pay my now inlaws the fair market value of the rent that they could get from their basement suite.

Yes it helped me out (and I did pay for my food and clothes and did my part of social duties), but to claim that this was somehow financially beneficial for my inlaws is just wrong. Perhaps it was emotionally satisfying to have their daugther close by. Perhaps it was also good to know that someone was home when they went away on vacations. But It was not financially beneficial for them.

I learned and have grown a lot more in the years that followed when I lived in an apartment with my GF where I did not have my parents or inlaws as security blankets.

A living arrangement can be mutually beneficial without being financially mutually beneficial. This is what irks me about how the situation was presented earlier.

[Jeddy]

A living arrangement can be mutually beneficial without being financially mutually beneficial. This is what irks me about how the situation was presented earlier.

At what point was it presented as not being financially beneficial? You keep jumping to an assumption that to live at home, you MUST not pay for anything. I think it's foolish to assume that.

[Giro]

I think you both are making valid points.  it's not an opinion of whether it's financially beneficial.  It's a math problem.

Child moves into basement.  Child eats $200 worth of food per month. Utilities increase by $75 per month. 

Did child pay parent $275?

If child paid more than $275, it was beneficial.  If child paid less, not beneficial. 

IF child does chores that parent currently pays others to do, then that is a cost savings.  If child does chores that parent usually does, no cost savings.

Nothing really to argue here.

[Jags4186]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-american-ninja-warrior-isaac-caldiero-will-spend-his-1-million-prize-2015-09-16?link=MW_popular

This man is pretty amazing living on less than 10K a year.

He doesn't have a mustache.  He's just poor.

[Guses]

I think you both are making valid points.  it's not an opinion of whether it's financially beneficial.  It's a math problem.

Child moves into basement.  Child eats $200 worth of food per month. Utilities increase by $75 per month. 

Did child pay parent $275?

If child paid more than $275, it was beneficial.  If child paid less, not beneficial. 

IF child does chores that parent currently pays others to do, then that is a cost savings.  If child does chores that parent usually does, no cost savings.

Nothing really to argue here.

Thank you, this is the point I was trying to get accross.

I would add that the cost of the foregone rent should also be considered in the equation (IMO). If the parents keep the big house because the kids are living at home, that is a financially consideration that bears on the parents.

[HipGnosis]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-american-ninja-warrior-isaac-caldiero-will-spend-his-1-million-prize-2015-09-16?link=MW_popular

This man is pretty amazing living on less than 10K a year.

He doesn't have a mustache.  He's just poor.

By steadfast choice.

[dude]

I think you both are making valid points.  it's not an opinion of whether it's financially beneficial.  It's a math problem.

Child moves into basement.  Child eats $200 worth of food per month. Utilities increase by $75 per month. 

Did child pay parent $275?

If child paid more than $275, it was beneficial.  If child paid less, not beneficial. 

IF child does chores that parent currently pays others to do, then that is a cost savings.  If child does chores that parent usually does, no cost savings.

Nothing really to argue here.

Thank you, this is the point I was trying to get accross.

I would add that the cost of the foregone rent should also be considered in the equation (IMO). If the parents keep the big house because the kids are living at home, that is a financially consideration that bears on the parents.

What foregone rent?  I don't know any parents (mine, friend's, etc) who rent out their kids' old bedrooms.  Rather, they typically become glorified storage closets for the shit old people collect over their lifetimes.  The only costs I see are food, increased water usage and probably negligible electricity costs.  Assuming I am a recent grad paying $700/month for my share of an apartment plus utilities AND food, it seems pretty easy to work out a mutually beneficial situation where I pay my parents for food, water and elex costs, while pocketing the rent I'm saving.  I would hardly call that mooching.

[Guses]

I think you both are making valid points.  it's not an opinion of whether it's financially beneficial.  It's a math problem.

Child moves into basement.  Child eats $200 worth of food per month. Utilities increase by $75 per month. 

Did child pay parent $275?

If child paid more than $275, it was beneficial.  If child paid less, not beneficial. 

IF child does chores that parent currently pays others to do, then that is a cost savings.  If child does chores that parent usually does, no cost savings.

Nothing really to argue here.

Thank you, this is the point I was trying to get accross.

I would add that the cost of the foregone rent should also be considered in the equation (IMO). If the parents keep the big house because the kids are living at home, that is a financially consideration that bears on the parents.

What foregone rent?  I don't know any parents (mine, friend's, etc) who rent out their kids' old bedrooms.  Rather, they typically become glorified storage closets for the shit old people collect over their lifetimes.  The only costs I see are food, increased water usage and probably negligible electricity costs.  Assuming I am a recent grad paying $700/month for my share of an apartment plus utilities AND food, it seems pretty easy to work out a mutually beneficial situation where I pay my parents for food, water and elex costs, while pocketing the rent I'm saving.  I would hardly call that mooching.

According to google:

mooching
1.
North American
ask for or obtain (something) without paying for it.

You are obtaining housing and you are not paying for it.

[velocistar237]

Mooch has the connotation of exploitation or taking advantage. It's pejorative.

[zoltani]

Better article here:
http://www.outsideonline.com/2016951/isaac-caldiero-i-wanted-be-guy-who-does-impossible

Lots of haters in this thread, but what can you expect.

He lives in an RV, travels and climbs. He boulders v14, most of you have no idea what that means, or the dedication it takes.

Hate on

[zoltani]

Better article here:
http://www.outsideonline.com/2016951/isaac-caldiero-i-wanted-be-guy-who-does-impossible

Lots of haters in this thread, but what can you expect.

He lives in an RV, not his parents basement, travels and climbs. He boulders v14, most of you have no idea what that means, or the dedication it takes.

Hate on

[sstants]

I think you both are making valid points.  it's not an opinion of whether it's financially beneficial.  It's a math problem.

Child moves into basement.  Child eats $200 worth of food per month. Utilities increase by $75 per month. 

Did child pay parent $275?

If child paid more than $275, it was beneficial.  If child paid less, not beneficial. 

IF child does chores that parent currently pays others to do, then that is a cost savings.  If child does chores that parent usually does, no cost savings.

Nothing really to argue here.

Thank you, this is the point I was trying to get accross.

I would add that the cost of the foregone rent should also be considered in the equation (IMO). If the parents keep the big house because the kids are living at home, that is a financially consideration that bears on the parents.

What foregone rent?  I don't know any parents (mine, friend's, etc) who rent out their kids' old bedrooms.  Rather, they typically become glorified storage closets for the shit old people collect over their lifetimes.  The only costs I see are food, increased water usage and probably negligible electricity costs.  Assuming I am a recent grad paying $700/month for my share of an apartment plus utilities AND food, it seems pretty easy to work out a mutually beneficial situation where I pay my parents for food, water and elex costs, while pocketing the rent I'm saving.  I would hardly call that mooching.

According to google:

mooching
1.
North American
ask for or obtain (something) without paying for it.

You are obtaining housing and you are not paying for it.

I think people on this forum often forget (or at least don't talk about) the fact that life is more than a series of transactions. I know we are here to discuss money, but only as a means to an end. There are people and feelings and goals involved in everything - a person living with their parents (regardless of the financial arrangement) doesn't have to fall into the category of 'good' versus 'bad'.

[zoltani]

All this discourse because ONE poster said that they THOUGHT it was mentioned that he lives in his parents house.

[Longwaytogo]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-american-ninja-warrior-isaac-caldiero-will-spend-his-1-million-prize-2015-09-16?link=MW_popular

This man is pretty amazing living on less than 10K a year.

He doesn't have a mustache.  He's just poor.

Guess I would disagree, more of a hippie type than poor. From all the interviews I've read and watching the show itself sounds like he choose the low stress busboy/climber lifestyle on purpose.  So maybe not a FI/RE guy but defintley lifestyle design and prioritizing spending. Not just of his money but his time too, not many people have the balls to "give up" the normal 9-5 stability/pay to pursue their passion.

Also; my daughter (5 years old) and I love the ninja warrior show! The other guy that finished lives about 10 minutes from us (not that I know him or anything, I just live near Olney MD)

[somebody8198]

I think more recent college graduates should look into moving back home (if possible/feasible) for a year or two to save some serious coin and/or pay down those loans.

I am not sure I would agree with that. For one, I don't think it is fair to be mooching off of your parents and bank the proceeds. If you are going to do that, might as well cut the middleman and ask them for cash...

If you pay a small portion of the rent and your portion of food and utilities and such, than it is almost like having a roomate which is what you should do after graduating to save money. You don't put back the training wheels once you know how to bike.

But I guess this is my personal vision and there are other opinions.

If your parents have a big empty house and don't mind you living with them, I don't see it as "mooching."

[Davids]

I feel bad for the other guy who completed the course and got nothing.

[chasesfish]

So....just how bad do you feel for the other guy?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/baltimore-insider-blog/bal-think-american-ninja-warrior-geoff-britten-deserved-money-you-can-donate-online-20150917-story.html

In all seriousness, I read that article and thought that's pretty awesome.  There's someone who won't blow through the $1mil, worked hard, and gets to continue living his lifestyle.